There are no known reports of those versions being incorporated into any production releases for major Linux distributions, but both Red Hat and Debian reported that recently published beta releases used at least one of the backdoored versions […] A stable release of Arch Linux is also affected. That distribution, however, isn’t used in production systems.
I think the confusion comes from the meaning of stable. In software there are two relevant meanings:
Unchanging, or changing the least possible amount.
Not crashing / requiring intervention to keep running.
Debian, for example, focuses on #1, with the assumption that #2 will follow. And it generally does, until you have to update and the changes are truly massive and the upgrade is brittle, or you have to run software with newer requirements and your hacks to get it working are brittle.
Arch, for example, instead focuses on the second definition, by attempting to ensure that every change, while frequent, is small, with a handful of notable exceptions.
Honestly, both strategies work well. I’ve had debian systems running for 15 years and Arch systems running for 12+ years (and that limitation is really only due to the system I run Arch on, rather than their update strategy.
It really depends on the user’s needs and maintenance frequency.
Let me try that: “my car is so stable, it always starts on the first try”, “this knife is unstable, it broke when I was cutting a sausage”, “elephants are very reliable, you can’t tip them over”, “these foundations are unreliable, the house is tilting”
Strange, it’s almost like the word “stability” has something to do with not moving or changing, and “reliability” something to do with working or behaving as expected.
Languages generally develop to be more precise because using a word with 20 different meanings is not a good idea. Meanwhile, native English speakers are working hard to revert back to cavemen grunts, and so now for example “literally” also means “metaphorically”. Failing education and a lacking vocabulary are like that.
Amazingly, for someone so eager to give a lesson in linguistics, you managed to ignore literal definitions of the words in question and entirely skip relevant information in my (quite short) reply.
Both are widely used in that context. Language is like that.
Further, the textbook definition of Stability-
the quality, state, or degree of being stable: such as
a: the strength to stand or endure : firmness
b: the property of a body that causes it when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium or steady motion to develop forces or moments that restore the original condition
c: resistance to chemical change or to physical disintegration
Pay particular attention to “b”.
The state of my system is “running”. Something changes. If the system doesn’t continue to be state “running”, the system is unstable BY TEXTBOOK DEFINITION.
the property of a body that causes it … to develop forces or moments that restore the original condition
That reminds me more of a pendulum. Swing it, and it’ll always go back to the original, vertical, position because it develops a restoring moment.
The state of my system is “running”. Something changes. If the system doesn’t continue to be state “running", the system is unstable BY TEXTBOOK DEFINITION.
That “something” needs to be the state of your system, not an update that doesn’t disturb its “steady running motion” (when disturbed from a conditionof equilibrium or steady motion).
Arch doesn’t restore itself back into a “running” condition. You need to fix it when an update causes the “unbootable” or any other different state instead of “running”. That’s like having to reset the pendulum because you swung it and it stayed floating in the air.
What you’re arguing has more to do with “a”, you’re attributing it a strength to endure; that it won’t change the “running” state with time and updates.
I think the confusion comes from the meaning of stable. In software there are two relevant meanings:
I’m fascinated that someone that started off with this resists using two words instead of one this much. Let’s paste in some more definitions:
Cambridge Dictionary:
stability:
a situation in which something is not likely to move or change
the state of being firmly fixed or not likely to move or change
a situation in which something such as an economy, company, or system can continue in a regular and successful way without unexpected changes
a situation in which prices or rates do not change much
Debian is not likely to change, Arch will change constantly. That’s why we say Debian is stable, and Arch isn’t.
reliability:
the quality of being able to be trusted or believed because of working or behaving well
how well a machine, piece of equipment, or system works
how accurate or able to be trusted someone or something is considered to be
My point is, it’s a completely valid use of the word. And yes, so is reliable, though I think “reliable” fails to capture the essence of the system changing but maintaining it’s state, hence why we don’t study “reliable systems” in physics.
I recommend picking something else to be pedantic about.
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/03/backdoor-found-in-widely-used-linux-utility-breaks-encrypted-ssh-connections/
Ouch
not a thing.
Ars uses AI now?
Also,
Are you high?
I think the confusion comes from the meaning of stable. In software there are two relevant meanings:
Unchanging, or changing the least possible amount.
Not crashing / requiring intervention to keep running.
Debian, for example, focuses on #1, with the assumption that #2 will follow. And it generally does, until you have to update and the changes are truly massive and the upgrade is brittle, or you have to run software with newer requirements and your hacks to get it working are brittle.
Arch, for example, instead focuses on the second definition, by attempting to ensure that every change, while frequent, is small, with a handful of notable exceptions.
Honestly, both strategies work well. I’ve had debian systems running for 15 years and Arch systems running for 12+ years (and that limitation is really only due to the system I run Arch on, rather than their update strategy.
It really depends on the user’s needs and maintenance frequency.
The word you’re looking for is reliability, not stability.
Both are widely used in that context. Language is like that.
Let me try that: “my car is so stable, it always starts on the first try”, “this knife is unstable, it broke when I was cutting a sausage”, “elephants are very reliable, you can’t tip them over”, “these foundations are unreliable, the house is tilting”
Strange, it’s almost like the word “stability” has something to do with not moving or changing, and “reliability” something to do with working or behaving as expected.
Languages generally develop to be more precise because using a word with 20 different meanings is not a good idea. Meanwhile, native English speakers are working hard to revert back to cavemen grunts, and so now for example “literally” also means “metaphorically”. Failing education and a lacking vocabulary are like that.
Amazingly, for someone so eager to give a lesson in linguistics, you managed to ignore literal definitions of the words in question and entirely skip relevant information in my (quite short) reply.
Further, the textbook definition of Stability-
Pay particular attention to “b”.
The state of my system is “running”. Something changes. If the system doesn’t continue to be state “running”, the system is unstable BY TEXTBOOK DEFINITION.
That reminds me more of a pendulum. Swing it, and it’ll always go back to the original, vertical, position because it develops a restoring moment.
(when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium or steady motion).I’m fascinated that someone that started off with this resists using two words instead of one this much. Let’s paste in some more definitions:
Cambridge Dictionary:
stability:
Debian is not likely to change, Arch will change constantly. That’s why we say Debian is stable, and Arch isn’t.
reliability:
You can and have argued that Arch is reliable.
No, I’m not conflating “a” with “b”. I’m using stability exactly as it’s used in physics.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/09%3A_Statics_and_Torque/9.03%3A_Stability
My point is, it’s a completely valid use of the word. And yes, so is reliable, though I think “reliable” fails to capture the essence of the system changing but maintaining it’s state, hence why we don’t study “reliable systems” in physics.
I recommend picking something else to be pedantic about.