Slashdot Mirror

Why don't the Wikipedia people allow their site to be mirrored? A lot of people have some extra bandwidth and disk space to share. It could be hosted in multiple places similar to the way the Jargon File is distributed?

This would be a great problem for a wiki grid or something.

Well obviously it says something about your intelligence.

Congratuations, you have been trolled.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html

"... To utter a posting designed to attract predictable responses... [to insult and provoke]. ... The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it."

Better luck next time, kiddo.

Microsoft also has a long and distinguished history of FUD.

Pretty amusing that you would say that, considering the origin of the term:

Defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products."

Not that I disagree with your assertions - IBM doesn't have near the same ties to Linux that MS has to Windows. But it's amusing to see how much the technological landscape has changed, that a term coined to describe IBM can now be used to (in some sense) defend it.

Heineken? Heineken?! Lad, enough crazy talk. Linus likes guinness, and so do I, so how about them instead?

If you're going to get a beer company to sponsor you, at least get one that makes real beer.

if you call updating PCI IDs in the source code hacking

He means "hacker" by the archaic definition that makes him think he's "old skool".

How about the Divinci Code?

And of course The Art of Unix Programming

The easiest approach on Windows is SAProxy, which unfortunately is no longer free. I used this pop3proxy plus this How To SA on Win32 to roll my own. But if you're on unix, you could still use pop3proxy, but it sounds like you should read up on fetchmail.

It's the most complex text editor ever written, used mainly by programmers to edit code and a million or so other things besides. Some programmers love it, others hate it, preferring the much more lightweight (but with its own UI issues) vi text editor, or alternatives like nedit. The jargon file's entry on EMACS gives some explanation, see also vi, and holy wars. If the above links are still too opaque, and you need more details on EMACS itself rather than the culture wars, see the Wikipedia entry on Emacs.

It's the most complex text editor ever written, used mainly by programmers to edit code and a million or so other things besides. Some programmers love it, others hate it, preferring the much more lightweight (but with its own UI issues) vi text editor, or alternatives like nedit. The jargon file's entry on EMACS gives some explanation, see also vi, and holy wars. If the above links are still too opaque, and you need more details on EMACS itself rather than the culture wars, see the Wikipedia entry on Emacs.

It's the most complex text editor ever written, used mainly by programmers to edit code and a million or so other things besides. Some programmers love it, others hate it, preferring the much more lightweight (but with its own UI issues) vi text editor, or alternatives like nedit. The jargon file's entry on EMACS gives some explanation, see also vi, and holy wars. If the above links are still too opaque, and you need more details on EMACS itself rather than the culture wars, see the Wikipedia entry on Emacs.

It's the most complex text editor ever written, used mainly by programmers to edit code and a million or so other things besides. Some programmers love it, others hate it, preferring the much more lightweight (but with its own UI issues) vi text editor, or alternatives like nedit. The jargon file's entry on EMACS gives some explanation, see also vi, and holy wars. If the above links are still too opaque, and you need more details on EMACS itself rather than the culture wars, see the Wikipedia entry on Emacs.

While Microsoft has released an article providing details about the vulnerability, the company is yet to provide a patch.

I hope this become a trend and attitude among the Open Source community. I must admit that I've been a Microsoft-hater for years, but over time I found that people are really put off by anti-corporation sentiments. I suppose it makes sense in a way; If I invested thousands in a technology for my business, I wouldn't want people telling me "Aw man! You got totally taken! Windows is total crap!"

If the Open Source community begins patching Windows before Microsoft, not only does it help consumers deal with problems they can't solve, but it bring honor and respect to the Open Source community. Then when people consider Open Source, they're more likely to conclude that Open Source programmers are more competant than corporate programmers.

It's a win-win-lose. Open Source wins, Consumers win, and Microsoft loses. Which is what I wanted in the first place.

ESR's right in his article "How to Become a Hacker"

Q: Do I need to hate and bash Microsoft?

A: No, you don't. Not that Microsoft isn't loathsome, but there was a hacker culture long before Microsoft and there will still be one long after Microsoft is history. Any energy you spend hating Microsoft would be better spent on loving your craft. Write good code -- that will bash Microsoft quite sufficiently without polluting your karma.

Although you say that in jest, I think the Linux community should make a formal request (directly at first, but publically through the media if necessary) for Microsoft (and eventually, ALL closed source OS companies) to run ESR's comparator on their source code to prove that they are not using GPL'd code in their products.

No, he's a vocal libertarian. Try reading his web page.

Boy, it's a good thing he made this page then. Oh crap - I just had an evil and vivid premonition of a surge of "Eric Raymond died this week at Stephen King's home in Bangor, Maine" and "Netcraft's coroners confirm *ESR is dead" trolls. Sour.

I am in the exact same situation. I'd been an XFce4/Gnome user ever since I switched to Linux full-time over the summer, up until a few weeks ago when I compiled the whole of KDE since I needed a good bit of it for K3B anyway.

KDE seems even more responsive than XFce4 on this machine, and it's the primary reason why Konqueror is now my new browser, KWord is now my new word processor and Quanta Plus is now my new HTML/PHP editor. I, like my sibling poster, still use a handful of GTK+ applications (Evolution, Gaim, Pan, Nicotine, The Gimp) but they certainly do feel noticeably slower than the Qt applications on my desktop right now. I'm running a performance-tuned prelinked Gentoo system, however, so I'm not 100% entitled to say how something would perform on a "normal" binary-based Linux installation.

Of course, this is entirely without taking into effect the excellent design of Qt's derived widgets, the elegance of KDE's kioslaves, customizability of toolbars, common widgets and file dialogs, and so on.

The only thing I can say KDE is deficient in is its user interface, but this is perfectly in line with Eric Raymond's Art of Unix Programming, separating policy from mechanism. Every interface issue in KDE can get sorted out in a single .1 version release. GNOME's going to have a much harder time catching up because they've spent all of their time concentrating on a consistent user interface that's lacking such common sense features as "undo" in a textbox or a usable file dialog.

Okay, I am not trolling here, I'm serious. This plan will be moderately successful at preventing joe-jobs on unwitting victims. If you control the DNS for a domain, you can say who is allowed to send mail for that domain. Therefore, if a spammer attempts uses your domain in the "From:" header then it will only be delivered to those hosts that are NOT checking the SPF records. That's an important distinction, because getting everybody on the planet to do something is very hard, so this will never completely wipe out the possibility of joe-jobs. And there are the possible negative effects here, for example employees not being able to send company email while on the road without hassle.

But that aside, how does it reduce spam? The spammers will always be able to find a domain to stick in the "From:" header. They can choose to use a domain that they do not control that has not yet added SPF to their DNS or they can choose to use a domain that they control. In either case it's trivial for them to get their mail from their system to yours, and that's all that they really care about anyway -- the "From:" header has always been meaningless to spammers anyway, it's not like they would be forfeiting the ability to receive replies or something.

Note that in the case of using a domain that they don't control, we're back to the issue of "until everyone on the planet does this, there will always be some domain somewhere that can be forged." And even should those run out, spammers can just register anything for $7 a year, or less for bulk registrations. (They already do this when they're playing hosting tricks, to bounce you around from one host to another.)

Now, you might say that at least with this implemented you could discover what those domains are that the spammer is registering for use with his spamming. That is true. But, we've had the concept of a blocklist for ages, that's nothing new. Everyone has ranges of IP addresses that they won't accept mail from, and some very kind organizations have even maintained lists of "bad IP addresses", so you might expect a similar thing to happen with domain names. But all you have to do is look at the current state of blocklists and you'll know this doesn't buy you much. We already have blocklists, and they're riddled with problems. You're back to playing whack-a-mole with the spammers. They make a spam run with example.com, you block example.com; they make another run with example.org, you block example.org. You're always one step behind, while the spam piles up in your inbox. You might make the point that this inconveniences them, but you have to realize how many domains there are out there that are available for forging. The SPF-protected domains will be the vast minority of all domains for the forseeable future.

So, in summary: This might be moderately effective at preventing joe-jobs. It will not make a significant change, however, until everyone on the face of the earth that's not a spammer both updates their DNS and updates their MTA software to check these records. The likelyhood of this happening any time soon is quite small. And even if this were to happen, the spammers would still be able to deliver piles and piles of garbage to your inbox though domains that they control. You're back to blocklisting, which we've had for quite some time now.

So, I ask seriously, what does this do to combat spam that is really all that significant? I applaud any developments on the antispam frontier, but let's not get too carried away with visions of this somehow "plugging the insecure SMTP hole", or anything remotely resembling it.

Meanwhile, celebratory gunfire is heard from troff and XML-DocBook users the world over!

Isn't this exactly what ESR said in The Cathedral and the Bazaar?

If you've not read it before, please follow the link above and spend a few minutes there. It is a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand the free / open source software development model, and why it works so well.

Go to the classics, comrade: ESR's Jargon File.

Excerpts: nerd:

nerd n.
1. [mainstream slang] Pejorative applied to anyone with an above-average IQ and few gifts at small talk and ordinary social rituals.

2. [jargon] Term of praise applied (in conscious ironic reference to sense 1) to someone who knows what's really important and interesting and doesn't care to be distracted by trivial chatter and silly status games. Compare geek.

[...]

And: geek

geek n. A person who has chosen concentration rather than conformity; one who pursues skill (especially technical skill) and imagination, not mainstream social acceptance.

[...]

It seems (in slashdot, at least) that everyone has their own idea of what the differences are, but "geek" seems to be cooler than "nerd" in current usage.

