[HN Gopher] EU countries pledge to promote OSS within public adm...
___________________________________________________________________
EU countries pledge to promote OSS within public administrations
[pdf]
Author : fermigier
Score : 228 points
Date : 2022-03-19 09:51 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.transformation.gouv.fr)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.transformation.gouv.fr)
| deknos wrote:
| only marketing yadda yadda
| marcodiego wrote:
| Sometimes I think about governments paying for proprietary
| software. I wonder why not FLOSS? The answer I estimate: "There's
| no FLOSS replacement". Then I think: "Why not pay for the
| development of a replacement?", the answer I estimate: "Because
| it would be even more expensive than using proprietary software.
| Which takes me to the next question: "Why don't many government
| unity to pay for FLOSS development?"
|
| For the last question I never got a reasonable answer. Probably
| the answer is just lack of coordination. If FLOSS became a need
| thing in even a small group of governments, I'm sure dependency
| on proprietary software in the public sector would diminish and
| that is a very good thing.
| specialist wrote:
| My one experience with a FOSS consortium was terrible.
|
| I got hired by a uni explicitly to work on FOSS. The project
| was Kuali Student. I didn't care about the stack, the language,
| or methodologies. I only cared about FOSS and governance. I
| wanted to learn how these orgs work.
|
| Amongst many, many other problems, Kuali is the living
| manifestation of Byran Cantrill's wisdom about why OpenSolaris
| failed: Although our team had the right to fork, we didn't have
| the power. So we couldn't ever fix stuff, nor feed patches
| upstream. We were reduced to mitigating and workarounds. For
| _years_.
|
| I fear that humans don't (yet) we have the governance
| _technology_ to make FOSS consortiums viable.
|
| If anyone has success stories, please please share.
| marcodiego wrote:
| There are many FLOSS projects with contributions from many
| different players from the 'industry'. From the top of my
| head a few complex ones: linux, gcc, llvm and apache.
| [deleted]
| specialist wrote:
| What governance models do they use? Any run as a
| consortium? Any orgs suitable for otherwise unrelated govts
| and agencies (local, county, state, fed)?
|
| I'm most familiar with Apache. While some individual
| projects do well, most do not. Any ideas what accounts for
| the different outcomes? Has anyone since adopted Apache's
| structure and governance?
|
| (I should probably read up about the orgs behind gcc and
| llvm. Clearly, llvm is doing something right.)
| unilynx wrote:
| Governments are terrible at scope and requirements. Bring 10
| local governments together to run development of a new FOSS
| software thingy and you'll get something that none of the 10
| would ever use in practice, if it ever gets finished at all
| marcodiego wrote:
| Imagine a few governments donating some million dollars for
| LibreOffice every year for a decade. Wouldn't it make a
| difference?
| [deleted]
| qualudeheart wrote:
| What does the supply chain security for open source software look
| like? I would expect more attempts to compromise open source
| projects.
| ramboldio wrote:
| 30 years out it will be probably viewed as 'absurd' that anybody
| would ever operate a democracy on proprietary software.
| majkinetor wrote:
| Not only FOSS should be promoted in use (as in PostgreSql) but in
| making (as in budget execution platform). Anything custom made
| for the gov MUST BE FOSS as money is from the people, so people
| MUST own it. Vendors should earn on initial development, and
| eventually subsequent support/consultation/upgrade if it happens
| (i.e. work exceeds gov capacity).
|
| Big vendors that now get to do this via tenders do not have best
| interest in mind for the government (as it contradicts profits
| most of the time) and consequently people suffer. Also, there are
| usually independent levels of government that need to use the
| same or similar software (now they each order it from
| _independent_ vendors so there are multiple platforms doing the
| same /similar thing each payed by tax money). Not to mention that
| they have access to local production data by necessity.
|
| This could be further organized to include academia that could
| use those projects to bring on new generation of developers,
| security testers etc. There is really no down side to this, only
| benefits, along with less Oracle yacht racing.
|
| I congratz Bulgaria for making those efforts and it looks like
| they succeeded: https://futurism.com/bulgaria-amends-law-to-
| require-open-sou...
