You mean switch Windows by Microsoft for ChromeOS by Google? Weird suggestion.
As for "security" and "antimalware" solutions being ready, I don't think there is much difference between the OSs there. Windows is no candyland either.
As always, they will need competent people in the right places to pull this through. Tech is just an enabler.
There is no security when the US government can legally compel Google to do whatever they want. This is why foreign governments want to move away from big tech.
Turns out the imperial boomerang impacts many things, especially when previous orders are easily destroyed (because only one country was benefiting).
We're talking about a country that is daily threatening to invade. You'd feel it was clever to run your entire infrastructure on an Iranian OS? It's the same for EU since USA is threatening to invade.
Maybe I misunderstood, but isn't that what they did? Here is the max. power you can draw from the grid, feel free to be more efficient or to produce your own electricity.
> ...my primary line of defence is AdGuard Home. By handling privacy at the DNS level...
To each their own, I guess, but that would be a hard pass from me. One example from mobile: FF on android keeps trying to connect to its various services (like firefox.settings.services.mozilla.net). For privacy reasons, I use NetGuard to block this and other similar domains. But there is a gotcha: there are sites (like seekingalpha.com) who refuse to load if access to these same domains is blocked - even on a completely different browser! With NetGuard I can still visit those sites in the secondary browser while blocking Mozilla tracking. With DNS blocking I wouldn't be able to do that.
NetGuard is a solid tool for Android, but managing a whole home lab is a different beast. I've got dozens of VMs and containers tucked away in Proxmox; if I tried to micro-manage per-app permissions for every single one of them, I’d never get anything else done.
I prefer to take the hit on those rare site-breaking edge cases if it means I have a single, transparent "source of truth" at the DNS level. It's definitely a trade-off, but I'd rather spend my time building things than perpetually tweaking firewall rules for every new service I spin up.
Strong disagree on this stance. You want to use the software? Cool, pay for it. Need access to source? It's on github, go nuts. Want to change it? Sure, feel free, but whoever uses it should pay the original developer. You can even charge extra for your modifications. Don't like the terms? Too bad - feel free to rewrite from scratch.
FOSS simply isn't sustainable if you want to make a living out of it. It protects a lot of user freedoms - even those that don't actually matter to users that much - at the expense of the rights of developers. There are a lot of ways that developers could be paid and users would still be protected (have access to source and the right to modify). The only ones benefitting from the current situation are BigTech.
Who are we to dictate terms to or divine the intentions of someone who releases software with say the MIT license? It might sound surprising but a lot of developers just want to share their work altruistically. There are some you couldn't pay if you wanted to. It's all voluntary.
> FOSS simply isn't sustainable if you want to make a living out of it.
This is probably true enough. Yet there are a million open source projects that existed, some for decades. There has go to be another way and another motivation.
> even those that don't actually matter to users that much - at the expense of the rights of developers
I would assume those developers would use a different license or even create their own terms.
> The only ones benefitting from the current situation are BigTech.
Paying the original developers will not change this. Big tech is big. They take whatever they can, sometimes killing the original project in the process. Perhaps a license like GPL is the solution to that particular problem.
I don't mean to come off snarky. I do agree with a lot of the things that you're saying but I see the free software movement as a completely voluntary and human thing. You could not get rid of it if you wanted. Paying for it is an auxiliary thing and concentrates too much on the wrong thing IMO. A lot of free software developers are already gainfully employed, some are millionaires. Yes some are struggling but then they are still voluntarily sharing their work with the whole world. That must mean they have their valid reasons for doing so.
That's just stupid. Take 10 people, each enters the data independently, compare their versions and select the most common of each character. With 1 second per character they would finish in an hour, coffee break included. They just didn't want to bother.
Irrespective of whether this particular court order to share the keys was OK in the first place, you shouldn't get to respond to a court order with any kind of malicious compliance even if it isn't "too much" extra work for other parties.
reply