undefined | Better HN

0 pointsY-bar6mo ago0 comments

The bug is not in the detailed implementation of the code logic per se, the bug is that it causes unexpected data loss because iOS users expect all their data to be backed up when they back up all their important data.

As an example, a piece of code sending authentication credentials in plain text across the internet might in isolation be considered free of bugs. But it should never do that to begin with, it should have been designed/architected quite a bit differently.

You are free to carry water for Signal while they repeatedly refuse to even explain why they consider this a valid approach to handle the users data.

0 comments

palata6mo ago

"I consider it a bug because I really want this feature" does not change the fact that it is a feature.

> As an example, a piece of code sending authentication credentials in plain text across the internet might in isolation be considered free of bugs.

This is not a good example. It's almost certainly a security issue. Unless you have a threat model where you absolutely don't give a shit about it, but we're not in 2010 anymore. Let me try to make another one:

As an example, a messenging app sending encrypted but not end-to-end encrypted messages over a server may be considered free of bugs. Adding end-to-end encryption to it would be a new feature, and it may well be out of scope for that particular app (ever heard of Telegram?).

Because you really want it doesn't make it a bug.

Y-barOP6mo ago

Today I learned that some people consider unexpected data loss a feature, and that removing such a "feature" is in fact the same as adding a new feature.

It's newspeak all in the software world. A first for everything I suppose.

palata6mo ago

> Today I learned that some people consider unexpected data loss a feature

I did not say that, and I am not sure if you genuinely do not understand or if you do it on purpose. Let me try one last time with simple constructs:

The lack of backup is not a feature. The lack of backup is a missing feature. The lack of backup is not a bug.

> and that removing such a "feature" is in fact the same as adding a new feature.

I have no clue what you are trying to say here, it's just gibberish.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsY-bar6mo ago0 comments

You are free to carry water for Signal while they repeatedly refuse to even explain why they consider this a valid approach to handle the users data.

0 comments

palata6mo ago

"I consider it a bug because I really want this feature" does not change the fact that it is a feature.

> As an example, a piece of code sending authentication credentials in plain text across the internet might in isolation be considered free of bugs.

Because you really want it doesn't make it a bug.

Y-barOP6mo ago

Today I learned that some people consider unexpected data loss a feature, and that removing such a "feature" is in fact the same as adding a new feature.

It's newspeak all in the software world. A first for everything I suppose.

palata6mo ago

> Today I learned that some people consider unexpected data loss a feature

I did not say that, and I am not sure if you genuinely do not understand or if you do it on purpose. Let me try one last time with simple constructs:

The lack of backup is not a feature. The lack of backup is a missing feature. The lack of backup is not a bug.

> and that removing such a "feature" is in fact the same as adding a new feature.

I have no clue what you are trying to say here, it's just gibberish.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse