>Freetard
>Thinks all the code they run is vetted because it's open source
>Never actually checks the code
>Uses a C compiler they didn't program themselves
>Uses an assembly compiler they didn't program themselves.
>Uses a CPU they didn't build themselves
How do you know you're truly safe when there's so much happening in your PC without your review and express approval?
>>55253461
>>Thinks all the code they run is vetted because it's open source
>>Never actually checks the code
People much smarter than us do, though.
botnet is my fav epik meme xD
The idea is that code review is done by someone else
>>55253461
I was going to write a serious reply but instead I'll just call you a faggot (and not the good kind)
>>55253468
do they?
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/personal-tech/Computer+hacking+scandals+rock+open+source/10288701/story.html
>>55253468
Smart enough to fuck you over by letting botnets into the code for their personal profit.
>>55253499
Do you think vetting code means finding every bug?
>>55253479
Which is a fundamental flaw for your safety. No one has your interest at heart.
>>55253502
[citation needed]
>>55253519
>Unity
>>55253534
That's not a citation.
>tfw Yasm inserts a macro that sends all your personal information to GNU at the start of every executable
>>55253461
>Strawmans
Also your own argument works against you:
https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/06/visual-cpp-telemetry
If i need to choose between transparency and trusting blindly a company i'd choose transparency of course.
>>55253588
"Unity"
>>55253595
When the fuck did I claim closed-source was better? Are you 8 year old? Putting one thing in question does not mean defending its opposite.
>>55253635
What's the argument then?
>>55253643
Sigh.
>How do you know you're truly safe when there's so much happening in your PC without your review and express approval?
>>55253655
You're welcome to propose an alternative to
>>55253479
>>55253468
>>55253675
Stating a problem does not mean I'm obligated to present a solution.
>>55253693
Then there's nothing to talk about. No one has the time to personally comb every bit of code that they run. We are for the most part trusting groups of academics who write the code and other academics who look through the code to tell us that it's safe.
Take the blue pill faggot.
>>55253706
WELL THEN
ENJOY
YOUR
BOTNET
>>55253718
You've yet to provide evidence of any.
>>55253461
Safety and security are illusions, to be sure.
However the benefit of being able to look at the source code of anything at any time is incredibly valuable to a programmer who sees some feature and thinks "I wonder how they did that" or sees some bug and thinks "I wonder if I can fix that.".
Closed source stunts growth and progress for no reason.
>muh intellectual property
can't take it with you when you're dead.
Join us now and share the software you'll be free hackers.
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my shitpost: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>>55253809
By any chance are you a TempleOS user?
>>55253534
You mean a DE that you don't have to use?
>>55253693
Ok then choose one:
-The source is completely closed so you need to trust blindly in your provider.
-The source can be seen by anyone and if your provider does something stupid and someone notices everyone will know.
Windows fanatics often uses the "nothing to hide" argument and the "you're a tinfoil" argument to defent MS's practices, but in any case, who here is the one who should prove that doesn't have anything to hide? we the users/customers or them, the providers of the software we run on our machines?
>>55253479
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
>>55253461
read below:
https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2016/spring/you-are-what-you-run
>>55254331
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
>he hasnt build his computer from materials in his backyard and plugged in his self made electrical network where he connects to a self made internet equivalent
>>55253461
Great jpg there OP, can't we go back to the days when botnet was a network of compromised windows clients, the main purpose of which was to attack a server, which was commonly running linux, begging the question, "why is it easier to take over a hundred thousand windows machines than a single linux machine?".
>>55253461
Winbaby summer child faggot.
>>55254355
This
Impossible.
>>55254355
But what if the copper in your homemade wires is the botnet?
>>55254971
Is that all in assembly? I don't know how the kernel is developed.
>>55255567
Well I'd like to see you think of a way to make copper a botnet!
Seriously, this might be funny.
>>55255592
You can hide nanosensors in the material that relay your fapping habits back to NSA hackers
>>55253461
In the you forget about the 4chan.
>>55254331
Not saying this cannot happen, however just compare:
-on both cases the maintainers of the project are the ones who are in charge of
-if the source is closed you depend completely on those maintainers and you need to blindly trust them because there's no way for an interested third party to check the code, you're practically voiding that possibility.
-If the source is open you have the maintainers plus potentially any other interested person, you don't have any of the disadvantages of depending only on the main developers and you get all the benefits of being open to be improved and audited by other people.
Look for example at hearthbleed, what happened after the incident? At first it was maintained by just a few people, after that companies that use it started investing on the development of openssl, why? because they can, unlike with the closed source.
Now on the other side there's flash which is closed source. For example google's youtube service used to depend on flash but even with all the discovered vulnerability and having the money they cannot do anything, because adobe was the only owner. Like google, tons of other companies and websites used to depend on that technology but none of them could do anything except trust adobe blindly and without guarantees. At the end what happened with flash? at this moment is even discouraged to use it for anything and all those companies migrated to something where they can participate and whose compatibility doesn't depends only on the original provider.
any thoughts?
>>55255921
Meanwhile DRM is closed source, by adobe still, and mandatory as per the HTML5 standard.
>>55256007
It still doesn't negate what i said though, in this case is only that module which some services decides to use but now elemental things like playing video doesn't depends on a closed technology which is a big step forward. The problem is still there and my argument is still valid: those services that decides to use that closed source DRM must trust in the company that provides that technology. I'm not against closed source software, i'm just pointing that the source being open has clear advantages for companies and users and that there's hardly any argument with enough weight to negate it's advantages even if post like >>55254331 want's to make it look like it.
>>55255578
look at source code
>>55255578
does this help?
https://www.openhub.net/p/linux
>>55256405
Something informative posted? Where am I and how did I get here?
>>55256466
That might be more what you're expecting.
https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board/
Wow look at those beautiful faces...
>>55255921
Sounda about right when you consider the fact that one can be evaluated and fixed. While the other can only be trusted by was is present
