View Single Post
Old 3rd July 2016
Gear Nut
Me_Jane's Avatar

Originally Posted by Greenleaf River View Post
You shouldn´t release it as open source. That is a waste of effort, and open source ideologists just wait to abuse you, and demand more, and you will get nothing. Resulting in a regression to facist scenarious by anti-establishment hippies, and indeed the level of totem-worship. Look at Microsoft. One of the biggest companies in the world, where people with that intelligence, gets jobs. Doing business as usual = the only way. If you cannot, you really just need to wait or build that option.

Open source as a whole, has no serious basis. Instead ofcourse Stallman, is what the myth of the "hacker living underneath MIT" is based on. Which really parallels acid-legends, and their "fall to earth". A philosophy inspired by his exclusion from Paradise, nobody wants.

Don´t let Stallman stall natural developments, ignore open source. (Official pro-establishment & cilvilization slogan pr 2015.)

I realize this is an older post, and this thread has since received newer replies, but I just have to comment on this, because this is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on the internet. At least in the last five years.

For readers unaware, the term open source software refers to software that is licensed under an open source license, such as the GNU GPL.

When software is released this way, the actual programming code that comprises the software is available to be viewed. Not only can you view the source code, you can share it with others freely, you can modify it, and you can also distribute your modified version, totally free, but not just free as in money, but as in freedom of speech as well. If you are unaware, in the United States, programming code is afforded first amendment protection, being regarded as free speech.

Closed source software on the other hand, you cannot view the source code, you cannot share the source code, you cannot modify the source code, and you cannot share your modified version. It is also typically not free, as in money. Doesn't sound much like free speech to me, either.

This has very grave implications. What this means is that if you use closed source software, you cannot look at the code to make sure it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, and it's not doing something malicious. I think Microsoft is a perfect example. It has been discovered that Microsoft has included a backdoor for the US National Security Agency in their Windows Operating Systems since 1999. It was discovered because of a mistake on the part of Microsoft's programmers.
NSA Built Back Door In All Windows Software by 1999

Open source software on the other hand can be publicly vetted. The entire code base can be openly audited, and not only can it be determined if the software is doing what it's supposed to do, and isn't doing anything malicious, but software vulnerabilities can also be discovered, allowing programmers to patch in updates to fix the vulnerabilities.

If you use closed source software, you have to put all of your trust into the hands of a company, or large corporation, who probably only cares about making as much money off of you as possible. Or maybe even making kickback money from government agencies like the NSA. You also have to rely on the company that makes the software to provide updates it to fix vulnerabilities which leave you at risk to malicious hackers, and often times it does not make financial sense for them to devote the man hours to fixing the vulnerabilities.

There is a massive difference in culture between closed source, and open source software as well. The culture of closed source software is commerce. Capitalism. It's pushing out a product that the user cannot vet, under the motivations of making a profit off of the user.

The culture of open source software is one of community involvement, contribution, and sharing.

Furthermore, readers should understand the power that programs have. If I can run code on your machine at an elevated privilege level, I can do absolutely anything, and the same is true for the programmers that make the proprietary, closed source software that you use. Take another look at Microsoft. Their heavy handed roll out of Windows 10 to users has been borderline evil, to be honest. People totally content with Windows 7 or Windows 8 have experienced leaving their computer for the night, coming back to it and Windows 10 being installed on it. Not only that, but even after uninstalling the Windows updates that push the update to Windows 10, Microsoft ignores the users wishes and pushes those patches back out, hoping to basically infect the user with Windows 10. It's essentially malware. Consider also the telemetry features of Windows 10 that does things like log every file you open, log every key stroke you type.
How to turn off Windows 10's keylogger (yes, it still has one) | PCWorld

This is your great champion of closed source Operating Systems. Microsoft Windows 10, and it's ****ing malware.

You simply do not find things like this with open source Operating Systems, such as Linux, because the users of the software actually have the power to change the software into something they want it to be, and software that is deemed bad or unsafe by the community is shunned to the digital graveyard of obsolescence.

To make a simple analogy, close source software is like a closed government run for the financial benefit of corporations, comprised of laws that are hidden from the citizenry. Open source software is like an open government where citizens have full knowledge of the laws, and modify the laws themselves for the betterment of everyone.

I apologize for the length of my post, but as a full time Cyber Security and Networking student, and holder of three certifications put out by the United States Committee on National Security Systems, the CNSSI 4012, 4013, and 4016, I just wanted everyone who read this incredibly stupid comment to be better informed about open source and closed source software.