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

Using computers more freely and safely

akkartik.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#31

Post by halicarnassus »

naasking wrote: post #28
halicarnassus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dan Luu's post, which I also read months ago, is very detailed, has a lot of data, but fails to make sense or come to a helpful conclusion in the end. Like so many of his posts. With helpful conclusion I don't mean just stating the facts or comparing transistors or input latency with network latency. As if developers stopped caring and created crappy software on purpose. The post compares an Apple 2e, which is a sing…

> But we know, that it's plenty of layers of GUI and OS code, that most people don't want to miss. You're missing the main point: you're just assuming that we must trade those features for improved latency, but this is just not true. The properties he measured are a result of particular architectural and abstraction choices, but other choices could be made that don't necessarily require such sacrifices. For instance,…

I'm not assuming that we must trade those features for improved latency. It is a possibility, but there are always alternatives.

Unfortunately in IT you always trade one set of problems for another. And clean architectures have to be watered down with time to stay practical.

Nobody is smart enough to predict all pros and cons accurately. We're always smarter after the fact. When we have finished a transition and gained some experience with the new technology. But then it's mostly too late to go back.

On top of that, computing is always a moving target. Now you have to target highly mobile devices with small batteries traveling at high speed in metal tubes connecting to unreliable networks. While more or less related to keyboard input lag, depending on where the action should be registered, you have to be careful where you spend your development resources.

That's why I think this is an oversimplification. True in its deepest form, but neglecting reality.

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#32

Post by akkartik »

the-printer wrote: post #30

So much can be commented on in response to points or perspectives that aren’t included in a person’s position. The amount of remarks on the unspoken tend to increase in relation to the responder’s nitpickiness over the author’s choice of words. One of the strangest things is when people over-interpret modest remarks as declarations of war against the fabric of sensibility and human decency. This seems to be a trend n…

Thank you. Words commenters aren't focusing on:

* Prefer

* "Gravitating away"

* "even one of these suggestions"

* "better than nothing"

* "This isn't always possible. Sometimes we have to use software with millions of users. But I think it helps to rely on small-scale tools as much as possible, and to question tools for large crowds of people at every opportunity."

(I'm the author.)

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#33

Post by akkartik »

saagarjha wrote: post #20

> Prefer software with thousands rather than millions of users Yep, guess which software shows up as a toy CTF challenge for the weekend? Just because you can understand how something works doesn’t mean it’s secure.

The concrete thing I'm doing and generalizing from boils down to:

* Starting from Lua which seems to have a decent security story;

* Changing a few lines of _safe_ Lua for yourself without introducing new buffer overflows and so on;

* and limiting the reach of those changes to a few thousand people _at most_. (99% of forks won't have even that, thanks to the tyranny of the power law.)

Your comment is very much something I think about. I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make it sound. It seems worth exploring. It seems analogous to doing controlled burns every year to avoid humongous wildfires.

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#34

Post by akkartik »

halicarnassus wrote: post #25
jacquesm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pity you stopped reading there because that point has some pretty solid support: https://danluu.com/input-lag/

Dan Luu's post, which I also read months ago, is very detailed, has a lot of data, but fails to make sense or come to a helpful conclusion in the end. Like so many of his posts. With helpful conclusion I don't mean just stating the facts or comparing transistors or input latency with network latency. As if developers stopped caring and created crappy software on purpose. The post compares an Apple 2e, which is a sing…

"I pointed out the oversimplification to support the main argument of the linked post, which suffers from this as a result."

I don't understand this at all (along with several other sentences in your comments).

(I'm the author of OP.)

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#35

Post by troupe »

> Humanity didn't get good at building houses by building the same house a million times.

The amount of quality variation that we are willing to accept in our houses is much greater than what we are willing to accept in an automobile. The quality of the automobile is BECAUSE we make millions of the same car over and over again.

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#36

Post by akkartik »

troupe wrote: post #35

> Humanity didn't get good at building houses by building the same house a million times. The amount of quality variation that we are willing to accept in our houses is much greater than what we are willing to accept in an automobile. The quality of the automobile is BECAUSE we make millions of the same car over and over again.

But we also went through a period of trying lots of variations that ended up on the road.

