just want to add, it's not the zoomer's fault. they were intentionally raised in ignorance because its apparently profitable
fuck the corporations who've deliberately turned our living computers into soulless commercial brainwashing surveillance machines
Or they’re just adding improvements to the software they heavily rely on.
which they can do in private any time they wish, without any of the fanfare.
if they actually believe in opensource let them opensource windows 7 ^1^, or idk the 1/4 of a century old windows 2k
instead we get the fanare as they pat themselves on the back for opensourcing MS-DOS 4.0 early last year (not even 8.0, which is 24 years old btw, 4.0 which came out in 1986).
38 years ago...
MS-fucking-DOS, from 38 years ago, THAT'S how much they give a shit about opensource mate.
all we get is a poor pantomime which actually only illustrates just how stupid they truly think we are to believe the charade.
does any of that mean they're 100% have to be actively shipping "bad code" in this project, not by any means. does it mean microsoft will never make a useful contribution to linux, not by any means. what it does mean is they're increasing their sphere of influence over the project. and they have absolutely no incentive to help anyone but themselves, in fact the opposite.
as everyone knows (it's not some deep secret the tech heads on lemmy somehow didn't hear about) microsoft is highly dependent on linux for major revenue streams. anything a monolith depends on which they don't control represents a risk. they'd be negligent if they didn't try to exert control over it. and that's for any organisation in their position. then factor in their widespread outspoken agenda against opensource, embrace, extend, extinguish and the vastly lacking longterm evidence to match their claims of <3 opensource.
they're welcome to prove us all wrong, but that isn't even on the horizon currently.
^1^ yes yes they claim they can't because "licensing", which is mostly but not entirely fucking flimsy, but ok devils advocate: release the rest, but nah.
yes they lost the battle, now they're most likely aiming to win the war.
remember back when we didn't listen to famous people's opinions outside their field of expertise?
A lot of Microsoft-oriented developers still don’t understand the free software movement, and have been trying to twist it into something they can comprehend since it started four decades ago.
avacado
ah fair enough. i think that was the initial confusion from myself and perhaps the other user in this discussion. i didn't realise your use cases.
it's always a fun topic to discuss and got me thinking about some new ideas :)
cool, sounds like you have most of the principles down.
what i didn't yet see articulated with chat-e2ee is how the actual code itself verifies itself to the user in the browser? it sounds to me like it assumes the server which serves the code is 'trusted', while the theoretically different server(s) which transmits the messages can be 'untrusted'.
out of interest, do you actually mean no login, or do you mean no email-verified login?
i'm trying to understand your exact scenario.
but in general, the problem is where do you get your original key, or original hash to verify from? if they are both coming from the server, along with the code which processes them, then if the server is compromised, so are you.
thankfully browsers give alot of crypto API lately (as discussed in your link)
but you still need at minimum a secure key, a hash and trusted code to verify the code the server serves you. there are ofc solutions to this problem, but if the server is unstrusted, you absolutely can't get it from them, which means you have to get it from somewhere else (that you trust).
-GIMP is freeware.
did you source that from the GIMP documentation? because it very much appears you didn't. (please link to the direct quote if i'm wrong).
in contrast my quote comes directly from page 4 of their own PDF User Manual which very clearly states:
The GIMP is not freeware
personally i'll go with what GIMP says in their own manual. you're welcome to believe whatever thing you wish - enjoy.
afaict the topic of the article seems to be focusing on trust as in privacy and confidentiality
for the discussion i think we can extend trust as in also trusting the ethics and motivation of the company producing the "AI"
imo what this overlooks is that a community or privately made "AI" running entirely offline has the capacity to tick those boxes rather differently.
trusting it to be effective is perhaps an entirely different discussion however
feeling like you've been listened to can be therapeutic.
actionable advice is an entirely different matter ofc.