Shoot the breeze, anything goes.
MasterOne

2016-02-03 17:02 »

TmEE wrote:You can always compile the stuff yourself.

The being able to inspect stuff to find problems is kind of a weak argument, there's very few programmers who are willing to spend weeks or months of their lives to study such huge programs to a point where they get enough understanding how something works and to improve them or actually locate faults and fix them. Even a small program (only few thousands of lines of code) is very difficult to tackle like that...


It's not just one person looking at the source code and spending weeks or months of their lives scouring through the source. For open source projects that are medium to large size, which even have some people just reading the code that aren't even programming, you have a better success rate of one or more of the developers not hiding a backdoor in the source (unintentional or not) as compared to closed source software. Like I wrote above, there's a gigantic reason why cryptographic libraries and algorithms are open source. There's much less of a place to hide. It's not a perfect system as of course there was Heartbleed, but that whole codebase was totally neglected and iirc someone talked about the vulnerabilities many many years before they started being exploited. So if anything, I think you are the one who has the week argument. Closed source software is "just trust us software". Well guess what, I don't use "just trust us software"; code developed by a sole entity running on my hardware that has free reign to do whatever the fuck it feels like.

User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3259
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2016-02-03 17:19 »

@MasterOne,

Yeah I dig what you say man. Although, I try to keep near the mainstream versions as much as I can to not run into weird issues. Pale Moon seem alright but I'm not really sure if they really get all the security updates from the main branch or not. Haven't had time to delve into it yet.

I have come to a point where I don't install ANY third party software (not even "Start Menu" replacements). Who the hell knows what's going on in there! Trust aside, they break shit in my computer and my computer has come to a point where it is a VERY IMPORTANT TOOL in my life so I can't have random unknown people "break" it from time to time. The only third party software I currently have is Adobe Flash Player (I must have it for my bank, sucks) but I got it blocked in FireFox... and FireFox and Microsoft Office 2016.

Anything else, if I can't compile it myself, will NOT run in my system.

Funny, Microsoft Office 2016 comes with a fucked service "ClickToRun" which always runs if you open Excel, Word or Outlook so I have a timer each 60 seconds to kill it off when they start it. *lol* Disgusting!

Really, if it wasn't for Outlook (I have an almost 10GB email .PST file which no other email client can handle well), I wouldn't have Office installed. The second my bank stops using Flash, that goes out of the door as well.

FireFox... I'm really pretty close to compiling it myself these days. Not even about trust but I'm sick of them breaking shit in it.

Speaking of witch, they STILL haven't figured out this bug yet! It is somewhat fixed but not really. They have opened several other bug reports related to it and are working on it. We'll see though, not even the nightly version 46 has this bugged fixed for now.

I can't believe they don't get 1000s of bug reports regarding this but it just shows two things: One, their market share is REALLY low and second, 99% of people using FireFox don't have cookies disabled because if they did, they would ALL experience this bug.

Sad really. Sad indeed. :neutral: :sick: :problem:

User avatar
TmEE
VIP
Posts: 229
Joined: 2013-08-09 16:52
Contact:

2016-02-03 17:56 »

MasterOne wrote:It's not just one person looking at the source code and spending weeks or months of their lives scouring through the source. For open source projects that are medium to large size, which even have some people just reading the code that aren't even programming, you have a better success rate of one or more of the developers not hiding a backdoor in the source (unintentional or not) as compared to closed source software. Like I wrote above, there's a gigantic reason why cryptographic libraries and algorithms are open source. There's much less of a place to hide. It's not a perfect system as of course there was Heartbleed, but that whole codebase was totally neglected and iirc someone talked about the vulnerabilities many many years before they started being exploited. So if anything, I think you are the one who has the week argument. Closed source software is "just trust us software". Well guess what, I don't use "just trust us software"; code developed by a sole entity running on my hardware that has free reign to do whatever the fuck it feels like.


Open source is just as much "trust us" from ones own POV and only changes if you are capable of verifying things yourself (which is never gonna happen for vast majority of the software due to sheer size of them). You still have no guarantees and you're still going by the "trust us" route, only difference is the "us" also includes other people besides the maker with open source so you can feel less bad about trusting that stuff.

