From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu May 15 21:42:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA07681 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 1997 21:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cypher.net (black@zen.pratt.edu [205.232.115.155]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA07676 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 21:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from black@localhost) by cypher.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) id AAA17833; Fri, 16 May 1997 00:40:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 00:40:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Black To: Jason Thorpe cc: "Pedro F. Giffuni" , "Ron G. Minnich" , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cluster Computing in BSD In-Reply-To: <199705160426.VAA26703@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk the current RC5 distributed cracking effort shows quite clearly that something as advanced as MOSIX is not required. if his logic is that bad guys will use MOSIX to crack encryption brute force then he is fooling himself. On Thu, 15 May 1997, Jason Thorpe wrote: > On Fri, 16 May 1997 00:20:58 -0400 (EDT) > Ben Black wrote: > > > yes, since the bad guys are all too stupid to hack it to allow unlimited > > CPUs. guess again, please. > > Then perhaps you can suggest a motive for limiting it to 6 nodes. I guess > you can hack MO6 to remove the limitation too, yes? > > The last time I spoke with Dr. BARAK about this, an NDA was required > to get the information necessary to remove the limit, and his reasons > for it were fairly clear. > > Jason R. Thorpe thorpej@nas.nasa.gov > NASA Ames Research Center Home: 408.866.1912 > NAS: M/S 258-6 Work: 415.604.0935 > Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: 415.428.6939 >