On 2019-02-25 21:44, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
I don't care if something is "harmless" I don't want anything phoning
home no matter what - this is my computer and my network not anyone
elses.
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libr
I don't care if something is "harmless" I don't want anything phoning
home no matter what - this is my computer and my network not anyone elses.
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailma
On 2019-01-27 12:40, Julian Daich wrote:
El 27/1/19 a las 0:35, bill-auger escribió:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 22:17:39 +0100 Julian wrote:
El 21/1/19 a las 4:02, bill-auger escribió:
one reviewer for each 10,000 to 100,000 software projects;
So it will be worth to advice users.
There can be many
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 20:51:59 +0100 Julian wrote:
> Trustability ranks can be adjusting for not trolling people.
> Deffining/ ranking software" quality" and user safety are different
> things. Quality can be very arbitrary.
that was not to say that the rankings can only be intended for shaming
(and
El 27/1/19 a las 2:07, bill-auger escribió:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 18:35:15 -0500 bill-auger wrote:
>> such rankings could only lead to some projects optimizing
>> for the "score" as to snowball it into the "leader" position;
>
> allow me to elaborate on that a bit - that was not merely a vague
El 27/1/19 a las 0:35, bill-auger escribió:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 22:17:39 +0100 Julian wrote:
>> El 21/1/19 a las 4:02, bill-auger escribió:
>>> one reviewer for each 10,000 to 100,000 software projects;
>>
>> So it will be worth to advice users.
>> There can be many ways to rank software tr
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 18:35:15 -0500 bill-auger wrote:
> such rankings could only lead to some projects optimizing
> for the "score" as to snowball it into the "leader" position;
allow me to elaborate on that a bit - that was not merely a vague
prediction - it already happens - i have experienced i
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 22:17:39 +0100 Julian wrote:
> El 21/1/19 a las 4:02, bill-auger escribió:
> > one reviewer for each 10,000 to 100,000 software projects;
>
> So it will be worth to advice users.
> There can be many ways to rank software trustability.
that is missing my point - regardless o
El 21/1/19 a las 4:02, bill-auger escribió:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 23:54:16 +0100 Julian wrote:
>> It will not be simpler and eventually more effective just to rank the
>> trustability of the software according to the ratio of reviewers/
>> maintainers?
> so, call me a negative nancy if you will,
Em 19/01/2019 08:41, Nicolás Ortega Froysa escreveu:
> Considering that this is an issue that would affect nearly all distros,
> it may be a good idea to setup a central collective group for auditing
> software. This would help in various regards:
There is the Antifeatures Project Team[1] in the F
frankly, i think that if this discussion is to be continued with any
sincerity, then it begs for a new "subject" heading; because the present
one is less indicative of a constructive discussion topic than
ignominious click-bait
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:07:48 +0100 Nicolás wrote:
> Therefore the mo
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 10:02:53PM -0500, bill-auger wrote:
> as much as i hate to be a web blanket :) - i must say that my
> suggestion to elect Nicolás the chief of this operation was entirely
> sarcastic - this discussion is all well intentioned, of course, but
> not very realistic
>
I will ad
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 05:45:57PM -0500, bill-auger wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:05:23 + Andrew wrote:
> > On 20/01/2019 18:01, Nicolás Ortega Froysa wrote:
> > > It's also worth noting that this would make for another outlet for
> > > people who are interested in security and free software
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:05:23 + Andrew wrote:
> On 20/01/2019 18:01, Nicolás Ortega Froysa wrote:
> > It's also worth noting that this would make for another outlet for
> > people who are interested in security and free software to enter the
> > field and get their foot in the door.
>
> This
On 20/01/2019 18:01, Nicolás Ortega Froysa wrote:
> It's also worth noting that this would make for another outlet for
> people who are interested in security and free software to enter the
> field and get their foot in the door.
This is an excellent motivation.
