Feeds

back to article BIG BOOBS banished from Linux kernel

Microsoft has ‘fessed up to inserting the hexadecimal string “0xB16B00B5” in the Linux kernel. Redmond has hung its head in shame because, once you remove the initial zero and x, then squint at the remainder in just the right way, the result is the term “BIG BOOBS”. The offending string is no mere frippery: it is apparently …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Who the hell cares?

It's hexadecimal, not English.

Microsoft is actually going to patch it? The mind boggles ... Grow up, people.

50
7
Gold badge

Re: Microsoft is actually going to patch it?

Yes. They've got people on it right now, trying to figure out a way that the value can legitimately, but reliably, be generated at run-time as the natural result of correct operation, without actually making it too obvious in the source code how they've arranged for that.

2
1

Re: Who the hell cares?

"...saying it is an “offensive string”...."

Errr... no it isn't. Obviously, some people just don't have enough to do.

28
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Who the hell cares?

Couldn't agree more.

The world seems to be becoming crazier by the day. B16B00B5 is nothing other than B16B00B5!

WOW everyday the stupidity of the general populace never ceases to amaze me.

Since when did BIGBOOBS become offensive anyways?

8
1
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Who the hell cares?

One should also note that in UK vernacular (not sure about USA, Oz, etc) a boob can mean a mistake. Referencing uninitialized storage can accurately be described as a "big boob" for a programmer.

BTW, 0xB16B00B5 has been patched to 0x0DEFACED

Personally I wonder why the original wasn't 0x0B00B1E5

5
0
Silver badge
Joke

@Obviously

"Since when did BIGBOOBS become offensive anyways?"

When people found out the string wasn't setup by a female person, so they were left disappointed.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Who the hell cares?

big boob here in the states can mean big idiot.

1
0
Bronze badge
Go

Re: Who the hell cares?

It was B00B1E5 in some previous incarnation, apparently that was changed too.

Personally I prefer DEFEC8ED...

0
0
Silver badge
Go

Are we sure it was a breast reference?

MS may have been describing their managers!

14
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Are we sure it was a breast reference?

Or their marketing department. Or programmers.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Are we sure it was a breast reference?

Describing their managers? Wouldn't that be 'big poops'? Just asking...

0
0
Joke

Re: Are we sure it was a breast reference?

Women in IT was mentioned but surely it could refer just as easily to men with big boobs?

As there are way more men in IT than women surely this category is the most offended.

FWIW, I couldn't care less about a Hex number that vaguely resembles a lame chuckle-worthy couple of words being hidden in the kernel of an operating system.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Are we sure it was a breast reference?

I am sorry, but I'd rather you didn't remind us about Ballmer's breasts.

1
0
Coffee/keyboard

Re: Ballmer's breasts

Any hints on how to remove vomit from a keyboard?

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Are we sure it was a breast reference?

> I'd rather you didn't remind us about Ballmer's breasts.

Ballmer's aren't breasts, his are MOOBS. Abbreviation for MAN-BOOBS.

Just sayin'.

0
0
Alien

Oh noes 0xDEADBEEF

No one tell PETA

Once again, I weep for my species

Would someone please get me the hell off this rock!

21
0

Re: Oh noes 0xDEADBEEF

Err, did that in some Nortel documentation about 20 years ago. The full text was 00D3 AD 8EEF I55A FE70 EA70, or thereabouts.

2
0

Re: Oh noes 0xDEADBEEF

I heard a tale that IBM used 0xDEADBEEF to initialise memor y in one of their OSes.

This made it easy to see what memory was untouched when analysing a system dump.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh noes 0xDEADBEEF

Not just IBM. Standard in several UNIXes. I seem to remember it in ULTRIX and others.

0
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: Oh noes 0xDEADBEEF

I believe that was also a patch to the original version which was 0xDEADBABE. That code was written at about the same time as a young lady died in a car belonging to one of the Kennedy dynasty (ie rather before my time).

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Oh noes 0xDEADBEEF

Solaris stil uses 0xDEADBEEF and 0xBADDCAFE

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh noes 0xDEADBEEF

I am a fundamentalist christian bible-thumper moron and would like to ban 666 from all computers -- both decimal and hexadecimal. While we're at it let's also ban '8' -- come on, just LOOK at it!

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Oh noes 0xDEADBEEF

you missed out on 69 there

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Oh noes 0xDEADBEEF

Not just 8 but how about 4+4 =8

the 'equals eight' looks like a double mini roundabout with a dual carriageway poking out the said and that is well naughty!

2
0
Silver badge
Devil

Re: ban 666

My computer only knows about 0 and 1, any other numbers are the work of high-level languages, which as eny fule kno are the work of the devil.

1
0
Trollface

Re: ban 666

Don't you know that the 1's look like todgers, and should all be banned? ...and don't get me started on the wanton '0's, with their seductive hole in the middle.

