The right thing for the wrong reasons: FLOSS doesn't imply security - eviltoast

I find people who agree with me for the wrong reasons to be more problematic than people who simply disagree with me. After writing a lot about why free software is important, I needed to clarify that there are good and bad reasons for supporting it.

You can audit the security of proprietary software quite thoroughly; source code isn’t a necessary or sufficient precondition for a particular software implementation to be considered secure.

  • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    The server, desktop, and mobile computing models are all quite different.

    And this is exactly what I have been saying since the past few replies. There is no one threat model for all systems and users. Madaidan, who you quote, however exactly tells us there is zero room for nuance, hence the multiple links I shared to give you room for processing more opinions.

    To him, somehow Linux is bad because use of unsafe C language and monolithic kernel, but Windows and MacOS also have monolithic kernels and get excused. More CVEs (threat levels of each CVE completely ignored) instead of being proof of maturity, become proof of worse security. You basically linked and believe in what is known well as a piece of toilet paper blog among security enthusiasts that are not GRSecurity or such GrapheneOS community related grifters.

    Since you seem to be arguing in bad faith, I don’t think I’ll engage further. Best of luck.

    It seems you are fairly stubborn in your beliefs. If critical thinking is bad faith argumentation, then I will disengage as well.

    P.S. I am a CS grad that created r/privatelife and teaches OPSEC.