Slashdot Mirror

It's about time Google did something about those full screen popups which pop up every time you go to some webpage, usually asking for your email address. It's annoying to start reading something and being interrupted by a popup which covers the entire page.

As an aside, I find Google's ads have become annoying enough I recently removed them from my pages, despite the minor financial hit. When a webmaster asked for text-only ads, Google used to give you only text; now they give you pictures and sometimes even animations in their "text-only" ads.

I used to not need to use adblock to comfortably surf the internet; I could keep supporting websites by looking at and sometimes clicking their ads. Annoying ads were kept at bay with a click-to-show-flash extension and by disabling looping animated gifs. I really wish there was an adblocker extension out there with a click-to-blacklist mode; I don't think all ad-supported websites should suffer just because a few bad players have obnoxious javascript ads. And, yes, I do support quality content on the web with a subscription to the New York Times.

One of the reasons I walked away from open source and why I only provide basic maintenance on my own open source project is because of attitudes like what I'm seeing from the posts modded up. A post I made to Slashdot in 2011 reflects my attitude towards freeloaders.

The fact that I have built my open source project completely from the ground up, needing no other open source code to run (it runs as a native Windows binary), merely changes the excuses freeloaders have come up with over the years.

Sure, the software is free, but if you want service or support, well, you're not a paying customer. If you want me to handle a RFC violating DNS packet the exact same way BIND handles it because of some ignorant notion that you have to act like BIND bug for bug to "follow standards", there better be money on the table. If you want me to hold your hand in a private email conversation, again, show me the email. If you want to flame me for not providing no more support than basic maintenance (security fixes, updating the software to work in newer Linux distributions), that's your prerogative, but it sure as hell isn't going to goad me in to working for you for free.

My program is my gift to the world. It's a gift: Take it or leave it. But, if you want more, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

I'm glad this post came up so I could experience the attitude freeloaders have again. It makes me feel a little more comfortable deciding to not fix an issue caused by my DNS server not resolving RFC violating DNS packets identically to BIND bug for bug.

TL;DR The grandparent complained about MaraDNS not having more features. He responded to my "show me the money" reply by saying "why should anyone pay you if you don't have more features". My reply: "Because DNS shouldn't be a monoculture".

(As an aside, I actually somewhat respect the parent poster because he does a reasonable job of articulating his points. His thinking is a little rigid and absolute "this is how it must be done" for my tastes, but he at least has clue, something becoming rarer and rarer as Slashdot slowly goes the way of the horse and buggy)

Another thing I forgot to add: Why use MaraDNS.

Since I have Karma to burn, and since it probably would be best if my Karma went to hell, discouraging me from wasting time on Slashdot, here's my thoughts on the negative moderations:

Sure, the first post came off as an ad. I wrote it too quickly, and I can see why a moderator didn't like it. I can also see why a moderator--perhaps the same one--didn't like the parent to this. A good number of Slashdot readers still live in that "everything should be free and no one has bills to pay since they all live in my mother's basement [1] like I do" neckbeard fantasyland probably don't like how I pointed out that it's going to take real money for MaraDNS to get DNSSEC or have rate limiting. They probably stopped there and moderated down (the post was also too long, but a long post deserves a long reply).

[1] In other cultures, multiple generations living under the same roof is normal; I feel the idea that a kid has to move out of the house at 18 to be a real man is one that is bad for families. It's actually in many ways good when a 45-year-old man still lives in his mother's basement, since he will become the one taking care of his aging mother instead of sending her to a nursing home.

OK, I'm out of Slashdot for the rest of 2013. I will not post here until the beginning of 2014. The moderators hath spoken and I really need to get out of the shithole Slashdot is becoming. MaraDNS is the past; it's time for me to make a new mark on the world!

lack of EDNS support is a potential problem

"Potential" being the operative word. Truncated DNS packets still have enough information in them to answer DNS questions, and the only time I've really seen truncated packets is with some of the byzantine DNS packets Yahoo has.

DNSSEC support is critical

But not critical enough for someone to send me the money to make DNSSEC happen with MaraDNS: http://maradns.org/products.html It's really the same problem IPv6 has: All kinds of geeks talk about how great it would be if IPv6 were everywhere, but they don't put out the money for IPv6 to happen more quickly.

