Re: Dijkstra's Methodology for Secure Systems Development

[Panicz Maciej Godek]

2014-09-21 13:11 GMT+02:00 Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer <address@hidden>:

[...]
Still, one last political remark from me:

Things are more complicated.  Google might be incapable of evil, but
then they might be a tool of the US government.  Not calling the US
government "evil" either, but consider people like Julian Assange or
Edward Snowden.  Things get unpleasant, and someone with good ideals
ends up being dubbed a terrorist.  And they might not be able to become
part of the government to push their ideals into acceptance, so they
should at least have the ability to discuss them anonymously without
ending up on a watch list.

That's part of the reason I think free software is important, and I
think many people would agree.  (If you don't, or think my reasoning is
flawed, then let's just agree to disagree so we don't continue with OT.)

I think that I'd be insane to disagree with the need for free software.

All I want to say is that FSF has already done a great deal of work by popularizing the notion of free software, and although I wouldn't want to diminish the significance Ian's concerns, it's just too hard for me to believe, that even if we tackle the problem post factum (if we actually are endangered), it will be too late to handle it (but I do agree that I might be deadly wrong with this point. There's even a proverb "mądry polak po szkodzie" -- "a pole is wise only after getting harm").

On the other hand, the idea seems very interesting by itself, and this alone makes it worth pursuing.

If there are people out there who believe that assuring that GCC binaries are free from Thompson virus is crucial part of FSF mission, then I have absolutely no intention to argue with that, although I am strongly convinced that it is reckless if a programmer suffers from malnutrition or neglects personal hygiene at his own will.