npub.xyz's avatar
npub.xyz _@npub.xyz 1 year ago
I think I understand what you're saying, but no, those are not my beliefs. I don't feel entitled to any software or that developers should make things free. I'm happy to pay for products that serve a valuable service to me. my issue really lies in the trust one needs to put into developers and/or companies ESPECIALLY if it is closed source. I've seen too many times where closed systems are manipulated to the detriment of the users. this manipulation could be done with malicious intent, or by accident. when source code is available and builds reproducible the users are capable of seeing WHAT the software is ACTUALLY doing. for example, if any nostr client was proprietary/closed source there is no way to verify that upon keygen in a client that the developer is not creating a copy of said key. now I'm not saying FOSS is a silver bullet for my issues with proprietary software but is a means to an end.
↑ Parent

Replies (1)

Scoundrel's avatar
Scoundrel 1 year ago
Fascinating! It sounds like open source software is just a means to an end to you too! The way to test that hypothesis would be to see what you would think of software that can be somehow proven to maintain some sort of internal condition (such as the integrity of a private key) without being decompilable. I suspect this wouldn't be very difficult actually if programs that are infeasable to decompile are ever developed. The only reason proprietary software is so sketchy I think is because they are relying so heavily on security through obscurity. Perfect DRM and this goes away. But I digress! Right now I see three issues with this new hypothesis. The first issue is your use of the term FOSS, instead of OSS. I have heard many people arguing strongly about how different those things are, even if the OSS allows people to reproduce the build. So which is it? Is it enough that the software be open source? Why add in that it be "free"? The second issue is what you choose to complain about in this particular case. Your barf emoji doesn't seem to be based on Melvin somehow impacting security or transparency, but rather your complaints appear to be based on how Melvin's actions relate to the software community and ethos that you cherish on their own. And finally, the fact that you chose a reasoning for your actions that is impossible to otherwise falsify is very sketchy! Of course you will claim you like security and transparency! At this point in time, security and transparency MEANS open source! If you really don't feel entitled, then it just seems like you hate the idea that stinginess could mean missing out on software. It sounds like you would rather someone never make a piece of software public if they are going to make people pay for it. It sounds like you would have much preferred that Melvin kept his domain ideas to himself, rather than allowing anyone from the cashew team to realize what they might be missing out on. But who knows! I would love to hear more from you. Your perspective is definitely different from mine. I wouldn't care at all if some Nostr developer tried to steal my account key for example! I really don't know what you are going to say next, and I'd love to hear more from you. Is there anything I'm still missing? Did I make any mistakes?
↑