From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alexandre Garreau Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Does service lookup by name work on Windows now? Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 12:03:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87zhrlgi2q.fsf@portable.galex-713.eu> References: <83ef8z6394.fsf@gnu.org> <83bm43620q.fsf@gnu.org> <83a7jn60iu.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-=-=" Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="255756"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus (5.13), GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.22.11) of 2017-09-15, modified by Debian Cc: eliz@gnu.org, Tim Cross , rpluim@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 28 12:03:52 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1go4hi-0014OX-DV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 12:03:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57865 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1go4hh-0001tW-4Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:03:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55483) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1go4hR-0001qF-PV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:03:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1go4hP-0003Es-IC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:03:33 -0500 Original-Received: from portable.galex-713.eu ([2a00:5884:8305::1]:60606) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1go4hP-0003Cq-9U; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:03:31 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=portable.galex-713.eu) by portable.galex-713.eu with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1go4hJ-0001IC-9b; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 12:03:25 +0100 PGP-FINGERPRINT: E109 9988 4197 D7CB B0BC 5C23 8DEB 24BA 867D 3F7F Accept-Language: fr, en, eo, it In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:34:10 -0500") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2a00:5884:8305::1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:232758 Archived-At: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So to make the thing not fully negative, would it be useful to recall that sometimes we make free software work on Windows so that to offer a taste of freedom, and state in this text that in when doing so, we prefer to keep this software working on older versions? Maybe something could be added on the fact that computers should be owned by users and then it should be their choice to get new (anti-)features or not (and to choose between stability and flexibility)=E2=80=A6 be it, preferably, with =E2=80=9Csecurity updates=E2= =80=9D backported on old versions, as it is only possible with free software, and as =E2=80=9Cso= me GNU/Linux distributions=E2=80=9D (so not to cite Debian) already do. Then recalling it is nowadays commonplace for proprietary software to force upgrades (often with multiple anti-features), that this is an anti-feature, that this implies an universal backdoor, and that is a good reason to go GNU/Linux instead of Windows 8/10, so you might hook there the anti-windows-8/10 campaign. Also something, maybe too much but still: forced upgrades are often described by software editors as a =E2=80=9Cfeature=E2=80=9D because it all= ows to correct =E2=80=9Cbugs=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Csecurity holes=E2=80=9D that are= client-side: for instance, a glitch in a game that allow for a user to cheat in their own interest, or more commonly they notice spam, or harassement, begins to appear in their =E2=80=9Capplication=E2=80=9D, so they =E2=80=9Cfortunately=E2=80=9D = and happily update so to allow censorship *on the clients that cause the problem*. So instead of having some clients capable to block other users, or to detect cheat (which may be seen as a feature), they make the application sending the spam unable to work or send anything (while this is still technically possible if they knew the protocol), or the game unable to cheat: in each case, the (anti-)=E2=80=9Cfeature=E2=80=9D is made so that t= o go against the will of the user that gets the update. This is also a wrong way of approaching security, as it keeps protocols and receiver-clients (rather than whole clients or their emitting part) dumb, insecure and inferior. A thing that is impossible with free software (you just download the old version, or change the software, and exploit the protocol again: so you *have* to fix it reader-side, or protocol-side). --=-=-= Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="==-=-=" --==-=-= Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

So to make the thing not fully negative, would it be useful to recall that sometimes we make free software work on Windows so that to offer a taste of freedom, and state in this text that in when doing so, we prefer to keep this software working on older versions?

Maybe something could be added on the fact that computers should be owned by users and then it should be their choice to get new (anti-)features or not (and to choose between stability and flexibility)=E2=80=A6 be it, preferably, with =E2=80=9Csecurity updates=E2= =80=9D backported on old versions, as it is only possible with free software, and as =E2=80=9Cso= me GNU/Linux distributions=E2=80=9D (so not to cite Debian) already do.

Then recalling it is nowadays commonplace for proprietary software to force upgrades (often with multiple anti-features), that this is an anti-feature, that this implies an universal backdoor, and that is a good reason to go GNU/Linux instead of Windows 8/10, so you might hook there the anti-windows-8/10 campaign.

Also something, maybe too much but still: forced upgrades are often described by software editors as a =E2=80=9Cfeature=E2=80=9D because it all= ows to correct =E2=80=9Cbugs=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Csecurity holes=E2=80=9D that are= client-side: for instance, a glitch in a game that allow for a user to cheat in their own interest, or more commonly they notice spam, or harassement, begins to appear in their =E2=80=9Capplication=E2=80=9D, so they =E2=80=9Cfortunately=E2=80=9D = and happily update so to allow censorship on the clients that cause the problem.

So instead of having some clients capable to block other users, or to detect cheat (which may be seen as a feature), they make the application sending the spam unable to work or send anything (while this is still technically possible if they knew the protocol), or the game unable to cheat: in each case, the (anti-)=E2=80=9Cfeature=E2=80=9D is made so that t= o go against the will of the user that gets the update. This is also a wrong way of approaching security, as it keeps protocols and receiver-clients (rather than whole clients or their emitting part) dumb, insecure and inferior. A thing that is impossible with free software (you just download the old version, or change the software, and exploit the protocol again: so you have to fix it reader-side, or protocol-side).

--==-=-=-- --=-=-=--