Wow, you're taking this waaaaaaay too personally. Did the chihuahua run off with the missus again?
LOL
Yes, there are beastiality pics for sale in the bodegas of New York City. I've seen it with my own eyes. And yes, I've lived most of my life in the area, and just moved out of Brooklyn a matter of months ago.
So if anybody is full of shit, baby, it is you!
Or are you going to stand there and tell me what I did and didn't see, in any number of stores in Brooklyn or Manhattan? Been to them all, have you? 86th Street and 4th Ave. in Bay Ridge I can count at least three off the top of my head that all carried hard code porn. No brown paper wrapper. Not on a high shelf out of kids reach or view.
And yes, Guiliani did make the problem worse. Was their porn before Rudy? Of course. But shutting down the XXX-shoppes made the problem worse. And it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that it turned out this way. It follows the basic laws of supply and demand.
And you know what happened after the crackdown? Average ordinary convenience stores took up the slack. You'd go to buy your six-pack of beer, but not after walking down an aisle lined with porno magazines and sometimes even tapes and DVD's.
And as this is New York City, there's no need for plain brown paper wrappers to conceal what these magazines are all about. We're not talking about Penthouse or Playboy, but covers that show closeups of ass-to-mouth and animal sex action.
And this is where kids go to get their candy, soda-pop, and ring-dings. I don't know about you, but I was spared the image of a woman going down on a dog until I was well into adulthood. I happen to think that this was a good thing. But today, we're talking about kids of all ages being exposed to this kind of shit.
Fucking hilarious! Instead of having all the city's porn concentrated in well-defined areas like Times Square, Guiliani succeeded in accelerating its spread throughout all of the city's neighborhoods.
Then again, what would you expect? These are the same wizards who brought us the war on drugs.
This presumes that the official government story is correct, which may be the case I suppose, but as FBI Director Robert Mueller himself pointed out, there is *no* evidence implicating these men in the attack.
Not only that, a good number of the suspected 19 are still alive.
The only evidence we really have is that video tape upon which Osama is purported to have confessed to the whole affair, but a closer examination reveals that a) he may not have confessed at all, and b) it almost certainly wan't Osama bin Laden who was on the tape in the first place. Which means that what the tape really proves is that the only evidence implicating bin Laden was forged.
Which explains why you can't find a copy of the video on any mainstream media or government web site.
It's not going to help in tracking down kidnapped children, not unless the kidnapper lets them go to the mall to use their parents' VISA card or log on to check his/her mail.
And only stupid terrorists are likewise going to leave a trail of electronic crumbs to track. Yeah, you could argue that stupid terrorists are worth nabbing, but clearly whomever was responsible for 9/11 wasn't stupid, nor will the individual(s) responsible for the first nuclear detonation on American soil be stupid.
No, if anything, this system will actually increase the amount of criminal activity, whether terrorism or kidnapping, or crimes in between. It only serves to aggregrate power from the many onto the very few, which means more corruption and less representative government, which in turn means more disillusionment, apathy and frustration.
I don't understand... don't you need some kind of device from DishNetwork to decode their programming, or are we talking about pirating the signal? Or is it like C-BAND (big dish), where some channels are in-the-clear while others are encrypted?
Let's say I want to get pay channels on DishNetwork, would what you're describing allow me to do that?
...to watch HDTV content, but I can't seem to find the right combination of gadgets to make it work.
For instance, I'd want/need to get my HD content from DirecTV/DishNetwork. Ideally I'd want the MPEG stream to be saved directly to my HD, but that doesn't seem possible. I'd settle for using the new/upcoming Dish/TiVO HD-PVR's these DBS companies are offering but even then there appears to be a problem getting the content into the computer... my video card (and all of the other video cards I've looked at) sports different ways of outputting signal but only two ways in inputting it, S-Video and component, and neither seem suitable for displaying HD content.
Am I missing something? I'm not a hardware whiz (can you tell?) so any help would be appreciated.
Ahhh, my mistake, that's what I meant... I remember they're offering it to me and that there was something they did to it that made it useless. I got the two confused.
So you can time-shift, you just can't skip commercials.
I'm talking about uncut porn channels that you pay for by the month. The only channel DirecTV offers by the month is Playboy, which I don't consider porn.
All the others are PPV, and as you've noted, are edited.
