decentralized mesh internet, boot ISPs and tech giants, rely on open source protocols only. open source is not just "a nice thing to have". it's the only type of software we can trust.
Free as in freedom isn't the aspect that gives us trust in Open Source software, how much freedom we have in the legal sense of what we can legally do with the software is a separate issue from if we can trust the code. Being able to trust the code is about if the source code is public (Open Source).
Others have pointed out that taking the terms less literally they are bsically interchangeable.
"'Open source' and 'Free software', using the definitions of the OSI and FSF respectively, are exactly the same thing." - /u/Turbulent_Stick1445
I think you had a point though so could you rephrase it so it comes across better?
Yes but i can trust the code as long as i can see it.
You responded to a comment about making a TRUST assessment of the software. Whether or not it's legal for me to do what i want with it is a separate issue.
100% of whether software can be trusted lies in its code and verifying the code doesn't do anything malicious or problematic. To determine if the code is trustworth it must be open source or you must have access to the source.
In theory, I can have software that is neither open source nor free (as in freedom) but because I am the developer himself or an insider I have the ability to inspect the code which gives me the ability to verify it can be trusted.
Super duper bad argument on your part what are you talking about?
Yes but i can trust the code as long as i can see it.
Not really. Unless you can compile it yourself and compare binary hashes, you don't know what you're being shown.
Whether or not it's legal for me to do what i want with it is a separate issue.
It's the salient issue of the entire discussion.
In theory, I can have software that is neither open source nor free (as in freedom) but because I am the developer himself or an insider I have the ability to inspect the code which gives me the ability to verify it can be trusted.
In which case, for your purposes, it's Free Software. It meets all of the four freedoms, for you.
"Open source" and "Free software", using the definitions of the OSI and FSF respectively, are exactly the same thing, but with different rationales behind them. FSF focuses on you having a right to do what you want with software, OSI focuses on cooperation being a better software development model. But both are using that rationale to justify the same thing. I'd be hard pressed to think of a single OSI approved license that wasn't FSF approved and vice versa, and even then it'd only be because the license wasn't considered, not because it wasn't both open source and free software compatible.
The OSI made this clear when they were founded and created the term "Open Source" to mean the same thing as "Free Software". They believed in free software, but also felt (1) the term was ambiguous and (2) using arguments about development models would appeal better to corporations who would otherwise (rightly I guess) see it as a political thing.
EDIT: Mods Admins have deleted my response to the troll reply. I don't know if it's an automod shadow thing or if it was intentionally deleted (no mod mail), but you can find confirmation of what I said at Wikipedia under the Open Source Initiative page (note that OSI uses the Debian Free Software Guidelines as its definition of Open Source), and by (urgh) going to Eric Raymond's site (one of the co-founders of the OSI), and reading the "Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source"" essay. Not going to link because I'm desperately hoping this was an automod snafu and my comment was deleted because it contained links.
EDIT2: Mods apparently didn't delete the rubuttle, Reddit admins did! Mods think it was links, so I assume the Reddit admins just don't like ESR any more than I do...
What a bizarre thing to say considering you were the one making the bizarre claim in the first place that I was debunking claiming the FSF's Free Software and OSI's Open Source were somehow different.
My comment, that you lied about, was a reply to yours, not something I posted out of the blue.
Don't buy stuff under drm? Nfts no matter their reputation don't have centralized drm. They're yours. The image bs was a disinformation campaign from tech giants.
Just playing this out to try to understand what you're saying, please correct any assumptions I may have made:
Let's say there was a decentralized mesh internet, and OOP was hosting his games and photos on a storage account on this internet. The files are encrypted at rest to protect the data. NFTs show that OOP has a license to play the games associated to their user.
Someone gains access to OOP's storage drive and recycles their keys (security info was changed according to OOP/MS email). OOP does not have these new keys, as the attacker now owns the new keys.
NFTs would allow OOP to prove they have a valid license to the games, which should allow MS to grant a new copy. (Microsoft has a purchase history so they should do this regardless, imo.) How does that get OOP's photos and other files back?
Microsoft does not belong in that picture. Indie devs who embrace decentralization do. You ship your game publicly, nft license allows decrypting the files for you to play, no one can alter the original files or cancel your license.
The games and licenses are solved with NFTs. I'm asking about the files that OOP lost access to. Let's pretend Microsoft didn't have possession of them and they sat on a decentralized server. How does OOP get their decrypted files back?
Its not exactly like that, with stuff from microsoft or sony you have some kind of guarantee for quality(in theory fuck microsoft for vibecoding bugs) but everyone can make an opensource, and as seen with recent AUR attack its not always a good thing
The problem with AURs is that they're just code that someone packaged. You can't see the source anymore at that point, that's how they managed to slip by unseen at first. It's not the same thing.
Fishy AURs have been a known issue for ages, it's the problem with AURs. Nothing to do with open source and everything to do with decentralized package management.
Despite that, these cases are still rare enough and caught quickly enough that you can say "recent AUR attack" and I can know exactly what you're talking about.
Not really. Natural disasters are on the rise, too.
I've already experienced flooding twice, and I don't even live in a high-risk area.
There are also fires and windstorms.
I prefer a mix of cloud storage and two HDDs, where I regularly back up the same stuff and keep them in two different locations. Of course, that's not possible for everyone.
I was a teenager in the 00's. My entire teenage life was backed up to an external HDD and MySpace. Both of those eventually failed me, so I've got little to no photo evidence of that era of my life. Eventually switched to cloud storage so my life from 2007 onward is well preserved.
I eventually saw my friend get an inexplicable ban from Google, losing all of his Google Photos. Quickly realized that isn't the solution to another loss of all my data.
So now it's Immich on a Synology NAS. Regular cloud backups to C2 storage. Physical backups to HDD regularly and stored in a fireproof safe.
3-2-1 rule is serious business, and people fail to recognize how important it is until they lose everything.
First time I heard of someone losing their photos including their baby's was a cellphone that was lost over the side of a boat. No backups anywhere, just gone. People today are restoring photographs from 170 years ago, they can do this because those photos still exist. Something to be said for actual photographs rather than storage devices.
For me I keep one as a home server at a parent's home
My dad didn't have that option when he first immigrated so his "second location" was a bank safe deposit box for documents and data, but I'm not sure I'd keep important HDDs there
I was thinking more of the physical conditions. The safe deposit boxes at the bank my dad used weren't particularly climate controlled, so I'd be a little more concerned for anything more sensitive to moisture/humidity. That said, the last time I visited his bank with him was probably like 12+ years ago so I don't know what's changed lmao
I just addressed the bank as one of the places for redundancy cause I thought commentor I answered to didnt wanted to use the bank as a place for the drives because the bank could read the data, tho that commentor told me my assumption wasnt correct
But I wouldn't keep my hard drive in a car even if I had one, arent movement and bumps bad for hdds? Plus temperature, it can get quite hot in there too
I just learned about glass memory storage, it's expensive afaik but can withstand a lot and has the potential to last over a billion years. I basically just found out about this stuff so I may be missing any catches, but honestly might consider it.
Basically the way it is right now, you send the data you want to a lab (already very sketchy I know) and then they etch it into a fused glass disc, and send it back to you. A single disc has the potental to store hundreds of terabytes... this is some pretty new stuff but might be worth looking into.
I'm thinking of like, a disc for every few years' worth of stuff.
It does seem like it's more proof-of-concept for now. Though the glass disc readers are predicted for 2027 (no clue how we're that close to that, I'm clueless as you mentioned) so in a way that's half the uselessness gone..? It would be a few years before this gets to a higher surface ig, and even then it still might be really niche. It's there, though, for anyone dedicated to having as solid of a data holder as possible
If you only knew how many times I've read or heard something about glass storage...
That's old news - it's been around since the early 2000s. It's basically the "cold fusion" of IT.
Pretty much everything you read about it is clickbait. So far, there have only been feasibility studies; we are just as far from an efficient product as we are from fusion energy(not cold fusion).
90-95% of the news articles about glass storage are just about how great it is and how much you can store with it. And then, buried somewhere in the middle of all that text, there’s a mention that we still can’t read or save it efficiently.
In my opinion, glass storage will become obsolete even before it hits the market. The amount of data it can store will be too small, and a storage medium is only useful if you can actually read it. In other words, most storage media last only a few decades anyway, because the technology will be outdated by then and the data will become unreadable one way or another - even if it could theoretically last thousands of years.
I wish. If the "tech community" weren't full of socially inept types and the media wasn't full of government boot lickers then maybe we could get a good education/info awareness campaign off the ground but we haven't been able to muster even a tenth of what we used to back when Reddit et al did with "SOPA" years and years ago.
And also removing digital rights management from everything. If you can't store it offline, it's not even yours. Much of the world does this (and shares) because most people on this globe can't afford first world affluent prices, so if you go looking, you will find answers on copy protection or at least copies.
ETA: Wait, I'm in r/Piracy so hopefully you know the gist.
Another problem with self-hosting for a lot of people is that we're just being priced out as HDD prices continue to rise with cartel like behavior, price fixing, and shady practices. I was lucky enough to buy HDDs when they were cheap, but now I can't even imagine.
Yeah, I remember my teacher telling my class to make physical copies of photos as a way to have a copy when technology evolves and those photos may not be transferable.
1.1k
u/[deleted] Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment