I am not really convinced by the "open source software can be trusted as anyone can verify it" thing
Who has time for all that? Are you telling me there are computer scientists analysing this shit all the time for free?...
>can believe people are developing software for free
>can't believe people are testing software for free
Okay.
>>105870967Testing and forensically auditing are not the same
>>105871070https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor
>>105870952 (OP)Dude, what do you mean you don't trust the totally independent and neutral FOSS community™?
You are partially right. This is why only minimalist software that can be understood by one single person is de facto free software. Ubuntu is not actually free software, because you can't apply the four essential freedoms to it, as it's far too complex of a software to be ever understood, or let alone audited, by a single person. Systemd is not free software, but sinit is, if you catch my drift. The same way Alpine Linux with a custom kernel and many optimizations to make it as small as possible, is lot more realistic for a single person to even grasp how many parts are there. For a full understanding you probably need something of the size of CollapseOS to be actually free. It's about getting as close as possible to minimalism, an approximation, so using something like Alpine is fine on the way, but you have to understand that not even using Alpine/Gentoo you're fully free, only with code you can actually understand.
No shit. Companies don't even test their commercial software anymore.
i trust the trannies to develop secure software. i have no faith in the pajeets to produce anything remotely as secure. every tranny ive seen online is a weird sex pest freak they probably have the most fucked up illegal underage discord kitten shit downloaded so they have skin in the game
>>105870952 (OP)its not that its trusted because anyone can verify it, its that you can verify it if you need to trust it. the code is all there. you cant trust paid software because you have no idea what is in it.
>>105870952 (OP)thats why you need to keep things minimal/simple and remind that open source doesnt necessarily equals privacy (just look at firefox).
I'm pretty sure they made Mac for normies who just need to open a browser daily or send a tax document once a year, then Windows for normies who use a computer, then they made Linux for autistic people to kind of them entertained. Better to have them busy duct taping stuff together every release so they don't do something bad. Then they also made BSD so that autistic people could do the autism things and continually fibonacci into smaller and smaller groups. Then they fabricated the Dunning Kruger curve of getting the normies who like to use computers but aren't autistic as fuck to use Mac again. I gotta say, it could be worded better, but I'm onto something here.
>>105870952 (OP)Only if it builds on my target machine bit for bit
>>105870952 (OP)When you invite others to work on your software, they are effectively auditing it as they explore the codebase. Important software like major OS components and common dependencies get scrutinized more than usual. The stakes are higher, and security researchers try to attack this software and disclose their findings. Turns out that in computing, the best defense is a good offense. Now, unless you are doing all this yourself, you do ultimately need to trust other people and follow their recommendations for software as well as learn some basic security principles like minimizing complexity and threat modeling.
>>105870952 (OP)Are you telling me, Microsoft pays computer scientist to analyze all this shit for them?
>>105877890>computer software as a mechanism to protect regime interestsI think you are correct. I am not sure if it was intended that way originally but you are correct that they function as attention sinks and keep people too occupied to consider moving against the regime.
regardless i sill luv by bsd