I've only had experience with the DVR Time/Warner cable was offering and it wouldn't let you time-shift anything but PPV content, but I don't know if that applies to Comcast as well. If it does, you could stick a TiVO or your own DVR into the equation, but then what you're doing is decoding the MPEG from your cable provider, then reencoding it back into MPEG when it gets saved to the hard disk, which sucks. This is assuming you're getting digital cable of course.
The satellite DVR packages on the other hand will save the MPEG stream directly to the hard disk, so you can view it later without loss of image quality.
This is all the more important if you're thinking about going with HDTV. DirecTV is about to come out with a HD-DVR made in conjunction with TiVO. DishNetwork's HD-DVR is already out, but it will set you back a cool thousand.
If there was actually something worth watching on TV beside porn, I'd get the latter, if for no other reason than that DirecTV won't carry porn, but seeing as how Murdoch has bought DirecTV from Hughes that's probably about to change.
The consensus on rec.video.satellite.dbs seems to be that weather really doesn't affect image quality (though this may not be true for HD content) but that airplanes, helicopters, birds and people falling off of your roof can and do. That said, it supposedly causes only minor artifacting (which you're going to get anyways given the aggressive compression the providers use... watch Star Trek: TNG on Spike TV sometime and watch the signal lose sync everytime somebody fires a phaser.)
Well obviously that isn't true for the NSA. If it were, we wouldn't have had to waste all that time on the encryption debate.
I could see it being true for DARPA, but then, if they were really interested in improving the information security of the U.S., then why renege on the grants/funding for OpenBSD, an OS that is frequently reputed to be one of the--if not the most--secure OS's out there?
I guess it comes down to this: do you trust your government?
I would say this rather soundly addresses the concept of "getting root", wouldn't you?
No, I wouldn't. I was using the term "getting root" as a slang for entering a system. We're dealing with semantics here. SELinux wants to say there is no root, but it really doesn't matter what they call it, there are still accounts and the same exploits that lead to the compromising of one acccount can cascade into the compromising of other accounts.
the security of the parent system has absolutely nothing to do with the security of an isolated data stream
Of course it does. Buffer-overflow exploit? Hello?
I think what I needed to communicate better here is the method by which the NSA goes about discovering these exploits. Unless you are going to take the position that the NSA does not care about acquiring techniques to infiltrate computer systems, then you have to acknowledge that they are likely going to put a good deal of resources behind the problem.
Now, if I were in charge of this project, and I had ready access to the kind of enormous CPU power at their disposal, the first thing I would do is prepare an emulator that would allow target OS's to be loaded and against which many cycles are spent looking for combinations of input that expose holes, like buffer-overflow, that provide access to a process. Once that exploit is catalogued, I can iteratively work from within that process looking for the exploit that allows for access to some other process via whatever IPC mechanism available. Provided that the resources are there, most (even if not all) available exploits could be catalogued, and methods of attack extrapolated. And I would have those resources since this project can be easily demonstrated to be in interests of national security.
The toy understanding of security issues evident here and elsewhere really doesn't apply. We're not talking about defending a system against some script kiddie. It's a different class of problem altogther.
There is also the fact that the NSA and DARPA don't have to work to compromise our security...
It really comes down to whether or not you believe the NSA/DARPA would make this technology a priority. If you believe they would, that is, if you can appreciate the potential for intelligence gathering such a technique would yield, then I think you'd also have to agree that they probably wouldn't want to sit still and hope and wait for the RIAA/MPAA to do as you say.
So you assert that SELinux fixes trivial security issues...
I never asserted anything of the kind. SELinux is about implementing access control, which has little if anthing to do with enhancing the kind of security being discussed here, i.e., getting root.
: If there are hundreds of invisible exploits in the SELinux kernel, how are we to know that the same situation doesn't exist in OpenBSD?
OpenBSD has made a big deal about auditing its code, looking for all the potential vulnerabilities. Linux tends to be more focused on utility and performance. There may indeed (probably are) exploits they are aware of in OpenBSD, but since so much more focus in placed on security, their expectations may be that the window of opportunity is closing.
Furthermore, how are we to be certain that OpenBSD (oft touted as the most secure OS in the world, and I'll certainly grant it's one of the most secure out of the box OS's I've ever seen) isn't some clandestine creation of the NSA created to lull paranoid psychotics into believing that they were secured against intrusion?
