[ale] Redhat and Fedora servers compromised

[Jim Kinney]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Thompson Freeman <
tfreeman at intel.digichem.net> wrote:

>
>
> Following the Fedora list, Fedora 9 hasn't been the best
> behaved release even before the intrusion/compromise. With
> the compromise of the release servers, the noise on that
> list is horrid.
>
> I hesitate offer advise. If it were _my_ gear, I think I'd
> drop back to Fedora 8 at least long enough to verify the
> hardware functioning, and possibly give Fedora 9 a complete
> pass.


I don't follow the chatter/blatherings on the  Fedora list (I get enough
here :-). But I have several systems running the Fedora series. I have found
them to be quite stable and functional even considering the bleeding-edge
nature of Fedora. Currently, all but 1 are F9 (last F7 get updated this
weekend to F9) and 2 were upgrades from F8 or F7 (the F7 upgrade is a 64-bit
system). I even have a G3 ibook running F9 (schweet!). I attribute part of
my success with Fedora to the fact I don't run really low end hardware. Some
of my gear is pretty weak for it's day. But none of it is in that dubious
"grey zone" of flaky chipsets, second-quality power supplies and ram that
seem to be plagued by instability issues.

Bad silicon is bad silicon. Too bad the chipset isn't socketed and
replaceable. That would be fantastic! Buy a new chipset and bios and upgrade
the system!

That would be a nightmare from the EE perspective, though.


-- 
-- 
James P. Kinney III
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20080823/ae64d25a/attachment.html