* Bitkeeper licence issues @ 2002-03-18 21:26 Pavel Machek 2002-03-18 22:42 ` Larry McVoy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-18 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernel list Hi! Bitkeeper distribution contains stuff from GNU diffutils (copyrighted by FSF and GPL), yet bitkeeper docs does not mention its GPL-ed, and does not contain pointer to the sources. [I pointed couple other issues.] Larry's attitude is "you should shut up and be glad you may use this for free" and "sue me to get GPL issues fixed". Then, he tried to punish me for pointing at those mistakes by withdrawing installer from GPL. Nice attitude, I'd suggest you to stay away from bittrojan^Wbitkeeper. If you still think bitkeeper is good thing (tm), look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/bitkeeper.txt. [Sorry for slightly strange ordering of mails. You should be able to open it in mutt to see threads correctly.] Pavel -- (about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S. no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-18 21:26 Bitkeeper licence issues Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-18 22:42 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-18 23:14 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-19 1:18 ` Roman Zippel 0 siblings, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-18 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: kernel list On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:26:18PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Bitkeeper distribution contains stuff from GNU diffutils (copyrighted > by FSF and GPL), yet bitkeeper docs does not mention its GPL-ed, and > does not contain pointer to the sources. [I pointed couple other > issues.] You forgot to mention that the source in question is at ftp://ftp.bitmover.com/gnu You also forgot to mention that we have tried to contribute our changes back only to have them dropped/ignored/whatever. We'd love the FSF to pick them up, I can go dig out the old mail on this if you doubt me or you can go talk to the maintainer. I think I was talking with one of the Pauls, either Eggert or Vixie, I don't remember who maintains this stuff anymore. Whoever it was said they had a different way to do the same change. > Larry's attitude is "you should shut up and be glad you may use this > for free" and "sue me to get GPL issues fixed". Larry's attitude is that he's overworked, stressed out, and sick to death of people who want to argue with him about pointless stuff. The only thing we did wrong was to forget the diff/patch man pages which include the GPL in our binary distribution. We'll fix that. You are welcome to make a big deal out of it but it's pretty clear that all it is a political ax that you want to grind, since we give out the source to those programs and always will. Pavel, the problem here is your fundamental distrust. You started out the conversation claiming that you thought our code should be GPLed because our installer groups GPLed programs with non-GPLed programs. My statements about lawsuits are based your claims to that effect. Then you go on to complain that the installer doesn't let you see what it does when you can tell it to just drop the tar.gz and the shell script in /tmp so you can see what it does. That wasn't good enough for you, you don't want the installer to be a binary, you mistrust us enough that you think we're going to do some evil thing in the installer. It would take you all of 30 seconds to put strace into a copy of the ftp chroot, stick the installer binary in there, and strace the installer and *prove* to yourself that it does nothing evil. But that's too much for you. If you had started out the conversation "Hey, can I see your installer source, I want to see how it works", you would have gotten a shar file 10 minutes later. But that's obviously not what you want, you are itching to pick a fight. Great. Thanks for wasting more of my time. I'd suggest you take Stallman's advice, if you don't trust BitKeeper then don't use it. He asked you why you installed it if you knew you didn't like the license and you never answered. I'll say to you and the rest of the kernel list and anyone else who is listening: don't waste my time with this crap. If you don't like the BK license, then don't use it. Go read this, this is you Pavel, and I'm sick of arguing with people like you. http://www.linuxandmain.com/essay/sgordon.html -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-18 22:42 ` Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-18 23:14 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-18 23:22 ` Dave Jones 2002-03-19 0:00 ` yodaiken 2002-03-19 1:18 ` Roman Zippel 1 sibling, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-18 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, kernel list Hi! > The only > thing we did wrong was to forget the diff/patch man pages which include > the GPL in our binary distribution. We'll fix that. You are ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you said that 2 mails ago (instead of telling me to go away), I would not be wasting your time. [Oh and you should also put that ftp pointer in the docs, so it is easy to find. GPL requires that...] > Pavel, the problem here is your fundamental distrust. By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me to trust you without good reason [it only generates .tar.gz and shellscript, why should it be binary? Was not shar designed to handle that?], and that's pretty suspect. Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-18 23:14 ` Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-18 23:22 ` Dave Jones 2002-03-18 23:43 ` Pavel Machek ` (2 more replies) 2002-03-19 0:00 ` yodaiken 1 sibling, 3 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Dave Jones @ 2002-03-18 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: Larry McVoy, kernel list On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:14:28AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Pavel, the problem here is your fundamental distrust. > By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me > to trust you without good reason [it only generates .tar.gz and > shellscript, why should it be binary? Was not shar designed to handle > that?], and that's pretty suspect. Bitmover doing anything remotely suspect in an executable installer would be commercial suicide, do you distrust realplayer too? did you distrust early netscape before they released source? yada yada countless other programs.. If your distrust of commercial organisations providing binaries is so great, you know where objdump, strace and friends are. -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-18 23:22 ` Dave Jones @ 2002-03-18 23:43 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-19 8:35 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-19 2:02 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 22:06 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-18 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Jones; +Cc: kernel list Hi! > > > Pavel, the problem here is your fundamental distrust. > > By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me > > to trust you without good reason [it only generates .tar.gz and > > shellscript, why should it be binary? Was not shar designed to handle > > that?], and that's pretty suspect. > > Bitmover doing anything remotely suspect in an executable installer > would be commercial suicide, do you distrust realplayer too? I've seen windows installers doing *very* suspect stuff. I distrust realplayer, too, but I think those people are bad enough that there's no point complaining. I believed Larry could see that binary installers are evil. > did you distrust early netscape before they released source? Yep. > yada yada countless other programs.. Actually, I only ever did binary installation of realplayer, as far as I can remember. And that was at time national television died, and I wanted to know what's going on. > If your distrust of commercial organisations providing binaries > is so great, you know where objdump, strace and friends are. strace does not solve the problem (it is trivial to detect you are traced), and I do not think Larry should require me to objdump installer. [You see, binary-only installers are total nightmare from security perspective. They are widespread on windoze, and it *is* problem there. I do not want them on linux.] Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-18 23:43 ` Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-19 8:35 ` Rik van Riel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-03-19 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: Dave Jones, kernel list On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Pavel Machek wrote: > strace does not solve the problem (it is trivial to detect you are > traced), and I do not think Larry should require me to objdump > installer. Larry doesn't require you to _use_ his software, at all. Now better check my email to see if I haven't hidden any backdoors. regards, Rik -- <insert bitkeeper endorsement here> http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-18 23:22 ` Dave Jones 2002-03-18 23:43 ` Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-19 2:02 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 8:21 ` Gerd Knorr ` (2 more replies) 2002-03-19 22:06 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 3 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Jones, Pavel Machek, kernel list On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:22:41AM +0100, Dave Jones wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:14:28AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Pavel, the problem here is your fundamental distrust. > > By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me > > to trust you without good reason [it only generates .tar.gz and > > shellscript, why should it be binary? Was not shar designed to handle > > that?], and that's pretty suspect. > > Bitmover doing anything remotely suspect in an executable installer > would be commercial suicide, do you distrust realplayer too? And all our installer does, and I will give you the code if you want it, I'd be happy to even have Pavel audit it, is make two arrays, extern unsigned int installer_size; extern unsigned char installer_data[]; extern unsigned int data_size; extern unsigned char data_data[]; which we do some magic on to make sure they are preallocated (HPUX decided that static global data should be allocated and bzeroed at runtime, so we preinitialize them with garbage if I remember correctly). Then the thing that makes the installer mmaps the object, looks for these arrays (we stick some magic numbers in front of them), and files them in with a .tar.gz and the real installer, which is a shell script. The reason we didn't use shar, Pavel, is that we are shipping a binary. If we used shar that would increase the size of the image that you download and we wanted downloads to be fast. As it is, I think it's a couple of MB. Anyway, then the actual binary which runs is generated from the following program which is hardly worth all the fuss. main() { char installer_name[200]; char data_name[200]; char cmd[2048]; int fd; fprintf(stderr, "Please wait while we unpack the installer..."); sprintf(installer_name, "/tmp/installer%d", getpid()); fd = creat(installer_name, 0777); if (fd == -1) { perror(installer_name); exit(1); } if (write(fd, installer_data, installer_size) != installer_size) { perror("write on installer"); unlink(installer_name); exit(1); } close(fd); sprintf(data_name, "/tmp/data%d", getpid()); fd = creat(data_name, 0777); if (fd == -1) { perror(data_name); exit(1); } sprintf(installer_name, "/tmp/installer%d", getpid()); if (write(fd, data_data, data_size) != data_size) { perror("write on data"); unlink(data_name); exit(1); } close(fd); fprintf(stderr, "done.\n"); sprintf(cmd, "%s %s %s", installer_name, installer_name, data_name); system(cmd); exit(0); } -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 2:02 ` Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 8:21 ` Gerd Knorr 2002-03-19 15:11 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 21:58 ` Pavel Machek [not found] ` <20020319215800.GN12260@atrey.karlin.m__.cuni.cz> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Gerd Knorr @ 2002-03-19 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel > The reason we didn't use shar, Pavel, is that we are shipping a binary. > If we used shar that would increase the size of the image that you download > and we wanted downloads to be fast. As it is, I think it's a couple of MB. I don't like the binary installer that much too. Why don't you ship a tarball with a install script within the tarball (like vmware does for example)? That would make downloads even smaller for people with bzip2 installed as you can easily provide both .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 ... Gerd -- #include </dev/tty> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 8:21 ` Gerd Knorr @ 2002-03-19 15:11 ` Larry McVoy 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerd Knorr; +Cc: linux-kernel On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:21:00AM +0000, Gerd Knorr wrote: > Why don't you ship a tarball with a install script within the tarball > (like vmware does for example)? That would make downloads even smaller > for people with bzip2 installed as you can easily provide both .tar.gz > and .tar.bz2 ... If we change our installation at all, it will be to offer RPMs, .deb, etc. Other than that, this is how it is. I'm not blowing you off, I'm raising your awareness that we are extremely busy and that it is actually in your best interest to filter what you ask for so you get the stuff that you really want. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 2:02 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 8:21 ` Gerd Knorr @ 2002-03-19 21:58 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-19 22:04 ` Larry McVoy [not found] ` <20020319215800.GN12260@atrey.karlin.m__.cuni.cz> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-19 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Dave Jones, kernel list Hi! > > > > Pavel, the problem here is your fundamental distrust. > > > By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me > > > to trust you without good reason [it only generates .tar.gz and > > > shellscript, why should it be binary? Was not shar designed to handle > > > that?], and that's pretty suspect. > > > > Bitmover doing anything remotely suspect in an executable installer > > would be commercial suicide, do you distrust realplayer too? > > And all our installer does, and I will give you the code if you want it, > I'd be happy to even have Pavel audit it, is make two arrays, Okay, you wanted audit ;-). > main() > { > char installer_name[200]; > char data_name[200]; > char cmd[2048]; > int fd; > > fprintf(stderr, "Please wait while we unpack the installer..."); > sprintf(installer_name, "/tmp/installer%d", getpid()); > fd = creat(installer_name, 0777); If nasty user on same system creates symlink (ln -s /etc/passwd /tmp/installer123), he may overwrite any file on the system. You probably want fd = open(installer_name, O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, 0755); Same goes for data. Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 21:58 ` Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-19 22:04 ` Larry McVoy 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: Dave Jones, kernel list > fd = open(installer_name, O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, 0755); Good suggestion, patch is applied, and will be in the next release. I'll mail you the whole installer gizmo in a shar file in a minute, you can poke at it and see if there is anything else you don't like. Thanks, -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20020319215800.GN12260@atrey.karlin.m__.cuni.cz>]
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues [not found] ` <20020319215800.GN12260@atrey.karlin.m__.cuni.cz> @ 2002-03-20 22:42 ` Ton Hospel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Ton Hospel @ 2002-03-20 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel In article <20020319215800.GN12260@atrey.karlin.m__.cuni.cz>, Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> writes: > If nasty user on same system creates symlink (ln -s /etc/passwd > /tmp/installer123), he may overwrite any file on the system. You probably want > > fd = open(installer_name, O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, 0755); > > Same goes for data. > Pavel fd = open(installer_name, O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, 0777); the 0777 will still be modified by the umask. If people want e.g. writability for group for some reason, let them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-18 23:22 ` Dave Jones 2002-03-18 23:43 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-19 2:02 ` Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 22:06 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-19 23:25 ` Larry McVoy 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-19 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Jones, kernel list Hi! > > > Pavel, the problem here is your fundamental distrust. > > By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me > > to trust you without good reason [it only generates .tar.gz and > > shellscript, why should it be binary? Was not shar designed to handle > > that?], and that's pretty suspect. > > Bitmover doing anything remotely suspect in an executable installer > would be commercial suicide, do you distrust realplayer too? Actually, the installer contains security hole allowing any user to overwrite any file on system if you install it as root with simple symlink. [Its easy to fix, and I hope they fix it in next version.] Do you see why I hate binary installers, now? Pavel -- (about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S. no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 22:06 ` Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-19 23:25 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 23:27 ` David S. Miller ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: Dave Jones, kernel list On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:06:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Pavel, the problem here is your fundamental distrust. > > > By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me > > > to trust you without good reason [it only generates .tar.gz and > > > shellscript, why should it be binary? Was not shar designed to handle > > > that?], and that's pretty suspect. > > > > Bitmover doing anything remotely suspect in an executable installer > > would be commercial suicide, do you distrust realplayer too? > > Actually, the installer contains security hole allowing any user to > overwrite any file on system if you install it as root with simple > symlink. Come on Pavel, in order to make this happen, you have to a) run the installer as root b) know the next pid which will be allocated c) put the symlink in /tmp/installer$pid and do all before that pid gets used. Have you actually be able to do that? I'd like to see how you did so without knowing exactly when root was going to install the package and without filling up /tmp with 64,000 symlinks. I'll grant you this is something we can trivially make go away as an issue, and we have, but it's mostly to make you go away as an issue, not because we believe for one second this is a realistic problem. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:25 ` Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 23:27 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 23:44 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 23:34 ` Tom Rini 2002-03-20 7:57 ` Alexander Viro 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lm; +Cc: pavel, davej, linux-kernel From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:25:02 -0800 Come on Pavel, in order to make this happen, you have to a) run the installer as root b) know the next pid which will be allocated c) put the symlink in /tmp/installer$pid Exploit: Make all 65535 $pid simlinks It's very exploitable actually, and is similar in vein to all the ancient mktemp stuff. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:27 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 23:44 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 23:45 ` David S. Miller ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: lm, pavel, davej, linux-kernel On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:25:02 -0800 > > Come on Pavel, in order to make this happen, you have to > > a) run the installer as root > b) know the next pid which will be allocated > c) put the symlink in /tmp/installer$pid > > Exploit: Make all 65535 $pid simlinks > > It's very exploitable actually, and is similar in vein to > all the ancient mktemp stuff. Hey Dave, are you suggesting that no such exploits exist in Red Hat's rpm system? In order for that to be true, rpm would have to be making sure that each and every directory along any path that it writes is not writable except by priviledged users. I just checked, it doesn't. We can sit here all day and make a big deal out of this, I think it's a waste of time. I'm not an advocate of insecure software and I'm happy to close any holes that people think need closing, but you're just wasting time. This isn't an issue. If you really, really cared, there is nothing to prevent you from downloading the BK image, unpacking it on a throwaway machine, back it back up again in a shar file or whatever, and then installing it. At some point, people get to take responsibility for their own choices. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:44 ` Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 23:45 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 23:54 ` Matthew Kirkwood 2002-03-19 23:56 ` Ben Collins 2002-03-20 17:23 ` Martin Dalecki 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lm; +Cc: pavel, davej, linux-kernel From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:44:36 -0800 Hey Dave, are you suggesting that no such exploits exist in Red Hat's rpm system? In order for that to be true, rpm would have to be making sure that each and every directory along any path that it writes is not writable except by priviledged users. I just checked, it doesn't. We should be using mktemp() to make temporary files, and if we don't that is a bug and I'd ask you to please submit a bugzilla entry about it if so because that would be a serious hole. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:45 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 23:54 ` Matthew Kirkwood 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Matthew Kirkwood @ 2002-03-19 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: lm, pavel, davej, linux-kernel On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, David S. Miller wrote: > Hey Dave, are you suggesting that no such exploits exist in Red Hat's > rpm system? In order for that to be true, rpm would have to be making > sure that each and every directory along any path that it writes is > not writable except by priviledged users. I just checked, it doesn't. > > We should be using mktemp() to make temporary files, and if we don't > that is a bug and I'd ask you to please submit a bugzilla entry about > it if so because that would be a serious hole. I trust you mean mkstemp(3) here (or mktemp(1), but not much of RPM is in shell). Matthew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:44 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 23:45 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 23:56 ` Ben Collins 2002-03-20 17:23 ` Martin Dalecki 2 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Ben Collins @ 2002-03-19 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, davej, linux-kernel On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 03:44:36PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> > > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:25:02 -0800 > > > > Come on Pavel, in order to make this happen, you have to > > > > a) run the installer as root > > b) know the next pid which will be allocated > > c) put the symlink in /tmp/installer$pid > > > > Exploit: Make all 65535 $pid simlinks > > > > It's very exploitable actually, and is similar in vein to > > all the ancient mktemp stuff. > > Hey Dave, are you suggesting that no such exploits exist in Red Hat's > rpm system? In order for that to be true, rpm would have to be making > sure that each and every directory along any path that it writes is > not writable except by priviledged users. I just checked, it doesn't. That's because the admin would have had to change those perms on purpose, which means they left themselves open to the attack. Larry, check bugtraq archives. You'll see mounds of these types of exploitable problems. All of them very serious. > At some point, people get to take responsibility for their own choices. Then just admit it was a bad thing and leave it be? :) Come on, it was a mistake, and a very common one. Just don't make it out to be less than what it is. -- .----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----. / Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux -- WatchGuard.com \ ` bcollins@debian.org -- Ben.Collins@watchguard.com ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:44 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 23:45 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 23:56 ` Ben Collins @ 2002-03-20 17:23 ` Martin Dalecki 2002-03-20 17:51 ` Alan Cox 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Martin Dalecki @ 2002-03-20 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: David S. Miller, pavel, davej, linux-kernel Larry McVoy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > >> From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> >> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:25:02 -0800 >> >> Come on Pavel, in order to make this happen, you have to >> >> a) run the installer as root >> b) know the next pid which will be allocated >> c) put the symlink in /tmp/installer$pid >> >>Exploit: Make all 65535 $pid simlinks >> >>It's very exploitable actually, and is similar in vein to >>all the ancient mktemp stuff. > > > Hey Dave, are you suggesting that no such exploits exist in Red Hat's > rpm system? In order for that to be true, rpm would have to be making > sure that each and every directory along any path that it writes is > not writable except by priviledged users. I just checked, it doesn't. > > We can sit here all day and make a big deal out of this, I think it's a > waste of time. I'm not an advocate of insecure software and I'm happy > to close any holes that people think need closing, but you're just > wasting time. This isn't an issue. If you really, really cared, there > is nothing to prevent you from downloading the BK image, unpacking it on > a throwaway machine, back it back up again in a shar file or whatever, > and then installing it. > > At some point, people get to take responsibility for their own choices. BTW> The proper way of using files in /tmp is not to make guessable filenames in the cathegory /tmp/gangbang$pid! <TECHING MODE> Please explore the world of mkstemp() and friends on the manpages and forget about create() or O_* for this purpose. OK? As an added bonus you will not break export TMPDIR=~/mybed and firends for the paranoid users. </TECHING MODE> This should be a reflex for someone with such a Sun heritage like you... And finally - please don't mistake me - I don't think that this issue is a big deal in this particular case... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-20 17:23 ` Martin Dalecki @ 2002-03-20 17:51 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-20 18:04 ` Martin Dalecki 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-03-20 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Dalecki; +Cc: Larry McVoy, David S. Miller, pavel, davej, linux-kernel > This should be a reflex for someone with such a Sun heritage like you... You obviously never used SunOS4. Its a bit before security became relevant to computing ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-20 17:51 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-03-20 18:04 ` Martin Dalecki 2002-03-20 20:34 ` Neil Booth 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Martin Dalecki @ 2002-03-20 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Larry McVoy, David S. Miller, pavel, davej, linux-kernel Alan Cox wrote: >>This should be a reflex for someone with such a Sun heritage like you... > > > You obviously never used SunOS4. Its a bit before security became relevant > to computing Just to make sure that's wrong. I actually used it. And yes admittedly they made a long haul since those days in terms of security. And for your record: 1. CP/M 2. SunOS4-5, Solwlaris 6, 8 (intel and sparc flavours where applicable) 3. FreeBSE 3.x 4.x... (nice with the exception of the default shell) 4. OSF/1, OSF/2 (they managed to make an Alpha appear slow) 5. AIX (forget the version but they are usually high) 6. IRIX (even unix can be instable...) 7. VMS on VAX (I hate FORTRAN I hate FORTRAN I hate FORTRAN) 8. ULTRIX (classical stuff not as bad as many people think...) 10. ... some wired kind of UNIX running on a NEC SX3R 11. similar shit on Cray III... 12. something called OS on a transputer system I already forgot about... and so on and so on. Just counting the stuff I actually wrote some code for... and still remember ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-20 18:04 ` Martin Dalecki @ 2002-03-20 20:34 ` Neil Booth 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Neil Booth @ 2002-03-20 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Dalecki Cc: Alan Cox, Larry McVoy, David S. Miller, pavel, davej, linux-kernel Martin Dalecki wrote:- > 3. FreeBSE 3.x 4.x... (nice with the exception of the default shell) We had enough of that in the UK recently. Neil. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:25 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 23:27 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 23:34 ` Tom Rini 2002-03-20 0:09 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-24 11:44 ` Thunder from the hill 2002-03-20 7:57 ` Alexander Viro 2 siblings, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Tom Rini @ 2002-03-19 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, Pavel Machek, Dave Jones, kernel list On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 03:25:02PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:06:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > Pavel, the problem here is your fundamental distrust. > > > > By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me > > > > to trust you without good reason [it only generates .tar.gz and > > > > shellscript, why should it be binary? Was not shar designed to handle > > > > that?], and that's pretty suspect. > > > > > > Bitmover doing anything remotely suspect in an executable installer > > > would be commercial suicide, do you distrust realplayer too? > > > > Actually, the installer contains security hole allowing any user to > > overwrite any file on system if you install it as root with simple > > symlink. > > Come on Pavel, in order to make this happen, you have to > > a) run the installer as root > b) know the next pid which will be allocated > c) put the symlink in /tmp/installer$pid I hate to jump in here (really I do) but 'a' probably happens alot. All of the recommended locations are system directories. As for 'b' and 'c', I think those are considered trivial things to do, since this would be a relativly easy thing to expliot (search some of the security list archives, this isn't quite as easy as the buffer overflow on x86 problem, but still trivial). > I'll grant you this is something we can trivially make go away as an > issue, and we have, but it's mostly to make you go away as an issue, > not because we believe for one second this is a realistic problem. But yes, this is a trivial problem which is now fixed. And in the grand scheme of things, there'll be more important fixes in the next version of BK than the possibility of overwriting files at installtime. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:34 ` Tom Rini @ 2002-03-20 0:09 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-24 11:44 ` Thunder from the hill 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-03-20 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Rini; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Pavel Machek, Dave Jones, kernel list > I hate to jump in here (really I do) but 'a' probably happens alot. All > of the recommended locations are system directories. As for 'b' and > 'c', I think those are considered trivial things to do, since this would > be a relativly easy thing to expliot (search some of the security list > archives, this isn't quite as easy as the buffer overflow on x86 > problem, but still trivial). 'c' is a piece of cake. People wrote tools using directory notifiers that do nothing but try and subvert every /tmp/ file as it appears. Neat and novel [ab]use of it. This is however a kernel list. Security notifications ought to go to the vendor and if they dont respond after a while to bugtraq where it would be on topic and score you leetness bonuses Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:34 ` Tom Rini 2002-03-20 0:09 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-03-24 11:44 ` Thunder from the hill 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-03-24 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Rini; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Pavel Machek, Dave Jones, kernel list Hi, >> c) put the symlink in /tmp/installer$pid What then about $HOME/tmp? Might be a lot less available for crackers, and if it doesn't exist, we create it (still as 0700). Thunder -- begin-base64 755 - IyEgL3Vzci9iaW4vcGVybApteSAgICAgJHNheWluZyA9CSMgVGhlIHNjcmlw dCBvbiB0aGUgbGVmdCBpcyB0aGUgcHJvb2YKIk5lbmEgaXN0IGVpbiIgLgkj IHRoYXQgaXQgaXNuJ3QgYWxsIHRoZSB3YXkgaXQgc2VlbXMKIiB2ZXJhbHRl dGVyICIgLgkjIHRvIGJlIChlc3BlY2lhbGx5IG5vdCB3aXRoIG1lKQoiTkRX LVN0YXIuXG4iICA7CiRzYXlpbmcgPX4Kcy9ORFctU3Rhci9rYW5uXAogdW5z IHJldHRlbi9nICA7CiRzYXlpbmcgICAgICAgPX4Kcy92ZXJhbHRldGVyL2Rp XAplIExpZWJlL2c7CiRzYXlpbmcgPX5zL2Vpbi8KbnVyL2c7JHNheWluZyA9 fgpzL2lzdC9zYWd0LC9nICA7CiRzYXlpbmc9fnMvXG4vL2cKO3ByaW50Zigk c2F5aW5nKQo7cHJpbnRmKCJcbiIpOwo= ==== Extract this and see what will happen if you execute my signature. Just save it to file and do a > uudecode $file | perl ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:25 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 23:27 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 23:34 ` Tom Rini @ 2002-03-20 7:57 ` Alexander Viro 2 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Alexander Viro @ 2002-03-20 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Pavel Machek, Dave Jones, kernel list On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: > Come on Pavel, in order to make this happen, you have to > > a) run the installer as root > b) know the next pid which will be allocated > c) put the symlink in /tmp/installer$pid > > and do all before that pid gets used. Have you actually be able to > do that? I'd like to see how you did so without knowing exactly when > root was going to install the package and without filling up /tmp with > 64,000 symlinks. Or just sit and do getdents() until installer* shows up and then create data*... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-18 23:14 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-18 23:22 ` Dave Jones @ 2002-03-19 0:00 ` yodaiken 2002-03-19 1:29 ` David S. Miller 1 sibling, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: yodaiken @ 2002-03-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: Larry McVoy, kernel list On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:14:28AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me Then don't use it. -- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 0:00 ` yodaiken @ 2002-03-19 1:29 ` David S. Miller 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yodaiken; +Cc: pavel, lm, linux-kernel From: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:00:31 -0700 On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:14:28AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > By giving me binary-only installer you ask me to trust you. You ask me Then don't use it. Seriously Pavel, Victor is right, simply don't use BitKeeper and GET OVER IT already. Larry doesn't force you to use BitKeeper, so don't use it if you disagree with it and simply cope with that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-18 22:42 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-18 23:14 ` Pavel Machek @ 2002-03-19 1:18 ` Roman Zippel 2002-03-19 1:37 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 1:44 ` Anton Altaparmakov 1 sibling, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-03-19 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Pavel Machek, kernel list Hi, Larry McVoy wrote: > Go read this, this is you Pavel, > and I'm sick of arguing with people like you. > > http://www.linuxandmain.com/essay/sgordon.html That's someone, who doesn't understand what free software is about and desperately looking for someone to blame it on. What are you trying to tell us? bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 1:18 ` Roman Zippel @ 2002-03-19 1:37 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 18:42 ` Roman Zippel 2002-03-19 1:44 ` Anton Altaparmakov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zippel; +Cc: lm, pavel, linux-kernel From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:18:00 +0100 That's someone, who doesn't understand what free software is about and desperately looking for someone to blame it on. What are you trying to tell us? Roman, how do you pay for things like FOOD and a place to LIVE? Who does what kind of work to provide the money you need for the basic necessities in life? Unfortunately, the real economics of the world right now does not make it so that every programmer can work on %100 free software for a living like I do. That is a fact. Given that, most programmers have to find another way to put food into their stoamches and have a horizontal surface to sleep on at night. The person who wrote the article in question may have a few inaccuracies about how free software works, I'll give you that, but that guy has a perfect understand about how REAL LIFE works. That is where you need understand things better. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 1:37 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 18:42 ` Roman Zippel 2002-03-19 19:09 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-03-19 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: lm, pavel, linux-kernel Hi, "David S. Miller" wrote: > Unfortunately, the real economics of the world right now does not make > it so that every programmer can work on %100 free software for a > living like I do. > > That is a fact. > > Given that, most programmers have to find another way to put food into > their stoamches and have a horizontal surface to sleep on at night. > > The person who wrote the article in question may have a few > inaccuracies about how free software works, I'll give you that, > but that guy has a perfect understand about how REAL LIFE works. > That is where you need understand things better. If he had a clue about how real economics works, he wouldn't complaining like that and didn't had to learn it the hard way. Free software is simply no business model. Of course we have to make our living somehow, but everyone who is in it only for the money, should immediately stop working on free software and send his resume to MS. MS has a far better understanding of how "real economics" works than he has and MS is very right to be very afraid of free software, so that they even try to outlaw it. So far MS has actually played rather nice, I would bet with you, that we have seen nothing from them yet. I'm not saying that there is no money to make with free software, but a better understanding of economics would help how to do this (to actually put this into praxis is of course another story) and would prevent us from such whining. Some comparison are actually quite helpful to understand the current economics. Look at the costs of development and the costs for reproduction of goods. Now compare how different industries make their profits here. Look also at how these costs develop over time. Try to think this through consequently. If you do this you really get a better understanding of _real_ life. I'm not claiming to be perfect in this, but I know that that guy is an ignorant, who has to run against a wall to notice that there is one and he is even proud of it. Free software is just a forerunner of things to come. The same mechanism are at work and visible in the entertainment industry. If you look closer at other industries, you can find the same mechanisms only prevented by massive protectionism. Try to imagine, what it means for an economic, which is based on trade, if goods can be produced at almost no cost. Current world trade has already in several areas not much to do with "trade" anymore and I'm not very optimistic how this can get any better with the current economic model. The more one thinks about it, the more one also has to ask oneself, how to get food into the stomachs tomorrow. I know that for most people it's more important to make a living today (and many are busy enough with this), but that shouldn't prevent us from thinking about the consequences of our actions. Above may sound harsh, but I'm just amazed about the shortsightedness of some people and how they are trying to blame other people for their own mistakes. bye, Roman PS: I know it's getting OT, but I think it's important enough that it should be said and I'm feeling better now. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 18:42 ` Roman Zippel @ 2002-03-19 19:09 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-19 20:01 ` Shane Nay ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-03-19 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel > like that and didn't had to learn it the hard way. Free software is > simply no business model. Of course we have to make our living somehow, Work for me. I've run a profitable small open source company, I've worked for Red Hat. > prevented by massive protectionism. Try to imagine, what it means for an > economic, which is based on trade, if goods can be produced at almost no > cost. Current world trade has already in several areas not much to do > with "trade" anymore and I'm not very optimistic how this can get any > better with the current economic model. Think about it this way. There is no reason to suppose that the concept of the Innovators Dilemma does not ultimately apply to nations. If you accept that premise - and there is a lot of evidence for it, then the western european nations get more and more specialist and "up market" and eventually run out of anything to sell but lawyers. At which point we get the great depression mark 2. Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years ahead of everyone else moving all real software development to the czech republic and india, the phone support to the philipines and the hardware to taiwanese and chinese bulk build to order. Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 19:09 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-03-19 20:01 ` Shane Nay 2002-03-19 23:08 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-21 19:14 ` Roman Zippel 2 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Shane Nay @ 2002-03-19 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox, Roman Zippel; +Cc: David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel > Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years > ahead of everyone else moving all real software development to the > czech republic and india, the phone support to the philipines and > the hardware to taiwanese and chinese bulk build to order. Normal software development in economic terms is normally treated as a fixed cost to produce a "product". Fixed costs determine market entry and exit points, not profitability. Phone support, bulk built to order, and the way that most Taiwanese firms do hardware are variable costs. Economically speaking it's an apples and oranges comparison, and to say one follows from the other is not really accurate. Free software development on the other hand is a bit more tricky, and I could see how exporting the work in certain scenarios would make a lot of sense. However, to this point most of us working in the Free Software industry are funded by companies working on "products". (You're sounding like a lot of my friends in the SARHK when speaking of China Alan 8). Asside- Fixed costs also determine other things like the number of competitors that can operate in a market for a particular good. Pretty much all software is an Oligopoly whereas the other things you mention are much closer to true competition. The reason Free Software development is more tricky is that if Free Software were to rule the world, then it would be individual consultants vying for the same business of modifications to Free code bases. So, in the alternate universe where all software is Free Software, Perfect Competition would probably rein supreme and there would be 1000s of consultants vying to make custom modifications for particular companies. In that alternate universe, then programmers from western countries would be probably be driving dump trucks by day, and programming at night for fun. Luckily I learned how to varnish and stain wood when I was a kid, so even if the alternate universe hits, I'm ready. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 19:09 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-19 20:01 ` Shane Nay @ 2002-03-19 23:08 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-19 23:19 ` Robert Love ` (2 more replies) 2002-03-21 19:14 ` Roman Zippel 2 siblings, 3 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-03-19 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years ahead > of everyone else moving all real software development to the czech > republic and india, Hey, don't forget about Brazil ;) I know folks in Silicon Valley who pay more rent than what I earn in a month ... and I'm earning enough money to have a comfortable life here, at a fairly safe distance from the DMCA and its friends ;) <insert blatant plug here> cheers, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:08 ` Rik van Riel @ 2002-03-19 23:19 ` Robert Love 2002-03-19 23:26 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-19 23:31 ` yodaiken 2002-03-20 0:57 ` Richard Gooch 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Robert Love @ 2002-03-19 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel Cc: Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 18:08, Rik van Riel wrote: > Hey, don't forget about Brazil ;) > > I know folks in Silicon Valley who pay more rent than what > I earn in a month ... and I'm earning enough money to have > a comfortable life here, at a fairly safe distance from the > DMCA and its friends ;) That's why you need to work for a Silicon Valley firm, get paid a Silicon Valley paycheck, but work remotely from the country side. ;) Robert Love ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:19 ` Robert Love @ 2002-03-19 23:26 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-19 23:42 ` Davide Libenzi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-03-19 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Love Cc: Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel On 19 Mar 2002, Robert Love wrote: > On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 18:08, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Hey, don't forget about Brazil ;) > > > > I know folks in Silicon Valley who pay more rent than what > > I earn in a month ... and I'm earning enough money to have > > a comfortable life here, at a fairly safe distance from the > > DMCA and its friends ;) > > That's why you need to work for a Silicon Valley firm, get paid a > Silicon Valley paycheck, but work remotely from the country side. ;) That's a very nice short-term option, but I suspect that after some years the people in Silicon Valley will get smarter than that ;) I agree with Alan, the future is moving computer programming to places where programmers don't need to earn a small fortune, places where programmers can be economic to the company working "just" 40 hours a week instead of the 60 to 90 hours I've seen some people in the US suffer ... ... maybe even places where the cost of living is low enough that programmers can have time to think and have a life, instead of being forced to work more than what's good for them just because of the local price level. regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:26 ` Rik van Riel @ 2002-03-19 23:42 ` Davide Libenzi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Davide Libenzi @ 2002-03-19 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel Cc: Robert Love, Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote: > I agree with Alan, the future is moving computer programming > to places where programmers don't need to earn a small fortune, > places where programmers can be economic to the company working > "just" 40 hours a week instead of the 60 to 90 hours I've seen > some people in the US suffer ... > > ... maybe even places where the cost of living is low enough > that programmers can have time to think and have a life, > instead of being forced to work more than what's good for > them just because of the local price level. ... welcome in Oregon ... - Davide ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:08 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-19 23:19 ` Robert Love @ 2002-03-19 23:31 ` yodaiken 2002-03-19 23:47 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-20 0:05 ` James Simmons 2002-03-20 0:57 ` Richard Gooch 2 siblings, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: yodaiken @ 2002-03-19 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel Cc: Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:08:24PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years ahead > > of everyone else moving all real software development to the czech > > republic and india, > > Hey, don't forget about Brazil ;) Or New Mexico. Third world software development wins again! -- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:31 ` yodaiken @ 2002-03-19 23:47 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-20 0:02 ` Thomas Dodd ` (3 more replies) 2002-03-20 0:05 ` James Simmons 1 sibling, 4 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-19 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yodaiken Cc: Rik van Riel, Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 04:31:55PM -0700, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:08:24PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years ahead > > > of everyone else moving all real software development to the czech > > > republic and india, > > > > Hey, don't forget about Brazil ;) > > Or New Mexico. Third world software development wins again! I think that there is lots to be said about moving out of silicon valley, I personally don't like it here that all much. On the other hand, it is extremely cool that there is such a high concentration of smart people within 30 minutes of my house. What I'd like to see is a migration out of silly valley but to somewhere else. I.e., pockets of smart people working together. Face time with smart people is fun, if you get a chance to do it, you know what I mean. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:47 ` Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-20 0:02 ` Thomas Dodd 2002-03-20 0:19 ` Theodore Tso ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Thomas Dodd @ 2002-03-20 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Larry McVoy Larry McVoy wrote: > I think that there is lots to be said about moving out of silicon valley, > I personally don't like it here that all much. On the other hand, > it is extremely cool that there is such a high concentration of smart > people within 30 minutes of my house. What I'd like to see is a migration > out of silly valley but to somewhere else. I.e., pockets of smart people > working together. Face time with smart people is fun, if you get a chance > to do it, you know what I mean. Which would negate the monetary resons for moving. The cost of living in a given area is related to what people can/will pay to live there. Example. I live in a university town in rual Mississippi. Without the university, the down would likely die. An apartment here that rents for $600 a month would only bing $200 - $300 in the small towns 30 miles away. When I was looking to buy a house, 15 miles away, the price's are half that here. Same for land to build a house on. If a lot of engineers and programmers, were to move to a small town 30 miles away, the prices would quickly rise to meet the new earnings levels. Soon it would be the same as here. As more move in the place gets bigger, prices go up, and soon you have another Silicon Valley. So please, stay in the valley, I like my current standard of living :) -Thomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:47 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-20 0:02 ` Thomas Dodd @ 2002-03-20 0:19 ` Theodore Tso 2002-03-20 0:57 ` Petko Manolov 2002-03-21 19:44 ` Mark H. Wood 2002-03-27 14:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 3 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Theodore Tso @ 2002-03-20 0:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy, yodaiken, Rik van Riel, Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 03:47:27PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > I think that there is lots to be said about moving out