From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 18 22:12:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B6537B401 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D5A43E42 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:12:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2O00FJR6GULX@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:12:29 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Stolen BSD code found in Linux kernel In-reply-to: <20020918173426.A40318@mail.seattleFenix.net> To: benjamin@seattleFenix.net Cc: Dave Hayes , Terry Lambert , chat@freebsd.org, Rahul Siddharthan Message-id: <652D7076-CB8E-11D6-BF28-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wednesday, Sep 18, 2002, at 20:34 US/Eastern, Benjamin Krueger wrote: > * Dave Hayes (dave@jetcafe.org) [020918 16:15]: >> Rahul Siddharthan 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