[Discuss] kernel.org

[blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey)]

> From: Jon Masters [mailto:jonathan at jonmasters.org]
> 
> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 11:25 -0400, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:
> > >> From: Jon Masters [mailto:jonathan at jonmasters.org]
> >
> > > Nothing against John or Peter, but there's such a thing as change
> > > management.  If it was easy to put it back up quickly and safely, but it
> > > needs to be overhauled to enhance functionality, then the thing to do is
> > > put it back up quickly, and plan the overhaul in such a way that it
> > > doesn't entail a month of downtime.
> 
> Which would be a better headline?
> 
> 1). "kernel.org rooted again, lax security blah blah blah. Film at 11!"
> 2). "kernel.org still down, everyone sucks".
> 
> I have to say I favor the latter.

Agreed.  But I feel like this converstaion is going around in circles.  Originally I said by not getting it back up, they're basically acknowledging that it would be unsafe to do so, and I commented, if they don't have adequate security, what are the rest of us to do?  And then you said you conclude a different conclusion - let's give them the benefit of the doubt - that they're working very hard and it's very complex.  Which, I think, is actually not a contradiction...

I commented tangentially - Aren't they doing the same thing at github?  According to Peter's email, it seems the flaw was using shell access to the git repositories.  Isn't that what github does?