All you humourless types need to stay far, far away from computers! It's the work of the devil, I tell ya!

0
0
FAIL

Bootnote

How could you miss the opportunity to write "Boobnote" instead of "Bootnote"? It's not too late to change it. If challenged, say that Freud made you do it.

14
0

Re: Bootnote

Also - and it's only my quest for journalistic accuracy which makes me bring this up - Brian McFadden was in Westlife, not Boyzone. *shifts uncomfortably* Can we get back to talking about boobs, quickly?

1
0
Mushroom

Are you kidding me?

All this over the number "2976579765" !!!

What if the number was a valid and required initialization vector for a piece of hardware or something. Purile minds need to grow up and realise the world is not all sunshine and daisies out there and anyone who thinks this kind of thing shouldn't fly needs to go home to their mummy and hide behind her skirt some more because the clearly aren't ready for the real world.

9
0
Devil

Re: Are you kidding me?

Re: All this over the number "2976579765" !!!

Indeed. And after following the lkml thread a bit, we find the Microsoft apology, followed by a complaint from super serious "greg" that the Microsoft-submitted patch to fix this grave offense "only changed it to be in decimal"!!!

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/19/400

Best laugh I've had all day. If I may suggest to greg, in the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka: "Lighten up, Francis."

3
1

Re: Are you kidding me?

N.B. It turns out "greg k-h" is an accomplished kernel developer and current maintainer of the -stable branch, so might well feel a certain weight of responsibility to lean toward professionalism + avoid avenues of potential controversy, etc.

'was laughing a bit more when I'd assumed he was some random busybody.

But anyway. We'll always have base thirty-six?

"mammalianprotuberances".to_i(36)

=> 10729129598233314368884084804015252

1
3
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Are you kidding me?

The number is written into "uninitialized" storage in a VM environment where uninitialized is not an option. It's useful to a programmer to have a distinctive hex pattern. If he sees that in a register after a core dump, it's a pretty good clue as to what went wrong.

These days in scientific codes, you want to have everything initialized to an IEEE Floating-point NAN pattern ("Not A Number"). Then, instead of crunching garbage up with your data if a bug references uninitialized storage, your program immediately throws a floating-point exception. ISTR NAN can also be customised to have humorous hex representations (or more boringly, to encode the address of where it came from).

0
0
Boffin

@ All this over the number "2976579765" !!!

I need a strong 12648430 after that.

0
0
Joke

Re: Are you kidding me?

NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN Batmaaaaan!

1
0
WTF?

In as few words as possible:

This is completely ridiculous.

3
0
Linux

Oh aye.

You know now how many sysadmins reading this are thinking 'hmm, that'll do for my next admin password.'

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Bill Gates is obviously Guilty

He should be extradited to Sweden so that he can be unjustly accused of retrospective rape.

22
22
Gold badge
Flame

Re: Bill Gates is obviously Guilty

Oh bloody hell. Will people knock it off with the "Julian is a good bloke and girls should just be fucking grateful to get it from him." thing.

It's people like you who are directly responsible for making rape one of the least reported and prosecuted crimes going. In every bloody case that; "she's obviously lying, it's a put-up job" is trotted out by fucktards who happen to like the perv in the dock.

Incidently, the vast majority of rapes are reported "retrospectively". It's the nature of the crime in question.

@the upvoters: Shame on you too.

I'll make my mind up once he's been convicted or aquitted in a court of law. As he seems intent on avoiding having to challenge the evidence, I'm leaning towards "guilty as sin" myself.

35
23
Silver badge

Re: Shame on you too.

I understood it was a kind of 'statutory rape' where the sex was consensual on the condition of taking the requested precautions. i.e. he put the woman/women in danger of disease/pregnancy because he didn't use a condom. Sweden won't rule out the possiblilty that as soon as he sets foot on their soil he will be whisked off the Gitmo. Is that not right?

14
2
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Bill Gates is obviously Guilty

@TeeCee

"Incidently, the vast majority of rapes are reported "retrospectively""

Stranegely enough, the vast majority of any crime tend to be reported retrospectively. At best, you can report it as it happens, but that assumes the offence goes on for some time, so normally an offence is only reported AFTER it has happened, therefore retrospectively. Rape is no different to most others in this respect.

It's not people like him that make rape one of the least reported and prosecuted crimes. It is in the nature of the beast. Many rapes come down to one persons word against another. There are very often no witnesses etc. Therefore, it is unprosecutable unless there is physical evidence to support one sides story over another. In other words, it's in the nature of the crime.

It's interesting that you also show you believe rape only applies to women by instantly responding with 'she's obviously lying' etc. Rape applies to both sexes equally, whether between a man and a woman or two people of the same sex. It is believed that male rape is actually reported and prosecuted even less than female rape for a whole variety of reasons, including male pride. Of course, male rape is rarely mentioned as rape is all about women right??

