Right, this thread is for telling folk that the 'proper' ILX is down again, so if you see this above the "ILX is back up" thread it means ILX is back down

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Got it?

nu_onimo (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 11:13 (fourteen years ago) link

Down :(

nu_onimo (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 11:13 (fourteen years ago) link

Very slow, it might as well be.

M Grout (Mark Grout), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 11:29 (fourteen years ago) link

I'm getting fed up to fuck with ilx breaking down. what happened to all the money that was contributed to fix it?

Ste, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 11:57 (fourteen years ago) link

Stet spent it on organic cider

nu_onimo (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 11:58 (fourteen years ago) link

Pash was just about to post an announcement about it when it went down :(

stet (stet), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 12:04 (fourteen years ago) link

Up and down like and uppy downy thing

nu_onimo (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 12:34 (fourteen years ago) link

Darnation. I'm not getting poxy fuled though - just nothing...

Mr Edward Trifle, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 12:53 (fourteen years ago) link

Up and down like and uppy downy thing

You mean one of those things that yoyoers use, don't you? Can't remember what they're called either, but you're OTM.

StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 14:12 (fourteen years ago) link

I was thinking more the kind of things pogo stickers use. One of them.

nu_onimo (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 14:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Ste, that money was to find a new host in case the current ones were kicking us out. It was not to reprogram it (which is why it breaks all the time). people are kindly volunteering their talents to do that.

Ms Misery (MsMisery), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 14:38 (fourteen years ago) link

i.e. it is sitting in stet's bank account gathering interest, which he is using to buy organic cider. Probably.

ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 14:41 (fourteen years ago) link

I'm now trying to think of other things which go up-and-down all the time. I'm sure I remember, back when I was a kid, that there was an expression about going 'up and down like a one-armed paper-hanger" but I might be wrong.

C J (C J), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 14:51 (fourteen years ago) link

I believe "whore's knickers" is the phrase of choice, though the more polite may prefer "bride's nightie"

nu_onimo (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 14:57 (fourteen years ago) link

cheers MM, I'd forgotten about the hosting issue.

Ste, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 14:57 (fourteen years ago) link

Whore's drawers!

C J (C J), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 15:03 (fourteen years ago) link

like a 2 dollar hooker

Ste, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 15:06 (fourteen years ago) link

No I'm not!

C J (C J), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 15:09 (fourteen years ago) link

Whore's drawers sounds better, you get away with it in polite company as people mistake it for hors d'oeuvres

nu_onimo (nu_onimo), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 15:12 (fourteen years ago) link

GUESS PAPERS

token american, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 15:12 (fourteen years ago) link

Parties where whores drawers are mistaken for hors d'oeuvres sound a bit raunchy.

C J (C J), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 15:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Not to mention louche.

Michael White (Miguelito), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 15:49 (fourteen years ago) link

a glorious new dawn can't come soon enough. BRING ON THE NEW CODE. AND THE NEW SERVERS. AND THE DANCING HORSES.

grimly fiendish (simon), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 17:44 (fourteen years ago) link

I think the only place you're going to find dancing horses is on the Noise Board's ASK LAUREL thread.

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 17:48 (fourteen years ago) link

Yes, token, it's going up and down like guess papers. What?

StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 18:12 (fourteen years ago) link

Those are really more plummeting horses, since they appear to have jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge.

Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 18:15 (fourteen years ago) link

olol o who o why

token american, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 18:24 (fourteen years ago) link

This was great! I got loads of work done this morning.

I Am Curious (George) (Slight Return) (Rock Hardy), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 18:40 (fourteen years ago) link

it's a radical step, but couldn't you limit a lot of the ILX problems by restricting access to logged-in users (with an 'in' for GoogleBot specifically)? That would have to cut down on a lot of the traffic and usage overwhelming the server.

milo (milo), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 18:42 (fourteen years ago) link

i think it's a bit late for such sticking-plaster measures. BRING ON THE GLORIOUS NEW DAWN. before it's too late and we all get bored.

grimly, fiendishly not logged in, Wednesday, 1 November 2006 19:25 (fourteen years ago) link

after 5 years if I'm still here, despite being bored, I doubt anything can drive me away.

Ms Misery (MsMisery), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 19:27 (fourteen years ago) link

the real ilx just redirected me here...

lf (lfam), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 20:45 (fourteen years ago) link

But the real ILX is down. I CALL YOUR BLUFF.

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 20:50 (fourteen years ago) link

yes I haven't even gotten a poxyfule.

Ms Misery (MsMisery), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 20:50 (fourteen years ago) link

i'm glad it's down, i'd only annoy myself by moaning on football threads

nu_onimo (nu_onimo), Thursday, 2 November 2006 09:48 (fourteen years ago) link

oh wait it's up again

zebedeeyoyopogoknickers

nu_onimo (nu_onimo), Thursday, 2 November 2006 09:49 (fourteen years ago) link

Knacked again :-/

ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:18 (fourteen years ago) link

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: logsqlquery() in /home/ilx/dev/stable/boardfunctions.php on line 179

grady (grady), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:19 (fourteen years ago) link

xpost

It's down for me--I get:

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: logsqlquery() in /home/ilx/dev/stable/boardfunctions.php on line 179

patita (patita), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:19 (fourteen years ago) link

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: logsqlquery() in /home/ilx/dev/stable/boardfunctions.php on line 179

grady (grady), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:19 (fourteen years ago) link

"Fatal Error" sounds really scary. Anyone ever seen that before?

grady (grady), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:21 (fourteen years ago) link

poxy fule! first in ages!

bronimo, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 20:24 (fourteen years ago) link

IT WAS OJ.

grady (grady), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 20:26 (fourteen years ago) link

Bah :-/

ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 20:28 (fourteen years ago) link

more poxy fulage....

grady (grady), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 20:54 (fourteen years ago) link

the glove didn't fit!

bronimo, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 20:55 (fourteen years ago) link

Life's funny. I never thought I would be revisiting the OJ case when I got up this morning.

whoop de doodle (kenan), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 21:37 (fourteen years ago) link

Clearly trife was getting to the bottom of things. The LAPD had to shut us down.

milo (milo), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 21:39 (fourteen years ago) link

I can't wait for Kobe Bryant's "How That Woman Would've Known It Was Rape."

PPlains (PPlains), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 21:48 (fourteen years ago) link

If I had poxy fuled, this is how I'd have done it.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 21:51 (fourteen years ago) link

yes hacking into the main db is a very, very bad thing. which is, from what I understand, why he did it. to show how dangerous it was.

Ms Misery (MsMisery), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:37 (fourteen years ago) link

"He didn't really _shoot_ anyone, I don't see what the fuss is about."

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:38 (fourteen years ago) link

x-post -- I need to look for that wall again.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:38 (fourteen years ago) link

also, yeah, lolz at Laurel. But I'll be all little miss principle here and suggest that if Jon had decided to ban, say, Ned or Dan or Allyzay or Nabisco or someone who isn't quite the polariser that Kaet is, the reaction might be slightly different.

ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:38 (fourteen years ago) link

but he didn't!

onimo (nu_onimo), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:39 (fourteen years ago) link

BAN ALLYZAY

a_p (a_p), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:41 (fourteen years ago) link

Oh yeah! xpost to onimo

(someone please randomly ban nathalie for experimental purposes)

ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:41 (fourteen years ago) link

The guy broke into the house, and he only took a couple of CDs. I think it's cool, cos it shows me that broken lock that I KNEW WAS BROKEN and had the LOCKSMITH BOOKED TO COME FIX was broken. He didn't steal the TV, after all.

stet (stet), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:44 (fourteen years ago) link

Yeah but the CDs he stole were all shite ones no-one wanted to listen to.

onimo (nu_onimo), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:45 (fourteen years ago) link

rofl

Ms Misery (MsMisery), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:45 (fourteen years ago) link

(I should just read the kittens threads tbh)

onimo (nu_onimo), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:45 (fourteen years ago) link