Andrew
--
OpenPGP key: EB28 0338
as much as i hate to be a web blanket :) - i must say that my
suggestion to elect Nicolás the chief of this operation was entirely
sarcastic - this discussion is all well intentioned, of course, but
not very realistic
take this as one representative example (i.e. food for thought) - the
chromium w
El 20/1/19 a las 19:01, Nicolás Ortega Froysa escribió:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Julian Daich wrote:
>> El 19/1/19 a las 11:41, Nicolás Ortega Froysa escribió:
>>> 1. With various people manually auditing software packages, it increases
>>> the probability that these kinds of
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 19:01:02 +0100 Nicolás wrote:
> I think we should make a distinction here
> between malware, features that could have potentially malicious
> consequences, and anti-features that can be disabled).
there is one other distinction lurking in that statement that many tend
to confla
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 11:37:24PM +0100, al3xu5 / dotcommon wrote:
> Il giorno sabato 19/01/2019 11:41:43 +0100
> Nicolás Ortega Froysa ha scritto:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:44:43PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> > > Lyberta wrote:
> > > > Today the Internet is filled with malware that
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 05:01:05PM -0500, bill-auger wrote:
> awesome idea - i nominate Nicolás to oversee this effort
>
It's nice to see that my idea has some support, although I must say that
it is not at all fleshed out, and would require more people to help and
for a more fleshed out standard
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Julian Daich wrote:
> El 19/1/19 a las 11:41, Nicolás Ortega Froysa escribió:
> > 1. With various people manually auditing software packages, it increases
> > the probability that these kinds of malware will be caught.
> >
> > 2. The members of this group
Hi.
Just wanted to say that I'm a bit busy right now and I can't respond but
I did read all of your replies and will respond to them later.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@l
Il giorno sabato 19/01/2019 11:41:43 +0100
Nicolás Ortega Froysa ha scritto:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:44:43PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> > Lyberta wrote:
> > > Today the Internet is filled with malware that is free software:
> > >
> > > https://lyberta.net/articles/tech/free_sw_untrust
awesome idea - i nominate Nicolás to oversee this effort
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
El 19/1/19 a las 11:41, Nicolás Ortega Froysa escribió:
> 1. With various people manually auditing software packages, it increases
> the probability that these kinds of malware will be caught.
>
> 2. The members of this group will most likely be either already known
> members of the free softwa
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:44:43PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> Lyberta wrote:
> > Today the Internet is filled with malware that is free software:
> >
> > https://lyberta.net/articles/tech/free_sw_untrusted.html
>
> The article points out that auditing matters and I concur -- there's no
> subs
Nothing would prevent an LGPL code to be modified "almost silently" by a
proprietary software author in order to obtain that kind of anti-features
generally needed by proprietary software authors.
Moreover, proprietary software authors, including firt the largest companies,
/will use copyright
Lyberta wrote:
Today the Internet is filled with malware that is free software:
https://lyberta.net/articles/tech/free_sw_untrusted.html
The article doesn't make it clear to me what is malware in any of the
listed software. It seems to me that the saving grace of free software is
that one ca
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 23:12:44 + Leah wrote:
> it encourages and promotes this practise of having
> proprietary versions of software
sure, but the OP was not suggesting anything of that sort - the
explicit claim was that JUCE is un-trustable malware - the
open-core concern is not really applic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
i would argue that use of open core software in and of itself is bad
anyway, because it encourages and promotes this practise of having
proprietary versions of software
On 16/01/2019 22:57, bill-auger wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:09:00 + Lybe
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:09:00 + Lyberta wrote:
> https://lyberta.net/articles/tech/free_sw_untrusted.html
i think you are quite mistaken about JUCE - it does indeed contain
a phone "home feature"; which caused a huge fuss within the community,
which lasted for about 2 days, until everyone reali
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:07:42 -0600 Caleb wrote:
> Guix and GuixSD also does Reproducible Builds. (Although Debian is
> probably the more usable option right now.)
"usable" is not the best word there - debian is the one that has the
highest percentage of reproducible packages; but in fact, most di
Guix and GuixSD also does Reproducible Builds. (Although Debian is
probably the more usable option right now.)
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Based on the conclusion of the page you link, I would suggest you
evaluate and look to get involved in Reproducible Builds:
https://reproducible-builds.org/
https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/History
Todd.
On Wed, 2019-01-16 at 14:09 +, Lyberta wrote:
> Today the Internet is filled w
Today the Internet is filled with malware that is free software:
https://lyberta.net/articles/tech/free_sw_untrusted.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
htt
35 matches
Mail list logo
