|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 51 responses total. |
scholar
|
|
response 25 of 51:
| 
Jun 21 18:34 UTC 2005 |
SO DOES YOUR PARENTS FUCKING THE NIGHT THEY CONCEIVED YOU< BNUT DON"T FORGET
THAT HINDSIGHT IS EWWWWW WHEN IT"S LOOKING AT YOU
|
ric
|
|
response 26 of 51:
|
Jun 21 20:09 UTC 2005 |
Has anyone ever told you that you have exquisite typing skills?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 27 of 51:
|
Jun 21 20:16 UTC 2005 |
I can tell you why not.
|
naftee
|
|
response 28 of 51:
|
Jun 21 20:42 UTC 2005 |
ur hot, n8
|
aruba
|
|
response 29 of 51:
|
Jun 21 21:23 UTC 2005 |
Re #22: Sindi - I don't know how to tell if some members are not able to get
on Grex.
|
ryan
|
|
response 30 of 51:
|
Jun 22 01:17 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 31 of 51:
|
Jun 22 02:30 UTC 2005 |
lolz
|
gelinas
|
|
response 32 of 51:
|
Jun 22 04:14 UTC 2005 |
Here's a bit more information on the problem:
". . . the nulogfile, the file that contains the record of every run of
newuser is munged. There are many duplicates of accounts there, with many
accounts having the same uid. It appears that only the logging is messed up,
not the actual /etc/master.passwd data, but this means that we're going to
have an interesting time ressurecting the accounts" (STeve Andre, in a
message to the Grex Board and Staff, on Apr 30, 2005).
On May 7, 2005, Glenda noted: "We turned the newuser program off while we
work on fixing the problem so that the newuser logs are not overwritten. We
are working on getting the accounts that were created but not activated from
the logs and activated. Newuser will then be turned back on."
So the *real* problem is resurrecting the lost accounts. Once that is done,
we can move forward.
|
keesan
|
|
response 33 of 51:
|
Jun 22 13:20 UTC 2005 |
Aruba, I was asking if we have fewer paid members now than we did before
newuser was disconnected (and some old users' accounts stopped working) - back
in April, I guess it was. If I were a paying member whose account stopped
working, I would think twice about continuing to pay for it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 34 of 51:
|
Jun 22 13:48 UTC 2005 |
There hasn't been a drop in membership yet, but I agree with you.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 35 of 51:
|
Jun 22 16:10 UTC 2005 |
Has there been an increase in membership?
|
richard
|
|
response 36 of 51:
|
Jun 22 20:51 UTC 2005 |
why would there be an increase in membership when some paid members
apparently can't even access their logins?
grex should not allow itself to be a closed system. ever. It is in
violation of grex's stated mission. If newuser is going to be down any
longer than it already has been, allow anonymous posting for the time
being.
|
tod
|
|
response 37 of 51:
|
Jun 22 21:19 UTC 2005 |
Grex newuser is down. Has been done. Will be down. Correct?
|
cross
|
|
response 38 of 51:
|
Jun 22 22:21 UTC 2005 |
Newuser is back up now.
|
keesan
|
|
response 39 of 51:
|
Jun 22 23:21 UTC 2005 |
WOW! How did that happen? Squeaky wheel? Thanks to whoever fixed it.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 40 of 51:
|
Jun 23 00:39 UTC 2005 |
After talking with STeve about what needed to be done, I re-enabled
newuser yesterday. I was planning to hold off making an announcement
until I had a chance to get to web newuser as well, as only the
dial-in / telnet version is currently functional, but since the cat's
out of the bag.
The last I checked about 25 new accounts had been created since the
restart without incident.
However, it is still possible that we'll have to turn it off again if
more problems surface. I hope that won't be the case, but hope people
will be understanding if it turns out more work is needed. In the
meantime I agree with what appears to be the general consensus --
that open newuser is important to the spirit and the mission of the
system, and thus I think we ought to be erring on the side of opening
it until/unless problems become evident, not keeping it closed until
we can prove that it's safe..
If people are happy about it being back I suggest they thank STeve,
who did far more work on it than I did; basically I followed his
instructions to re-enable it but STeve is the one who has put major
effort into trying to reconstruct what happened back in April.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 41 of 51:
|
Jun 23 00:40 UTC 2005 |
> why would there be an increase in membership when some paid members
> apparently can't even access their logins?
Because those users who can sent in money, and the members who were unable
to log in were paid up through June?
|
dpc
|
|
response 42 of 51:
|
Jun 23 01:10 UTC 2005 |
Great work, Mike!
|
richard
|
|
response 43 of 51:
|
Jun 23 01:12 UTC 2005 |
thanks STeve and McNally
|
naftee
|
|
response 44 of 51:
|
Jun 23 03:30 UTC 2005 |
thanks, richard !
can someone update the motd ?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 45 of 51:
|
Jun 23 13:32 UTC 2005 |
Kudos to the staff, and especially to Mike McNally!
|
aruba
|
|
response 46 of 51:
|
Jun 23 20:13 UTC 2005 |
Thanks Mike!
Re #35: There hasn't been an appreciable change in membership since April.
|
naftee
|
|
response 47 of 51:
|
Jun 23 21:38 UTC 2005 |
thanks, aruba @Q
|
nharmon
|
|
response 48 of 51:
|
Jun 24 12:51 UTC 2005 |
No thanks to you naftee.
|
naftee
|
|
response 49 of 51:
|
Jun 24 23:40 UTC 2005 |
you do a bung-bung in another man's anus
|