This is so bizarre that at first I thought it couldn't be true, or at the very least was some kind of misunderstanding.
But to find out that a group of developers, from a prestigious university for god's sake, was purposely introducing malicious code, or code designed to confused or obfuscate, for some kind of nonsensical "research project" is beyond the pale.
Everyone involved should be reprimanded, and if possible criminally charged, to the greatest extent possible.
Sheesh.
Just freakin' unbelievable.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
University of Minnesota Linux "Hypocrite Commit" Researchers Publish Open Letter
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by coder View PostYeah, I missed that part. ddriver is nuts if he thinks a parts supplier can afford to risk intentionally sending defective parts to their customers. Supply contracts usually have some strong disincentive against providing defective parts, ultimately leading to litigation if there are too many. More likely, just the loss of a customer and reputational damage.
Yes, every manufacturer in the chain has to do their own testing, but it's unreasonable to do enough testing to reliably discover when any single component part could have a quality problem.
Linux kernel has access to insanely well funded legal who will in fact use it. I remember the example of the first day of the SCO-IBM case where the court had a problem that they did not have enough room for the legal teams there to protect the Linux kernel.
At this stage the Linux kernel maintainers are attempt to fix the problem without legal. The scary point is the effected parties by the Linux kernel being messed with incorrectly will be more than interested to prosecute if asked. These parties could bring cases is multi-able jurisdictions simultaneously.
Intentional sabotage cannot be tolerated by those producing products.
Its really simple to miss that over 95% of Linux kernel developers are company funded to be there and those companies have a vested interest in the quality of the Linux kernel and are absolutely not going to be happy with any sabotage attempt successful or not. This not being happy will translate if required into insanely well funded legal team breathing down you neck looking at every way to ruin your life if you attempt intentional sabotage against open source projects they depend on.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by stefansaraev View Postwhat a bulls***. it's not your job to check the "quality inspection" of that manufacturer. why would a person in his sane mind think he has the rights to do so ??
Yes, every manufacturer in the chain has to do their own testing, but it's unreasonable to do enough testing to reliably discover when any single component part could have a quality problem.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
And I still continue to stand by my claims of virtue signalling.
Many of the hypocrites in here are threatening fire and brimstone and making grand claims about ethics to those who will dare to do anything bad to their beloved kernel, never mind that a good portion here have never ever written a single line of code, but will eagerly turn around and put the same people up on a pedestal if it were Windows, the NT kernel or Microsoft's projects that were the subject of the 'research'.
Ethics comes up because in the research field there is actually a real code to follow, and one of the big rules is "you don't experiment on people without their consent." It's actually one of the very few rules that can get a tenured professor/researcher/fellow outright fired, and it's not even a rule that hard to follow. Literally all people need to know is that a researcher is doing something with you, and the potential dangers. They don't even need to say what specifically they are doing.
It's all pretty simple; one party deliberately endangered the safety and reliability of a product, and lied about the intended effects of their work. That product is used in places where failure might result in death; from medical equipment to self-driving vehicles to military systems. The people who make that product (any many who use it) don't want that party to further endanger the product, and don't want the people responsible to be in a position where they can continue endangering said product. End of story. This is doubly important because university research departments swear to abide by the codes of ethics; this gives their output a potentially higher level of trust, regardless of industry. If a university designed a deliberately faulty seatbelt and claimed it was safe to see "how far the design would get" while pushing it dangerously close to production, well, you don't want those kinds of people in a position to keep doing research.Last edited by Kver; 25 April 2021, 05:41 PM.
- Likes 6
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ddriver View PostDo you think throwing in "sophistry" in the capacity of an ungrounded insinuation accomplishes anything?
Originally posted by ddriver View PostOn top of the fact that you don't even seem to have any personal position,
Is that clear?
Originally posted by ddriver View Postbut rather defending some notion from the position of a loyal conformist.
However, there will always be cheaters, which is why sanctions are typically applied to those who break these norms for personal gain. That's what we need to see, at this point. There needs to be a deterrent, to prevent these sorts of transgressions. Otherwise, would-be perpetrators will feel as if they have nothing to lose by trying.
More than anything, what's notable is that this was even allowed to happen, since a faculty advisor typically would prevent this study from being done, or would at least prevent the paper from being published. People have also noted that peer-reviewers should've raised a flag.
Originally posted by ddriver View PostIt just happens that your alleged opinion is independent yet somehow perfect alignment to that of an authoritative institution,
Originally posted by ddriver View Postthe merit you obviously crave the illusion of.
I don't really crave any illusion of merit. People who know me know my work, and that's enough. Indeed, an ill-gotten illusion of merit would make me uncomfortable.
On here, I just want to discuss thoughts, ideas, and useful information related to my hobby and profession. My ideas stand or fall on their own. There's minimal social baggage getting in the way. I like that.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostIt's funny. I both agree and disagree; and the reason being is that I think unchecked overreaction is what has lead to the current culture and political climate we're currently dealing with.
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostI still think the initial response could have been toned down to something covering the commits in question while still stating that everything else would be under a scrutinous review.
Knowing that any transgression will be met with disproportionate response is the best deterrent, because it tells others that it's not worth the risk.
And I strongly disagree that GKH owes anyone an apology, here. Keep in mind that this wasn't their first offense.
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
-
Anyway, it was a fair discussion point and even though he hadn't reverted the commits, he still hadn't publicly reversed course. I expect the matter will quietly die down, unless more faithless commits are discovered.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cb88 View PostTo be fair... firing 90% of the federal goverment bureaucrats probably would be a net benefit... too bad he didn't.
If you mean just making government do 90% less, that would put us on a fast track to being a failed state. Most people have no idea of the multiplicity of ways their lives, jobs, and our modern systems depend on government. This message is being pushed by wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals because government is the only thing keeping them from fully exploiting the people to the fullest degree possible.
If you mean replacing bureaucrats with political appointees, that leads to politicization of the government and putting it in the pocket of whatever political party is in power. Having a non-partisan, professional federal workforce is far preferable to that. Government bureaucrats get attacked by the same forces that run contrary to the interests of the people, because bureaucrats are the front line workers of a government that's of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The libertarian wet dream is just that -- a dream. It never happened and it never could. What you want is effectively just for wealthy elites to have even more wealth and power, while the masses get squeezed, poisoned, flooded, and extorted.
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by coder View PostWow, for an editor, you haven't been reading a number of recent articles very carefully. The article stated that he hadn't followed through on that particular threat. I'd imagine there would be objections raised if he started backing out a lot of good commits.
I think it was a threat made in anger, and sounds like it was effective in letting people know what was at stake.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: