Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Linux Kernel SABOTEURS.

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

  • #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