This reviewer's standards have little to do with the reviews he writes. JonKatz is the ultimate troll, and knows a shit movie, when he sees one. His response to the closest thing you can find in the theater to http://goatse.cx, is to try and make us all go see it.
You name the issue, JonKatz is going to try to flame us about it. I used to get annoyed with him, now I just laugh at everyone else who falls for his crap.
Sorry, you're going to need to be more explicit with your hints. Are you trying to pass a large but static multimedia object through XML-RPC? Okay, put it on a secondary HTTP server, and send a URL to the server, possibly with some authentication or session information.
Are you trying to stream dynamic multimedia data, i.e a live feed? Then you'd best start thinking about implementing a custom protocol, because neither SOAP nor XML-RPC are going to serve you well for that.
Why should they? IBM has performed due diligence, provided a security update, and notified all registered users. If Battle Creek happens to drag ass on updating their servers, is it the vendor's fault?
Moreover, they didn't sue anyone. They secured a search warrant, as a reaction to a probe that appeared to be a denial of service attack on their mail service. A bit over the top, but it's an action that more than a few system administrators would love to take in response to a DoS attempt.
By calling for your immediate termination, considering you to be a 'rogue' employee, ala employees involved with the Enron scandal at Arthur Anderson. And good luck getting a reference from them.
Name a software company in the Fortune 500, and boycott them. They all try this, it's standard boilerplate, and be assured, if you manage to offend your manager, they are going to try to pull the rug out from under you with this one.
I've had to cross this out of every contract I've had, but one. Oddly, the US Army does not get up in arms about your off duty intellectual property.
Okay.. Company 1 licenses its peer to peer file trading software, catered to the distribution of media without concern for copyright, to Company 2, for a fee.
Company 1 doesn't get paid by Company 2. The irony is just killing me, here. You mean, they distributed your valuable, copyrighted software, and used it, without paying you?
VNC is a wonderful remote access option in a heterogenous environment. Can't agree with you more. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be what he's asking for here. He's talking about thin clients, and allowing his anemic client machines to share the resources of a centralized server, much like the old terminal and mainframe model.
Both Citrix and Microsoft support this with Windows NT, in a horrible, expensive, kludgy way. Instead of trying to outsmart Windows, which is laid out in a single-user mentality from the get go, my suggestion would be to stop defeating yourself, and go to X Windows and Unix.
Having plugged X Windows, I need to air a gripe of mine, about Qt and Gtk. Both of these toolkits are extremely sleek, easy to program for, and have a bounty of nice apps. Unfortunately, both of them use far too little of X Windows' API, focussing primarily on maintaining and updating a dizzying number of pixmaps. This is done, of course, to support themes, which are flashy and fun, and for succinct, portable code. This means Gtk and Qt apps most likely will not work as quickly across the wire, as they do in a single user environment.
Depending on what you are doing, perhaps you want to consider:
A) Thin clients, with centralized application servers, and retrofitting your old workstations to be X terminals.
B) Glorified dumb terminals.. This is a favorite of power users. Provide your users with stripped down unix workstations with X Windows, nfs shared home directories, and centralized app servers. Your users ssh in to the app servers, and use console apps to exclusion.
C) Managed Workstations. Those fossils can often be given new life with a healthy injection of RAM and a decent network card. Repurpose their hard drives for swap space, and learn to love bootp and distributing your apps via NFS. Your applications are centralized, as is your OS image, so it's very easy for you to manage what apps they get. Your fossils can crap out on you, without serious impact to your client. This allows you to use the slick new generation of X11 apps, without incurring a latency hit for the interface.
I've implemented all three of these, at different sites. Best of luck!
Unfortunately, Microsoft would not have been the first to have come up with such a thing in an ironclad fashion. Back in the 80's, B2-grade operating systems had strict restrictions on the ability to copy from one terminal in a given security compartment, to another terminal at a different compartment, unless a trust relationship had already been established.
You can see the legacy of those OS's in HP's VirtualVault, which is their CS version of HP-UX 10/11, and the recently introduced HP variant of the linux kernel, which also has the rudiments of compartmental isolation.
It has always been the ever increasing unbalancing effect of GW trying to top older units with newer ones that has driven me away from their games. GW isn't the only one that does this, in my opinion.. FASA ruined Battletech by adding new technologies that had little drawback in comparison to their potential gains.
I agree, the plastic minis in LoTR are definately a cut above any I've seen. I have painted 10 of them, thus far, and have yet to really find a malformed one, or even one that could be easily distinguished from a metal mini at a casual glance.
For those of you who wargame means a table, miniatures and being at least somewhat social, as opposed to cranking up Command & Conquer, you'll be happy to know that Games Workshop has published a Lord of the Rings 'battle game'.
Normally, I could give less than a damn for Games Workshop, authors of generally schlocky games that are remarkable mostly for their steal-your-wallet market strategy. ( Literally hundreds of expansions, miniatures, all at insane prices. ) But, I've been in need of something new, so I picked up the game for $40 at my local Barnes and Noble.
That's the first shock. Wargames, at national retail outlets. The second shock, was that this game, unlike GW's other forays, has a certain measure of dignity to it. Gone are the gonzo tactics and arms race mentality of Warhammer 20,000.
The second shock is the rulebook, itself. The book is easy to read, and provides everything a novice could ever need, including extensive information on how to paint plastic and metal miniatures, and pictures from the movie on every page. A spoiler warning, the scenarios are taken right from the movie's screenplay, it seems, so, if you don't want to know how the director visualized, say, the Battle at Roundtop, don't buy this game, yet.
Of course, with such a low cost, there is a drawback.. The initial box set's miniatures are comprised of plastic. With a generous coat of painting, and delicate handling, however, they do quite well. I had wondered why the box was so light when I picked it up.
From a more cynical point of view, I noticed the expansions for LoTR have already started coming out, done entirely in lead-free metal, at the usual insane costs. $40 for eight miniatures depicting the principal fellowship of the ring, for example. It is admirable seeing that Games Workshop has done an excellent job of selling the foundation of the game for cheap, potentially introducing new gamers to the classic wargame genre, but one has to be a little skeptic whether GW will burn them out with the followup.
Let me get this straight.. Apple puts out an upgrade package, and doesn't cripple it to such a degree that it is nearly impossible to install under unusual circumstances. An individual then posts information, and I have read this article in the past, and complained to the author, explaining how to use the upgrade in lieu of a full install, as a way to circumvent paying for OS X.
Apple gets a bit annoyed, desiring payment for their hard work, and probably feeling rather self-righteous, since they made a serious effort in good faith to update a product for free, and fires a shot across this individual's bow, not only because of the information he is sharing, but also due to his article's tone.
And Jamie wants us to be up in arms about Apple's 'abuse' of the legal system? Do we really want to drive Apple in Microsoft's camp of 'Charge them for stability fixes', like Windows 98 / ME ?
If a site is stupid enough to not protect their MS-SQL server with a firewall, they are probably dimwitted enough not to put an administrative password on, too.
I've been a Unix Administrator for eight years for various f500 companies, and/I/ have trouble making Netscape's fonts tolerable, and often I find it difficult to make odd third party sound cards work with Linux. Don't take away Wil's creds, yet. At least he was geek enough to admit his shortcomings. (A very non-alpha-male thing to do.;) )
Snide jokes aside, FreeBSD is the eldest of the currently used BSD-4.4 family, and has been very heavily optimized for the x86 family of procesors. FreeBSD's primary goal is to be fast and stable.
NetBSD grew out of FreeBSD during an uncomfortable time when the FreeBSD regents, the individuals who guide FreeBSD's growth in a kind of guiding council, were focussed on ix86, and only ix86 for their OS. The NetBSD team's goal has been portability above all else, and can be likened to rabbits. You name the platform, the NetBSD guys are already installed there, or working on a distro for it.
OpenBSD grew out of NetBSD, as certain individuals wanted a stronger emphasis on security. OpenBSD inherited a fairly wide platform base from its NetBSD foundation, but their primary goal is security by default.
If you needed a system to sit exposed to the internet, I cannot recommend OpenBSD strongly enough. If you need a system to serve data quickly using inexpensive hardware, FreeBSD has many performance advantages, even over the linux 2.4 tree. And, if you want Unix on your Atari Falcon, go grab NetBSD, you nutcase. =)
Oh, and if you want a Unix your grandmother can be comfortable with, go get OS X.;)
It's more than just figuring out the names for each variable.. He has to figure out the offsets.. He has to figure out what each value does, for enumerations, there is a lot of effort involved.. If you think it is so trivial, I have a wonderfully frustrating 802.11b PCMCIA card that needs reverse engineering.
The information was discovered, using a large amount of effort. Due to the amount of time required, the individual who dedicated the effort requested some credit for the effort, in the form of his copyright, and license. It seems a fair exchange.
