I recently won
a lawsuit against Roy and Rianne Schestowitz, the authors and publishers of the Techrights and Tuxmachines websites. The short version of events is that they were subject to an online harassment campaign, which they incorrectly blamed me for. They responded with a large number of defamatory online posts about me, which the judge described as
unsubstantiated character assassination
and consequently awarded me significant damages. That's not what this post is about, as such. It's about the sole meaningful claim made that tied me to the abuse.
In the defendants'
defence and counterclaim[1], 15.27 asserts in part
The facts linking the Claimant to the sock puppet accounts include, on the IRC network: simultaneous dropped connections to the mjg59_ and elusive_woman accounts. This is so unlikely to be coincidental that the natural inference is that the same person posted under both names
. "elusive_woman" here is an account linked to the harassment, and "mjg59_" is me. This is actually a surprisingly interesting claim to make, and it's worth going into in some more detail.
The event in question occurred on the
28th of April, 2023. You can see a line reading
*elusive_woman has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
, followed by one reading
*mjg59_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
. The timestamp listed for the first is 09:52, and for the second 09:53. Is that actually simultaneous? We can actually gain some more information - if you hover over the timestamp links on the right hand side you can see that the link is actually accurate to the second even if that's not displayed. The first event took place at 09:52:52, and the second at 09:53:03. That's 11 seconds apart, which is clearly not simultaneous, but maybe it's close enough. Figuring out more requires knowing what a "ping timeout" actually means here.
The IRC server in question is running
Ergo (link to
source code), and the relevant function is
handleIdleTimeout(). The logic here is fairly simple - track the time since activity was last seen from the client. If that time is longer than DefaultIdleTimeout (which defaults to 90 seconds) and a ping hasn't been sent yet, send a ping to the client. If a ping has been sent and the timeout is greater than DefaultTotalTimeout (which defaults to 150 seconds), disconnect the client with a "Ping timeout" message. There's no special logic for handling the ping reply - a pong simply counts as any other client activity and resets the "last activity" value and timeout.
What does this mean? Well, for a start, two clients running on the same system will only have simultaneous ping timeouts if their last activity was simultaneous. Let's imagine a machine with two clients, A and B. A sends a message at 02:22:59. B sends a message 2 seconds later, at 02:23:01. The idle timeout for A will fire at 02:24:29, and for B at 02:24:31. A ping is sent for A at 02:24:29 and is responded to immediately - the idle timeout for A is now reset to 02:25:59, 90 seconds later. The machine hosting A and B has its network cable pulled out at 02:24:30. The ping to B is sent at 02:24:31, but receives no reply. A minute later, at 02:25:31, B quits with a "Ping timeout" message. A ping is sent to A at 02:25:59, but receives no reply. A minute later, at 02:26:59, A quits with a "Ping timeout" message. Despite both clients having their network interrupted simultaneously, the ping timeouts occur 88 seconds apart.
So, two clients disconnecting with ping timeouts 11 seconds apart is not incompatible with the network connection being interrupted simultaneously - depending on activity, simultaneous network interruption may result in disconnections up to 90 seconds apart. But another way of looking at this is that network interruptions may occur up to 90 seconds apart and generate simultaneous disconnections[2]. Without additional information it's impossible to determine which is the case.
This already casts doubt over the assertion that the disconnection was simultaneous, but if this is unusual enough it's still potentially significant. Unfortunately for the Schestowitzes, even looking just at the elusive_woman account, there were several cases where elusive_woman and another user had a ping timeout within 90 seconds of each other - including one case where elusive_woman and schestowitz[TR] disconnect
40 seconds apart. By the Schestowitzes argument, it's also a natural inference that elusive_woman and schestowitz[TR] (one of Roy Schestowitz's accounts) are the same person.
We didn't actually need to make this argument, though. In England it's necessary to file a witness statement describing the evidence that you're going to present in advance of the actual court hearing. Despite being warned of the consequences on multiple occasions the Schestowitzes never provided any witness statements, and as a result weren't allowed to provide any evidence in court, which made for a fairly foregone conclusion.
[1] As well as defending themselves against my claim, the Schestowitzes made a counterclaim on the basis that I had engaged in a campaign of harassment against them. This counterclaim failed.
[2] Client A and client B both send messages at 02:22:59. A falls off the network at 02:23:00, has a ping sent at 02:24:29, and has a ping timeout at 02:25:29. B falls off the network at 02:24:28, has a ping sent at 02:24:29, and has a ping timeout at 02:25:29. Simultaneous disconnects despite over a minute of difference in the network interruption.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solo_knight
I think there are many.
Some examples:
* The fastest code is the code you don't run.
Smaller = faster, and we all want faster. Moore's law is over, Dennard scaling isn't affordable any more, smaller feature sizes are getting absurdly difficult and therefore expensive to fab. So if we want our computers to keep getting faster as we've got used to over the last 40-50 years then the only way to keep delivering that will be to start ruthlessly optimising, shrinking, finding more efficient ways to implement what we've got used to.
Smaller systems are better for performance.
* The smaller the code, the less there is to go wrong.
Smaller doesn't just mean faster, it should mean simpler and cleaner too. Less to go wrong. Easier to debug. Wrappers and VMs and bytecodes and runtimes are bad: they make life easier but they are less efficient and make issues harder to troubleshoot. Part of the Unix philosophy is to embed the KISS principle.
So that's performance and troubleshooting. We aren't done.
* The less you run, the smaller the attack surface.
Smaller code and less code means fewer APIs, fewer interfaces, less points of failure. Look at djb's decades-long policy of offering rewards to people who find holes in qmail or djbdns. Look at OpenBSD. We all need better more secure code. Smaller simpler systems built from fewer layers means more security, less attack surface, less to audit.
Higher performance, and easier troubleshooting, and better security. There's 3 reasons.
Practical examples...
The Atom editor spawned an entire class of app: Electron apps, Javascript on Node, bundled with Chromium. Slack, Discord, VSCode: there are multiple apps used by tens to hundreds of millions of people now. Look at how vast they are. Balena Etcher is a, what, nearly 100 MB download to write an image to USB? Native apps like Rufus do it in a few megabytes. Smaller ones like USBimager do it in hundreds of kilobytes. A dd command in under 100 bytes.
Now some of the people behind Atom wrote Zed.
It's 10% of the size and 10x the speed, in part because it's a native Rust app.
The COSMIC desktop looks like GNOME, works like GNOME Shell, but it's smaller and faster and more customisable because it's native Rust code.
GNOME Shell is Javascript running on an embedded copy of Mozilla's Javascript runtime.
Just like dotcoms wanted to dis-intermediate business, remove middlemen and distributors for faster sales, we could use disintermediation in our software. Fewer runtimes, better smarter compiled languages so we can trap more errors and have faster and safer compiled native code.
Smaller, simpler, cleaner, fewer layers, less abstractions: these are all goods things which are desirable.
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson knew this. That's why Research Unix evolved into Plan 9, which puts way more stuff through the filesystem to remove whole types of API. Everything's in a container all the time, the filesystem abstracts the network and the GUI and more. Under 10% of the syscalls of Linux, the kernel is 5MB of source, and yet it has much of Kubernetes in there.
Then they went further, replaced C too, made a simpler safer language, embedded its runtime right into the kernel, and made binaries CPU-independent, and turned the entire network-aware OS into a runtime to compete with the JVM, so it could run as a browser plugin as well as a bare-metal OS. Now we have ubiquitous virtualisation so lean into it: separate domains. If your user-facing OS only runs in a VM then it doesn't need a filesystem or hardware drivers, because it won't see hardware, only virtualised facilities, so rip all that stuff out. Your container host doesn't need to have a console or manage disks.
This is what we should be doing. This is what we need to do. Hack away at the code complexity. Don't add functionality, remove it. Simplify it. Enforce standards by putting them in the kernel and removing dozens of overlapping implementations. Make codebases that are smaller and readable by humans.
Leave the vast bloated stuff to commercial companies and proprietary software where nobody gets to read it except LLM bots anyway.