Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sovereign Lumber

mill.plainopen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#11

Post by AtomBalm »

guappa wrote: post #4
pegasus wrote: post #2

A better analogy would be man-hours as lumber, OS and browsers as buildings, IDEs as factories, forges or shipyards and finally end-user software as furniture and the like. As for overcoming the tension between user autonomy and developer compensation, my hope is that evolving decentralized platforms and AI tools will bring about a time when all users can collaborate in the creation and maintenance of most software t…

> my hope is that evolving decentralized platforms and AI tools will bring about a time when all users can collaborate in the creation and maintenance of most software they are using. How would this happen without AGPL licenses exactly?

The US can stop enforcing IP law, which I don’t think has a sound ethical justification in the first place. Ideas and code can’t be “stolen” like physical property. Using copyright law to oppose copyright is a practical tactic, but I wouldn’t say consistently principled.

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#12

Post by MisterTea »

smaller-infinty wrote: post #7

I think that, at least for b2b software, there's a lack of appreciation here for the role compliance plays. The author cites both googles and Microsofts office tools, but they really suck. My fiancee has to use Microsoft, and now I do too; no one likes them! Their janky online office actually deletes text as I type! However, I know that the only reason my company is using it is because it makes compliance really easy…

> security compliance is really more of a box checking activity than anything else.

Yup. Same at my job, new FIPS requirements. Current functional hardware is now e-waste because not compliant. And, of course, the few vendors who do support FIPS are the usual incumbents like MS and Cisco. So buy new Dell hardware with TPMs, Cisco switches, Windows 11 and server 2025. Forced obsolescence and waste stream for check boxes.

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#13

Post by theoreticalmal »

MisterTea wrote: post #12
smaller-infinty wrote: post #7

I think that, at least for b2b software, there's a lack of appreciation here for the role compliance plays. The author cites both googles and Microsofts office tools, but they really suck. My fiancee has to use Microsoft, and now I do too; no one likes them! Their janky online office actually deletes text as I type! However, I know that the only reason my company is using it is because it makes compliance really easy…

> security compliance is really more of a box checking activity than anything else. Yup. Same at my job, new FIPS requirements. Current functional hardware is now e-waste because not compliant. And, of course, the few vendors who do support FIPS are the usual incumbents like MS and Cisco. So buy new Dell hardware with TPMs, Cisco switches, Windows 11 and server 2025. Forced obsolescence and waste stream for check box…

I’d be very curious as to what you’re doing with your old hardware. My homelab is always eager to grow

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#14

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #9
jamalaramala wrote: post #6

The election of Donald Trump shows that the world needs to become independent from the U.S. This is a video about Digital Sovereignty in Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWS8J2Zs7KQ

Posted on an American video sharing site… If this is something you truly believe in, lead by example.

Which platform do you recommend?

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#15

Post by aredox »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #9
jamalaramala wrote: post #6

The election of Donald Trump shows that the world needs to become independent from the U.S. This is a video about Digital Sovereignty in Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWS8J2Zs7KQ

Posted on an American video sharing site… If this is something you truly believe in, lead by example.

Posted on an international video sharing site, with global teams.

But don't worry, the decoupling is happening.

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#16

Post by fads_go »

agree with Svilen_Dobrev, that this could be solved by making certain types of software public infrastructure.

The article says that the main conflict is part one of the OSS license, "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component… [and] shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." Which makes it very hard to sell OSS software (read the article for nuance).

Business cannot do this because the business needs to capture the value (ie. through sales) in order to fund creating the value (the software).

A government, however, would not have this restriction, because they don't need to sell it to capture the value the software creates.

This is, in fact, what government is best at doing and where business fails. Business is great when value capture is linked with value creation, think hamburger stand (the value is the burger, and the customer trades money for burger).

Goverment is optimized for when value creation is separate from value capture. Svilven mentions roads. The burger stand couldn't create or sell the burger without roads to freight in raw materials and customers, but only a fraction of the value of the road network is in the burger. Because the road also supplies value to a number of other enterprises.

So the best way to capture the value of the road is via a similarly diffusive system, i.e. a tax. Government.

And for certain fundamental types of software systems, i.e. web browsers, search engines, messaging services, perhaps a government can build them better than a company. Certainly the economic incentives align better.

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#17

Post by debacle »

> But the best end-user software — the kind for non-technical people — is… sadly… not open-source.

Not open source yet. I firmly believe (and we have lived experientially in the last several decades) that all software will eventually be supplanted by an open source solution that becomes the industry standard.

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#18

Post by debacle »

dluan wrote: post #5

All the tech heads at the inauguration, from the bald ones to the Tim Cooks and Sundar Pichais, participated under the assumption that it would preserve their piece of the pie. Independence, sovereignty, and self-sustainability are going to be big driving factors for how people build for the future now.

Not sure why you are being downmodded. The abrupt about face of Facebook and Amazon/WaPo (and probably Apple, but I haven't seen any evidence there), and even the change in Musk over the last 10 years, shows one of a few realities:

1. Tech CEOs, probably like other CEOs, are easily bought.

2. Tech CEOs are terrified of retributive and/or deserved antitrust action and/or regulation changes from Trump.

3. Tech CEOs never really were the progressive allies of the Left, but needed Trump to make it safe for them to drop the mask.

The likely reality is a combination of all three.

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#19

Post by pixl97 »

smaller-infinty wrote: post #7

I think that, at least for b2b software, there's a lack of appreciation here for the role compliance plays. The author cites both googles and Microsofts office tools, but they really suck. My fiancee has to use Microsoft, and now I do too; no one likes them! Their janky online office actually deletes text as I type! However, I know that the only reason my company is using it is because it makes compliance really easy…

>coming up with requirements that required something closer to real security

Being in security for years now, I'm not sure that's possible. At the end of the day real security is a massive onion with lots of layers. Most of the time I'm dealing with crappy security consultants I would not say their recommendations are made up whole cloth. I would say misapplication of requirements from different security contexts is one of the most common problems, and after that examining shallow issues for checkboxes rather than fundamental issues of applications.

Re: Sovereign Lumber

#20

Post by 1970-01-01 »

Software does not decay, it bloats. The fact that more and more layers of abstraction are now required to be taped over code to get meaningful output is the core issue.
Post reply on HN