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 qubes-users@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to