Actually, I picked up one of the older iBooks, and a 256M memory upgrade, for $800, all told, at my local Circuit City.. They appear to be liquidating their laptops. Their loss, my gain.. I needed something to replace the ailing Dell Latitude that my wife was using.
I would like to very happily cite the cooperation and donated information given to the developers of DeCSS and various utilities for enabling playback of DVDs on *nix. Unfortunately, I, like the others, must wait until said parties/give/ that information, instead of forcing us to reverse-engineer their hardware.
The IP issue, here, is the direct copying of code from one project, to another, with the copyright and license filed off. If the DVD consortium had donated headers and information on how to use the myriad DVD players in an OS-neutral fashion, I am sure the authors involved would be overjoyed to cite them in their headers.
I, as a contributor to FreeBSD, most definately give a shit. I code for two reasons, to scratch an 'itch', and for ego gratification. I don't need to release my code, generally, to scratch those itches. And it would really piss me off to see someone use my hard work to pad their own egos.
The point is, the information was provided under license, requiring copyright information to be included, and the original author cited. The fact that the ATA team didn't cite Soren for his extensive work in reverse engineering the structures, and deserves a certain modicum of flame pointed at their rear ends in exchange for what amounts to plagarism.
When I'm doing C, or Python, I use KDE's Kate, since it provides me CVS control, and an interactive terminal, all in the same window. It's simple, unobtrusive, and doesn't require a massive investment in time to learn, unlike KDevelop, CodeForge, et al.
When I'm coding for my own personal enjoyment, I do so in Smalltalk, using Squeak. If I had an IDE nearly as powerful as the classic Smalltalk-80 systems, I might actually use them. Some of the features I use heavily is the class browser, which, instead of being just an afterthought and an add on, is tightly integrated into the cycle of development, the object inspector, which provides an excellent way to snoop inside your instances, and even allows you to invoke their methods using a little command window, and, finally, the fact that the every object in the system is categorized in that browser, makes it very easy for me to determine exactly what each method does.
I just wish Smalltalk VMs weren't so focussed on maintaining the entire virtual machine in one monolithic image. While it does have a certain conceptual grace, it makes it a little thorny distributing applications, although Squeak's newer package distribution mechanism is changing that for the better.
One less game for me to boot into Windows for.. Kohan is an excellent wargame for thinking individuals, one were blind rushes and other common RTS tactics are far inferior to solid combined arms strategy and logistics. I've been playing this one exclusively for months, now..
Yes, it is possible to write a counteragent that would infect the same hosts as another worm, remove the worm, and close up the vector, possibly, to prevent a relapse. But, while this action may seem at the outset to be a beneficial thing to do, it is fraught with risks.
As a case in point, refer to the Morris Worm, which shut down a large part of the Internet in its nascent years. The worm was never meant to be detrimental to its host's health, and was designed to give the author some statistical information about the number of hosts, etc. An error in the worm's propagation routines caused it to overproliferate, swamping the CPU of the servers involved, and bringing the network to a screaming halt.
You, as the counteragent author, can/not/ be 100% sure that the changes you will make will not have a negative effect on hosts you are trying to repair. Considering the difficulty, today, of producing a truly bug-free piece of software, due partially to glitchy libraries, I would consider it very likely that a so-called counter-virus would likely do as much harm as good.
The ethical thing remains to be informing the individuals who are still propagating, and ensuring your own house is clean. Perhaps we should form some RBL-style blacklist of hosts currently known to be propagating and susceptible to known worms?
..why I couldn't care less about the efforts to duplicate.NET, or.NET itself. I'll stick to my Smalltalk, where various implementations manage to remain civil with one another, and Free Software flows freely from one to the other.
Okay. Company refuses to 'sell out'. They ride the raft until it sinks.. There have been other companies that have done this, and, to this day, their projects/never/ came back up for air. Other companies bought them, then, usually, they cut up the project team and shuffled them into other business units.
Anybody remember Crack.com? They wrote excellent games.. They/never/ sold out, and held onto their stuff until it was done.. The only good result of that one was the open-sourcing of Abuse, enabling poor knockoff levels to be written all over the world.
As far as customers getting burned and ignoring the company, I think you are confusing the short attention span of a Slashdot addict with the average consumer. Everquest and Ultima Online/both/ did this, and, at the moment, I don't think any game developer would call those MMORPGs 'struggling', 'failing', or even 'hurt.'
Slashdot Mirror
This reviewer's standards have little to do with the reviews he writes. JonKatz is the ultimate troll, and knows a shit movie, when he sees one. His response to the closest thing you can find in the theater to http://goatse.cx, is to try and make us all go see it.
