Theo de Raadt: "You've been smoking something mind altering" (2007)

tturrini about 4 hours ago 46 commentsRead Article on marc.info

ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

54% Positive

Analyzed from 1993 words in the discussion.

Discussion (46 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

tptacek•about 2 hours ago

One of his dumber takes. Virtualization replaces an ultra-functional general-purpose kernel evolved over decades to support every conceivable application with a drastically smaller "kernel" (KVM and the userland hypervisor). It's a drastic attack surface reduction, and the empirical data bears that out: kernel LPEs aren't even newsworthy (there's whole repos full of unnamed, unremarked-upon LPEs), and KVM escapes are very rare.

xattt•42 minutes ago

> replaces an ultra-functional general-purpose kernel evolved over decades to support every conceivable application with a drastically smaller "kernel"

Is a Proxmox kernel that much smaller than a typical Linux kernel?

tptacek•30 minutes ago

I don't know. I don't use Proxmox.

boricj•about 2 hours ago

Doesn't that message date back to a time that either predates or is almost concurrent with the introduction of x86 hardware-assisted virtualization? I wasn't around playing with VMs back then, but I'm not sure that the track record of x86 virtualization 20 years ago was that great.

tptacek•about 2 hours ago

It does, but that's an argument about implementations, and his comment is an argument about design. Just read it again and see if you think it's reasonable. Pay attention to the tone and (especially) the conclusory certainty he deploys.

SoftTalker•about 1 hour ago

And since then, OpenBSD has developed its own VM subsystem vmm(4), vmd(8), vmctl(8).

ummonk•about 2 hours ago

How big is the OpenBSD kernel and userland actually compared to a virtualization layer?

naturalmovement•about 1 hour ago

If someone purposely dug up emails you wrote 19 years ago, I'm sure they'd find some of your "dumber takes" as well.

I'm not sure what the purpose of revisiting this is beyond provoking a flamewar on a slow Sunday.

throw0101a•24 minutes ago

> If someone purposely dug up emails you wrote 19 years ago, I'm sure they'd find some of your "dumber takes" as well.

"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I will find something in them which will hang him."

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_giv...

tptacek•about 1 hour ago

I mean, I agree there. We all have dumb takes! I hear roughly once a month about my old "I don't think Dual EC is a backdoor, it's too dumb and obvious for anyone to actually use it" take.

bawolff•about 1 hour ago

Probably people are responding less to the dumbness of the take and more the arrogance of the tone combined with the dumbness of the take. Everyone has dumb takes, not everyone is an asshole while giving their dumb takes.

Regardless i do agree with you though, not sure what the point of digging up ancient skeletons is.

TZubiri•about 2 hours ago

I'm anti virtualization, but mostly due to the internal complexities of the guest applications being swept under the rug, it's undeniable that the host is protected and thus neighbouring guests (of course it is with almost 20 years of hindsight I can say this.)

That the hypervisor is effectively an operating system/kernel I have always held, and that it is a smaller and thus less vulnerable kernel is an appropriate explication I think. It's very hard to secure an all purpose kernel like Linux without actually building it yourself (and even then..)

Gualdrapo•about 2 hours ago

"Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is “difficult” and declined to comment further."

https://www.forbes.com/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616t...

Imagine being so hard you're labelled as "difficult" by no other but Linus Torvalds

sidkshatriya•about 2 hours ago

Thanks for sharing the forbes link. From the link:

"De Raadt says BSD could have become the world's most popular open source operating system, except that a lawsuit over BSD scared away developers, who went off to work on Linux and stayed there even after BSD was deemed legal."

There is some truth to that. And who knows where BSDs might have been if the lawsuit never happened.

However, I think Linux has always has and till today has better leadership, and management compared to OpenBSD.

I also think GPLv2 was another good that happened to Linux. It just creates an irresistible force to contribute back. With *BSD, a company might contribute back or it may not.

mmh0000•about 1 hour ago

Ha! That’s some rose-colored-glasses view of BSD history.

The lawsuit didn’t help. But the BSD developers shot themselves in the foot when they refused to support x86, referring to it as a “toy”.

It wasn't until Linux came along and started eating up all of BSD's user base that they freaked out and decided x86 support might be a good idea. But by then it was too late.

ErroneousBosh•17 minutes ago

> But the BSD developers shot themselves in the foot when they refused to support x86, referring to it as a “toy”.

When was that? Presumably wwaaaaaaaay before 386BSD was a thing right?

znpy•about 1 hour ago

I go back to take a look at the BSDs every now and then and frankly it really looks like that mindset has stayed, somehow.

Generally speaking the BSDs seems really fork-a-phobic and it kinda shows given how little dynamism is there in the development those systems.

Even the Solaris derivatives have a faster tempo.

bawolff•about 1 hour ago

I never believe people when they say, we would have been famous if not for one piece of bad luck 35 years ago.

Yeah, i'm sure the lawsuit was crappy and set things back. But if you can't recover after 35 years, then its something deeper than what happened 35 years ago.

scythe•about 2 hours ago

It's hard to blame OpenBSD's management when there are three other BSDs. You didn't have to work with Theo de Raadt to work on BSD. But while the lawsuit may have been the catalyst, the game was really over when GNOME took off. BSD was sort of an equal target under KDE, but GNOME prioritized Linux pretty hard and had a lot of fans. At that point pretty much everyone making interesting desktop stuff went to Linux and never looked back. Which is not solely a license issue; you can definitely release GPL software for FreeBSD, but the "license war" culture (to the extent it really existed) may have been an issue.

And I guess I do think that FreeBSD had a saner organization pattern than the sort of haphazard ecosystem of projects that grew up around GNU and Linux. Maybe the chaos was necessary for growth, but it still seems to be a hurdle for new Linux users in the current day.

em-bee•about 1 hour ago

i think what the chaos did was enable more individual contributors. you didn't have to join the BSD team to get a core OS tool accepted into the system. anyone could just mix and match the tools and apps they liked. it's not that BSD prevented that but that they just didn't invite it. you can create your own spin of a distribution and if it gets enough users and contributors it gets accepted as an official version. there is even a debian variant using a BSD kernel. try making a official BSD spin using GNU coreutils.

Paianni•about 1 hour ago

GNOME prioritises Linux now but it shipped with Solaris from 2003 onwards and Sun contributed accessibility features around that time.

znpy•about 1 hour ago

> BSD was sort of an equal target under KDE, but GNOME prioritized Linux pretty hard and had a lot of fans.

oh boy its' much worse than that: KDE/GNOME were already largely precarious before that.

The whole Xorg thing was really dependant on gpu drivers and the story between linux gpu drivers and *bsd gpu drivers was so much different. Having the BSDs be fairly different didn't really help (eg: only FreeBSD had official nvidia drivers, albeit proprietary).

Gnome did take a lot of backlash and Gnome essentially became a meme at some point ("what's the use case for that?")

Gnome did take a strong dependency on systemd (both gnome and systemd are developed by Red Hat, btw).

And Gnome also did push a lot for wayland (that wasn't implemented on the various BSDs for a long time).

I haven't checked in a while, but I think Gnome is wayland-only nowadays ?

Ultimately, the real issue with KDE/GNOME and the BSDs is that the BSDs are largely irrelevant and essentially only relevant for some specific use-cases where desktop usage is not involved.

TylerE•about 2 hours ago

I mean, Torvalds has called basically every person on earth an asshole at some point, hasn’t he? He’s the opposite of being sparing with critisicism, and frankly has historically often used his bully pulpit to do it.

pdpi•about 2 hours ago

My read on Torvalds is that, coming from him, "asshole" is a much lesser criticism than "difficult".

vlovich123•about 2 hours ago

> A simple tool was presented, iofuzz, that exposes exploitable security flaws in most, if not all, virtual machines available today. To the knowledge of the author, no similar research has been conducted before. The results produced by crashme, a tool well known for over a decade, locating trivial flaws dem- onstrates this. No virtual machine tested was robust enough to withstand the testing procedure used, and multiple exploitable flaws were presented that could allow an attacker restricted to a vir- tualised environment to reliably escape onto the host system. The results obtained demonstrate the need for further research into virtualisation security and prove that virtualisa- tion is no security panacea.

https://taviso.decsystem.org/virtsec.pdf

He’s not wrong based on the research at the time. The mistake is presenting this as if it’s something that will be true for all time. Is virtualization a panacea? No. CPU manufacturers can’t even protect against side channel attacks. But it’s completely missing what this provides which is that the difficulty and cost of creating an exploit is higher today than 20 years ago. And it’s amusing to hear someone blasting away at the security of others when BSD has its own share of problems and architectural weaknesses are discovered through popularity of your system being an attack target, not because you’re smarter than everyone else and made better choices (sometimes it can be true in places, but harder to maintain for a big piece of software like an OS)

jurgenaut23•21 minutes ago

god bless usenet. The good ol' flame wars aren't what they are used to anymore with all this moderation and trolling feeding each other around here.

brynet•7 minutes ago

This is not usenet, it's the openbsd misc@ mailing list.

rustcleaner•about 1 hour ago

If OpenBSD pretended Qubes OS was a feature prototype/reference OS build and made a fork of OpenBSD to feature-match Qubes OS (calling it QuBSD or something), that would be great!

cptroot•about 3 hours ago

I would love to know how OP came across this email nearly 20 years after the fact

SoftTalker•about 2 hours ago

It's one of Theo's more famous dismissals/takedowns.