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Big fan of the Foundation for Public Code!! They help
| coordinate FOSS efforts between governments.
| https://publiccode.net/
| Semaphor wrote:
| I thought this went well with Germany's Corona Warn App [0],
| which even resulted in a fork of the android app [1] that has a
| few more features, but most importantly supports more devices
| and works with microG instead of Google services.
|
| Now, if the resulting service and maintenance fees in the
| millions are fair, is another question. But the open source
| work was great.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/corona-warn-app
|
| [1]: https://codeberg.org/corona-contact-tracing-germany/cwa-
| andr...
| Rayhem wrote:
| > Anything custom made for the gov MUST BE FOSS as money is
| from the people, so people MUST own it.
|
| I tend to think the same way/hold the same ideologies, but is
| this really "true"? Something like, say, a tank is also
| produced by money from the people, but it's quite a stretch to
| demand that the people own it. Why is software different?
| squarefoot wrote:
| > Anything custom made for the gov MUST BE FOSS as money is
| from the people, so people MUST own it.
|
| This should also include the operating systems and associated
| tools used to run such software. Right now there are countries
| around the world shoveling loads of money to alternatives
| because they suddenly realized Kaspersky can't be trusted.
| majkinetor wrote:
| It seems that Bulgaria allows for usage of proprietary
| mainstream tools (such as Sql Server) but doesnt recommend
| it. Custom made software MUST be FOSS tho. which is IMO good
| middle ground. Also, that law was adopted 6 years ago. FOSS
| is stronger then ever IMO now, and there is really no reason
| nowdays to use propriatery stuff for majority of things.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| It would also be a huge incentive for developers to turn to the
| public sector.
| majkinetor wrote:
| It is also VERY patriotic thing to do for your country -
| bring out your best brainz and make stuff better for your
| people, instead of promoting more insidious forms of it that
| we can witness today first hand.
|
| I would very much like to see countries on GitHub the way we
| have organizations now (or GitLab as its core is FOSS).
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| There is a problem with this though. FOSS licenses (by OSI
| standards) demand that you should have the right as a user to
| redistribute that software and that the license should be non
| discriminatory. Now I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
| as a government licensing your custom built missile defence
| system control software as open source is not a good idea,
| because you probably want to restrict it's distribution for
| very good reasons. While this is an extreme example there are
| lots of other bits of software that you might not want to give
| away to your geopolitical rivals. So no, OSS has its place in
| government, but it shouldn't be universal.
| majkinetor wrote:
| Defense is always exception, even in non FOSS. This is very
| bad example.
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| No it's a very good example to your argument that "Anything
| custom made for the gov MUST BE FOSS" precisely because it
| is an exception, and an obvious and absurd one. That there
| is such an example makes a mockery of your position. See
| reductio ad absurdum.
| tnzk wrote:
| > Anything custom made for the gov MUST BE FOSS as money is
| from the people, so people MUST own it.
|
| I like and agree on this, but just out of curiosity is it more
| reasonable to attribute the rights for the software to only
| taxpayers if the rationale is just about where the money come
| from?
| riedel wrote:
| This sounds good, however, the biggest problem is
| sustainability of FOSS if there are commercial alternatives.
| FOSS needs to be simply made competitive and agencies need to
| get their procurement processes straight. FOSS is already
| better and cheaper in the long run, but commercial companies
| will likely win most bids. FOSS is IMHO no value in itself,
| but it has value if used and supported by govs and it is just
| procurement that has gone all wrong.
|
| Edit: to explain the value thing: just look at all the crappy
| FOSS build by many H2020 funded projects(there are
| exceptions) You can waste money also for building FOSS.
| Particularly if companies building it see no value in
| maintaining it and nobody has incentives to jump in.
| majkinetor wrote:
| Vendor sustainability is questionable at best. I hear this
| most of the time, that those companies will be there in 20
| years when the world turns upside down and you can always
| hunt them for fixes, support etc.
|
| In practice, however, at least in my country, it doesn't
| happen. Vendors of course gamed the system.
| c0balt wrote:
| I would like to throw in the often used "Public Money = Public
| Code". I personally agree with your sentiment but would like to
| throw in that an open source, but not open contribution,
| similiar to SQLite may be a good addition for using OSS at this
| level.
| wallfacer120 wrote:
| "Public Money = Public Code"
|
| That's a deepity. It means nothing.