of silicon valley, > I personally don't like it here that all much. On the other hand, > it is extremely cool that there is such a high concentration of smart > people within 30 minutes of my house. What I'd like to see is a migration > out of silly valley but to somewhere else. I.e., pockets of smart people > working together. Face time with smart people is fun, if you get a chance > to do it, you know what I mean. There's a reason why I live in Boston. My house is 20 minutes from downtown Boston, and 15 minutes from MIT/Harvard Sqare/Cambridge, and three years ago, my 3 bedroom, 1.5 bedroom house with a large country kitchen sitting on a sixth of an acre of land cost me $168,000 dollars (I pay ~$700/month mortgage). (I love to really piss off Silly Valley types by pointing this out. :-) Best of all, I don't have to live out in the middle of nowhere (the Boston Symphony, lots of amateur/semi-professional/professional theater productions, etc.), and there are lots of smart people to socialize with. - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-20 0:19 ` Theodore Tso @ 2002-03-20 0:57 ` Petko Manolov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Petko Manolov @ 2002-03-20 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Tso Cc: Larry McVoy, yodaiken, Rik van Riel, Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel Theodore Tso wrote: > > (I love to really piss off Silly Valley types by pointing this out. :-) I bet you did. :-) > Best of all, I don't have to live out in the middle of nowhere (the This is also true. It wasn't called wild west for no reason. > Boston Symphony, lots of amateur/semi-professional/professional > theater productions, etc.), and there are lots of smart people to Isn't it sad - when i say theater people think about movie theater. I have hard time explaining what the hell is the difference and why it could be nice to have such things around... <sigh> Petko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:47 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-20 0:02 ` Thomas Dodd 2002-03-20 0:19 ` Theodore Tso @ 2002-03-21 19:44 ` Mark H. Wood 2002-03-21 20:29 ` Shane Nay 2002-03-27 14:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 3 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Mark H. Wood @ 2002-03-21 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: linux-kernel On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Larry McVoy wrote: [snip] > I think that there is lots to be said about moving out of silicon valley, > I personally don't like it here that all much. On the other hand, > it is extremely cool that there is such a high concentration of smart > people within 30 minutes of my house. What I'd like to see is a migration > out of silly valley but to somewhere else. I.e., pockets of smart people > working together. Face time with smart people is fun, if you get a chance > to do it, you know what I mean. Indiana wants more high-tech business. Of course we can't compete with California's weather.... -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu Today's forecast: low 30, high 30, snow flurries. Happy 1st of Spring! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-21 19:44 ` Mark H. Wood @ 2002-03-21 20:29 ` Shane Nay 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Shane Nay @ 2002-03-21 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark H. Wood; +Cc: linux-kernel > Indiana wants more high-tech business. Of course we can't compete > with California's weather.... Some people can't deal with the earthquakes, brush fires, and landslides for some reason. (Did I mention my house is sliding off a cliff?) Weather and natural beauty however is my reason for being in California..., to hell with face time with smart people. The only reason I may wear a jacket is because my wife prefers the way it appears, not because of the weather ;-). Sillicon Valley is too cold for my tastes. Driving distance from small John Wayne airport in Southern California with a nice ~ hour flight away from Sillicon Valley is just right. Though the history in Europe/UK is very interesting..., some day. Todays forecast- 78, yesterdays forcast... 78, 3 months ago forecast... 78, etc. . (Not exactly, but its in the ballpark) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:47 ` Larry McVoy ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2002-03-21 19:44 ` Mark H. Wood @ 2002-03-27 14:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 3 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2002-03-27 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes: >people within 30 minutes of my house. What I'd like to see is a migration >out of silly valley but to somewhere else. I.e., pockets of smart people >working together. Face time with smart people is fun, if you get a chance Hm. Like, say Redmond, WA? -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:31 ` yodaiken 2002-03-19 23:47 ` Larry McVoy @ 2002-03-20 0:05 ` James Simmons 2002-03-19 20:35 ` Andreas Dilger 2002-03-20 0:14 ` Kurt Ferreira 1 sibling, 2 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: James Simmons @ 2002-03-20 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yodaiken Cc: Rik van Riel, Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:08:24PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years ahead > > > of everyone else moving all real software development to the czech > > > republic and india, > > > > Hey, don't forget about Brazil ;) > > Or New Mexico. Third world software development wins again! New Mexico is in the US. Third World??? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-20 0:05 ` James Simmons @ 2002-03-19 20:35 ` Andreas Dilger 2002-03-20 0:14 ` Kurt Ferreira 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Andreas Dilger @ 2002-03-19 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yodaiken; +Cc: Rik van Riel, lm, linux-kernel Victor Yodaiken wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:08:24PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years ahead > > > of everyone else moving all real software development to the czech > > > republic and india, > > > > Hey, don't forget about Brazil ;) > > Or New Mexico. Third world software development wins again! Hmm, at my former job (office in Santa Fe, NM) I found that everything was considerably more expensive than here in Calgary, Canada. The worst was high-speed internet - DSL from Qwest is absurdly expensive (i.e. U$1000 setup + U$100 or more monthly) and takes a long time to get. In Calgary there is both high speed cable and ADSL for C$40 a month, has free setup, and one month free to start. The lousy Canadian dollar is finally good for _something_. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-20 0:05 ` James Simmons 2002-03-19 20:35 ` Andreas Dilger @ 2002-03-20 0:14 ` Kurt Ferreira 2002-03-20 2:16 ` Greg Hennessy 1 sibling, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Kurt Ferreira @ 2002-03-20 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: James Simmons Cc: yodaiken, Rik van Riel, Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel Hey, On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, James Simmons wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:08:24PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > > > Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years ahead > > > > of everyone else moving all real software development to the czech > > > > republic and india, > > > > > > Hey, don't forget about Brazil ;) > > > > Or New Mexico. Third world software development wins again! > > New Mexico is in the US. Third World??? > I see you have never lived in Socorro, NM ;) Kurt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-20 0:14 ` Kurt Ferreira @ 2002-03-20 2:16 ` Greg Hennessy 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Greg Hennessy @ 2002-03-20 2:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0203191713360.14717-100000@pogo.esscom.com>, Kurt Ferreira <kferreir@esscom.com> wrote: > > New Mexico is in the US. Third World??? > > I see you have never lived in Socorro, NM ;) I have. Even got a degree from NM Tech. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 23:08 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-19 23:19 ` Robert Love 2002-03-19 23:31 ` yodaiken @ 2002-03-20 0:57 ` Richard Gooch 2 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Richard Gooch @ 2002-03-20 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel Cc: Alan Cox, Roman Zippel, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel Rik van Riel writes: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years ahead > > of everyone else moving all real software development to the czech > > republic and india, > > Hey, don't forget about Brazil ;) > > I know folks in Silicon Valley who pay more rent than what > I earn in a month ... and I'm earning enough money to have > a comfortable life here, at a fairly safe distance from the > DMCA and its friends ;) Don't count on it. You're too close, as determined by the Monroe Doctrine, which basically says "they own your ass". Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 19:09 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-19 20:01 ` Shane Nay 2002-03-19 23:08 ` Rik van Riel @ 2002-03-21 19:14 ` Roman Zippel 2002-03-21 20:54 ` Alan Cox 2 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-03-21 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel Hi, On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > Work for me. I've run a profitable small open source company, I've worked > for Red Hat. Wow, that kind of answer I had expected the least. :) > Think about it this way. There is no reason to suppose that the concept > of the Innovators Dilemma does not ultimately apply to nations. Innovator's Dilemma is an interesting theory, but I think it simplifies things too much. I haven't read the book, so I can only judge from various reviews I've read. It seems to concentrate too much on the actual trigger and neglects the necessary conditions. The major flow here is, it assumes that all participants play nice and fair. Take for example MS, they don't have to innovate that much by themselves, they just buy it. The interesting point here is that their biggest threat is now a technology which is not really disruptive, but rather a technology they can't buy. With nations it actually becomes worse, as soon as politics and economy come together there is no fair play anymore. A developing nation may get an advantage in a specific area, but the industry nations will do everything do prevent that they will get too powerful. The developing nations are mostly useful to exploit their resources be foreign companies, which expect from their goverments to "protect" their investments. Don't make the mistake to just look at hitech industry, this is still a growing market (only the gold rush is over). Other more traditional markets are already divided and tightly protected. > Hans Reiser's team of Russian wizards is simply a couple of years ahead of > everyone else moving all real software development to the czech republic > and india, the phone support to the philipines and the hardware to > taiwanese and chinese bulk build to order. I agree, although the "couple of years" are debatable in these fast changing times. :) Another thing to consider is that software development currently is still somewhere in the middle ages. Everything is still copied by hand and the Gutenberg press of software development hasn't been invented yet (there are some interesting developments, but I don't think we're there yet). Software development is still a very expensive process, good software design requires developer, which must be very capable in several areas and at the same time still has to do lots of boring repeating work. Most development which is moved to india is also the type of development which is most likely to be automated by better tools. So if india just relies on this it will be hit very badly. bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-21 19:14 ` Roman Zippel @ 2002-03-21 20:54 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-22 0:02 ` Roman Zippel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 55+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-03-21 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Alan Cox, David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel > themselves, they just buy it. The interesting point here is that their > biggest threat is now a technology which is not really disruptive, but > rather a technology they can't buy. Read the book - buying into the new technology as an old company can actually have dire results when you buy in. It is studied. > repeating work. Most development which is moved to india is also the type > of development which is most likely to be automated by better tools. So if > india just relies on this it will be hit very badly. Read the book 8) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-21 20:54 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-03-22 0:02 ` Roman Zippel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-03-22 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: David S. Miller, lm, pavel, linux-kernel Hi, Alan Cox wrote: > > repeating work. Most development which is moved to india is also the type > > of development which is most likely to be automated by better tools. So if > > india just relies on this it will be hit very badly. > > Read the book 8) Does it also contain the part, how it should apply to nations? I can see how applies in situations, when there is a halfway working market, but the relationship between nations is simply different. bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
* Re: Bitkeeper licence issues 2002-03-19 1:18 ` Roman Zippel 2002-03-19 1:37 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-03-19 1:44 ` Anton Altaparmakov 1 sibling, 0 replies; 55+ messages in thread From: Anton Altaparmakov @ 2002-03-19 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Pavel Machek, kernel list Hi, At 01:18 19/03/02, Roman Zippel wrote: >Larry McVoy wrote: > > Go read this, this is you Pavel, > > and I'm sick of arguing with people like you. > > > > http://www.linuxandmain.com/essay/sgordon.html > >That's someone, who doesn't understand what free software is about and >desperately looking for someone to blame it on. >What are you trying to tell us? Did you actually read it? I did and I agree with him. Depending on your market niche, being a commercial company releasing free software can be complete business suicide, killing the single, most important revenue stream for the company. Linux is growing and as such is being more and more commercialised and with this we will see more and more commercial, non-free, non-GPL software. I don't see what the fuss is all about. I am into Linux because it is a good OS and I would like to contribute to improving it and not just because it is free software. Free software is only good in particular market niches or when one does it as a hobby in unsuitable market niches. Everyone has to eat and many people have a family to support. You can't do that unless you earn money and far too few people manage to get paid for working on free software exactly because it is not profitable (again depending on market niche)... Just my 2p. Best regards, Anton ps. No I am not trying to start a flame war but I felt the post was too harsch to be left without reply. -- "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 55+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-03-27 14:41 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 55+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-03-18 21:26 Bitkeeper licence issues Pavel Machek 2002-03-18 22:42 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-18 23:14 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-18 23:22 ` Dave Jones 2002-03-18 23:43 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-19 8:35 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-19 2:02 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 8:21 ` Gerd Knorr 2002-03-19 15:11 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 21:58 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-19 22:04 ` Larry McVoy [not found] ` <20020319215800.GN12260@atrey.karlin.m__.cuni.cz> 2002-03-20 22:42 ` Ton Hospel 2002-03-19 22:06 ` Pavel Machek 2002-03-19 23:25 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 23:27 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 23:44 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-19 23:45 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 23:54 ` Matthew Kirkwood 2002-03-19 23:56 ` Ben Collins 2002-03-20 17:23 ` Martin Dalecki 2002-03-20 17:51 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-20 18:04 ` Martin Dalecki 2002-03-20 20:34 ` Neil Booth 2002-03-19 23:34 ` Tom Rini 2002-03-20 0:09 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-24 11:44 ` Thunder from the hill 2002-03-20 7:57 ` Alexander Viro 2002-03-19 0:00 ` yodaiken 2002-03-19 1:29 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 1:18 ` Roman Zippel 2002-03-19 1:37 ` David S. Miller 2002-03-19 18:42 ` Roman Zippel 2002-03-19 19:09 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-19 20:01 ` Shane Nay 2002-03-19 23:08 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-19 23:19 ` Robert Love 2002-03-19 23:26 ` Rik van Riel 2002-03-19 23:42 ` Davide Libenzi 2002-03-19 23:31 ` yodaiken 2002-03-19 23:47 ` Larry McVoy 2002-03-20 0:02 ` Thomas Dodd 2002-03-20 0:19 ` Theodore Tso 2002-03-20 0:57 ` Petko Manolov 2002-03-21 19:44 ` Mark H. Wood 2002-03-21 20:29 ` Shane Nay 2002-03-27 14:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen 2002-03-20 0:05 ` James Simmons 2002-03-19 20:35 ` Andreas Dilger 2002-03-20 0:14 ` Kurt Ferreira 2002-03-20 2:16 ` Greg Hennessy 2002-03-20 0:57 ` Richard Gooch 2002-03-21 19:14 ` Roman Zippel 2002-03-21 20:54 ` Alan Cox 2002-03-22 0:02 ` Roman Zippel 2002-03-19 1:44 ` Anton Altaparmakov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).