Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fw: Article on GRSecurity, RMS, etc.

[concernedfossdev]

Damn Jim, why did you u_sub_cribe?

--

Did you see how he dropped the mic.

A discussion was made, some made some comments about govt and corp interests, and then, boom, "I'm out of HERE"
Yes, Intel does package a professional backdoor in it's chipset.
There are glossy brochures you can read to get all the details.

June 9 2016 4:03 PM, "Jim Kelly" <jkmacman@yahoo.com> wrote:

unsubscr_be

 

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 11:30 PM, IngeGNUe <ingegnue@riseup.net> wrote:

 

On 06/08/16 22:01, concernedfossdev@teknik.io wrote:

> Corporations are in bed with the governments.
> (Think Intel's built-in professional backdoor first just known as "VPro" then broken out as the "Intel Management Engine", which can always be remotely re-enabled)
>
> You expect them to value security for the individual?
>
> Many of us have been benefiting from grsecurity since the early 2000s.
> It was part of linux mandrake's "secure" kernel back then.
>
> There was also a security script: bastille-linux.
>
> Now grsecurity is going closed it seems.
>
> Now bastille-linux is dead, it will not work on modern non-systemd distros
> (either TCL/TK has become incompatable with old scripts, or Perl has somehow (it uses both))
> and we are told by non-systemd distros like devuan "a real system admin does it all by hand, every time"
> Yea, 100s of changes, by hand, every time.
>
> So the anti-systemd distros are just a smoke screen.
>
> Everything is falling apart.
>
> The free-software ideals have been abandoned.
>
> June 8 2016 11:42 PM, "IngeGNUe" <ingegnue@riseup.net> wrote:
>> On 06/05/16 00:58, concernedfossdev@teknik.io wrote:
>>
>>> Soylent news published an article/discussion on GRSecurity, RMS, etc
>>> If you're interested it's here:
>>> https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/02/214243
>>>
>>>> RMS Responds - GRsecurity is Preventing Others From Redistributing Source Code [UPDATED]
>>
>> I suggest that a company with decent values hire the author of
>> GRSecurity to continue working on it, so that the author need not hold
>> the software hostage in return for money. It's corporations who benefit
>> the most from the project and corporations should pay, but not at the
>> expense of software freedom for the rest of the world.

>
>

You win some, you lose some.

This is always going to be a problem in our profit-driven economic
system, but anyway, I'm simply suggesting a feasible alternative to the
GRSecurity dev's demands for cash. It seems to me that they want
something back for their work, and losing sight of the bigger picture.
IDK. I don't fault anyone for wanting something back, but there are
better ways to do it that don't interfere with software freedom for
everyone.

I suggest that the author of GRSecurity consider how much they have
benefited from free software already, before pulling out of it, and
think of alternate ways to solve the problem such as what I suggested.

My 2c.