Erm, are you on drugs? IBM is doing exactly what it's always been doing, selling hardware and support contracts, and it's still making quite a bit of money. That's what it's always made money at, and what it will continue to make money at. They sell, and support, 'business machines' (Hence the name.), and they've been doing it since typewriters and adding machines were the hot item for a business to have.
And the same with AT&T. They're selling long distance like they've always sold long distance. (Since the breakup, at least.)
I have no idea how you decided these companies are 'dead', or aren't operating exactly like they have for decades. Some of their projects have failed, OS/2 leaps to mind, but their core business has not changed or faltered in the least.
Which, in fact, I'm sure they have done. (Though it might have been part of their sale agreement from Pepsi, so they aren't the best example.) But almost all businesses that sell only Coke or only Pepsi get it at a reduced price because of that.
The difference, of course, is that neither Coke or Pepsi are a monopoly. You have those two (As an aside, the soft drink industry is one of the most cutthroat industries there is. Anyone remember the cola wars in the 80s?), plus you have at least a dozen generic brands, plus you have all the 'non-cola' drinks like Snapple, Fruitopia (Owned by Coke, not the greatest example), SoBe, not to mention all the 'traditional' drinks like tea, milk, coffee, water, lemonaide, etc.
In case anyone's keeping score, you can, in fact, buy third party ice makers for fridges, though I have no idea if 'dealers' can sell them with them installed.
I would assume so, from that I know, as there aren't really 'dealers' of refridgerators. Stores buy them, and they sell them to you, there are no 'GE stores'. Though, of course, there are 'Kenmore stores' (Sears), so I don't know.
So, you're assuming spammers are sniffing your email and finding out not only the names and address of your friends, but what headers they send with their message, and searching until they find an open relay within the right subnet so they can send using the same SMTP server as your friend?
This is so far from reality I don't know where to start. Spammers run software that looks for things like blah@example.com. This is the entire extent of their 'finding email addresses'. They not only don't do any of these complicated things you're talking about to figure how to get in past one address, they don't even filter out obviously wrong addresses. Spammers sometimes send to Usenet Message-IDs, which only look like email address if you're just globbing *@*.???, and don't bother to look and see it's jf3224-usieof.disuwod@example.com.
If it takes a spammer an hour to send a message to a person, they've lost and we've won. Hell, if it takes a spammer one minute to send a message to someone, we've won. Spammers are sending out something like a million messages each time, and each run needs to be done in a few hours.
Yes, you could force everyone who talks to you to PGP sign everything, which has plenty of other implications that they may not want, or you can just realize spammers don't have the time to figure out who your friends are and send message 'from' them, they're sending to a million people at once. They don't even have time to remove bounces and 5xx errors from their list. In addition, if they're using open relays, they can't really change their message on a per-user basis, or half the benefit of open relays is gone.
Plus, that's easily solved, if they actually start doing that, by saying 'I will only accept mail from whoever@server.dom, and the only machine that can send me that mail is server.dom.'. If someone has a weird situation where email doesn't arrive from the machine server.dom, you simply give them an exception.
PGP signing is so that you can prove later they sent it, not so you 'know who it's from', it's trivially easy to figure out if an email is from someone you know just by looking at the headers. If a friend always PGP signs his email, sure, accept that as proof it's from him. But don't make everyone start signing things, being from the right server with the right email address is proof enough it's not a spammer.
While it wouldn't meet the requirements alone, it would certainly be okay to suggest they look elsewhere for the source first, then come to your site.
All this is pretty silly, anyway, as almost all GPL apps are distributed as source, or are simply compiled source from other people. The first obviously doesn't need source, and the second doesn't either if you've just compiled someone else's source and not modified it, you can just hand them your written offer for the source and tell them to get it from those guys.
While it's certainly possible to write GPL software yourself and originally give out only the binaries and an offer of source, I've never seen anyone do it.
Yes, if the person you're sending to is using procmail later on, it could silently delete, but most spam filtering for domains is done using blacklists and other measures right when the SMTP client asks for permission to send. It doesn't make any sense, if you're doing filtering on the server, to accept the email, and if you don't accept it the other end should get errors somewhere. Maybe not logical errors, but some sort of errors.
I dunno, though, if it's truely some sort of message counter, it might accept them all and retroactively delete them if there are more than X. I can't comprehend someone actually using something that, though, I was really working on the assumption that he's in a private blacklist or something. I thought at first he'd ended up in some public one and didn't know it, but I can't find him anywhere. But he talks about this happening on multiple providers.
Message counting doesn't make any sense, and I've never heard of anyone doing it, at least not for a domain. It's simply too much work to keep track of mailing lists. Maybe he's ending up in Vipul's Razor or something. (Which is certainly possible, as he's not using any sort of confirmed opt-in.)
Of course, as he's not using confirmed opt-in, I don't really want to help him, beyond 'use confirmed opt-in'.
Just like you cannot buy a Ford Explorer from a Ford dealer (read OEM) without a Ford engine. Or Ford seats. Or Ford sheetmetal.
No, you can buy all that stuff. You simply walk into a dealer and ask for it. You'll probably get a few very confused salespeople, so you'll need to go over to the repair bays, and buy it like it's for repairs. Might be easier to go to an auto parts store, where they also have the parts in stock, genuinue Ford and otherwise.
Of course, most repair shops do not have 'a body' in stock, as that's a rather surreal repair. ('My car's body defective, can you just replace the entire thing?' 'Um...not really.') Plus, shipping it would be a bitch. The size and half the weight of a car, and no wheels. But you can buy all the parts that compose the body and put them together yourself.
