Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wasmer and Trademarks

wasmer.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#71

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

tptacek wrote: post #45
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Heartbleed proved that the “many eyes” theory doesn’t always work in practice. It was in the codebase for years and no one noticed. It proved that FOSS isn't infallible, which I hope isn't that great a shock. To argue that it weakens the general argument, you would need to present a similar TLS library which avoided exploits by being closed source.

The person you're responding to could simply provide every closed source TLS library as an example, because Heartbleed (a memory leak caused by implementing a TLS feature nobody was using) was exclusive to OpenSSL.

That's absurd; we're comparing the rate of exploits, not whether the same exact exploit exists. By that logic, I can say that OpenSSL is perfect because it doesn't have (quick search) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/SecurityBu...

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#72

Post by tptacek »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #71
tptacek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you're responding to could simply provide every closed source TLS library as an example, because Heartbleed (a memory leak caused by implementing a TLS feature nobody was using) was exclusive to OpenSSL.

That's absurd; we're comparing the rate of exploits, not whether the same exact exploit exists. By that logic, I can say that OpenSSL is perfect because it doesn't have (quick search) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/SecurityBu...

It's not as absurd as it sounds, because a closed-source TLS library had less impetus to implement the extension that caused the vulnerability. But mostly I'm just making a point about the quality of the argument upthread.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#73

Post by mmargerum »

mythz wrote: post #42

The fact Wasmer even attempted to do this, the PR spin to try cover their motivations and the deceitful astro turfing in this thread by Wasmer employees is enough for me to distrust & discount the entire company and its products entirely.

Yup. product is dead to me now.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#74

Post by wiqar »

tptacek wrote: post #11
wiqar wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

You probably shouldn't write comments like this on posts from your employer; it's an HN thing, people are very alert to conflicts of interest here. It's fine to comment on them, to add your own spin or opinion or whatever, but you should be careful about cheerleading comments.

Thanks. I appreciate the lesson. Look forward to earning your trust.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#75

Post by wiqar »

TobyTheDog123 wrote: post #25
tptacek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably shouldn't write comments like this on posts from your employer; it's an HN thing, people are very alert to conflicts of interest here. It's fine to comment on them, to add your own spin or opinion or whatever, but you should be careful about cheerleading comments.

I don't even give them the benefit of the doubt here, this is shameless. They don't disclose that Wasmer is their employer (you can find it from their comment history though), and pretend like they're a satisfied customer. Absolutely disgusting.

Your point is taken. I will do my best to earn the communities trust moving forward. Thanks.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#76

Post by wiqar »

wiqar wrote: post #75
TobyTheDog123 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even give them the benefit of the doubt here, this is shameless. They don't disclose that Wasmer is their employer (you can find it from their comment history though), and pretend like they're a satisfied customer. Absolutely disgusting.

Your point is taken. I will do my best to earn the communities trust moving forward. Thanks.

"community's"

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#77

Post by syrusakbary »

donut-yogurt wrote: post #43
ledgerdev wrote: post #27

Anyone know why they were rejected from Bytecode Alliance?

I believe it all started when Wasmer's founder allegedly sexually harassed a member of the Bytecode Alliance. From the outside it seems any collaboration was doomed from the start, and the trademark applications and internal conflicts didn't help Wasmer one bit.

Syrus Akbary here (founder of Wasmer).

This allegation is absolutely false

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#78

Post by donut-yogurt »

syrusakbary wrote: post #77
donut-yogurt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it all started when Wasmer's founder allegedly sexually harassed a member of the Bytecode Alliance. From the outside it seems any collaboration was doomed from the start, and the trademark applications and internal conflicts didn't help Wasmer one bit.

Syrus Akbary here (founder of Wasmer). This allegation is absolutely false

If you're going to keep saying that, at least spell it out. Did you mean:

1. No, no one at the Bytecode Alliance ever accused me of inappropriate behavior.

2. Someone at the Bytecode Alliance accused me of inappropriate behavior, but that was a false allegation.

Spell it out, because regardless of which, this definitely played a part in why Wasmer is not a part of the Alliance, and that is what people were wondering about.

I'll do it from my end: yes, they were accused of it. Their answers are roundabout ways of never confirming it because they claim they were accused unfairly, and that's fine, if irrelevant to what ended up happening to the Wasmer-BA relationship.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#79

Post by syrusakbary »

donut-yogurt wrote: post #78
syrusakbary wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Syrus Akbary here (founder of Wasmer). This allegation is absolutely false

If you're going to keep saying that, at least spell it out. Did you mean: 1. No, no one at the Bytecode Alliance ever accused me of inappropriate behavior. 2. Someone at the Bytecode Alliance accused me of inappropriate behavior, but that was a false allegation. Spell it out, because regardless of which, this definitely played a part in why Wasmer is not a part of the Alliance, and that is what people were wondering…

Your throwaway account alleged something absolutely false without any proof (sexual harassment). Now the argument has shifted onto an accusation of inappropriate behavior (which actually doesn't even mean that there has been one). This are two very different things. Period.

> I'll do it from my end: yes, they were accused of it

Accused of sexual harassment by a member of the BA alliance? Never. This is absolutely false.

If you have proof of that please share the information. I think any future readers will like reading about it

But for the sake of discussion, let's play devils advocate. Even if such an accusation would exist (which in this case, it doesn't), it would not imply it's truthfulness. That's why it's super important to always put this matters into the hand of authorities so any bad behaviors (either sexual harassment or false accusations) are addressed with the full weight of the law.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#80

Post by donut-yogurt »

syrusakbary wrote: post #79
donut-yogurt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to keep saying that, at least spell it out. Did you mean: 1. No, no one at the Bytecode Alliance ever accused me of inappropriate behavior. 2. Someone at the Bytecode Alliance accused me of inappropriate behavior, but that was a false allegation. Spell it out, because regardless of which, this definitely played a part in why Wasmer is not a part of the Alliance, and that is what people were wondering…

Your throwaway account alleged something absolutely false without any proof (sexual harassment). Now the argument has shifted onto an accusation of inappropriate behavior (which actually doesn't even mean that there has been one). This are two very different things. Period. > I'll do it from my end: yes, they were accused of it Accused of sexual harassment by a member of the BA alliance? Never. This is absolutely fal…

> Accused of sexual harassment by a member of the BA alliance? Never. This is absolutely false.

Are you joking me? Inappropriate physical behavior IS sexual harassment. You're trying to twist words to deny something happened.

At this point I lost complete faith in you and now assume your claims that it was a misunderstanding an outright fabrication. I'm ashamed I ever rooted for Wasmer and hoped this was indeed culture clash.

At no point in this conversation was the truthfulness or the legality of whatever happened in question: the question was "why was wasmer rejected from the bytecode alliance," and a "false" allegation that you "touched someone in a prolonged and overly-familiar way that caused them discomfort according to them but wasn't sexual harassment according to you" is the answer.

In fact, you're saying this never happened and that false accusations need to be addressed with the full weight of the law? I'll see you in court I guess?

Post reply on HN