It's interesting that you say you'll make your mind up about Assange once he's been through a court of law, but then say you're leaning towards 'guilty as sin'!! Doesn't exactly show an open mind does it.

37
1
Silver badge

@TeeCee - Don't be a twat

So one person has concluded he's innocent without seeing the evidence, and you've concluded that he's guilty without seeing the evidence, and that makes the other person shameful, a supporter of rape, etc, etc. Don't be a twat. If anyone's closer to how the justice system actually works, it's the other guy...

19
0
Silver badge

Re: Shame on you too.

reading your comment triggered a vague curiosity ....

would it be possible, therefore, for a MAN to be raped by a woman, if he asked if she was using the pill, she told him she was, and it turned out she wasn't ????

Sauce for goose etc ....

15
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Bill Gates is obviously Guilty @ Mad Mike

As man, I think that a man being raped by a woman IS a very different thing to a woman being raped by a man or a man by a man.

In life people are forced to do far worse things than just have sex, there are far worse crimes that are more disruptive to a man than being forced to have sex.

Women are different, its much more of a violation when they are raped, and if a woman wants to prosecute they should report it as soon as they can, no waiting or it does look like they are using it as a vendetta.

7
11
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Bill Gates is obviously Guilty @ Mad Mike

@AC.

"As man, I think that a man being raped by a woman IS a very different thing to a woman being raped by a man or a man by a man."

A man being raped by a woman is different to a woman being raped by a man? Now, there's a very non-PC statement. In the eyes of the law, there's no difference, although I bet the sentence would be different. Certainly, women being raped by men is treated very differently to the reverse. There is a cultural assumption (and it appears continuing into legal circles and the law), that men are sexual predators and women are innocent prey. Therefore, a man who reported being raped is likely to be laughed at. I don't disagree that society in general treats them very differently, but that's an example of the one way nature of sexism. Women are always the victims and men the perpetrators. I'm sure there are at least some men around, who when raped by a woman, would be affected in just the same way as a woman by a man.

If we're moving away from a sexist society, we need to move away from these thoughts. Rape is rape and affects people exactly the same, regardless of the sex of the victim and the sex of perp.

"In life people are forced to do far worse things than just have sex, there are far worse crimes that are more disruptive to a man than being forced to have sex."

Not quite sure where this statement is going, but I'm sure there are far worse crimes for women as well. However, unless we take sexism out everywhere we find it, we're going nowhere. This statement simply means that I can say women shouldn't work and should be chained to the sink or bed all the time. Both are sexist and equally valid or invalid.

"Women are different, its much more of a violation when they are raped, and if a woman wants to prosecute they should report it as soon as they can, no waiting or it does look like they are using it as a vendetta."

Why is it much more of a violation for a woman than a man? You might think it is to you, but that will depend from person to person. Of course, that's why for years the law didn't recognise that a woman COULD rape a man. There was no such crime!! Given the emotional trauma, I think saying that any delay looks like a vendetta is somewhat simplistic. Look at all the boy who were raped by priests. Often only coming out decades after the event. Are you saying this is a vendetta? Or, is it the emotional trauma and feelings of self-loathing, embarassment and humiliation?

8
2
Silver badge

Re: Shame on you too.

@Jimmy Page

Agree totally. All these crimes should work both ways round. Of course, until recently, there was no crime for a woman raping a man. It was not even considered possible. Forget whether we're talking about the 'Swedish' model of justice (where conditions are applied to consent), or the British version. Whilst the laws on sex crimes have generally been changed now to be gender neutral, it's society that has failed to change and still tends to view women as the victims and men the perps all the time.

6
0
Stop

Re: 'statutory rape'

He's accused of having sex with a woman while she was unconscious, knowing that had she been awake she wouldn't have consented. That's rape.

1
9
Silver badge

Re: Shame on you too.

Yes. If a material fact (which would have given a person reason not to consent to sexual intercourse, had they known it) was misrepresented, then consent was obtained under false pretences. That makes it rape.

However, why risk it? Just wear a condom anyway, pill or no pill.

2
2
Silver badge

Re: 'statutory rape'

@Brangdon.

Not wishing to continue the Assange thread, but I really need to correct this. He is absolutely not accused of what you're saying. The women are even on record as saying they were awake and consented, given conditions. e.g. they required a condom. Then, when it failed, they required him to take a test. So, there is no accusation (unless they change their interviews with papers etc.) that they were unconscious, nor that he knew they wouldn't consent if awake.

There's a lot of rumour and misinformation on this in the press. Be very careful what you believe.

9
0

Re: Bill Gates is obviously Guilty

That's too mainstream

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

@TeeCee

"I'll make my mind up once he's been convicted or aquitted in a court of law. As he seems intent on avoiding having to challenge the evidence, I'm leaning towards "guilty as sin" myself."

Well that's a nice open minded viewpoint you have there. Forget about Presumption of Innocence, let's just assume he's guilty. I can see you're so willing to wait for a verdict...!

7
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.