4 ms·

That's true, but also it should be possible to make an OS that people can trust without trusting you, and as users we should encourage movement in that directio

That's true, but also it should be possible to make an OS that people can trust without trusting you, and as users we should encourage movement in that direction.

abtinf 2y ago
> should be possible What makes you think this?
- brookst 2y ago
  It’s especially funny because I believe it is provably impossible. You’ll have to trust me that I’ve done the proof.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Because there are so freaking many of us, and some of us trust each other. If we were better at coordinating about which parts of the code we trust and to what degree, we could determine which parts of it are untrustworthy and patch the problem out of it. The GrapheneOS people are doing this, for example. It's not crazy to consider your device vendor as part of your threat model, because like it or not, they are a threat.
  - abtinf 2y ago
    That’s a good point. It would be interesting if there was a “git blame” style command, but that showed a trust score for every line/block based on who has touched it.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      I'm working on a system for data annotation that might support apps of that nature. I'm focusing on simpler datasets for now, I want people to be able to annotate a paper restaurant menu with notes about allergens in a way that other people with those allergens can summon those annotations and steer clear--all without participation from the restaurant. Like an augmented reality layer for text. I hope it grows up into something that would let you ask: > How trusted is this line of code, and by whom?
EternalFury 2y ago
Good luck. It’s much easier to talk about it. The last open OS I have seen reach a semi-mainstream level of adoption was started in the early 90’s, more than 30 years ago, by some Linus guy.
- fastball 2y ago
  And (basically) nobody running linux is individually verifying the source code of every little piece of software that goes into it (maybe Linus is), so you're still trusting someone.
  - detourdog 2y ago
    I can’t even find the appropriate documentation.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      How would documentation help you trust the code?
      - detourdog 2y ago
        How does one understand what is going on with out a clear set of documentation? Either one is so smart they can review everyline of everything they are running. My contention is that it is hard enough to find authoritative documentation much less developing an understanding of the code needed or running. The choice is either many little trust relationships or a giant leap of faith. I feel better served by a giant leap of faith and access to all the technology I can use. I prefer no documentation and consistent behavior to no documentation and a bunch of internet howtos on what might work.
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      It's all on Discord now.
troad 2y ago
I understand the sentiment, but it's impractical to live in a trust-less society. If you've ever had dental work done, you've put an awful lot of faith in a stranger pushing a drill into your head. Ditto for riding buses and bus drivers, etc etc. Trust can be abused, certainly, but it also allows collaboration and specialisation, and without those I doubt we'd have gotten very far.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  I'm happy to trust many kinds of people, dentists included, just not the kind people who find themselves at the helm of companies like Apple and Google. Better to trust many people narrowly (e.g. I don't trust the bus driver to drill my cavities) than to trust a small handful of people broadly (e.g. like Apple expects of their users).
Aerbil313 2y ago
Any kind of practical OS would contain code of unpractical amounts to manually review and audit. That's not to mention the argument that any software of a LOC count of higher than some number is impossible to audit because of complex state handling. Rice's Theorem applies to your brain too, probably, to some extent. Idk about purely functional Haskell though.

That's true, but also it should be possible to make an OS that people can trust without trusting you, and as users we should encourage movement in that direction.

abtinf 2y ago

> should be possible What makes you think this?

brookst 2y ago
It’s especially funny because I believe it is provably impossible. You’ll have to trust me that I’ve done the proof.
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Because there are so freaking many of us, and some of us trust each other. If we were better at coordinating about which parts of the code we trust and to what degree, we could determine which parts of it are untrustworthy and patch the problem out of it. The GrapheneOS people are doing this, for example. It's not crazy to consider your device vendor as part of your threat model, because like it or not, they are a threat.
- abtinf 2y ago
  That’s a good point. It would be interesting if there was a “git blame” style command, but that showed a trust score for every line/block based on who has touched it.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    I'm working on a system for data annotation that might support apps of that nature. I'm focusing on simpler datasets for now, I want people to be able to annotate a paper restaurant menu with notes about allergens in a way that other people with those allergens can summon those annotations and steer clear--all without participation from the restaurant. Like an augmented reality layer for text. I hope it grows up into something that would let you ask: > How trusted is this line of code, and by whom?

EternalFury 2y ago

Good luck. It’s much easier to talk about it. The last open OS I have seen reach a semi-mainstream level of adoption was started in the early 90’s, more than 30 years ago, by some Linus guy.

fastball 2y ago
And (basically) nobody running linux is individually verifying the source code of every little piece of software that goes into it (maybe Linus is), so you're still trusting someone.
- detourdog 2y ago
  I can’t even find the appropriate documentation.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    How would documentation help you trust the code?
    - detourdog 2y ago
      How does one understand what is going on with out a clear set of documentation? Either one is so smart they can review everyline of everything they are running. My contention is that it is hard enough to find authoritative documentation much less developing an understanding of the code needed or running. The choice is either many little trust relationships or a giant leap of faith. I feel better served by a giant leap of faith and access to all the technology I can use. I prefer no documentation and consistent behavior to no documentation and a bunch of internet howtos on what might work.
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    It's all on Discord now.

troad 2y ago

I understand the sentiment, but it's impractical to live in a trust-less society. If you've ever had dental work done, you've put an awful lot of faith in a stranger pushing a drill into your head. Ditto for riding buses and bus drivers, etc etc. Trust can be abused, certainly, but it also allows collaboration and specialisation, and without those I doubt we'd have gotten very far.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
I'm happy to trust many kinds of people, dentists included, just not the kind people who find themselves at the helm of companies like Apple and Google. Better to trust many people narrowly (e.g. I don't trust the bus driver to drill my cavities) than to trust a small handful of people broadly (e.g. like Apple expects of their users).

Aerbil313 2y ago

Any kind of practical OS would contain code of unpractical amounts to manually review and audit. That's not to mention the argument that any software of a LOC count of higher than some number is impossible to audit because of complex state handling. Rice's Theorem applies to your brain too, probably, to some extent. Idk about purely functional Haskell though.