[flagged]
> We would like to host ONLYOFFICE ourselves. Is that possible?
> Yes. It is possible to download and compile the source code. Thereafter you can deploy it on your own server. The source code is listed on GitHub and distributed under GNU Affero General Public License terms. For more details see the Server Version Frequently Asked Questions section.
You don't have that with Google Docs or Office 365.
Yes, with open source you can look at the source, but who analyses the whole codebase before compiling anything?
Software is software, people are people and governments are governments. Stop mixing it all together, it's a hypocrites minefield. If you're feeling so righteous about the countries of who writes your software, just throw your computer out of the window.
While that is true, it is also true, that people can easily be forced by bad acting governments to do things to the software they write.
We don't need to condemn the people in general, but we can still be wary of the product they make, while being in the influence zone of certain governments.
> The Brin family lived in Vienna and Paris while Mikhail Brin secured a teaching position at the University of Maryland with help from Anatole Katok. During this time, the Brin family received support and assistance from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. They arrived in the United States on October 25, 1979.
He is an immigrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_Russian_b...
To those who comment on the OSS nature of the product, I would suggest that you ask yourself if you are actually willing to perform security audits of the suite and its updates, or roll the dice and hope that your data doesn't get exfiltrated or corrupted one day. Unlike with software developed in other countries, you can't count on the developers to care about their reputation more than some quick gains. As long as the core of the devteam is in Russia - this is out of their control.
It's an entire category.
Not defending any of the US' wars, but it's a little disingenuous to compare them to the Ukrainian conflict.
So invading and bombing other countries is now fine as long as you don't annex them? Good to know that's how far the goalposts have moved.
That's an absolutely insane comparison.
Police are funded from your taxes to protect you. Countries haven't paid taxes tot he US to come invade/drone strike them.
In your country, do police officers from other countries routinely break into your house to tear it up, steal your shit and beat you up for doing nothing? Sounds more like criminals than police.
https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/incident/chinese-serbian...
In all seriousness, America does not pull their weapon to prevent bad things from happening (or at least, not primarily).
The US primarily works through Nato and the UN to intervene in their 'world police' role, but they are happy to start other conflicts without the support of Nato and the UN (see Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, ~~Korea~~).
If the US were really the 'world police', then where were they in Rwanda, in Sudan, in North Korea, in Sri Lanka, in Nigeria, in Myanmar, in DRC, in Ethopia, what are they doing for the Uyghurs, the Rohingyas...
EDIT: see correction from OfSanguineFire, I was wrong about Korea, which was indeed a UN-led intervention.
The US involvement in the Korean War was organized under the nascent UN.[0] "During the course of the war, 22 nations contributed military or medical personnel to UN Command. Although the United States led the UNC and provided the bulk of its troops and funding, all participants formally fought under the auspices of the UN, with the operation classified as a 'UN-led police action'."
But is the annexing part the part that really matters or is it the countless dead and wounded civilians?
Do you mean like not calling it an intervention? It's been sometime, but I don't think the Ukrainians care too much about Russia calling it a “special operation”…
What do you think ethnic Russians abroad are? It's displacing locals with poor rural Russians to try a land grab.
Some people literally wake up suddenly within Russia, since Russia is moving borders 100 m. / night.
It's more likely they'd introduce a security flaw that is hard to detect in the OSS code. If someone finds, they'd just claim it was a security incident which is now fixed (and then they'd move to another masked flaw).
Generally not. Most software does not have reproducible builds, so the checksums would be unlikely to match.
Then build your own binaries. I'm sure the Russian government wouldn't struggle to do this.
Open source == a level of independence from sanctions and foreign government spying.
Suppose that the USA works in the same way, bombing and shelling civilians every day, torturing and raping women and children, launching massive attacks on power plants during winter to freeze the population to death, abducting children from their parents etc. Suppose all this was true. Would it give Russia a moral excuse to do what they are doing?
It then veered towards people saying that actually, it's different when Americans invade countries.
I cannot say if there are still indirect ties to Russia, but the direct ones appear fully severed?
How much time (money no object) would it take for you personally to get any citizenship other than your current one?
How much time (assuming your current level of income) would it take for you personally to get any citizenship other than your current one?
I have done my research. The answer to the first question is 6 months (if advertisements on the black market are true), and the second one is between 5 and 10 years. So please don't blame people based solely on their citizenship.
Sanctions against Russia exist to hurt Russian economy and trade to punish and limit their war capacity. If the money stays outside and does not support the war, then I do not see an issue with a Russian citizen living abroad having an indirect controlling stake.
Excerpt via Google translate, though the whole thing might be worth a read via Google translate or ChatGPT or whatnot:
> The majority of OnlyOffice employees are citizens of Russia who are in this country or hold positions in the Latvian and Russian offices at the same time.
> The developers of OnlyOffice in the Russian information space emphasize that the Latvian Ascensio System SIA is a one hundred percent daughter and one hundred percent property of the Russian company NKT. The open database of Lursoft companies registered in Latvia also points to a Russian beneficiary.
