Why do GNU-males on /g/ care about open sores and free software

>>59602746
/g/ is full of faggots, they think open sores protect them while their hardware is proprietary

>>59602746
Open Source is an admirable thing to use and invest in, however it isn't as polished as most closed-source stuff and proprietary hardware makes the point pretty moot. It's about knowing what your computer is doing at any given time, there is never any ambiguity as to whether or not your computer is sending out any data or performing malicious actions.

teenage mentality manchildren are stick stuck to the delusion of contrarian teenage cancer.

if they had any brain they'd run windows 10 with antibeacon and ooshutup10.

also they'd run mpc-hc with madvr and blueskyfrc.

>>59602799
>you are teenage if you do not use thr software that I use

>>59602763
>>59602783
This.

>>59602822
> I'm a mentally deficient manchild that didn't notice the word "mentality".

>proprietary hardware makes everything moot

Mostly according to theoretical/unsubstantiated claims about hardware secretly connecting to secret cellular bands bullshit.
If any of that were true or easy to do there wouldn't be a huge battle against encryption and software that uses it going on and the most advanced and well funded players in cyber-warfare wouldn't need Jason Bourne guys physically sneaking in and plugging malware thumb-drives into shit.
Just claiming security is dead so we might as well embrace malicious software made by malicious companies and all kinds of shit with secret code constantly networking for god knows why for everything because you "think" your CPU is an open backdoor anyway is retarded and exactly what people who want access to everything want you to do.
If you just don't care then that's a whole other story and you aren't even part of the discussion.
Just like in the physical world, security in the digital realm is about reducing risks and increasing the costs/work necessary for an attacker to breach it.
Nothing is 100% secure, but 80% is a hell of a lot better than 20%.
That's as true today as it was in the days of castles and siege warfare.

>>59603223
> If any of that were true or easy to do there wouldn't be a huge battle against encryption and software that uses it going on and the most advanced and well funded players in cyber-warfare wouldn't need Jason Bourne guys physically sneaking in and plugging malware thumb-drives into shit.

This, + if something really substantial like that was common, someone would probably discover just by looking at the hardware, inspecting it while it does its stuff, etc. Hidden hardware and activity can't be, like, totally undetectable by outside observation - meanwhile, a near-fully proprietary software system may genuinely do just about anything behind the users back.
A hidden connection could even be a (non-cyber) security risk in some cases.

Besides, this "lmao the hardware is proprietary so security means jack shit xd" just seems like an extremely lazy way to justify not caring about security and freedom. There is a true point there - its not like the hardware doesn't matter - but the conclusion that proper software security is useless because of it... ridiculous.

Even if my hardware had some hidden backdoor, that would only give some really small part of the bad guys out there theoretical access to my stuff if they really want it. That is hell of a lot better than what can be achieved without effort put in.

LMAO DUDE JUST USE WINDOWS 10

>>59602746
I dunno, but that faggot needs to stop making youtube videos and fix his kernel.

>>59602746
as a development method it's objectively superior to any proprietary, closed-source approach. it's also ethically irreproachable.

polish, aesthetics and user base are only incidental. there are examples of popular and polished FOSS products and broken ugly proprietary products. anybody who says otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.