3 ms·
I wholeheartedly agree. What does this require? 1.) A technically superior operating system (check). 2.) A massive community of programmers to develop and ex
by tsally 18y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. What does this require?
1.) A technically superior operating system (check).
2.) A massive community of programmers to develop and extend said operating system (check).
3.) People with the wherewithal to resist corporate pressure and keep their software truly free (Shit.).
Currently the vast majority of Linux/BSD developers serve as an unpaid workforce for companies like Redhat and HP. This is why OpenBSDs attitude, while commendable, is problematic. Their goal is for a more secure society; if they have a superior ssh implementation they want companies wrap it up in their proprietary applications and use it, rather than forgo it and create a less secure application. Deraadt hates Stallman's unwavering (and sometimes incorrect) criticisms of all things not Free. The ironic thing about the situation is that Stallman's attitude is ultimately more likely to create a secure society; the threats Schneier outlines in his article are possible in Deraadt's society but not in Stallman's.
- cturner 18y agoAnother thing - withdraw from the commercial media market. I think if enough geeks stopped copying music and movies and took on a position of "only what's legal" we'd rapidly build alternative culture streams that would be all of good, legal, and free of retriction. Part of the problem is that people's brains are poisoned. For example, many musicians I meet are hard-wired into the idea that they need to protect their work, when in fact they would most benefit by getting their music and their names out there and then benefiting from more audiences at gigs, and better jobs (teaching opportunities, partnership deals to produce jingles for advertising and anything else that comes by way of their increased network).