I don't think that's exactly what principle means (xp or randomly) :)

The principle is that you don't ban people because you don't like them. Which, yeah, isn't a Fundamental Human Right or anything, and obviously jon comes from the noise board where that principle doesn't hold at all. But that's part of why he doesn't have site-wide powers, and why people are anxious about him giving himself them.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:48 (fourteen years ago) link

Of course it's wrong, you have to be retarded not to realize this but he did it to show how loopy ilx was. FFS he could have wrecked ILX but he DID NOT.

nathalie (stevienixed), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:49 (fourteen years ago) link

Ned do you want me to move the wall a bit closer?

Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:50 (fourteen years ago) link

Could you please?

Nath, can I repeat something I JUST FREAKIN' POSTED FROM STET'S EARLIER COMMENT:

The old ILX code running depends on people not trying to break it, or hack in.

If Jon is going to hack the boards by finding holes -- of which there are many -- we can't leave them up without doing a lot more admin work to try and stop him.

In otherwards, could you please allow for the fact that, perhaps, the mods maybe possibly kinda knew that there were problems with the code as it stands?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:53 (fourteen years ago) link

xpost
yeah but Nath that's like saying "Sure he had a gun, but he only shot that person in the foot. He COULD have killed him!" ;) (I'm just having fun with you.)

also, we must all remember that this is just ILx. Not terribly huge and important in the great scheme of life. (as opposed to our feet.)

Ms Misery (MsMisery), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:53 (fourteen years ago) link

In other words, it's the hacking itself that's the problem, not what he did or didn't do once he'd hacked in.

I don't know how many other ways there are for people to say this.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:53 (fourteen years ago) link

Of course it's wrong, you have to be retarded not to realize this but he did it to show how loopy ilx was.

And the first time he did this, people took his intentions into account and said "thanks, but don't do it that way". But this isn't the first time he's done this kind of shit, or even the tenth.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:56 (fourteen years ago) link

7th?

onimo (nu_onimo), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:57 (fourteen years ago) link

I'm happy he did hack into the database and showed us it was fragile

mmm, yes, because NONE of us knew that, did we?

come on: this code is held together with chewing gum and string. that's why it's being recoded, FFS! which jon knows, as does everyone else: what the fuck is the point of "pointing out" security holes in something that's about to be canned anyway?

i can't believe anyone's buying this "it was for the public good" line. it was to noise people up (pun vaguely intended), as is so often the case with jon's little escapades. in which case:

I just mean: cut him some slack

no. don't get me wrong: i like jon some/most of the time, and enjoy his posts. but every so often he seems to have this compulsion to stick his dick into ILX, which only serves to fuck it up for everyone else. why doesn't he cut the board some slack?

grimly fiendish (simon), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:57 (fourteen years ago) link

The principle is that you don't ban people because you don't like them.

Yeah, and why I'm saying it's all very well going, "oh it's just Kate, she's a bit loopy and annoying haha", but I imagine it being someone other than Kate may lead the likes of Nathalie (in fact,it is just nathalie, isn't it?) to taking this a bit more seriously.

In case you were suggesting I didn't know what a principle was. If it wasn't me you were getting at, ignore me.

ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:58 (fourteen years ago) link

also, we must all remember that this is just ILx. Not terribly huge and important in the great scheme of life.

Entirely true. Those who have made it part of their lives on a regular basis via site maintenance, coding, etc., however, have an understandable interest in database and hacking concerns that I think is being ignored or misunderstood by a number of those who haven't. And that's a damn shame. Nobody's looking for hosannas to boost our collective ego, but exactly what is so surprising to you about moderator worries about this situation?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 12 February 2007 15:58 (fourteen years ago) link

Those who have made it part of their lives on a regular basis via site maintenance, coding, etc., however, have an understandable interest in database and hacking concerns that I think is being ignored or misunderstood by a number of those who haven't.

Also, those who have made it part of their lives on a regular basis by READING and CONTRIBUTING (that aren't morons).

