Python would be required in order to compile a damn kernel.
Oh, you mean the way I need tk and perl to build a kernel? What? You mean you didn't notice those requirements when compiling your kernel. Oh, and for sake of sanity, I will assume you meant configuring not building. Yes, it is an important distinction.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, for those of you complaining about 'requirements' and dependencies, take a trip down the current kernel and tell me what you find. Why, what is this laying here in the scripts tree? Why, three little perl scripts called checkconfig.pl, checkhelp.pl, and checkincludes.pl.
And what have we over here? Why, sitting in close proximity to those perl scripts, I see some.tks. yup, xconfig needs *gasp* TCL/TK!! Oh, the horror! Why, it even reuires an externel INTERPRETER called/usr/bin/wish!! My Gawd the insanity! Quick! Somebody clean this all up, and bring it down to ONE rather than several!
Oh, wait... I forgot for the moment that you were complaining about that.
And perhaps someone can explain just _why_ in today's world, we should not require something like this for kernel configuration? "embedded..." whatever, embeddeds don't build their kernel. Face it, in the vast, vast majority of the cases (say, 95-99% of them), you are not pining away for a few megabytes (if that) of storage space. In nearly all non-embedded distributions, you already have python. Not that is would be hard to install it _anyway_.
Really, I see this whining about a 'python requirmeent' as little more than smoke and mirros to hide the fact that the current system is failing, has been for a long time, and you (the whiners, collectively) are too [lazy|incompetent|complacent] enough to take upon yourself making such a change (for the better) yourself.
Really, you people would have complained about any scripting language, had you not noticed the sad state of affairs currently at hand under/usr/src/linux. And guess what, there are valid reasons for not using shell: it sucks for this kind of thing. I thought this was Linux-land, where we use the best tool for the job, not stick to the old way simply cuz "that's how it is done around here"
Unless you are maintaining entries, you really have no business griping about the choice of language, so long as the job gets done, and an interface/spec is provided. As an end user (you know, the kernel-building kind;), all you really care about is: does it produce good kernel configs, and does it do so with a nice enough to use interface for me, be it clui or gui? Beyond that, it's irrelevant, and so much tempest in a teapot.
Sure, for the astute, you may realize that you may not neccessarily need all those perl and tcl/tk options (what? not use 'make checkconfig'??;^). But then again, you could also just edit your config by hand too. And then you could avoid whatever language was chosen. There is still a makefile in the end, and you could play with that and others till your heart is content (and your eyes bloodshot, fingers numb... etc. etc. etc.)
The simple fact that web and email travel over different ports. The fact that blocking spam means blocking it via smtp, not by blocking tcp/ip.
If mail comes from www.macromedia.com, you don't accept mail from there. If that is, your goal is to not get spam. Blocking ALL traffic from an IP to stop smtp traffic is stupid, asinine, and pathetic.
heh, someone needs to set upa MAPS-using-company blackhole list. If they use RBL to so anything more than fidlle with email traffic itsself, blackhole them. of ocurse, this means blackholing MAPS, but, hey, they don't care if they throw the baby out with the bathwater (their words). In simple words: They feel the ends justify whatever means they choose.
If you don't like the policies of your local grocer, you don't frequent them. If you think others should not frequent the grocer, You picket. you do not go out and barricade his place in, and prevent others from using it. That is what happened here.
MAPS/RBL is the latter, when used for anything other than rejecting email. Technically, above.nyet, with assistance and means provided by MAPS, is hijacking parts of the network. Technically, they committed denial of service.
(Insightful? Please, simple-minded is more like it. Somebody needs to mod this back down.)
No, you did not think.
So, you believe that your ISP can freely, and clandestinely block anything from you without your permission?
So, you'd be fine if they started secretly blocking slashdot, and didn't let you know right?
If you had _read_ the issue, you would know that the issue is NOT the blocking, but the clandestine blocking, that is the issue. if an ISP wants to say 'we blovk all traffic from the foo domain', that is just fine (and was NOTED IN THE ARTICLE).
Why? Because they told their customers about it. if thay had not done so, that woudl be bad. in this case, Above.net was doing it _SECRETLY_.
Try strapping your legs down so your knees don't jerk them around like that so much.
And backbone providers should _never_ do the blocking. Let the final ISP do it.