It's still possible to resolve domains and surf the web without DNSSEC. I know: MaraDNS 2.0 (Deadwood) is being used to resolve Slashdot.org (and all the other places I go) so I can make this posting. Yes, there are issues with someone with a packet sniffer forging DNS packets on the same network, and I do agree DNSSEC is needed on a larger network with infected machines, and is needed for a DNS server that calls itself secure, but it is working for me right now.

(For sites where forgery is a real problem, such as online banking, I use a special virtual machine and make sure the HTTPS certificate is kosher)

DNS resolvers should not be usable by the world.

Google, OpenDNS, and heck, Level3 disagree with you. That said, I mostly agree: That's why there are no examples in MaraDNS' documentation showing how to make a recursive nameserver globally resolvable, and why it has never been a default configuration in Mara.

Any DNS server that provides recursive DNS ought to not simultaneously provide authoritative DNS from the same service, or from the same IP.

That's the design MaraDNS 2.0 has: I removed the recursion from the "maradns" daemon and completely, from scratch, reimplemented recursion in a separate daemon, which has to run on a separate IP. Not one line of code is shared between the two.

I fully expect any government or corporate grants will go towards DNS server implementations that are more widely used

I understand your sentiment, but, software monoculture is a bad thing and software diversity is a good thing.

When DNS first showed up in the 1980s, there were a number of different implementations. By the time I started MaraDNS 12 years ago, there was only one usable open-source DNS server out there. When I finished MaraDNS, there were five or six (depending on whether Unbound/NSD counts as one or two) different actively maintained significant open-source DNS servers out there. That number has since gone down (none of the djbdns forks came out with a release that fixes CVE-2012-1191). I hope that number continues to be higher than one.

An attitude of "let's only support one DNS server" can return us to the world of a DNS monoculture. EDNS, DNSSEC, and all of these extensions to DNS do not help.

I don't like how CSS, Javascript, and HTML have become such a mess that it requires multi-million dollar grants to keep a browser current, and where Opera finally threw in the towel because they just couldn't keep up with the nonstop update treadmill browsers are on. Dillo doesn't even try to be current (I think they made a mistake trying to support CSS at all, but that's another discussion for another day).

While I disagree with DJB on a lot of things, I understand why he rejected DNSSEC and proposed DNSCURVE: He wanted to keep DNS simple, to keep DNS something that a single talented developer can implement in their spare time.

For better or for worse, DNSSEC won, and now DNS is no longer can practically be implemented by a one-man show any more.

PowerDNS

I agree PowerDNS is a good choice, especially for people who want a database back end, but I'm disappointed it took them over a year to patch CVE-

Be sure to be using MaraDNS 2 and not MaraDNS 1; MaraDNS 1 is obsolete and support ends in about 2 years. ObNeckbeard: 2 years, 6 months, and 2 days.

This conversation has hit the point that it's best continued in private email. I am not going to reply to any more of your postings.

Please stop spreading FUD. There have been 0 remote security holes discovered in djbdns.

Please lay off the crack, wake up, and smell the coffee. This kind of denial is flat-out dangerous.

I have a blog entry detailing the three security holes in djbdns and DJB paid the $500 security hole prize for djbdns years ago.

The most dangerous hole in an unpatched djbdns 1.05 install is the TCP "packet of death" that forces dnscache to restart (since SIGPIPE isn't caught by dnscache). I really should file a CVE for that security problem.

There is also CVE-2008-4392 as well as CVE-2009-0858; more information is in Debian's security page on djbdns.

Though they don't make it as clear as they could, here are some selected quotes from Sam on the Maradns mailing list:

Bottom line: People, by and large, don't pay me for MaraDNS
development. I also haven't gotten enough goodwill and fame
developing MaraDNS to get my dream job in Silicon Valley (I did get an
interview with Google, but they never hired me). So, alas, fixing
Windows Server 2003 issues is a little beyond my budget right now. :(

I can also fix
the issue for the 1.2 branch of MaraDNS for $100 (assuming I can share
the fix with the world; if you want me to make changes to MaraDNS that
are private, please hire me with a living wage)

As an aside, I am looking for a job in the US:

http://samiam.org/resume/

(I apologize for putting this on the list, but in this economy it's
really tough to find a new job)

Mod parent up! :)

Seriously, people here love to talk about how the "new economy" makes it possible to remove "artificial scarcity" and make it so everything is free.

