Improving Software Practices

Making software bugs as fatal as hardware bugs would have made software near perfect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo1diE6FZv4

I.e. every time Windows give BSOD, a programmer should be executed.

Se also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility

YOU DON'T EXIST
NONE OF YOU EXIST
IT'S AN ILLUSION
SHUT UP

Do you really want more "perfect" software? As in, better DRM? Unrootable systems and perfectly walled gardens? This will be the jail you provably can't break. The corporations and governments will only use these technologies to oppress the people more.

Insecurity is freedom. Imperfection is freedom.

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

How do we make open source software more secure while ensuring proprietary software remains insecure? Let's solve this problem.

>>1
we would just have a lot of dead programmers. That talking point isn't as insightful as you think.

>>5
No. We will have carefully verified and tested code with all unit tests in place. Production branch would really be treated as holy, instead of being just another integration test.

>>3
I want more perfect software. I want unrootable systems and perfectly walled gardens. Jails you provably can't break. This way, I will spend my money only on hardware hardware that respects my freedom. Cracking DRM isn't freedom. The hardware DRM shouldn't exist in the first pace.

>>7
Good luck trying, Stallman. The rest of the world will continue to ignore you and remain sheeple.

Being an idealist never worked. You have to sneak into the minds of the masses, and pwn them from the inside. Show them how they can take control of the systems they already have, the ones they use to do everything they can already do; show them they can do even more, and they'll listen.

It almost happened, 10 years ago. People were filesharing, warezing, and cracking almost everything. There was little you couldn't find on the Internet. That was the beginnings of an era of true freedom. But then the FUD-spreading and crackdowns began, and we lost.

>>7
Don't worry, DRM is theoretically impossible.

>>8
the pirate party is leading poles in iceland right now. if they get elected I want them to rename their country ``Treasure Island''.

>>8
Cracking non-free software is a fool's game. It is not practical to study and modify non-free software in a meaningful manner. Even if you do manage to achieve this technical feat, you will most certainly be forbidden to share your work in your upstanding community. I don't find the notion of sharing my work underground to escape from the software owners to be a productive use of my time. I support only free software because free software as everybody is encouraged to study, improve and share with one another without having to escape and hide from the software owners - everything can be done in public and with my good name.

>>10
The difference between free and non-free software are government supported laws. If free software gets even remotely challenging to the government, it will be banned outright, under some unrelated motive. Just like you have your free speech tuned down under various motives, like political correctness, copyright and graphic material.

To bring down free software, you can just increase patent expiration time and grant a few patents to something like linked lists.

When you have law machine under control, you can do anything you want. Look how quickly Putin's regime has stripped shareholders of their property, transferring it to the government functionaries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Browder#Conflict_with_the_Russian_legal_system

>>11
So they're going to stop distribution of source code the same way they stopped distribution of music, movies and dubs.

>>12
Do you seriously think governments care that much about pirated music or copyright?

The copyright laws were introduced for censorship purposes. The "protection of authors" is more of a public legend.

>>11
One of the beauties of free software is that it isn't easy to censor. It doesn't come with any restrictions to its usage. And it doesn't work to give you away. As for the cases that you mentioned, they are a stretch. Free software publishers are strict about that stuff. And who cares about Russia?

>>14

One of the beauties of free software is that it isn't easy to censor.

Nothin a few well placed laws can't fix.

It doesn't come with any restrictions to its usage.

You forgot about patents, trademarks and cross-pollination with non-free code.

There is a lot of plagiarized code right inside of your Linux kernel, committed by programmers, who got prior exposure to the Windows' kernel code or were paid to do so by Microsoft. A corrupt judge coupled with high costs to hire good lawyer can easily render Linux illegal.

>>14
Also, soon everything will be running inside of cloud, where only approved software would be allowed. And the few machines left outside of data-centers will require signed code (there will be some anti-terrorist and/or anti-piracy laws requiring that).

>>16
Bullshit, almost everyone has a computer in their pocket these days.

>>15
You think Jewgle can't afford a lawyer?

>>17
Smart phones ain't locked to signed code. Yet.

When CPU rejects non-signed code, there is no way to jailbreak.

>>18
Google can. You can't. And the best lawyer won't save you from corrupted justice.

>>19

corrupted justice

You honestly think Google and RedHat (i.e. the US military) are going to let Linux become illegal?

>>20
Legality is relative. It could be legal for them, but illegal for you (because you don't have lawyer).

>>10

everything can be done in public and with my good name.

Haha why the fuck would I do that?

>>12
They absolutely can. They'll keep the public sentiment by calling us terrorists, sentence 10% of the offenders to 35 years of federal prison and then no one will be willing to do it anymore.

and dubs.

It took me 5 re-reads until I finally noticed that.

>>14

One of the beauties of free software is that it isn't easy to censor.

Compared to proprietary software it's more resistant to subversion but it's as easy to censor as anything else.

>>17
And almost everyone is a fugin terrorist using their iPhone to find targets on Google Maps^TM. You can scare people into thinking control over information will make them safer.

>>19
The keys are one sql injection away.

>>20
legal for them. illegal for us. It's not about linux being illegal, but being able to shape and mold it into what you want. Take red star linux for example. Being a linux distribution doesn't stop it from being a surveillance tool.

When users have the source, they can take full control of their computer. A computer that belongs to the user and no one else is a threat, because it isn't a surveillance node, and it is capable of uncompromised strong encryption and hence secure communication. There can be no secrets.

After reading my post a few times, I think I just get edgyer and edgyer! I wish I could say I was a paranoid idiot, but people are actually talking about banning encryption in the US right now. We'll see how it all plays out.

>>22

it's more resistant to subversion

How exactly? You just replace the maintainer and take over it.

As a benefit, everyone have this false sense of security, that open source cant be subverted, while there are just so many ways to expose you computer.

>>22

The keys are one sql injection away.

Government security agencies won't be keeping such important data open in a SQL database. More likely they will have an external black-box device, without any moving parts or writable memory.

Governments have paranoid level security, like http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23282308

>>17
Scary, have you ever tried to program a smartphone from within a smartphone? Is this even possible on factory settings?

>>24
Don't be so sure. It'll be stored at a company. Look at what happened to Sony.

>>23
If the project is small enough, you can go back in time and fork your own. A lot of people do put this trust in for granted.

>>26
In case of Sony, it were just credit card numbers. While PS3 required years to crack, and it didn't even had a CPU level DRM.

>>28
I was referring to best corea.