I thought Linux didn't have bugs
-
Here is the article: http://www.zdnet.com/linuxbug It looks like a pretty bad bug to me ;P Rodrigo.
-
Here is the article: http://www.zdnet.com/linuxbug It looks like a pretty bad bug to me ;P Rodrigo.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Here is the article: http://www.zdnet.com/linuxbug It looks like a pretty bad bug to me ;P Rodrigo.
Ha! Is this a rant, or a joke? Or a relief? Questions: a) why, in the OpenSource world, every vendor must create it's own patch? b) is this, like "publish flaws after they're fixed" ? I see the difference 6 days is something else than 6 month, but imagine MS had been split up, and MS A and MS B would "secretly" agree on when to release bug information... My one&only Linux experience: kernel panic after 10 min playing around in the shell.
-
Ha! Is this a rant, or a joke? Or a relief? Questions: a) why, in the OpenSource world, every vendor must create it's own patch? b) is this, like "publish flaws after they're fixed" ? I see the difference 6 days is something else than 6 month, but imagine MS had been split up, and MS A and MS B would "secretly" agree on when to release bug information... My one&only Linux experience: kernel panic after 10 min playing around in the shell.
Many linux developers are also crafty on the hacking side, so in fear to one day starting my computer and not being able to find any of my porn I didn't want to make fun of them (people who say that linux doesn't have bugs). Finally I can rant, joke, make fun of and criticize anybody's OS. A big bug is in the open, and all people can see that so long there is software, a hacker can hack it. Rodrigo.
-
Ha! Is this a rant, or a joke? Or a relief? Questions: a) why, in the OpenSource world, every vendor must create it's own patch? b) is this, like "publish flaws after they're fixed" ? I see the difference 6 days is something else than 6 month, but imagine MS had been split up, and MS A and MS B would "secretly" agree on when to release bug information... My one&only Linux experience: kernel panic after 10 min playing around in the shell.
peterchen wrote: but imagine MS had been split up, and MS A and MS B would "secretly" agree on when to release bug information That is a hilariously scary scenario. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Ha! Is this a rant, or a joke? Or a relief? Questions: a) why, in the OpenSource world, every vendor must create it's own patch? b) is this, like "publish flaws after they're fixed" ? I see the difference 6 days is something else than 6 month, but imagine MS had been split up, and MS A and MS B would "secretly" agree on when to release bug information... My one&only Linux experience: kernel panic after 10 min playing around in the shell.
peterchen wrote: a) why, in the OpenSource world, every vendor must create it's own patch? Each Linux vendor must create their own patch because each distro comes with different packages and may be set up differently. This is essentially the same as MS releasing different patches for 2K, 95, Me and XP. peterchen wrote: b) is this, like "publish flaws after they're fixed" ? I see the difference 6 days is something else than 6 month, but imagine MS had been split up, and MS A and MS B would "secretly" agree on when to release bug information... Read this: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/columns/security/noarch.asp Did I read it wrong, or is Scott Culp is essentially saying that the security community should keep vulnerabilities secret, at least until a patch is developed? He uses the term 'information anarchy' to describe the current situation, so would what he is advocating be called 'information fascism'? "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten
-
peterchen wrote: a) why, in the OpenSource world, every vendor must create it's own patch? Each Linux vendor must create their own patch because each distro comes with different packages and may be set up differently. This is essentially the same as MS releasing different patches for 2K, 95, Me and XP. peterchen wrote: b) is this, like "publish flaws after they're fixed" ? I see the difference 6 days is something else than 6 month, but imagine MS had been split up, and MS A and MS B would "secretly" agree on when to release bug information... Read this: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/columns/security/noarch.asp Did I read it wrong, or is Scott Culp is essentially saying that the security community should keep vulnerabilities secret, at least until a patch is developed? He uses the term 'information anarchy' to describe the current situation, so would what he is advocating be called 'information fascism'? "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten
From the original zdnet article: "The fix is not rocket science," Huger said. "But we weren't working at a breakneck pace to get a patch out, because everyone was working together." This quote perfectly illustrates the major problem with 'information fascism' (great term btw :)). -- Eric Move along, nothing to see here.
-
Here is the article: http://www.zdnet.com/linuxbug It looks like a pretty bad bug to me ;P Rodrigo.
Hello, Yes, Linux like any other OS has bugs. But is this article about Linux itself or Linux Server? Best regards, Paul. Paul Selormey, Bsc (Elect Eng), MSc (Mobile Communication) is currently Windows open source developer in Japan, and open for programming contract anywhere!
-
Here is the article: http://www.zdnet.com/linuxbug It looks like a pretty bad bug to me ;P Rodrigo.
This is a problem with "wu-FTP" (an FTP daemon, one of many). If you truly believed Linux (which is the kernel of any GNU/Linux system) didn't have any bugs, let this be an eye-opener that most software have bugs.
-
Here is the article: http://www.zdnet.com/linuxbug It looks like a pretty bad bug to me ;P Rodrigo.
-
Here is the article: http://www.zdnet.com/linuxbug It looks like a pretty bad bug to me ;P Rodrigo.
The article talks about wu-FTP having a bug, which is not Linux itself (its like a part of IIS having a bug in Win2K). Anyway, just about any nontrivial piece of software has bugs (be them known or not), so it's foolish to think that Linux doesn't have bugs. I could even think it may have a bit more bugs than Windows, since it is open source. The reason is that programmers work on it more as a hobby (they don't get paid), so they rather write new features than debug and fix old features written by someone else. Ok, there are those companys like Red Hat that release patches, but you get my point. Cheers, -- LuisR -------- Luis Alonso Ramos Chihuahua, Mexico www.luisalonsoramos.com
-
This is a problem with "wu-FTP" (an FTP daemon, one of many). If you truly believed Linux (which is the kernel of any GNU/Linux system) didn't have any bugs, let this be an eye-opener that most software have bugs.
I guess I didn't put enough sarcasm on my original post. I don't believe there is a piece of software that is bug free. If not the actual piece of code, the system on which the code runs. At some point, we have to assume that the OS (or wherever you are going to run your code) doesn't have bugs, but we should never be surprised to find one. In our code or on the system we run it. Rodrigo.
-
This is a problem with "wu-FTP" (an FTP daemon, one of many). If you truly believed Linux (which is the kernel of any GNU/Linux system) didn't have any bugs, let this be an eye-opener that most software have bugs.
This is clearly a reaction to the Linu¢s attitude that if some component in Windows in flawed - IIS Server, for example - the whole thing is fundamentally flawed and should be pulled from the market, in favor of Linu¢s software, which never has serious flaws becasue "many eyes" are looking at the code, and therefore software defects are couaght before they manifest as bugs. Right.