Go to the classics, comrade: ESR's Jargon File.

Excerpts: nerd:

nerd n.
1. [mainstream slang] Pejorative applied to anyone with an above-average IQ and few gifts at small talk and ordinary social rituals.

2. [jargon] Term of praise applied (in conscious ironic reference to sense 1) to someone who knows what's really important and interesting and doesn't care to be distracted by trivial chatter and silly status games. Compare geek.

[...]

And: geek

geek n. A person who has chosen concentration rather than conformity; one who pursues skill (especially technical skill) and imagination, not mainstream social acceptance.

[...]

It seems (in slashdot, at least) that everyone has their own idea of what the differences are, but "geek" seems to be cooler than "nerd" in current usage.

Go to the classics, comrade: ESR's Jargon File.

Excerpts: nerd:

nerd n.
1. [mainstream slang] Pejorative applied to anyone with an above-average IQ and few gifts at small talk and ordinary social rituals.

2. [jargon] Term of praise applied (in conscious ironic reference to sense 1) to someone who knows what's really important and interesting and doesn't care to be distracted by trivial chatter and silly status games. Compare geek.

[...]

And: geek

geek n. A person who has chosen concentration rather than conformity; one who pursues skill (especially technical skill) and imagination, not mainstream social acceptance.

[...]

It seems (in slashdot, at least) that everyone has their own idea of what the differences are, but "geek" seems to be cooler than "nerd" in current usage.

>>After much grovelling through the vendor catalog

>That's a great image, but perhaps you should check a dictionary. Either that, or you need to start dealing with more friendly vendors.

He's referring to the slang definition of grovelling from the Jargon File.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/grovel.html

We've hit Godwins law already? That didn't take very long.

I saw someone working on something like parsing english as a programming language

I thought English was already a programming language, designed for querying PICK databases.

But seriously, don't patents try to describe a process in a limited subset of the English language?

Ed is the standard text editor, dammit!

It takes years to learn how to program WELL in a complex language like C++.

Once you know how to program well, picking up a new language shouldn't take more than a few weeks, except in the most baroque cases.

I'd definitely consider C++ to be baroque. It's definitely complex and "feature-encrusted". I used to like C++, but the template rules are just too complex to be useful without using the language every day. I remember in the early 1990s, C++ fans used to berate Ada for having complex rules, but now C++ is much worse than Ada ever was. Look how long it took compiler vendors to get templates right. I still think a subset of C++ (without templates) is useful, but I'm becoming more of the opinion that "RAD" languages like Python are the way to go for application programming, with C/C++ for OS and core libraries.

ESR doesn't misuse the term

On the contrary, he misues it all the time. He's even authored an entire book dedicated to that misuse. He's tried to change the definition of "hacker", and apparently you're falling for it.

Interestingly, ESR has recently augmented his definition of 'hacker' with a reference to the MIT Model Railroad Club, who were the first users of 'hack' in regards to computers. Apparently he couldn't completely ignore the truth... but he still omits that all of their computer use was without permission from the owners!

"Hacker" has always implied sneaking into someone else's computer.

No language comparison is complete without Intercal.

Nope. It's just an alternate pronunciation of giga.

giga-: /jiga/, /giga/

The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

The bug/feature thing is simple - does the person laugh? If so, s/he's a geek.

The red/green thing is because of the irony of the situation and the confusion of metalevels. By seeing the word 'RED' on a green card, there is normally some association with the correct color. But wait, the card is not red, it's green, thus resulting in confusion....

See this link for details on exactly why some people consider this funny. Do keep in mind that, like any humor, timing is everything - so just shouting an ill-timed 'all your base are belong to us' can get you shot.

That said, the more important point is that the internet shouldn't be in the hands of any one government.

Exactly. That's why it shouldn't be in the hands of the UN. Control of the Internet belongs to those who own/run the networks that comprise it. Any authority that they follow exists and has its authority solely because they voluntarily follow it. Should those in charge of the root servers and those in charge of address allocation become intolerable dictators or ineffective leaders, they will find themselves ignored by the individuals who run the 'Net.

And that is the true beauty of the Internet; there is no governance. Things only work because people agree to make them work. Standards only exist because people agree to those standards. If some company decided they wanted to write a new protocol to replace TCP/IP that only their company's software could make use of, for instance, they would find their packets dropped at the first router they didn't own. Non-compliance of voluntary standards is seen by the Internet as damage and routed around. (See: Usenet Death Penalty)

This is how the Internet has been run in the past and should be run in the future: Those responsible for running and maintaining the networks should be the ones in charge of deciding how they are run.

However, the rules are the same for both parties and even though SCO is the "Bad Guy" here, don't forget IBM can do the same if SCO fails to comply with THEIR discovery requests.

"If" they fail to comply? SCO filed their Motion to Compel after IBM filed theirs.

