On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 02:19:38PM +0100, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: > Correct. And I agree with that effect: same here. > The *one* negative impact I can see of this legislation is impact on small > integrators that were used to being able to go to a > client company, install a bunch of Ubuntu Desktop workstations, set up a > Ubuntu Server for SMB and also to serve the website > of the company, take one-time fee for their work and be gone. Now it would > have to be made clear - who will be maintaining those > machines over time, ensuring they are patched with security updates in > time, upgraded to new OS releases when old ones are no > longer supported and so on. I don't see this a negative impact because this will in the long term hopefully prevent the effect which is similar to a small freelancer setting up a kitchen machine which will blow up after some time. And noone wants that, whether it's been a small or big company responsible for the exploding kitchen. And people buying kitchen machines have understood they want safe machinery in kitchens... computers need maintenance, else they will "explode" or be exploited. [...] > Lots of interesting questions. But at no point does any responsibility get > automatically assigned to, for example, Debian or individual > open source developers. yup. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ If we'd ban all cars from cities tomorrow, next week we will wonder why we waited for so long.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature