Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#41

Post by [deleted] »

collinfunk wrote: post #27
BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs This is the same FSF that in the past has refused contributions from people whose politics include "I would like this software to run on my windows/apple/other proprietary platform". They're extremely political.

When did this occur? I am a GNU maintainer, and have never heard such a thing from the FSF. The GNU Coding Standards and other similar texts leave the decision to support non-free platforms up to the maintainer.

[deleted]

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#42

Post by thomzane »

m3047 wrote: post #32

"Many sysadmins know about fail2ban..." and many will now know about reaction. But why will the result be any different than fail2ban? It won't. I identify features (which can be expressed as firewall rules) from log data; I write totals to a temporary store (Redis). I have periodic tasks which scan the temp store for patterns which exceed thresholds. When that occurs, fail2ban creates the appropriate rules. This occ…

The difference between fail2ban and reaction is performance. If you are not hitting the ceiling of fail2ban, then you may not need reaction.

Do you have a blog post about your automated fail2ban rule generation?

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#43

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

collinfunk wrote: post #27
BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs This is the same FSF that in the past has refused contributions from people whose politics include "I would like this software to run on my windows/apple/other proprietary platform". They're extremely political.

When did this occur? I am a GNU maintainer, and have never heard such a thing from the FSF. The GNU Coding Standards and other similar texts leave the decision to support non-free platforms up to the maintainer.

It was a while ago (20-ish years?) and I'm forgetting the details, but it was RMS and I think the package was emacs.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#44

Post by thomzane »

charcircuit wrote: post #33

>Popa botnet It's no more of a botnet than ProtonVPN for example. Apps intentionally added the Popa SDK to their apps as a monetization method. This allows apps without ads and tracking to be financially viable. I would expect FSF to support apps being able to move off of monetization schemes that depend on tracking people so it is disappointing for them to put such alternative monetization technologies in a negative…

This monetization scheme benefits the botnet controller and the developer who added the SDK and not the user who likely did not realize they signed up to become an exit node.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#45

Post by tokai »

cyanydeez wrote: post #7
kaladin-jasnah wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure how those companies are related to "AI-monied" after clicking on their websites.

the point is i tried to answer and the page is 6 years out of date....

So you made shit up.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#46

Post by actionfromafar »

stonogo wrote: post #24
graemep wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, but if the exact quote in the GP is correct the claim is claiming the software is "gay, trans and anti-colonialist" and asks you not to use it. Why use a license that is designed to be politically neutral and then ask some people not to use it? What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs. I would also question whether governmen…

The aim is to reduce the number of users of the software who are uncomfortable with those who are gay, trans, and/or anticolonial, probably because dealing with such people is a heavier burden than the other kind.

Seems like it might be working!

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#47

Post by fluoridation »

Magicrafter13 wrote: post #12

> This software is gay, trans and anticolonialist. If you're uncomfortable with that, please don't use it Weird message to include in AGPLv3 licensed software (which explicitly allows people to use software however they like, regardless of their beliefs or feelings).

My Gen Y brain can't read the phrase "[inanimate object] is gay" without interpreting it as disapproval.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#49

Post by jasonvorhe »

graemep wrote: post #20
Groxx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have preferences while not restricting legal rights.

You can, but if the exact quote in the GP is correct the claim is claiming the software is "gay, trans and anti-colonialist" and asks you not to use it. Why use a license that is designed to be politically neutral and then ask some people not to use it? What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs. I would also question whether governmen…

Because signalling has replaced real virtue.

Re: How the FSF sysadmins block botnets with reaction

#50

Post by jasonvorhe »

stonogo wrote: post #24
graemep wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, but if the exact quote in the GP is correct the claim is claiming the software is "gay, trans and anti-colonialist" and asks you not to use it. Why use a license that is designed to be politically neutral and then ask some people not to use it? What I can see is a fairly clear indication that they do not want contributions from people whose politics differ from theirs. I would also question whether governmen…

The aim is to reduce the number of users of the software who are uncomfortable with those who are gay, trans, and/or anticolonial, probably because dealing with such people is a heavier burden than the other kind.

You wouldn't know my stance on the matter based on a pull request, especially not if some author didn't plaster it all around their profile.
Post reply on HN