10/12   [moved to top]
        I strongly suggest everyone read the minutes from the last
        meeting.  Both changes to the motd and soda itself were
        discussed. -jrleek
        \_ (Put up front since it's relevant) One thing that was left out of
           the minutes is this: although we decided to enable logging of the
           MOTD, we would like the implementation to be put in place by the
           users OF the MOTD. The decision stands and is not debatable, but
           the flavor of it is up to you guys. The current proposition is
           to enable kernel auditing, such that only root can view the logs.
           If you have a more palatable idea, you're welcome to submit your
           opinions to root@csua. Of course, 'ideas' are not nearly as
           useful as 'implementations', if you propose something non-trivial.
           \_ I don't have any complaint on any of this. I just like to
              ask if you guys can consider making the list of people who
              have root public, and tighten access control to only those
              who should have root. Secondly, I'd like to ask if you guys
              can make all user complaints and requests to expose offenders
              public. I'd hate to see root exercising power under the hood
              without any form of auditing. Without public auditing
              there is no check and no balance.
           \_ Why perpetuate the scam and make us lend the logging an air of
              respectability?
           \_ I am amused by the fact that this was posted anonymously. -gm
        \_ Exact proposition: "To allow, when necessary, root-types to
           identify exactly who posted any message in the MOTD"
        \_ If I read these correctly, the change that will be implemented is
           a foolproof way for root-types to know who is posting to the motd,
           so that people who make direct threats can be found.  Somehow I
           doubt this is gonna raise the quality of the discourse around
           here.
           \_ The problem is we've apparently seen root-type people abuse their
              root in the past to un-anon people on the motd they simply don't
              like.  I'd like to know who the root-type people are and that
              there is some official (as official as the csua can get) process
              in place to a) make sure no one else has root and b) make sure
              the very limited set of people with root are known and c) revoke
              root privs of abusers.  I was once in favor of a totally anon
              motd, but given some of the vicious and excessive personal
              attacks, threats, and named posts clearly intended to destroy
              other people, I've changed my mind on the topic.  Free speech
              is a good thing but yelling fire in a theatre is not ok nor is
              abusing anonymity to harass or ruin others.
              \_ The root list has been getting cleaned up, and I have made
                 sure that the only people with root on any of the new
                 machines are active, trustworthy root types.  Furthermore,
                 abuse of root power by anyone to un-anonymify someone for
                 any reason other than official business is an immediately
                 squishable offense in my book.  If I caught someone using
                 root logs to spite someone on the motd, I would not hesitate
                 to not only revoke the root cookie, but also sorry that
                 person's account.  I would even take such action on a
                 current member of Politburo if they did such.  I consider
                 the privacy of the people on this server, and the
                 professionalness of those who have access to priviledged
                 information on this server very important. - jvarga
              \_ You are a thin-skinned idiot.
                 \_ Haven't been around here that long, huh?
                    \_ Only about 8 years.  What'd I miss?
                       \_ Pfft. n00b!  -meyers
                       \_ You missed the part where not abusing root is a good
                          thing, and an obvious thing.  Where have you been?
              \_ Vicious and excessive personal attacks? Perhaps, but the
                 motd is not for the faint of heart. This is less "fire" in a
                 theater and more theater of the absurd. More Sproul Plaza than
                 debate club. Keep it anon. How else am I supposed to make my
                 snide "yermom" comments without looking like a total sleeze?
                 \_ yer mom doesn't mind looking like a total sleaze.
              \_ You're correct that too many people have root. We'll get
                 an automatic reset when we switch to new soda, we should
                 set up some new rules then.
        \_ So let's say some user provides a web- or e-mail based front-end to
           let anonymous types modify motd.  The soda log will show that the
           creator of the interface is making changes, even though it could be
           Joe Loser off the Internet.  I suppose at the first abuse then that
           interface should be shut off?
           \_ Before the first abuse; it's against policy to share your
              account.  -tom
              \_ Has this specific example been tested yet?  ("share your
                 account" encompasses providing a web/e-mail interface for
                 people outside soda to anonymously modify motd)
                 \_ "share your account" means whatever they want it to mean.
                    \_ This would also qualify under "don't be a hoser."  -tom
        \_ Just curious, but how many of you outraged motders are actual
           csua voters?
        \_ I'm disappointed that the CSUA would run Linux, I'm not sure what
           the issue was with BSD.  There was a big push to get it working
           at the end of last year, and as far as I know it was.  What
           happened?  --jwm
           \_ How competent is the vp?  This is not intended to be a put
              down as such, but failing to get bsd to boot may be
           \_ How competent is the vp?  Failing to get bsd to boot may be
              meaningful or meaningless, depending on vp cluefulness.
              \_ As freebsd developers have trouble getting 5.4 to run on
                 certain amd boxes, I wouldn't use this as a guide to VP
                 cluefulness
                 \_ You do know that my question regarding vp cluefulness
                    still applies until you show (boot_bsd(clueless admin)
                    == 1) for all values of clueless admin.
           \_ What's wrong with Linux these days?  (Aside from TRADITION!)
              \_ If you have to ask, you don't know.
                 \_ Yes, that would be why I'm asking.
                    \_ Install the 2.6 kernel and see how long it lasts
                       under load.
                       \- can you elaborate on this a little. i have some
                          crunching farms and the people who run them for
                          me appear to slowly be moving toward 2.6. tnx.