[FRIAM] Meanwhile, back on the troll farms

[Steven A Smith]

Nick -

I doubt I can do justice to this for you, but will give a try.

The idea(l) behind open-source is two-fold:  

 1. develop a "commons" of re-useable resources to be shared by all.  
    This concept really took off with the introduction of Linus
    Thorvald's Adaptation of BSD Unix to run on IBM PCs and an explosion
    of software built on top of and around that one thing.   This
    movement began a lot earlier and the world of Berkeley Software
    Distribution (BSD) variant of ATT Unix was perhaps the strongest
    center for that... other efforts I was aware of include things like
    the Andrew File System (AFS) out of CMU (nod to Frank) and project
    Athena out of MIT.
 2. crowdsource the troubleshooting, debugging, and validation of
    system's design.   By making the source code available and free to
    use (with some restrictions), large numbers of system/software
    designers become motivated to look at, adopt, improve, build-upon
    that code-base and thereby improve and vet the code well.   There
    are notable exceptions indicating that big holes/bugs can exist in
    spite of this scrutiny.  I think there was a hoopla a few years ago
    around some (obvious?) security holes in the primary open-source
    router software used in most pro-sumer grade network routers, and
    maybe even commercial-class ones.  

This GitHub thing Roger posted is (as Roger indicated in his
subject/post) is clearly trolling on behalf of the anti-lockdown
movement... trying to use the open-source community mechanism (open and
free view of the software and the process of it's development, and the
ability for anyone to pitch in, comment, criticize) against the ideas
behind this particular model (and ANY? similar model).

I'm not sure this is a first, but from what I know, there haven't been
"political" trolls haranguing GitHub mediated open-source efforts... 
there have probably been "religious" wars between differing schools of
thought on the best way to solve a particular problem, but the preferred
way to handle that is to FORK the project and let the alternative subset
go pursue their alternative ideas. 

To some extent, this is the way the world is responding to the pandemic
at a policy level.    Each country roughly has it's own
unique/idiosyncratic response to the pandemic... some perhaps taking
their lead from others.   Within the USA (and I presume other
"federated" governments) we have states/governors following the general
guidelines (lame as they may be) of the federal government and
modifying/elaborating them to match their regional context, and again
each county/city/borough/neighborhood may well do the same.   In
principle these policies are open and transparent as are the data that
are gathered at each level on the resources expended and the results
obtained.   This is the Open-Data aspect that Tom Johnson and others
here promote.

The US Constitution (and our entire body of law) might be considered
open-source and I suspect more than a few states and younger countries
have borrowed parts of our constitution and legal system to build their
own from (for better and worse)... just as our Foundling Fatheds
apparently used some of the features exhibited by the (orally
maintained) Iroquois Federation and the ideas of French political
thinkers such as Montesquieu.  

</ramble>

 - Steve

> Marcus,
>
>  
>
> Thanks for taking my question seriously.  I understood what I was
> talking about even less than I usually do.
>
>  
>
> Let’s say I was an evil genius and wanted to introduce evil code into
> a project on github.  What would happen?
>
>  
>
> N
>
>  
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 7, 2020 11:05 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <Friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Meanwhile, back on the troll farms
>
>  
>
> Nick writes:
>
> * *
>
> *< *What exactly IS the policing mechanism in open source.  Darwinian?
> Reputational?  Does this HAVE to provoke a crisis of confidence in the
> general public?  Or could it be seen as a heroic thrown-together first
> step that is now being improved? >
>
>  
>
> They are whining about simple or absent unit tests as a litmus test
> for whether the code is reliable.   It’s like saying you don’t dare
> drive your car if you didn’t take out its alternator and test its
> voltage output last week.   ‘cause someone might have changed the
> alternator!   Eventually there will be consequences if the alternator
> fails, like stalling or the battery dying.   Same thing in a big
> simulation.   All of the parts and pieces of a simulation are there
> for a reason and global things will start to change in noticeable ways
> if something is broken.   I would say getting mechanisms working
> correctly is less difficult that choosing what mechanisms are
> appropriate in the first place.   Usually in use of a simulation one
> has instrumentation available on almost everything, and there is a
> constant checking and double- checking even if those checks are not
> embodied in automated tests.  Automated tests can even give a false
> sense of security, because they may not deal with the parameter ranges
> that happen in with the coupled system.  If you would rather have a
> bunch of unit tests, or to have modelers using and stressing the code
> every day, you have the wrong priorities.
>
>  
>
> My irritation is with the notion of unit tests as a prerequisite for
> code reliability.   There are tighter ways to integrate assertions of
> code behavior with the code.   The bandwagon obsession with unit tests
> is in some sense an obstacle even better practices.   I wouldn’t even
> call them trolls, because a troll has intention to rile people up. 
> These folks are more like pompous ditto heads who feel the need to
> posture about the right way to do software engineering.   People that
> love unit tests love not understanding the problem they are solving,
> and prefer to work in pieces.   This take a is a little harsh, but in
> this context (advising COVID-19 policy) I don’t find the behavior very
> helpful.
>
>  
>
> Marcus
>
>  
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200507/70a03f11/attachment.html>