Anyway, no one's saying that all of windows should be modular. No one is suggesting that you should be able to buy the GUI seperate from the device level. (Well, not for non-monopoly reasons. For technical reason it might be a good idea to seperate those.)
They just want to be able to buy a Windows that doesn't comes with IE and WMP, and anything else MS decides to add later on. And, this is the important part, pay less for them, instead of having their money that was used to purchase their only (perceived due to monopoly position) choice in OSes go towards a browser and whatever else that MS is using to drive competitors out of the market by giving away for free. They should be able to buy Windows + Netscape, not Windows + IE + Netscape.
Microsoft has a monopoly. (I'm so glad I don't have to spend ten posts defending that last statement anymore.) They abuse their position by claiming everything is part of Windows, and hide the cost of it in Windows, so you have to pay for it if you want Windows, and you have to purchase Windows because they have a monopoly. You shouldn't have to purchase IE also.
And, like I said, all this car stuff is moot. 95% of the population wants a radio/CD player with normal quality speakers. The 1% who don't want a radio just have to order the car custom from the factory (And, yes, you can do that.), and the 4% who want to replace it with an third party radio can do the same. There are enough car companies that, if there was a demand for a stripped down car, they would be selling them. In fact, there are companies that sell such cars.
PS. Are you aware that GM sells, or used to sell, no convertables? All convertables you see of, say, 93 Pontiac Grand Ams were manufactored with a roof, then the roof was cut off at a non-GM plant, and they were sold at the dealer like normal. Dealers can certainly modify cars, and, yes, they could put in a random third party engine. They don't, because they like to use genuine parts, but they could. Those convertable tops certainly weren't of GM make.
Before you get all huffy over your stuff being dropped, you need to start using confirmed opt-in.
However, you luckily aren't on any blackhole lists. Yet.
And it's a problem with your mailer. All anti-spam software returns errors to your mailer when you connect, or bounces the email. It wouldn't drop them on the floor, that's not discouraging you at all, you'll still keep sucking up their bandwidth, as you can't possibly know they're being dropped.
Ergo, your mailer does not understand the 5xx reply they are sending. You need to report it as a bug.
That said, I also think that all emails should be PGP signed
Becuase, of course, spammers are too stupid to download PGP and make a key.
Why on earth does this pop up in any anti-spam discussion? PGP signing simply means the sender can prove it was from him. It doesn't mean you know who the sender is.
If you want to set up some sort of whitelist, it makes just as much sense, and takes much less space, to say 'I will accept email from blah@mail.dom, and only if it arrives via mail.dom or dialup.dom.'.
If you want to do something useful with PGP, you could make something where you auto-whitelist anyone who has a key signed by someone you trust. That's about the only way PGP can help fight spam.
Yes you can. You just have to buy enough parts to build a Ford body, and a Mercedes engine, and put them all together. It's a hell of a lot of work, but it's possible, assuming you get an engine that is somewhat the right size, and are willing to spend a month putting two completely different system's together.
But the point is not whether or not you can actually buy it, but whether or not Ford prohibits it. Ford does not, if people wanted to start selling 'Ford with Mercedes engine' cars, they could do so. It's much more expensive than using standard parts, and no one really wants it, so they don't, but they could.
Whereas you cannot buy Windows without IE, or WMP.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because MS is a monopoly, and none of the car companies are. If Ford went facist and tried to stop people from disassembling its cars, or buying parts and not immediately using them to replace broken parts, so you couldn't do this (assuming they even had a legal leg to stand on), people would just start buying Chevys.
In related hopes, the AC hopes that someone fixes that Y2k thing in time, and also that the American Revolution succeeds.
Re:This is why Hackers are SO important!
on
Spyware Fights Back
·
· Score: 1
When the automotive industry in agreement with the petrolium industry decide that no car on the market will have an aerodynamic efficiency above a certain figure, (so as to maintain a piggish rate of gas burning which might not otherwise be necessary), what can the average individual do?
What the fuck does a car's 'aerodynamic efficiency' have to do with its MPGs? You're living in some sort of physics fantasy if you think wind resistance on a modren car could be changed to reduce fuel consumption more than about 5 MPG. You can save double that just by having smarter fuel injection and valve timing, which automakers are slowly rolling out. Hell, you can save that much by not using the air conditioner.
Worrying about the effect on fuel effiency by drag on the car's body is a bit like having an refridgerator and worrying about the power used by the little lightbulb inside that comes on when the door opens. Total drag is trivial, and the drag that can be removed while leaving the car functional is even more trival.
And, regardless, automakers reduce it anyway. (More for fun than anything else.) They're currently down to about.28, I think.
It's entirely likely that having two programs that attempt to do the same things (Access files as you do, and see if they have viruses in them before running them.) would in fact screw each other up. Virusscan isn't just making this up.
And it's not like the Virusscan people care what else you have installed. You purchased Virusscan, didn't you? Why would they care if you have NAV laying around also? With other programs like Word vs. WordPerfect, or Real vs. Media Player, the more users, the more users they're likely to gain, but you don't generate or view docs in AV software, so that's not a likely reason.
In short, it's entirely likely they aren't lying. They're simply saying you can have one or the other installs, and, because you just started to install one, they assume you don't want the other. Whereas you can certainly have both Ad-Aware and RadLight installed at the same time.
