Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Mar 2006 13:42 UTC, submitted by george
Oracle and SUN Sun's Grid network was hit by a denial-of-service attack on its first day. "To let people try out the Sun Grid, the company made a text-to-speech translation service publicly accessible for, for example, turning blog entries into podcasts. 'It became the focus of a denial of service attack,' said Aisling MacRunnels, Sun's senior director of utility computing said in an interview." However, the attack was easily delt with: "Sun moved the service to be within the regular Sun Grid, which requires authorisation to use. The attacks didn't disturb the regular grid, Sun said.
Order by: Score:
Looks like a non-news
by mario on Thu 23rd Mar 2006 14:29 UTC
mario
Member since:
2005-07-06

Unless, of course, you missed the news about the launch of the Sun Grid earlier this week.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Looks like a non-news
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 23rd Mar 2006 14:47 UTC in reply to "Looks like a non-news"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Unless, of course, you missed the news about the launch of the Sun Grid earlier this week.

Which we did not.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Looks like a non-news
by mario on Thu 23rd Mar 2006 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Looks like a non-news"
mario Member since:
2005-07-06

I wasn't talking to/about OSNews editors but readers.

Anyhow, props to Sun foractually making good on their promise of bringing this service to market, however weird the business model behind it.

Reply Score: 1

KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

"Absolute anonymity breeds irresponsibility," he said in a 2003 interview. "Audit trails and authentication provide a much more civil society."

Scott McNealy's statement is somewhat justified in the context of Sun Grid usage. But the statement bothers me. Anonymity gives control, and therefore freedom, to the individual. There have been various ideas proposed to fight DOS attacks without loss of anonymity. They may or may not work for Sun Grid, but in general I think the topics of anonymity and the ability to withstand attacks are not at odds.

Reply Score: 0

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

I think you're incorrect. Look at the internet. Look at half the posts on this site. That's what anonymity does. All the idiots and fools come out of the woodwork and start randomly attacking whatever they feel like, be it verbally or technically. It's really funny to get insulted by some punk 16 year old kid here on OSNews when you know if you were standing in front of the little dolt, he'd be calling you sir and kissing your feet. Such is life on the net.

Don't ever underestimate human stupidity when left to their own devices. Anonymity allows for this. It has always, and short of Utopia coming to exist, WILL always be inevitable. You give people the opportunity to act without consequences, and all of the socially unacceptable things you are used to not dealing with, will suddenly appear. Don't be naive and think humans are "good." Kids are, adults aren't.

Reply Score: 5

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Look at half the posts on this site. That's what anonymity does. All the idiots and fools come out of the woodwork and start randomly attacking whatever they feel like, be it verbally or technically.

OK, look at half the posts on this site. I think well more than half of them are thoughtful, even if I disagree with a lot of the conclusions. Some of them are worded arrogantly, but those people may be arrogant in person too.

And MOST of the people who post comments on this site--I have observed--do not use their real names. Sometimes people with very silly-sounding usernames post very cogent and sage views--with near anonymity.

Don't ever underestimate human stupidity when left to their own devices.

I have said a lot of things like this too, and there is no denying that a lot of people are stupid. But I was commenting on the larger context than just site access. And anyway, I don't think it's accurate to characterize the many by the sins of the few.

Reply Score: 0

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

"OK, look at half the posts on this site. I think well more than half of them are thoughtful, even if I disagree with a lot of the conclusions. Some of them are worded arrogantly, but those people may be arrogant in person too."

I'm sure they are arrogant in person. They just (in general) are less likely to travel the "path of the ass" when they are accountable for what they do. I've seen a lot of 13 year old kids tell 40-someodd year old people to "STFU" online. Yes, there are punk children (well, I should say poorly raised children) who would do that in person, but the majority would not. This is just one example, you can extrapolate all the examples of online-abuse, misuse, etc - I would hope. If you feel more than half of the posts here are thoughtful, you're probably correct. I was exaggerating to make my point clear. I'm sorry that you took it literally. I simply meant there is more of "it" (the bad behavior) on the 'net where you can be anonymous, than in the world where it's much more difficult. This is my experience.

"And MOST of the people who post comments on this site--I have observed--do not use their real names. Sometimes people with very silly-sounding usernames post very cogent and sage views--with near anonymity. "

That was why I used this site as an example. Again, my apologies for not being more clear that I was exaggerating for effect.

"
I have said a lot of things like this too, and there is no denying that a lot of people are stupid. But I was commenting on the larger context than just site access. And anyway, I don't think it's accurate to characterize the many by the sins of the few."

I think everybody has said things like that many times over. Unfortunately, even while looking for the "positive" in people, most of the time I end up with a nice big pile of dog poo in my hands. This is why I have such a pessamistic view of humankind. It's not over-generalization, it's experience. If you live a life where idiots are not the majority of the people you're dealing with, more power to you and never let it go. I, unfortunately, seem to be surrounded by them every time I leave the house in the morning until the time I get home. They just don't spit all over me like people tend to attempt online, because they know I'm going to rip off their heads and feed their bodies to the sharks.

