241–250 of 501 posts
Infrastructure like that should not be run by for-profit corporations anyway, it will always end up like in this case sooner or later
Can it un-swap the behavior of SIGTERM and SIGKILL please?
Swap SIGTERM and SIGQUIT behavior? I don't think you can catch SIGKILL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also owned by a for-profit company who offers a pro version.
Gotta pay the bills somehow
IDK could be a way to do it, pay the bills and some, and also limit the negative impacts public business or VC funded growth startup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could take the Postgres naming approach. Ingress was forked; the Post fork version of Ingress was called "Post"gres. So maybe name this new project "PostX" (for Post + nginx). Though that might sound too similar to posix.
Postgres name is said to be a reference to ingres db, not a fork of ingres. > The INGRES relational database management system (DBMS) was implemented during 1975-1977 at the Univerisity of California. Since 1978 various prototype extensions have been made to support distributed databases [STON83a], ordered relations [STON83b], abstract data types [STON83c], and QUEL as a data type [STON84a]. In addition, we proposed…
Fork vs "hacked up [Ingress] enough ... Consequently, building a new database system" named Postgres.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also this is kind of why everything is ever so slightly broken, IMHO. OTOH, things that update too often seem to be more than slightly broken on an ongoing basis, due to ill-advised design changes, new bugs and regressions, etc.
I am thinking with things that don't update often, we just get used to the broken parts. People learned to save every five minutes in Maya since the app crashes so often, for example. Every now and then, a PuTTY session will fill the screen with "PuTTYPuTTYPuTTYPuTTYPuTTY[...]" but it's been that way for at least 20 years, so it's not that remarkable.
It is scary to think about how much of web relies on projects maintained by 1 or 2 people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't he want CVEs assigned?
I haven't read the content of the patches to understand the impact of the bugs, but from my own experience [0] I can suggest a few reasons: - CVEs are gold to researchers and organizations like citations are to academics. In this case, the CVEs were filed based on "policy" but it's unclear if they are just adding noise to the DB. - The severity of the bug is not as severe as greater powers-that-be would like to think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an insane standard and attempting to adhere to it would mean that the CVE database, which is already mostly full of useless, irrelevant garbage, is now just the bug tracker for _every single open source project in the world_.
Why is it insane? The CVE goal was to track vulnerabilities that customers could be exposed to. It is used…in public, released versions. Why wouldn’t it be tracked?
It is not released any sense of the word. It is not even a complete feature.
I am actually completely shocked this needs to be explained. Legitimate insanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't read the content of the patches to understand the impact of the bugs, but from my own experience [0] I can suggest a few reasons: - CVEs are gold to researchers and organizations like citations are to academics. In this case, the CVEs were filed based on "policy" but it's unclear if they are just adding noise to the DB. - The severity of the bug is not as severe as greater powers-that-be would like to think…
"Denial of service" is never a security bug; it's a huge mistake people have started classifying these things as such to start with. Serious bug? Sure. Loss of security? Not really.
But I agree DoS is kind of a strawman since everything connected to a network is vulnerable to some form of DoS without extensive mitigation.