MasterOne

2016-02-03 18:34 »

This video will explain things better than I can do over a forum:


User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3259
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2016-02-03 19:05 »

I think TmEE has a point, even with open source, unless you personally sit down and inspect all the code and then compile, you are still in the trust route. Richard Stallman can go fuck himself by the way. I don't like that hippie guy, even though I agree with some of his points! :mrgreen:

He is a very bad representative of the open source movement. Showing up without fucking shoes in conferences and playing with his foot... I mean, come'on! I have no problem with people without shoes but if you want to turn people from closed source mainstream into open source "followers", at least dress like the "normal" people you are trying to convert! :sick:

User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3259
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2016-02-03 19:12 »

Bottom line about the open source movement is that they failed. Actually, even closed source software failed.

They failed the users.

Never could they make their software easy enough for the average man and that's why we see all of these "software as service" crap all over the place. Because they made software SO FUCKING ANNOYING AND FUCKED'UP TO USE that people went to closed source and started renting software to just have it "work".

I have not seen many closed or open source software in my days that are pain free to use for average users. A simple motherfucking shit like updating it was and always is a PAIN! ALL of my programs which I made did a self update where when you wanted to update this, it automatically updated itself, in less than a few seconds, zero user action except triggering the update itself. How many such software is out there? NOT MANY.

They ask users to go to this place or that place, download some file, double click on it, run it, press "Next" a few 100 times. That is NOT painless for end users. A doctor should not need to know how to code or be an engineer to run some motherfucking software.

The entire "software as a service" is on BOTH open source AND closed source programmers. It's 100% THEIR fault. :sick:

User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3259
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2016-02-29 16:26 »

lolz.PNG
lolz.PNG (176.45 KiB) Viewed 5823 times

[[https://secure.gravatar.com]] Michael Layzell [:mystor] 2016-02-26 10:40:28 PST

With patch: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?r ... de82999733
Without patch: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?r ... 7f26dbeefe

[reply] [−] Comment 16 Non Hic 2016-02-26 17:58:57 PST

I wonder who paid whom to kill FireFox like this.

This bug is basically the end of FireFox for me and most likely many 1000 others if not fixed very soon. How can you "not make it in time?" This bug is as urgent as it can be, FireFox is almost unusable!!!

What a sad bunch of people you are at Mozilla. ALL OF YOU!

OH NOES, WE CAN'T MAKE IT FOR 46 BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ONE WEEK WE RELEASED A NEW VERSION, MUST... ADD... NEW... VERSION NUMBERS... MAYBE IT WILL MAKE IT INTO VERSION 9999999999999 OF MOZILLA BY END OF NEXT WEEK?

Keep at it and soon, NO ONE will care which feature you will remove from FireFox this week or next week.

Or perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote? In that case, sorry, if not, then not sorry.

[reply] [−] Comment 17 Non Hic 2016-02-26 17:59:39 PST

...and of course, this one!!!! >>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1245595

[reply] [−] Comment 18 Non Hic 2016-02-26 18:02:59 PST

Most people I know are moving to forks of FireFox these days, come in two years, maybe there will not be a FireFox at all, only a BIG FAT JUCIEY VERSION NUMBER... 98782478972348978234234234... you have version fetish. Each new version, something major is removed or broken.

Why don't you just close down the business, give up and go sell tomatos or something!

Who am I talking to? FireFox "developers"... can they even be called that? They don't develop much, only remove and break. Perhaps demolition men is a better term. LOL

[reply] [−] Comment 19 Non Hic 2016-02-26 18:05:39 PST

I mean, have you even read your users' comments in the past 12 months? But you don't care do you? Just don't give a flying fuck, it seems like it from my point of view at least.

Oh, don't forget to add that version number, the higher, the better!!! YES!!! COME COME COME, VERSION 88888888888888...... TOMORROW IS 9999999999, HURRY, IT WILL END SOON, YELLED THE DEMOLITION MEN AT MOZILLA... COME BUY OUR VERSION. It is not a software anymore, not a browser, just a big version number! WE ADD MORE VERSION NUMBERS TO IT EVERY OTHER DAY! COME PEOPLE COME!!!

Fools and their version numbers.

Post Reply