| General > General Technical Chat |
| University of Minnesota Linux code security issues; banned and to be removed |
| << < (9/23) > >> |
| DrG:
--- Quote from: ataradov on April 25, 2021, 02:52:30 am --- --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:47:28 am ---you can start withdrawing papers that you already cleared (assuming they did) because it was childish. --- End quote --- But this already happens all the time. Most of the time it happens because results were not interpreted correctly, or experiment was not clean. The article can absolutely be pulled by the University. And from the IEEE conference. In fact, if they did not do this already, it kind of shows that they want to burn the bridges entirely. --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 02:47:28 am ---would not, necessarily,"litigate" well. --- End quote --- It is great that kernel developers are just a private people that can chose to not deal with a certain organization "just because". They don't need to litigate. --- End quote --- Hang on a minute. Papers are not routinely withdrawn because "results were not interpreted correctly, or experiment was not clean." - a paper like that, should not have been cleared, submitted, reviewed and accepted. Having to withdraw it means that something happened in the meantime and in my world that was a huge rarity and I never withdrew a paper like that, ever. Now, I can remember telling someone to remove my name from a presentation unless you do this or that because I am not going to be part of those conclusions given those data and those analyses...that was more than enough...and all that took place before it was submitted for local clearance. I am not saying the Univ can't withdraw the paper (I did say, assuming that they can). Let's stipulate that they can...they have to state a reason...they can't say, after they allowed it to be submitted, well we want it withdrawn because they are childish - you get what I am saying? The Linuxites are well within their rights to reject patch requests from an .edu and whether they have to or not, they did give a reason. I would add, when people or entities engage in punitive action without giving a reason, it invites trouble. |
| ataradov:
--- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 03:00:47 am ---But what if the supervisor does not feel that way? --- End quote --- That is fine. You start by going to Linus or anyone on top in charge and disclose the proposal. Or even ask more than just the supervisor. Peer review your proposal. But in that specific place IRB was supposed to be that review, which has also failed. And that is something Uni should address. If Linus agrees that this may be a valid test, he will outline exact boundaries (I bet it would exclude the code reaching stable kernel). I would trust Linus to not tell everyone to expect this check (unlike most of the certification checks I've been a part of at various jobs). --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 03:00:47 am ---I had a dissertation proposal meeting and it lasted for hours...it was not just my supervisor, it was 4-5 others including someone not at the Univ....that was the SOP. So, at that proposal meeting, you hashed out any problems with your plan...you had to show all sorts of stuff...feasibility, statistical expertise and an analysis plan, preliminary or supporting data - the whole ball game, and you, of course, you had to have the blessing of your supervisor. --- End quote --- Exactly. And this means that this system failed. And that is what you go as a Uni - admit that you pushed the edge too far and promise to do a better job reviewing this stuff. And if all of those people did not just robber-stamp this and for real though it was a valid thing to do, then their qualification should be questioned too. --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 03:00:47 am ---So, my point, assuming I have one, is that I don't want to see a lot of new restrictions put in place that are not need and will have other consequences and will suck up resources. --- End quote --- But because of malicious "research" like this, kernel developers now have to suck up more resources on their side to prevent others from trying the same stunt. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this article somehow revealed that it is easy to push bad patches. No, this is well known, and I'm sure state actors take advantage of that already. The point is to prevent flood gates of low grade crap like this. --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 03:00:47 am ---First, I want to know precisely what was done wrong here. --- End quote --- In short - poor experiment setup passed the review process. If anything, I fee like this shows disconnect between industry and academia. Academics think that no bad code must ever pass the review. But this is not attainable in real life without stopping the development process entirely. This does not just affect OSS project. Commercial projects suffer from the same issue. So may be review board need to include more people from the industry with a realistic view of the world. |
| DrG:
Well, I appreciate the dialog. But, what you are saying, as I understand it, is that the Univ has to own up to some mistakes and take solid corrective measures....well maybe they will, but we'll see. :) |
| ataradov:
--- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 03:08:35 am ---Hang on a minute. Papers are not routinely withdrawn because "results were not interpreted correctly, or experiment was not clean." - a paper like that, should not have been cleared, submitted, reviewed and accepted. --- End quote --- The definition of "all the time" is vague, so I withdraw that :) But it happens quite a bit. That's why sites like https://retractionwatch.com/ exist. One of the most recent example of such "research" is this - https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/21/journal-retracts-paper-suggesting-smoking-is-linked-to-lower-covid-19-risk/ . I'm not involved with the scientific process, so I'm not too familiar with it, but this article should have never made it out of the door of any legit institution. --- Quote from: DrG on April 25, 2021, 03:08:35 am ---I would add, when people or entities engage in punitive action without giving a reason, it invites trouble. --- End quote --- The reason - you wasted their time. At first having to deal with the fallout of the bogus article, and then having to remove all the previously submitted code as potentially vulnerable. |
| ataradov:
And this behaviour overall is reminding me of the researches attempting to show that peer review is also questionable by submitting and passing review on AI generated garbage articles. Again, seemingly shows vulnerability of the system. In reality it shows nothing. Sure, it would be better if peer review process caught complete nonsense. But at the same time, who cares if that nonsense is of no real significance. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |