Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:12:29 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net> To: benjamin@seattleFenix.net Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, chat@freebsd.org, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Subject: Re: Stolen BSD code found in Linux kernel Message-ID: <652D7076-CB8E-11D6-BF28-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <20020918173426.A40318@mail.seattleFenix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, Sep 18, 2002, at 20:34 US/Eastern, Benjamin Krueger wrote: > * 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! > No the best bait tastes like little balls of dough. Didn't you ever fish? >>> 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. =) > one mans moron is another mans guru..... (meaningless i know) >> 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? > Well doesn't the highest uptime on a box belong to a netware server? Something you'd not use for say web serving, unless you are a masochist or something ;). I am more interested in availability than uptime, I want to know, in the case of a website, that my site is available for the world as much as is possible. I don't care about a 3 am reboot. What I do care about is a webcam for a really popular baby panda being down just after good Morning America flashes the url all over the screen and cnn.com carries a frontpage story on it. (Yes I dealt with that, even got to see the baby up close). >>> (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. >> Depends, did they patch it? Not every patch requires a reboot. This can be misleading without further information. --Larry 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?652D7076-CB8E-11D6-BF28-000393A335A2>