Slashdot Mirror

Looks like it's not a formal standard. I found this mailing list post which links to this IETF draft text which mentions them on page 5.

SIGKILL dude, `kill -9 pid` will take care of it...

unless you are referring to zombie processes, in which case: who cares? They don't consume shit for resources, and they almost never happen unless you go out of your way to make it happen.

Then you would have a completely different probl

You're absolutely right. Just last week FFII and Nutzwerk settled in a German court about, amongst others, FFII referencing to the translation of a Dutch article by WebWereld, also published in English on the site of the author, Brenno de Winter. De Winter published statements by Nutzwerk CEO Holzer where he called FFII Chairman Pilch a "catagoric lyar".

WebWereld reports(Dutch) that in the settlement FFII and Nutzwerk agreed that FFII stops commenting on Nutzwerk and Nutzwerk stops sueing them.

An interesting detail about Nutzwerk is that they used to maintain a link farm in order to get high ranks in Google. Amongst the files in the farm, was a file scheiss_juden.htm which was apparantly meant to increase the probablility googling jew haters would find their anonymity services. According to a German article, the link farm was set up as to allow only web-crawlers to the farm contents and at some point Google had 51.000 links pointing to the Nutzwerk site. At this moment only 908 remain, after apparantly the Google cache has been wiped.

Now some fun: Google for the combination of "Rene Holzer" (Nutzwerk CEO) and "Michael Koustiniko". You'll probably find this post, where Mr. Koustiniko signs as "Rene Holzer". Digging a little further shows that our friend used this alias to advertise his products.

What's also interesting is that in their previous legal actions against Cobion AG, during which 2 of Nutzwerk's software patents were invalidated, Nutzwerk was represented by Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth, an attorney well known in the computer scene. For instance, he was was behind the much publicised Tanja campaign where he tricked computer users into sending a list of pirated software to "Tanja", on the receiving of which he sent them a cease and desist notice along with a request for payment, he shut down emule.de (German), extorted SuSE, demanded Linus Torvalds to drop the Linux name and last but not least was involved in the cases around MobiliX as the registrar of the trademark Obelix.

Dvorak is _not_ so very good when vi (or vim) is one's standard editor. I tried using dvorak for a while, but my finger muscle memory is so attuned to vi(m) with querty, I destroyed several chunks of code while poking on the wrong keys (yay for CVS and Subversion). It also doesn't "flow" with vi like querty does. "hjkl" is useless with dvorak, as are many other well placed vi command-mode keystrokes.

The dvorak-advocates can blather all about languages and how one can speak several without losing proficiency in one, but muscle memory is a TOTALLY different league and is a bitch to relearn.

Sure, I can remap the keys so they have their "qwerty" equivs, but then I might as well stay with qwerty then.

And no, I'm NOT switching to emacs. They can pry my beloved vi from my cold dead fingers.

The design of the Internet is of a peer to peer nature because every device assigned an IP address was assumed to have an equal capability to send an IP packet to other IP nodes as receive them. If every device can equally send and receive to every other device, then the devices are equal, or peers.

The only difference between these peers is the bandwidth of their attachments to the network. However, that difference occurs at the link layer, not the network layer or IP layer. A the IP layer they are peers.

Technologies such as NAT have broken this design assumption. People now have to put the "peer to peer" nature back by coming up with work arounds, such as port forwarding etc. Sadly, this work on work arounds takes programmer time away from adding extra useful features, or fixing bugs. NAT is a cost that public address space and a standard firewall can avoid.

One of the reasons why IPv6 is important is that it will restore the peer to peer nature of the Internet, as NAT work arounds won't be necessary.

It's going to look like I changed my Slashdot signature just because of this story. Actually, I realised the design of the Internet was peer to peer a while ago, and changed my signature to reflect that, also a while ago. Here's something I wrote with it as my email signature last Sunday.

Remember - Lindows is the ONLY Linux company that has an agreement with SCO!! Don't believe me?

Look it up.

Sorry pal, the most notable engineering effort by Compaq was marketing.

Compaq essentially was a marketing organization and box assembler, which made too much money and bought a couple of enterprise computer companies (in hopes to get a foothold into their customer base).

Digital Equipment (or DEC as we preferred to refer to it) on the other hand was an engineering company (which was later part of its downfall) and the technologies you are referring too where hatched at DEC.

Notable engineering efforts where (leaving away very ancient history) the Alpha AXP chip (which introduced 64bit processing 10 years before Intel could even come up with a workable prototype and Itanium "steels" a lot from alpha), or clustering, which worked seemlessly and transparently in 1988 (probably before that), while other "clustering" technologies, most notably under HP/UX, seem to be a bunch of hacked together scripts, which provide a never ending nightmare (specifically after major migrations). I could continue with some of the best compilers and a development environment, which would still put a lot of modern stuff to shame.

