/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

Shrug. I think a lot of "freetards" are willing to help, but a lot of that involves the user being willing to work to free themselves. Spoonfeeding isn't going to get anybody anywhere, it's better to teach a man to fish, and even if you bring a horse to water you can't make it drink.

The other part of this is that freedom isn't black-and-white. Viewing "freetards" as only the extremists contributes to the perception that they are unwilling to help others and as a result nobody approaches them for help.

Overall we live in an age of abundant and accessible electronic information. We're not quite at the point where you need to whisper about everything yet, so if you can find out how to do something by yourself then you should.

>Why do freetards get riled up when someone reveals they aren't using GNU/Linux

saying you use windows is like proudly announcing to the world that you fuck bitches all over the world everyday and never use a rubber and that you don't care about freedom.

it makes you literally a lore-correct addition to the idiocracy characters.

>yet never actually helping the wageslaves and SIN-users to improve their systems, their privacy and their security?

liar. troll elsewhere.

we always offer to help people to install gnu+linux.

>yet never actually helping the wageslaves and SIN-users to improve their systems, their privacy and their security?

I'm going to be teaching some people how to install, set up, and use Slackware. I also don't know enough to go about telling people what will make them more secure and more private outside of little guidelines, like having a good hosts file and using a libre OS.

>>34298

>>34303

freetards are a myth to me. You'll always have people with extreme views on software freedoms but generally I think people are pretty helpful if you genuinely want to try gnu+linux. People are always going to have autistic little arguments about the granularity of things like freedom.

I'm going to be putting together and Arch box soon myself and trying to learn the system. Dicked around with Void in a vm and couldn't understand what the hell I was doing but that was fun too. If I run into problems then it's probably better to see if someone else had the same problem, rather than bothering everybody with something that could easily be solved with a websearch.

Otherwise if you're a wage slave you really don't have much of a choice but to use proprietary in an enterprise environment… I doubt most people working in the system see attempting to subvert it as a choice per se.

>>34298

fortunately i use osx

How would freetards feel if I told them I was using a proprietary variant of Solaris on a SPARC server?

>>34327

Well, enjoy yer botnet, I guess.

>>34330

>freetards are so tech-illiterate with anything outside of ganoo/loonix that they don't even know what Solaris is, much less SPARC, without looking it up on goog- er, duckdu- er, startpage

>>34333

Yeah, Solaris is old as shit, just like UNIX. That didn't prevent UNIX from having backdoors, like the master password feature embedded deep down in the compiler.

Why would you mention your CPU architecture, anyway? It's not like there are any worthwhile open architecture designs, nowadays.

>>34334

Because it's nice and obscure. In fact, Solaris on SPARC is such an obscure platform, only really seen on a small handful of enterprise systems (many of them legacy), that you're stupidly safe. Your sustained objection to it indicates that instead of actually worrying about security, freetards (or at least, you) are toting free software as a vague ideological platform - one primarily built on elitism, given that you're not RMS. It's your sekrit klub, something for you to hold over plebs and have dick-measuring contests with.

>>34336

obscurity doesn't matter, what matters is freedom.

>>34343

So this vague notion of freedom outweighs all notions of security?

>>34349

well first off, security through obscurity is a bad practice.

Second off, yes, it does. Luckily I don't have to choose between the two because FOSS is almost always more secure than its proprietary counterparts, at least with popular projects like linux or BSD.

>>34350

>freetards will prioritize their vague ideals over security and privacy

Well, I guess that about wraps up this thread.

>>34292

But if we don't even try to free the masses, who are we to complain about the state of society if we aren't willing to do anything about it?

>we always offer to help people to install gnu+linux.

>>34298

And here we have a freetard.

Protip: You shouldn't use always nor never on any argument, 99.9% of the time you'll invalidate your whole post with them.

>>34354

Some people can't focus on goals and instead think with ideals and emotions.

>>34336

Security through obscurity is bad and won't protect you against targeted attacks.

That said, obscurity doesn't matter at all if what you installed may be already backdoored. Remember that if software has nothing to hide, then it has nothing to fear, but if it has something to hide, it probably is for a reason.

Personally in my eyes if an OS works for you, stick with it. I don't care if it's OSX, Windows, ubuntu, Gentoo, BSD, or whatever. If it works for you then thats it. Why try and make anons on the internet happy by installing Linux if it doesn't work for you? That's like trying to fit a large condom on your dick when you got a small dick. Sure it'll fit but you won't like it. If privacy is an issue for you then find ways around the invasiveness of your proprietary OS. If it's not an issue, congrats you don't give a fuck. go u. But _don't_ try and force an OS onto anyone. That's the most un-schway thing you can ever do as a person. Forcing someone to use windows or linux or apple is an extremely stupid and superficial thing to do.

>>34284

>SIN-users

>not SINners

>>>/out/

Shitposting aside, >>34292 has it right. I'm willing to help, but you have to be interested in *learning* and *changing* first. And that is where most people pull out.

>>34366

I guess that also explains why they get so triggered at the thought of using non-free software.

>>34367

While a nice idea and all, it only applies to software that's free-as-in-free-beer. Anything that you're paying for is not likely to have the source everywhere, because the devs want to make brouzouf. You know, the stuff that life revolves around.

>>34326

OSX a cute. OSX a best.

>>34392

>Anything that you're paying for is not likely to have the source everywhere

Honestly, if I was to install a program which source code has been opened for everyone to see but still has a proprietary non-redistribution license, I would be more or less okay with it. The problem really lies in how much they want to hide their source code.

>But people would just download the source code without paying!

You mean like… current piracy?

>>34385

I thought SINners might trigger sensitive SJW and Fedora users.

>>34380

But a large condom would be useful for someone who cums a lot and thus needs more room (than average on a standard size condom) so that the cum doesn't spill out).

>>34336

Install Plan 9 on that bad boy. Is it sparc or sparc64?

>>34354

>I don't know anything about how security works

clearly you're a dumbass corpcuck.

>>34468

If anything, people watching (and commenting) from the sides how a corp fucks another are the cucks. They should be the ones fucking up the corps.

>>34468

>this software's license is worded in a way I don't like!

>NSA CORPCUCK NORMIE SHILL REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>MY PRIVACY AND SECURITY ARE UNIMPORTANT COMPARED TO THIS GNU/TRAVESTY