can we stop supporting closed source please?

[yeti]

And if you dare to argue by telling us that it's closed source and thus evil,

I won't...

I will ban you immediately.

...but your kind reaction triggers my wish to leave this forum.

Please delete my account asap.

[Konata]

And if you dare to argue by telling us that it's closed source and thus evil,

I won't...

I will ban you immediately.

...but your kind reaction triggers my wish to leave this forum.

Please delete my account asap.

Emuand doesn't tolerate trolls. If you can't appreciate the way he manages his shift you'd be better off at 8chan or reddit where they don't have such policies.

[EmuandCo]

Thanks Konata, that is the case.
yeti... creating a account, posting two irrelevant and useless posts to ask for deletion? Naaah, my spare time is not worth to be spent for that.

So... if noone has anything constructive to add here I will lock that post.

[React-ozination]

1. I know for a fact with Ubuntu you can get a CD to encrypt the drive, not sure about the other distros.

lets say 90% of installable linux distros coming with it by default.

2. I can tell you have never used a Windows system before, at least not any vista+ windows systems because you can encrypt your whole drive with Bit locker. Please look it up.

let us leave the question about if i used windows or not because i dont think anyone talking about technical stuff didnt use it (thats why later i transferred to linux).

simple quest, is the Bitlocker activation on pre-installation of windows ? or u need to activate it after u have done installing windows ?

we all know its the second choice, so it kinda useless to any attacks that we have mentioned.

3. Disk encrypts do not stop hackers nor do they stop NSA back doors, so saying "what if it had a backdoor in it" wouldn't matter.

sadly it wouldnt stop them from creating hardware backdoors.

4. Linux does have lots of exploit shielding properties that Windows never added until win10. They did have a tool though called EMET, but wasn't very known to a lot of people.

yeah finally they recognize that after users/devs gradually migrating to other operating systems.

5. There was already a patch out before the WannaCry ransomware attack started. The patch was out in the March 2017 updates. The attacks started in May 2017. The ones who got hit were people who don't update their systems and that was their own fault for not keeping their system up-to-date. Seriously, have you ever used a Windows system before?

yeah true , they patched it. but i would say thanks for the NSA for finding the exploit and thanks to The Shadow Brokers who spread it. sadly this is not the first report of sucha kind...

But I think all of you are missing the bigger picture here. We are talking about ReactOS solving a problem with Windows and that is open-source, so I don't know why you still keep attacking ReactOS when it's trying to do good for the FOSS world.

no body actually attacked ReactOS , actually i support ReactOS (i know it exist from long time ago but when i used it in that time it wasnt actually that functional OS so i put it on later use) now u can call me a tester to some of its components. but i wasnt reporting the issues , but now i wanted to share them publicly and start helping the team with some of functionality issues reports (without ofcourse revealing my identity )

btw thank u for ur kind conv.

[React-ozination]

Bitlocker automatically encrypts all drives on setup when your hardware is TPM 2.0 capable and that started with Windows 8. If your hardware is only capable of some pseudo useful ways then you are on your own, true that.

actually i didnt know that (because the last time i used windows it was windows 7), thanks for sharing the info. (though, thats really injustice because what about other users?)

You are accusing ROS/Windows here because of some kindergarten niveau *youaresoeviljustbecauseIambetterthanyou*, so why don't you give any proof?

no body accused ROS , all what i said was a request for better step to the open source ideas which ROS embrace it. supporting open technology so users will always use open source whether the OS or the virtual environment that the OS running inside it.

as technical proof im more likely with what Micah Lee mentioned in his website here

And if you dare to argue by telling us that it's closed source and thus evil, I will ban you immediately. So, come on, tell us, give us proof!

closed source tools r not evil because they r closed source, because u cant trust the tool itself but instead u gonna trust the one who made it. and from technical point view this is not technical. viewing the code to make sure that the software is working as it claims that is technical, but knowing the one who made it in order to know if its working properly or not thats just not related.

Thanks

[Konata]

closed source tools r not evil because they r closed source, because u cant trust the tool itself but instead u gonna trust the one who made it. and from technical point view this is not technical. viewing the code to make sure that the software is working as it claims that is technical, but knowing the one who made it in order to know if its working properly or not thats just not related.