You name the issue, JonKatz is going to try to flame us about it. I used to get annoyed with him, now I just laugh at everyone else who falls for his crap.
Sorry, you're going to need to be more explicit with your hints. Are you trying to pass a large but static multimedia object through XML-RPC? Okay, put it on a secondary HTTP server, and send a URL to the server, possibly with some authentication or session information.
Are you trying to stream dynamic multimedia data, i.e a live feed? Then you'd best start thinking about implementing a custom protocol, because neither SOAP nor XML-RPC are going to serve you well for that.
Why should they? IBM has performed due diligence, provided a security update, and notified all registered users. If Battle Creek happens to drag ass on updating their servers, is it the vendor's fault?
Moreover, they didn't sue anyone. They secured a search warrant, as a reaction to a probe that appeared to be a denial of service attack on their mail service. A bit over the top, but it's an action that more than a few system administrators would love to take in response to a DoS attempt.
By calling for your immediate termination, considering you to be a 'rogue' employee, ala employees involved with the Enron scandal at Arthur Anderson. And good luck getting a reference from them.
Name a software company in the Fortune 500, and boycott them. They all try this, it's standard boilerplate, and be assured, if you manage to offend your manager, they are going to try to pull the rug out from under you with this one.
I've had to cross this out of every contract I've had, but one. Oddly, the US Army does not get up in arms about your off duty intellectual property.
Classified material, that's another story..
In reference to your last comment, which product is difficult to install? K3d, or Windows? ;)
Okay.. Company 1 licenses its peer to peer file trading software, catered to the distribution of media without concern for copyright, to Company 2, for a fee.
Company 1 doesn't get paid by Company 2. The irony is just killing me, here. You mean, they distributed your valuable, copyrighted software, and used it, without paying you?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha.
VNC is a wonderful remote access option in a heterogenous environment. Can't agree with you more. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be what he's asking for here. He's talking about thin clients, and allowing his anemic client machines to share the resources of a centralized server, much like the old terminal and mainframe model.
Both Citrix and Microsoft support this with Windows NT, in a horrible, expensive, kludgy way. Instead of trying to outsmart Windows, which is laid out in a single-user mentality from the get go, my suggestion would be to stop defeating yourself, and go to X Windows and Unix.
Having plugged X Windows, I need to air a gripe of mine, about Qt and Gtk. Both of these toolkits are extremely sleek, easy to program for, and have a bounty of nice apps. Unfortunately, both of them use far too little of X Windows' API, focussing primarily on maintaining and updating a dizzying number of pixmaps. This is done, of course, to support themes, which are flashy and fun, and for succinct, portable code. This means Gtk and Qt apps most likely will not work as quickly across the wire, as they do in a single user environment.
Depending on what you are doing, perhaps you want to consider:
A) Thin clients, with centralized application servers, and retrofitting your old workstations to be X terminals.
B) Glorified dumb terminals.. This is a favorite of power users. Provide your users with stripped down unix workstations with X Windows, nfs shared home directories, and centralized app servers. Your users ssh in to the app servers, and use console apps to exclusion.
C) Managed Workstations. Those fossils can often be given new life with a healthy injection of RAM and a decent network card. Repurpose their hard drives for swap space, and learn to love bootp and distributing your apps via NFS. Your applications are centralized, as is your OS image, so it's very easy for you to manage what apps they get. Your fossils can crap out on you, without serious impact to your client. This allows you to use the slick new generation of X11 apps, without incurring a latency hit for the interface.
I've implemented all three of these, at different sites. Best of luck!
Unfortunately, Microsoft would not have been the first to have come up with such a thing in an ironclad fashion. Back in the 80's, B2-grade operating systems had strict restrictions on the ability to copy from one terminal in a given security compartment, to another terminal at a different compartment, unless a trust relationship had already been established.
You can see the legacy of those OS's in HP's VirtualVault, which is their CS version of HP-UX 10/11, and the recently introduced HP variant of the linux kernel, which also has the rudiments of compartmental isolation.
It has always been the ever increasing unbalancing effect of GW trying to top older units with newer ones that has driven me away from their games. GW isn't the only one that does this, in my opinion.. FASA ruined Battletech by adding new technologies that had little drawback in comparison to their potential gains.
I agree, the plastic minis in LoTR are definately a cut above any I've seen. I have painted 10 of them, thus far, and have yet to really find a malformed one, or even one that could be easily distinguished from a metal mini at a casual glance.
