4 ms·

Just curious. Which company would be apt to provide "security solutions", then?

kimlelly 13y ago
None. That's the point. The only thing we can do to improve our situation is to migrate towards open-source operating systems (and software and encryption solutions).
- pi18n 13y ago
  This is literally true and goes beyond security. I hope everyone who complained about Google Reader takes note of this; once you have the freedom to modify and rebuild you are trivially able to continue using your software long after the creators have shut it down.
  - kimlelly 13y ago
    I'd even go further: Closed-source operating systems/software solutions are dying a slow (too slow) death.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      Lets see who is going to pay those developers when they cannot sell their skills any longer. Not all type of software is amendable to consulting/trainings as means of getting money out of it.
      - kimlelly 13y ago
        Keep this in mind: Open-source also means: The entire planet's population is the pool (of developers). And this in turn means: As soon as there is a real need for something, and somebody in this world is willing to work on it (for whatever motivation), this piece of software instantly becomes available to the _entire_ planet, without barrier (no price to pay, no payment method hurdles). This is an _extremely_ powerful property which eventually will dominate the nature of solutions we use.
        philh 13y ago
        I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument, but you seem to be claiming A implies B, where in fact A is true and B is false. > Open-source also means: The entire planet's population is the pool (of developers). This is currently true, even when closed source software also exists. Or at least, getting rid of closed source software won't make it significantly more true than it is now. > As soon as there is a real need for something, and somebody in this world is willing to work on it (for whatever motivation), this piece of software instantly becomes available to the _entire_ planet, without barrier (no price to pay, no payment method hurdles). This either is not currently true, or is not as powerful a property as you claim.
        pjmlp 13y ago
        This is all very nice to state as goal, but it does not help if you need money as software developer. I do a lot of open source on my free time, but that is because I get paid by one of those commercial bad guys companies to work on closed software, which allows me to contribute back for free. How far do you think most open source projects would be without sponsoring from commercial companies that allow some developers to work on open source projects. This is one of the reasons why most successful open source software is developer tooling, or nowadays hidden behind SaaS walls. It is all nice and dandy to talk about open source ideals, but when you need to earn at least 1 000€ per month, those ideals start to fade away. Speaking from experience.
        kimlelly 13y ago
        I'm not saying closed-source is "bad guys" or anything like that. I'm just saying what I'm observing: open-source is picking up steam and maturing across the board. It's not slowing down at all. It's true that it will kill some developer jobs. But that can't be an argument for not supporting open-source (tech is always about getting more efficient, resource-wise, and therefor a job killer by definition).
        embolism 13y ago
        Software in general is 'picking up steam and maturing a across the board'. We now have almost 2 billion consumers carrying a unix box in their pockets, not running open source. If anything, the relevance of open source is dwindling by comparison.
    - parasubvert 13y ago
      I don't buy this. Unless by slow you mean "heat death of the universe" slow. This is like the "open always wins" argument - wishful thinking devoid of evidence that caters to "If I want it it shall be". Apple and Microsoft continues to grow. Samsung too, and they have little to no interest in OSS. Let's also keep in mind that most of the world's core services above the OS (eg Google's mail, docs, search, plus) remain closed source, as is the UI layer for most mobile devices (very, very few use stock android.) Where OSS is doing very well is in commodity infrastructure - browsers, servers, databases, middleware, etc. It hasn't killed the closed source markets there conpletely, but it has made them work a lot harder.
- embolism 13y ago
  Open source is not a magic security bullet. It does allow many eyes to inspect source code - which is certainly important in developing cryptographic software. However it currently does nothing to ensure the timely delivery of patches to consumers. Also, usability of open source security solutions is terrible, and unless people understand cryptographic signing, and the web of trust, and build all their software themselves they have no guarantee that their software isn't compromised.

None. That's the point. The only thing we can do to improve our situation is to migrate towards open-source operating systems (and software and encryption solutions).

pi18n 13y ago
This is literally true and goes beyond security. I hope everyone who complained about Google Reader takes note of this; once you have the freedom to modify and rebuild you are trivially able to continue using your software long after the creators have shut it down.
- kimlelly 13y ago
  I'd even go further: Closed-source operating systems/software solutions are dying a slow (too slow) death.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Lets see who is going to pay those developers when they cannot sell their skills any longer. Not all type of software is amendable to consulting/trainings as means of getting money out of it.
    - kimlelly 13y ago
      Keep this in mind: Open-source also means: The entire planet's population is the pool (of developers). And this in turn means: As soon as there is a real need for something, and somebody in this world is willing to work on it (for whatever motivation), this piece of software instantly becomes available to the _entire_ planet, without barrier (no price to pay, no payment method hurdles). This is an _extremely_ powerful property which eventually will dominate the nature of solutions we use.
      - philh 13y ago
        I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument, but you seem to be claiming A implies B, where in fact A is true and B is false. > Open-source also means: The entire planet's population is the pool (of developers). This is currently true, even when closed source software also exists. Or at least, getting rid of closed source software won't make it significantly more true than it is now. > As soon as there is a real need for something, and somebody in this world is willing to work on it (for whatever motivation), this piece of software instantly becomes available to the _entire_ planet, without barrier (no price to pay, no payment method hurdles). This either is not currently true, or is not as powerful a property as you claim.
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        This is all very nice to state as goal, but it does not help if you need money as software developer. I do a lot of open source on my free time, but that is because I get paid by one of those commercial bad guys companies to work on closed software, which allows me to contribute back for free. How far do you think most open source projects would be without sponsoring from commercial companies that allow some developers to work on open source projects. This is one of the reasons why most successful open source software is developer tooling, or nowadays hidden behind SaaS walls. It is all nice and dandy to talk about open source ideals, but when you need to earn at least 1 000€ per month, those ideals start to fade away. Speaking from experience.
        kimlelly 13y ago
        I'm not saying closed-source is "bad guys" or anything like that. I'm just saying what I'm observing: open-source is picking up steam and maturing across the board. It's not slowing down at all. It's true that it will kill some developer jobs. But that can't be an argument for not supporting open-source (tech is always about getting more efficient, resource-wise, and therefor a job killer by definition).
        embolism 13y ago
        Software in general is 'picking up steam and maturing a across the board'. We now have almost 2 billion consumers carrying a unix box in their pockets, not running open source. If anything, the relevance of open source is dwindling by comparison.
  - parasubvert 13y ago
    I don't buy this. Unless by slow you mean "heat death of the universe" slow. This is like the "open always wins" argument - wishful thinking devoid of evidence that caters to "If I want it it shall be". Apple and Microsoft continues to grow. Samsung too, and they have little to no interest in OSS. Let's also keep in mind that most of the world's core services above the OS (eg Google's mail, docs, search, plus) remain closed source, as is the UI layer for most mobile devices (very, very few use stock android.) Where OSS is doing very well is in commodity infrastructure - browsers, servers, databases, middleware, etc. It hasn't killed the closed source markets there conpletely, but it has made them work a lot harder.
embolism 13y ago
Open source is not a magic security bullet. It does allow many eyes to inspect source code - which is certainly important in developing cryptographic software. However it currently does nothing to ensure the timely delivery of patches to consumers. Also, usability of open source security solutions is terrible, and unless people understand cryptographic signing, and the web of trust, and build all their software themselves they have no guarantee that their software isn't compromised.