[Discuss] CrowdStrike Fiasco

[daniel at syntheticblue.com (Daniel M Gessel)]

I agree that a large number of superficial readings won't find issues 
that fewer, more careful investigations could - whether "free as in 
freedom" software is more reliable, efficient and capable than 
proprietary software (or visa versa) is an unanswered question.

And theFSF does seem to hold a worldview that classifies distributing 
non-free software as a human rights violation, so unreliable, slow and 
incomplete free software is better than any proprietary software. It's 
not a worldview I share (nor would I describe it as utopian) but it's 
consistent.

On the other hand, the world of computing would be vastly different 
without the FSF - I doubt Linux would exist (nor even the notion of open 
source software) without GNU.

And I have to say I use GNU, Linux, and other open source software over 
"proprietary" software because it is technically superior - and I've 
been watching that gap grow and grow over the years.


On 2024-07-25 17:13, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:37:27 -0400
> Ian Kelling <iank at fsf.org> wrote:
>
>> FSF wrote a blog about this which I really enjoyed
>> https://www.fsf.org/news/lets-not-celebrate-crowdstrike-lets-point-to-a-better-way
> Just two points about that, and I acknowledge my anti-FSF knee-jerk
> reaction here.
>
> First, the aphorism that, "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow," is
> demonstrably wrong. Examples include Heartbleed, Bashdoor (aka
> Shellshock), Log4Shell, and the recent regesSSHion bug. Quantity is not
> a substitute for quality.
>
> Second, where the article calls out those who accuse the FSF of being
> utopian, that's not an accusation. It's a description of the
> leadership. To them, a free-as-in-FSF program that does not work is
> superior to a proprietary program which is proven reliable. If the
> free-as-in-FSF software isn't at least as good[*] as the proprietary
> software it's trying to mimic or replace then it's never going to gain
> significant traction.
>
> [*] Where "good" subsumes many factors including functionality,
> suitability for purpose, and vendor support.
>