61 karma · joined January 1, 2024
I've seen both - folks who are good stewards of the community's money and add to its energy, and folks who can't manage money and exhaust the community's energy on trivialities.
It sounds like they were never able to bridge the gap of turning the casual interest of folks expressing their counter-culture into enough money to survive. To their credit, it's much better to recognize when they did that the utopian experiment wasn't a viable business, than to try to drag more funds out of folks to keep it on life-support.
That's a big deal to some, no doubt, but it's important to be precise about language in cases like this, especially since folks will undoubtedly assume that this means secret user-hostile things will now be embedded in the source code, sight-unseen.
Who's going to take the risk of appearing to have sat on an important update, while the org they support is ravaged by ThreatOfTheDay, because they thought they knew better than a multi-billion dollar, tops-in-their-field company?
(I'm not necessarily saying that's actually objectively correct, but I can't imagine that many folks are willing to risk the downside)
And in what way would FastMail not be impacted by analogous events? https://www.itnews.com.au/news/fastmail-loses-customers-face...
I do agree that the value of email encryption for 99% of users is overstated, given the fundamental nature of email communications to begin with.
https://www.grc.com/files/technote.pdf
Which, while not directly dated in the content of the document, references a "screaming Pentium II 333 MHz", which would theoretically put it ~1998. Is the claim that operating at a "low level" on hard drives in 1998 is the same as in 2024?
"It doesn't help that Steve Gibson's writing is pervaded by a certain sort of... hucksterism. A sort of ceaseless self-promotion that internet users associate mostly with travel influencers selling courses about how to make money as a travel influencer."
Or substantive critical points about the software, e.g.:
"This gives the flavor of the central problem with SpinRite: it claims to perform sophisticated analysis at a very low level of the drive's operation, but it claims to do that with hard drives that intentionally abstract away all of their low level details."
And I think it's fair to ask someone who is selling a piece of software for $89 to provide some backing for their claims beyond ones that would only pertain to largely-obsolete hardware.
I made the mistake of taking algebra-based physics, then calculus, and only after the calculus course did I realize how much harder I made my life by not starting with calculus (and learning it as the mathematical language of physics).
I'm not saying the government should just take over businesses...but if the government is going to essentially be an investor in a business, it should be at least as rigorous as a private investor would be.
I suspect folks don't like that because it forces middle management to actually decide, for real, who is doing what, rather than allowing multiple different teams to fragment off chunks of what should be a whole (which then lets them both claim personal victory and deflect blame for the whole actually failing)