Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:34:26 -0700 From: Benjamin Krueger <benjamin@seattleFenix.net> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, chat@freebsd.org, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Subject: Re: Stolen BSD code found in Linux kernel Message-ID: <20020918173426.A40318@mail.seattleFenix.net> In-Reply-To: <200209182316.g8INGX118375@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>; from dave@jetcafe.org on Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:16:28PM -0700 References: <200209182316.g8INGX118375@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dave Hayes (dave@jetcafe.org) [020918 16:15]: > Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> writes: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > >> >> >> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That says it all, to me. > > [...] > >> These statistics aren't wildly inaccurate, just inaccurate. There's > >> some information there. There's a relationship there. > > > > That does not "say it all." Honestly, it doesn't really say anything. =) > Um, this was Terry-bait, not Rahul-bait. Terry-bait, Rahul-bait, Brett-bait, it all tastes the same. Like worms! > > I'm willing to believe the statistics are totally accurate, in the > > sense that those particular machines do indeed have those particular > > uptimes. The point is, it would be moronic to base any sort of > > decision on those statistics, given > > Whether you consider it moronic or not does not make it moronic. =) It wouldn't be moronic per se, just misleading, foolish, and unscientific. =) > In other words, even though I might agree that it would not be a good > idea to base any decision on those statistics, I wouldn't call it > "moronic" in public unless I was trying for an effect. > > The "says it all" is a similar sort of effect. It brings out a > certain type of response, it is a litmus test for a certain > manner of interacting with the world. > > Here's another: There is a significant amount of BSD on that list. The > list measures some uptimes of a set of operating systems. Of that set, > BSD clearly beats the rest of them, whatever they are. Beats them how? I bet I could run a tiny web server in DOS for 600 days. Does that mean it clearly beats the rest of them? However factual that may be, it is still unrelated to the original issue being discussed, which was the use of one piece of BSD code in the Linux kernel. In fact, your statement was pretty random. What exactly were you trying to prove by showing us the netcraft stats? > > (c) the fact that the sysadmins involved apparently never upgrade their > > software -- many of those machines seem to be running > > antique versions of Apache with known security holes. (Possibly > > they've patched the holes without upgrading. Then again, possibly > > not.) > > This is something I also noticed. I agree with you, and it could be a > potential hit list for script kiddies. > > > There are lots of very good reasons to advocate BSD. This uptime list > > isn't one. > > Well, isn't that special. =) So. Mind relating what -you- think are > some good reasons then? > > Negation with no replacement is...being like Terry. ;) You just negated. What is your replacement? ;) > ------ > Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org > >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< > > A king who feared wasps once decreed that they would be > abolished. > > As it happened, they did him no harm. But he was eventually > stung to death by scorpions. -- Benjamin Krueger "Everyone has wings, some folks just don't know what they're for" - B. Banzai ---------------------------------------------------------------- Send mail w/ subject 'send public key' or query for (0x251A4B18) Fingerprint = A642 F299 C1C1 C828 F186 A851 CFF0 7711 251A 4B18 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020918173426.A40318>