> open hardware is precisely as trustworthy as closed hardware. Which is to say, I have no inherent reason to trust either at all
I think the sentence should be rewritten as "closed hardware is precisely untrustworthy as open hardware", meaning that open reveals limits and assumptions while close is pretending there are none and everything is secure, while it's precisely not.
The trust imo is not in the product, is in the company or team building the product.
> I’m a strong proponent of open hardware, because sharing knowledge is sharing power.
This is what, I think, makes a company or team more trustworthy. Not just making a product (even if it's really great and has the ambition to protect millions) but also sharing knowledge with the ambition that more can learn.
I think the sentence should be rewritten as "closed hardware is precisely untrustworthy as open hardware", meaning that open reveals limits and assumptions while close is pretending there are none and everything is secure, while it's precisely not.
The trust imo is not in the product, is in the company or team building the product.
> I’m a strong proponent of open hardware, because sharing knowledge is sharing power.
This is what, I think, makes a company or team more trustworthy. Not just making a product (even if it's really great and has the ambition to protect millions) but also sharing knowledge with the ambition that more can learn.