I did not go on the Internet and try to convince other people not to use it. I did not complain at the maintainer that he should manage his project differently. I just didn't see why a library doing what Actix does should use any unsafe code at all, so I didn't use it.
When I later saw the way the maintainer responded to well-meaning bug reports, including patches, that validated my decision.
There's no need to flame people for running their open-source project the way they want to run it. You can just not use the code.
It feels like it should be simple: I disagreed with how the maintainer was doing things, so I decided the package was not for me. No need to hassle them about it. I wish it could be that simple.
Instead, I had to weather a fair bit of defending my choice to use a different, less popular option, and there's apparently no honest answer I can give that won't be taken as an attack on the framework or its users. And refusing to engage with the question is, of course, rude.
I'm finding that Internet culture wears me down, these days. Even when you don't go looking for flamewars, they come looking for you.
With less-popular libraries, it's easier. Open an issue, say hi, make sure the maintainer knows what you're planning on doing, do it, learn a few things, have a nice day. Once or twice I've been asked to more-or-less rewrite the patch because the maintainer didn't like something about my coding style, which is also fine, and often a good way to try a different way of doing things on for size. It's all pretty benign. But popular, well-known projects have this way of getting political.
I suspect that the worst thing that could possibly happen to one of my labors of love would be for lots of other people to like it, too. A few people, great. But I don't want my free time to become Internet politicized.
Doing this well and thoroughly is extremely hard, and commercial enterprises spend a lot of time and money doing so (or pay the equivalent of insurance to not worry about it). Doing a minimal amount of research entails doing what you did. Look at the current and past state of the item in question, and decide whether it's worth putting the significant amount of time and effort into using it.
I can't help but feel the vast majority of people complaining failed to do this minimal amount of legwork. They're upset about their lack of forethought for what they view as a bad investment, but that's on them. Unfortunately, I find people often have a hard time accepting blame onto themselves, but feel there is blame to be assigned, and so it needs to be directed somewhere.
They say don't look a gift horse in the mouth, but if you are responsible for dealing with whatever diseases that horse might introduce to your stable, or even if you are just legally obligated to deal with the care and feeding or removal on death of such a large animal, you definitely look that horse in the mouth for red flags.
In this case it does sound like people initially were very nice and tried to give the author very polite suggestions on improvement, and it was only after the author being extremely dismissive, not admitting to his own flaws, not wanting to learn from others, and abusing his own power in shutting down valid discussion, that things turned nasty.
The fact that the author deleted many of the linked issues e.g. https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-net/issues/83 really feels like he is playing the victim here and taking everyone for a ride, denying his own responsibility in all this drama that's unfolded.
Yes a community should be open and forgiving, but blindly forgiving someone who doesn't even admit their own mistakes, who doesn't even understand what they are being forgiven for, is naive and also will result in community destruction.
I also don't buy the "if you don't like it just don't use it" argument. If it's actively dangerous and you know this, and you know that other people don't know this, you do have a responsibility to (politely) inform others about it. Simplying "not using it" is plain negligence.
 "the patch is boring", LOL WTF I would never have even come up with something this insulting even when I wanted to actively piss someone off, kudos for imaginativity
Yes, nice comments such as
>seriously? Please just stop writing Rust. You do not respect semver, you do not respect soundness, so why are you using a language predominantly based around doing these things right?
> Never write rust code again
Also, you can change your copy of it to work the way you want, and if you decide to share it, other people can choose to use your version if they like it better. You don't have to bully other people to get your needs meet, individually or collectively. These are among the core benefits of open source.
Probably in this case most people would have ended up using the less-unsafe fork of the project, and the original author would have tried harder to extract the potential performance benefits of his more-unsafe version, while both groups constantly learned from one another. Everyone would have benefited.
I've written a bit about the history of some such friendly forks at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22080672
Emphasizing authors’ feelings in this way has the effect of diminishing their software from a contribution to the intellectual heritage of humanity to merely a service like delivering a pizza. Don't forget to tip your waiter!
Of course you should be nice to authors if you interact with them. But the whole point of open source is that you don't have to interact with them unless you want to.
GitHub in particular has a "fork" button to make it super-easy. So fork, do your edits. If you want, make a pull request with the original project. If they take it, great: the fork can cease to exist.
If they don't want to merge it don't take it personally but go your own merry ways. And this is what didn't happen with actix.
It has automated quite a few things I found dull to do in other server frameworks, from the gRPC .proto file I can generate:
- Rust server request/response types and request handler stubs.
- grpc-gateway files and an OpenAPI v2 json spec.
- Client side typescript types and request/response handlers from the OpenAPI spec.
So now the process of adding a new endpoint is much less time consuming and involves writing less repetitive and error prone code. As mentioned above I've only been using it a few weeks but so far it has been great, easier to use than actix-web and felt no less responsive.
Hopefully gotham or rocket gets around to updating.
So in that case you wouldn’t use any software written in plain C, right?
It's not necessarily that unsafe code is categorically bad and nobody should ever use software that is written without strong static guarantees. It's that, in a language like Rust that has such a high level of compile-time checking, and whose community places such a high premium on it, relying heavily on unsafe becomes a red flag. It implies that the author of the code has a tendency to play fast and loose in a way that you might not want to welcome into your own codebase if you don't have to.
Where unsafe is supposed to be treated as a sort of pinky swear that says, "The compiler couldn't guarantee that this is safe, so I did," that starts to get scary, because any errors will undercut the safety guarantees that the compiler is supposed to be enforcing on your own code. And a large volume of unsafe code implies a large manual verification burden, and a larger volume of code that's easy to accidentally break. And the more of it that should be manually verified there is, the lower the chances that it is actually being manually verified. So it threatens to defeat the ostensible purpose of choosing a language like Rust in the first place.
That's not to say that programming Rust that way is wrong or evil in any objective sense. But it's something that needs to play into a decision on whether to take a dependency on such code. When you link code, you're inviting it into your process space, and you now have to accept responsibility for anything it does while it's in there.
It does not imply that. It might mean that the author knows what he's doing. Or not. We don't know without auditing the code.
defeat the ostensible purpose of choosing a language like Rust in the first place
The OP didn't try to choose a language - they tried to choose a piece of software that solves their problem. Seemed like the software was rejected on wrong grounds.
Though I think that we can trot out logical implication in response to your second comment: Considering taking actix-web as a dependency logically implies that you have chosen to write your program in Rust. Or, at least, the only language I'm aware of being able to import Rust modules is Rust.
or when you really audit the code, find a problem, submit a patch and then the author dismisses your patch as "boring"
If you were a rollercoaster engineer, and you saw that a rollercoaster had an unsafe design, would you follow a similar approach? "I'm not going to ride that, but I'll let this line of people ride it without warning them." Obviously the stakes are wildly different, but still...
Granted, no one died over Heartbleed but it caused lots of real people harm. We should start worrying about the well being of our fellow human beings long before their lives are at stake.
The linked article specifically mentions that a specific soundness issue had been found and a fix had been submitted as well. If they had done nothing, it would have attracted no comment. If they had allowed another maintainer to review and merge, it would have attracted no comment. But they went out of their way to denigrate the people who called attention to this issue, called the issue "boring", rejected the patch, then deleted the issue and all comments.
> Every time I stumble upon shitty open source code, am I supposed to fix it?
Your tone suggests that you don't want any part of this, so you continue along that path. I'm not going to convince you to start caring about your fellow men and women.
This is an unfair characterization of what happened. Here's another version: The maintainer did not denigrate anyone, he did call the patch "boring" (which isn't really an insult or anything?), worked on his own patch (without closing the previous PR mind you). People immediately starting shitting on the maintainer - within the hour - because the PR had not been merged. Maintainer chose to delete the issue to avoid it devolving into the usual mess. More shitting contest happened here on HN, on Reddit, and elsewhere.
To me, deleting the issue instead of disabling comments or making read-only suggests mens rea on the maintainer that their actions were out of line and regrettable, and don't suggest an effort to de-escalate the situation.
True, but I (and I think the other comments) referred to the top level comment here, which is a guy who just felt the code was smelly and avoided it, without having discovered anything specific.
> Your tone suggests that you don't want any part of this, so you continue along that path.
Been there, done that. The amount of excuses and other bullshit is not worth my time and effort. If the project is on github I still do open issues providing repro or at least a stack trace if possible. But if you have your own bug tracker where I'd need to sign up first (most likely going through email verification) you've lost me. Same for when you start requesting I do a git bisect even though I provided steps to reproduce or start giving excuses for why this isn't an actual bug and I'm holding it wrong. I'll just stop replying immediately.
It's also a matter of degree and thoroughness. There's a huge difference between "I've found a specific exploitable vulnerability in this security library and here is a proof-of-concept exploit", and "after a cursory look, I see this rust code uses a lot of `unsafe` and I'm uncomfortable with that".
This point pretty much invalidates your argument. When making a moral decision like this, determining the stakes and the consequences of remaining silent is a critical part of the moral evaluation.
In the case of the rollercoaster, silence could have deadly consequences for the riders. Not so much for the code. (Sure it's possible that someone might use it in a life-critical situation, and it could fail in a way that would cause loss of life, but assuming from the outset that this is a strong possibility is quite the stretch.)
Failures of a roller-coaster are “non-ergotic”; individuals never experience the long-term average failure rate, since they’re, you know, dead...
This has got to be the most common and tragic type of mis-application of statistics I’m aware of; I know I used to do it all the time! Virtually nobody teaches/talks about it, but it is arguably more critical to understand than “causation vs. correlation”, or “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.
It works both ways. You put something out there, you need to be ready for the response. I'm not a Rust user, but presumably there was a reason other than charity that he put it out there (show off his brilliance, use it to get jobs, I don't know - but it was something he did for his own benefit). If you don't like that, don't make your code available to others, and don't complain if others act in a way you don't like. There's so much posted on HN about "open source entitlement". Well, the entitlement seems to run in both directions. That's the simple the reality of the situation.
Yes, if you put something out there, you should expect feedback, and assume that some of that feedback is not going to be very nice. But that doesn't excuse the people giving that feedback for being rude. It doesn't excuse the fact that those people giving feedback have no inherent right to see that feedback acted upon, and expecting that is unreasonable and entitled.
I'm not saying I would have acted the same way the actix developer did (in my experience as an open source maintainer I certainly have some moments I'm proud of, and others that I wish I could take back), but I'm not so quick to condemn them, either.
entitled: to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something
example: this ticket entitles the bearer to free admission
Being an open source maintainer doesn't mean you're entitled to recognition or praise or deference. You're not entitled to put out low-quality software and have others pretend it's awesome. You're not entitled to make claims that are false and not be called out for it. You're not even entitled to people not trashing your work. When you put your work out there because you want to be praised, that's the downside.
"But that doesn't excuse the people giving that feedback for being rude."
That has nothing to do with being entitled (at least not in the context of an open source project). That's basic human interaction.
When you critizise someone for using unsafe blocks, there are many ways how you could go about this. This argument here is not about whether we are allowed to point out unsafe code blocks, it is about how we do it.
It is a tangible difference if your message is: "You are using unsafe there and it is not really needed, let me help" or rather: "You are using unsafe there without any reason, you idiot. Go away and never come back!"
And the thing is: only one of these messages will get you closer to safe code.
That's fine and all but you are entitled to control your own repo, its issues, pull requests, and related fora. You are entitled to set the acceptable standard of communications and if you don't like the way someone is communicating you are entitled to shutting that off.
See, entitlement works both ways: as a maintainer you're not entitled to a lot of things, but as users others are also not entitled to lots of things.
You'd think that basic human interaction dictates not being rude to eachother, but internet history says otherwise.
From what I can tell reading the salvaged conversations, that feedback wasn't rude (IMO) up until the maintainer called the outside patch "boring" (which, IMO, was rude). Even after that, the "rudeness" was pretty mild.
The entirety of this drama seems to have been self-inflicted. Blaming "reddit" for the author/maintainer being unable to handle criticism or PRs doesn't exactly change that.
No one expects you to write perfect code, but we do expect you to fix flaws when you learn about them.
Of course, you could do neither, but don't be surprised when people call you out on it.