What these people ignore is that, even if it costs no money to copy something, it still costs money to create something. There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.

I enjoy reading all of the articles on the New York Times' front page every morning, and understand I soon may need to pay for the privilege of reading the quality journalism and writing the the NYT offers.

Now, I'm sure someone will point to open source software and say "Mr. MaraDNS, you don't know about open source software and how this proves that we can have all the compelling content we want for free in the 'new economy'". I will point out to people who think like this that I am, in fact, a developer of open-source software.

People who think open-source software (OSS) makes it possible for all content to be free don't understand how OSS changes the relationship between the developer and the user. A lot of people think an OSS program is like a commercial program, but free, and that they can ask for features or get support for free, and it gets pretty tiring to have people email me asking for free support, even though I make it clear that I don't provide free email support for my program.

The thinking behind OSS is that I donate some of my coding time and effort to the greater community. In return, people are free to contribute bug fixes or improvements to the program, or supply support on the mailing list. For example, someone wanted better IPv6 support, supplied patches, and now MaraDNS has good IPv6 support. Another person wanted better Windows service support, and supplied patches to make MaraDNS' new recursive core be a full Windows service. Other people answer user's questions on the mailing list or translate documentation. Webconquest very generously provides me a free Linux shell account and hosting for the web site.

Likewise, I found an OSS Doom random generator I liked and provided bug fixes and improvements to it; when I lost interest in it, another person became the maintainer and improvements continue to be made even though I no longer work on that code. And, there is a Free Windows Civilization clone for Windows which I have provided a bug fix and extended the documentation with.

OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software. OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there.

Mod parent up! :)

Seriously, people here love to talk about how the "new economy" makes it possible to remove "artificial scarcity" and make it so everything is free.

What these people ignore is that, even if it costs no money to copy something, it still costs money to create something. There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.

I enjoy reading all of the articles on the New York Times' front page every morning, and understand I soon may need to pay for the privilege of reading the quality journalism and writing the the NYT offers.

Now, I'm sure someone will point to open source software and say "Mr. MaraDNS, you don't know about open source software and how this proves that we can have all the compelling content we want for free in the 'new economy'". I will point out to people who think like this that I am, in fact, a developer of open-source software.

People who think open-source software (OSS) makes it possible for all content to be free don't understand how OSS changes the relationship between the developer and the user. A lot of people think an OSS program is like a commercial program, but free, and that they can ask for features or get support for free, and it gets pretty tiring to have people email me asking for free support, even though I make it clear that I don't provide free email support for my program.

The thinking behind OSS is that I donate some of my coding time and effort to the greater community. In return, people are free to contribute bug fixes or improvements to the program, or supply support on the mailing list. For example, someone wanted better IPv6 support, supplied patches, and now MaraDNS has good IPv6 support. Another person wanted better Windows service support, and supplied patches to make MaraDNS' new recursive core be a full Windows service. Other people answer user's questions on the mailing list or translate documentation. Webconquest very generously provides me a free Linux shell account and hosting for the web site.

Likewise, I found an OSS Doom random generator I liked and provided bug fixes and improvements to it; when I lost interest in it, another person became the maintainer and improvements continue to be made even though I no longer work on that code. And, there is a Free Windows Civilization clone for Windows which I have provided a bug fix and extended the documentation with.

OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software. OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there.

Mod parent up! :)

Seriously, people here love to talk about how the "new economy" makes it possible to remove "artificial scarcity" and make it so everything is free.

What these people ignore is that, even if it costs no money to copy something, it still costs money to create something. There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.

I enjoy reading all of the articles on the New York Times' front page every morning, and understand I soon may need to pay for the privilege of reading the quality journalism and writing the the NYT offers.

Now, I'm sure someone will point to open source software and say "Mr. MaraDNS, you don't know about open source software and how this proves that we can have all the compelling content we want for free in the 'new economy'". I will point out to people who think like this that I am, in fact, a developer of open-source software.

