AmigaOne based WebServers

[DaveP]

>that makes you think that testing hardware cannot
>be done by people that actually use that hardware
>for the purpose that was intended by it?

Hyperion already was wrong the last time they said
that there are no bugs in Articia. So why should
somebody trust them this time?

Why is this relevant to the question at hand? Do you think that testing cannot be performed by actually using the hardware for the purpose intended?

I also see this said a lot of times "Hyperion already was wrong the last time they said that there are no bugs in Articia. "

Can you or someone else point to a link where Hyperion actually said precisely that?

[minator]

Or are you saying that OpenBSD cannot be broken into regardless of patch level ( not credible ) or are you saying that Linux does not undergo security reviews ( wrong ) or are you saying that no other OS has security built in ( wrong ) or are you saying that OS with ESMs are not as secure ( wrong )?

Please be so kind as not to put words into my mouth, I did not say any of that.

Nah, I think that OpenBSD, fearful of Linux popularity has decided to build up a wee bit of mythology around itself to help it survive.

They do not need any myths, 1 root exploit in 7 years speaks for itself.

It's really quite obvious that a group that concentrates all it's efforts on security is going to be better at it than a group that does not.

[zacman]

>Do you think that testing cannot be performed by
>actually using the hardware for the purpose
>intended?

In this case yes. Because those issues happen
randomly under "normal" use but can be
reproduced under very specific conditions.

>Can you or someone else point to a link where
>Hyperion actually said precisely that?

Sure.

"Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion- (134.58.222.78)
on 30-Sep-2002 19:20

For the record, there is no Articia bug."

He then continues with some FUD against bplan
which I won't quote here.

[mikeymike]

@ anarchic_teapot

No, "they" say the most secure OS is one which is kept up to date with all the patches and properly configured.

Well said.

@ Colin Camper

Well there is an openBSD host sitting on the internet for quite some time waiting to be hacked and with prize money attached to it.

Whoop-de-do.  My NT4 server has been on the net for coming on three years and hasn't been compromised, because I keep it patched and maintain it well.

[mikeymike]

People, stop advocating random operating systems saying "they're secure" or implying that they're more secure than others.  As some here have said already, they're only as secure as well as they are maintained, by their developers and well as their sysadmins.

Some operating systems have had a worse track record when taking in the number of root-level compromises into account.

But, just like when Code Red "sorted the men from the boys" in terms of Windows sysadmins, those with half a brain configured their servers properly, avoiding the obvious potential risk, from those that didn't, who ended up spending a long time cleaning up their systems or reinstalling them.

[Tomas]

no probs using aone as a server, but you better use some nix* variant like linux or similar...

Though would be kinda expensive server.... i would not waste an aone for that, would rather use some kind of x86.

[Tomas]

one thing i know for sure, linux is really more secure than a winserver, even though the windows server is up2date with security fixes and such...

[T_Bone]

An AmigaOne would be a crummy choice for a webserver, you can get a doorstop pentium practically free for this purpose as they litter the earth, why spend all that on an exotic piece of Amiga hardware just to run a mundane webserver that any old $0.02 discarded PC can do?

Sure it could do it just fine, but why?

[T_Bone]

> They do not need any myths, 1 root exploit in 7
> years speaks for itself.

"On a default install."

Of course, because everything is DISABLED on a default install. My Windows box is secure too, if I disable networking!
 :-P

[JoannaK]

@DaveP

Well.. At least I'm honest with my views and don't attack others anomously on ann.lu. And that's a lot more than can be  said among few aroud here.

And seeing your posts and personal attacks, it's quite obvious you are even less neural than I am.. So blame me here..  :-D

[iamaboringperson]

theres absolutly NO WAY youd catch me using an amigaone or pegasos for a server! NO WAY!!!

for that price, its workstation only!! IMHO

for the same sort of price id rather go for somthing higher end! if it were for business or whatever, consider SUN RS/6000 SGI HP etc...

amigaone is for sitting on your desk, and programming on, and general nerding!
 :-)

[DaveP]

@JoannaK

"And seeing your posts"
Yes I post. Congratulations.

" and personal attacks,"
Oh, now what do you think is a personal attack?

" it's quite obvious you are even less neural than I am.. So blame me here.. "

Neural? Care to sit an IQ test?

I notice you continue to dodge the question, what are your credentials?

"Well.. At least I'm honest with my views"
Im honest with my views too.

" and don't attack others anomously on ann.lu."
I don't either. But then you claim that and there is no way of proving it. I guess we will have to say innocent until proven guilty.

" And that's a lot more than can be said among few aroud here. "
Quite. But can you for once instead of just throwing FUD cogs into threads actually substantiate your points with evidence? That is all I ask of you - alternatively you can answer the question and tell us why we should all give your opinions such credit that they don't require substantiation.

