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".
Yes, I want software to work - and it can't work if someone stops me from getting updates :)
(You might rephrase the bit about the "grandmother test", in favour of something less sexist / ageist!)
@foxbasealpha
> you’ll only get updates of open source software as long as their are people willing to maintain it.
Indeed. And if the current maintainer does not want to do it, and no other person wants to do it, and I cannot do it, and I cannot find anyone to pay to do it, then yes I have a problem. But I have far more options that if it were closed source.
But, crucially, the risk of someone being willing to do it, but a third party stepping in to block them, is also much lower.
@foxbasealpha @neil funny enough, I’ve been recommending Linux as a better alternative for grandmas for a couple of years now 
It think it works best for people who are either really into it (Linux enthusiasts) and for people with no tech literacy at all. You can set grandma up with a web browser and email program on Linux and she’ll never need OS help again. No bitlocker errors, pdf reader pop up ads, full page windows upgrade prompts, no way to stuff it up.
I think where Linux can fall flat is everybody else. People who need to use specific stuff that’s not in a web browser (art, streaming have been issues for me with Linux) games outside of steam, or competitive pvp games, music production and so on.
> for people with no tech literacy at all. You can set grandma up...
Please do consider using less sexist, ageist language here!
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.
@[email protected] @Slash909uk @neil
The UK government publishes the required solution and its mandatory features. The supplier selects whichever compliant product fits within the allocated budget, provided it has a commercial support contract.
EDIT. It appears this was misunderstood. To clarify: the UK govt doesn’t mandate what product/license the supplier should use. Hence FOSS isn’t taking hold. The focus is only on meeting functional requirements
What about VeraCrypt? 🥺
Considering the amount of investment that American tech companies are getting from anti-democracy outfits like Koch Network and from oppressive petrostate despots, it's prudent to move away from these platforms quickly.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/feb/18/international-criminal-court-icc-judges-trump-sanctions
They're private companies. There's no such thing as civil rights or fair treatment when located in a despotic regime like Trump's.
Or #PrinceBonesaw 's regime.
https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/156691-how-sanctions-can-weaponize-us-tech-against-the-icc.html
@neil Actually, here's another (related) question. In the case of an open code signing arrangement, where you are able to install your own code signing certificate authorities instead of only being able to trust the one(s) that the operating system vendor provides, how do you prevent malicious actors from installing code signing CAs that you didn't want installed, and therefore able to run untrusted (by you) code?
It strikes me that neither scheme is without its problems.
@DanielRThomas
Sure, but it is voluntary and unenforceable :)
@neil the perceived power is completely in our hands. We the people (users) have absolute control of who gets the power by the means of democracy. I see no reason why one would choose to use a proprietary operating system. Be it from any American tech giant. Proprietary means you choose to follow their rules. You chose to give up on your software freedom.
I have done my part. Now it's time for everyone else to stop using propriety operating systems and to contribute to libre ones.
john fink ok!! :goat:
Neil Brown
Houba
Stewart Tolhurst
Mudlark 
EF
JP
Su_G
Dr Ro Smith
Slash909uk
XCM
Persephone
LisPi
🌸 lumi-nhac 
🌱
Simon Zerafa
Nicole Parsons
groff 🇺🇦
Gary Hawkins
Daniel Thomas
Rairii 
Linux Renaissance 🇭🇷
Martin
Li ~ Crystal System
Irenes (many)
soc