infinityfal...@openmailbox.org wrote:
Like Legimet said, it's highly doubtful. This is rather minor compared to the Vault 7 dump, and even that didn't get much more than news reports and some software patches (although making it into the mainstream is an achievement in itself).
I am not keen to evaluate the importance of the Vault 7 leaks or any other leaks by mainstream so-called journalism. I think this is a metric that fails both on its own merit (important articles could come much later, even years later, and be very few in number) and in a more important sense of: evaluations based in how computers work, and understanding the allowable limits of corporate media. In the IT field, these stories come from writers who show unfettered deference to the proprietors that distribute unsafe software. Elsewhere the writers know relatively little about how computers and software works, and they are not skilled at conveying the importance of the leaks to the public despite that most of the public relies on the software to be secure.
The patches proprietors release is as unvettable as the unpatched software was when it was released. With non-free software IT admins simply can't inspect what they're assigned to operate (no matter how skilled the IT admin is); the admins apply these changes ignorant to what they're patching, ignorant to what the patch changes, and ignorant what the end result will be. The only information they have to go on are the (apparently inadequate) textual descriptions that sometimes accompany the patch.
It's a pity the EOMA68-A20 release had to be pushed back; this would be the perfect opportunity to say "We told you so"!
It still is; whether we have something to recommend to substitute doesn't change the fact that non-free software is an unjust menace more people now depend upon in their everyday lives.
