Maliciousness (Re: How do we disable the snap stuff)

[Joel Rees]

I don't know, Colin. I myself have said something similar in the past, to
Bret, if my memory serves me, but ...

2021年7月26日(月) 2:21 Colin Watson <cjwatson at ubuntu.com>:

> On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 06:13:35PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> > As this snap stuff can not be trusted to not make unauthorised
> > changes, and, cannot be trusted to not sabotage the system operation
> > (this unauthorised snap interference probably explains the error
> > messages that I have been getting, about incomplete and partial
> > upgrades and resultant systems instability across my systems), how do
> > we disable this malicious snap thing?
>
> Bret,
>
> You often describe the behaviour of Ubuntu or packages shipped by Ubuntu
> as "malicious", when on investigation it has generally turned out to be
> either a bug or simply something that is not to your liking.  A very
> quick search found at least these:
>
>   https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2016-January/283883.html
>   https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2017-January/288807.html
>   https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2017-October/291637.html
>   https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2017-October/291819.html
>   https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2017-October/291837.html
>   https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2019-March/296428.html
>   https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2019-August/298117.html


While I agree that it seems like Bret ought to be able to find his own
answers,

I've asked you not to do this before, noting the Ubuntu code of conduct:
>
>   https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2018-February/293487.html
>
> Quite honestly: if you really think that Canonical or Ubuntu is
> malicious, then you shouldn't use Ubuntu: you can't trust any software
> from an organization that you routinely allege distributes malicious
> software.


Considering Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust,

If I had to trust the OS I use, I would have to limit myself to the ancient
Micro Chroma 68 prototyping board I built and used in college, or the Tandy
Color Computer I passed off my OS and compiler classes with, but with the
boot ROM BASIC removed and replaced with either OS-9/6809 or a more
complete version of the OS I wrote for school, or a to derivative thereof
that I had constructed myself, running on CPUs that are now very much
considered hobby-only retro.

To tell the truth, I think I'd have been more satisfied with the course my
life took if I had done so.

But, as far as I can tell, you seem to in fact use
> "malicious" as a shorthand for something like "a thing on my computer
> that doesn't behave the way I want it to".
>

And, yet, consistently doing things the owner/user did not ask for and does
not want is the archetype of untrustable behavior.

Please stop.  It's hurtful to people who read this list and put a lot of
> effort into writing parts of that software (sure, we tend to develop
> thick skins, but we shouldn't have to),


Well, sure, if you really do believe in what you are doing, you shouldn't
need to develop thick skins about criticism. It should just wash off like
rain off a duck's back.

And the other users you say it's hurtful to should have no problems
ignoring the Pollyanna in our midst.

You think?

and it grossly misrepresents the
> situation.


I can think of a certain debacle that remains unresolved involving a poorly
constructed admin utility package that wanted to replace the kernel.

(And replace the kernel's manager with their own self-professed Cabal.)

(And I sit here and fight with intelligent input methods that insist on
typing things I don't particularly want to type, which doesn't address the
topical OS here, but does comment on the availability of trustable
alternatives.)

The current "situation" does not lend itself to trust, only to complacency,
which is an entirely different thing.

Of course anyone can disagree about how software should
> behave: I don't agree with everything Ubuntu does either.  However,
> making repeated accusations of actual malice over a period of years is
> surely well out of order.  If you genuinely thought it was that bad then
> you would be using something else.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Colin Watson (he/him)                              [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]
>

Malice.

Consistently misbehaving and insisting that the end-user should want the
misbehavior is not malice?

Is it just cute caprice?

And am I just feeling peevish today?

I don't know. I just don't know.

零石
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20210726/bc83a858/attachment.html>