Compaq had no fucking clue what they where getting and they where even more clueless in the realm of enterprise customers relying on rock solid, mission critical iron. Uptimes for such customers (for example the Amsterdam coppers) is measured in thousands of days and they tend to take a dim view on the infamous CTRL-ALT-DELETE "error correction" procedure.

I absolutely agree with your statement regarding miss Fiorino, though.

The argument is this :

SCO's bosses at Canopy controls Trolltech which controls Qt which controls KDE.

(do an nslookup of www.trolltech.com and www.kde.org to verify that last bit of logic)

The second contention that's a touchy subject is "Canopy controls Trolltech". Somebody is going to post a link to the trolltech site that says "only 8% of Trolltech is controlled by SCO/Canopy".

Then what the hell is Ralph Yarro (Darl Macbride's boss) doing on the board directors of Trolltech?
Link here for the skeptical.

The issues is real simple. If Canopy doesn't control Trolltech and Trolltech support Linux, then why haven't they

1) Come clean on exactly what their relationship is with Canopy ... and ...

2) Voted Ralph Yarro of the board.

Trolltech should come clean. What is their relationship with Canopy? Does canopy have contractual rights to sit on the board? Do they owe debt to Canopy? Does Canopy have warrants on Trolltech? The silence is deafing. Speak Trolltech, tell us the truth.

The sad thing is QT is a good product. They could increase their respect and marketshare by telling the Canopy chumps to take a hike.

Ralph J. Yarro who is Darl McBride's boss is on the the Trolltech board of directors. Read and weep.
and here

Trolltech should come clean on exactly what's it relationship is with Canopy and SCO.

Karma bombing pro-KDE posts will not make this issue go away.

If Trolltech is so independent, why don't they vote Canopy's bums off the Trolltech board?

You are entirely incorrect, you have not read the legislation or completely misunderstood it.

It's not about considering Open Source software... Government and educational institutions in SA are already completely entititled to do so and regularly do.

It's about legislating that Open Source Software MUST be used whenever it can be, unless it can be PROVED to be impractical.

The ISC is pointing out (and rightly so) that this legislation will effectively reduce choices available to government and educational institutions.

I think this bill is stupid too...

Why shouldn't they be allowed to use commercial software when they judge it to be in their best interests and worth the costs ?

Anyone know how to do our lobbying?

Is there anyway we could get a good speaker that is sort of local to go talk to some of the more undecided politicians? Maybe Rusty or Tridge? These two bring money into Australia and some of that can be directly tracked to South Australia.

LinuxSA has a bit more on the propsed law.

This law will get passed if the local goverment understands that supporting open souce does being in people all over the world through things like linux.conf.au.

Here's a link to the bill.

I agree completely. I'd rather see a bill that states its desires in terms of needs (functionality, security, TCO, etc...) rather than solutions. If open source is judged to fit these criteria the best, it will win. I don't believe that open source needs or should have this sort of "positive discrimination". It should win or lose based on its merits. By the way, for those who are intersted, here's the bill.

I don't know of any such resource, but there's surely sufficient users here to form an idea of what to buy and what not to, just from their experiences.

Only last week I was agreeing with fellow LinuxSA members that Seagate, Fujitsu, and IBM drives are reliable, and Maxtor and Western Digital drives are not. The last-mentioned brands seem far more likely to seize or develop bad clusters after a few years of use.

I also does not seem coincidental that larger reputable companies seem to sell those drives perceived to be reliable and smaller "iffier" companies (such as those marketing only on cost) seem to sell those drives perceived to be unreliable.

I don't know of any such resource, but there's surely sufficient users here to form an idea of what to buy and what not to, just from their experiences.

Only last week I was agreeing with fellow LinuxSA members that Seagate, Fujitsu, and IBM drives are reliable, and Maxtor and Western Digital drives are not. The last-mentioned brands seem far more likely to seize or develop bad clusters after a few years of use.

I also does not seem coincidental that larger reputable companies seem to sell those drives perceived to be reliable and smaller "iffier" companies (such as those marketing only on cost) seem to sell those drives perceived to be unreliable.

Thanks to everyone for their constructive response. It's looking like NetBIOS-NS "Name Query" probes are being sent by IIS servers that want to log a name in the access log.

This isn't a new discovery, as I discovered here and here. From a security point of view, it's noise that could be masking an attack from the Network.vbs worm.
--
Paul Gillingwater