People who think open-source software (OSS) makes it possible for all content to be free don't understand how OSS changes the relationship between the developer and the user. A lot of people think an OSS program is like a commercial program, but free, and that they can ask for features or get support for free, and it gets pretty tiring to have people email me asking for free support, even though I make it clear that I don't provide free email support for my program.

The thinking behind OSS is that I donate some of my coding time and effort to the greater community. In return, people are free to contribute bug fixes or improvements to the program, or supply support on the mailing list. For example, someone wanted better IPv6 support, supplied patches, and now MaraDNS has good IPv6 support. Another person wanted better Windows service support, and supplied patches to make MaraDNS' new recursive core be a full Windows service. Other people answer user's questions on the mailing list or translate documentation. Webconquest very generously provides me a free Linux shell account and hosting for the web site.

Likewise, I found an OSS Doom random generator I liked and provided bug fixes and improvements to it; when I lost interest in it, another person became the maintainer and improvements continue to be made even though I no longer work on that code. And, there is a Free Windows Civilization clone for Windows which I have provided a bug fix and extended the documentation with.

OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software. OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there.

While I disagree with the idea that open-source DNS servers are insecure (having written one myself), I can see why he wants to say bad things about Open-source DNS servers.

The bottom line is this: There is no money to be made with DNS. While DNS is something that is essential for the Internet, it's something that is completely free. Bert Hubert tried making money with DNS a few years ago with PowerDNS, but sales were so bad he threw in the towel and GPLd the code around 2002. BIND 9 was, as it turns out, funded with a combination of contributions from UNIX corporations and military funding (for DNSSEC) who wanted to update DNS, but the funding has dried up and the code is BSD-licensed. NSD and Unbound's development were funded with government grants.

DjbDNS was done as an independent project by Bernstein; he stopped working on it in 2001 and the code is really out of date (three unpatched security holes, outdated root servers list, etc). My own MaraDNS is still being actively developed, but at a glacial pace; between my girlfriend, my job, and my other interests, I often have to put it on the back burner.

So, yes, DNS is essential, but it's free and it's really hard to make money with it. Heck, it's hard to get enough goodwill and net-reputation from making a DNS server for me to get a well-paying job in the US working with computers again in today's depression-level tech economy (if you want to hire someone with the expertise to write a DNS server, my resume is online).

So, yeah, I can see why this person resorts to FUD and BS to try and get people to pay more money for DNS. But, the truth is that there are a lot of really good free and open-source DNS servers out there an no need to buy a commercial DNS server.

that effectively limits the market for open source to people who see the transaction from the developer's point of view [...] By defining people who use open source as, more or less, participants, open source circumscribes its acceptance.

Yep. This is one of the big reasons Linux doesn't have, at best, more than a 2% share of the desktop market. I've given up on the idea we will have the year of the Linux desktop; people who think Linux will become an end-users system are very naive about end-users expectations and desires.

Then again, Linux works in niche markets. In works in the embedded space, where the end-product is paid for and supported by the company selling the product. It works in the server space, where the user is knowledgeable enough about computing to handle Linux's user interface quirks, and understands the developer-user relationship is different than the one commercial software has.

most people see themselves as customers, not members of a community who take on an obligation to contribute something

Some people have seen themselves as customers, until I reset their expectations (or, better yet, have gotten money from them). Indeed, one of the big lessons I have learned is how to handle people who expect to be treated like paying customers, but who are unwilling to pay me.

Other users have contributed code or meaningful bug reports. For example, the IPv6 code was a third-party contribution, as well as improvements to the Windows Service code the next version of MaraDNS will use. I have free hosting for my open-source project and my personal webpage as a token of gratitude for my open-source contributions.

Do I want Linux to take over the world? Not any more. One thing a lot of open source advocates don't take in to account is what it's really like to have end-users, and why it is end-users prefer Windows (or MacOS) over Linux.

Anyway, it's been good talking to you. If you want to continue this discussion, I think we should take it to private email at this point. I would like to know a little more about you, what your relation to computers and open source is, and who you are as a person.

I think open source would do well to treat every user as a customer, rather than as a user

There would be a lot of benefit to end-users if I treated everyone as a customer, whether or not they paid me, but there would be a negative benefit to me (less time to be with my girlfriend, less time to update my skills to get a good job in the tech industry again, etc.). In a business transaction, both parties benefit: The customer benefits because they get the good or service they want, and the seller benefits because they get money.

