Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Linux Kernel SABOTEURS.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Jade View Post
    Yes it is really true.

    You don't even have to know C that well to understand the small but deliberate changes (ie sabotage) to the source code that led to Reiser4 destroying its filesystem.

    The sabotage to Reiser4 was really very obvious.
    I meant that truth is not what really happens, but what we believe happens... this means that hans reiser could be or not be the murderer of his wife.. but it doesn't matter much, since he has been convicted. You cannot change this.

    Knowing C may help me distinguish "sabotage" from "bug fixing", what you are not trying to do!

    Remember that if "something works" it doesn't mean "it's right"!

    Maybe reiser did mistakes writing the code; everybody (even the best programmers) make them! So, even if something works in some cases it may not work in all the cases. A better implementation could be even different.
    Except if you really know what every single line of code of Reiser4 does, you should not base your sabotage theories on "lines swapped".

    Ok, there may be breakage between the two different implementations, but Reiser4 is not in feature freeze! so breakage is likely to happen and you are advised that this could be dangerous for your data.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Vighy View Post
      Knowing C may help me distinguish "sabotage" from "bug fixing", what you are not trying to do!
      Knowing C MAY help you, but it clearly hasn't.

      The sabotage is so obvious that a blind man could see it.

      Comment


      • #78
        This is also of interest to this thread:

        Real World Benchmarks Of The EXT4 File-System

        http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14189

        Comment


        • #79
          So Ext4, which is less stable and has less features than Reiser4, is in the kernel while Reiser4 is not.

          What weird CONSPIRACY is this?

          Comment


          • #80
            Sucks, doesn't it?

            Comment


            • #81
              Ext4 is maintained by several developers. Who maintains Reiser4?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Jade View Post
                So Ext4, which is less stable and has less features than Reiser4, is in the kernel while Reiser4 is not.
                can you prove it with a recent and neutral source?

                have you studied all the test cases? ahaha if yes, why don't you work on reiser4 and make it become suitable for mainline?

                since reiser4 isn't in the mainline because it's badly developed, with redundant code, badly commented code, and unreadable code.

                These are all technical issues. If you feel more intelligent that kernel people, why don't you work on it to make it better??

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Jade View Post
                  So Ext4, which is less stable and has less features than Reiser4, is in the kernel while Reiser4 is not.

                  What weird CONSPIRACY is this?
                  It's kind of similar to the "conspiracy" that you kept on declaring while Hans was on trial. Except then he confessed and led police to her body.

                  Meanwhile, it shows your status as "banned"? Could this be true? After all these years of ranting and tilting at windmills, you've finally been banned?

                  It's a Christmas miracle!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I think he was banned because he once again added "Jews" into his conspiracy theory claiming that Jews bought out Novel and ruined Suse in one of the forum posts. Micheal already gave him a warning about his racist comments in the past. Don't look for the post though it seems it has been deleted.

                    and I think it was very good decision I mean although Jade conspiracy theories were sometimes entertaining I think his racist comments are more then enough to justify the ban.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by val-gaav View Post
                      I think he was banned because he once again added "Jews" into his conspiracy theory claiming that Jews bought out Novel and ruined Suse in one of the forum posts. Micheal already gave him a warning about his racist comments in the past. Don't look for the post though it seems it has been deleted.

                      and I think it was very good decision I mean although Jade conspiracy theories were sometimes entertaining I think his racist comments are more then enough to justify the ban.
                      That's exactly why we don't need such people on a forum like this one. jade's made some good posts, but needs to leave the bigotry out. Sorry to go offtopic on this thread, but just my 2 cents here.

                      OK to help get back on topic, are there any other kernel sabotage attempts ever noted?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
                        That's exactly why we don't need such people on a forum like this one. jade's made some good posts, but needs to leave the bigotry out. Sorry to go offtopic on this thread, but just my 2 cents here.

                        OK to help get back on topic, are there any other kernel sabotage attempts ever noted?
                        It's just amazing to me that he went so long without getting banned. Over on sfgate.com, where he blogged incessantly about the Reiser trial, he couldn't go more than a day before ranting about the "Jews" and getting banned.

                        He'll probably be back shortly with another screenname.

                        As far as "Linux saboteurs", what he's referring to is what sane people call "bugs". In software development, sometimes changes are made that inadvertently break functionality. To Jade, this was evidence of "sabotage".

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by jadeisalooney View Post
                          It's just amazing to me that he went so long without getting banned. Over on sfgate.com, where he blogged incessantly about the Reiser trial, he couldn't go more than a day before ranting about the "Jews" and getting banned.

                          He'll probably be back shortly with another screenname.

                          As far as "Linux saboteurs", what he's referring to is what sane people call "bugs". In software development, sometimes changes are made that inadvertently break functionality. To Jade, this was evidence of "sabotage".
                          So at least another forum troll bites the dust...

                          OK good point, but what about blatant attempts to sabotage the Linux kernel? Are there people out there who submit code to purposely break a subsystem and how good is such sabotage detected and reported?
                          Last edited by DeepDayze; 01-04-2009, 09:23 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            There was an incident in 2003 in which someone tried to insert a local root exploit into the kernel (by inserting a "uid = 0" into a conditional, i.e. disguised as a check). It was caught, arguably because they tried to insert it by breaking into the CVS mirror and inserting it directly rather than by submitting a patch. On the other hand, if they had submitted it as a patch, it would have almost certainly been caught because it was a pretty critical file.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
                              So at least another forum troll bites the dust...

                              OK good point, but what about blatant attempts to sabotage the Linux kernel? Are there people out there who submit code to purposely break a subsystem and how good is such sabotage detected and reported?
                              Blatant sabotage attempts would be easily spotted by a project's many users and developers. Let's hypothesize that there IS sabotage. Why isn't there a large user and developer outcry? A few whack-jobs on the forum doesn't count -- why isn't a group of developers in control of Reseir4 blogging and slashdotting and lkmling about malicious patching? Either there is no such community (meaning that the sabotage issue is moot) or no such sabotage is taking place.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by yesterday View Post
                                Blatant sabotage attempts would be easily spotted by a project's many users and developers. Let's hypothesize that there IS sabotage. Why isn't there a large user and developer outcry? A few whack-jobs on the forum doesn't count -- why isn't a group of developers in control of Reseir4 blogging and slashdotting and lkmling about malicious patching? Either there is no such community (meaning that the sabotage issue is moot) or no such sabotage is taking place.
                                That's exactly right. Which is more likely? A lone nut, or a vast conspiracy where someone is able to hide sabotage in open-source code that thousands of experts are scrutinizing? (Hint: there are roughly two million people in the US currently suffering from schizophrenia.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X