You might want to stop running atop
rachelbythebay.com
You might want to stop running atop
1–10 of 155 posts
Re: You might want to stop running atop
#2enigmatic? Anyone know why
Re: You might want to stop running atop
#3enigmatic? Anyone know why
No clue personally, but the author is prolific enough here that I thought it merited posting.
Re: You might want to stop running atop
#4[flagged]
Re: You might want to stop running atop
#5enigmatic? Anyone know why
No clue personally, but the author is prolific enough here that I thought it merited posting.
I go with three paths out.
1. it consumes too much systems resources. So its net-negative impact on the system under observation
2. it's misleading and leads to false diagnoses of situations under review
3. she's under an NDA of some kind related to a CVE or some other high class risk which will come out in due course but she felt a burden to stop people being exposed to risk.
4. I can't count and there are 4, 5, 6 other reasons but these 3 are mine.
Re: You might want to stop running atop
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
No clue personally, but the author is prolific enough here that I thought it merited posting.
I go with three paths out. 1. it consumes too much systems resources. So its net-negative impact on the system under observation 2. it's misleading and leads to false diagnoses of situations under review 3. she's under an NDA of some kind related to a CVE or some other high class risk which will come out in due course but she felt a burden to stop people being exposed to risk. 4. I can't count and there are 4, 5, 6 o…
I'll go with number 3. She didn't just say "don't run", she said "uninstall". That doesn't sound like "misleading" or "uses too much resources". It sounds very CVE-ish.
Re: You might want to stop running atop
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I go with three paths out. 1. it consumes too much systems resources. So its net-negative impact on the system under observation 2. it's misleading and leads to false diagnoses of situations under review 3. she's under an NDA of some kind related to a CVE or some other high class risk which will come out in due course but she felt a burden to stop people being exposed to risk. 4. I can't count and there are 4, 5, 6 o…
I'll go with number 3. She didn't just say "don't run", she said "uninstall". That doesn't sound like "misleading" or "uses too much resources". It sounds very CVE-ish.
Another xz case?
Re: You might want to stop running atop
#8Ominous, I’ll heed the warning!
Re: You might want to stop running atop
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I go with three paths out. 1. it consumes too much systems resources. So its net-negative impact on the system under observation 2. it's misleading and leads to false diagnoses of situations under review 3. she's under an NDA of some kind related to a CVE or some other high class risk which will come out in due course but she felt a burden to stop people being exposed to risk. 4. I can't count and there are 4, 5, 6 o…
I'll go with number 3. She didn't just say "don't run", she said "uninstall". That doesn't sound like "misleading" or "uses too much resources". It sounds very CVE-ish.
"uninstall" points at a very specific type of exploit.
Re: You might want to stop running atop
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I go with three paths out. 1. it consumes too much systems resources. So its net-negative impact on the system under observation 2. it's misleading and leads to false diagnoses of situations under review 3. she's under an NDA of some kind related to a CVE or some other high class risk which will come out in due course but she felt a burden to stop people being exposed to risk. 4. I can't count and there are 4, 5, 6 o…
I'll go with number 3. She didn't just say "don't run", she said "uninstall". That doesn't sound like "misleading" or "uses too much resources". It sounds very CVE-ish.
[deleted]