Being right is not the most important part. If you're right but don't convince anyone, you've made no difference.

Theo was right that virtualization is a comparatively shoddy security boundary. At the same time, it's flexible and capable in ways that now define the shape of modern IT.

Could we have replicated that by other means? If yes, then it's on Theo and other knee-jerk critics that they never proposed a better approach and settled for insulting people. If not, then maybe virtualization was a necessary evil. Or maybe everyone else is an irredeemable idiot, but again - if we reach that conclusion, is the world better off?

Maybe if we didn't virtualize everything at machine level we'd have portable software that runs on the original virtualization method: processes.

Stares at Go as about the only step in that direction...

They aren't, they're one of the people who latch on longstanding and neutral syntax (em-dashes, "it's not $foo") as a proof of LLM text. I don't blame them because HN has a lot of people trying to pass gen AI stuff as their own, and you need quick heuristics... but I'd encourage people at least do it right. Pay for Pangram or something.

Or as the new saying goes

"HN: Professionally identifying 230% of posts from 2017 as LLM generated".

That said Panagram is trash for the opposite reason. Not that some people talked like LLMs before LLMs, but now a lot of people talk like LLMs because of LLMs.

I did not claim it was most important, but he clearly called out issues that haunt us still, because we did not fix the basic initial issues ( and we are actively making it worse now with AI slop -- we because, while I use llms, I am not arrogant enough to offer my contributions to emulation, virtualization and other foundational stuff ). The point is that he called it and all of us should do some soul searching as to why his words were ignored. Because if he was ignored because 'he was mean about it', the we are kinda screwed long, because anyone with a brain that can comprehend the issue, will likely have little patience for anyone, who can't see it or won't want see to see it for some contrived semi-social reason.

it's not right nor wrong, it's irrelevant. this exploit has nothing to do with the Xen hypervisor which underlies the virtualization in QubesOS

I don't really know as the argument is mainly about how stupid people are... The technical argument is one paragraph ended with an insult, not much to make an educated and civilized opinion.

<< You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes.

Allow me to start by saying that you are wrong about 'mainly about'. The argument starts with an insult, but insult is minimal and it moves directly into the technical details. But, note that how much you are wrong about the paragraph, because what you want to focus is the insult. You are so wrong about it you effectively invert the proportions of presence of technical data to insult..

Only If I deserved it :-)

But is the world a better place with that particular understanding being the norm. Would we, as a whole, be better served if function was what actually mattered? Wouldn't that be nice?

What if that isn’t the most important part