Re: GPL weasels and the atheros stink

2007-09-02 Thread Michael Tharp
Marc Espie wrote: > Let's extend the story a wee little bit. It seems that these days, some > parts of the opensource community have gotten confident enough that they > do not need the other part. We all know the situation is already fairly > disymetric. The GPL is less free than the ISC licence fo

Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

2007-08-19 Thread Michael Tharp
Marc Perkel wrote: > The important point that you are missing here is that > the Linux world is willing to live with an rm command > that is broken and the Windows and DOS world isn't. > This isn't about the rm command it's about programming > standards. It's about that the Linux community isn't >

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

2007-08-15 Thread Michael Tharp
Marc Perkel wrote: > That not a problem - it's a feature. In such a > situation the person would get a general file creation > error. Feature or not, it's still vulnerable to probing by malicious users. If there are create permissions on the directory, the invisibility is not perfect. > Although

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

2007-08-15 Thread Michael Tharp
Kyle Moffett wrote: > Basically any newly-created item in such a directory will get the > permissions described by the "default:" entries in the ACL, and > subdirectories will get a copy of said "default:" entries. This would work well, although I would give write permissions to a group so the ent

Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

2007-08-15 Thread Michael Tharp
alan wrote: > Imagine the fun you will have trying to write a file name and being told > you cannot write it for some unknown reason. Unbeknownst to you, there > is a file there, but it is not owned by you, thus invisible. This jumped out at me right away. In such a system, an attacker with write

Re: solving(?) the updatedb problem w/ the kernel cache

2007-07-27 Thread Michael Tharp
Ray Lee wrote: > But yes, if we had a full filesystem events notifier, then we could > just toss updatedb aside and have the benefit of a live index into the > system. It's been suggested before, at least by me. Other projects > want this as well, such as an on-demand virus scanner, or a live > bac

Re: Git tree for old kernels from before the current tree

2007-07-22 Thread Michael Tharp
H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Wouldn't be hard to make a git tree with all the patches all the way > back to 0.01 even... It'd be delightful from a completeness standpoint (and I do love completeness), but considering it already takes a good 20 minutes to clone the 2.6 tree over a respectable cable conn