IBM is annoyed because, among other things, IBM requested SCO's source code and a description showing what files and parts of files have been copied, in a form making it amenable for searching. SCO responded by printing out large chunks of Linux source code files and effectively said "it's in there, somewhere". (And then had the gall to complain about how much it cost them to print out that code!)

SCO filed their Motion to Compel Discovery in response and are basically saying "Well, we can't know for sure what infringement has occurred until we see the code from IBM."

On one hand, SCO claims in the media to have solid evidence of "line-by-line copying" of "millions of lines" of code, that discovery is progressing along and they're preparing to sue Linux end customers and bill Linux users, making them sound like an unstoppable legal juggernaut (and sending their stock price through the roof).

On the other hand, in the courtroom, they hang their head and say "we're not sure what all has been done to poor poor us", they whine about having to conduct three lawsuits at once -- their suit against IBM, IBM's countersuit, and Red Hat's suit -- and try to play one case off on the other and file delay after delay in all three cases, stalling for as much time as possible before they have to admit that, they have no case, no proof ,and no claim.

Groklaw is an amazing read. PJ is smart, she's thorough, and has a great body of volunteers helping her with research into SCO's claims, transcribing legal documents, and tracking down old emails and newsgroup postings. Comparing what SCO says in the media to what they say in court, it's obvious that Darl McBride has a reality-distortion field that makes Steve Jobs' look like a weak soap bubble.

Jay (=

"The judgment of our elected officials in Congress is the law of the land in the U.S. copyright arena, and should be respected as such."

Well, Darl "Brownnose" McBride, your elected gods are not saying that it's OK for SCO to take something that's not yours just because nobody else claims it. You apparently don't seem to understand what GPL is about.

"(...) the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof."

Good thing that you seem to understand that. Too bad you don't get the idea of why GPL prohibits this propriatary use... If you don't like the GPL philosophy, fine. But remember, the laws you speak of so fondly, are copyright acts. As an author of software, you have the right to protect your property, you don't have to. If somebody doesn't claim these rights, it doesn't mean you can do so. If you don't like GPL, don't touch it then. I don't like commercial software, that's why I won't open shrinkwrapped boxes from Redmond.

"Red Hat's position is that current U.S. intellectual property law "impedes innovation in software development" and that "software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software." (...) SCO believes that copyright and patent laws adopted by the United States Congress and the European Union are critical to the further growth and development of the $186 billion global software industry, and to the technology business in general."

I'm sure there is some use in copyright laws. But to state that the GPL philosophy stilfles development is ludicrous. What do you think built the Internet? Most of what we use every day, is developed openly. Please, read The Cathedral and the Bazaar, it's good for you.

"Our stance on this issue has made SCO very unpopular with some."

No comment on that, you sure got that right ;)

The 2003 Holiday Gift Guide presents twenty-five titles per console including the Microsoft Xbox, Sony Playstation 2, Nintendo GameCube, PC, and HandHelds.

Umm, any suggestions for us Mac users? (HHOS)

Eric S. Raymond predicted that Microsoft would force the patent issue on its file formats in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

This is very worrying. Let's hope MS didn't get this idea from there.

While I support ESR, I can't help but wonder if outlining Linux's strengths provides M$ with a plan of attack on Linux.

See also ESR's Prudential Interview.

automagically definition

deb http://marillat.free.fr/ release main
Where release is stable, testing, or unstable.

Or http://www.catb.org/~esr/css-auth.tar.gz

And if *nix world moves to using shared libraries more, it will face the same problem Microsoft has - a single security fix in a single shared library can potentially break any of hundred applications that use this library, and all these applications has to be tested with patched version. Which is still better than patching hundred applications independently.

Perhaps you should read this.

You are coming off as a troll, I don't know why people keep modding you up. You are obviously ill informed about the subject you are trying to talk about, or simply trying to agitate.

tongue-in-cheek
satire
idiot

Phone Support Hacker desired: Must have Microsoft Certification in moving the pointy arrow around on the screen. 2 months experience with the on-off button a plus.

<RECORD NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = "..">
<RECORD NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = "..">
<RECORD NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = "..">
<RECORD NAME=".." ADDRESS=".." AGE = "..">

..\t..\t..
..\t..\t..
..\t..\t..

The jargon file is your friend

"An intellectual carrot. The mind boggles."

"This gubblick contains many nonsklarkish English flutzpahs, but the overall pluggandisp can be glorked from context"

From The Jargon File - where it actually shows up as "glark".

This is Darl McBride. He hires bodyguards because people infringing on his "intellectual property", while in fact being very nice and harmless scare him. (There are more of them.) Am I really the only one not surprised?

This is Darl McBride. He hires bodyguards because people infringing on his "intellectual property", while in fact being very nice and harmless scare him. (There are more of them.) Am I really the only one not surprised?