That Microsoft has restored WireGuard's ability to release updates is good, sure.
But should we really accept a situation in which Microsoft was able to take it away in the first place?
Different people will have different takes, I appreciate, but so much power concentrated in the hands of one private commercial organisation seems... unwise.
The role of "gatekeepers" is nothing new, of course.
And regulatory discourse, in the UK and perhaps elsewhere, seems to be focussed on demanding ever more gatekeeping.
But with great power comes great responsibility, and the power for one company to deny software updates - a power which a company has recently exercised - seems to me to demand an incredibly high degree of responsibility. One which I am sceptical can be satisfied.
I saw a toot, a few weeks ago, which said words to the effect of "some people here seem unreasonably worked up about software and licensing".
It is nice to have fedizens who are not computer geeks. I welcome both of them with open arms.
But this is a good example of why I, personally, care about computing and software Freedom. It is not abstract or irrelevant.
I do not care for this kind of centralised control, even covered deftly in the wrapping paper of "user safety".
If you check, unsigned code will give you a warning, but you can install it.
As compared to all the npm crap that installs without warning off github.
Trying to download an update to LittleNavMap usually triggers a warning, but I trust the author far more than most random stuff on github that's signed.
Neil Brown
barbra