And who's going to review that code? Just because you have all day to review code doesn't mean a CEO is going to hire someone to view and maintain that code. That's what software corporations are for. They make the software, they maintain the software, and they ensure it's integrity. If they don't, they get dumped for someone who can. The availability of the source doesn't matter, because nobody cares.
Open source projects usually don't have those services. If that's the case, you have to hire a whole team just to maintain it, and that's an expensive nightmare. No way in hell are you going to get the actual efforts of a full-time team to maintain 99% of the open source projects out there, they're written by lazy ingrates living in a basement who haven't even heard such exotic terms like "sustainability", "scalability", "modularity", "future-proofing", and "good". Their software doesn't need it, because they're not selling it, it's just some garbage they whipped up in a weekend that got adopted by all the other lazy nerds and is now irreplaceable and unmaintainable. Those are the reasons Linux is going to be trapped with X11 for the rest of eternity, along with the heaps of other garbage libraries it's collected over the years that have far surpassed it's value but can't be replaced because everything else depends on it. It took corporations like IBM and Microsoft to develop extremely extensive proprietary APIs that covered and abstracted everything you'd ever have to program against, so that way everything could be trivially replaced. And the benefits of that approach have been shown in how software for the WinAPI could run on both Windows 95 and Windows NT, two entirely different operating systems under the hood. I don't see such magnificent API abstractions in the open source world.

It takes a corporation to care about software, because they get money for it, or more importantly, if they don't do it right then they don't get money and starve. And they not only have to do it right, they have to do it better than the competition. That's why I prefer software made (or at least designed but implemented by a third party like ReactOS) by corporations rather than software that's just open source. Software made by corporations is usually good, regardless if it's open or not. If it's not, it gets dumped for better alternatives. Open source software doesn't mean it's good. And if it's not, too bad, you're forced to use it anyway because all the lazy nerds hard-coded against it like X11. And if it's not good, what am I supposed to do? Fix it myself? No thanks, I'll just use something that works. And yes, I am a programmer. But I have better things to do with my skills, like write my own software, not maintain some idiot's broken software for years.

[dizt3mp3r]

No way in hell are you going to get the actual efforts of a full-time team to maintain 99% of the open source projects out there, they're written by lazy ingrates living in a basement who haven't even heard such exotic terms like "sustainability", "scalability", "modularity", "future-proofing", and "good". Their software doesn't need it, because they're not selling it, it's just some garbage they whipped up in a weekend that got adopted by all the other lazy nerds and is now irreplaceable and unmaintainable.

I think you just deeply insulted everyone who has ever contributed to an open source project. Konata, what you normally post makes some sort of sense and in this case may be partly true - but - you are starting to sound just as weird as the others posting on this thread. Can you please moderate yourself when going off on a Windows-defending rant or at least make sure your points are specifically targetted.

You paint with rather a wide brush...

[Konata]

I think you just deeply insulted everyone who has ever contributed to an open source project. Konata, what you normally post makes some sort of sense and in this case may be partly true - but - you are starting to sound just as weird as the others posting on this thread. Can you please moderate yourself when going off on a Windows-defending rant or at least make sure your points are specifically targetted.

You paint with rather a wide brush...

I'm talking about designing software, not writing it. Of course there's some geniuses who work on open-source things and idiots who work on closed things, I'm just talking about the majority.

[dizt3mp3r]

they're written by lazy ingrates

As I said, please moderate yourself or the moderators here will do it for you and they are more critical of these sorts of comments than I am.

[middings]

Should ReactOS avoid aiding users of widely-deployed closed source tools and applications?

My answer is "No". ReactOS is for everyone who uses Microsoft Windows compatible software. ReactOS must fit into the software milieu established by already existing NT-class tools and applications. Much of that software is closed source. Therefore the ReactOS project must not ignore closed source products, nor pretend they don't exist, nor ignore the popularity of many closed source products.

