Comment by sugersvoltet | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sugersvoltet | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>These people once mentioned, on twitter, that people who hate systemd are like reactionaries (as in, politically far right), as if a choice of init is a correlative of political ideology. When you view others' preferences for fucking software as so important to your world view that they might as well be nazis[0], you can tell your priorities are not in order.

I hate that everything is politically-coded nowadays, but, honestly, as much distaste as I feel even writing this, I think they're not entirely wrong / there is something significant underlying that sentiment. Especially post-2014, nearly everything on the internet, including open source technology, is highly entangled with the culture wars. For better or worse, Rust really is left-coded and anti-systemd sentiment really is right-coded. A lot of this stems from the 4chan /g/ (Technology) board's staunch opposition to systemd and Rust + the broad cultural influence 4chan retains to this day. I've been a 4chan regular for over a decade and have seen all sides of this.

I know what I'm saying sounds, and is, utterly ridiculous, but this really actually is a "thing", for some reason. Of course most people who like/dislike systemd or Rust aren't politically motivated or even aware of these associations, but there's a surprisingly large chunk of both who are, even if they aren't really consciously thinking of it in this way. It's very easy and understandable to laugh at someone accusing systemd critics of being neo-Nazis - it's the ultimate Godwin smear/cope - but for a variety of reasons the inverse pretty much does hold: alt-right technologists indeed are near-universally actively opposed to systemd, and generally actively hostile towards Rust. The Rust opposition is in large part due to their belief that Rust and Mozilla are associated with trans people and that if you use Rust you are "pro-trans agenda", "cucked", "pro-Jewish", "pro-globohomo". The systemd opposition is less concrete and seems to be more a matter of happenstance + typical conservatism/"if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Rust is to C what systemd is to /etc/rc. Both C and /etc/rc are defining characteristics of old-school Unix culture, so it kind of makes sense even just on account of that that folks who hate systemd also hate Rust.

What puzzles me is that OpenBSD people seem to be quite actively opposed to Rust too. They are the project that disables hyperthreading for security reasons, runs ld to relink the kernel after every boot to shuffle memory addresses, patches all sorts of software to support capability self-limiting with pledge, and so on. And the idea of using a fast memory-safe language is somehow nonsensical to them. It is hard for me to take this opposition as motivated by security.

If you want to understand how it might be motivated by security, just read the LKML threads around Rust - the Rust developers’ claims are at times pretty wild, and in my experience (after 20 years in infosec), they tend to have a relatively narrow view of “safe”.

I am expecting new vulnerabilities to pop up from developer’s misunderstanding of what Rust actually guarantees, especially in the same memory space as the kernel.

On top of that, Rust implies a huge new bundle of complexity, a second compiler to have bugs in, and a new software supply chain to attack. The language is extremely complex compared to C. These are not easily dismissible problems.

While Rust is definitely a step up from C++ in embedded, I am not convinced bolting it onto existing kernels will fix more potential CVEs than it will cause.

But unlike Linux, OpenBSD is not only the kernel, it is also the userland.

The project could start moving critical software to Rust. They could even write their own crates for this purpose, or fork others’ crates to rule out supply chain attacks.

None of this would be unprecedented for the OpenBSD project. They have forked Apache, OpenSSL, they maintain their own SSH client and server. What would be new is that now all of this would not be happening in C but in another language.

Edit: I don’t even think that the above has to be done in Rust. It could be done in any other modern language. But you also mention the complexity of Rust. In what way do you see it as an infosec problem?

To me it appears that the complexity of Rust is good. The limitations that the language puts on your code give you pain before compilation, not afterwards. It makes you do work that avoids certain kinds of memory and logic bugs.

Do people even use C++ in embedded? Even subsets?

Yes.

You are correct, and that's an excellent analysis.

That's what I was getting at with my comment about how claiming we should go back to the steaming pile of shit System V init system with all its directories full of symlinks they think is "Classic Unix" is like claiming Nickelback's "Woke Up This Morning" is Classic Rock because you never heard of the Rolling Stones "Start Me Up".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34546815

There's definitely an underlying anti-BSD, anti-Berkeley, anti-hippie, anti-Mozilla, anti-woke, anti-gay, anti-trans, pro-Brendan-Eich, pro-GamerGate, alt-right sentiment that runs through all those irrationally ignorant anti-systemd weenies received belief system they parroted from 4Chan.

Would it make more sense to look at it from progressive/conservative lens instead of left/right?

One group thinks change is ultimately a good thing and will make changes for the sake of changes.

Another one thinks change is ultimately a bad thing, and will always oppose it.

Too much change is chaos, too little is stagnation. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

So, this is the problem, you can easily say something is sufficient but it might not be neccessary, or vice versa, implying the converse is often not true. It's does seem silly, but you're right a lot of conservative hackers are anti-systemd, but the converse really isn't true, I don't even think it's like "here are some exceptions" rather than most of the anti-systemd crowd are not reactionaries.

Also, "conservatism" meaning "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is NOT equivalent to political conservatism at all. Conservatives all the time advocate for changes that contradict tradition all the time. Just look at the zoning debates in the US, none of the "keeping X neighborhood sfh" people who argue for it because of "preservation" want to minimize parking to the point they can't fit their f-150s anymore, which dwarf the trucks of the 50s. It has a veneer of "respecting tradition" but they don't really care about tradition in the strict sense. It's like most political ideologies, it centers on a set of values and ideas with justifications that come later.

The left really is the same honestly. While "progressivism" has a nice summary as being "for political change" in some respects, they too respect tradition and history when it fits their aims. It's more correct to say that the sides really have a set of values and ideas that are central, without some overarching central tenet or explanation.

Yeah, I wrote "inverse" but I meant "converse". It's definitely one of those situations, here.

>Also, "conservatism" meaning "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is NOT equivalent to political conservatism at all. Conservatives all the time advocate for changes that contradict tradition all the time.

True. Frankly, I don't know the exact reason why anti-systemd sentiment seems tied up with conservative/reactionary political tendencies (or, more correctly, why the latter seems tied up with the former).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com