Humans are bad at writing secure code, and GNOME developers are no exception. GNOME is primarily written using unsafe programming languages where simple mistakes in our code lead to devastating consequences for our users, and we make these mistakes all the time. No matter how much we try, GNOME developers will fail write secure code...
The problems with the quality of our software were there all along. We merely have discovered a cost-effective way to find them (which is a good thing!).
It feels sad that we have allowed this to happen.
Yes, agreed. It is profoundly sad that we allowed the industry (and ourselves) to play ostrich and neglect software quality for such a long time. Thankfully, these times are over.
Are they? For me a natural response to being forced to be honest about the broken state of most systems software would be massive rewrite efforts with better tools (memory-safe language, capability-based security, judicious use of formal methods, etc.). But what I see happening in practice is more “exhaust ourselves fixing all the LLM-found issues and then when the current stream dries out we can claim victory, without otherwise changing our programming approach”. And duh, of course, this is more incremental and the upcost front is smaller, and the result is worse, so of course everyone does it.
And duh, of course, this is more incremental and the upcost front is smaller, and the result is worse, so of course everyone does it.
It is entirely well known that in every human field of endeavor there is a tradeoff between costs and benefits, and not every thing that needs doing calls for maximum effort. Unless and until someone successfully implements a post-scarcity economy, it is going to stay that way.
Thus, something that raises the zero-effort floor (even if it doesn’t change the ceiling or the amount of effort required to attain the ceiling) is still valuable—maybe even more valuable than advancing the ivory-tower ceiling.
The problems with the quality of our software were there all along.
You could make the same argument concerning any system designed to live in an equilibrium with the environment it was created for. I wouldn’t say cities built by the coast are poor quality, or had problems that were there all along, because they do not have flood defences, even if it is now becoming a major problem due to a shifting climate.
I don’t mean to say that you are wrong for being glad we are finding vulnerabilities, perhaps it leads to a better place. I hope however you can understand that I feel sad about it, as I feel that the benefits we see from these things are outweighed by the negative externalities of their existence and widespread adoption, in a similar way to how the delicious wine we can now grow in my country is not worth the externalities of the climate crisis.
The problems with the quality of our software were there all along. We merely have discovered a cost-effective way to find them (which is a good thing!).
Yes, agreed. It is profoundly sad that we allowed the industry (and ourselves) to play ostrich and neglect software quality for such a long time. Thankfully, these times are over.
score 0 · canonical
Are they? For me a natural response to being forced to be honest about the broken state of most systems software would be massive rewrite efforts with better tools (memory-safe language, capability-based security, judicious use of formal methods, etc.). But what I see happening in practice is more “exhaust ourselves fixing all the LLM-found issues and then when the current stream dries out we can claim victory, without otherwise changing our programming approach”. And duh, of course, this is more incremental and the upcost front is smaller, and the result is worse, so of course everyone does it.
score 1 · canonical
It is entirely well known that in every human field of endeavor there is a tradeoff between costs and benefits, and not every thing that needs doing calls for maximum effort. Unless and until someone successfully implements a post-scarcity economy, it is going to stay that way.
Thus, something that raises the zero-effort floor (even if it doesn’t change the ceiling or the amount of effort required to attain the ceiling) is still valuable—maybe even more valuable than advancing the ivory-tower ceiling.
score 1 · canonical
I don’t think you do agree with me.
You could make the same argument concerning any system designed to live in an equilibrium with the environment it was created for. I wouldn’t say cities built by the coast are poor quality, or had problems that were there all along, because they do not have flood defences, even if it is now becoming a major problem due to a shifting climate.
I don’t mean to say that you are wrong for being glad we are finding vulnerabilities, perhaps it leads to a better place. I hope however you can understand that I feel sad about it, as I feel that the benefits we see from these things are outweighed by the negative externalities of their existence and widespread adoption, in a similar way to how the delicious wine we can now grow in my country is not worth the externalities of the climate crisis.
score 2 · canonical