Melpomene

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I swapped to Linux back before COVID after I realized that the few Windows specific tasks I still ran were running in VMs anyway. Since then, I’ve been fully Linux and I’ve rarely needed Windows for anything but installing custom Android ROMS and reading Adobe DRMed files.

Microsoft actually made the process easier by making Office 365 useful. If I need MS Office specifically I can just run it well enough from a browser.

Linux user here, also once upon a time a Windows admin. I think the most difficult thing for most users is not that Linux is difficult, but that it is different.

Take Pop_OS for example. For the average “I check email and surf the web” user, it works wonderfully. But most people grew on Windows or Mac so its just not what they’re used to. Linux is kind of the stick shift to Windows and Mac’s automatic transmission… its not hard to learn, but most folk don’t choose to make the effort because they don’t need to.

I’m a fan of a copyright term similar to the original US copyright term. Fourteen years at the outset, with an additional seven (versus the 14) upon the payment of a fee scaled based on the revenue generated by a work (to be used to support artistic grants.) After all, if the argument is that copyright is necessary to protect artists’ economic interests, it follows that copyright holders wishing to extend should pay back into that system if they want to extend.

Key of the previous comment is reasonable. One might as well say that Trump provided a reasonable basis for denying the election results, or that climate deniers are being reasonable in denying the wealth of evidence supporting the idea of man-made climate change. If we’re willing to reject abjectly idiotic claims in one case, we should be rejecting them across the board whether we like the politics of the person in question or not.

TL;DR: The author is engaging in agenda driven conspiracy porn which they know or should know is false. As such, it is reasonable to assume that they’re either willfully ignorant or acting in bad faith.

And they offer no reasonable basis for distrusting Signal, the tech that they attempt to vilify. Given said dev’s past comments, it is reasonable to infer that the reference to China presents them as an example to be followed here.

TLDR, the thought is that the USA is spying on users of Signal because some early funding came from the US government. But the evidence suggests not; indeed, governments worldwide are targeting Signal et al because they don’t LIKE that they can’t just demand access from providers.

This is posted relatively often, and every time it is posted I feel compelled to note that said dev has not articulated any real reason to consider Signal insecure beyond an implicit conspiracy theory with no real meat to it.

“Signal’s use luckily never caught on by the general public of China (or the Hong Kong Administrative region), whose government prefers autonomy, rather than letting US tech control its communication platforms, as most of the rest of the world naively allows.”

When you’re holding up China as an example for the world to follow for privacy, I have a hard time taking ANYTHING else you’re claiming seriously.

I’m intrigued (Visionary here) but not seeing enough to switch from Tresorit just yet. I do love where this is going, though!

The only sensible solution to this sort of thing is to liquidate any company guilty of this.

I use a Docker install and I only use it for my contact and my calendar, but it works well. Only “issue” that took getting used to needing to sync locally, but sync on-prem is fine… My mobile devices sync without effort when I come home, so… yeah. Great experience.

@Unlucky_Boot3467 This is an interesting read for sure, but I see no concrete evidence in the essay that suggests that Signal is insecure. Signal was never anonymous; users who have Signal accounts (myself included) are well aware that their Signal ID is tied to their phone number. If Signal were not offering the E2EE promised, that would be huge… but nothing in the evidence or the article suggests that that this the case.

To be sure, I think Matrix great. But I have to wonder at the agenda behind the article… indirect initial funding from the US government at the outset, even absent malfeasance on Signal’s part, is bad, while direct current endorsement of Matrix by the French government is… good? to be clear, I consider neither problematic on their own, but there doesn’t appear to be much in the way of logic behind that reasoning.

Overall, I’d like to see us move away from centralized control of communication… and Matrix might in fact be that eventual solution. But that doesn’t mean that Signal isn’t safe for those who understand that it is not, generally speaking, anonymous to use.