University of Minnesota Linux "Hypocrite Commit" Researchers Publish Open Letter

[muncrief]

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.

[oiaohm]

Yeah, 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.

Also even doing massive amounts of testing you still could miss something. This is why they don't want a tainted source if possible and if anyone is caught attempting to taint the up stream source they depend on they will consider assisting with legal action to make sure to does not happen again.

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.

[moilami]

I see logic is not your strong suit.

Yes, laughed so hard, wondering if this is some sort of new gen

[coder]

what 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 ??

Yeah, 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.

[Kver]

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'.

Your assumption that people with an interest in Linux want to see MS burn is just plain wrong. The fact is most people in the Linux community are part of the larger tech community, and just want stuff to work. This is replying to other people too, but virtue signaling, wokeness, cancel culture... Somebody getting in trouble doesn't always have anything to do with that stuff.

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.

[coder]

Do you think throwing in "sophistry" in the capacity of an ungrounded insinuation accomplishes anything?

Apparently not. It was pretty much my last hope of appealing to your better nature.

On top of the fact that you don't even seem to have any personal position,

I apologize if it was unclear, but my position is that I think it was unethical to experiment on non-consenting individuals. They needed to find some other way to do their research. A few other options have already been mentioned.

Is that clear?

but rather defending some notion from the position of a loyal conformist.

Most people follow most rules, laws, and standards of conduct, most of the time. That's what keeps society working. If that makes us conformists, so be it. I'd rather have my modern lifestyle than be digging in the mud with a stick.

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.

It just happens that your alleged opinion is independent yet somehow perfect alignment to that of an authoritative institution,

I never said it was independent. Go ahead and call me an institutionalist, if you want. Institutions aren't perfect and can become sclerotic, but they serve a vital role in the advancement of human knowledge and society.

the merit you obviously crave the illusion of.

What merit is that?

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.

[coder]

It'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.

The only thing this has to do with "cancel culture" is that now you & others are viewing it through that lens.

I 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.

I think the reaction was about right (assuming they don't follow through on the threat of a mass-revert and permaban). There needed to be a loud and clear message to these folks, their University sponsor, and anyone else contemplating similar, that this sort of activity will not be tolerated. The only way to do that was with such a reaction. They had to go public, because that's their only real leverage.

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.

[coder]

Wow, for an editor, I am a big failure. Michael maybe take away my position.

That came across as harsh, but I had seen a couple other examples, lately. Still, I wasn't sure if I should say that bit.

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.

[coder]

To be fair... firing 90% of the federal goverment bureaucrats probably would be a net benefit... too bad he didn't.

They tried government downsizing in the 1990s, but it ended up costing tax payers more to have the same services get outsourced and have to pay a 3rd party entity + the worker + a federal employee to ensure the contractors did the jobs they were hired to do.

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.

[tildearrow]

Wow, 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.

Wow, for an editor, I am a big failure. Michael maybe take away my position.