| fsflover wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30733914
| majkinetor wrote:
| Open contribution? What is that?
|
| Any MR must pass automatic tests, independent project lead
| and dev review, have RFC/ADR/discussion etc. Why should it
| matter who did the code?
|
| Lets take for example how PowerShell is governed on GitHub -
| what is wrong with that model?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Open contribution? What is that?
|
| For example SQLite is open source but not open
| contribution. It would not accept a pull request from
| someone outside the team.
| mynameismon wrote:
| > Why should it matter who did the code?
|
| Largely licensing issues. For example, from SQLite's
| copyright page [1]:
|
| > In order to keep SQLite in the public domain and ensure
| that the code does not become contaminated with proprietary
| or licensed content, the project does not accept patches
| from people who have not submitted an affidavit dedicating
| their contribution into the public domain.
|
| [1]: https://sqlite.org/copyright.html#notopencontrib
| debugnik wrote:
| That's not any different from the many open source
| projects that require a CLA.
|
| Also, SQLite would have it easier if they had chosen, or
| written, an actual open source license rather than a
| public domain dedication considered invalid in many
| countries; they even sell "yes this was meant to be open
| source" warranties.
| harikb wrote:
| There is an interesting discussion here [ 1 ] although this
| particular project has since modified their stance
|
| Summary from thread
|
| 1. Too many small contributions takes a toll on core
| developers
|
| 2. Issue of copyright assignment and knowing chain of
| ownership
|
| 3. Social cost when a PR is rejected and the submitter is
| mad.
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25940195
| majkinetor wrote:
| While 1. may be meaningful on mainstream IT FOSS
| projects, this has probably next to 0 relevance to gov
| FOSS services. Issue 2 is solved already. Issue 3. also
| seem irrelevant - I doubt folks other from academia and
| specific nerds will try to PR on gov service given the
| extensive in domain hard to get knowledge that is needed
| for that in genral.
| pfortuny wrote:
| Meanwhile, in Real Life in Spain
|
| https://www.euribor.com.es/2019/05/21/el-congreso-se-gasta-5...
|
| (500.000Eu for ipad pros for the members of parliament)...
|
| How do you mix that with open source software?
| elcapitan wrote:
| OT, but who thought this "declaration style" is a good idea for
| larger texts? To me it seems this is extremely hard to read, and
| makes it almost impenetrable. By putting the verb in the gerund
| and hiding the subject of every sentence somewhere 2 pages above
| this is very effective in obfuscating who wants to do what.
| Clearly no normal citizen could read this.
| jdrc wrote:
| Actually the EU should build common administration platforms for
| all members of EU. There is no reason that each individual
| country is building its own e-government platforms. If they are
| OSS a plus
| beebeepka wrote:
| Well, they should but apparently these things take time. The
| level of incompetence in the public sector here in Bulgaria is
| so obviously mind blowing, it can only mean one thing -
| corruption.
|
| E-government services speed things up and reduce opportunities
| for taking bribes. Of course the mob that ran the country since
| 2009 fought progress on every step.
| ldjb wrote:
| Let's suppose you work in government and want to build a business
| case for using and contributing to FLOSS.
|
| Idealogical arguments will only go so far; the priority is to cut
| costs, make do with limited resources (staff) and ensure systems
| are reliable and flexible.
|
| What do you do? Are there any tried-and-tested approaches? Asking
| for a friend. ;-)
| aaron695 wrote:
| fbkaLP wrote:
| This is a typical EU declaration. Many bureaucrats with their
| snouts in the trough in Brussels work out some whitepaper to get
| billable hours. The city of Munich tried to use Linux until
| Ballmer et al. visited and they backed off.
|
| The EU is a racket for government officials. Most countries are
| worse off than before, wages go down and the middle/working class
| is poor. Government buildings look like palaces next to decaying
| houses of private "citizens" who cannot afford to maintain them
| (if they can buy a house at all in the first place).
| dingdingdang wrote:
| Honestly closer to the truth than is comfortable, even
| improvements to public utilities are routed through private
| companies with such vague contractual agreements that the
| primary losers are the supposed beneficiaries _?!
|
| _ Have seen this up close in Denmark but the tales from the
| rest of the block speak for themselves.