In open source software, the transaction changes. What benefit does the Open Source Software (OSS) developer get if people download their software for free? Some OSS projects get a benefit because the user files bug reports, which make the software more stable. Other get a benefit when users start adding features of a program; my ObHack random map generator for Doom is an example of me taking another open source project on the Internet and adding features to it, as well as fixing bugs.

These are things that benefit the project but things end-customers don't want to contribute to. This is why a lot of OSS projects treat users who expect to be treated like customers as "leachers"; I welcome such users myself, but only as long as I get paid.

There is also the idea of using Open Source Software (OSS) as a way of me marketing my skills as a computer programmer, but I have never been hired as a full-time programmer because of my open source projects; that really only happens with certain high-profile OSS projects. To be fair, yes, I did get an interview at Google because of my project, and right now I am in discussions with a company about possibly getting work from them, again because of my project, but bottom line: I have not (yet, I'm keeping my fingers crossed) been actually hired as a result of the goodwill my project has generated.

How about charging for service and support? Sure, I get paid a little for that, but nowhere near enough to pay my bills. And, yes, if people are willing to pay me, I am willing to treat them like customers.

No network, no desktop. A minute and twenty seconds from entering name/password until the desktop appears because Nautilus is hanging for a whole minute. GDM does a similar but shorter hang everytime the login appears.

OK, silly question: Why not remove GDM and Nautilus and replace it with XDM and KDE or some other desktop environment?

Another thought: If this is a DNS issue (I bet it is; you can find out if it is with strace), why not set up a DNS server on the localhost that does nothing but send some reply so these programs get the DNS reply they're waiting for. I have a tiny simple DNS server that might fit the bill if this is your issue.

Any reason we're not buying XP licenses and putting Windows XP on these computers?

There is no random or even pseudorandom level generation.

SLIGE, SCUDD, SLUMP.

Okay, so they don't make breathtakingly amazing levels. But they're still better than 90% of the user-made Doom levels out there...

I remeber on alt.hackers (note: This article never made it to google's news archive) someone making a big deal of UNIX time hitting 800000000.

Here is yet another mirror of an image of the chess set in question, since the site hasn't been slashdotted...yet.

Just to let you know, I feel that comments like this are very inappropriate to say to anyone, either on-line or off-line. This is a very nasty personal insult; I have been to schools where this kind of language would not be allowed (it is "fighting language"; language which angers someone enough to start a fight in the real world).

As a result, I have placed you on my foes list. If you wish to be taken off of my foes list, please apologize to the person you have personally insulted, and mail me proof that you have done so.

You are free to continue using this kind of language, of course, but people will respect you less and your karma will undoubtably suffer.

- Sam

I feel it is very inappropriate to respond to someone with a different viewpoint than yours with a line like "it will take a severe lack of judgement on your manager's part for you to get promoted above a coding monkey". This is a personal attack against the original poster; if you feel that 100% office compatibility is important, please explain why instead of insulting strangers.

Until you post an apologoly here, or email me proof that you have apologized to the original poster, I will have you on my foes list. I only place people who engage in personal insults (or put me on their foes list) on my foes list; the only way to get off of my foes list is to apologize to the person who has been insulted.

I know this is Slashdot; however I hope that basic human decency still exists, even here.

Take care,

- Sam

I much prefer an open-source game; it allows me to make tweaks and implement house rules; something a proprietary game does not allow.

- Sam

One word: freeciv

- Sam (The AI is a little tough to fix, a bug which I have fixed)

I used it for a while back in 1996, back when Caldera's office suite was the only office suite for Linux, and one had to buy the "Caldera Network Desktop" to get the office suite. Actually, it wasn't Caldera per se; it was a re-branded RedHat 2.0 with some proprietary software added.

It ended up becoming RedHat 3.0.3 with Caldera's prorietary add-ons. Finally, in 1987, I ditched all of the Caldera-specific software and upgraded to RedHat 4.x, using Applix as my office suite.

I even have a screenshot of this old Caldera setup here.

I am very saddened to see Caldera fall from being a company that benefitted Linux greatly (they made the first professional-quality office suite for Linux ever available) to a company seeking to destroy Linux. May Caldera die a quick and clean death.