[DaveP]

zacman wrote:
>Do you think that testing cannot be performed by
>actually using the hardware for the purpose
>intended?

In this case yes. Because those issues happen
randomly under "normal" use but can be
reproduced under very specific conditions.

If they happen randomly under "normal" use then they are detected under normal use. It is the job of a tester to find the specific conditions that can reproduce it 10 times out of 10 and raise the defect.

The problem is initial detection.

So yes, testing can and should be performed using the board under "normal" conditions. Normal being defined as a set of scenarios ( or use cases ) for the given target market.

If an error *only* occurred under specific conditions in a scenario where the board would not normally get used it is still a bug but is it one worth fixing now or patching later if anyone finds it? Thats the job of the delivery team.

>Can you or someone else point to a link where
>Hyperion actually said precisely that?

Sure.

"Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion- (134.58.222.78)
on 30-Sep-2002 19:20

For the record, there is no Articia bug."

He then continues with some FUD against bplan
which I won't quote here.

Thank you for actually doing what was asked, although it would be nice to have the link to that ;-). The only thing I have found that matches the phrase is a repost on a Polish website which I can't translate! ( www.amiga.pl/comments.jsp?nid=1595  )

The other thing I would like to see is some documentation of exactly what the bug is that April fixes and documented proof that it is actually in Articia and is somehow critical to operation?

http://www.pegasos-uk.com/english/support_pegafaq.html

..is the only vaguely useful document on the matter but even that does not contain a lot of meat.

I think it would be ludicrous to claim that any product
is bug free ( but then Ben Hermans is not technical ).

I realise we are straying from the main point here by a long way but it is about time a bit of put up or shut up happened.

Finally there are more than one way to patch around a bug, more than one way to find a bug and more than one way to fix a bug. Remember even the push
on chips we used to have to put on A1200 mobos to allow us to use Zorro II busboards? Or the pin to pin wire connections for the earlier versions?

To claim that somehow the AmigaONE is flawed because it does not have "April" is disingenuous.

[JoannaK]

@DaveP
Just for this once I'll humor you. But would you mind telling me why I'm the only one who has to show credentials here?  :-?  

I've been around Amiga since early days. Was one of OS1.4 -Beta testers ..  Since Commodores demise moved to hw engineering and other patforms. Lately being designing and testing embedded PPC devices at Internet Technologies.. Some publicly displayable reference boards are on company website at www.iti.fi  

And you? Yet another Physiotheraupist reborn as a Os-analysists or self learned lawyer ?  :-o

[DaveP]

Just for this once I'll humor you. But would you mind telling me why I'm the only one who has to show credentials here?  

Because, as I have already said, you throw assertions into threads without substantiation. Is it so mad as to require "humouring" to ask for some evidence?

I've been around Amiga since early days. Was one of OS1.4 -Beta testers

Now that is very interesting, anywhere you can back this up? I thought I was the only one alive who actually had disk images of 1.4. ;-)

..
Since Commodores demise

Whats this, a paid beta tester for 1.4? Did you actually work FOR C=?

moved to hw engineering and other patforms. Lately being designing and testing embedded PPC devices at Internet Technologies.. Some publicly displayable reference boards are on company website at www.iti.fi

Cool, Ill go check it out. Now how exactly do you TEST those PPC devices?

And you? Yet another Physiotheraupist reborn as a Os-analysists or self learned lawyer ?

Well at least you don't resort to personal insults eh?

No I'm a "Software Engineer" who has worked on such projects as OS/2 2.1, OS/400, DCE, the JTS implementation shipped with WebSphere, JVMs for Itanium ( pre-production working a week at a time at Intel sharing sparse time with other teams ) and PPC etc. Software, software, software.  

You can work out the chronology by the release dates I would guess. Recently I have been working on several things at once, none of which I can talk about until release mores the pity. I happen now to have a side business that I own through invested capital selling solutions as well as work under contract.

All of these you will note are pretty large scale development and testing operations. I happen to know from bitter experience that you only have problems at product integration to the extent of having to go back to the drawing board if

a) you are being managed by a bunch of retards at "architecture" stage.

b) you are a retard or engineering collectively has been retarded and did not follow the architectural plans for the system.

So this is why when I picked up your assertion ( fud cog ) that the worst bit of producing OS4.0 was likely to come at the integration level as being unlikely.

This is also why ( JVM use of Itanium being an example ) I happen to know that the second best method of picking out bugs with hardware is to run software on it.

This is why I have questioned your assertions each time and asked for substantiation because it is so much at odds with my own experience.

[DaveP]

"a) you are being managed by a bunch of retards at "architecture" stage"

which may or may not be the case ;-) But what I meant to add here was that given the syntax and semantics ( the implicit contract ) of the OS exposed to application programmers are well known and well documented ( if nothing but through simulation by running OS3.9 ) that the only big concern would be whether or not Petunia works properly in this context.