For those of you who wargame means a table, miniatures and being at least somewhat social, as opposed to cranking up Command & Conquer, you'll be happy to know that Games Workshop has published a Lord of the Rings 'battle game'.
Normally, I could give less than a damn for Games Workshop, authors of generally schlocky games that are remarkable mostly for their steal-your-wallet market strategy. ( Literally hundreds of expansions, miniatures, all at insane prices. ) But, I've been in need of something new, so I picked up the game for $40 at my local Barnes and Noble.
That's the first shock. Wargames, at national retail outlets. The second shock, was that this game, unlike GW's other forays, has a certain measure of dignity to it. Gone are the gonzo tactics and arms race mentality of Warhammer 20,000.
The second shock is the rulebook, itself. The book is easy to read, and provides everything a novice could ever need, including extensive information on how to paint plastic and metal miniatures, and pictures from the movie on every page. A spoiler warning, the scenarios are taken right from the movie's screenplay, it seems, so, if you don't want to know how the director visualized, say, the Battle at Roundtop, don't buy this game, yet.
Of course, with such a low cost, there is a drawback.. The initial box set's miniatures are comprised of plastic. With a generous coat of painting, and delicate handling, however, they do quite well. I had wondered why the box was so light when I picked it up.
From a more cynical point of view, I noticed the expansions for LoTR have already started coming out, done entirely in lead-free metal, at the usual insane costs. $40 for eight miniatures depicting the principal fellowship of the ring, for example. It is admirable seeing that Games Workshop has done an excellent job of selling the foundation of the game for cheap, potentially introducing new gamers to the classic wargame genre, but one has to be a little skeptic whether GW will burn them out with the followup.
Let me get this straight.. Apple puts out an upgrade package, and doesn't cripple it to such a degree that it is nearly impossible to install under unusual circumstances. An individual then posts information, and I have read this article in the past, and complained to the author, explaining how to use the upgrade in lieu of a full install, as a way to circumvent paying for OS X.
Apple gets a bit annoyed, desiring payment for their hard work, and probably feeling rather self-righteous, since they made a serious effort in good faith to update a product for free, and fires a shot across this individual's bow, not only because of the information he is sharing, but also due to his article's tone.
And Jamie wants us to be up in arms about Apple's 'abuse' of the legal system? Do we really want to drive Apple in Microsoft's camp of 'Charge them for stability fixes', like Windows 98 / ME ?
If a site is stupid enough to not protect their MS-SQL server with a firewall, they are probably dimwitted enough not to put an administrative password on, too.
I've been a Unix Administrator for eight years for various f500 companies, and /I/ have trouble making Netscape's fonts tolerable, and often I find it difficult to make odd third party sound cards work with Linux. Don't take away Wil's creds, yet. At least he was geek enough to admit his shortcomings. (A very non-alpha-male thing to do. ;) )
Snide jokes aside, FreeBSD is the eldest of the currently used BSD-4.4 family, and has been very heavily optimized for the x86 family of procesors. FreeBSD's primary goal is to be fast and stable.
;)
NetBSD grew out of FreeBSD during an uncomfortable time when the FreeBSD regents, the individuals who guide FreeBSD's growth in a kind of guiding council, were focussed on ix86, and only ix86 for their OS. The NetBSD team's goal has been portability above all else, and can be likened to rabbits. You name the platform, the NetBSD guys are already installed there, or working on a distro for it.
OpenBSD grew out of NetBSD, as certain individuals wanted a stronger emphasis on security. OpenBSD inherited a fairly wide platform base from its NetBSD foundation, but their primary goal is security by default.
If you needed a system to sit exposed to the internet, I cannot recommend OpenBSD strongly enough. If you need a system to serve data quickly using inexpensive hardware, FreeBSD has many performance advantages, even over the linux 2.4 tree. And, if you want Unix on your Atari Falcon, go grab NetBSD, you nutcase. =)
Oh, and if you want a Unix your grandmother can be comfortable with, go get OS X.
It's more than just figuring out the names for each variable.. He has to figure out the offsets.. He has to figure out what each value does, for enumerations, there is a lot of effort involved.. If you think it is so trivial, I have a wonderfully frustrating 802.11b PCMCIA card that needs reverse engineering.
The information was discovered, using a large amount of effort. Due to the amount of time required, the individual who dedicated the effort requested some credit for the effort, in the form of his copyright, and license. It seems a fair exchange.