In this case, Above.net's policy is to block their own customers before confirming. but there is nothing on their site about blocking websites of cmpanies not hosted by them, or their customers.
now, it seems that hey are NOW trying to cover their arse, and have a 'new' policy in the wings.
Which tells you they will block other providers whenever they see fit to.
http://www.above.net/new_anti-spam.html
current/old one at:
http://www.above.net/anti-spam.html
note that they don't just block the mail traffic, they block ALL traffic. And since they ar enot _Just_an_ISP_, this effects more people than their customers. This is wrong. period. What about the poor sap that unknowingly gets routed through above.net's network?
This type of censorship is viral, for it goes beyond the provider's own network. Thus, the requirements and standards should be higher.
MAPS is so draconian that they could, by their rules, block anybody and everybody. Read their rules.
The net, just as government, should follow the Principle of the Least Rrestrictive. this means you block only the service causing the problem. Their tyrannical policy of refusing to say just how or why a given company, service or address is antithetical to their alleged goal.
I, as an administrator and potential subscriber to the RBL deserve to know how macromedia managed to get into the list. You, as a individual who may do business with Macromedia deserve to know as well. Say you don't like doing business with spammers. Say Macromedia got on the list without their having done anything wrong. You will never know, because MAPS has no real interest in decency. They are a single minded group of people who block more than is necessary, and refuse any responsibility or accountability for their decisions or actions.
They may try the claim of "We just list, we do not block". That is horseshit; they know full well how many places do block based upon their lists 9after all, they have subscriptions which cost quite a chunk of change, and require that you indemnify them), and the impact of even 24 hours of being listed unfairly. They have the arrogance to claim that UCE/UBE is more detrimental than lost connectivity.
Their hosts, they say, will _change_ the DNS entries of certain, routing them to their 'black hole'. THis practice is wrong because it violates what sanctity DNS has. They have noauthority to alter information regarding domains they do not own. how would you feel if the postals ervice, or FedEx, or whomever is in your area, decides to just stop delivering the mail you sent out?
What if you had no choice in the matter?
withte consolidation of ISPs that is currently underway, there will be less and less opportunity for indivudal users to select alternative ISPs. And those that did select a more decent ISP, may get screwed when that company sells to an ISP they left, or chose to not patronize.
They way to stand up to places like abive.net, and MAPs is to stop using them. For this to happen, people need to be told the reality of the situation. MAPS' claims are like the 'for the children' pleas from those who have no real justification for their proposals.
MAPS preference woiuld be a non-usable internet, rather than one that had spam. yeah, that's generlly called 'cutting off your nose to spite uour face'.
yeah, and so can just about anything these days. One key omission in the newsletter arena is the fact that The Edgeis entirely san opt-in list.
IF you ask the company to send you the newsletter it is not SPAM.
the RBL maintainers are a nasty group, IMO. They presume guilt before innocence. It was probably some idiot who signed up, and forgetting he did, or forgetting how to unsubscribe, reported them as spam. It is also possible s/he took an email adress someone else had previously, and signed up; then going overboard. On top of that, blocking a website is stupid, when the alleged issue is
These days, screaming SPAM is a knee-jerk reaction.
hey, I have an idea, why not post from your GNU-ONLY system?
What's that? You can't? Oh, so sorry.
Maybe we could call it Linux/GNU since a Linux _requires_ the Linux kernel. Oh, yeah guess you conveniently forgot about that part.
The whole GNU/Linux moniker just reeks of sour grapes for the GNU Kernel still not being useful. Much/most of GNU's increased usage is due to Linux providing the base for it.
Both GNU and Linux are interconnected. Putting one before another in a name is ridiculous, as it implies that one is more important. It becomes a chiken and egg situation. Linux uses GNU tools, but GNU tools require a base OS to run on, period. Hurd, you say? Feh, still waiting..
It is therefore, more justified to combine the two as Linux/GNU than it is to say GNU/Linux. The smart choice is to leave the two names separate, as it recognizes each for it's own essence and contribution.
You commit several logical fallacies in your hypothetical situation.
You presume, without showing, that copying and ditributing an audio performance of a song to be theft.
You then further the claim by saying it is stealing from the people who recorded the song. How so, you refuse to indicate. "But they lose money" you might claim. Again, you would have to prove the loss.
Do yourself a favor, take a survey amognst people you know. Find out how many time one buys an album, and like only one or two songs, and are unhappy they bought it. It is rather common. Indeed, it has become so common, that many people refuse to buy an album for that very reason. They are not willing to spend that much money on a chance at one song or two.