- Sam

Very true. The main problem with looking for stuff over at mp3.com and what not is that one needs a broadband connection and some patience. Patience because Sturgeon's Law is definitely in force with those kinds of sites; I usually have to download five or six songs from different bands to get one that is listenable (ObShamelessPlug). Broadband, because downloading and sifting through that many mp3s is downright painful on a dialup. I've done it; never again.

The other problem is that, there is a pretty strong herd mentality with music. Many people don't just want to listen to a band; they want the feeling that they are part of a community of people who listen to the same band.

Because of a combination of these factors, I bought a CD by an RIAA supported band today. I know these guys' music; I know that even their weaker songs will be listenable. I am part of an online group of fans; I know I can share my experiences of listening to this album with them. I didn't have to wait for a download, and I don't have to worry about mp3 compression artifacts.

- Sam

I expect both formats to go over like a led zepplin. When audio professionals are arguing about whether these formats sound significantly better, and when people are perfectly happy with inferior-sounding mp3s, I do not think the public wants a better sounding format.

I think the public wants better music and lower prices. Personally, I want the little guy to become more important; I am sick of a hierarchy which makes a very few famous musicians Gods and the rest peons.

I really think the record companies lost it when the internet boom happened. Their reaction to piracy by strong-arm tactics with legislators backfired. While this worked in the early 1990s with the HRRA, when the media controlled the communication channels, such techniques do not fly when communication channels are open.

I think people will continue to enjoy music in large numbers; I currently am enjoying a Mexican group called Kabah. I just do not think the current distribution model makes as much sense any more.

Let me restate that I think pirating mp3s is wrong; it is immoral to download a song without the copyright owner's permission.

- Sam

- Sam

People would complain to Network Solutions about spammers having obviously bogus WHOIS information (such as phone numbers of --- --- ----), and their reply was that "WHOIS information is ot guaranteed to be accurate".

I think the response is that, if a given set of WHOIS contact information is bogus, and people complain about the bogus information, Verisign should pull the domain in question until they update the information to have legitimate contact info.

A spam-friendly domain without real WHOIS contact information should be pulled until the information is updated. People should be held more accountable for what they put up on the internet; non-bogus WHOIS contact info is a start.

- Sam (Pot. Kettle. Black. I've moved since signing up for my domains, and have not updated the WHOIS contact info)

My only comment is that the face of the gecko is not quite in the plane of focus. I know that, with a really long lens (which can very well be on a medium format camera, which further squashes the plane of focus), the plain of focus is really thin. And, with Autofocus cameras, one can not readily choose what is in focus. However, it would have been better if the face would have been in focus and less of the tail of the gecko was in focus.

Then again, I know that getting the perfect focus is just about impossible in situtations where you need to collapse the depth of field; I hate flashes so have the same problems when taking pictures at night.

- Sam

http://www.samiam.org/typing.spanish.characters.ht ml

E.G: áéíóúñü

The fact that Sun asked you to do this gives me a good deal of respect for who Sun is and what they stand for. While I have my own issues with Sun (having to do with the fact that Solaris barfs on code which every free *NIX can handle); I respect them for making OpenOffice available, and for striving to make *NIX the standard desktop environment for their users.

Now, of course, if I was your manager, I would let you use Windows, a Macintosh, or whatever else makes you productive. While I do respect people who are able to be productive in a strict *NIX environment more than people who need to use something else to get their work done, I understand that Linux is not for everyone.

As one of the other people who posted a follow-up pointed out, Windows is a real roach motel. You have made a decision to not learn how to use the proprietary tools well enough to be productive with them. As a result, you are stuck using Windows or a Mac to do productive work. People who can be productive with libre software tools and not tied down to any particular OS environment.

I have no problem using a Windows desktop, since the free software tools I use have been ported to this environment. All I need is a Windows machine with a net connection to get something very close to my Linux environment again.

Nor do I have any problem being productive in MacOS X, which is a single terminal window away from being essentially identical to my Linux setup.

Solaris can be made productive by a simple visit to sunfreeware

. Other proprietary Unices have similiar binary ports sites.

Of course, I prefer working in Linux; it is nice to know that I can fix small annoyances like this one as needed. An option I do not have with proprietary software.