Actually, I picked up one of the older iBooks, and a 256M memory upgrade, for $800, all told, at my local Circuit City.. They appear to be liquidating their laptops. Their loss, my gain.. I needed something to replace the ailing Dell Latitude that my wife was using.
I would like to very happily cite the cooperation and donated information given to the developers of DeCSS and various utilities for enabling playback of DVDs on *nix. Unfortunately, I, like the others, must wait until said parties /give/ that information, instead of forcing us to reverse-engineer their hardware.
The IP issue, here, is the direct copying of code from one project, to another, with the copyright and license filed off. If the DVD consortium had donated headers and information on how to use the myriad DVD players in an OS-neutral fashion, I am sure the authors involved would be overjoyed to cite them in their headers.
I, as a contributor to FreeBSD, most definately give a shit. I code for two reasons, to scratch an 'itch', and for ego gratification. I don't need to release my code, generally, to scratch those itches. And it would really piss me off to see someone use my hard work to pad their own egos.
The point is, the information was provided under license, requiring copyright information to be included, and the original author cited. The fact that the ATA team didn't cite Soren for his extensive work in reverse engineering the structures, and deserves a certain modicum of flame pointed at their rear ends in exchange for what amounts to plagarism.
Burn their crops and salt their earth.. Damn lusers who don't keep their systems up to date should be dragged out in the road and shot.
-- Posted using RedHat 5.2 with a full install, no firewall.
When I'm doing C, or Python, I use KDE's Kate, since it provides me CVS control, and an interactive terminal, all in the same window. It's simple, unobtrusive, and doesn't require a massive investment in time to learn, unlike KDevelop, CodeForge, et al.
When I'm coding for my own personal enjoyment, I do so in Smalltalk, using Squeak. If I had an IDE nearly as powerful as the classic Smalltalk-80 systems, I might actually use them. Some of the features I use heavily is the class browser, which, instead of being just an afterthought and an add on, is tightly integrated into the cycle of development, the object inspector, which provides an excellent way to snoop inside your instances, and even allows you to invoke their methods using a little command window, and, finally, the fact that the every object in the system is categorized in that browser, makes it very easy for me to determine exactly what each method does.
I just wish Smalltalk VMs weren't so focussed on maintaining the entire virtual machine in one monolithic image. While it does have a certain conceptual grace, it makes it a little thorny distributing applications, although Squeak's newer package distribution mechanism is changing that for the better.
One less game for me to boot into Windows for.. Kohan is an excellent wargame for thinking individuals, one were blind rushes and other common RTS tactics are far inferior to solid combined arms strategy and logistics. I've been playing this one exclusively for months, now..
Yes, it is possible to write a counteragent that would infect the same hosts as another worm, remove the worm, and close up the vector, possibly, to prevent a relapse. But, while this action may seem at the outset to be a beneficial thing to do, it is fraught with risks.
/not/ be 100% sure that the changes you will make will not have a negative effect on hosts you are trying to repair. Considering the difficulty, today, of producing a truly bug-free piece of software, due partially to glitchy libraries, I would consider it very likely that a so-called counter-virus would likely do as much harm as good.
As a case in point, refer to the Morris Worm, which shut down a large part of the Internet in its nascent years. The worm was never meant to be detrimental to its host's health, and was designed to give the author some statistical information about the number of hosts, etc. An error in the worm's propagation routines caused it to overproliferate, swamping the CPU of the servers involved, and bringing the network to a screaming halt.
You, as the counteragent author, can
The ethical thing remains to be informing the individuals who are still propagating, and ensuring your own house is clean. Perhaps we should form some RBL-style blacklist of hosts currently known to be propagating and susceptible to known worms?
..why I couldn't care less about the efforts to duplicate .NET, or .NET itself. I'll stick to my Smalltalk, where various implementations manage to remain civil with one another, and Free Software flows freely from one to the other.
Okay. Company refuses to 'sell out'. They ride the raft until it sinks.. There have been other companies that have done this, and, to this day, their projects /never/ came back up for air. Other companies bought them, then, usually, they cut up the project team and shuffled them into other business units.
/never/ sold out, and held onto their stuff until it was done.. The only good result of that one was the open-sourcing of Abuse, enabling poor knockoff levels to be written all over the world.
/both/ did this, and, at the moment, I don't think any game developer would call those MMORPGs 'struggling', 'failing', or even 'hurt.'
Anybody remember Crack.com? They wrote excellent games.. They
As far as customers getting burned and ignoring the company, I think you are confusing the short attention span of a Slashdot addict with the average consumer. Everquest and Ultima Online