Closed source, open source, proprietary, and freely redistributable are business models, each appropriate for certain purposes. Many more people make a living producing and maintaining proprietary closed source software than any other kind. In contrast, for organizing co-operative projects among volunteers or industry consortia (e.g., Apache projects) the open source model is often chosen. The freely redistributable and modifiable open source business models are also selectively used by purveyors of proprietary closed source products for sample programs that demonstrate the use of their products in applications. This model is attractive when the expected increase in profitable sales of the proprietary product is large compared to the cost of producing the given-away software that increased those sales.

[dizt3mp3r]

Well said Middings.

[React-ozination]

Should ReactOS avoid aiding users of widely-deployed closed source tools and applications?

My answer is "No". ReactOS is for everyone who uses Microsoft Windows compatible software. ReactOS must fit into the software milieu established by already existing NT-class tools and applications. Much of that software is closed source. Therefore the ReactOS project must not ignore closed source products, nor pretend they don't exist, nor ignore the popularity of many closed source products.

Closed source, open source, proprietary, and freely redistributable are business models, each appropriate for certain purposes. Many more people make a living producing and maintaining proprietary closed source software than any other kind. In contrast, for organizing co-operative projects among volunteers or industry consortia (e.g., Apache projects) the open source model is often chosen. The freely redistributable and modifiable open source business models are also selectively used by purveyors of proprietary closed source products for sample programs that demonstrate the use of their products in applications. This model is attractive when the expected increase in profitable sales of the proprietary product is large compared to the cost of producing the given-away software that increased those sales.

i wish there is "like" button (sadly there isnt), but yeah really thank you. (i like diplomatic answers )

i hope to see ReactOS reaching its goals soon enough, and i will try to manage my time helping it.

Thanks again for your time.

[dizt3mp3r]

Open source vs Respect-your-privacy?

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/h ... r-privacy/

Open source gives you a level of confidence that you aren't being spied upon. Whether that is true or not is possibly a moot point as it takes an enormous amount of code knowledge to be certain, one way or another when compared to closed source from a supposedly trusted vendor.

However, open source is moving inexorably to hardware drivers and though it may be in its infancy, the movement is gathering pace. I can see it now, patchy and only rarely fully implemented (as in the laptop above) but it is starting.

Doesn't look like it is going to help us much though.

[alexei]

Open source is good only for collaborative development by a group of people.
I remember several cases when individual developers deeply regretted releases under GPL and just close the source (for example, MenuetOS 64bit).
Some individuals just don't want anybody messing with their creations. Not everybody would like the idea of "open source poetry", though it exists in folklore.
Even if the source is published for "educational purposes" (or something like that) there is no simple way to prevent creation of direviative works.
With GPL you cannot enforce your coding style, philosophy, etc. Search for "tabs vs. spaces" to get the idea.

[dizt3mp3r]

The issue related to Menuet 64 is really only encountered when the group's goal is badly defined. The direction of Menuet was not pre-determined like ReactOS so there could be a lot of discussion and argument over the project's direction and approach.

The good thing about ReactOS is that the group's goal is clearly defined, we already have a working test model, Windows. The ReactOS project is also run along quite strict lines with regard to dissent or conflict. It has strict rules on code review and general conduct.

I think these are essential for an open source project to avoid conflict. Has anyone here any experience of the Joomla! development team? It was the most argumentative and most disfunctional development group I have ever encountered. They even argued viciously over the use of the final "!" in the project name. None of that is the fault of open source, it is just the nature of humans when working in an environment that has undefined goals. Some like to have control of the direction of a project when they think it is being mis-managed. They think they know best whilst some just simply like arguing.

END

A brief aside on Joomla - The Joomla devs worked for years on new versions that broke compatibility with old versions, redesigned supporting frameworks and how they implemented the underlying technologies, separating the CMS from the framework. All very laudable but none of the end users cared, they didn't even understand. The CMS changed its GUI regularly, the 'apps' that supported it stopped working each release and the CMS needed to be updated every 18 months or it became unsupported, worse still, each update was in fact a migration. The original CMS was quicker and easier to use than the final version and any improvements to the CMS were hardly discernible to the end user. Joomla was abandoned by many hundreds of thousands. It still exists but it is no longer the CMS of choice for the base level user as Joomla was when it began. This was all caused by fractious devs who took control, and forgot that project direction should correspond to what the user base wants. (No implication toward ReactOS).