Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
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. > That is one way to operate, yes. But if the previous implementation was > suspect, then one MUST assume putting it back up would only restore the > illicit access as well. > > One of the "anti-business" aspect of open source, is the mentality that > you'll get it when its ready. For one, like all things, it has pros and > cons, but sometimes its good. Actually, it's not even really anti-business. The "pro-business" option would be what Linux Foundation did in getting their main web site up and running as a priority prior to linux.com and other secondaries. So, they might have prioritized the web-facing stuff but kernel.org isn't really in the business of marketing and PR (beyond when this stuff happens), so it's not so much "anti-business" as not really having a position. Jon.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |