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

How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#51

Post by mqus »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #25
graemep wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, but if the exact quote in the GP is correct the claim is claiming the software is "gay, trans and anti-colonialist" and asks you not to use it. Why use a license that is designed to be politically neutral and then ask some people not to use it? What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs. I would also question whether governmen…

> What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs This is the same FSF that in the past has refused contributions from people whose politics include "I would like this software to run on my windows/apple/other proprietary platform". They're extremely political.

But... that software (reaction) is not written by the FSF? They just use it

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#52

Post by charcircuit »

thomzane wrote: post #44
charcircuit wrote: post #33

>Popa botnet It's no more of a botnet than ProtonVPN for example. Apps intentionally added the Popa SDK to their apps as a monetization method. This allows apps without ads and tracking to be financially viable. I would expect FSF to support apps being able to move off of monetization schemes that depend on tracking people so it is disappointing for them to put such alternative monetization technologies in a negative…

This monetization scheme benefits the botnet controller and the developer who added the SDK and not the user who likely did not realize they signed up to become an exit node.

It allows as free versions of apps to be economically viable and compete with others. It helps users because they don't need to be spied on and shown ads to fund the development of the app.

The existence of an app brings users value, else they wouldn't use it.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#54

Post by jasonvorhe »

McGlockenshire wrote: post #36
graemep wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a you even know whether a user was uncomfortable with any of those things? Why would someone with a particular political stance be a heavier burden on maintainers? How would you even know how someone felt - if someone reports a bug it is highly unlikely they are going to add something like "I am uncomfortable with gays" are they? Nor is it going to be in the comments in contributed code. It sounds more like…

[flagged]

> Dude who came up with the term: "The core of what I set out to criticize is just the notion that any random patient stranger should feel entitled to as much of someone's attention as they want."

I don't see how that's related to the topic or issue being discussed though. If you're a maintainer you decide when to shut down a discussion. Someone is annoying/creepy/difficult and wants a feature? Let them fork it, eod. Every escalation afterwards is basically just trolling or harassment.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#55

Post by nemomarx »

charcircuit wrote: post #52
thomzane wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This monetization scheme benefits the botnet controller and the developer who added the SDK and not the user who likely did not realize they signed up to become an exit node.

It allows as free versions of apps to be economically viable and compete with others. It helps users because they don't need to be spied on and shown ads to fund the development of the app. The existence of an app brings users value, else they wouldn't use it.

the fsf has never really been concerned with commercial viability. They're the worst audience for this sort of argument.

and I doubt these apps are really Free versions - do they support user modifications and access to the code? If they did support the four freedoms maybe the fsf would have something positive to say to balance it out?

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#56

Post by ryandrake »

charcircuit wrote: post #52
thomzane wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This monetization scheme benefits the botnet controller and the developer who added the SDK and not the user who likely did not realize they signed up to become an exit node.

It allows as free versions of apps to be economically viable and compete with others. It helps users because they don't need to be spied on and shown ads to fund the development of the app. The existence of an app brings users value, else they wouldn't use it.

Recruiting your users' systems into a botnet is not an acceptable way to make an app "economically viable" any more than, say, installing a rootkit on their systems.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#57

Post by rpdillon »

collinfunk wrote: post #27
BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs This is the same FSF that in the past has refused contributions from people whose politics include "I would like this software to run on my windows/apple/other proprietary platform". They're extremely political.

When did this occur? I am a GNU maintainer, and have never heard such a thing from the FSF. The GNU Coding Standards and other similar texts leave the decision to support non-free platforms up to the maintainer.

It was an emoji solution for Emacs that only worked on Mac. RMS basically said:

"If the point is to promote Free Software, we do ourselves a disservice by making our Free Software work better on a proprietary system than a Free system. Let's include this support when it works on the Free platforms as well."

FSF is political, but only about Free Software. Their goal is to promote it, and I think RMS has shown very clear thinking in this regard. I don't love the decision/outcome (someone did work to make something better and it was rejected), but I get it in service of the larger goal.

To flip the pschology, you could imagine a world where Emacs did way more awesome stuff on Windows and Mac, and the ensuing HN discussion where the obvious snipe appears a dozen times: "lol they keep talking about free software but their own products work better on windows lol".

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#58

Post by worik »

charcircuit wrote: post #33

>Popa botnet It's no more of a botnet than ProtonVPN for example. Apps intentionally added the Popa SDK to their apps as a monetization method. This allows apps without ads and tracking to be financially viable. I would expect FSF to support apps being able to move off of monetization schemes that depend on tracking people so it is disappointing for them to put such alternative monetization technologies in a negative…

"Monetization". What a horror.

I pay for some software services. The services I pay for have a billing page (or a donation page) and I pay via the banking system

I rigorously block every ad, every tracker, every thing that does "monetization"

The evil period of trying sneaky ways to generate money is, I am optimistic, coming to an end.

If you want my money, ask me. If you must have my money, demand it. If you are sneaking around "monetization" I will do everything I can to stop you.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#59

Post by drdexebtjl »

graemep wrote: post #20
Groxx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have preferences while not restricting legal rights.

You can, but if the exact quote in the GP is correct the claim is claiming the software is "gay, trans and anti-colonialist" and asks you not to use it. Why use a license that is designed to be politically neutral and then ask some people not to use it? What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs. I would also question whether governmen…

A license designed to be politically neutral?

The GPL variants are the antithesis of politically neutral.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#60

Post by TurdF3rguson »

Bender wrote: post #15

My personal preference is to 'ip route add blackhole ${net}' as it has the lowest CPU overhead and I can add hundreds of thousands of CIDR blocks with no noticeable impact. The only downside is that it won't stop UDP packets from getting to a UDP listener. There will not be a response but the application will still see it. For my TCP daemons it's great. grep -m1 -E ^Tot /proc/net/fib_triestat ;ip route | grep -Fc bla…

The problem is when you block those "residential proxy bots" you also block real people who just happen to have a dumb teenager on their network playing some free games that are monetized by proxies.

The only real solution to bots is making users log in. And even then you have to fight registration bots.

Post reply on HN