• piefedderatedd@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    7 months ago

    In some open source projects there is a lot of leeching and little contributions.

    In 2020 the sole developer of Invidious stepped away from development because of burn out. https://omar.yt/posts/stepping-away-from-open-source

    Also in 2020 developer Raymond Hill archived the uMatrix browser add-on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24532973

    I will never hand over development to whoever, I had my lesson in the past – I wouldn’t like that someone would turn the project into something I never intended it to become (monetization, feature bloat, etc.). At most I would archive the project and whoever is free to fork under a new name. For now I resisted doing this, so people will have to be patient for new stable release.

    What would actually help is that people help to completely investigate existing issues instead of keep asking me to add yet more features. Turns out people willing to step in the code to investigate and pinpoint exactly where is an issue (or that there is no issue) is incredibly rare.

    • a1studmuffin@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      7 months ago

      That last sentence rings true of most software engineers. Everyone wants to work on a glamorous new feature that’s going to wow users or let them think about problems they want to think about. No-one wants to hunt down the difficult-to-repro bug in an old but critical section of someone else’s code.

    • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      When I stepped away from my own (mildly successful) Free software project, I had the same concerns: it’s about the reputation.

      The project had earned a decent amount of trust when I was running it, and presumably people were installing new updates without going over the changes. If I handed off the project to someone new, I wasn’t just handing over the work, but that trust as well.

      So rather than handing over the project to someone new, I archived it and someone else (thankfully someone not-evil) forked it. Anyone installing the fork immediately understood that the relationship was new. They’d have to decide whether to trust this new maintainer or not.

      For my money, this is the way. If you’re burning out, remember that your reputation is tied to your project name, and that it has considerable value. If you don’t want to continue, the disruption of a fork is better/safer than the smooth-but-risky hand-off.

  • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    7 months ago

    Lol, you don’t already operate this way in life?

    Someone trying to guilt or pressure you has an agenda and isn’t concerned with what’s best for you.

  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    7 months ago

    Open source is such a wild west at times.

    You have your gatekeepers like Linus Torvalds who will call you a fucking moron if you submit something that looks remotely off.

    You have your committees that you can submit a MR, but it has to go through the council of experts before it gets merged.

    But the vast majority, it’s a one or two person project and this was a side project because you had an issue you wanted solved. No financial reward, no acknowledgement. And so when someone gives it a iota of attention, you fall head over heels and hope they are like-minded and want to support this dream too.

  • protozoan_ninja@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I’ve always taken this attitude towards pushy people and tbh this is more or less why. Being pushy like this is inherently suspicious as fuck.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I think it can depend on how and why you’re being pushy too. I’ve definitely had to have my fair share of passionate conversations and strongly advocating (yes, you could say pushing) for what I believe is best for the direction of a project with my fellow maintainers, especially when it comes to important things (like how to handle specific security issues etc since there’s not always one way of handling it). Generally speaking though you’re right.

      • protozoan_ninja@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah, that’s fair, there are driven people, and people who are pushing for something, right, but in this case, look at the language used:

        Progress will not happen until there is new maintainer. XZ for C has sparse commit log too. Dennis you are better off waiting until new maintainer happens or fork yourself. Submitting patches here has no purpose these days. The current maintainer lost interest or doesn’t care to maintain anymore. It is sad to see for a repo like this. [src]

        Tons of emotional button-pushing and pressure, but not on technical grounds. Just trying to make the dev feel crappy about themselves.

  • phx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    7 months ago

    Anyone pushing you to do something you don’t understand, or understand poorly. I could see an actual security researcher pushing for a code update to fix a vulnerability.

    Heck, even as an occasional contributor I take some pride in seeing my fixes etc make it into the mainline codestream.

    But yeah, you definitely need to be wary of somebody you only know from online pushing a change that doesn’t make sense or you don’t understand.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      Anyone pushing you to do something you don’t understand, or understand poorly.

      This was taught to me in my bank teller training back in 19-dickety-two. Don’t let someone try to rush you or to obfuscate/over-complicate things.

  • lordnikon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 months ago

    Honestly that should go for all transactions. someone calls you to fix an issue or pressure you into buying something. Just hang up and call the company back. one thing I have learned from many years of support is the person calling always has power over the person being called. So flip the dynamic. same goes for car sales just walk away. hell go look at cars when you don’t want one and practice just walking away and see how much power you get.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Regardless of flipping the dynamic, that’s a good way to avoid scammers. It’s easy to spoof an incoming number, but near impossible to intercept an outgoing call. If your “bank” calls and starts asking funny questions, just hang up and call the real bank to check.

    • erwan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      The problem is when people then open huge PRs and expect you to take time to review them, then eventually merge them.

      Especially when it’s something you don’t want in your codebase because it introduce a big unnecessary “refactoring” or a feature that you don’t want to have to maintain forever.

    • Kazumara@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      That doesn’t apply as a solution here. After all Jia Tan did make pull requests, the pressure came later.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    as a non developer myself, to my understanding, the vulnerabilities were implemented in test binaries?

    If so, i question why those were shipped to the client. Unless they were built into the package itself on the mirror, in which case, still curious as to why that would be. I would think tests are entirely benign and do nothing. Seems like it would be incredibly bad practice to do otherwise?

    Seems like an obvious vector to shutdown any potential fuckery. But what do i fucking know.

  • twinnie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    The guy was from Hong Kong, they probably threatened to throw his family in jail.

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      7 months ago

      he was using a singapore VPN and had access to multiple sockpuppets. we know literally nothing else about them and anything you’ve heard to the contrary is baseless rumor.

      leading theory is that it was a state-sponsored actor, but frankly even that much is speculation and which state is still way up in the air.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      Via https://boehs.org/node/everything-i-know-about-the-xz-backdoor

      They found this particularly interesting as Cheong is new information. I’ve now learned from another source that Cheong isn’t Mandarin, it’s Cantonese. This source theorizes that Cheong is a variant of the 張 surname, as “eong” matches Jyutping (a Cantonese romanisation standard) and “Cheung” is pretty common in Hong Kong as an official surname romanisation. A third source has alerted me that “Jia” is Mandarin (as Cantonese rarely uses J and especially not Ji). The Tan last name is possible in Mandarin, but is most common for the Hokkien Chinese dialect pronunciation of the character 陳 (Cantonese: Chan, Mandarin: Chen). It’s most likely our actor simply mashed plausible sounding Chinese names together.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Wild, so it would suggest that the actor wasn’t Chinese at all. An authentic Chinese person probably wouldn’t choose a name that sounded like that, any more than I would name myself Sean MacBerkowitz, it would just sound wrong.

        A random name generator might produce something like this, of course, if it wasn’t programmed to be too picky.

        • baseless_discourse@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Or they are Chinese, and pick non-authentic Chinese names so people wouldn’t suspect them? I don’t think looking at the name can be a great way to identify the source.

          This attack is clearly sophisticate: the attacker(s) are probably well-trained in obscuring their identity to not reveal much info from their name picks. Say, just use a random name generator.

  • DingoBilly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    It’s a hard call at end of day. If you want it to all be privacy respecting and open source and decentralised then you’re almost guaranteeing you won’t make money from it.

    The alternative is ad based software that’s free which is also garbage.

    Hard to find the balance between the two, can’t think of many examples if any that actually work besides just making a paid product that’s very good and hope it’s better enough than the rest to be successful. But even then you likely will have to cross lines because you’re just relying on viral luck at that stage.