What software do you feel paranoid about?

[No_windows]

If you are really paranoid about microsoft, like some seem to be, I wonder what you think about the fact that Microsoft sponsors Linux and also Debian.

Microsoft sponsors Debian specifically?

[dasein]

If you are really paranoid about microsoft, like some seem to be, I wonder what you think about the fact that Microsoft sponsors Linux and also Debian.

Microsoft sponsors Debian specifically?

Translation: "I am too farqing lazy to click a link when provided one."

Clarification of @pylkko's point re: servers: MSFT does indeed maintain a Debian mirror. (Again, available by clicking the link he provided.)

[Bulkley]

About 52% of Internet users are bots. We can be assured that a lot of those bots are malicious. With that in mind, the software we use cannot be depended on for 100% security. Our biggest threat is our own behaviour.

[marcetm]

Everything!!! I'm not a programmer nor a developer so I don't know what is exactingly happening with every single thing I do on my Pc. I feel like I have to trust in the developers or the people who is compiling the programs to put them in the repositories. well maybe it's an act of faith. I guess it's better not thinking about it.

[Bulkley]

I guess it's better not thinking about it.

It is better that you do think about it. There are too many bots and people who want to take advantage of you to ignore the problem. Nobody expects you to be an expert but you should learn some Internet street smarts. There are several threads on this forum on basic security and browser security.
_________________________________

Back in the theme of this thread, I try to avoid Flash wherever possible. Flash is out dated and not necessary for most online video. I have come to suspect any site that insists that I have it.

[No_windows]

Microsoft sponsors Debian specifically?

Translation: "I am too farqing lazy to click a link when provided one." :roll

I didn't see any link, in the post I quoted, and you can stop being such a troll any time now.

[MARKMENTAL]

Skype, Discord or any proprietary VoIP stuff.

[Bulkley]

Skype, Discord or any proprietary VoIP stuff.

+1. As a side note, in my house we have more technical problems with Skype than all other software combined. Why all my relatives insist on it is beyond me.

[MARKMENTAL]

Skype, Discord or any proprietary VoIP stuff.

+1. As a side note, in my house we have more technical problems with Skype than all other software combined. Why all my relatives insist on it is beyond me.

Skype is a nightmare, such an awful piece of software. Fortunately for me my relatives prefer email

[sjukfan]

If you are really paranoid about microsoft, like some seem to be, I wonder what you think about the fact that Microsoft sponsors Linux and also Debian.

There's different kinds of paranoia. Microsoft giving money to Linux and Debian is clearly for their own economical winnings and not because they're a bunch of nice dudes. Same kind of paranoia can be applied to anything Facebook and Pokémon Go (they will profit in some way from all that gps data). But when Microsoft opensource code I don't mind it, because I know that code will be checked for lack of security. They are still doing it for economical winnings though.

[pylkko]

yeah, but I meant the argument more from this perspective: some people complain that MS ruins everything and that selling closed-source proprietary stuff is wrong. Ok, nice and all except that when MS hands down money to Linux and Debian that money is gained by these "unethical means" that those same people are protesting against by using Debian. Obviously Microsoft's aim is to profit from this, given that they develop Debian-based OS's. But that is not intersting, what is is that you are using a OS that would not be possible as it is right now without monetary support that comes from Windows sales (and other suposedly diabolic stuff). So, anyone that sees Microsoft et alii using a business model that is entirely wrong and unethicnal should in some sense not want to benefit personally from that unethical stuff. So, shouldn't the people that want to completely resign from the unethical methods that these large companies use then use a BSD or Minix or maybe FreeDOS?

[dasein]

By that logic, impoverished AIDS patients in Africa should decline life-saving treatment because W.H. Gates III is paying for it.

[debiman]

Ok, nice and all except that when MS hands down money to Linux and Debian that money is gained by these "unethical means" that those same people are protesting against by using Debian.

my use of linux is not a protest against anything.
it is for something, not against.
it is for a global community of open-minded computer users, developers etc.
and more...

microsoft being a member of the linux foundation or donating to debian is something to be paranoid about, as per thread title.
it is all too common that "donating" in the business world includes "gaining power"...

[pylkko]

By that logic, impoverished AIDS patients in Africa should decline life-saving treatment because W.H. Gates III is paying for it.

I think your analogy fails here, primarily because there are alternatives in the OS situation, whereas there are really no alternatives in the AIDS medication situation. And even so, the analogy would work only in the case that the impoverished AIDS patient had a strong moral commitment against Bill Gates or modern medicine or whatever. And in that case it would be quite easy to claim that if someone really really does not believe in modern medication, then they should decline it eve if it means death.

And so it could be claimed (to play the devil's advocate) that people that hate corporate influence should avoid Linux entirely. And it definitely could be said that if you truly believe in something, then you should be willing to suffer in order to achieve it. Actually, it is commonly thought that how much you are willing to suffer is a direct indication of how strong your "faith" in the matter is.

But it is not uncommon that people want to "eat the cake and have it too". That is renounce Google, MS, Facebook etc. but still be able to use Linux and not some other community-made free-of-corporate-influence alternative OS/kernel (GNU mach/Libre Linux/GuixSD/HelenOS) with possibly poor hardware support and not as good performance metrics.

In a way there is really nothing wrong with wanting to eat the cake and have it too. There is also nothing wrong in complaining or preaching something that you do not practice, because life is often not that black and white. But I think it is good at least realize this and also realize that in stead of just being reactive about the problem you can try to be "proactive" so to speak (that word really is a crime against language) and explore other alternatives.

But at the end of the day, the question I wanted to ask was whether any people here on this board feel that Linux has already gone too far into the mainstream corporate business world or not.

[millpond]

It should be noted that from its early days M$ has always been involved with Unix. It even purchased Santa Fe unix, but apparently lacked the programming and/or marketing skills to do anything with it, and sold it. The Win platform has only been increasing its Posix compliance with time.

There is only ONE reason M$ hit it big. The early IBM PC's were loaded with M$-DOS. It became an anchor concept that the PC was equated with M$, just like online auctions are associated with Ebay. The power of advertizing.

As a result Billy G has so much money that he now wants the power to influence world political events with his 'charity'. The only difference between his and the Clinton Foundation is that the latter was used as a money generator. If Gates was really serious about the AIDS problem he would simply buy a drug company and dispense the medications for the few cents a dose it would actually cost to produce.

It should always be remembered that the primary directive of all corporations is to make *profit* for their shareholders, and to increase that amount in every quarter. A shortfall in a quarter would lead to a decrease in share price and financial harm to said shareholders.
While in practice this apples most pointedly to public corporations, legally, it would apply to private corporations as well. Think of the power of venture capitalists *before* the IPO.

Before the Gilded Age of the railroad robber barons the law was simple: Corporations could only receive a charter through a state legislature - and it had to guarantee that it would be acting in the public interest.
Incorporation is an issue entirely dealing with LIABILITY. And it meant shifting the final liability onto the public itself.
The idea of a corporation having legal constitutional rights of a citizen was perpetuated in the 19th century as an act of fraud by a Supreme Court clerk.

So it is a given that all corporations act only in their self interest. Any public benefits are simply side effects. Or advertizing.


And Debian is a corporation. With 'partners':
https://www.debian.org/partners/


In fairness though, incorporating was a logical move to keep the developers from getting sued if firmware based on it crashed a passenger jet, or something of that magnitude.

The real problem is the apparent 'mission creep' of other actors like RedHat into its system.

The other day I installed some software into this Devuan system. It had configuration options for both systemd and sysvinit. That is a good thing. Choice. Thats all some of us simply ask for.