The question you should be asking yourself is why organizations like the NSA and DARPA, which are after all dedicated to eavesdropping and intelligence gathering, would want to spend time and resources making the computer systems of target nations more secure.
They go through the charade in a bid to encourage people to use less-secure OS's, like Linux, instead of more-secure OS's, like OpenBSD (as just one example), that prove harder for them to exploit.
It's so incredible, with all the evidence of government deceit and treachery all around us that we would still have people giving them the benefit of the doubt!
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and our government is as close to wielding absolute power as anyone ever has.
And you want to trust them to coordinate auditing open-source software? I can't imagine a more naive posture to take!
I never said they "sneaked" anything into the code. I only suggest that they are aware that Linux is an easier OS for them to root than others, like the aforementioned OpenBSD.
They don't have to touch the code, in fact, for exactly the reasons you offer, it is best that they don't. But that doesn't mean they can't use their considerable CPU resources to catalog its vulnerabilities.
This reminds me of NSA's SELinux, a ploy to get everybody to pass over an OS built with security foremost in mind (like OpenBSD) and rush instead into one for which the NSA no doubt has hundreds if not thousands of pre-programmed exploits.
I'll bet you that's where half of their supercomputer time goes. Iterating across the domain of all possible inputs against Windows and stock Linux distributions, looking for all the holes.
How does DARPA game Sardonix? By controlling the rankings and emphasizing simple or known security holes while concealing or obscuring those for which federal exploits stand at the ready.
It would be a great idea, but only if somebody else was running it.
Re:It's like Netscape v. Microsoft in that...
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
For a second I had a shiver as I was reading your message, but I think I'm OK now...
Yes, webmasters can prevent Microsoft from crawling their sites, but, hehe, what about web sites running IIS? Would Microsoft be so low as to "embellish" the robots.txt file hosted on IIS sites so as to include a line forbidding the GoogleBot?
Man, let's all get down on our knees and kiss the ground the Apache developers walk on, huh?
It's like Netscape v. Microsoft in that...
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Microsoft leveraged Windows to popularize IE. They'll try to do the same with MSN, leveraging it to promote their search engine. So there is that similiarity. And Netscape was free, and so is Google, and so that contest should go to whomever has the deepest pockets, but...
Google is different than Netscape in that it is very high quality, something Microsoft isn't likely to match (I am continually amazed at how badly the search engine at microsoft.com sucks) and also because Google actually has a business model, i.e., they have customers, e.g., people willing to pay them money to do stuff.
The way I see it, it's Google's to lose. They can still mess up in execution. They're expanding into other areas very quickly... perhaps too quickly. And they wield a tremendous amount of power in that search engine, so much so that I doubt that the feds haven't already requested "special access" to the query logs, and maybe one day, the power to alter result listings. (Yeah, you'd be laughing if I told you that the feds made Adobe put anti-counterfeiting code in Photoshop too I bet.)
Actually, if you bother to RTFA, they don't know what they're doing. As they themselves acknowledge, they're "really just chipping away at the edges of it." They tried to create an element with 115 protons, and they end up with one that has only 113 instead, which appears to be entirely accidental.
As for the rest of your post, it is mostly shit so I won't bother responding, except to say that it is good to see that most everybody else here knows a joke when they hear one.
We're looking for a stable heavy element. My question is, "Why?"
I mean, as if things weren't already fucked up enough, we actually have people working to bring into this world something which has never existed. And the consequences? Apparently nobody gives a shit.
Haven't these guys ever played DOOM? Or watched Event Horizon? I'd feel a lot safer if their creativity was tinged with a healthy dose of fear.
For instance, a simple read of a 500MB file during a streaming write with a 1MB block size on my Xeon-based test system took 37 seconds with v2.4.23, and 3.9 seconds with v2.6.
Huh? That just can't be right, can it?
Also, a lot of us have been running with NPTL for some time now before shitcanning our Red Hat installs... I would've like to seen a comparison between 2.6 and a NPTL 2.4.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you're taking this waaaaaaay too personally. Did the chihuahua run off with the missus again?
LOL
Yes, there are beastiality pics for sale in the bodegas of New York City. I've seen it with my own eyes. And yes, I've lived most of my life in the area, and just moved out of Brooklyn a matter of months ago.
So if anybody is full of shit, baby, it is you!
