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

[concernedfossdev]

What did you think of the guy who uns_bscribed after this message?
Why would he do that?
Was he thinking "damned leftists, accusing Intel of installing a backdoor into 
it's chipset, that's preposterous! The shiny brochures are all FAKE!"

June 9 2016 3:30 AM, "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.