It's not like he was getting paid to work on this, was it? And people do have a life beyond open source. People could have forked and worked on the issues themselves, but that's asking too much. Why do the hard work when you can just write a comment/tweet blaming someone else, right?
Your comment is precisely what entitlement looks like.
Skimming this, the author doesn't really like any of them. Note, however, the long list of issues reported at the end of the article.
Here is the first one I clicked on:
The maintainer is happy to get the report, and has an exchange with the reporter acknowledging the bug and how to fix it.
This all seems a very civil, mature way to address issues with open source software. Accept actionable criticism of your code, and strive to make it better. As a developer, I know having other people test my code and report problems back to me is one of the best ways for them to help me and my code improve!
I think identifying to your code to the point where you consider criticism of your code an attack on your personal identity demonstrates a real lack of maturity.
The issue isn't the article or the bug reports. It's the uproar from Reddit, and the extra nasty comments.
"Some people go far, far, far over the line."
There is a reason HN has guidelines for how to approach communication. It's because if we "go far, far, far over the line" and get "extra nasty" things devolve and this place becomes far worse. Rather than "toughen up" or "just not taking things personally," HN realizes that words matter.
Like I said, a couple lines easily missed or forgotten. It's not the bug reports. It's the extra nasty comments.
There's no way for me to know for sure, but it seems as though Klabnik was exaggerating here.
The problem with the r/rust thread, AIUI, is less "far, far, far over the line" and more just a huge volume of the same sorts of criticism. It sucks to see such a response on that scale, but it's harder to characterize any individual's comment as "nasty."
I agree. I'm further disheartened by a lot of the reactions that happened since. One of Rust's greatest strengths is turning into a weakness.
The Rust community needs to treat this cultural exploit as if it were a critical technical exploit and apply the same sort of objective and collective examination of source and insightful exploration of assumptions made about existing grammars and syntax and come up with appropriately safe and forward thinking solutions to ensure that the code of conduct isn't just a progressive cliche.
You don't know the history of either project, or either person. The developer of ureq probably has some bad days and responds in ways that their not proud of. The developer of actix has probably had some (many?) good days and responded politely and helpfully.
Indicting the actix developer given a small set of responses to a particular class of issues is a bit unfair.
The actix issue does not show an actual error. It just tells that some internal code does not follow the usual Rust unsafe conventions, and that this might lead to a bug. It takes then some API exploitation by a third person to demonstrate how this could lead to a bug. At that point the author acknowledges the issue, even though any real world implication is still unknown.
Interesting. I'm being led to believe that the actual problem lies in HTTP itself: it is too convoluted to be safely implementable and should be replaced with something else for security-critical applications. (Or in general.)
It's not insurmountable. It just takes a little bit of elbow grease and self-discipline ;)
Are there some deleted comments that might have been missed?
If not the conversation was civil until the maintainer refused a patch for a "boring" reason.
> As a PoC
> Presumably this requires benchmarking/more exhaustive testing which I don't have time to do, but if someone wants to take the patch and get it merged feel free
Keeping that in mind, the "boring" comment comes off differently to me, like they got sidetracked from the original issue and he didn't feel like continuing - which is nearly the confirmation given in the second issue.
At some point, a flood of poor PRs can be worse than a flood of angry bug reports. The cost of validating and cleaning up a PR is significantly higher than closing a bug.
Were they actual personal attacks, or just criticism of the code?
If you can't accept legitimate criticism of your work, that shows a real lack of maturity.
(The article didn't give concrete examples, so I don't know which is the case here.)
> "seriously? Please just stop writing Rust. You do not respect semver, you do not respect soundness, so why are you using a language predominantly based around doing these things right?"
This is what I was thinking of when I wrote "far, far over the line."
Otherwise if that event is far far over the line I wonder what out of the blue insults or death threats qualify as.
Just about any thread on HN regarding any aspect of systemd or Google will have comments which are much more vitriolic.
Do you not see how that is (a) not related to the project and (b) rude in any context?
If you were, say, singing karaoke and someone came up to you and said "you're awful, never sing again, you're off-key, you don't know the words"... Is that not rude to you?
I don't claim to know much about either karaoke or rust, but from what little I know of both, that seems wrong. The Rust community expects safe code, while bad singing is expected at karaoke bars.
The comparison was about how to communicate respectfully and appropriately, not about making an perfect analogy.
Think of it this way then: it is completely possible for the Rust community to expect safe code without being entitled assholes about how they communicate that expectation.
I massaged the GitHub API logs with jq to make a readable version of the issue history. I was firstly (based on the blog post) feeling bad about the maintainer... but after reading the issue report, it turns out multiple people were working on the issue and the author responded... 'this patch is boring'. That's... certainly not good to people who are trying to resolve the issue. He even goes to threatening to delete the organization if people talk about the issue.
Forking projects should be a last resort. This is the "Taking my ball and going home" approach, and now we're splitting development efforts, potentially ending up with very different code paths where improvements can't be merged from one to another, etc. It might be the right thing to do in this situation - but people wanting to avoid it want to avoid it for good reason. It's a big hammer and not the first one you want to pull out of your tool bag.
>Why do the hard work when you can just write a comment/tweet blaming someone else, right?
Except, as the article mentions, the author wasn't interested in detailed bug reports or PRs that had code that fixed it. This wasn't a case of people just being nasty - the maintainer wasn't interested in people doing work to fix it, either.
>Your comment is precisely what entitlement looks like.
This isn't someone asking for a feature request or minor bug to be resolved and whining when it didn't happen. This is a security vulnerability in a popular package where detailed reports are provided and the maintainer has a history of not accepting feedback, PRs, etc. on similar issues in the past.
Security vulnerabilities are a big deal: They have implications for not just the user or company that is making use of the software, but also potentially any end users. This is a web framework - a good portion of projects using it are going to be public facing. A good portion of those are going to be storing user accounts and information about the users. A security vulnerability puts all of those people at risk too.
I maintain that any project that you make publicly available you have a moral obligation to resolve security issues if it is at all within your power, and to disclaim them prominently if it isn't.