Or are you going to stand there and tell me what I did and didn't see, in any number of stores in Brooklyn or Manhattan? Been to them all, have you? 86th Street and 4th Ave. in Bay Ridge I can count at least three off the top of my head that all carried hard code porn. No brown paper wrapper. Not on a high shelf out of kids reach or view.
And yes, Guiliani did make the problem worse. Was their porn before Rudy? Of course. But shutting down the XXX-shoppes made the problem worse. And it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that it turned out this way. It follows the basic laws of supply and demand.
And you know what happened after the crackdown? Average ordinary convenience stores took up the slack. You'd go to buy your six-pack of beer, but not after walking down an aisle lined with porno magazines and sometimes even tapes and DVD's.
And as this is New York City, there's no need for plain brown paper wrappers to conceal what these magazines are all about. We're not talking about Penthouse or Playboy, but covers that show closeups of ass-to-mouth and animal sex action.
And this is where kids go to get their candy, soda-pop, and ring-dings. I don't know about you, but I was spared the image of a woman going down on a dog until I was well into adulthood. I happen to think that this was a good thing. But today, we're talking about kids of all ages being exposed to this kind of shit.
Fucking hilarious! Instead of having all the city's porn concentrated in well-defined areas like Times Square, Guiliani succeeded in accelerating its spread throughout all of the city's neighborhoods.
Then again, what would you expect? These are the same wizards who brought us the war on drugs.
The idea that the universe is the product of the combinatorial effects of different combinations of events seems neither unique nor unexpected.
I know this will probably be modded as a troll, but could it be that NKS is nothing more than a computer-science primer for physicists?
This presumes that the official government story is correct, which may be the case I suppose, but as FBI Director Robert Mueller himself pointed out, there is *no* evidence implicating these men in the attack.
Not only that, a good number of the suspected 19 are still alive.
The only evidence we really have is that video tape upon which Osama is purported to have confessed to the whole affair, but a closer examination reveals that a) he may not have confessed at all, and b) it almost certainly wan't Osama bin Laden who was on the tape in the first place. Which means that what the tape really proves is that the only evidence implicating bin Laden was forged.
Which explains why you can't find a copy of the video on any mainstream media or government web site.
It's not going to help in tracking down kidnapped children, not unless the kidnapper lets them go to the mall to use their parents' VISA card or log on to check his/her mail.
And only stupid terrorists are likewise going to leave a trail of electronic crumbs to track. Yeah, you could argue that stupid terrorists are worth nabbing, but clearly whomever was responsible for 9/11 wasn't stupid, nor will the individual(s) responsible for the first nuclear detonation on American soil be stupid.
No, if anything, this system will actually increase the amount of criminal activity, whether terrorism or kidnapping, or crimes in between. It only serves to aggregrate power from the many onto the very few, which means more corruption and less representative government, which in turn means more disillusionment, apathy and frustration.
I don't understand... don't you need some kind of device from DishNetwork to decode their programming, or are we talking about pirating the signal? Or is it like C-BAND (big dish), where some channels are in-the-clear while others are encrypted?
Let's say I want to get pay channels on DishNetwork, would what you're describing allow me to do that?
...to watch HDTV content, but I can't seem to find the right combination of gadgets to make it work.
For instance, I'd want/need to get my HD content from DirecTV/DishNetwork. Ideally I'd want the MPEG stream to be saved directly to my HD, but that doesn't seem possible. I'd settle for using the new/upcoming Dish/TiVO HD-PVR's these DBS companies are offering but even then there appears to be a problem getting the content into the computer... my video card (and all of the other video cards I've looked at) sports different ways of outputting signal but only two ways in inputting it, S-Video and component, and neither seem suitable for displaying HD content.
Am I missing something? I'm not a hardware whiz (can you tell?) so any help would be appreciated.
That's not the HD-PVR though. I'm talking about the DishPVR 921.
There's a big difference between the two.
...there's no 30-second skip hack
Ahhh, my mistake, that's what I meant... I remember they're offering it to me and that there was something they did to it that made it useless. I got the two confused.
So you can time-shift, you just can't skip commercials.
Sorry bout that.
My mistake. I should have said, uncut porn that you can buy by the month, like any other channel.
DirecTV only has PPV (unless you count Playboy, which I don't) and even then its that crappy pan-and-zoom porn.
I should have been more specific.
I'm talking about uncut porn channels that you pay for by the month. The only channel DirecTV offers by the month is Playboy, which I don't consider porn.