But the important thing, of course, is the prompting. RadLight, from what I know, just deletes Ad-Aware, with no prompts.
Re:Lets ask a manager if we can install it
on
VoIP at $15 a Pop
·
· Score: 1
Manager: Can it be used with the existing telephone network?
Consultant: No. You'll need new hardware.
However, it can be used with the existing computer network.
Manager: I see.. How much does it cost to run?
Consultant: Well, power will be required to run the devices. We could work out a rough cost per year...
Manager: The existing phone system does not require external power.
Is this from the same companies that leave all computers and all lights on overnight? This plug into a computer, they do not use any more power than a mouse when not in use.
Manager: How about our network?
Consultant: Well, since this transfers data across the network, you'd probably have to upgrade.
Manager: I see.
Consultant: And, we would probably reccomend that you have a seperate network for the system so it doesn't interfer with your daily network usage.
That's just idiotic. The device 'works', at least well enough to use, over phone lines. It's not going to cause anywhere near enough traffic over an internal network to warrant an upgrade, unless you're using 115k serial connections or something insane as a network, and since it only used 5.6K at most it would still only suck half the bandwidth. (This is even pretending you could have a network made of serial cables.)
It would be completely unnoticable on any real network.
Manager: What about cost over the internet gateway?
Consultant: Well, I'm sure that it wouldn't too much more bandwidth through your gateway than you are currently using.. and you can 'dial' anyone in the world with the same system!
Yes, it wouldn't be much more than is currently used, assuming the business has at least a T1. Businesses with single or double channel ISDN connections probably don't want to use it, though a 128k ISDN connection can probably handle one or many two without noticable slowdown.
It's kind of funny you think it would tie up interal networks but not external connections.
Manager: I see. Let me get the straight: If we installed this, we would suddenly have a power bill where none exists now.
Interesting business without a power bill. What do they make,...I was going to insert a witty commention about the kinds of things you don't need power to make, but I literally can't think of any. Any business that makes a physical product will have any computer usage overshadowed by the physical machinary.
We would need to install a second networking system, or have a degraded phone system.
No.
We would have to improve our internet gateway for external communications.
Finally, a valid point. Any business doing this wouldhave to open holes in their firewall. But holes aren't that bad if you open them correctly.
We currently have (as many large businesses do) long-term contracts with our Telco which would would need to negotiate out of. These contracts tend to be 5, 10 or 15 year long contracts.
Another valid point, but it really only applies to very large businesses. A 30 person company is not that likely to have a long-term contract. It's obviously something that doesn't need to be brought up as a minus, except with regard to a specific company. It's not a problem in general.
We would need to buy new handsets from a specific? company to replace existing handsets.
No, existing phones plug into these, that's the point.
We would also have to change our well developed and planned phone to person system. Currently if you call our tech help desk you can tell them you name and location and the location where you are moving to and they will have the phone redirected within the hour and a new handset installed (if required) within 24 hours. Would we have to change this?
Consultant: I don't know.
If you're moving the computer, nothing at all, it will automatically change. If you're not moving computers, you probably have to make some configuration changes to the existing ones, fairly simple ones I'm sure.
Manager: My final question to you is: What happens if it fails?
Consultant: (Very nervously) I don't know. Switch back to the old system while the problems are fixed?
Manager: You mean, have two systems up at the same time? Interesting solution. How much would all this cost us?
Consultant: I don't know.
What do you mean, 'fails'? You mean, the net connection goes down? For a real network connection, like a T1, that's not really any more likely than your phone service going out. And, of course, the internal phones would still work, which they may not using POTS, depending on how you have it set up.
If you mean the computer network going down, I have to point out that hardware failures or routers and switches are no more likely to happen than having your phone switching equipment go down.
I'm not putting down the technology here, I'm just speculating what would happen if you tried to pitch this at a large company with an existing telephone system.
Well, hopefully you'd learn more about it before you pitched it.
While you need a license to operate a ham radio, I would be very amazed if you needed one to stand next to a ham radio and talk. You just need the licensed operator there also, to operate the radio.
Actually no, I have a Dual G4 450 and the use of a Dual G4 1 gig at home. I don't use MS office as I have better office suites which are fully compatible with MS office files, which is why I'm going to license a MS compatible office suite and stick it in the GUI of my Kaos BSD. [real people work with the real world]
What are you talking about? Yes, there are some alternatives to MS, but I fail to see how that affects my qualification of 'Commercial software doesn't affect people if they don't buy it.'. MS is also affecting you if you go out and buy a clone of their software so you can read their documents.
Read the GPL, you should see a clause which states you have to release your sourcecode. Gates is right on this point, GPL is a virus that can seriously affect the ecosystem of any code it infects.
And re-read what I said 'No one's forcing you to use any code whatsoever, or license any of your code under any license.'. You do not have to use GPL code. If you use GPL code accidently by others stripping the license, you simply have to remove it.
The GPL is no more a virus than working at a company is a virus. You joined it (Use their code volentarily.) and keep working there as long as you follow their rules. You can leave at any time, or not join, by not using GPL code.
You seem to be working under the assumption that you have the right to copy any code you see in any fashion, which is rather silly.
Good guess, it was a system designed to lock up brang logo graphics which was stolen by a couple of companies who have now turned into a major part of the New Zealand e-banking system. I don't care about them stealing it because it has a deliberate design flaw in the encryption.
I didn't guess anything related to that.