The joys of living in Hawaii!

- David

Reply Score: 3

Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't ever underestimate human stupidity when left to their own devices. Anonymity allows for this. It has always, and short of Utopia coming to exist, WILL always be inevitable. You give people the opportunity to act without consequences, and all of the socially unacceptable things you are used to not dealing with, will suddenly appear.

AKA "John Gabriel's Greater Internet f--kwad Theory" ( http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 )

I agree somewhat by the way, but when offered the choice between anonimity for all with some idiots running around or no anonimity even for the responsable people I prefer the former. After all we don't put everyone in jail because some people are criminals either.

Reply Score: 1

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

"I agree somewhat by the way, but when offered the choice between anonimity for all with some idiots running around or no anonimity even for the responsable people I prefer the former. After all we don't put everyone in jail because some people are criminals either."

I concur. I, however, would prefer to find a third option. ;)

Just a quick idea off the top of my head, and probably invalid on so many levels it's not even funny, but hopefully it can clarify what I mean.

Example: OSNews
Idea: Don't allow anonymous posting for members with sub 1 average comment scores. Obviously this isn't true anonymity as OSNews itself would still know who you are, but it would be pretty damn close. It's not like they don't know your IPs from the server-logs anyways.

The funny thing is, the more I think about it, the more I realize 99% of what I do, I have no need to be "anonymous" for. There are very few times when I do not want to be responsible for my own words/actions. In most cases, I'm actually quite proud of what I say/do, and WANT people to know I'm the one saying/doing it!

There are cases when this isn't true, for instance if I lived in a country where opression was common, I would not want to speak out against the government and be beheaded the next day. I'd prefer to remain anonymous.

The funny thing is, there are already methods in place for this kind of anonymity. If you really need it, you can find it. Tor is just one such example.

That being said, I'd rather most people be responsible for their actions/words in most cases. The perception of people in this country (USA) around the world would jump a bazillion percent if this occured. I'm tired of a very few (minority) being able to completely destroy the entire world's opinion of an entire nation's worth of people on the net. We're not nameless/faceless people in life, we shouldn't be on the internet.

At least in the "real world" (tm) intelligent people in other countries can blame the actual cause of their grief on the people responsible. Of course, some will generalize and say all of people X in country Y are bad, but in general they will blame those responsible.

(As a side note...)
I suppose in the USA you can blame the people for the vote, but I'd hesitate to do that until you understood just how terrible our voting system is (has become), and how we (the people) really don't have much of a choice/make much of a difference anymore. All of the running candidates suck. We have to vote for the lesser of two (sometimes three) evils. Whichever wins, they are still evil. Don't attack me, I'd like to see you get somebody in the running for presidency in america. Short of having a billion dollars, it's not going to happen. I guess we'll have to wait for another revolution. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Kelson Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with McNealy's statement that anonymity breeds irresponsibility. When there is no way to be held accountable, there is no motivation towards personal responsibility beyond your own personal integrity, which is sorely lacking in society today.

There are specific situations where anonymity has value, I will not dispute that. However, in the general flow of life, if you cannot hang your name on what you have to say, you probably should not be saying it.

I also realize that I'm posting this using a nick and not my full legal name. In my defense, I can only state that I use a consistent nick and on-line identity everywhere posssible, maintaining it as a virtual identity consistently for over a decade, not absolute anonymity.

- Kelson

Reply Score: 3

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

Being responsible doesn't require a real name. It just requires an *identity*. You are not anonymous in the sense that if you do something to offend someone, or something to cause havoc somewhere - there is an *identify* to point the finger at. As long as you respond to the finger pointing, you're being responsible for your actions. The moment you create a new pseudoname in order to mask your past, is the moment you take on anonymity.

ormandj isn't my real name either. It's a combination of my real names (david j. orman) but you cannot know that just from seeing "ormandj". I still post under this nickname, it's in my email, I use it everywhere. I am responsible for what I do/say/etc. If somebody has beef with me, they can call my business #(it's pretty simple to figure out) and gripe to a real person, in fact - they could gripe to me directly. The whole point is, there is a way/fashion for somebody to point a finger if need be. If I do something wrong, I'm actually there to "pay" for it. I don't suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke. ;)

I commend you for realizing just because anonymity is possible, it isn't generally desirable. It's fine to disconnect your real life from your online presence, it's just important to realize your online presence has (or should have) responsibilities too. The net has it's own society, and it's own social rules. ;)

Reply Score: 3

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I'm very surprised by the responses to this thread. I've been trying to take the high road and see the good in people. I argue the benefits of anonymity because it's connected to freedom. I like free software (as in freedom), I like political freedom, and I think people should have the option of anonymity. Yet the comments of others arguing the opposite--that people can't be trusted--get higher scores.

There is an article posted about 11 articles above this one titled, "Red Hat Opens Knowledge Base." It says, You no longer need to login to access [the Red Hat Knowledgebase]. People are now praising Red Hat for allowing anonymous access, and of course I'm in hearty agreement.

But I don't understand why there is an opposite reaction to that story and my comment about McNealy's statement when there is such an obvious thead connecting them.