If I've got a free lemonade stand, but every glass contains a toxic chemical that will activate in my body if a malicious person sprays me in the face with another chemical, people sure as hell can bitch about my free lemonade, even if they could go run it through a filter and remove the toxic chemical.
Post pull requests if you care to, and post your fork, too, if you like, being careful to keep clear that it is a different project.
Some forks wither, some surge, some re-merge. It's all part of the dance. Any of it is better than flaming somebody who makes a thing and offers it.
No. This was kind of true in the days of CVS and SVN. Now with DVCSs like Git, it's easy enough to merge in changes from wherever; this was the whole reason Tom Lord originally developed the modern DVCS. Git workflows commonly make a new fork for every bug fix. If other people don't want to merge in your changes, they probably don't think they're good enough. But that doesn't matter; you can still use them. If they're wrong, it's their loss.
But you will have a very hard time merging two refactoring branches that both touch internal data structures.
In many cases of profound changes, different versions of the software do a better job of serving different groups of users. For example, EVE Online is built on Stackless Python, a fork of the CPython interpreter that enabled massive concurrency. This was really important to the EVE Online developers, so they were willing to accept tradeoffs that the core Python developers didn't think were good ones. Most people have gone on to use the stock interpreter, rather than choosing Stackless, so probably the core Python team made the right choice for most people. But that's no reason to deprive EVE Online of the ability to try a different approach.
Similarly, when I installed my first Linux box in 1996, there was an "NFS swapping patch" which made it possible to swap onto NFS, which was impossible with stock Linux because it meant that many operations that were normally "atomic" could no longer be atomic. (This was before SMP support, so the kernel didn't have locks; atomicity was enough.) The patch introduced a new "nucleonic" priority level and redefined the notion of atomicity, adding a lot of complexity to Linux to support the marginal use case of running diskless X-terminals and the like on Linux, rather than, say, SunOS or NCD's shitty imitation of VMS. This was not a good tradeoff for the majority of users, and it did not merge well with changes to network drivers. But for a certain subset of users, it was extremely valuable and worth the tradeoff. This complexity was eventually added in a better way when Linux got real SMP support.
Similarly, LuaJIT prioritizes speed (and secondarily minimality), while PUC Lua prioritizes portability and minimality (and secondarily speed), currently being about half the size of LuaJIT and one tenth of its performance. LuaJIT is, generally speaking, about as fast as C, but originally it was i386-only, later adding amd64, ARM, PowerPC, and MIPS support; it still doesn't support aarch64, which is what most new hand computers use. PUC Lua, by contrast, runs anywhere there's a C compiler and a few hundred K of memory. Losing either of these two projects would be terrible.
So, no, forking projects should not be a "last resort." Being able to fork projects is one of the core benefits provided to users by open source. It's the reason Tom Lord invented the DVCS as we know it today, in the form of Arch, and it's the reason Linus wrote a DVCS to use instead of Subversion: to ensure that the users' freedom to fork their software didn't become merely theoretical.
Shouldn't that be Larry McVoy? BitKeeper predated GNU Arch by a couple years.
Tom had a pretty clear vision for arch which is more or less what Git ended up achieving. Everything he wrote publicly about it derived the feature requirements from his social agenda; he never mentioned BitKeeper, and I don't think he knew about it. He must have known about TeamWare, but I don't know if he had ever used it, and from the little I can glean, TeamWare lacked some very significant things crucial to what we think of as a DVCS today. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
It'd be interesting if people could release their projects "abstract" fork-only. So they could publish releases that would be vetted and merged into the downstream forks, but would never be released as a deployable itself.
And yet I still got people who would ask for help with it, or file bugs without patches and then get angry when I wouldn't help them.
I want people to point out bugs in my code, so both my code and me as a developer can improve.
And, anyway, yes, reporting bugs can be extremely annoying. Different devs respond to this annoyance differently. npm devs, for example, have decided not to pay too much attention to bugs reported by the public. 
I would never touch the product of someone who found bug reports annoying.
If there was a big user community that wanted different things, fork and have a seperate maintainer structure. Why drama?
If you create a project that ends up becoming such a security risk, you really should be doing something to address it, for the good of everyone. This could be as simple as adding more maintainers with commit access who will address the issues.
I agree OSS maintainers do a lot of work but no compensation in return. I believe most maintainers actually strive to remove flaws/bugs in their projects.
But if you write a half baked buggy OSS which is used by many people, you definitely should have some sense of responsibility towards users. Otherwise keep it private or at least boldly acknowledge that your project is merely a toy project which has many bugs and you aren't bothered about those bugs.
I think this is a good metaphor because how bad the food is is key. If it's just a little bad he is doing a good thing. If it's a little bit more bad it's neutral and people can take it or leave it. And if the quality is really bad that's when people need to protect themselves and each other by dragging his name through the mud.
I'm not familiar with actix so I wont presume to say which category it falls into.
So what is the person who finds the flaw supposed to do:
1. announce to all the other users of the library to download his branch with just the single fix
2. report it to the maintainer with a suitable patch, discuss it, and hope the maintainer applies it sooner rather than later.
TBH the maintainer sounds like the boy with the soccer ball who ends the match and takes his ball home with him, because the opposing side scored against his team.
So? If I'm donating clothes to one of those coat drives, and the clothes I donate are tattered and covered with rodent feces, should the organizers of said drive not be upset with me? Especially if said organizers point this out politely and I respond with "lol you'll take what I give you, peasant"?
I'd consider it to be social norms. It certainly isn't entitlement.
That is completely beside the point. Do the Debian maintainers that were responsible for famous security slipups regarding SSH keys got paid? No. Would the backlash if they had been unwilling to fix the issues been warranted? Absolutely.
Once you are a part of people's infrastructure and these people rely on you to not be irresponsible, you can't afford to play the but-I-dont-get-paid-card. You can resign gracefully and let other people take over. If you put up a tantrum, you probably get your reputation burnt faster than a Google project gets when they suddenly pull the plug.
Open source is not some backyard game anymore. It involves companies and their commitment in form of infrastructure and participation.
Open source is like capitalism. But a project's success is measured in commitment instead of capital.
So there are some Debian developers who are unpaid and slavishly dedicated to fixing security issues and apologizing if they screw up? Great, that increases my confidence in them (I'm a Debian user and happy with that).
