Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Kornel

@mattly @stonebear I'm just talking about 2FA. It's perfectly reasonable to require 2FA on all accounts. It's safer to err on the side of requiring unimportant accounts to have 2FA, than risking an important user to have an account compromised.

That is entirely orthogonal to the funding structure. The risk and responsibility exists due to code sharing and trust structures, regardless whether people are paid for it or not.

On Star Trek they'd require you to have 2FA too.

6 comments
Matthew Lyon

@kornel @stonebear And my post is not about 2FA. The point is not that, and you continue to see past it.

Kornel

@mattly @stonebear I've just responded to a single toot that @janl boosted where you wanted to disable 2FA in a tantrum. It's just not a sensible reaction to a reasonable requirement.

There are much bigger problems, but your defiance isn't solving them, and would just create more if 2FA wasn't mandatory.

Kornel

@mattly @stonebear @janl As for your post:
1. You're taking "supply chain" too literally. It's not a good term. The loosely-collaborative software phenomenon that emerged merely got a professional-sounding label slapped on it, even though it doesn't have a good real-world analogy.

The fact that you don't fit a definition of a "supplier" doesn't mean you're not involved in this software-thing, only that the label given to it doesn't properly describe who the participants are.

Kornel

@mattly @stonebear @janl 2. And you've used "FOSS" term for what is OSS, but that's not surprising, since it was designed to be confused.
ESR's OSS has intentionally hijacked FSF's collective ideas to shift them into a system that can easily commercially exploit unpaid labor. The fact that we have a mountain of OSS code for which nobody gets paid, and companies can resell for free is OSS working exactly as intended.

Jan Lehnardt :couchdb:

@kornel @mattly @stonebear for the love of god, please accept that you misread the post and stop.

Go Up