Reply Score: 0

RE: The curious Red Hat connection
by ormandj on Fri 24th Mar 2006 04:48 UTC in reply to "The curious Red Hat connection"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

"I'm very surprised by the responses to this thread. I've been trying to take the high road and see the good in people. I argue the benefits of anonymity because it's connected to freedom. I like free software (as in freedom), I like political freedom, and I think people should have the option of anonymity. Yet the comments of others arguing the opposite--that people can't be trusted--get higher scores. "

First thing I'd like to point out, higher scores on OSNews really mean nothing. Take them with a grain of salt, just as you would moderation on Slashdot. This isn't the general populous, this is a very small subset of people, and the scoring is going to be skewed. It doesn't make your opinion any less worthwhile. ;)

"There is an article posted about 11 articles above this one titled, "Red Hat Opens Knowledge Base." It says, You no longer need to login to access [the Red Hat Knowledgebase]. People are now praising Red Hat for allowing anonymous access, and of course I'm in hearty agreement."

I think you are missing the real reason this is different. Red Hat is providing an information source, and much like most websites on earth, you can now visit it without signing up/logging in every time you want to view information. This is much different then allowing people anonymous access to a utility grid, or a place of discussion, etc. People can't wreak havoc by merely *viewing* information. I agree, anonymity is good in that situation.

"But I don't understand why there is an opposite reaction to that story and my comment about McNealy's statement when there is such an obvious thead connecting them."

That obvious thread really doesn't exist. McNealy let people have anonymous access to something they could actually *do* something with. Not just read. Troublemakers had a field day. Lesson learned, anonymous access is gone. People have long lambasted Sun for requiring registration for various things, but when they finally got something that didn't require it, they abused the hell out of it. What do you think Sun is going to take away from this experience? Don't allow anonymous service users.

You can take the high road, and that's just fine. Maybe you're right to do so! Maybe we should all look at the good and ignore the bad. Maybe we should all be up in arms about freedom. I'm not one to speak for humanity. I do speak for myself (and apparently people here generally agree) that anonymity has it's place, but so does responsibility. It's up to the provider to determine how to balance this. Sun attempted anonymity, and look at what they got in return.

I hope this clarifies the scoring here better, and why the two topics got totally different responses. Simply put, Sun tried to provide "freedom" (anonymity isn't freedom in my world, but I'll use your definition), and they got burned. That shoots a rather big hole in the "people are good" argument. It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone. And hey, what's so hard about registering for a service you are being provided for FREE that costs somebody a pretty penny? Give and get, as they say!

Reply Score: 3

PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

And hey, what's so hard about registering for a service you are being provided for FREE that costs somebody a pretty penny? Give and get, as they say!

The problem with mandatory registration is this:
No-one outside the US is allowed to register.

:/

Reply Score: 2

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

Well, there are some valid reasons for this. Laws in other countries are not the same as the US. We can't very well send police to go get you if you do something naughty. ;)

I do hope they open it internationally (and they likely will, they want the rest of the world's money just as much as they want American's!) At the same time, I can understand keeping it domestic-only until legal issues can be sorted out. It's extremely complex to get into the international market, especially with a service. I've hit the same roadblocks myself. ;)

We (as humans) really need to work on making the world whole. Right now we're a bunch of "tribes" guarding our territories, and barking at all who come near, biting all who tread on our property. This isn't going to work out for very much longer..

That being said, realize this is common practice not just for US based companies, but companies in other countries too. EU countries, asian, etc. It's unfortunate, but with the world's current set of disparate legal systems/cultures/etc, it's nearly impossible to setup global operations. It is absolutely 100% insane to try and globalize an un-tested service right out of the gate. Better to test in a market you understand, THEN explore others. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Problem revealed, let's quit
by KenJackson on Fri 24th Mar 2006 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE: The curious Red Hat connection"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I encourage curious onlookers to skip this thread and move on because it's getting so boring that even I'm going to stop reading it.

That obvious thread really doesn't exist. McNealy let people have anonymous access to something they could actually *do* something with. Not just read. Troublemakers had a field day.

OK, I see the problem. Let's review the start of my original statement:

Scott McNealy's statement is somewhat justified in the context of Sun Grid usage. But the statement bothers me.

You see, just as you make an exception for anonymity being OK in the read-only Red Hat case, I started off with an exception (that apparently was missed) in the Sun Grid case.

I felt well justified in backing up and talking about the general case of anonymity (NOT the specific case of Sun Grid) because although McNealy's quote appeared in the article it was from an interview in 2003, NOT specific to Sun Grid.

Reply Score: 1

Must be a Solaris hating Linux fanboy
by stephanem on Thu 23rd Mar 2006 18:07 UTC
stephanem
Member since:
2006-01-11

who took down Sun's Grid.

*I kid you linux fans*

Reply Score: 1

Fuc_ing idiots.
by riha on Thu 23rd Mar 2006 21:11 UTC
riha
Member since:
2006-01-24

Why does people has to do stuff like this all the time.
Arghh, i get so mad on people just trying to do bad for everyone else.

Reply Score: 1