4 ms·

I just love how the FSF ignores, and has ignored for a considerable amount of time that governments, and organizations can and have gotten the Windows source co

I just love how the FSF ignores, and has ignored for a considerable amount of time that governments, and organizations can and have gotten the Windows source code, and that their actions today restate that they do provide the windows source code for governments to audit. Given that such programs have been available for a considerable amount of time, one has to wonder when the FSF is going to change their tactic away from their current one of outright lying about the situation.

davexunit 13y ago
"Freedom and security necessitate not just being allowed a peek at the code." "Transparency in the Windows world normally means self-reports commissioned by Microsoft, or access granted to outsiders covering very limited portions of source code under strict agreements that limit sharing that information." Yup, John Sullivan really ignored that. You can disagree with the FSF's mission, but they are certainly not spreading lies on purpose.
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  The source agreements are far more than just a "peek" at the code. I would still argue that Mr Sullivan is at the very least distorting the truth, if not outright lying. The FSF has its agenda, and has proven it will try to distort the motives of any entity that doesn't completely agree with it.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >I would still argue that Mr Sullivan is at the very least distorting the truth, if not outright lying. And I would listen to that argument, but you haven't made it.
npsimons 13y ago
I just love how you like to equate governments and organizations (not individuals) getting to peek at source code (that they're not allowed to modify, share or comment publicly upon) under an NDA as "open source". Who's outright lying?
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  I never said it was open source. However, the source is available, and researched, by third parties. The announcement today also states that they are making the source available to more eyes than before. Not everything needs to be completely open source.
drcube 13y ago
So the NSA can see Windows source code, but Windows users can't? And users are supposed to feel secure about this? Why?
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  More than just the NSA. This shrill hyperbole that permeates the free software world is counterproductive to getting things fixed.
  - drcube 13y ago
    Okay, who? And why should I trust them? How do I know they didn't sign an NDA promising to keep any security vulnerabilities secret?
  - Sanddancer 13y ago
    Drcube: How do I know that open source developers aren't contractors out to put backdoors in? At some point you have to trust someone, and I doubt with all the eyes on windows, both within and without, that any extant backdoor would have remained hidden until now. There are quite a few people who do reverse engineer windows without a license, and would be shouting it from the rooftops if they found a backdoor.
    - drcube 13y ago
      > At some point you have to trust someone, and I doubt with all the eyes on windows, both within and without, that any extant backdoor would have remained hidden until now. Right, but A) I like to choose who I trust. Get a second opinion. Verify a few things myself, if I feel I'm up to the task. I get none of these options with Windows. B) If you doubt, with all the eyes on Windows, that a backdoor would have persisted, why do you act as if more eyes is not better? Or, perhaps more importantly, a greater variety of eyes? Microsoft gets to pick who studies their code, and may or may not prevent them from revealing vulnerabilities and bugs anyway. Popular open source projects may get actively hostile researchers studying their code specifically to shout any bugs they find from the rooftops. Or they may get the world's foremost expert in some aspect of their code to study it for fun. And nobody can stop them from revealing anything the find. If MS giving a few hand-picked organizations their source code under strict terms, who may or may not be allowed to report what they find honestly, is good, why wouldn't fully open software be better? Nobody is saying that giving governments and a few organizations a look at the Windows source isn't better than having it completely locked down. But it just doesn't go far enough.
perlgeek 13y ago
Can those organizations also build the code from source, and then exclusively use the binaries they produced? And possibly even compare to the binaries that Microsoft ships? Just being able to see the code is no advantage, you still have to trust Microsoft to actually ship the same code they've shown you.

davexunit 13y ago

"Freedom and security necessitate not just being allowed a peek at the code." "Transparency in the Windows world normally means self-reports commissioned by Microsoft, or access granted to outsiders covering very limited portions of source code under strict agreements that limit sharing that information." Yup, John Sullivan really ignored that. You can disagree with the FSF's mission, but they are certainly not spreading lies on purpose.

Sanddancer 13y ago
The source agreements are far more than just a "peek" at the code. I would still argue that Mr Sullivan is at the very least distorting the truth, if not outright lying. The FSF has its agenda, and has proven it will try to distort the motives of any entity that doesn't completely agree with it.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >I would still argue that Mr Sullivan is at the very least distorting the truth, if not outright lying. And I would listen to that argument, but you haven't made it.

npsimons 13y ago

I just love how you like to equate governments and organizations (not individuals) getting to peek at source code (that they're not allowed to modify, share or comment publicly upon) under an NDA as "open source". Who's outright lying?

Sanddancer 13y ago
I never said it was open source. However, the source is available, and researched, by third parties. The announcement today also states that they are making the source available to more eyes than before. Not everything needs to be completely open source.

drcube 13y ago

So the NSA can see Windows source code, but Windows users can't? And users are supposed to feel secure about this? Why?

Sanddancer 13y ago
More than just the NSA. This shrill hyperbole that permeates the free software world is counterproductive to getting things fixed.
- drcube 13y ago
  Okay, who? And why should I trust them? How do I know they didn't sign an NDA promising to keep any security vulnerabilities secret?
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  Drcube: How do I know that open source developers aren't contractors out to put backdoors in? At some point you have to trust someone, and I doubt with all the eyes on windows, both within and without, that any extant backdoor would have remained hidden until now. There are quite a few people who do reverse engineer windows without a license, and would be shouting it from the rooftops if they found a backdoor.
  - drcube 13y ago
    > At some point you have to trust someone, and I doubt with all the eyes on windows, both within and without, that any extant backdoor would have remained hidden until now. Right, but A) I like to choose who I trust. Get a second opinion. Verify a few things myself, if I feel I'm up to the task. I get none of these options with Windows. B) If you doubt, with all the eyes on Windows, that a backdoor would have persisted, why do you act as if more eyes is not better? Or, perhaps more importantly, a greater variety of eyes? Microsoft gets to pick who studies their code, and may or may not prevent them from revealing vulnerabilities and bugs anyway. Popular open source projects may get actively hostile researchers studying their code specifically to shout any bugs they find from the rooftops. Or they may get the world's foremost expert in some aspect of their code to study it for fun. And nobody can stop them from revealing anything the find. If MS giving a few hand-picked organizations their source code under strict terms, who may or may not be allowed to report what they find honestly, is good, why wouldn't fully open software be better? Nobody is saying that giving governments and a few organizations a look at the Windows source isn't better than having it completely locked down. But it just doesn't go far enough.

perlgeek 13y ago

Can those organizations also build the code from source, and then exclusively use the binaries they produced? And possibly even compare to the binaries that Microsoft ships? Just being able to see the code is no advantage, you still have to trust Microsoft to actually ship the same code they've shown you.