Linux Foundation drops the ban-hammer on University of Minnesota over controversial 'research'...

[ZedRM]

Well, I've always heard the opposite logic, open source is the most safe cause it's open and controlled.

And that is generally true. The researchers mentioned in the article above only came forward because they knew they were about to get "caught". The Linux community is always on point and quick to double check submissions for exactly these reasons.

 

[indawgwetrust]

So they tried to introduce bugs, those bugs were discovered and fixed, and the people submitting them are now banned.

That doesn't sound like a failure. That sounds like the system worked as designed. Maybe the researchers will re-submit their paper with this new and improved conclusion. Probably not though. It doesn't seem like it would make for a very interesting talk at a conference.

"What is your research about?"

"we submitted bogus patches to the Linux kernel to see if they would notice."

"...and... ?"

"They noticed, shamed us publicly, and banned our whole university."

".........."

 

[ZedRM]

So they tried to introduce bugs, those bugs were discovered and fixed, and the people submitting them are now banned.

That doesn't sound like a failure. That sounds like the system worked as designed. Maybe the researchers will re-submit their paper with this new and improved conclusion. Probably not though. It doesn't seem like it would make for a very interesting talk at a conference.

"What is your research about?"

"we submitted bogus patches to the Linux kernel to see if they would notice."

"...and... ?"

"They noticed, shamed us publicly, and banned our whole university."

".........."

It would seem you have failed to understand the problem. Context is important.

 

[Gollum22]

Well, I've always heard the opposite logic, open source is the most safe cause it's open and controlled.

It is, opposite from what?

 

[indawgwetrust]

It would seem you have failed to understand the problem. Context is important.

It would seem you have failed to provide any explanation whatsoever for your dismissive comment. Context is important.

 

[ZedRM]

It would seem you have failed to provide any explanation whatsoever for your dismissive comment. Context is important.

Bet you thought that was clever..

Working to undermine the security of a system without informing the administrators of said system of such an effort(thus allowing them to monitor, observe and possibly learn) is reckless, unethical and potentially even criminal behavior.

You failed to understand the context of the problem because your comment clearly indicated that you did not understand why the actions of the so-called "researchers" were so fundamentally flawed.

 

[indawgwetrust]

Bet you thought that was clever..

Working to undermine the security of a system without informing the administrators of said system of such an effort(thus allowing them to monitor, observe and possibly learn) is reckless, unethical and potentially even criminal behavior.

You failed to understand the context of the problem because your comment clearly indicated that you did not understand why the actions of the so-called "researchers" were so fundamentally flawed.

I think you are the one that is failing to understand... My original comment is effectively neutral on the subject of research ethics. I didn't defend their approach, and I didn't condemn it either, because that was not the point I was making. You are trying to argue that I have misunderstood something that I never addressed in the first place. You are attacking a straw man.

 

[ZedRM]

I think you are the one that is failing to understand... My original comment is effectively neutral on the subject of research ethics. I didn't defend their approach, and I didn't condemn it either, because that was not the point I was making. You are trying to argue that I have misunderstood something that I never addressed in the first place. You are attacking a straw man.

This is an example of another misunderstanding by you. Disagreeing with and criticizing a statement made by someone is in no way attacking them.

You demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the situation informed of by this article with your statement above. You then misunderstood my criticism of it. That's on you.

 

[indawgwetrust]

This is an example of another misunderstanding by you. Disagreeing with and criticizing a statement made by someone is in no way attacking them.

You demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the situation informed of by this article with your statement above. You then misunderstood my criticism of it. That's on you.

"attacking a straw man" is a common turn of phrase. It means you are attempting to disagree with or criticize statement X by making claims about statement Y, but X does not imply Y. For example if Bob says "Big pharma has too much lobbying power" and Sue tries to refute that by saying "Bob doesn't understand that diabetics rely on pharmaceutical companies for insulin" then Sue has attacked a straw man.

Another example would be if I said "Those researchers didn't get the results they were hoping for. The kernel developers discovered the malicious submissions and removed them. The system worked successfully" and some mouth breather came along and replied "that's wrong you don't even know about ethics."

 

[ZedRM]

"attacking a straw man" is a common turn of phrase. It means you are attempting to disagree with or criticize statement X by making claims about statement Y, but X does not imply Y. For example if Bob says "Big pharma has too much lobbying power" and Sue tries to refute that by saying "Bob doesn't understand that diabetics rely on pharmaceutical companies for insulin" then Sue has attacked a straw man.

Another example would be if I said "Those researchers didn't get the results they were hoping for. The kernel developers discovered the malicious submissions and removed them. The system worked successfully" and some mouth breather came along and replied "that's wrong you don't even know about ethics."

Ah, you're letting your pride react for you. Well done.

 

[mailpup]

Indawgwetrust and ZedRM, I think that's enough of your personal argument in this thread. If you must continue it, do so through PM. Thanks.