But guess what? There are also open source developers who do their thing as a casual hobby and just throw things out there because they hope it might be useful. They don't want to spend 50% of the free time they allocate to the project dealing with support requests and bug reports.
And there's everything in between, and above and beyond. I think this is a mistake that so many people make: that all open source developers are exactly the same, have the same motivations, want the same level of involvement, and have the same responsibility. That's just flat-out false. Every project and maintainer is different, and yes, it can be difficult to judge what kind of support you'll get when looking into taking on a new dependency, but that's the price you have to pay when you get something for no monetary cost.
You have no right to tell anyone what to do or how to do it unless you are paying them for the privilege of doing so.
> Once you are a part of people's infrastructure and these people rely on you to not be irresponsible
Nonsense. Absent a contract and some sort of consideration changing hands, you are responsible for your dependencies, and no one else.
> You can resign gracefully and let other people take over.
No. If users are unhappy with maintainership, they can fork. It's often contentious and not all that fun, but the (unpaid!) maintainer has no obligation to run the project the way you want them to.
Yes, you can. The projects that have persisted over the long term have had a long history of people being paid to work on them, Debian included. There is no need to do something to "let other people take over" either. The code is open, you just type "git clone" and boom, now you've taken over.
I think the basic rules still apply: You’re getting this software for free rather than paying for something expensive. Though you deal in the software, you get no guarantee of its fitness for any purpose. If you want a better guarantee of its fitness, either pay the current maintainers or hire someone good who can become a maintainer. OR choose open source projects where a BigCo like Microsoft or Google has hired people to work on it full time.
So open source is free as in beer, not free as in speech after all. And the reason a company might choose to use open source is solely because it's free, not because they can see the source code or alter it? Because that is why companies are in it, not because they were cheap for the small cash of a paid version. And they're in it because they can watch and choose those projects that are well maintained.
If the maintainer pulls a tantrum and acts unreliable that kills the project from the point of view of any serious user. Until someone else takes over maintenance or it is forked.
This "it's free so you get what you paid for, and if it's shit don't complain because it was free" really rubs me the wrong way. It's a very capitalist mindset that measures everything in money. If there is no money, there is probably no worth, so don't expect any. Accomplishment, dependability, positive net effect? No money, so don't expect it?
In general, developers aren't auditing the source code or modifying open source code; they're assembling open source packages to provide base functionality and combining that together with business logic and glue code to produce a product. So yes, companies are most commonly using open source because it's zero cost (and easily available), not because they can theoretically audit or modify it.
> If the maintainer pulls a tantrum and acts unreliable that kills the project from the point of view of any serious user. Until someone else takes over maintenance or it is forked.
There's no single definition of "serious user". There have been projects with no technical issues that are maintained by massive assholes that are widely used, so I would disagree with your statement here.
> This "it's free so you get what you paid for, and if it's shit don't complain because it was free" really rubs me the wrong way. It's a very capitalist mindset that measures everything in money. If there is no money, there is probably no worth, so don't expect any. Accomplishment, dependability, positive net effect? No money, so don't expect it?
1. Unsurprisingly, any discussion within the context of how businesses make decisions or should act is likely to revolve around money.
2. The fundamental issues is that there's a massive disconnect between the worth/value provided by a project to users and the value it provides to the creator.
3. The license dictates what users should expect as far as "what they get" from a library. It almost all cases with open source, they should expect to get nothing, and anything beyond that is a bonus.
I mean like... yeah.
If I'm maintaining an open source project as a side gig or for fun, I might be able to review and merge some patches. But if the corporations that use my project submit a busload of PRs (or worse, just issues with no solutions) and I end up spending so much time on them that I have no time to work on my dayjob and make rent... that's not gonna work.
Now if those corporations each chuck a hundred bucks a month (less than the cost of a single Developer's Enterprise MSDN subscription) my way, then sure! I'll scale back my freelance web dev work and spend half my workweek dedicated to maintaining this project!
So yeah, I think the corporations who make money off open source projects should be kicking back a bit of money to those projects if they want an expectation of reliability. It doesn't have to be a ton of money either:
- If we're talking about a tiny header parsing library that needs occasional security patches, maybe expense a few bucks at the maintainer's Patreon so they can spend 10 hours a year on those patches.
- If we're talking about the web framework that underlies your big newspaper's CMS, maybe have a developer spend 20 hours a month pushing well made PRs to fix the problems you care about.
- If we're talking about an OS like Debian and you're AWS, maybe hire a 3 person team to work solely on keeping it secure.
That doesn’t mean that everybody needs to. If a dev isn’t being paid then they should have the absolute right to refuse all maintenance or even just destroy the project.
I’d keep my code closed source if there was a risk that it would start getting used and suddenly I’ve got an extra job for zero pay.
Uh, yes. I agree.
> If a dev isn’t being paid then they should have the absolute right to refuse all maintenance or even just destroy the project.
Where in my post did I say they cannot quit?
> I’d keep my code closed source if there was a risk that it would start getting used and suddenly I’ve got an extra job for zero pay.
I'm with you.
I have the feeling, you are replying to a different post or didn't read mine fully.
I disagree that there is an obligation to "resign gracefully". If people choose to depend on your code without some sort of contract then that is on then and you absolutely can continue to play the "I don't get paid" card if you so choose. The fact that the Debian maintainers don't play this card does not mean that everybody should behave the same as they do.
Where did I say I believe there is an obligation to "resign gracefully"? I said, that you will burn your reputation. Not that I think that is how should be. Just like a politician burns their reputation with something you or I might not find offensive. And that is where shitstorms come from. "I'm just minding my little own business down here" doesn't work once there's a spotlight on you. Do I like it? No. Do I get downvoted on HN for describing the world as something people take offence in? Apparently.
> Open source is not some backyard game anymore. It
> involves companies and their commitment in form of
> infrastructure and participation.
What I'm reading in your comment is that once it becomes widely used, it becomes my responsibility to meet the needs of these people and organizations who have started using the work I freely give to them. The act of having it used by other people obligates me to them.
That perspective seems like it will eventually force the people who share their work in this way down the path of burnout.
