On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:00:03 AM MST Chris Murphy wrote:
This is hyperbole, and turning up the volume isn't going to make
anyone go "oh, ok, now I see your point, it's hostile and we don't
want to do that, let's change it" as if literally everyone reading
this is some kind of moron.
I disagree. The description is a response to the earlier suggestion, that
because something is already insecure, to a certain degree, that it should
just be left that way.
Your position is shown to be weak if you have to use this distinctly
non-objective tactic designed to evoke an emotional response in the
reader. All you're doing is casually dismissing one side of a
balancing act and then claiming the result as proof the policy should
change. Guess what? Saying things does not make them true.
You're welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't make it so. I'm not
dismissing anything.
You should try to understand all of these arguments have happened
before, and if you really want a change to happen, you need a produce
a compelling new arguments.
See my other responses to this thread.
Did the previous working group misunderstand something previously?
It seem so.
Has new information come to light?
Yes, more people have realized what was done by the GNOME spin.
Has the GUI firewall app made UI/Ux improvements that might sway the
working group to re-evaluate?
Possibly, but that doesn't have anything to do with what needs to be done to
provide our users with a more secure default.
By all means shout more. And be ignored. Or do the hard work and put
together a deliberate and compelling argument.
I have been addressing concerns as I see them. If you have a concern I have
not addressed, please feel free to ask.
--
John M. Harris, Jr. <johnmh(a)splentity.com>
Splentity
https://splentity.com/