Debating Full Source Bootstrap

[ahojlm at 0w.se]

TL;DR documentation of deception in this thread.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law)
Purpose:
For future computing archaeologists and to defend the priority
in case the misrepresented Guix technology gets wider publicity.
---------------------------------------------------
Vagrant,

If you need any clarifications and state your position and
arguments in an unambiguous way, then we possibly can talk.

Have a nice day
 an
---------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 11:43:40AM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> > how the use (of an arbitrary implementation)
> > of a toolchain and of the other necessary tools affects the
> > certainty of *source-only-based* provenance of the result in VSOBFS?
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > My answer:   does not affect in any way.
> > Your answer: ?
> 
> I did not refute what you are saying because I did not disagree with it.
> I agree, based on what you are saying VSOBFS does, that it provides a
> very strong degree of certainty that the sources are what is used to
> produce bit-for-bit identical artifacts regardless of toolchain.

Specifically narrowed appraisal, not an answer to the question.
This exact question has been ducked *twice*.

> I simply do not agree that VSOBFS is a Full Source Bootstrap, as
> mentioned in the article that seemed to evoke such a strong response.

Looks like a literal interpretation of the announcement, to begin from
357 binary bytes and end with 22000 nodes in a graph. Or something else?
Clarification is not available, because Vagrant stated that this was
the last message on topic.

Thus, the *key* subject of the discussion is left undefined.

> Both the Guix Full Source Bootstrap and VSOBFS provide an auditability
> path from source to binary artifacts with very strong confidence.  This
> is not a zero-sum game.

As said, undefined what "Guix Full Source Bootstrap" means.

A self-invented term "auditability path", a single hit on DuckDuckGo -
in the archive of this very message. Makes it impossible to challenge,
because the meaning can be chosen after the fact, arbitrarily.

Unclear where the "path" begins - free for reinterpretation.
Given a natural association with the topic ("Full-Source Bootstrap")
implies that the undefined "Guix Full Source Bootstrap" provides
source-only bootstrap (which is false anyway).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
The stated equivalence of the "Both ..." is false and also dishonest,
because Vagrant has been given all the corresponding facts about
VSOBFS. This holds independently of the interpretation of the undefined /
arbitrary items.

Hard to interpret the meaning of "game" when there are so many
unknowns. Thus, undefined.

> > Your reasoning is based on an incorrect premise that VSOBFS would
> > lack some of its crucial key virtues. This can only indicate that
> > you did not get sufficient information (I can hardly think of any
> > other reason?).
> 
> Not at all! I made no claim that it lacks any "crucial key virtues".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The pointing out was about hidden false assumptions, another fallacy.

> > Guix can not become "a foundation for" or "an implementation of VSOBFS",
> > because the very concept of VSOBFS is to be its own complete foundation,
> > usable with a wide set of starting points.
> 
> You can take an arbitrary C toolchain, yes? By using the C toolchain
> that Guix or live-bootstrap provide to build VSOBFS as one of the
> possible C toolchains, as part of the set of starting points, you get
> the benefits of VSOBFS as well as the guix/live-bootstrap projects.

Faulty reasoning. The conclusion does not follow from the premise,
Can not follow, by the technical nature of the mentioned projects.

Pictures Guix as useful foundation for VSOBFS, with knowledge
that this is not the case.

> VSOBFS strength does not rely on the auditability of the potential set
> of diverse starting points, but surely it is more ideal if some of the
> starting points are themselves more auditable?

A suggestion contradicting (earlier stated known) goals and virtues of VSOBFS.

> I do not believe anything is infallible, and so I typically try to speak
> in terms of degree of confidence. So to me it is a strong correlation,
> or strong confidence of equivalence if you prefer, not an absolute
> proof.

Reserves the right to be imprecise, which prevents to be challenged.

> Please do be careful to not to
> assert or imply or infer the intentions or agreement or disagreement of
> others, as that seems to me to be the main place where things have gone
> wrong.

Blame shift. The dissent began with Guix' deceptive marketing, which implied
the ongoing attempt of priority theft.

--------------------------------------------------

The deceptive pattern is the same as in the earlier messages.

Conclusion: the dialogue has not been conducted in good faith
but served as a coverup for Janneke's/Guix' reputation in connection
with the priority claim announcement of a "Full-Source" bootstrap.