7 ms·

Perhaps you could explain how the statement "All software is large" "furthers the conversation"? How am I supposed to respond to that? You think that false st

Perhaps you could explain how the statement "All software is large" "furthers the conversation"? How am I supposed to respond to that? You think that false statement is a respectable "response" to a comment on the benefits of small software? Small software exists both in the past (when memory and storage were more limited) and in the present. The very idea of small programs is a foundational one in the field of computing. "All software is large" is not a "view" that is in agreement with reality. As such, it is distorted. I am using small software every day. In fact I am writing this comment with a small program. When I write software, it is small, at least relative to anything from Microsoft. I am too dumb to write large software.

wvenable 11y ago
> In fact I am writing this comment with a small program. Which small program is that?
- loginusername 11y ago
  Are you saying you are unaware of any program that can post text to a web server that is "small"? If all you are aware of is large software, then your statement that "All software is large" makes more sense. "All software is not as large as Microsoft's software." Would you agree with that?
  - mejari 11y ago
    I'm also interested in the answer to their question instead of these diversions.
    - loginusername 11y ago
      And why are you interested? A comment in response to a NYT "article" (=PR piece) on Microsoft's approach to "security" where the comment points out that Windows is an extremely large program with layers upon layers of historical cruft and that it remains closed source. Additionally I suggested Windows is the easiest target for finding security flaws. It is a very large attack surface. Is this really controversial? For better or worse, I am responding to these comments no matter how nonsensical they are. The best comments have actually come from Microsoft employees, past or present.
      - wvenable 11y ago
        Windows is actually very modular; even the kernel is designed in a micro-kernel style even though it all runs in ring 0. There are versions of Windows with no GUI. Every other comparable operating system is in the same order of magnitude in the size of the code. The attack surface for any large OS is going to be about the same.
        loginusername 11y ago
        "There are versions of Windows with no GUI." Do they run in VGA textmode? I have used a program called "window" and today I use tmux but neither of those come from Microsoft. How do I obtain one of these versions of Microsoft Windows that runs in VGA textmode? "The attack surface for any large OS..." Well yes, because they are all large. But what if the OS is small? Let me guess, now you are going to tell me that all OS, e.g., kernel plus userland, are the same size?
        wvenable 11y ago
        Of course, not all OS kernel plus userland are the same size. However, we aren't talking about "smaller" we are talking about "small". Small being something you can write and/or fully understand. If you wrote your kernel and userland or at least understand every part of it then, congratulations, you made your point. But if you don't, your OS/userland is smaller but it isn't small. And probably most developers could write an OS/userland by themselves given enough time but it would probably be a long time before it's practically useful or secure.
        loginusername 11y ago
        Alright, I think we have reached agreement. Software that is "smaller" than Microsoft Windows. It exists. I prefer such "smaller" software and use it every day. For me, it is "practically useful". I regularly see others stating it is useful for them, too. Have no idea what "secure" means in the abstract, but maybe smaller software and the way it is used can be "more secure" (or less secure) than Windows. "Fully understand" is a very high watermark to reach with any system. But given the choice between a larger system that is opaque and one that is smaller and open source I believe I can (partially) understand the smaller one better.
  - wvenable 11y ago
    Why didn't you just answer the question? Which small software are did you use to post your comment? Why be so vague?
    - loginusername 11y ago
      What difference does it make what small software program I am using? You do not believe such a program exists? Or maybe you want to critique the program? That would be typical commenter behavior, but it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. The topic is Microsoft software and the relationship between code size and probability of security flaws.
      - wvenable 11y ago
        > What difference does it make what small software program I am using? You brought it up and now you don't want to say, I find that odd. It's hard to have a conversation if you're going to be so.. cryptic. > Or maybe you want to critique the program? Maybe I want a significant example of a "small program". At this point, neither terms have been well defined. You called the program used to make your comment "small" so tell me what it is. > The topic is Microsoft software and the relationship between code size and probability of security flaws. The greater the code size the greater the probability of bugs. And security flaws can be exploited utilizing the combined flaws across different independent programs or included libraries. My point is the only programs so small that security issues are a non-issue are either not interesting or combined with other programs to do something useful.
        loginusername 11y ago
        "The greater the code size the greater the probability of bugs." Right. I think we are done here. Microsoft Windows is larger than any OS I know of, and only keeps growing. To answer your question, I am using a text only browser that's based on the links project, with my own minor modifications. I still have no idea why you and the other commenter are asking. It seems quite clear neither of you have any legitimate interest in such programs. Otherwise you would not be challenging my statement of such a simple fact as the quoted sentence above, as it applies to Microsoft. I strongly disagree that "small" programs are not useful. As I have previously stated, I use them every day. I use programs such as sed and netcat to interact with the www even more than I use a browser.
wvenable 11y ago
The point is small software just does less; when you need to do more you either build large software or you put together a bunch of small software which is effectively, from a security standpoint, the same thing. Small programs that don't do anything are secure but nobody cares. And you've probably written software larger than Notepad; a very popular small Microsoft program.
- loginusername 11y ago
  In contrast to others, this is a comment that reflects truth. The only points I would contest are 1. that "a bunch" is effectively the "same thing" as large software. A "bunch" can vary in number and quality. My userland is a single "multi-call" binary and quite small. The sum total of source code is not so large that I cannot manage it. It's keeping tabs on the kernel code that presents the challenge; and 2. that "nobody cares". If "nobody" cared, then you would not be seeing a comment such as mine because there would be nobody to author it. Moreover there would be no reasonably small kernel source that users like me could use. Some people care enough to maintain that kernel and to keep it relatively small. Maybe that group of people is like the software: small. Suits me just fine.

wvenable 11y ago

> In fact I am writing this comment with a small program. Which small program is that?

loginusername 11y ago
Are you saying you are unaware of any program that can post text to a web server that is "small"? If all you are aware of is large software, then your statement that "All software is large" makes more sense. "All software is not as large as Microsoft's software." Would you agree with that?
- mejari 11y ago
  I'm also interested in the answer to their question instead of these diversions.
  - loginusername 11y ago
    And why are you interested? A comment in response to a NYT "article" (=PR piece) on Microsoft's approach to "security" where the comment points out that Windows is an extremely large program with layers upon layers of historical cruft and that it remains closed source. Additionally I suggested Windows is the easiest target for finding security flaws. It is a very large attack surface. Is this really controversial? For better or worse, I am responding to these comments no matter how nonsensical they are. The best comments have actually come from Microsoft employees, past or present.
    - wvenable 11y ago
      Windows is actually very modular; even the kernel is designed in a micro-kernel style even though it all runs in ring 0. There are versions of Windows with no GUI. Every other comparable operating system is in the same order of magnitude in the size of the code. The attack surface for any large OS is going to be about the same.
      - loginusername 11y ago
        "There are versions of Windows with no GUI." Do they run in VGA textmode? I have used a program called "window" and today I use tmux but neither of those come from Microsoft. How do I obtain one of these versions of Microsoft Windows that runs in VGA textmode? "The attack surface for any large OS..." Well yes, because they are all large. But what if the OS is small? Let me guess, now you are going to tell me that all OS, e.g., kernel plus userland, are the same size?
        wvenable 11y ago
        Of course, not all OS kernel plus userland are the same size. However, we aren't talking about "smaller" we are talking about "small". Small being something you can write and/or fully understand. If you wrote your kernel and userland or at least understand every part of it then, congratulations, you made your point. But if you don't, your OS/userland is smaller but it isn't small. And probably most developers could write an OS/userland by themselves given enough time but it would probably be a long time before it's practically useful or secure.
        loginusername 11y ago
        Alright, I think we have reached agreement. Software that is "smaller" than Microsoft Windows. It exists. I prefer such "smaller" software and use it every day. For me, it is "practically useful". I regularly see others stating it is useful for them, too. Have no idea what "secure" means in the abstract, but maybe smaller software and the way it is used can be "more secure" (or less secure) than Windows. "Fully understand" is a very high watermark to reach with any system. But given the choice between a larger system that is opaque and one that is smaller and open source I believe I can (partially) understand the smaller one better.
- wvenable 11y ago
  Why didn't you just answer the question? Which small software are did you use to post your comment? Why be so vague?
  - loginusername 11y ago
    What difference does it make what small software program I am using? You do not believe such a program exists? Or maybe you want to critique the program? That would be typical commenter behavior, but it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. The topic is Microsoft software and the relationship between code size and probability of security flaws.
    - wvenable 11y ago
      > What difference does it make what small software program I am using? You brought it up and now you don't want to say, I find that odd. It's hard to have a conversation if you're going to be so.. cryptic. > Or maybe you want to critique the program? Maybe I want a significant example of a "small program". At this point, neither terms have been well defined. You called the program used to make your comment "small" so tell me what it is. > The topic is Microsoft software and the relationship between code size and probability of security flaws. The greater the code size the greater the probability of bugs. And security flaws can be exploited utilizing the combined flaws across different independent programs or included libraries. My point is the only programs so small that security issues are a non-issue are either not interesting or combined with other programs to do something useful.
      - loginusername 11y ago
        "The greater the code size the greater the probability of bugs." Right. I think we are done here. Microsoft Windows is larger than any OS I know of, and only keeps growing. To answer your question, I am using a text only browser that's based on the links project, with my own minor modifications. I still have no idea why you and the other commenter are asking. It seems quite clear neither of you have any legitimate interest in such programs. Otherwise you would not be challenging my statement of such a simple fact as the quoted sentence above, as it applies to Microsoft. I strongly disagree that "small" programs are not useful. As I have previously stated, I use them every day. I use programs such as sed and netcat to interact with the www even more than I use a browser.

wvenable 11y ago

The point is small software just does less; when you need to do more you either build large software or you put together a bunch of small software which is effectively, from a security standpoint, the same thing. Small programs that don't do anything are secure but nobody cares. And you've probably written software larger than Notepad; a very popular small Microsoft program.

loginusername 11y ago
In contrast to others, this is a comment that reflects truth. The only points I would contest are 1. that "a bunch" is effectively the "same thing" as large software. A "bunch" can vary in number and quality. My userland is a single "multi-call" binary and quite small. The sum total of source code is not so large that I cannot manage it. It's keeping tabs on the kernel code that presents the challenge; and 2. that "nobody cares". If "nobody" cared, then you would not be seeing a comment such as mine because there would be nobody to author it. Moreover there would be no reasonably small kernel source that users like me could use. Some people care enough to maintain that kernel and to keep it relatively small. Maybe that group of people is like the software: small. Suits me just fine.