By Bitcoin Iris - 3 mhí ó shin - Am Léitheoireachta: 5 nóiméad
Ná Bris Spás Úsáideora!
“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
Ná bris spás úsáideora. Seo riail órga Linus Torvald maidir le forbairt an eithne Linux. Dóibh siúd agaibh atá á léamh seo nach bhfuil eolach ar nádúr Linux, nó ar chórais oibriúcháin go ginearálta, is é an eithne croí agus anam an chórais oibriúcháin. Is é an eithne a bhainistíonn na crua-earraí i ndáiríre, ag bogadh giotán timpeall idir stóráil agus RAM, idir an RAM agus an LAP de réir mar a ríomhtar rudaí, agus na gléasanna beaga agus na píosaí ríomhaire iarbhír ar gá iad a rialú ag leibhéal na crua-earraí.
Caithfidh gach feidhmchlár nó clár a scríobhtar do chóras oibriúcháin idirghníomhú leis an eithne. Nuair a íoslódálann tú Photoshop, nó Telegram, baineann gach rud atá á dhéanamh ag an gclár sin leis an eithne a ghlaoch go bunúsach. “Hey eithne, tóg an méid a chlóscríobh mé díreach agus é a phróiseáil agus é a sheoladh thar nasc líonra chuig an bhfreastalaí.” “Hey eithne, tóg an t-athrú datha a rinne mé chuig an bpáirc seo, tóg amach as RAM é agus seol chuig an LAP é chun é a mhodhnú, ansin cuir ar ais i RAM é.”
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
Tá Linux ar cheann de na tionscadail foinse oscailte is tábhachtaí, murab é an ceann is tábhachtaí ar domhan ar fad. Ritheann Android ar Linux, ritheann leath den bhonneagar inneall (mura bhfuil níos mó) ar Linux. Córais leabaithe a rialaíonn gach cineál rudaí ríomhairithe i gcúlra do shaol nach mbeadh tú ag smaoineamh ar reáchtáil ar Linux fiú. Ritheann an domhan go litriúil ar Linux. B'fhéidir nár ghlac sé ar an deasc mar a bhí go leor úsáideoirí uathacha Linux ag iarraidh a fheiceáil ag tarlú, ach d'ith sé go ciúin beagnach gach rud eile sa chúlra gan aon duine a thabhairt faoi deara.
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, is úsáideoirí an dá ghrúpa.
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.
Mar sin, cad a dhéanaimid anseo? Chun iarracht a dhéanamh scagadh nó athrú comhaontaithe a shárú, is éard atá i gceist le daoine a dhéanann Inscríbhinní nó Ordinals a thrádáil sárú bunúsach a dhéanamh ar an uasmhéid “ná bris spás úsáideora.” Le rud ar bith a dhéanamh is féidir le haicme amháin úsáideoirí spás úsáideora aicme eile úsáideoirí a bhriseadh. Go bunúsach níl aon réiteach ar an bhfadhb seo ach amháin an riail órga a shárú, nó feidhmiúlacht a chur i bhfeidhm a ligeann don aicme úsáideoirí a bhfuil a spás úsáideora briste anois oiriúnú do réaltachtaí nua an líonra agus leagan inmharthana dá bhfeidhmchláir agus dá n-úsáid a choinneáil. cásanna.
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.
Má théann muid síos an bóthar sin, ansin cad atá ar siúl againn anseo i ndáiríre? Ní féidir liom a insint duit cad atá á dhéanamh againn ag an bpointe sin, ach is féidir liom a rá leat nach bhfuil sé ag tógáil córas dáilte agus neodrach a thuilleadh.
Foinse bunaidh: Bitcoin Magazine