@mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2026-05-02 13:59 UTC
@phnt@fluffytail.org @icon_of_computational_sin@mstdn.starnix.network
>Fully trustworthy vendor and non-vulnerable software does not exist.
That's not the point. The point is transparency that you aren't a piece of scum that leaches out your customers and wish to provide actual problem solving.
> The world you are thinking of isn't real,
So is the one you describe.
>for many things are you stuck with some vendor and or some other vendor and that's it
Yes and when did you start to work to counter that bs ?
Right now I have work so that a city hall can migrate to GNU/linux and they're stuck because they use a SaaSS that requires hard dependency to windows while it's all in a fucking browser.
Short them solution: vm microslop to mitigate.
Long term: changing software.
Longer term: lobby representatives.
>or you can build your own, which usually results in something even worse.
Worse than default win11 and passwords being 123456 level ?
Replies (1)
-
@phnt@fluffytail.org 2026-05-02 14:00
@mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world @icon_of_computational_sin@mstdn.starnix.network Btw, the context for this thread is Copy Fail on irc.nishi.boats. It's about trusting Linux and the broader ecosystem around it such as GNU. You cannot fully trust Linux nor GNU as vendor, because you cannot fully audit and prove it.