Slashdot Mirror
Broadband Crackdown
MrPeach writes: "In a move unsurprising to those of us who have had interactions with their so-called customer support, AT&T Broadband and Excite@Home are indefinitely filtering all incoming traffic on http port 80 for residential customers. They could have cut access to those running compromised servers, but instead chose to deny the ability to run a web server to all subscribers to their service. DSL anyone?" DSL won't save you. Verizon is apparently also blocking port 80 for their DSL customers, in addition to blocking outgoing port 25 and requiring use of Verizon's SMTP servers to send email. Verizon is also cheerfully paying fines for screwing over their competitors - the fines will be much less than the extra profit they can squeeze out once their competition is gone.
Hey assfuck, nobody asked you. Do you know *everything* about computers?? NO YOU FUCKING DONT! SO DONT FUCKING INSULT PEOPLE LIKE THAT YOU STUPID FUCK.
Just use :82 . Duh. Duh. Duh. lol.
Im using comast @home, and I am running an apache server. I don't know anything about port blocking.
If you put Linux next to some other operating systems out there for a cost comparison, the conclusions are devastating for Linux.
Wrong!
Linux costs not only more because of the frequent updates which require new cdrom's to be bought.
Wrong. Patches can be downloaded from the internet.
Another factor in Linux cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to need maintenance continuously.
Wrong! I'm not a high paid Linux administrator and I can maintain my linux computer easily.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose loses water, when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
Wrong. I have used EXT2FS since 97 and still not lost any data. Allthough I have to say that crashes have be so infrequent that the recovering features of ext2fs has not been put to the test very frequently. If you want higher file system integrity, you can use several available journaling file systems, some of which offer better performance even compared to freebsd.
Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally.
Wrong. Linux has a reputation of stability
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coave low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
Wrong. Linux is very much comparable to other Unices in terms of learning curve. Most distributions have extensive howto's and man pages. Learning curve is highly individual, your milleage may vary.
I can go on and on and on, but the message is clear. In this world, there is no place for Linux. It's not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc. The best place it should ever reach is the toy store, and even that would be flattering
Right, you can go on and on but, from what I can read here, you will be wrong all of the time.
Have a nice day!
Jarek
Is the that expression you use when you try to find(1) an alternative for your overhyped, crash prone, amateur toy OS? That would mean you're searching in the right direction.
Anonymous because I am freakin' pissed. Thanks to all the idiots that should have their drive formatted instead of the nice friendly message I gave you. May you burn in Redmond Hell.
Anon
how do i know you are the real mr peach?
I finally got in touch with my inner child...he's a little shit.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *SD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on top of of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
*BS is dying
If you're so sure of this, why don't you put your name on it. Anonymous coward.
-twb
Argument 1: Linux costs not only more because of the frequent updates which require new cdrom's to be bought.
Ok, I'l stop right there, because obviously YOU DON'T KNOW DICK.
Fucking Troll
Too bad *BSD is dying.