By Bitcoin Tydskrif - 3 maande gelede - Leestyd: 5 minute
Moenie gebruikersruimte breek nie!
“Mauro, SHUT THE FUCK UP!It's a bug alright - in the kernel. How long have you been a maintainer? And you *still* haven't learnt the first rule of kernel maintenance?If a change results in user programs breaking, it's a bug in the kernel. We never EVER blame the user programs. How hard can this be to Understand?” -Linus Torvalds
Moenie gebruikersspasie breek nie. Dit is Linus Torvald se goue reël vir die ontwikkeling van die Linux-kern. Vir die van julle wat hierdie lees wat nie vertroud is met die aard van Linux, of bedryfstelsels in die algemeen nie, is die kern die hart en siel van 'n bedryfstelsel. Die kern is wat eintlik die hardeware bestuur, wat stukkies rondbeweeg tussen berging en RAM, tussen die RAM en die SVE soos dinge bereken word, en al die klein toestelle en stukke van die werklike rekenaar wat op hardewarevlak beheer moet word.
Elke toepassing of program wat vir 'n bedryfstelsel geskryf is, moet met die kern interaksie hê. Wanneer jy Photoshop, of Telegram aflaai, kom alles wat die program doen neer op die roeping van die kern. "Haai kern, neem wat ek sopas getik het en verwerk dit en stuur dit oor 'n netwerkverbinding na die bediener." "Haai kern, neem die kleurverskuiwing wat ek na hierdie toonhoogte gemaak het, haal dit uit die RAM en stuur dit na die SVE om dit te verander, en sit dit dan terug in die RAM."
When the kernel is changed, in a somewhat similar fashion to Bitcoin, the chief goal of developers is to ensure that existing applications that assume a specific way to interact with the kernel do not break because of a change to the kernel. Sounds very familiar to Bitcoin and the necessity to maintain backwards compatibility for network consensus upgrades doesn’t it?
“Seriously. How hard is this rule to understand? We particularly don't break user space with TOTAL CRAP. I'm angry, because your whole email was so _horribly_ wrong, and the patch that broke things was so obviously crap. The whole patch is incredibly broken shit. It adds an insane error code (ENOENT), and then because it's so insane, it adds a few places to fix it up ("ret == -ENOENT ? -EINVAL : ret").
The fact that you then try to make *excuses* for breaking user space, and blaming some external program that *used* to work, is just shameful. It's not how we work.Fix your f*cking "compliance tool", because it is obviously broken. And fix your approach to kernel programming.” -Linus Torvalds
Linux is een van die belangrikste, indien nie die belangrikste, oopbron-projek in die hele wêreld nie. Android loop op Linux, die helfte van die backend-infrastruktuur (indien nie veel meer nie) loop op Linux. Ingebedde stelsels wat allerhande gerekenariseerde dinge in die agtergrond van jou lewe beheer wat jy nie eers sou oorweeg om op Linux te gebruik nie. Die wêreld loop letterlik op Linux. Dit het dalk nie die lessenaar oorgeneem soos baie outistiese Linux-gebruikers wou sien gebeur nie, maar dit het stilweg amper alles anders in die agtergrond geëet sonder dat iemand dit agterkom.
All of these applications and programs people use in the course of their daily lives depend on the assumption that Linux kernel developers will not break backwards compatibility in new versions of the kernel to allow their applications to continue functioning. Otherwise, anything running applications must continue using older versions of the kernel or take on the burden of altering their applications to interact with a breaking change in the kernel.
Bitcoin’s most likely path to success is a very similar road, simply becoming a platform that financial applications and tools are built on top of in such a way that most people using them won’t even realize or consider that “Bitcoin ate the world.” In a similar vein to Linux, that golden rule of “Don’t break userspace” applies tenfold. The problem is the nature of Bitcoin as a distributed consensus system, rather than a single local kernel running on one person’s machine, wildly changes what “breaking userspace” means.
It’s not just developers that can break userspace, users themselves can break userspace. The entire last year of Ordinals, Inscriptions, and BRC-20 tokens should definitively demonstrate that. This offers a very serious quandary when looking at the mantra of “Don’t break userspace” from the point of view of developers. As much as many Bitcoiners in this space do not like Ordinals, and are upset that their own use cases are being disrupted by the network traffic Ordinals users are creating, beide groepe is gebruikers.
So how do developers confront this problem? One group of users is breaking userspace for another group of users. To enact a change that prevents the use of Ordinals or Inscriptions explicitly violates the mandates of don’t break userspace. I’m sure people want to say “Taproot broke userspace!” in response to this dilemma, but it did not. Taproot activation, and the allowance for witness data to be as large as the entire blocksize, did not break any pre-existing applications or uses built on top of Bitcoin. All it did was open the door for new applications and use cases.
So wat doen ons hier? Om te probeer filter, of te breek deur 'n konsensusverandering, mense wat inskripsies maak of Ordinals verhandel, is om fundamenteel die stelreël van "moenie gebruikersruimte breek nie te oortree nie." Om niks te doen nie, laat een klas gebruikers toe om die gebruikersruimte van 'n ander klas gebruikers te breek. Daar is fundamenteel geen oplossing vir hierdie probleem nie, behalwe om die goue reël te oortree, of om funksionaliteit te implementeer wat die klas gebruikers wie se gebruikersspasie nou gebreek is toelaat om aan te pas by die nuwe realiteite van die netwerk en 'n lewensvatbare weergawe van hul toepassings en gebruik in stand te hou. gevalle.
Not breaking the userspace of Bitcoin is of critical importance for its continued success and functionality, but it is not as simple as “don’t change anything.” Dynamic changes in user behavior, that require no change to the actual protocol itself, can have the same effect at the end of the day as a breaking change to the protocol. Are developers supposed to pick and choose which applications’ userspace is broken to maintain that of another application? I would say no, and go further to say that anyone advocating for such behavior from developers is demanding them to act irresponsibly and in a way that harms users of the system. So what is the answer here?
There is no answer except to push forward and continue adding improvements to the protocol that allow applications being broken by the behavior of certain users to function in the presence of emergent changes in users’ behavior. Otherwise, you are asking developers to throw out the golden rule and effectively play kingmakers in regards to what use cases are viable to build on top of Bitcoin.
As ons op daardie pad gaan, wat doen ons dan eintlik hier? Ek kan nie vir jou sê wat ons op daardie stadium doen nie, maar ek kan jou sê dit bou nie meer 'n verspreide en neutrale stelsel nie.
Oorspronklike bron: Bitcoin Tydskrif