All the others are PPV, and as you've noted, are edited.
(or at least that's what I've heard.)
I've only had experience with the DVR Time/Warner cable was offering and it wouldn't let you time-shift anything but PPV content, but I don't know if that applies to Comcast as well. If it does, you could stick a TiVO or your own DVR into the equation, but then what you're doing is decoding the MPEG from your cable provider, then reencoding it back into MPEG when it gets saved to the hard disk, which sucks. This is assuming you're getting digital cable of course.
The satellite DVR packages on the other hand will save the MPEG stream directly to the hard disk, so you can view it later without loss of image quality.
This is all the more important if you're thinking about going with HDTV. DirecTV is about to come out with a HD-DVR made in conjunction with TiVO. DishNetwork's HD-DVR is already out, but it will set you back a cool thousand.
If there was actually something worth watching on TV beside porn, I'd get the latter, if for no other reason than that DirecTV won't carry porn, but seeing as how Murdoch has bought DirecTV from Hughes that's probably about to change.
The consensus on rec.video.satellite.dbs seems to be that weather really doesn't affect image quality (though this may not be true for HD content) but that airplanes, helicopters, birds and people falling off of your roof can and do. That said, it supposedly causes only minor artifacting (which you're going to get anyways given the aggressive compression the providers use... watch Star Trek: TNG on Spike TV sometime and watch the signal lose sync everytime somebody fires a phaser.)
What did you expect from Safire? He's probably the most corrupt journalist working in American media today... which says quite a lot actually.
He's also the most hateful voice on the paper since Abe Rosenthal was put on meds.
Well obviously that isn't true for the NSA. If it were, we wouldn't have had to waste all that time on the encryption debate.
I could see it being true for DARPA, but then, if they were really interested in improving the information security of the U.S., then why renege on the grants/funding for OpenBSD, an OS that is frequently reputed to be one of the--if not the most--secure OS's out there?
I guess it comes down to this: do you trust your government?
I would say this rather soundly addresses the concept of "getting root", wouldn't you?
No, I wouldn't. I was using the term "getting root" as a slang for entering a system. We're dealing with semantics here. SELinux wants to say there is no root, but it really doesn't matter what they call it, there are still accounts and the same exploits that lead to the compromising of one acccount can cascade into the compromising of other accounts.
the security of the parent system has absolutely nothing to do with the security of an isolated data stream
Of course it does. Buffer-overflow exploit? Hello?
I think what I needed to communicate better here is the method by which the NSA goes about discovering these exploits. Unless you are going to take the position that the NSA does not care about acquiring techniques to infiltrate computer systems, then you have to acknowledge that they are likely going to put a good deal of resources behind the problem.
Now, if I were in charge of this project, and I had ready access to the kind of enormous CPU power at their disposal, the first thing I would do is prepare an emulator that would allow target OS's to be loaded and against which many cycles are spent looking for combinations of input that expose holes, like buffer-overflow, that provide access to a process. Once that exploit is catalogued, I can iteratively work from within that process looking for the exploit that allows for access to some other process via whatever IPC mechanism available. Provided that the resources are there, most (even if not all) available exploits could be catalogued, and methods of attack extrapolated. And I would have those resources since this project can be easily demonstrated to be in interests of national security.
The toy understanding of security issues evident here and elsewhere really doesn't apply. We're not talking about defending a system against some script kiddie. It's a different class of problem altogther.
There is also the fact that the NSA and DARPA don't have to work to compromise our security...
It really comes down to whether or not you believe the NSA/DARPA would make this technology a priority. If you believe they would, that is, if you can appreciate the potential for intelligence gathering such a technique would yield, then I think you'd also have to agree that they probably wouldn't want to sit still and hope and wait for the RIAA/MPAA to do as you say.
I mean, to me, *that* is what is implausible.
So you assert that SELinux fixes trivial security issues...
I never asserted anything of the kind. SELinux is about implementing access control, which has little if anthing to do with enhancing the kind of security being discussed here, i.e., getting root.
: If there are hundreds of invisible exploits in the SELinux kernel, how are we to know that the same situation doesn't exist in OpenBSD?
OpenBSD has made a big deal about auditing its code, looking for all the potential vulnerabilities. Linux tends to be more focused on utility and performance. There may indeed (probably are) exploits they are aware of in OpenBSD, but since so much more focus in placed on security, their expectations may be that the window of opportunity is closing.