| Ambolia wrote:
| I think the impact of OSS is much smaller now that most people
| use their devices as web browsers to interact with cloud
| applications. It's still important, but just a small part of the
| puzzle, rather than a game changer like it was before in the
| times of doing most activities through desktop applications.
| Bayart wrote:
| All the core software and much of the tooling running cloud
| infrastructure is OSS. The browsers are OSS. The allowable
| space for proprietary software has shrunk significantly.
| josteink wrote:
| > The allowable space for proprietary software has shrunk
| significantly.
|
| Not really. It has just shifted.
|
| All the proprietary software we use today are through various
| SaaS offerings. And that these are built on an OSS base and
| freeloading off all the work and effort invested by
| volunteers into OSS software-components is not something that
| you as a user get to benefit from.
|
| While not illegal or a license-violation in itself, it does
| strike me as somewhat immoral.
| enriquto wrote:
| That is the _exact_ problem that the AGPL solves.
| hughrr wrote:
| Some of the OSS projects originated from and are entirely
| maintained by commercial entities.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I just started working for a small SaaS company that uses
| open source extensively, and I'm of two minds about this.
| On the one hand I agree that we are "standing on the
| shoulders of giants" or perhaps "freeloading" by using this
| software to support a proprietary solution. On the other,
| this is far from glamorous SV software development - it's
| run on a little more than a shoestring and the product is
| fairly small and reasonably priced, so in a sense, we're
| using open source to serve customers very productively by
| focusing only on a narrow solution for them.
| iib wrote:
| This is exactly one of the things the FSF tried [1] for more
| than a decade at least. It is very good to promote free and
| open source software in the public sector, but it seems that
| legislators are again late on the issue (and incidentally that
| Stallman was again early).
|
| [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-
| really-s...
| hannob wrote:
| Quite the contrary. The browsers people use are largely based
| upon open source engines. The cloud applications people used
| are built upon ecosystems of highly successful open source
| projects. Basically every major web development framework is
| open source.
|
| The role of open source has shifted, but it's more important
| than ever.
| kkfx wrote:
| That's why you start hearing FLOSS talking from governments:
| these days FLOSS does not means FLOSS but being able to grab
| free code to serve jails to end users... Proprietary
| development model is not sustainable anymore, and IT giants
| have found the way to sell mainframe-alike systems where the
| users just get dumb terminals, than they push FLOSS.
|
| Today we not only need mandatory FLOSS in the public
| administration: we need a public IT development that push
| back the classic desktop model against the worst-than-
| classic-mainframes cloud model, starting forbidding certain
| web services for the public administration and reaching the
| point of forbidding modern web at a whole.
| kzrdude wrote:
| We wouldn't have cloud applications without open source
| software: FOSS software underpins everything and the reason for
| its success is that there is no fee, it's just free and easy to
| use. It's as if sugar and flour was free for the food industry.
| fermigier wrote:
| From the declaration:
|
| The European Ministers responsible for public administration,
| public transformation and the civil service, with the support of
| the European Commission, declare their intention: [...]
|
| To promote open source software within public administrations and
| their sharing, by:
|
| - Recognising the major role played by secure open source
| solutions in the transformation of public administrations, which
| allow for the pooling of investments among multiple
| organisations, offer transparency and interoperability by default
| and guarantee control over the technologies used as well as
| greater technological independence;
|
| - Leveraging open source solutions to strengthen collaboration
| between public administrations, by promoting the sharing of such
| solutions created or used by administrations within the European
| Union;
|
| - Promoting a fair redistribution of the value created by open
| source solutions, especially for those who produce and share open
| source code.
| gyulai wrote:
| Sounds very wishy-washy. The action verbs here are "recognize
| the [...] role played", "promoting the sharing of [...]
| solutions created/used", "promoting a fair redistribution of
| the value created [...]".
|
| This stuff is so vague that I have zero idea what it's supposed
| to mean in practice.
|
| The language also seems to be quite deliberately referring to
| stuff that's already there, and definitely not saying anything
| like putting more of it into place or systematically favouring
| open source over closed source or anything like that.
|
| Typical Brussels hot air.
| sofixa wrote:
| The EU commission already sponsors FOSS software, directly
| and indirectly ( bug bounty programs), so it's really not hot
| air. Also some EU countries, like France, open source a lot
| of their code ( e.g. the French government SSO is on GitHub).
|
| The language is vague because it's a generic policy to
| follow, not "Portugal will replace all MS Office with
| LibreOffice". That's how policies work, they're generic
| guidelines to follow.
| gyulai wrote:
| When software is developed in house in public
| administration, then open sourcing it, in my mind, is kind
| of a no brainer, because it was financed with the
| taxpayer's money. If they keep it as a "trade secret" it
| most surely won't maximize value creation throughout
| society. They're probably not going to spin it out into a
| government-owned for-profit entity that competes in the
| market. (Might be interesting if it generates a lot of
| profit that relieves our tax burdens, but it really doesn't
| sit right. There are probably laws against that sort of
| thing. Also: Free markets). So that really only leaves open
| source / open data as the only viable path.
|
| The real question is: What sort of circumstances drive a
| government to develop something "in house" that they'll
| later open source, or adopt an open source solution, when
| that competes with giving the government contract to your
| industry cronies.
|
| It would be real nice, if we could get a clear policy
| framework that basically just says: Whenever open source is
| an option, the government must go with open source. But we
| are far away from anyone in power clearly calling for that.
|
| And we've seen some real setbacks where that is concerned:
| For example the city administration of the city of Munich
| had that policy in the late 00s / early 10s, to the point
| where they had migrated 15000 workstations to Linux in
| 2013, shaving EUR10M/yr off the Microsoft tax.
|
| All it took was some government officials getting
| frustrated over a glitch in the e-mail server once in 2017
| and compatibility issues about MS Office vs OpenOffice and
| they reversed course and decided to migrate everything back
| to Windows by the end of 2020. (It definitely had nothing
| to do with Microsoft moving their German headquarters to
| Munich in 2016, if you're naive enough to believe that). --
| Don't know the extent to which that actually happened.
|
| As I'm researching this right now on Wikipedia [2], I'm
| seeing that apparently the new government decided to
| reverse course back to open source in 2020. -- Don't know
| the extent to which they've actually finished/begun
| anything here.
|
| I've also dug into European funding schemes that
| maintainers of open source projects can tap into for their
| own living expenses in recognition of their contribution to
| open source. -- That is incredibly thin. You'd have to be a
| maintainer of a superstar open source project if you want
| even the minutest chance at a one-off stipend of up to
| EUR50k.
|
| Compare that to how science funding works: I travel
| extensively in circles of people who do EU-funded science
| projects and many of them will readily admit that they are
| downright embarrassed by how little value they create in
| return for that funding that they get from the EU. These
| science projects quickly run into the millions, even when
| they are quite small projects, and the total budget at the
| government level is quite considerable. When compared to
| that, the money that they sometimes throw at open source
| seems like a symbolic amount at best.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux
|
| [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux
| fbkaLP wrote:
| I don't know any large successful project that is
| sponsored. Probably some boondoggles run by friends and
| family that go nowhere.
|
| Suspect projects include GAIA X
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAIA-X#Controversies). It
| will probably have the same success as the NHS software
| fiasco, which wasted PS10bn:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-
| records-...
| sofixa wrote:
| VLC and 7zip are among the projects sponsored, so you're
| just spouting nonsense which you could have easily
| verified.
|
| And again, various EU countries open source software
| they've created, or data they have for that matter ( open
| data). Your contemptuous pessimism is fully unwarranted.
| hulitu wrote:
| While 7zip is usefull, VLC is only usefull for movies.
| What is really important is if the OS and the Office
| system is open source.
| okintheory wrote:
| I don't know about this significance of something like this,
| but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I know in Denmark,
| academics have fought to convince regional administrations to
| contract companies to build open source software, but the
| companies push back and try to convince the govt to buy
| closed source instead. That sounds like pressure from above
| could matter. Of course not clear if pledge will create such
| pressure.
| andrewclunn wrote:
| 3 areas I want OSS to have REAL government backing:
|
| - Libre / Open Office because open document standards aid
| collaboration and reverse compatibility.
|
| - Video / audio conferencing because security and the network
| effect there are so important.