So, the recording industry has made an attempt at selling 'singles'. This failed, primarily due to the inconvenience of having to load all these separate tapes or CDs.
So, if I download a hit track from a recently released album, what _exactly_ did I take from the artist? Nothing. I was not going to buy their album anyway. In order for a theft to have occured, soemthing had to be taken. In this case, and this is not an uncommon situation, no thing was taken from the artist.
Now, before any rabid people want to say the same thing about a car (I've seen that lame-assed plea of emotion before), a car is physical object that once removed from a car lot cannot then be sold again by the dealer. In the case of an mp3 or other digital format, there is no physical object to be removed. Stealing a CD from the store is theft, primarily because it is a physical thing, and that the removal of it prevents the sale, as well as constitutes a tangible loss.
For theft to occur, there has to be measurable and/or tangible loss proven. No such event has transpired here. Merely an allegation with neithe rproof, nor evidence.
In the case of 'your friend' you present, again you make several assumptions not agreed upon by your interlocutor.
You are asserting without evidence that the action would cause my friend loss. As we have demonstrated, no loss has been shown. In addition, you are presuming I would not put a friend's music up for download. Here again, you do so without regard to reality. Many do. And in many, if not the majority of said cases, the friend is thankful. I've had musicians ask me if I could do this for them. Why, you may ask? Simple, it is good for them.
In addition, there are hundreds, of not thousands, of songs available to download that you simply cannot buy in the stores anymore, if ever you could in the first place. Tell us, who is causing more harm to the artist, the person providing their songs for download, or the label that has decided to stop producing and selling their album(s)? Ohhh, how the lines they blur so rapidly, no?
You were likely labelled a troll for putting forth an argument that was entirely flawed, and possibly for the language used to present it. Though I have not seen it, I would almost expect it given your last statements above.
Don't equate stock price to company stability. Especially when the market has been in a downturn for as long as it has. A company with a high stock price and rapidly shrinking margins is worse off than a company with a low stock price and stable or improving margins, all else being equal.
but then again, all things being equal, all things are never equal.
For example, they focused on far too many 3D game ports
Oh you mean like SimCity3kU, Railroad Tycoon II, EUS, Heroes III, Myth2, SMAC, and CivIII:CTP right?
The development of the 3D games helps to drive the development of good 3d drivers, as well as the use of the appropriate infrastructure in distributions.
Looking at it here, I see that of the 14 games currently shipping, 7 of them are non-3d accelerated.
And actually, for them it makes business sense to work on 3d games. Those who play them tend to have more funds available for buying the games in the first place.
Looking at the list of most popular games, most of them do tend to be 3d games, so the argument that they would have made more money by concentrating on RTS style games is without merit.
Additionally, the porting of 3d games has an ancilliary benefit, it disproves the notion that Linux is incapable of being a games platform. That will trend towards an increase in the available ports. Ini addition, porting the popular games is the best way to develop market share. Capitalize on the 'big names'. For exmaple, look at the people here complaining about the 'age' of the currently ported games. I'll wager these are the same people who won't buy them, and then c0omplain that Loki fell becuase nobody bought their games. In order to get the bigger games, you have to demonstrate success.
Remember, they can't just unilaterally decide to port a game they don't own. They have to convince the original makers that it would be a good idea, and that it is even feasible. Good 3d shows that 2d can be done well, it shows a commitment and a level of expertise that many game-cos insist on. If you doubt this, go get Blizzard to let you port their titles.
As far as those who see this discount as a sign of trouble, consider that many of us LUGs have been lobbying for something like this for quite some time. Also, by getting the games out to those who are on the forefront of getting Linux into the consumer's hands, they provide a more robust opportunity for Linux spread, as well as sales of their own games.
As far as you bundle issue, DUH! When you but a bundle, you don't get it until the whole thing is ready, that's why it is called a bundle.;^)~
No, like the sudden restart of the drive, for starters. Not to mention the voltage spikes involved in the process (which are harmfull to the rest of the machine as well).
Most failures of equipment happen during the boot sequence, there are reasons.
It is a known, established, and irrefutable fact that the power on/reboot sequence is harder on a computer than leaving it on. Your monitor is a different story (it is better to have it off, though power cycling it is not good either).
If you want a seperate copy of the rpmdb, copy it into your directory.