I suppose your point is even more valid if we switch to planes. But I'd counter by comparing the levels of regulation between planes and apps. Houses vs apps feels like a fairer comparison on that score.

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#37

Post by jasode »

akkartik wrote: post #32
the-printer wrote: post #30

So much can be commented on in response to points or perspectives that aren’t included in a person’s position. The amount of remarks on the unspoken tend to increase in relation to the responder’s nitpickiness over the author’s choice of words. One of the strangest things is when people over-interpret modest remarks as declarations of war against the fabric of sensibility and human decency. This seems to be a trend n…

Thank you. Words commenters aren't focusing on: * Prefer * "Gravitating away" * "even one of these suggestions" * "better than nothing" * "This isn't always possible. Sometimes we have to use software with millions of users. But I think it helps to rely on small-scale tools as much as possible, and to question tools for large crowds of people at every opportunity." (I'm the author.)

>But I think it helps to rely on small-scale tools as much as possible,

The problem is that your presentation is not covering the various downsides of choosing "small-scale" software. There are tradeoffs and if you don't explicitly highlight them, it's a disservice to readers.

E.g. You mention that large-scale software for millions is "expensive". But small-scale software is also expensive in different ways. (Software used by only a few can be more expensive in time/labor/hassles because of lack of features, workarounds required, lack of tutorials, etc)

I've written several utilities in the "small-scale" software category for my friends to use and that experience has enlightened me that most people (who are not hackers & techies) should use "software for millions" as the default choice.

If you're one of those that chooses small-scale software (e.g. your old Lua v5.1 anecdote), I think you're already part of a self-selected group and you don't need blogs suggesting it to you. You also are willing to overlook the downsides.

I like most of Clay Shirky's writings on various topics but his particular essay on "Situated Software" which you cited is incomplete and misleading because it doesn't cover "software rot": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#38

Post by troupe »

akkartik wrote: post #36
troupe wrote: post #35

> Humanity didn't get good at building houses by building the same house a million times. The amount of quality variation that we are willing to accept in our houses is much greater than what we are willing to accept in an automobile. The quality of the automobile is BECAUSE we make millions of the same car over and over again.

But we also went through a period of trying lots of variations that ended up on the road. I suppose your point is even more valid if we switch to planes. But I'd counter by comparing the levels of regulation between planes and apps. Houses vs apps feels like a fairer comparison on that score.

We still have variation in vehicles and some vehicles are known for being of better quality than others. Dollar for dollar the ones that are produced in the millions are more reliable than the ones that are produced in the thousands.

With software would you expect better quality from an operating system that was one of 50 options each with 100 million of users or something that was one of 5,000,000 options each with 5,000 users? If operating system is an odd corner case, then substitute "Library to Handle Timezones" or something else.

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#39

Post by juliend2 »

taopai wrote: post #22

I am not technical. I come from a science background so I am somewhat limited in regards to software development. I used to try a lot of APPS to produce documents and scruture my mind. Notion, google docs, word, calc, excel... It was fine but it I agree that some times is a pain. Google docs run very slow in my computer, Windows overheats in my laptop , etc. Finally I discovered Emacs. I am pretty bad with elisp but…

> Finally I discovered Emacs.

Do you mean Emacs with Org-mode? Or just plain Emacs? I'm curious, because I don't know much about Emacs but I heard a lot of good things about Orgmode.

Re: Using computers more freely and safely

#40

Post by akkartik »

troupe wrote: post #38
akkartik wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we also went through a period of trying lots of variations that ended up on the road. I suppose your point is even more valid if we switch to planes. But I'd counter by comparing the levels of regulation between planes and apps. Houses vs apps feels like a fairer comparison on that score.

We still have variation in vehicles and some vehicles are known for being of better quality than others. Dollar for dollar the ones that are produced in the millions are more reliable than the ones that are produced in the thousands. With software would you expect better quality from an operating system that was one of 50 options each with 100 million of users or something that was one of 5,000,000 options each with…

I think the crux of our disagreement is: is popular software mature enough and regulated enough yet to be worth distributing to 100 million users? I think the answer is overwhelmingly "no". In Carlota Perez's terms, I think we've moved too quickly to the installation phase.
Post reply on HN