|
| - Operating system because if you make the leap to an OS OS then
| all the incentives align to promote usage of open source software
| for everything by default.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| Denmark really needs to step up its game here. We function on a
| public tender system where behemoth private corporations bid on
| public sector solutions (like our digital ID system, public
| childcare app, corona pass, digital post, etc.) None of this code
| is OSS and the result is very shady behavior from certain giants
| (I'm looking squarely at you Netcompany) who hold our digital
| infrastructure hostage.
|
| I've worked directly in this sector as a SWE for a few years now
| and I can tell you it is rotten. We pay vast quantities in taxes
| and what we pay to these parasitic corporations out of our taxes
| is exploitive.
|
| I hope we can turn this ship around but we're so deep in the muck
| I don't know how we can extricate ourselves without getting
| pulled down in the consequent riptide.
| specialist wrote:
| I advocate Citizen Owned Software. Taxpayers must own all the
| software (and stack) that they fund (pay) to develop.
|
| Back when I wrote software for hospitals, we had to put our
| entire stack into an escrow. So that if we disappeared, or the
| relationship ended for whatever reason, our clients weren't
| left high and dry.
|
| Software and stack in escrow should be the norm.
|
| Further, that software should be FOSS.
|
| I'm totally fine with orgs (govt, NGOs, not-for-profits) buying
| COTS. Provided that any and all customizations are citizen-
| owned.
| sylware wrote:
| FOSS alone is no enough anymore, we need lean, simple from all
| perspectives (but able to do a good enough job), and stable in
| time FOSS.
|
| For instance, noscript/basic (x)html browsers are beyond than
| enough for citizen access of administration sites (namely a
| google(blink|geeko)/apple(webkit) should not be mantadory).
| pokepim wrote:
| How can we protect against people like RIAEvnagelist and whole
| node-ipc fiasco who undermine whole point of OSS? Imagine if
| public admin app uses some library written by lunatic? Whole
| goverment system can be target of such terrorist attack.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I had to look up what RIAEvangelist was, but now I've done so,
| I'm not sure why we need protected from it:
|
| https://github.com/RIAEvangelist/peacenotwar
|
| Seems like it's promoting good software security practices?
| smitop wrote:
| At one point node-ipc deleted all files on the filesystem if
| the user had a Russian/Belarusian IP, they have since made it
| non-destructive (just adding a file to the desktop).
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Nothing on the GitHub repo suggests this is true, can you
| link to a reliable source for this info?
| lapinot wrote:
| https://gist.github.com/MidSpike/f7ae3457420af78a54b38a31
| cc0...
| dgellow wrote:
| Proprietary software is very likely to rely on the same open
| source dependencies, also using NPM, pypi, etc, with the same
| baked assumptions that allow for that type of supply chain
| attack.
|
| Just saying that it's a systematic problem in the way we use,
| manage, and consider 3rd party dependencies. And the risk
| already exist right now, without administration promoting open
| source software.
|
| (I don't know how to protect against it at scale)
| lapinot wrote:
| By having reputable sources. And most likely having people
| reviewing upgrades, what you're installing and what the
| building code is doing (and running it in a sandbox). This role
| is usually taken by the distribution's packagers. As some kind
| of users cooperative, distribution have very distinct
| incentives from software vendors. This separation has been
| eroded with the advent of self-publishing "app stores" (like
| the commercial ones, but also by npm, pypi, crates.io etc, and
| by flathub or snapcraft). See [1] and [2] from DeVault on this
| topic. This topic has been solved, it just needs manpower. And
| just because major distributions have some perceived
| bureaucratic overhead doesn't mean it's an intrinsic
| caracteristic. Official repos on arch, alpine and probably tons
| of other distribs are actually updated really quick and really
| simply (and still sometimes have patches applied to them, or
| support files, etc).
|
| [1] https://drewdevault.com/2019/12/09/Developers-shouldnt-
| distr...
|
| [2] https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-
| job....
|
| PS: These aren't "terrorist attacks". It's quite emotional,
| judgmental and not very precise nor meaningful. Some random
| dude pushed malware in a supply-chain attack. From wikipedia on
| terrorism:
|
| > Having the connotation of "something morally wrong", the term
| "terrorism" is often used to abuse or denounce opposite
| parties, either governments or non-state groups.
|
| > It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each
| other as terrorists.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-19 23:02 UTC)