DonHopkins•about 1 hour ago

Some people keep classic flames alive to deploy in times of need. Theo's good, but he can't hold a candle to the late Marc Cripsin railing about emacs line-mode-visual. Grr.

https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/1tf1iy/imap_inventor...

>From: Mark Crispin, To: comp.lang.emacs

>What mindless cretin thought that it should be a good idea to make line-move-visual be the default in emacs 23? I just found out about this charming "improvement" in the worst possible way. Investigation determined that a "routine" software update had just installed emacs 23 and gave me this "improvement".

>People wonder why everybody hasn't dumped proprietary desktop software. This is an example why. Emacs' line behavior has well over 30 years of history, and some bagbiter goes and changes it BY DEFAULT.

>Add all the cute new features you want. But leave the goddamn defaults alone.

>If you want to have your own playpen where you twiddle defaults to your hearts content, have at it. But don't pretend that you produce software for a production environment, and stop telling the Linux distributions that they should "upgrade" to your "improved" versions. People doing real work depend upon those distributions.

>It does no good to say "read the release notes" when the affected users don't get the release notes and don't even know that a new release happened. It is also unreasonable to expect users to subscribe to every obscure newsgroup, forum, and wiki to hear about changes that will turn their expectations upside down.

>Yes, I fixed my .emacs file. And I'm putting in the same change to all the .emacs files on all the dozens of other machines I use, even though they still have emacs 22, because otherwise this unpleasant surprise will repeat itself over and over again.

>Grr.

>From: Mark Crispin, To: comp.lang.emacs

>They made the wrong decision. Changes to default behavior are a bad idea. Changes to default behavior of the most basic functionality are an extremely bad idea.

>I don't care if M-X fart-noisily-with-spray changes its default scent from skunk to lemon. But I damn well do care about the most basic operations: all CTRL single letter and ESC single letter. After 33+ years of using emacs, I expect these to be reliable and not suddenly change.

>I wasted hours trying to figure out what the hell was wrong with my file, or my terminal emulator window, or my system. The fact that the problem went away on a different system added further confusion. It was only when I did ESC <n> CTRL/N and saw that it moved me the wrong number of lines, but only on one system, that I realized that emacs changed. And that's when I did ESC X describe-key CTRL/N and read about line-mode-visual, although it did not mention that this was now the default.

>Surprise. Grr.

em-bee•about 1 hour ago

i don't know that crispin rant sounds pretty reasonable to me. it's not insulting and the argument is coherent. he has a point.

DonHopkins•about 1 hour ago

My favorite Theologism:

    "My favorite part of the "many eyes" argument is how few bugs 
    were found by the two eyes of Eric (the originator of the 
    statement).  All the many eyes are apparently attached to a 
    lot of hands that type lots of words about many eyes, and 
    never actually audit code." -Theo de Raadt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_law

znpy•about 1 hour ago

I think de Raadt and OpenBSD are hugely overrated and some takes are as dumb as the one in the post.

OpenBSD is only secure because because it does pretty much nothing and does it very slowly (its firewall just recently broke the 4gbps firewalling capabilty, for example) but somehow a cult has formed around it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

bawolff•about 1 hour ago

In fairness, minimizing surface area (doing nothing unless you need to) is security 101, so i hardly think that is a criticism.

oooyay•about 2 hours ago

Even very smart, very accomplished people can be very wrong. Xen is seeing a resurgence from Xen Orchestra and I've used it in my homelab. It's quite pleasant. I also, of course, use de Raadt's software as well.

estebank•about 2 hours ago

I think that everyone has the power to be wrong, but to be very wrong with convincing arguments, you must be smart.

A smart person can come up with post-hoc rationalizations that hold up under some scrutiny, to the point it is very hard to convince them otherwise. Add to that people who became famous or successful on the back of "being right" on some subject matter, getting used to "being right even in the face of overwhelming push back", and you have a recipe for very smart people being very wrong in very visible/loud ways.