Very tired nerd who doesn’t know how to speak correctly
Ask me about floppa, Plan 9, or computer architecture or anything computers really (if you want)
The only zoomer qualified to operate an RBMK reactor
Researcher of rare and powerful beanis
:cat-vibing:
He rented all types of servers around the country in the cloud and designed a denial of service (DoS) attack
What a uniquely skilled individual!
His feat did not go unnoticed. Over the next year he had meetings with officials from the United States Cyber Command, the branch of the armed forces dedicated to this field. He also met with officers from the Marines, the Space Operations Command and intelligence (NSA). Cáceres shared with them the keys to his successful operation and told them that, in his opinion, similar operations could be carried out with small commandos of two to four hackers. That would give them agility, autonomy and the ability to react.
Me, a cyber-commando, dressing up in full tactical gear, ready for anything, for the trip from my gaming chair to my refrigerator to get beer while I watch my rented Azure servers send spam to a small country’s routers
He tried, but failed. “To do anything you need authorization, which takes six months to get. And when you get it, what you wanted to do no longer works. That is the reality here in the U.S.: we have very, very good people working on our cyber defense, but they are hogtied. They can’t do anything, even though I know we have the resources to do a lot.”
Smh our bureaucratic government won’t approve my request to start a war with the DPRK from my couch
If he did this to any other small nation, especially a US-aligned one, he would be charged with a serious crime. The US can’t openly do electronic warfare but they can stand by and watch this clown do what basically amounts to cyber-terrorism, a least for a little while
Anyway, now that he doxxed himself I hope the DPRK actually gives him something to fear lol
Also
And ever since he took down the internet in North Korea, he has also been approached by the National Security Agency (NSA). Everyone wanted to know how he did it.
Lmao
This is peak journalism, they obviously took him at his word
deleted by creator
You can check to see what drivers were compiled as modules or into your kernel by reading the kernel configuration at /proc/config.gz
or /boot/*config*
There might also be out-of-tree (not included with the kernel) drivers installed as packages on your system but this is very rare outside of like… having an NVIDIA card and running the closed-source vendor driver
The vast majority of drivers are included with the Linux kernel now (in tree) so the difference usually comes down to kernel version (newer kernels have more drivers, of course) or kernel configuration set at compile-time (this can be anything from including or not including drivers, to turning driver features on and off, or more fundamental changes beyond drivers)
You can get kernel version info from uname -a
and a lot of the time, probably most of the time (this is also down to configuration), you can get kernel configuration info from /proc/config.gz
(use gzip -d
to decompress) or something like /boot/config
Then you can run diff
on configurations of 2 different distro kernels you’re interested in to see how the 2 distribution’s kernels were set up differently
This could also be caused by different setups of userspace tools or UI that interact with these drivers in different, sometimes worse ways but this is usually much less likely in my experience (most Linux distros do things like this the same way these days tbh)
Oh, also, there are a lot of drivers that require vendor-supplied firmware or binary blobs to function and most of the time distros don’t bake these into the kernel (although it is possible) and different distros might have more or less of these blobs available or installed by default or they might be packaged differently. The kernel should print an error message if it can’t find blobs it needs though
I guess there’s kinda a lot to consider lol. Sorry if all of this is obvious
What hardware are you talking about specifically?
Ohh that’s true, I didn’t think about that. It would be difficult to route anything through it unless you were connected directly to it with nothing in-between because no other router would forward packets destined for somewhere else to my machine (except maybe in the extremely unlikely case of source routing?). It seems obvious now lol, thank you!
I’ll write some firewall rules just in case
Out of all the parasites capitalist society has produced, Nestle executives possibly deserve the the most
I see. Our motherboards have different chipsets (I have an X570 in mine). It probably has nothing to do with my issue…
Hoping those kernel parameters fix it. I wish I could help further. PCs are just a bottomless, mostly undocumented rabbithole :(
What motherboard do you have? Also what happens exactly when the lock-ups happen? Have you ever been playing audio when the lock-ups happen and does it loop or stop or keep playing?
I recently had to “fix” (workaround) a similar issue in the OpenBSD kernel with a specific hardware peripheral on my PC (running a 2nd-gen Ryzen), the High Definition Audio controller. For whatever reason (and only when I was running OpenBSD) interrupts from the HDA controller (to let the CPU know to refill audio buffers) would just randomly stop making it to the CPU and audio would loop for a few seconds and then shut off. I spent a long time trying to figure out what causes it and reading Linux driver code but I couldn’t find a cause or why only OpenBSD would trigger it. I ended up having to write kind of a hacky polling mode into the HDA driver. My only guess is some of these AMD-chipset-having motherboards have faulty interrupt controllers.
Maybe there is a similar issue with your system and timer interrupts aren’t making it to your CPU or something. But I’m not really an expert on PC architecture and idek if it even works like that on PCs lol
Sorry for so many questions but do you also have any kernel logs available from when this happens?
I simply do both
It’s not working
There are some purpose-built ARM Linux laptops available but as an owner of an unused Pinebook Pro… can’t recommend
Walking the path of a PC hater is not easy
Rip out the fan and connect the processor heatsink to a heatpipe
Then carry around a cup of water to dip the heatpipe into
This is not a bit, I am a real hardware designer
Xorg? Wayland? You have bespoke protocols just for windowed graphics? I’m happy with my /dev/draw and /dev/wsys/*
Unix is a zombie OS that should probably die
I’ll believe it when we dismantle the nukes, class society, and fossil fuel industry. A better world is possible but only if we fight for it.
Programmers can trust language security features too much…
Of course, they’re nice to have and really can make things easier to implement securely but it’s still very easy to introduce security problems or bugs into any code. This is just an unsolvable problem of writing imperative code. All imperative code will reliably have memory leaks (even in Java!) and security holes because no compiler can check to see if you thought of everything.
And large and complex compilers/interpreters with these security features can end up introducing their own security problems or bugs in the process of implementing them.
I’m just tired of people entirely dismissing languages like C because they don’t have these features. Especially when the operating systems their code runs on and their languages may even be implemented in C!
C is very reliable. It works almost everywhere with very little resources or overhead and many of the most fundamental parts of our systems (that have to work reliably) are written in C. Many of the languages in that image are even implemented in C.
If you want to write portable, fast, and simple code C can help you with that if you use it in the right way.
This has always felt untrue to me. The command line has always been simple parts. However we cannot argue that this applies to all Unix-like systems: The monolithic Linux kernel, Kerberos, httpd, SAMBA, X windowing, heck even OpenSSL. There's many examples of tooling built on top of Unix systems that don't follow that philosophy.
I can see why you would come to think that if all you've been exposed to is Linux and its orbiting ecosystem. I agree with you that modern Unix has failed to live up to its ideals. Even its creators began to see its limitations in the late 80s and began to develop a whole new system from scratch.
Depends on what you mean. "Everything is a file"? Sure, that metaphor can be put to rest.
That was never true in the first place. Very few things under Unix are actually represented as files (though credit to Linux for pursuing this idea in kernel-space more than most). But Plan 9 shows us this metaphor is worth expanding and exploring in how it can accomplish being a reliable, performant distributed operating system with a fraction of the code required by other systems.
Kubernetes is more complex than a single Unix system. It is less complex than manually configuring multiple systems to give the same benefits of Kubernetes in terms of automatic reconciliation, failure recovery, and declarative configuration. This is because those three are first class citizens in Kubernetes, whereas they're just afterthoughts in traditional systems. This also makes Kubernetes much more maintainable and secure. Every workload is containerized, every workload has predeclared conditions under which it should run. If it drifts out of those parameters Kubernetes automatically corrects that (when it comes to reconciliation) and/or blocks the undesirable behaviour (security). And Kubernetes keeps an audit trail for its actions, something that again in Unix land is an optional feature.
My point is Kubernetes is a hack (a useful hack!) to synchronize multiple separate, different systems in certain ways. It cannot provide anything close to something like a single system image and it can't bridge the discrete model of computation that Unix assumes.
This also makes Kubernetes much more maintainable and secure. Every workload is containerized, every workload has predeclared conditions under which it should run. If it drifts out of those parameters Kubernetes automatically corrects that (when it comes to reconciliation) and/or blocks the undesirable behaviour (security). And Kubernetes keeps an audit trail for its actions, something that again in Unix land is an optional feature.
All these features require a lot of code and complexity to maintain (latest info I can find is almost 2 million as of 2018). Ideally, Kubernetes is capable of what you said, in the same way that ideally programs can't violate Unix filesystem DAC or other user permissions but in practice every line of code is another opportunity for something to go wrong…
Just because something has more security features doesn't mean it's actually secure. Or that it's maintainable without a company with thousands of engineers and tons of money maintaining for you. Keeping you in a dependent relationship.
It also has negligible adoption compared to HTTP. And unless it provides an order of magnitude advantage over HTTP, then it's going to be unlikely that developers will use it. Consider git vs mercurial. Is the latter better than git? Almost certainly. Is it 10x better? No, and that's why it finds it hard to gain traction against git.
So? I don't expect many of these ideas will be adopted in the mainstream under the monopoly-capitalist market system. It's way more profitable to keep selling support to manage sprawling and complex systems that require armies of software engineers to upkeep. I think if state investment or public research in general becomes relevant again maybe these ideas will be investigated and adopted for their technical merit.
Even an online filesystem does not guarantee high availability. If I want highly available data I still need to have replication, leader election, load balancing, failure detection, traffic routing, and geographic distribution. You don't do those in the filesystem layer, you do them in the application layer.
"Highly available" is carrying a lot of weight there lol. If we can move some of these qualities into a filesystem layer (which is a userspace application on some systems) and get these benefits for free for all data, why shouldn't we? The filesystem layer and application layer are not 2 fundamentally separate unrelated parts of a whole.
Nice ad hominem. I guess it's rules for thee, but not for me.
Lol, stop being condescending and I won't respond in kind.
So what's the problem? Didn't you just say that the Unix way of doing things is outdated?
I think the reason the Unix way of doing things is outdated is cuz it didn't go far enough!
Dismissal based on flawed anecdote is preconception.
What? lol
It's not a flawed anecdote or a preconception. They had their own personal experience with a cloud tool and didn't like it.
You can't ![smuglord](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/97a4a756-428f-4517-846a-1c810805ad28.png "emoji smuglord") someone into liking something.
I'd rather hire an open-mined junior than a gray-bearded Unix wizard that dismisses anything unfamilar.
I'm not a gray-bearded Unix wizard and I'm not dismissing these tools because they're unfamiliar. I have technical criticism of them and their approach. I think the OP feels the same way.
The assumption among certain computer touchers is that you can't use Kubernetes or "cloud" tools and not come away loving them. So if someone doesn't like them they must not really understand them!
It's hard to not take that as bad faith.
They probably could've said it nicer. It's still no excuse to dismiss criticism because you didn't like the tone.
I think Kubernetes has its uses, for now. But it's still a fundamentally limited and harmful (because of its monopolistic maintainers/creators) way to do a kind of distributed computing. I don't think anyone is coming for you to take your Kubernetes though…
I uhh wasn’t literally about to go do this or anything…