3 ms·
That's the narrative from the new Ruby Central, which feels like a wild distortion of the actual situation. You’re likely aware, though it’s worth mentioning,
by soraminazuki 1y ago
That's the narrative from the new Ruby Central, which feels like a wild distortion of the actual situation.
You’re likely aware, though it’s worth mentioning, that the new owners ousted all existing maintainers without any explanation[1]. This follows a prior incident where access was revoked and later restored, with assurances that it was a mistake. This situation can only be viewed as a malicious attack, in which only the new owners had a full understanding of what transpired. Changing the password was a reasonable and appropriate response that any competent person in a similar position would've considered.
I’m shocked that we seem to be experiencing a Freenode 2.0 situation, but with some supporting the usurpers instead of the longstanding maintainers. It’s only been four years since the Freenode debacle, yet certain types of people seem to have grown bolder since then. A "win" for freedom of expression, huh?
[1]: https://pup-e.com/goodbye-rubygems.pdf https://pup-e.com/goodbye-rubygems.pdf
- tptacek 1y agoDid he or did he not log in to the AWS root account after losing his own credentials and change the root password? I don't need paragraphs of explication following that. Seems simple!
- soraminazuki 1y agoYou take issue with me using 148 words in my comment? Just 8 hours before you wrote that, you spent more words than I did downplaying problems with AI powered mass surveillance cameras. Are rules something you live by or something that you arbitrarily impose on others? It’s telling that you can write multiple paragraphs claiming the moon is made of cheese while expecting others to communicate only in brief, misleading soundbites.
- yawaramin 1y agoIt's a yes or no question.
- soraminazuki 1y agoThe term you're looking for is a loaded question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question Changing passwords was the responsible course of action to protect Ruby users in light of the attack. Maintainers should act in the interest of the Ruby community, not in favor of usurpers with a vendetta.
- tptacek 1y agoI love that you had to link to the Wikipedia question for "loaded question" for this. So you're saying, the answer is "yes": he logged into the root account, after he lost access to his own account, and changed the root password. OK then! Here's what I think: people are starting from a sympathetic principle (independent community-minded maintainers are better that corporations) and working their way back to what they've decided must have happened. The person we're talking about here tried to (quietly!) monetize the server logs for RubyGems. Don't even try to play the "that's what RubyCentral says" card --- they published the email. The world doesn't always line up with the most sympathetic principles.
- typpilol 1y agoEveryone seems to gloss over it lol
- soraminazuki 1y agoThe world doesn't line up with lies and spins of the most transparently corrupt actors either. Shopify stole RubyGems from the maintainers, do you deny it? They tried to do so in secret, keeping the maintainers and the larger Ruby community in the dark. Their claim that the access revocations were a mistake was a blatant lie. Moreover, they spun even more conspicuous falsehoods in response to the public backlash. When you twist protective measures against ongoing theft or shitty proposals that went nowhere into a nefarious conspiracy to justify the theft of critical Ruby infrastructure, it’s time to take a hard look in the mirror. And hey, since you imply that loaded questions aren't fallacious, tell me: have you stopped beating your wife? It's a "simple question," just answer yes or no.