Furthermore, how are we to be certain that OpenBSD (oft touted as the most secure OS in the world, and I'll certainly grant it's one of the most secure out of the box OS's I've ever seen) isn't some clandestine creation of the NSA created to lull paranoid psychotics into believing that they were secured against intrusion?
The question you should be asking yourself is why organizations like the NSA and DARPA, which are after all dedicated to eavesdropping and intelligence gathering, would want to spend time and resources making the computer systems of target nations more secure.
And you can't read worth shit, can you?
They go through the charade in a bid to encourage people to use less-secure OS's, like Linux, instead of more-secure OS's, like OpenBSD (as just one example), that prove harder for them to exploit.
What size blinders do you wear?
It's so incredible, with all the evidence of government deceit and treachery all around us that we would still have people giving them the benefit of the doubt!
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and our government is as close to wielding absolute power as anyone ever has.
And you want to trust them to coordinate auditing open-source software? I can't imagine a more naive posture to take!
I never said they "sneaked" anything into the code. I only suggest that they are aware that Linux is an easier OS for them to root than others, like the aforementioned OpenBSD.
They don't have to touch the code, in fact, for exactly the reasons you offer, it is best that they don't. But that doesn't mean they can't use their considerable CPU resources to catalog its vulnerabilities.
This reminds me of NSA's SELinux, a ploy to get everybody to pass over an OS built with security foremost in mind (like OpenBSD) and rush instead into one for which the NSA no doubt has hundreds if not thousands of pre-programmed exploits.
I'll bet you that's where half of their supercomputer time goes. Iterating across the domain of all possible inputs against Windows and stock Linux distributions, looking for all the holes.
How does DARPA game Sardonix? By controlling the rankings and emphasizing simple or known security holes while concealing or obscuring those for which federal exploits stand at the ready.
It would be a great idea, but only if somebody else was running it.
For a second I had a shiver as I was reading your message, but I think I'm OK now...
Yes, webmasters can prevent Microsoft from crawling their sites, but, hehe, what about web sites running IIS? Would Microsoft be so low as to "embellish" the robots.txt file hosted on IIS sites so as to include a line forbidding the GoogleBot?
Man, let's all get down on our knees and kiss the ground the Apache developers walk on, huh?
Microsoft leveraged Windows to popularize IE. They'll try to do the same with MSN, leveraging it to promote their search engine. So there is that similiarity. And Netscape was free, and so is Google, and so that contest should go to whomever has the deepest pockets, but...
Google is different than Netscape in that it is very high quality, something Microsoft isn't likely to match (I am continually amazed at how badly the search engine at microsoft.com sucks) and also because Google actually has a business model, i.e., they have customers, e.g., people willing to pay them money to do stuff.
The way I see it, it's Google's to lose. They can still mess up in execution. They're expanding into other areas very quickly... perhaps too quickly. And they wield a tremendous amount of power in that search engine, so much so that I doubt that the feds haven't already requested "special access" to the query logs, and maybe one day, the power to alter result listings. (Yeah, you'd be laughing if I told you that the feds made Adobe put anti-counterfeiting code in Photoshop too I bet.)
Unlike you, these guys know what they are doing.
Actually, if you bother to RTFA, they don't know what they're doing. As they themselves acknowledge, they're "really just chipping away at the edges of it." They tried to create an element with 115 protons, and they end up with one that has only 113 instead, which appears to be entirely accidental.
As for the rest of your post, it is mostly shit so I won't bother responding, except to say that it is good to see that most everybody else here knows a joke when they hear one.
We're looking for a stable heavy element. My question is, "Why?"
I mean, as if things weren't already fucked up enough, we actually have people working to bring into this world something which has never existed. And the consequences? Apparently nobody gives a shit.
Haven't these guys ever played DOOM? Or watched Event Horizon? I'd feel a lot safer if their creativity was tinged with a healthy dose of fear.
From the article:
For instance, a simple read of a 500MB file during a streaming write with a 1MB block size on my Xeon-based test system took 37 seconds with v2.4.23, and 3.9 seconds with v2.6.
Huh? That just can't be right, can it?
Also, a lot of us have been running with NPTL for some time now before shitcanning our Red Hat installs... I would've like to seen a comparison between 2.6 and a NPTL 2.4.