> Open source is like capitalism. But a project's success
> is measured in commitment instead of capital.
If the goal is only to build a thing and share it, there can be no such obligation - regardless of how popular it gets.
I don't believe that every little open source project is automatically held to the rules I described. But once your exposure gets bigger, you suddenly enter different waters. Hopefully you might have maintainers of a distribution shielding you from the biggest impact.
> What I'm reading in your comment is that once it becomes widely used, it becomes my responsibility to meet the needs of these people and organizations who have started using the work I freely give to them. The act of having it used by other people obligates me to them.
That is precisely what is happening in many places. I didn't say I like it. In most cases people can move. Sometimes the "market" moves on or forks it. But this is what I have been seeing more and more.
> If the goal is only to build a thing and share it, there can be no such obligation - regardless of how popular it gets.
This is tricky. Viewed from the moral standpoint of the starter of the project, I agree. But once you got into the limelight with your project and other people started depending on it, every misstep suddenly becomes a jackass move. You essentially lost the project.
I fundamentally disagree with this. Just because my exposure has gotten larger (possibly through no action of my own), it doesn't magically give me more resources, more free time, more motivation, a team of developers, etc. If people (or companies) want to depend on a one-person open source project for something important to them, then they should pay to fund it, either by giving that developer money directly, or by hiring people in-house to contribute to that project.
(Not doing so is just foolish and risky on the company's part, too: depending solely on an unpaid volunteer for an important part of your infrastructure is not a winning move.)
Also consider that more users generally means less free time for developing, and more time handling bug reports and support issues. If an open source project grows, it's absolutely critical for users to step up and pitch in, either with their own skills, or with monetary resources that can help the maintainer (who might have a day job) focus more on the project.
Maintainers do have a responsibility to decide what they want their level of involvement to be, though, and to communicate that. Potential users should have the information they need to decide if the project they want to depend on is well-supported and sustainable. They have no right to demand that the maintainer change their approach or level of involvement, however.
> But once you got into the limelight with your project and other people started depending on it, every misstep suddenly becomes a jackass move.
I really dislike the lack of charitable interpretation given here, and this just contributes to the "entitled user" image. The unpaid maintainer of an open source project does not owe anyone anything. Full stop. Users are responsible for their dependencies. I'll repeat that: users are responsible for their dependencies. If they are going to take on a dependency for that's given away for free and not do their due diligence to make sure it is reliably and sustainably developed, that's on them. If they're not happy with the maintainership and want to use it anyway, that's on them. Users do not get to tell unpaid maintainers how to maintain their software. If they want to be helpful and constructive, that's great, but anything less is rude and unwanted.
> I fundamentally disagree with this.
Don't get angry with me over this. I'm just the messenger
> I really dislike the lack of charitable interpretation given here, and this just contributes to the "entitled user" image.
Again, I'm just explaining to you how the world is not how I want the world to be. So don't call me entitled! Just read my posts maybe?
I originally invented the analogy to make some friends of mine who had a very strong market oriented mindset, understand open source. This was many years ago, when the likes of Microsoft painted open source in the light of anarcho hippie communism. I needed to explain to them that open source is closer to their thinking than some Fortune 500 behemoth that is capitalism on the outside but basically socialism inside.
Just because there’s a patch that fixes the issue doesn’t mean the maintainer has to merge that patch.
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Furthermore, if we're to interpret this clause as "do not place any trust in this software whatsoever" then I guess that's really bad news for the security community at large.
"If you're a developer of a project that is used in a security-sensitive context, you either be receptive to security concerns or you clearly label your project as a toy project."
"THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ... FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT."
Furthermore, from the GP: "No one expects you to write perfect code, but we do expect you to fix flaws when you learn about them."
Nothing in the license implies any such guarantee.
> "do not place any trust in this software whatsoever" then I guess that's really bad news for the security community at large.
I mean, that's what the license says. If you want assurances, get it in writing. Otherwise, when you use code, it's on you to make that guarantee of the code you are using.
Entitlement. Gimme gimme gimme. It's a shame.
If you have voluntarily assumed the role of maintaining an open source project, it's perfectly reasonable for people to expect you to address merge requests and issues on the issue tracker. It's reasonable to expect a maintainer to process technical arguments and justify their technical decisions.
The maintainer of course has no legal or moral obligation to perform any of these tasks. If he should ignore these assumed responsibilities, the users of the software can react in multiple ways. They can fork the project or use something else. In both cases they are also completely and utterly within their right to put into question the reliability and credibility of the aforementioned maintainer. Especially where it concerns software that people rely on for critical processes.
All the "as is" clause means for security concerns (apart from its legal implications) is that the burden of making these guarantees lies on the community, and not the emitter of the software. It does not mean you should have no expectations of it at all and to suggest so is, frankly, nonsense.
Lastly, I think if anyone is "entitled" to anything, it's respect. If the developer of actix truly felt like he was not getting the respect he deserved then his reaction is completely justified.
Thus, the disclaimer in the license cannot double as a disclaimer in the social arena.
It's not really surprising that the Rust community is made out of people who've chosen to take extra effort in security, and that they wouldn't tolerate a cavalier attitude to it. It's disappointing that this was expressed in an unconstructive way.
I didn't see any discussion of legal liability, just a community deciding to stop using and supporting this library.
(Just going by Klabnik's article, I knew nothing about this library before reading it. There may be more context of which I'm not aware.)
This is a really bad answer because the most reliable and robust free software projects out there all use this same boilerplate license warnings. This is just for legal protection.
I pretty much guarantee you that if the "clearly mark your project as toy project" thing would become something people actually are expected to use, it would be everywhere too.
As if now it is nowhere, not on very clear toy projects and not on serious looking projects thay are sparsely maintained. The ones with license are all clear on limited warranty.
Think of MIT’s warranty disclaimer as the “free tier” of service.
Why can't we have legal disclaimers like this so that the legal system with its tech-oblivious case law and multi-million-dollar penalties is prevented from interfering while also retaining softer sanctions such as the threat of community ostracism/obnoxious messages to incentivise some degree of quality?
Yes. If you want a secure version of Linux, pay a vendor like Red Hat who’s willing to provide those assurances.
