• 2 Posts
  • 57 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 8th, 2025

help-circle






  • Still, there have been really close calls historically which were only avoided because of some good decisions by individuals (e.g. Vasily Arkhipov. These could happen again with less wise decisions made. Not saying that any countries having them today could be getting rid of them realistically without the US waiting outside their door, but one day when we will hopefully be living in more peaceful times without imperialists, we should be putting them in the time capsule of history along with the system that made them necessary in the first place.





  • This is exactly the post I was trying to find today as I wondered the same thing about Red Hat and IBM having leverage over these projects.

    I don’t know to what extent that happens, but any FOSS project being used to benefit a profit driven company (the software engineering giant IBM in this case) is a big red flag for me.




  • Quoted from the Arch wiki:

    The current situation of anti-malware products on Linux is inadequate due to several factors:
    
        - Limited Variety: Compared to Windows, there are fewer users/clients resulting in limited interest for companies to develop products for Linux.
    
        - Complacency: Many believe Linux is inherently secure, leading to a lack of awareness and focus on malware protection. This creates a gap in proactive defense mechanisms.
    
        - Lack of Features: Existing tools often lack advanced features which are common in Windows anti-malware products, making them less effective on Linux.
    
    This is especially bad because the amount of malware on Linux is increasing just as the possible attack surface due to the increasing number of Linux-based servers and IoT devices.
    Currently on Linux one of the few existing and actively developed anti-malware solutions is ClamAV.
    

    There is no inherent mechanism that makes your system secure to viruses just because it’s Linux. This is mostly said because, Linux being a small percentage of desktop users, it’s not yet common for hackers to target Linux systems because it’s not worth the hassle when you can just target a much larger audience on Windows that is on average much less tech literate too.

    But as Linux popularity grows, viruses will start popping up on Linux as well, so it’s never a bad idea to use ClamAV. You are already more protected when you use package repositories instead of downloading executables from websites like you do on Windows, and Linux has better file system permissions, but you still need to be careful what you’re downloading and running.







  • It’s one thing for a company to train a model with your code and then create a better copy of what you made and sell it for profit (which I think is an unrealistic thing to happen if their codebase is depending on AI slop code), and it’s another thing that an AI is providing access to public information (the code) that you previously monetized to help people understand it better. I really don’t see how that monetization model would have worked regardless of AI existing, at some point there are going to be enough people out there that understand the code that can build documentation of their own for free. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t see how this violates a GPL license either.

    The only thing FOSS projects have to be wary of about AI is slop pull requests, but code review still had to be done before LLMs existed anyway.

    Also my two cents about the threads regarding Tailwind is that, what FOSS devs wanting to live doing what they do should really hate is not AI making it harder for them to monetize their projects in odd ways, but capitalism requiring them to monetize anything they do for them to be able to live while doing it. FOSS devs should be able to hand out their creations to society without worrying about putting food on the table, their work is no less valuable than that of any engineer working for the big corporations.