On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 12:17:41 -0800 (PST) Yuraeitha <yuraei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think discussion is good and healthy, though I don't feel it's entirely > fair to paint it black > and white like this. I can agree on many problems, but I think they look very > different in > different light and perspectives, so lets try shake it up a bit. I'm not > claiming to be right, > this is just my perspective of things. > > The ancient city Rom wasn't build in one day, it took many decades and even > centuries. And as > awokd said, the security in Qubes is rapidly evolving in short time, which is > hard to deny. Qubes > is heavily disrupting the security industry, which has been too stagnant and > slowly reactive > developing over many years, rather than a proactive forward looking > perspective, which Qubes has. > > The priority is first and foremost security, right? Everything else besides > that is pretty much > secondary or lower. Ease of use and emotional related things, such as good > looking and appeal, > will come even lower than secondary (don't get me wrong though, I do love > good looking systems > too my self). > > While the Qubes OS team could need more funding and donations, I don't think > they are feeling > ready yet to go and market themselves before the security is on an even > higher level. And this I > think is very justified in a logical sense seen from an understanding of > market perspective, once > you start market it, if the security isn't good enough, then Qubes will just > become a short-lived > fire-fly that only lives 24 hours, before everyone forgets about it again. > For proper marketing, > you need to be ready before spreading the hype. This is why many open source > projects dye out > too, they don't live long enough to be ready to deliver, or they deliver too > early or too late. > As I see it, the Qubes developers are currently doing a good job enduring. > Security is also the > main target group to begin with too, so I feel it's overall very justified to > focus all their > energy on security and secondary ease-of-use problems, important mainstream > hardware support, and > so on. > > We're in early times, and as I see it, currently the fundamentals are being > build in Qubes. The > structure which everything else ontop will be changed in the future. I think > it's very wrong to > look at Qubes 4 as how Qubes will look like in the future. This is a deep > mistake from other > Linux OS's which are very conservative, unchanging, and by all means have an > ingrained reactive > thinking pattern, rather than proactively thinking pattern. I think the Qubes > developers have a > good forward looking foresight, and this is part of the reason why I like it > so much. But for > this reason too, Qubes is often misunderstood if they do things in Qubes 4, > which may first show > its full potential in Qubes 5 or Qubes 6. > > There is also the question of how much of this is upstream issues? Not > everything is Qubes to > fix, and it certainly would be ill advized to start doing what for example > Red Hat is doing and > change the code, which has to be done everytime a new update arrives from > upstream. Although I > have to admit I have little understanding of codes. > > Also currently we're still seeing rapid development of security in Qubes, and > it's still going. > The primary developers of Qubes are busy, so I don't think it's justified to > say any should shift > focus to fix lower priority nice looks and appeals, like icons (although I do > enjoy good looking > systems, but it's too soon as there are other things to be done in Qubes > first). Why are other > developers from the outside not helping with this? The Qubes developers are > busy enough with the > security aspect as it is after all. Also if more people helped, and more put > up donations > (avoiding too early wide-spread hype though, there is a good timing for > everything), then perhaps > we can get issues fixed like missing icons, and so earlier than otherwise. > > Which programs and apps can't you run in Qubes? I mean, I can even run > Android with Android > apps, it's pretty amazing. What sort of programs do you have that can't run > that well on Qubes? > Maybe it can be fixed? > > Lets not forget, Qubes 4 was about future-proofing Qubes. Currently many > things need to be > fixed again after having ripped everything apart and putting it together with > many new parts and > design shape. Qubes 4 is in many ways, in my understanding, really about > making the upcoming > Qubes 5 and onward possible, which is to say, Qubes 4 may not seem so > special, but I'm sure it > will start to show and build up when we're seeing Qubes 5. > > I agree there are problems, and I'm happy to discuss it too. But we must not > forget to put > everything into different perspectives to see things in different ways. This > too is why > discussions like these are so good and amazing, it can bring out new > perspectives to the mix for > everyone taking part in it. I strongly support this attitude and could re-post it again and again. (: Best regards, R. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/p598fh%24cnh%241%40blaine.gmane.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.