Google translate: https://www-epravda-com-ua.translate.goog/publications/2022/... via Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/10nqq8m/onlyoffice...
what has a russian company have to do with the war? tomorrow if usa once again starts a war to decimate another country for petrodolalrs, will you go out of your way and start shunning your own country?
- the Afghanistan invasion was an actual reaction to a direct attack, not a “you are close to joining an opponent alliance”
- in the west people were free to criticize the invasion, while Russians have much to fear if they are anti-war.
The first point is more moral, while both wars are ridiculous, they are different scale of ridiculous, but not important from business perspective.
This is extremely important from a business perspective, as it shows the state heavy arm on its people and therefore its business. If it controls people’s speech, people’s business are under even more control.
So, as a business, you face a much bigger risk depending on some compony from a “controlling state”, then a more free state.
This doesn’t mean that USA/the west, doesn’t use it’s private companies, it’s just a difference on scale, and how easy/entrenched that control is.
Another example, is that many european PMs lost the next election cycle with major reason being supporting that war effort. Also, people were actually allowed to protest. Checkout how russian protests are handled.
Just like even today in eastern eurocountries there are some sons of ex wealthy soviets nicknamed “homo sovietis”, with their soviet themed bars, which are perfectly allowed today, but i wonder what would happened if during their youth they opened a “capitalist/ocidental” bar.
Also Who cares if the people in the west were free to criticize it? It didn't stop the war, and it has absolutely nothing to do with embargoes and boycotts. Absolutely no one in Iraq cares that Americans still had their free speech when they destroyed their country and set them back 30 years
Russia wouldn't suddenly be a fine member of the international community if their government wasn't censoring criticism of the war while still invading Ukraine.
Case in point is "doing business with American/Russian companies" not the evils of war, which are undisputable.
The "freedom" is a very important point when doing any kind of risk assessment of a vendor deal.
> You realize that they did offer to extradite bin Ladin, right?
I did not, thanks for the info.
Also, just to provide a source and details on the extradition offer, they offered to extradite him to a third country for trial which I think is more than reasonable, but the US said that there was no need for proof or process.
>"There's no need to discuss it," Bush said. "We know he's guilty. Just turn him over. … There's nothing to negotiate about. They're harboring a terrorist and they need to turn him over."
So essentially the US and the rest of the world razed a country to the ground because they wanted a man so badly that when the country offered to give that man a fair trial before a third neutral country, the US found that offensive and destroyed them? democracy much?
But to hear that the Talibans were the reasonable or at least negotiating party here is insane.
1) There's a difference between a government and people living in that country. If my country does something evil, that doesn't mean you should attack me (personally). The firebombing of Dresden by the allies in WWII is widely considered a war crime since it targeted civilians and killed many little children.
2) With sanctions on this war, I see two valid goals: (1) Regime change (2) Not funding / supporting the war. To be clear: Punishment of people in Russia is not a valid goal for sanctions.
3) With a country doing something evil, simply cutting off ties doesn't have much positive effect (see North Korea).
4) Attacking people simply polarizes them to hate you and supports Putin's message.
5) Even under sanctions, there are constructive ways of engagement. These generally center on communications and cultural engagement. Things like rock-and-roll, Disney, Coca Cola, McDonald's and blue jeans played a pretty significant role in the downfall of the Soviet Union. Trade helped open up China (it's not open, but it's a much freer, nicer place to live than 50 years ago, largely due to people doing business across borders).
My general conclusion here:
1) I don't think we should be buying anything from Russia. That provides money to support the war effort.
2) I don't think we should be exporting anything which can in any way be used to help build weapons (e.g. technology, raw materials, etc.).
3) I'm also on the more extreme end of sending more weapons to Ukraine (much more than we have been).
On the other hand, with Russia, I am fully in favor of scientific engagement (think blue whales and not radar research), educational engagement, cultural engagement, as well as things like open source.
Controversially, I'm also supportive of /selling/ luxury goods to Russia. I don't think it supports the regime in any appreciable way, and a Gucci handbag won't help the war effort. It does bring in Western culture and leads to capital outflow.
This. 20 years ago I read an article that spoke of the Iranian peoples' admiration for American people, while the two governments were actively hating each other. It changed everything about how I perceived other countries. We don't have to be our governments.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-ra...
[2] https://pace.coe.int/en/news/9191/pace-committee-examines-th...
"liberate us? Why", we are more free here in Ukraine.
Follow up would be: are you free enough to be against the war?
Why did so many Russians flee?
Etc...
Ps. Good luck... It's cruel what is happening now.
A lot of times they are stuck with the recurring why loop.
Same with the conspiracy theorists.
Tbg. Sometimes they do find a farfetched reason that actually makes sense somehow.
The normal rule is that it's too farfetched by then. And you could just say: do you realize how crazy that sounds? What if it's "just" .... x.
Eg. for Elon Musk. He probably believes that Russia would nuke and he's just scared.
Or his business in China is at stake. Which means he's getting hated in the West for something he will already lose in the future...
Simple > conspiracy theory
The Iraq War being the go to example of the West.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_inva...