There is a difference between "Hey, this is a silly side project so definitely use at your own risk, as far as I'm concerned its a place for me to learn and should be treated as a toy" and "Hey, I think this is worth your time, you should use this in your production stack, and obviously I've set up legal protections so you can't sue me if something goes wrong, but I am trying to push this as something lots of people should use and trust".
If someone walks into my house and tries cookies I'm clearly learning how to make and then throws up, that's very different than me putting up a big "FREE AMAZING BETTER COOKIES" sign on the sidewalk and handing them out and having people throw up. In both scenarios, the cookies are free! What are you blaming me for! How entitled! In the first, I think that position is more defendable. In the second, ehhh.....
For the record -- I'm not super familiar with this project, but I think that a lot of people don't consider the ramifications of being successful sometimes: your project could be used by a big company and lead to people's information getting hacked (and those people had nothing to do with any of these decisions). The only thing asked is to be upfront that this is not intended for that, as opposed to the temptation of calling your thing the best and telling everyone to use it. In the run up of a project, I think it's easy to forget that and get really hyped on showing how your thing is better than some incumbent for example. Just something to keep in mind.
Essentially: yes. If you want any guarantees beyond that, you have to pay for them, or trust that others have paid for them.
Absent that, you have to make your own judgment as to whether or not the maintainers will run the project in a way you feel comfortable with. If they do; great. If not, move on (or contribute, or fork it), because you have no right to tell them how to maintain their project.
There have been times when society has decided that some utility was important enough to "transfer ownership" (imminent domain for example). Obviously that is an extreme case, and I am not advocating for that (in fact I am against that), but I am demonstrating that precedent exists for the feeling that some things ingrain themselves enough such that if you want to abdicate responsibility you should perhaps consider abdicating ownership. More than anything, I am trying to help explain how the other side feels.
But, as a trivial example, it's certainly not the case that they owe you nothing in the strictest sense. Under that model, they could technically put in code to forward all data to their servers and fall back to "well, as is, that's how we wanted it". I think that wouldn't hold up in court. There appears to be at least the basic expectation of good faith (and lack of criminality). Given that, perhaps it can be extended to negligence too. Perhaps not.
My position is actually a rather soft one, it's "If you heavily pitched your project and it ended up in the control systems of nuclear reactors, you should maybe expect people to be pissed at you if you willingly block critical fixes because you deem them boring". See, I'm not even saying what you should do, just more of a like "well, what do you expect".
You use it, you evaluate then accept the consequences.
You don't? Well Patch it.
You can't? Use an alternative.
Nothing else available? Fork it and fix it.
If nothing works for you, then either you're the problem, or the entire field has an unsolved problem (and you're not helping, especially when slamming people working for free trying to solve it, even if not correctly or the way you'd like).
EDIT: This rant is a general reply to your general sentiment, not a specific reply to this particular case. I have no idea whether the author did in fact signal appropriately their design, risk, etc.
It doesn't prevent us from saying "operating in this way is bad/destructive", even if one chooses not to use the code or service.
Looking at the postmortem, it looks like the patches provided were not good enough in the developer's eyes:
I believed it held mutable aliasing invariant and I was very happy that someone found real problem. I wanted to solve the problem, just with a bit of creativity. And use RefCell solution only if it would be not possible to solve it with any other way. Btw, I like the solution I found, it is in master and solves the problem at least one from the issue. If you want to push boundaries you have to touch this boundaries and sometimes you push too hard.
That sounds very much like the developer was headed to fixing them, but I guess the harassment and need for now won.
This whole thing was a feedback circle of increasing hostility between the community/contributors and this developer. At some points the developer was very unresponsive, leading to disappointment from the community, but then some very uncalled for personal attacks came from the community. I think the developer received some justified criticism, but I still understand his perspective, putting work in and getting abuse back sucks.
I'm not sure combining social media with code control is going to be such a good thing for a lot of developers who might not like to program in a fishbowl.
If he'd said "I'll write my own solution" rather than calling it boring, his response wouldn't have been a problem.
If you want to be able to place expectations on the author, pay them and get a contract.
But still so many PRs getting rejected, because they do not pass code review and usually it does not cause reporters of those failed PRs to open whole big flame discussion. That + overreaction on reddit was a last drop after which Nikolay decided to close the thing.
If you use other peoples work for free and makes demands, then you should really stop using others free work and start paying for what you need.
It's your responsibility to choose what code you use, and unless the author has explicitly given specific guarantees they promise to uphold come hell or high water, it IS a toy project until proven otherwise.
It's such absolute nonsense to expect other people to submit to your wishes and whims without any compensation or prior consent.
But chastising someone in public for not submitting to your wishes?
That's straight up bullying.
If actix-web was this important, it should have been adopted by the community before now. Maybe languages need a way of setting the expectation to that if your library becomes essential to the community (and if licensing allows) the core developers are going to fork it and find a way to govern/maintain it the same way they maintain the rest of the project.
I think about this a lot with Racket lately. Some of the core packages that everyone uses for date/time, Markdown parsing, etc., were written by a single guy in his spare time, who a few months ago was making noises about quitting the language (so far so good though).
I'd argue that forking and developing independently of the developer is as big of a middle finger as a developer taking their ball and going home. It just depends on who is on the receiving end.
I don't think either side is right here, but I don't think creating a public fork and building a community around that is an unbiased and neutral response either and should only be done in extreme circumstances... Which is does seem like what happened here.
Linux distro maintainers routinely create "public forks" even of actively-maintained packages, and no one sane views that as a hostile move or something to complain about. It's part of curating a well-kept ecosystem around your solutions.
The distinction is if there is tribalism entering the discourse. If the reddit-community-tribe argues gathered around their digital fireplace how bad that one maintainer is, it will naturally become a tribe vs. maintainer conflict (a good way for tribesfolk to proof they are part of the tribe).
This is exactly what saddens Steve: it shouldn't be the "we know real Rust"-tribe against the heretic maintainer. If anything the "heretic maintainer" should be seen as part of the tribe: it is not in our interest to "win" but rather to convince and to take him with us.
I find it shocking at times how low people go just to defend their newfound beliefs within their newfound tribal community.
