[FRIAM] Meanwhile, back on the troll farmsd

Thu May 7 16:35:58 EDT 2020

Thanks, Steve (Smith).  I have learned so very much from this correspondence, when I deserved only to be flamed for allowing myself to be indirectly trolled.  

This kind of assault on trust reminds me of those emails that used to go around telling people that there was a bad file on their computer that had to be deleted or all hell would break loose.  I never did it, but I did move the file to another directory to see what would happen.  All hell broke loose. Fortunately, I could move it back and reboot.  The user is ALWAYS the weakest link in a security system. 

N

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 2:23 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Meanwhile, back on the troll farms

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

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam  <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> <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  <mailto:Friam at redfish.com> <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/20200507/2eecb1e7/attachment.html>