Though this is going to end with RJG turning up and telling everyone to let go, isn't it?

ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:01 (fourteen years ago) link

I hope so.

onimo (nu_onimo), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:02 (fourteen years ago) link

Great, now I'm singing Frou Frou in my head.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:02 (fourteen years ago) link

if Jon had decided to ban, say, Ned or Dan or Allyzay or Nabisco or someone who isn't quite the polariser that Kaet is, the reaction might be slightly different.

Well, duh, but he'd've had no reason to ban those people. Okay, maybe Ally...but not the others! Point being: there are a number of people on the boards behaving badly in various ways and NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. Like, not even really standing up to them and saying "Your behavior sucks. Please stop or don't be my/our friend/s." Jon is arguably one of them, everyone's perspective on this will differ. But the lovely virtues of tolerance and politeness and cultivating NICENESS in the world are running up against the fact that plenty of people are oblivious or unconcerned about tactful silences and the gentle pressure of suggestion. It's occasionally helpful to have people around who don't mind rocking the boat, as much of a pain in the ass as they inevitably are.

Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:03 (fourteen years ago) link

Hi Kim! Remember when we had Noise Admin powers and Jon threw a huge shitfit even though we didn't cause the least bit of damage (and never had any intention of doing so)? Remember how I told Jon to calm the fuck down and noted that if he ever did the same thing with ILE, he'd find the whole thing hilarious and would tell us all that it wasn't such a big deal? I'm sure he'll show up soon with his nose running and try to tell us that the two situations aren't the same though ...
-- No Time Before Time (mbvarkes...), February 12th, 2007 8:21 AM.

I'm still waiting for Jon to explain how this is different.

much_aldo_about_nothing (much_aldo_about_nothing), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:03 (fourteen years ago) link

Shooting someone in the foot isn't the same as having your foot shot!

onimo (nu_onimo), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:05 (fourteen years ago) link

Point being: there are a number of people on the boards behaving badly in various ways and NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.

This is a fully legitimate but still separate concern from the hacking question. Conflating the two issues is doing nobody any favors here.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:05 (fourteen years ago) link

(these analogies omg)

onimo (nu_onimo), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:06 (fourteen years ago) link

Well, duh, he had no reason to ban Kate either. Also, if I was appointing people to be the judge of who ILX would be better off without (which I'm not, and never would) - Jon wouldn't exactly be top of the list, so why the fuck he gets to appoint himself the guardian of ILX is anyone's guess. xpost to Laurel

(also, Kate doesn't even know about any of this, so it hasn't exactly worked)

ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:06 (fourteen years ago) link

(Haha, I know!)

Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:07 (fourteen years ago) link

Yeah, and why I'm saying it's all very well going, "oh it's just Kate, she's a bit loopy and annoying haha", but I imagine it being someone other than Kate may lead the likes of Nathalie (in fact,it is just nathalie, isn't it?) to taking this a bit more seriously.

Yeah, but it's not much of a principle if you have to go "imagine if it was someone who counts" (er, not that Kate doesn't count). The principle is that it matters more if it's someone unpopular (I'd make an analogy to legal representation for terrorists, but I want to be able to turn up to Nu-Shimura Curves gigs without wearing a disguise).

And I think Nathalie acknowledges that it was wrong, but doesn't think it's important - it's Laurel that's going "Go go gadget-Jon!"

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:08 (fourteen years ago) link

In otherwards, could you please allow for the fact that, perhaps, the mods maybe possibly kinda knew that there were problems with the code as it stands?

Furthermore, from what the mods and Jon have both said: the mods are not aware of the exploit that Jon used, and it is an exploit that would seem to allow him to use the boards *as any user* - he certainly said he could carry out mod actions and have it recorded that another mod had done them.

