This talks about one issue. You seem to be confident that this one case is representative of the whole FOSS space? I am not.
Can you elaborate how it would be much easier in closed source software? Because as far as I can see, it's different. In most cases, you need an actual person instead of an online persona, pass interview and contracting, and then you're still "the new guy" or Junior in the company or project. It's not like closed off from public eyes means anyone can do anything without any eyes.
At the end, pointing to their Bugzilla issue tracker
I've always found Bugzilla incredibly inaccessible. It's so overloaded, so complicated, so noisy with unrelated and irrelevant things. It always baffled me how projects use it and keep using it, and especially projects like Thunderbird and Mozilla, for such a long time.
I regularly use bug trackers, to report, comment, or work on. When I see Bugzilla, in most cases, I give up/leave right away.
Consequently, I find it ironic that they point to Bugzilla at the end.
That being said, I think this video is a good intro to accessibility, common issues, and study findings.
How do you guys view Bugzilla as an issue tracker, bug tracker, and work task tracker?
This assembly language source code represents one of the most historically significant pieces of software from the early personal computer era. It is the complete source code for Microsoft BASIC Version 1.1 for the 6502 microprocessor, originally developed and copyrighted by Microsoft in 1976-1978.
If you want to talk about possible risks to your supply chain, a single maintainer that’s grossly underpaid and overworked. That’s the risk. The country they are from is irrelevant.
Total nonsense.
A good open-source maintainer won't act maliciously, even when underfunded, until they are forced to.
A FOSS project that is underfunded has its own problems. But if it becomes unmaintained, you can take over or react. The other risks are assessable.
Russia is an oppressive regime that continuously attacks other parties through hybrid warfare. Who knows what environment and pressures the maintainer is under? The more important the project is, the more value it has as an attack surface.
How can they think and publicize "nah, underfunded is more important"? And even going further than that, claiming the country is irrelevant?
If you want to talk about possible risks to your supply chain, a single maintainer that’s grossly underpaid and overworked. That’s the risk. The country they are from is irrelevant.
Total nonsense.
A good open-source maintainer won't act maliciously, even when underfunded, until they are forced to.
A FOSS project that is underfunded has its own problems. But if it becomes unmaintained, you can take over or react. The other risks are assessable.
Russia is an oppressive regime that continuously attacks other parties through hybrid warfare. Who knows what environment and pressures the maintainer is under? The more important the project is, the more value it has as an attack surface.
How can they think and publicize "nah, underfunded is more important"? And even going further than that, claiming the country is irrelevant?
I deliberately chose KeePass with no Webbrowser extension and no cloud service that other password managers and password manager services provide to reduce risks.
Webbrowsers are very interconnected tech with non-obvious relations and risks. Having my webbrowser access my password database feels inherently irritating.
Webbrowser's own password managers with optional sync have the benefit of auto-fill only being offered for the correct domain names. But I'd never store my critical passwords in them.
Having to launch a separate password manager, enter a long master key, and then copy-paste/trigger-auto-type the content from it is cumbersome, but the only way to add a reasonable robust separation.
This is the next level of learning. Not only do you read how it is, you have to deduct, to assess and explore. Writing your own documentation is the best way to learn after all.
I've not used it much, I think I only had to use it in two instances due to customers. From what I remember, the structure and navigation was not hierarchical making navigating very inefficient and irritating.
I'm used to GitLab (and Phabricator in the past, and outside of work GitHub), and much prefer their repo, project, group representation and review UI/UX/workflow.
The beginning of Aperture Science