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.
@[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
Neil Brown
Dr Ro Smith
Slash909uk
XCM