(.Net is probably not unique in this regard, but it's what I'm familiar with.)
This article is someone who did that research on multiple Rust HTTP clients and reported what they found:
Which I believe is what kicked off the events leading to Klabnik's blog post?
Dog piles on Internet forums because the dev isn’t doing what you want isn’t fine.
Therein lies the problem. You cannot reasonably expect to link a blog post that says what that one did on Reddit and not have people dog pile. They will, every single time.
I open-source lots of my fun hacks for free in the hope that they're useful for someone, but I'm not going to do free unfun work just because someone decided to use my hack in production.
Users of open-source software are acting way too entitled.
You are, of course, free to write whatever unsafe, insecure code you want. You are, by leaving the issue tracker in Github enabled, inviting public feedback on the quality of the code you write.
When you implicitly rescind that invitation by closing issues demonstrating concrete safety problems, people are well within their rights to call out the safety issues in the project as well as your violation of reasonable expectations and community norms. And don't bother posting the "warranty disclaimer" from FOSS licenses, that's not what anyone was ever talking about.
Deleting the entire project as he did is an incredibly petty and immature response. If he just wanted to quit, the project could have been archived (made read-only) and marked unmaintained.
If he no longer wants to participate in the community, then deleting the repo was a good decision. It's not like the code is actually gone, other people have copies of it, and now that the original repo is gone nobody will mistakenly go to his repo and find it abandoned. It's basically the equivalent of boarding up the windows before you abandon a building.
Here's an example from one of my own archived projects. Is there any doubt in your mind as to the state of this repository?
Inconveniencing countless others in a fit of pique is a pretty good definition of immature, petty behavior.
People who write security sensitive toys and don't care enough to vet their deps?
Professionals who profit off security sensitive programs written on top of others' free work without paying a dime?
I don't think either group is in a position to make such demands.
That is actually one of the things we teach the kids who are in these situations to do. It is ok to have a boundary, it is ok to leave the situation and it is ok to stand your ground. You don't ask for abuser validation nor permission.
Working in the context of Security does not grant you a blank check to be an asshole.
And what exactly are you contributing to this project author to match your demands of them immediately fixing flaws that are found?
I demand you go write a tool that lets me query projects and tells me if you think they are a toy or not. I'll wait.
If hope the plural we is also ready to monetarily compensate the developer for their time. Otherwise you don't have any basis for your expectation.
Or, assume all OSS projects are toy projects unless stated otherwise.
Usually the serious ones offer a support license for a fee, or are supported financially by companies. Otherwise, it's just someone building cool stuff for free.
Also, it's probably fair that most OSS maintainers aren't marketing their projects too aggressively outside of a blog post or a Reddit submission. When they take off, it's usually other developers hyping them and that hype usually comes from being lightweight, easy to configure or super fast. It's not until a project has been hyped by the community do people start trying to put it into production and looking into security issues.
Edit: After running some git blame commands on the https://github.com/actix/actix-website repository (thanks Nikolay for keeping it there), it seems that the most eloquent marketing for the project was written by Armin Ronacher. I'm sure this was all done with Nikolay's permission, since it's under the actix GitHub organization, but my point is that Nikolay himself didn't say the things that have been quoted from the website, and they didn't necessarily reflect his own attitude about the project. So that might have caused some confusion.
It's "bear the brunt".
Many want Rust to save us from our current nightmare hellscape of vulnerability-ridden foundations.
So actix-web comes along-- a Rust web framework that is faster than everything else including the C and C++ frameworks-- and people are filled with hope. It's fast and safe, right?
But the actix-web maintainer says he built actix-web just for fun and to see how high he could get in the TechEmpower benchmarks. So he took license to use a lot of unsafe Rust code to improve speed. He apparently was not trying to make the world's best web framework, one that is safe and fast. Just one that is fast. Oops, expectations busted.
Everyone is to blame. No one should believe that all Rust code is perfectly safe, and we need better ways to know which Rust crates are trustworthy. And the actix-web maintainer could have taken more responsibility for setting people's expectations that the project prioritized speed above security.
I love the Rust Book by Steve Klabnik and Carol Nichols. But I think Steve is off base in this post when he implies that Davidoff is wrong about unsafe code increasing a library's security risk. Of course unsafe poses a risk. Of course it's legit to avoid libraries with lots of unsafe code, especially unnecessary unsafe code. Actix-web was taking a lot of risk, more than people expected.
From what I've read about rr, it sounds like awesome black magic, and I'd imagine most users appreciate how difficult its task is.
- The internet will be the internet and that's, unfortunately, here to stay.
- Being a maintainer can be a less than thankless job and that's a bummer but also a fact.
- Reddit can be toxic, news at 11.
I had assumed that 'unsafe' was a rarely used aspect of the language (as it is in Haskell and as duck-punching is in Python). It seems necessary (to me). It might be used more often than it should be? Hmm. Okay a little unsafe-coverage tool should allow for quick assessment. Of course, FFI libraries will be heavy on unsafe but use them at your own risk...
All successful software projects pass through previously-small-problem-becomes-big-problem stages ("Argh. Looks like it's time to move from Pivotal to JIRA..."). I don't find Steve's melodramatic response to an opportunity to "level-up" to be particularly helpful.
I do think it'd be great to have an unsafeness analyzer (if there isn't one already) and to expose those values in cargo.rs. And to follow other safeness-flag recommendations in this discussion. Were those in-place or in-flight, most of TFA would have been "the internet has driven away the maintainer of a good project and that's not good".
It's almost instinctual/natural to misjudge the popularity of any project for some false sense of security or acceptance. Just think about the numerous issues that plagued the Node community around NPM packages with large amounts of downloads and GitHub stars that turned out to be problematic.
For me the deeper insight here is that we all sort of want our cake and eat it too. Project maintainers/owners want the freedom and enjoyment of working in open source building fun and useful things without any explicit commitments, and that's fair and understandable especially without any formal compensation. And the users want to be able to have access to a growing collection of projects without having much skin in the game, i.e. paying for it.
This isn't a problem with people, this is a problem innate to open source, and the double-edged sword that it is.
We can think about these larger, emergent structures like programming language and open source communities independently of the individuals that comprise them.