[ale] Redhat and Fedora servers compromised

[hscast at charter.net]

---- Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote: 
> 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!

Reminds me of a system I believe was called Panda back in the late 80's to early 90's. It was broken up into different cards that allowed partial upgrading as time went on, thus efectively allowing for what amounted to back then as chipset upgrades. Using pluggable chipsets would bring in the double connection issue of the olden days which I believe that's what you are referring to below.
> 
> That would be a nightmare from the EE perspective, though.
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> James P. Kinney III