- Sam

http://www.samiam.org/typing.spanish.characters.ht ml

- Sam

Neomagic, however, eventually learned the folly of having an anti-Linux policy, and were forced to leave the Laptop chipset market altogether; I am sure that the various laptop makers did not appreciate all of the returns from people who wanted to use Linux. In fact, NeoMagic's support web page srill prominently discusses Linux drivers.

- Sam

There were three bugs which were annoying me in 0.9.4, and all but one of them was fixed on 0.9.5. The one they didn't fix I was able to fix myself--an option that I would not have had if AbiWord was a proprietary product.

The source code to AbiWord is clean and readily readable, the user interface to AbiWord is very professional-looking, and it is perfect for my Spanish-language compositions.

Speaking of which, I really should get off Slashdot and start working on tonight's paper.

- Sam

Anonimity definitely has a dark side.

A few years ago, Time magazine did an excellent piece on the problems to today's society. One of the things they pointed out is that the privacy of a modern household has greatly increased the incidents of child abuse. In the society that we evolved in, one large factor that stopped people from abusing their child was the fact that there was no privacy--if you abuse your child, the whole village knew about it.

The anonimity of the internet causes similar problems.

Any system administrator knows that if they put any pornographic images on their web server, their machine or their machine's connection will quickly get overloaded. For example, one of my users put up pictures of attractive women. The women were not even naked, yet the server's connection was still overloaded.

I have heard it said that the most common term asked for in the leading search engines is "pornography". People who would normally be too embarassed to go in to a liquor store or a peep show have no problem getting porno on the net. The internet makes people do what they would not normally do.

While pornography is somewhat harmless, other activity on the internet isn't. The actions of the anonymous person who brought down Kiro5hin come to mind. As does the random bannings on many IRC channels (where the operators as often as not broke in to accounts or engaged in credit card fraud to get a system they could run a bot on to control the channel), the efforts people go to to cheat in online games, countless breakin attempts any experienced system administrator sees in their logs, the nonstop tide of spam, and so on. All of these are things that poeple do when they do not get a chance to look in the eyes of the person who they are harming with their selfish actions.

It does not surprise me that the internet is full of people who take but do not give back. Human nature has always had the takers who complain when the stuff they are not taking is not good enough for their selfish purposes, and the givers who get little in return for their giving except complaints from the takers. The anonimity of the internet makes this problem worse.

Anyway, that is my rant of the day. Time to go back to coding my current open-source project.

- Sam

I think one of the major causes of this problem is that RedHat (and others) do not go to much effort to make their distribution secure. RedHat could be considerate and do the following:

• No unneeded services running by default. This means, for example, there should not be a network service of lpd needed just so someone can print a file. Any services running should be services the user specifically asks for during the install.
• The default version of X should not bind to port 6000-6020, or, in a default system, ports 6000-6020 should be ipchained off.
• Programs with more than a given number of reports on Bugtraq should not be installed by default. What percent of new RedHat Linux users are going to actually run mh? Why does RedHat insist on having mh installed in the default install, despite the number of patches this has in a desperate attempt to make mh's suids not local root holes.
• ftpd-BSD, IMHO, should be the default ftp server (my version a patch that makes the default umask something sane). If not ftpd-BSD, at least anything besides wu-ftpd.
• Come September 20, RedHat will be able to make OpenSSH part of their distro. Hopefully, this will mean that they don't run telnet unless the user asks for it.

- Sam

http://linux.samiam.org/microsoft.ch allenge.html

As an aside, I think the expression "that is FUD" is a cop out. If a fact stated is inaccurate, say so, preferably with a link to support the fact. For example, when Microsoft claims that Linux does not have a distributed security model, the reponse should not be "That is FUD". The reponse should be "Yes it does. For example, NIS is a distributed security model that works wiht Linux." Ideally, a link to some NIS page, such as the NIS HOWTO, should be provided.

If the fact in question is true, hey, that's great too. Sometimes, opensource developers need more focus to do the best work they can, and what better focus than a challenge from Microsoft itself!

- Sam

- Sam

- Sam

- Sam

- Sam

Frankly, I doubt it. I think most people with programs like this will not go to the bother of filling out 15 government forms.

- Sam Trenholme