As people upthread have said: if you find a hole like that, the ethical thing to do is inform the people responsible. If they ignore you, you're then free to tell people about it. Actually *using* the hole is not ethical.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:08 (fourteen years ago) link

haha 'confronting' = 'banning'. Yeah, BIG MAN.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:08 (fourteen years ago) link

I can understand why the moderators whould be upset with finding that Jon had somehow gained mod privileges, but everyone else using this incident as an opportunity to take pot-shots at Jon's character can sit on a rusty eggbeater. You never him.

elmo albatross (allocryptic), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:09 (fourteen years ago) link

Oh yes, by all means, explain to me again about hacking and why it's bad! (XXXP)

Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:10 (fourteen years ago) link

i find this whole thing wholely hilarious. what's the old saying? arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics?

chicago kevin has a lust for bacon (chicago kevin), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:10 (fourteen years ago) link

Laurel: I am coming to NYC at the end of this week, I would like to drunk with you / ian / jon / etc.

elmo albatross (allocryptic), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:12 (fourteen years ago) link

This is getting ridiculous.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:12 (fourteen years ago) link

Point being: there are a number of people on the boards behaving badly in various ways and NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THEM

does ignoring them count? 'cos, you know, that's what i like to do. more people should try it some time.

unless someone's particular brand of bad behaviour involves hacking the site and fucking off the admins. that's kinda tougher to ignore.

grimly fiendish (simon), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:13 (fourteen years ago) link

Andrew, this is not MY principle (or lack of), I've said all the way through that this is wrong from top to bottom. I sort of guiltily laughed at Laurel going "lolz, it's just Kate, we're better off without her" and then suggested she might see it a bit differently if it was one of her friends instead of Kate.

ailsa_xx (ailsa_xx), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:13 (fourteen years ago) link

You never him. = my new mantra

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:13 (fourteen years ago) link

i find this whole thing wholely hilarious. what's the old saying? arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics?

-- chicago kevin has a lust for bacon

You don't find it hilarious, you silly little twat, you're just one of the kids who enjoys the opportunity to pat himself on the back for not being ridiculous enough to care about something other people do. These blow-ups are always plagued by that sort of shit, but for once maybe you could shut the fuck up about it and just let things get hashed out.

Tep (ktepi), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:15 (fourteen years ago) link

Elmo, you know I'm always available to drink with company. Email me/the boys/us about it and we'll make a plan.

XP: Okay, whoah. I have no idea what Kevin did to piss you off so thoroughly but I have a feeling there are like three cases of mistaken identity on this thread. Starry Sarah vs ChILX Sarah being the most amusing and harmless so far.

Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:17 (fourteen years ago) link

It is not the moderators or anyone else's job to stop people 'behaving badly', whatever that means. Pretty much the only people who ever get banned are persistent trolls, racists, people posting viruses and the occasional Marissa-type absolute fruitloop.

If we banned or cautioned everyone who was flaming or being a cunt towards another poster we'd a) never get any fucking work done and b) have no posters except Nabisco.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:18 (fourteen years ago) link

xpost

i don't find it hilarious? are you sure? what are my thoughts on other topics? please enlighten me! because *i* think this is now getting funnier but i need your expert opinion on what i actually think.

chicago kevin has a lust for bacon (chicago kevin), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:18 (fourteen years ago) link

BAN KEVIN

a_p (a_p), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:20 (fourteen years ago) link

"Point being: there are a number of people on the boards behaving badly in various ways and NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THEM."

Laurel, you're right about that, and I hope it's going to change. But there are about a million better ways to deal with it than by sneaking in under cover of darkness and banning someone who pisses you off. Or did you think that would increase the peace somehow?

Do you really think Jon did it because there was too much bullying on ILX? Even after his Louis Jagger bully thread?

stet (stet), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:20 (fourteen years ago) link

the next time this happens the culprit's ISP should be informed that their EULA has been violated and given the necessary evidence to prove it.

right now, the mods have decided to leave the main board down instead of continuing to play whack-a-mole with probably further abuse of the old code, and have left the sandbox up for us to play in, so no loss really.

other than that there's very little that's pertinent at this time! ilx plays host to a number of terrible children, news to no one, ever, move along or get made fun of by bored civil servants!

TOMB07 (trm), Monday, 12 February 2007 16:21 (fourteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.