5 ms·

Obligatory note: Another example of why we should only run Free Software and only from trusted sources. Users of Trisquel or gNewSense never have problems like

Obligatory note: Another example of why we should only run Free Software and only from trusted sources. Users of Trisquel or gNewSense never have problems like this.

27182818284 13y ago
Obligatory response that not everyone has time or training to examine code for problems. Google is a trusted source.
- dublinben 13y ago
  >Google is a trusted source Hardly, if this kind of thing is allowed in their marketplace.
  - 27182818284 13y ago
    You're missing the point. Google and Apple are trusted sources in the real world. In the real world, people say things like "I have an Android" and advertisements say "Get a free Android with contract" If the distinction there is lost, I don't think you can expect the general consumer to know that Google isn't a "trusted source" by the definition of FSF advocates, right? Nor, I would contest, that they need to. >Hardly, if this kind of thing is allowed in their marketplace. They'll move on this just like they started actively patrolling the Play Store for malware. Because they are a trusted source, even if they aren't an FSF definition of trusted source.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Obligatory response that you're not relying solely on your own ability to examine code for problems, but the entire universe of those able to do so. With proprietary code, you're restricted to audits done by those whom the code author has allowed to do so (or who have surreptitiously obtained the source ... and having done so, put themselves at legal risk by disclosing their findings).
nl 13y ago
All Chrome Extensions are completely opensource (lowercase - in the sense you can unzip them and inspect the source). The evidence seems to be that this does actually work - people do look, and find out suspicious looking issues. However, that is insufficient to protect users of extensions that were previously trustworthy and then become malicious.
- quadrangle 13y ago
  I think real capital Open Source is what matters here. In that case, anyone can fork and redistribute the good parts of any plugin. In the case here, someone owns the code and reserves exclusive monopoly and that's what gets bought out and that's harder to revert or fork.
  - nl 13y ago
    That is true, but the OP was referring to the ability to inspect code for security and/or privacy problems, so you can decide if you want to run it. Just getting the source code is adequate for that.
    - quadrangle 13y ago
      Indeed, but my OP he was replying to was that true Free Software matters, because the whole buy-out of the plugins wouldn't even happen like this then.

Obligatory note: Another example of why we should only run Free Software and only from trusted sources. Users of Trisquel or gNewSense never have problems like this.

27182818284 13y ago

Obligatory response that not everyone has time or training to examine code for problems. Google is a trusted source.

dublinben 13y ago
>Google is a trusted source Hardly, if this kind of thing is allowed in their marketplace.
- 27182818284 13y ago
  You're missing the point. Google and Apple are trusted sources in the real world. In the real world, people say things like "I have an Android" and advertisements say "Get a free Android with contract" If the distinction there is lost, I don't think you can expect the general consumer to know that Google isn't a "trusted source" by the definition of FSF advocates, right? Nor, I would contest, that they need to. >Hardly, if this kind of thing is allowed in their marketplace. They'll move on this just like they started actively patrolling the Play Store for malware. Because they are a trusted source, even if they aren't an FSF definition of trusted source.
dredmorbius 13y ago
Obligatory response that you're not relying solely on your own ability to examine code for problems, but the entire universe of those able to do so. With proprietary code, you're restricted to audits done by those whom the code author has allowed to do so (or who have surreptitiously obtained the source ... and having done so, put themselves at legal risk by disclosing their findings).

nl 13y ago

All Chrome Extensions are completely opensource (lowercase - in the sense you can unzip them and inspect the source). The evidence seems to be that this does actually work - people do look, and find out suspicious looking issues. However, that is insufficient to protect users of extensions that were previously trustworthy and then become malicious.

quadrangle 13y ago
I think real capital Open Source is what matters here. In that case, anyone can fork and redistribute the good parts of any plugin. In the case here, someone owns the code and reserves exclusive monopoly and that's what gets bought out and that's harder to revert or fork.
- nl 13y ago
  That is true, but the OP was referring to the ability to inspect code for security and/or privacy problems, so you can decide if you want to run it. Just getting the source code is adequate for that.
  - quadrangle 13y ago
    Indeed, but my OP he was replying to was that true Free Software matters, because the whole buy-out of the plugins wouldn't even happen like this then.