Corporate has been using the term "best-shoring" for a couple of years now. To my best guess, it means "off-shoring or on-shoring, whichever of the two is cheaper".

Since Signal lives and dies on having trust of its users, maybe that's all she is after?

Saying the quiet thing out loud because she can, and feels like she should, as someone with big audience. She doesn't have to do the whole "AI for everything and kitchen sink!" cargo-culting to keep stock prices up or any of that nonsense.

How can a service like Signal live and die by the trust of its users when they openly lie to them. Signal refuses to update their privacy policy to warn users that they store sensitive information in the cloud (and more recently, even the contents of user's messages in some cases).

Lying to users by saying that signal doesn't collect or store anything when they actually do doesn't sound like something a company who expected you to trust them would do. It sounds like something a company might do if they needed a way to warn people away from using a service isn't safe to use while under a gag order.

And there's nothing wrong with it. That is what wireguard is meant to be - a rock-solid secure tunneling implementation that's easy to build higher-level solutions on.

You can tweak rate thresholds for F2B, so that it blocks the 100-attempts-per-second attackers, but doesn't block your three-attempts-per-minute manual fumbling.

I know this. But I don't like that they still get to try at least once, and there's still the rest of my list.

You're confusing open source with public domain.

One of the most useful steps would be to support codeforges like Github on European soil, and development of the ForgeFed project, so that those forges can talk to each other.

Codeberg and Forjeo have a foundation in Germany

And sourcehut in the Netherlands!

There was a grant in 2023 which was supported by the European Comission. So I think the topic itself isn't entirely unknown. https://nlnet.nl/project/Forgejo/

No, they don't want to you leave your very well paid job for this grant, they want to chuck a few bounties at some FOSS projects and pay for some people to attend hackathons or conferences if they can fill in a form giving sufficiently compelling reasons. How dare they!

You're missing my point. "Chucking in a few bounties" is very different from what this topic is about. Let me spell it out for you once again:

> The EU faces a significant problem of dependence on non-EU countries in the digital sphere. This reduces users' choice, hampers EU companies' competitiveness and can raise supply chain security issues as it makes it difficult to control our digital infrastructure (both physical and software components), potentially creating vulnerabilities including in critical sectors.

The point you expressed was indignation at FOSS bounties paid by the Fediversity project out of a fraction of a single EUR 3m EU grant their consortium won being less than the full time salary of EU devs.

If you were trying to more widely insinuate that this third party dosing out small-to-modest incentives to individuals to do a bit of hacking on Fediverse stuff was the only thing the EU was doing to support Open Source or represented some sort of ceiling on the amounts EU-funded projects working on FOSS could pay their developers, it would be even more wrong.

Plenty of valid criticisms of the EU's cyber non-dependence strategy or the detail of grant and equity funding programmes for research and building stuff and how they weight FOSS (that's part of the reason for the consultation!) but you need to have the slightest idea what exists to get into those...

I took the Fediversity project as an example because it was mentioned above in the comment and not an example of something I wanted to specifically point it. Truth to be told 90% of other EU funds are similar if not the same in the context of grants, and no, I don't find it sufficient, and no, I don't think such strategy will yield anything worth the salt. You will keep the developers have fun with their projects but something worthwhile? Forget. It doesn't exist at such minuscule scale.

The only bigger denominator in terms of funds is Horizon which is completely political, and not worth mentioning at all, if that's what you wanted to suggest. It also operates under minuscule scale in terms of grants (up to 2.5M over 2 years) or funding (1-30M). No possibility for seed rounds which implies you already must be in the business and already have an almost viable product ready to deploy to the market tomorrow (EU bureaucracy calls it TRL6-8). This is all ridiculous and shows how detached from reality people making decisions there are. They even hire "experts" to weigh your application for which you know ... ta-da ... have to hire yet another "expert" to write that application for you. 100s of pages to prove your idea worthy. Once a year. World innovation runs at much much higher pace.

So, sure the R&D environment in EU is built on a very fertile ground and Brussels is doing their best to "call for an evidence" because open-source software is going to save the economy??? Right.

I'm currently a participant under a NLNet grant. I'm unemployed at the moment so getting a trickle of 1-2K of donation money per month working on my passion project is a pretty decent proposition.

You can also be a participant alongside your well paid job, because once the memorandum of understanding is signed you have a year to work through the proposal at your own pace, during weekends or moonlighting.

I don't doubt that at all and I'm glad for anyone who is managing to make some money from their open-source contributions, even more so in today's age where market is so volatile. I am being empathetic for that cause. But the point I am rather trying to convey is that this is not the strategy that will converge to something substantial that will make EU more competitive on global landscape.

I don't know how I could convince you, or anyone that's educated under the American capitalist system, that working for a commons is better in aggregate than relying on companies to pay for innovation and then keeping it a secret. "Competitive" is a slur in my opinion, I'd rather my work be "useful".

Dystopian. You're missing some fundamental understanding how economics work but to each his own. Respectfully.

Working on things that make you happy instead of pushing the agenda of your employers, which in majority is unethical, immoral, or plainly unhealthy, is dystopian? It sounds utopian to me. :)

I deleted my account the day Microsoft acquisition was confirmed. If more people did that, maybe we wouldn't be here.

The former is a cause, the latter an effect of it.

The two examples the grandparent post mentioned are not really evolution, but rather making everything sound bombastic and sensationalist. The end game for that trend is the cigarette brand ad billboard in Idiocracy, where a half-naked muscular man glares at you angrily and going "If you do not smoke our brand, f* you!"

Sounds more like de-volution to me.

No, you can not. Without understanding the technology, at best you can "vibe-review" it, and determine that it "kinda sorta looks like it's doing what it's supposed to do, maybe?".