As for the kernel, it's a new design that only MIT has tried before [and failed]. I'm coding it from scratch, so my encryption is embedded in the core of the exokernel. BTW, commands aren't part of the kernel at all [unless you've got a badly written linux].
kiwipeso, meet kiwipeso's sig:
- Kaos operating system creator
Looks to me like you're an OS developer, not a kernel-only developer.
And I don't know where 'badly written linux' comes from. There aren't any versions of the Linux kernel out there with commands in them, so I'm going to have to assume that was some sort of shot at Linux.
My code is open source, I just think you should buy the program if you're going to use the code. I don't force people to keep it a hobby or any stupid restrictions RMS may dream up.
You're willing to let other people sell it without source? Weren't you just complaining about people stealing your other code?
Not really, The parts where I'm using existing code is for compatability purposes, mainly in the command system. I'm looking at putting in a more useful command set, with an empathsis on memorable words instead of weird abreviations.
I don't know what the command set has to do with the code. It's trivially easy to completely change a command set and leave the code the same, or write entirely new code that follows the same command set. (GNU, after, is a clone of the standard Unix command set.)
And, using the same code is using the same code. It doesn't matter what it's for. Someone else wrote it and they dictate the license for it.
The main problem is that the GPL is designed so that you have to give away source code, which is not freedom. If RMS would admit that, I'd be happy because people would not get the wrong impression from his weasel-word definition of free.
And the main design of public domain code is that you can't charge for it, and the main design of commercial code is that you charge for binaries only. Because I don't want to charge for my code, are commercial programs evil? Of course not, they don't affect me if I don't use them. (Let's just leave MS out of this, as MS arguably does affect people who don't want to use them, with CPU taxes and defacto standards. In the ideal world, commercial software doesn't affect me if I don't want it to.)
No one's forcing you to use any code whatsoever, or license any of your code under any license.
The only way your comment makes any sense is if you are using other people's code, and don't want to release it. But you don't have any 'right' to use their code, people who GPLd their code have made their feelings perfectly clear about how they want you to distribute their code.
The main problem when you do want to make a commercial product which is open source is keeping people from contributing GPL code because the license infects everything it comes into contant with.
No, not really. If you have a commercial project that accept only BSD and PD code, and someone (unrelated to your company) comes along and strips out the license on a GPL work and you don't catch it, yes, you're in copyright violation if you don't give out the source, just like if they stuck in some MS code. (The question of how random people are adding to your code when you don't give out the source is rather baffling, but I guess it can happen.)
However, you're in violation of copyright accidently, and about the worse a judge will do is order you to stop selling the software until you fix the problem by removing the code. (If you don't comply with the GPL, you have no right to distribute the code, but you don't want to distribute the code.)
Of course, this only applies to unintentional copyright violations. If you go around delibrately copying the code or continue to sell it after you are informed of the violation, you will be ordered to release the source. Just like if you use MS code delibrately, or use it delibrately after being told you have no right to, you'll be hit with rather heftly penalties from MS.
This means I could release an open source product like mozilla under a fair license, then have some GPL coder ruin my effort just because they want to force other people what to do.
No. They're the one in violation of the GPL, not you. They illegally copied GPL code and removed the license, and you are not liable because you didn't check your code against every single kind of code out there. You're only in trouble if you know about it, and no judge would force you to release your code if you didn't, just stop distributing it until you fix the licensing problem.
Kaos is a "new BSD" because it's barely the same internally as other BSDs, it has a completely different kernel architecture not just a slightly different GUI theme. [this is not a new linux distro effort]
Alright.
Not really, I'm barely using any of the original work in BSD, mainly for compatibility on older machines. The things I'm doing can't be done legally in the USA or UK [exceeds military grade encryption laws]
If you're only using an original BSD, and adding your own code, it's their problem if they have GPL code in there. (Which they don't.) Right at the start of the BSD source, they have all sorts of nofications what license the code is under, and it's not your fault if they're lying about their code.
But, of course, they aren't, as the original BSD source is older than the GPL.
It must be some kind of hippie paradise where you live. no student loans, no bank loans, no credit card debt, no overdraft... I've already had 2 major companies steal my previous work, so I'm not in the mood for anymore freeloading.
The GPL is exactly why I don't worry about people freeloading. And while you're talking about companies stealing you're work, I have to point out that you are locking up other people's work. Even if the kernel is 'barely the same', that means part of it was done by oter people who did not get paid. And I'm betting that you're using other people's utilities like 'ls' and 'bash'. Even if you've vetted the code line by line, it's still theirs.
Luckily they didn't have the same hangups about commercial companies 'stealing' their code as you or I do, huh?
Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, Mitch Kapor, are they all trolls?
And none of them says you must GPL your work, all of therm are fine with commercial software. Some of them don't like to use it, some of them think OSS is better as a matter of practical reasons (ESR), some thing it's a matter of principle that people should be able to modify code on their computer (RMS), and some just use the GPL because it's a good way to not end up with fragmented off commercial versions of the Linux kernel (Linus).
None of them don't want commercial software to not exist, all of them just think OSS is better. (With maybe the exception of RMS, but RMS is quite possibly insane.)
Actually working without getting paid for it is slavery, the person who uses slaves is freeloading labor.
It's usually called a 'hobby' where I come from, but call it whatever you want. The idea of people who do things volentary as being 'slaves' is rather disgrace full to the memory of people who were actually slave, and the few people out there who actually are slave still, though, so you might want to pick a better term.
Not really, to be honest the greatest contribution of Berkeley in my system would be the license.
But you're making a commercial version, so the only way the license helps you is snarfing all the other people's code. I don't have any problem with that, that's the reason it's under that license, but it seems like you're getting alot more help than some license.
And, tonight, we have yet another episode of 'People Posting Things They Have No Clue About'. I'm your host, DavidTC, and our guest tonight is, luck for him, an Anonymous Coward.
Our guest tonight has decided that 'money' is a good thing to have, whereas 'goods' are not. Hence, a trade deficit is a good thing.
This is an interesting concept, which seems to fly in the face of various economic theories, which holds that the creation of goods and services is what causes wealth, not the creation of money. We will get back to it after this short break, on tonight's episode of 'People Posting Things They Have No Clue About'.
Of course, much better nutrition also plays a large role in the age of puberty, and is incidentally the reason average height keeps increasing.
And I have yet to have anyone explain to me why hormones causing you to hit puberty a year earlier is a bad thing. It's strange, sure, and we should look into the effects of cow hormones on humans, but hitting puberty earlier is not a bad thing in and of itself.
Yes, but the government isn't normally liable for things like that.
The government releases a lot of stuff without worrying about liablity. Think of all those maps and whatnot out there. I've never heard of them being sued for any of it.
The US government isn't supposed to have any copyrights, and I think public domaining is the only logical thing to do.
This whole 'create private corperations' from colleges is insane, acedemic enviroments are full of people sharing and creating, then some board of trusties gets the cash, when half the time the people who created it paid to be there in the first place. (And taxes pair for the rest of it.)
And other half the time, it was entirely taxes. Unless the US government owns 100% of the stocks, I got screwed out of money.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of us turned that off in our BIOS ten years ago, when we heard about boot sector viruses. ;)
Having them purchase gas directly from the manufacter is the only solution.
And the same with AT&T. They're selling long distance like they've always sold long distance. (Since the breakup, at least.)
I have no idea how you decided these companies are 'dead', or aren't operating exactly like they have for decades. Some of their projects have failed, OS/2 leaps to mind, but their core business has not changed or faltered in the least.
The difference, of course, is that neither Coke or Pepsi are a monopoly. You have those two (As an aside, the soft drink industry is one of the most cutthroat industries there is. Anyone remember the cola wars in the 80s?), plus you have at least a dozen generic brands, plus you have all the 'non-cola' drinks like Snapple, Fruitopia (Owned by Coke, not the greatest example), SoBe, not to mention all the 'traditional' drinks like tea, milk, coffee, water, lemonaide, etc.
So it's not really the same thing as MS. ;)
I would assume so, from that I know, as there aren't really 'dealers' of refridgerators. Stores buy them, and they sell them to you, there are no 'GE stores'. Though, of course, there are 'Kenmore stores' (Sears), so I don't know.
This is so far from reality I don't know where to start. Spammers run software that looks for things like blah@example.com. This is the entire extent of their 'finding email addresses'. They not only don't do any of these complicated things you're talking about to figure how to get in past one address, they don't even filter out obviously wrong addresses. Spammers sometimes send to Usenet Message-IDs, which only look like email address if you're just globbing *@*.???, and don't bother to look and see it's jf3224-usieof.disuwod@example.com.
If it takes a spammer an hour to send a message to a person, they've lost and we've won. Hell, if it takes a spammer one minute to send a message to someone, we've won. Spammers are sending out something like a million messages each time, and each run needs to be done in a few hours.
Plus, that's easily solved, if they actually start doing that, by saying 'I will only accept mail from whoever@server.dom, and the only machine that can send me that mail is server.dom.'. If someone has a weird situation where email doesn't arrive from the machine server.dom, you simply give them an exception.
PGP signing is so that you can prove later they sent it, not so you 'know who it's from', it's trivially easy to figure out if an email is from someone you know just by looking at the headers. If a friend always PGP signs his email, sure, accept that as proof it's from him. But don't make everyone start signing things, being from the right server with the right email address is proof enough it's not a spammer.
All this is pretty silly, anyway, as almost all GPL apps are distributed as source, or are simply compiled source from other people. The first obviously doesn't need source, and the second doesn't either if you've just compiled someone else's source and not modified it, you can just hand them your written offer for the source and tell them to get it from those guys.
While it's certainly possible to write GPL software yourself and originally give out only the binaries and an offer of source, I've never seen anyone do it.
I dunno, though, if it's truely some sort of message counter, it might accept them all and retroactively delete them if there are more than X. I can't comprehend someone actually using something that, though, I was really working on the assumption that he's in a private blacklist or something. I thought at first he'd ended up in some public one and didn't know it, but I can't find him anywhere. But he talks about this happening on multiple providers.
Message counting doesn't make any sense, and I've never heard of anyone doing it, at least not for a domain. It's simply too much work to keep track of mailing lists. Maybe he's ending up in Vipul's Razor or something. (Which is certainly possible, as he's not using any sort of confirmed opt-in.)
Of course, as he's not using confirmed opt-in, I don't really want to help him, beyond 'use confirmed opt-in'.
No, you can buy all that stuff. You simply walk into a dealer and ask for it. You'll probably get a few very confused salespeople, so you'll need to go over to the repair bays, and buy it like it's for repairs. Might be easier to go to an auto parts store, where they also have the parts in stock, genuinue Ford and otherwise.
Of course, most repair shops do not have 'a body' in stock, as that's a rather surreal repair. ('My car's body defective, can you just replace the entire thing?' 'Um...not really.') Plus, shipping it would be a bitch. The size and half the weight of a car, and no wheels. But you can buy all the parts that compose the body and put them together yourself.
Anyway, no one's saying that all of windows should be modular. No one is suggesting that you should be able to buy the GUI seperate from the device level. (Well, not for non-monopoly reasons. For technical reason it might be a good idea to seperate those.)
They just want to be able to buy a Windows that doesn't comes with IE and WMP, and anything else MS decides to add later on. And, this is the important part, pay less for them, instead of having their money that was used to purchase their only (perceived due to monopoly position) choice in OSes go towards a browser and whatever else that MS is using to drive competitors out of the market by giving away for free. They should be able to buy Windows + Netscape, not Windows + IE + Netscape.
Microsoft has a monopoly. (I'm so glad I don't have to spend ten posts defending that last statement anymore.) They abuse their position by claiming everything is part of Windows, and hide the cost of it in Windows, so you have to pay for it if you want Windows, and you have to purchase Windows because they have a monopoly. You shouldn't have to purchase IE also.
And, like I said, all this car stuff is moot. 95% of the population wants a radio/CD player with normal quality speakers. The 1% who don't want a radio just have to order the car custom from the factory (And, yes, you can do that.), and the 4% who want to replace it with an third party radio can do the same. There are enough car companies that, if there was a demand for a stripped down car, they would be selling them. In fact, there are companies that sell such cars.
PS. Are you aware that GM sells, or used to sell, no convertables? All convertables you see of, say, 93 Pontiac Grand Ams were manufactored with a roof, then the roof was cut off at a non-GM plant, and they were sold at the dealer like normal. Dealers can certainly modify cars, and, yes, they could put in a random third party engine. They don't, because they like to use genuine parts, but they could. Those convertable tops certainly weren't of GM make.
However, you luckily aren't on any blackhole lists. Yet.
And it's a problem with your mailer. All anti-spam software returns errors to your mailer when you connect, or bounces the email. It wouldn't drop them on the floor, that's not discouraging you at all, you'll still keep sucking up their bandwidth, as you can't possibly know they're being dropped.
Ergo, your mailer does not understand the 5xx reply they are sending. You need to report it as a bug.
Becuase, of course, spammers are too stupid to download PGP and make a key.
Why on earth does this pop up in any anti-spam discussion? PGP signing simply means the sender can prove it was from him. It doesn't mean you know who the sender is.
If you want to set up some sort of whitelist, it makes just as much sense, and takes much less space, to say 'I will accept email from blah@mail.dom, and only if it arrives via mail.dom or dialup.dom.'.
If you want to do something useful with PGP, you could make something where you auto-whitelist anyone who has a key signed by someone you trust. That's about the only way PGP can help fight spam.
But the point is not whether or not you can actually buy it, but whether or not Ford prohibits it. Ford does not, if people wanted to start selling 'Ford with Mercedes engine' cars, they could do so. It's much more expensive than using standard parts, and no one really wants it, so they don't, but they could.
Whereas you cannot buy Windows without IE, or WMP.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because MS is a monopoly, and none of the car companies are. If Ford went facist and tried to stop people from disassembling its cars, or buying parts and not immediately using them to replace broken parts, so you couldn't do this (assuming they even had a legal leg to stand on), people would just start buying Chevys.
In related hopes, the AC hopes that someone fixes that Y2k thing in time, and also that the American Revolution succeeds.
What the fuck does a car's 'aerodynamic efficiency' have to do with its MPGs? You're living in some sort of physics fantasy if you think wind resistance on a modren car could be changed to reduce fuel consumption more than about 5 MPG. You can save double that just by having smarter fuel injection and valve timing, which automakers are slowly rolling out. Hell, you can save that much by not using the air conditioner.
Worrying about the effect on fuel effiency by drag on the car's body is a bit like having an refridgerator and worrying about the power used by the little lightbulb inside that comes on when the door opens. Total drag is trivial, and the drag that can be removed while leaving the car functional is even more trival.
And, regardless, automakers reduce it anyway. (More for fun than anything else.) They're currently down to about .28, I think.
I always found it funny that they tell you to use Linux's fdisk, because MS fdisk still cannot see Linux partitions for no apparent reason.
And it's not like the Virusscan people care what else you have installed. You purchased Virusscan, didn't you? Why would they care if you have NAV laying around also? With other programs like Word vs. WordPerfect, or Real vs. Media Player, the more users, the more users they're likely to gain, but you don't generate or view docs in AV software, so that's not a likely reason.
In short, it's entirely likely they aren't lying. They're simply saying you can have one or the other installs, and, because you just started to install one, they assume you don't want the other. Whereas you can certainly have both Ad-Aware and RadLight installed at the same time.
But the important thing, of course, is the prompting. RadLight, from what I know, just deletes Ad-Aware, with no prompts.
Consultant: No. You'll need new hardware.
However, it can be used with the existing computer network.
Manager: I see.. How much does it cost to run?
Consultant: Well, power will be required to run the devices. We could work out a rough cost per year...
Manager: The existing phone system does not require external power.
Is this from the same companies that leave all computers and all lights on overnight? This plug into a computer, they do not use any more power than a mouse when not in use.
Manager: How about our network?
Consultant: Well, since this transfers data across the network, you'd probably have to upgrade.
Manager: I see.
Consultant: And, we would probably reccomend that you have a seperate network for the system so it doesn't interfer with your daily network usage.
That's just idiotic. The device 'works', at least well enough to use, over phone lines. It's not going to cause anywhere near enough traffic over an internal network to warrant an upgrade, unless you're using 115k serial connections or something insane as a network, and since it only used 5.6K at most it would still only suck half the bandwidth. (This is even pretending you could have a network made of serial cables.)
It would be completely unnoticable on any real network.
Manager: What about cost over the internet gateway?
Consultant: Well, I'm sure that it wouldn't too much more bandwidth through your gateway than you are currently using.. and you can 'dial' anyone in the world with the same system!
Yes, it wouldn't be much more than is currently used, assuming the business has at least a T1. Businesses with single or double channel ISDN connections probably don't want to use it, though a 128k ISDN connection can probably handle one or many two without noticable slowdown.
It's kind of funny you think it would tie up interal networks but not external connections.
Manager: I see. Let me get the straight: If we installed this, we would suddenly have a power bill where none exists now.
Interesting business without a power bill. What do they make, ...I was going to insert a witty commention about the kinds of things you don't need power to make, but I literally can't think of any. Any business that makes a physical product will have any computer usage overshadowed by the physical machinary.
We would need to install a second networking system, or have a degraded phone system.
No.
We would have to improve our internet gateway for external communications.
Finally, a valid point. Any business doing this wouldhave to open holes in their firewall. But holes aren't that bad if you open them correctly.
We currently have (as many large businesses do) long-term contracts with our Telco which would would need to negotiate out of. These contracts tend to be 5, 10 or 15 year long contracts.
Another valid point, but it really only applies to very large businesses. A 30 person company is not that likely to have a long-term contract. It's obviously something that doesn't need to be brought up as a minus, except with regard to a specific company. It's not a problem in general.
We would need to buy new handsets from a specific? company to replace existing handsets.
No, existing phones plug into these, that's the point.
We would also have to change our well developed and planned phone to person system. Currently if you call our tech help desk you can tell them you name and location and the location where you are moving to and they will have the phone redirected within the hour and a new handset installed (if required) within 24 hours. Would we have to change this?
Consultant: I don't know.
If you're moving the computer, nothing at all, it will automatically change. If you're not moving computers, you probably have to make some configuration changes to the existing ones, fairly simple ones I'm sure.
Manager: My final question to you is: What happens if it fails?
Consultant: (Very nervously) I don't know. Switch back to the old system while the problems are fixed?
Manager: You mean, have two systems up at the same time? Interesting solution. How much would all this cost us?
Consultant: I don't know.
What do you mean, 'fails'? You mean, the net connection goes down? For a real network connection, like a T1, that's not really any more likely than your phone service going out. And, of course, the internal phones would still work, which they may not using POTS, depending on how you have it set up.
If you mean the computer network going down, I have to point out that hardware failures or routers and switches are no more likely to happen than having your phone switching equipment go down.
I'm not putting down the technology here, I'm just speculating what would happen if you tried to pitch this at a large company with an existing telephone system.
Well, hopefully you'd learn more about it before you pitched it.
While you need a license to operate a ham radio, I would be very amazed if you needed one to stand next to a ham radio and talk. You just need the licensed operator there also, to operate the radio.
What are you talking about? Yes, there are some alternatives to MS, but I fail to see how that affects my qualification of 'Commercial software doesn't affect people if they don't buy it.'. MS is also affecting you if you go out and buy a clone of their software so you can read their documents.
Read the GPL, you should see a clause which states you have to release your sourcecode. Gates is right on this point, GPL is a virus that can seriously affect the ecosystem of any code it infects.
And re-read what I said 'No one's forcing you to use any code whatsoever, or license any of your code under any license.'. You do not have to use GPL code. If you use GPL code accidently by others stripping the license, you simply have to remove it.
The GPL is no more a virus than working at a company is a virus. You joined it (Use their code volentarily.) and keep working there as long as you follow their rules. You can leave at any time, or not join, by not using GPL code.
You seem to be working under the assumption that you have the right to copy any code you see in any fashion, which is rather silly.
Good guess, it was a system designed to lock up brang logo graphics which was stolen by a couple of companies who have now turned into a major part of the New Zealand e-banking system. I don't care about them stealing it because it has a deliberate design flaw in the encryption.
I didn't guess anything related to that.
As for the kernel, it's a new design that only MIT has tried before [and failed]. I'm coding it from scratch, so my encryption is embedded in the core of the exokernel. BTW, commands aren't part of the kernel at all [unless you've got a badly written linux].
kiwipeso, meet kiwipeso's sig:
- Kaos operating system creator
Looks to me like you're an OS developer, not a kernel-only developer.
And I don't know where 'badly written linux' comes from. There aren't any versions of the Linux kernel out there with commands in them, so I'm going to have to assume that was some sort of shot at Linux.
My code is open source, I just think you should buy the program if you're going to use the code. I don't force people to keep it a hobby or any stupid restrictions RMS may dream up.
You're willing to let other people sell it without source? Weren't you just complaining about people stealing your other code?
Not really, The parts where I'm using existing code is for compatability purposes, mainly in the command system. I'm looking at putting in a more useful command set, with an empathsis on memorable words instead of weird abreviations.
I don't know what the command set has to do with the code. It's trivially easy to completely change a command set and leave the code the same, or write entirely new code that follows the same command set. (GNU, after, is a clone of the standard Unix command set.)
And, using the same code is using the same code. It doesn't matter what it's for. Someone else wrote it and they dictate the license for it.
And the main design of public domain code is that you can't charge for it, and the main design of commercial code is that you charge for binaries only. Because I don't want to charge for my code, are commercial programs evil? Of course not, they don't affect me if I don't use them. (Let's just leave MS out of this, as MS arguably does affect people who don't want to use them, with CPU taxes and defacto standards. In the ideal world, commercial software doesn't affect me if I don't want it to.)
No one's forcing you to use any code whatsoever, or license any of your code under any license.
The only way your comment makes any sense is if you are using other people's code, and don't want to release it. But you don't have any 'right' to use their code, people who GPLd their code have made their feelings perfectly clear about how they want you to distribute their code.
The main problem when you do want to make a commercial product which is open source is keeping people from contributing GPL code because the license infects everything it comes into contant with.
No, not really. If you have a commercial project that accept only BSD and PD code, and someone (unrelated to your company) comes along and strips out the license on a GPL work and you don't catch it, yes, you're in copyright violation if you don't give out the source, just like if they stuck in some MS code. (The question of how random people are adding to your code when you don't give out the source is rather baffling, but I guess it can happen.)
However, you're in violation of copyright accidently, and about the worse a judge will do is order you to stop selling the software until you fix the problem by removing the code. (If you don't comply with the GPL, you have no right to distribute the code, but you don't want to distribute the code.)
Of course, this only applies to unintentional copyright violations. If you go around delibrately copying the code or continue to sell it after you are informed of the violation, you will be ordered to release the source. Just like if you use MS code delibrately, or use it delibrately after being told you have no right to, you'll be hit with rather heftly penalties from MS.
This means I could release an open source product like mozilla under a fair license, then have some GPL coder ruin my effort just because they want to force other people what to do.
No. They're the one in violation of the GPL, not you. They illegally copied GPL code and removed the license, and you are not liable because you didn't check your code against every single kind of code out there. You're only in trouble if you know about it, and no judge would force you to release your code if you didn't, just stop distributing it until you fix the licensing problem.
Kaos is a "new BSD" because it's barely the same internally as other BSDs, it has a completely different kernel architecture not just a slightly different GUI theme. [this is not a new linux distro effort]
Alright.
Not really, I'm barely using any of the original work in BSD, mainly for compatibility on older machines. The things I'm doing can't be done legally in the USA or UK [exceeds military grade encryption laws]
If you're only using an original BSD, and adding your own code, it's their problem if they have GPL code in there. (Which they don't.) Right at the start of the BSD source, they have all sorts of nofications what license the code is under, and it's not your fault if they're lying about their code.
But, of course, they aren't, as the original BSD source is older than the GPL.
It must be some kind of hippie paradise where you live. no student loans, no bank loans, no credit card debt, no overdraft... I've already had 2 major companies steal my previous work, so I'm not in the mood for anymore freeloading.
The GPL is exactly why I don't worry about people freeloading. And while you're talking about companies stealing you're work, I have to point out that you are locking up other people's work. Even if the kernel is 'barely the same', that means part of it was done by oter people who did not get paid. And I'm betting that you're using other people's utilities like 'ls' and 'bash'. Even if you've vetted the code line by line, it's still theirs.
Luckily they didn't have the same hangups about commercial companies 'stealing' their code as you or I do, huh?
Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, Mitch Kapor, are they all trolls?
And none of them says you must GPL your work, all of therm are fine with commercial software. Some of them don't like to use it, some of them think OSS is better as a matter of practical reasons (ESR), some thing it's a matter of principle that people should be able to modify code on their computer (RMS), and some just use the GPL because it's a good way to not end up with fragmented off commercial versions of the Linux kernel (Linus).
None of them don't want commercial software to not exist, all of them just think OSS is better. (With maybe the exception of RMS, but RMS is quite possibly insane.)
Actually working without getting paid for it is slavery, the person who uses slaves is freeloading labor.
It's usually called a 'hobby' where I come from, but call it whatever you want. The idea of people who do things volentary as being 'slaves' is rather disgrace full to the memory of people who were actually slave, and the few people out there who actually are slave still, though, so you might want to pick a better term.
Not really, to be honest the greatest contribution of Berkeley in my system would be the license.
But you're making a commercial version, so the only way the license helps you is snarfing all the other people's code. I don't have any problem with that, that's the reason it's under that license, but it seems like you're getting alot more help than some license.
-Abraham Lincoln
Mwhahahahaha! I don't have to follow your puny requests, you public-domained it!
*runs off, laughing manically*
Our guest tonight has decided that 'money' is a good thing to have, whereas 'goods' are not. Hence, a trade deficit is a good thing.
This is an interesting concept, which seems to fly in the face of various economic theories, which holds that the creation of goods and services is what causes wealth, not the creation of money. We will get back to it after this short break, on tonight's episode of 'People Posting Things They Have No Clue About'.
And I have yet to have anyone explain to me why hormones causing you to hit puberty a year earlier is a bad thing. It's strange, sure, and we should look into the effects of cow hormones on humans, but hitting puberty earlier is not a bad thing in and of itself.
The government releases a lot of stuff without worrying about liablity. Think of all those maps and whatnot out there. I've never heard of them being sued for any of it.
The US government isn't supposed to have any copyrights, and I think public domaining is the only logical thing to do.
This whole 'create private corperations' from colleges is insane, acedemic enviroments are full of people sharing and creating, then some board of trusties gets the cash, when half the time the people who created it paid to be there in the first place. (And taxes pair for the rest of it.)
And other half the time, it was entirely taxes. Unless the US government owns 100% of the stocks, I got screwed out of money.