5 ms·

"We didn't chase the fad of using every tool that was at our disposal". And he's even proud of it, lol

by ahbs66 8y ago

nottorp 8y ago
Question: say you know 5 programming languages and 20 UI libraries. If tasked to write an application, you will attempt to use them all in the project?
- ahbs66 8y ago
  That's a strawman. Your question is ridiculous. Features of a certain language/framework/etc != languages/frameworks/etc
  - benchaney 8y ago
    That doesn’t make it a straw man, because the argument you made applies equally well to languages/frameworks and to their features.
  - nottorp 8y ago
    Let's try again: would you work on your car using a chainsaw because it happens to be in your tool box?
    - ahbs66 8y ago
      No. I would use a more appropriate tool, because I will never refuse to use anything that's in my toolbox, like Theo did. :)
      - guitarbill 8y ago
        That's fine, but not a great analogy. Because once you ship software, everybody has access to that tool. No matter if you agree or disagree, Theo/OpenBSD made a engineering choice and did what they thought was the right choice for OpenBSD users. As fellow engineers, we should realize how difficult that is, and that the discussion deserves a bit more nuance, depth and respect. I still don't full understand the trade-offs.
GalacticDomin8r 8y ago
Since he was right to do so and also right about the underlying meltdown issue, perhaps deserves more than ridicule?
- rhaps0dy 8y ago
  Huh, in what way was Theo right about Meltdown? Did he predict it? (just curious)
  - yawaramin 8y ago
    He predicted similar in 2007: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631&w=2
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      That's not anywhere close to a prediction of Meltdown. Meltdown is a side-channel attack that can cross the user/kernel boundary. What Theo was predicting is that all chips are getting complex MMUs to the point that there are bugs in corner cases that could be exploited to create infiltration leaks. Side channel attacks aren't bugs, insofar as no one is really promising that you can't observe side channels.
      - yawaramin 8y ago
        But the observable out-of-order execution used by these chips that led to Meltdown is a bug. Proof: AMD chips aren't affected by it: > The Meltdown vulnerability primarily affects Intel microprocessors,[52] but some ARM microprocessors are also affected.[53] The vulnerability does not affect AMD microprocessors.[19][54][55][56] Intel has countered that the flaws affect all processors,[57] but AMD has denied this, saying "we believe AMD processors are not susceptible due to our use of privilege level protections within paging architecture".[58] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(security_vulnerability) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(security_vulnerabili...
- sverige 8y ago
sremani 8y ago
May be they have lucked out or may that is their ethos, that lets not use some of these optimizations until they have survived test of time. There is nothing wrong to be proud about esp. given how things have turned out.

"We didn't chase the fad of using every tool that was at our disposal". And he's even proud of it, lol

by ahbs66 8y ago

"We didn't chase the fad of using every tool that was at our disposal". And he's even proud of it, lol

Question: say you know 5 programming languages and 20 UI libraries. If tasked to write an application, you will attempt to use them all in the project?

ahbs66 8y ago
That's a strawman. Your question is ridiculous. Features of a certain language/framework/etc != languages/frameworks/etc
- benchaney 8y ago
  That doesn’t make it a straw man, because the argument you made applies equally well to languages/frameworks and to their features.
- nottorp 8y ago
  Let's try again: would you work on your car using a chainsaw because it happens to be in your tool box?
  - ahbs66 8y ago
    No. I would use a more appropriate tool, because I will never refuse to use anything that's in my toolbox, like Theo did. :)
    - guitarbill 8y ago
      That's fine, but not a great analogy. Because once you ship software, everybody has access to that tool. No matter if you agree or disagree, Theo/OpenBSD made a engineering choice and did what they thought was the right choice for OpenBSD users. As fellow engineers, we should realize how difficult that is, and that the discussion deserves a bit more nuance, depth and respect. I still don't full understand the trade-offs.

GalacticDomin8r 8y ago

Since he was right to do so and also right about the underlying meltdown issue, perhaps deserves more than ridicule?

rhaps0dy 8y ago
Huh, in what way was Theo right about Meltdown? Did he predict it? (just curious)
- yawaramin 8y ago
  He predicted similar in 2007: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631&w=2
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    That's not anywhere close to a prediction of Meltdown. Meltdown is a side-channel attack that can cross the user/kernel boundary. What Theo was predicting is that all chips are getting complex MMUs to the point that there are bugs in corner cases that could be exploited to create infiltration leaks. Side channel attacks aren't bugs, insofar as no one is really promising that you can't observe side channels.
    - yawaramin 8y ago
      But the observable out-of-order execution used by these chips that led to Meltdown is a bug. Proof: AMD chips aren't affected by it: > The Meltdown vulnerability primarily affects Intel microprocessors,[52] but some ARM microprocessors are also affected.[53] The vulnerability does not affect AMD microprocessors.[19][54][55][56] Intel has countered that the flaws affect all processors,[57] but AMD has denied this, saying "we believe AMD processors are not susceptible due to our use of privilege level protections within paging architecture".[58] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(security_vulnerability) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(security_vulnerabili...
sverige 8y ago

sremani 8y ago

May be they have lucked out or may that is their ethos, that lets not use some of these optimizations until they have survived test of time. There is nothing wrong to be proud about esp. given how things have turned out.