Then, of course, you would need relocatable packages( which can, and do, exist). After that, you specify which rpm database to use. of course, you would need to be root to install certain files into certain directories, but DUH!:)
The real problem lies in too many package maintainers building as root and having their build install stuff during the build.
Alternatively, it creates a higher demand for live performances through a better distribution model wherein more people are able to listen to the artist's music enough to want to see them in person.
The live performance is where the money should be once the cost of the production is covered. Said production cost is easily recouped in performance fees, provided the production cost is small. Even better: you can not reproduce faithfully, a live performance.
In the case of digital music, ie. mp3s, oggs, etc., the recording label, or artist themselves, can set up a server and provide the music at a small(!!) fee, or free. This brings the cost of distribution down dramatically, well within the realm of concert fees.
What most people fail to realize is that the RIAA is realizing their monopoly is dying. The new age provides for artists to be able to deliver their music without using the RIAA, and this scares the hell out of the RIAA.
But wait, the big move from the RIAA hasn't happened yet. Wait till they buy the algorithm to the mp3 format. Then we will see them go after mp3s of all types, just as they did/do with cds (for the uninitiated, every time you buy a blank CD, money goes to them).
Actually, nearly everyone I know would be willing to pay a small amount, provided they knew much of it was going to the artists.
It really isn't that different than much of the open source/free software community. We dont mind paying programmers for their work; after all we like getting paid for ours. What we object to are the people who go out an borrow large sums of money to learn how to take a larger percentage of that money for doing little-to-nothing.
Sure, in days past, there was a larger place for these types pf people (commonly known as marketing, management, and corporate executives). That time is passing, and we must realize that.
In the past, it took large amounts of outlay to get your work (music, writing, etc.) exposed to a large audience. Now, with little expense, you can get your work exposed to hundreds of millions of people. At that point it becomes a numbers game.
I would prefer a 'market' of 100 million people, paying me 1 USD for my work than 10 million people paying me 10 USD. If for no other reason than the fact I can draw a larger crowd in concerts:)
This model should come as no suprise to anyone familiar with business demographics. There a a small number of very large businesses, but there is a much larger number of smaller business, that when combined, have more true economic might and influence.
So it seems to me that those arguing that nobody, or even a tiny minority would pay, do not understand the open source/free software phenomenon/movement.
I have a suspicion that many of these same people would argue that if drugs were legalize,d we would see a huge increase in the number of drug addicts and hence drug related crimes (numerically improbable). Why would this happen?
Their answer: "Because drugs would be cheap and legal".
Oh, so more people would pay smaller amounts of money to do something legal, than will pay higher amounts to do something illegal?
Hmm sounds reminiscient of:
"Many people will pay smaller amounts of money to legally download music, than will run the risk of doing the same thing illegally."
For those who don't grok that last phrase, there is, I am given to understand, quite a market for mp3 cd's. Don't have the bandwidth? Pick your songs and get a custom cd with your mp3s... oh, and pay money for it, none of which goes to the artist, and all of which could get you in legal trouble.
Yeah, nobody will pay. just like nobody pays for their copy of Linux, or *BSD. Now go pull the other one.
No, you are incorrect. sudo uses a file called 'sudoers'. This file allows you to define specific commands, and/or groups of commands to specific users, and/or groups of users.
So, to make it clear for you...
Let's say we have a 'print administrator'. We can allow this user to start/top/restart the print deamon, and deque print jobs. We can, through the use of sudo and sudoers, allow this user to do:
bash$ sudo/etc/rc.d/init.d/lpd restart
and restart the lp daemon. Even better, we can even have this trigger the sending of email, and will be logged in syslog. In fact, with sudo you can get as fine grained as being able to only run certain commands with certain flags (options), or with none.
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the full extent of the capability of sudo. it is merely a factual illustration of the fallacy of your claim. For further enlightenment, try the duo man page
So, your claim that sudo 'Sudo just lets a bunch of people become root' is false.
Next time, perhaps you should actually learn about sudo before claiming what it can or cannot do. As it is, you just look stupid when you call someone else a moron for pointing out sudo, and claim it can't do things it can.
The doctrine that open source software is higher quality than proprietary software is a relic from a time before anyone was tracking bugs in most open source software.
I dunno where you get this alleged 'doctrine'. I've never heard it expressed.
In fact, the poular mantra has been that OSS is of lower quality, and that is
what OSS developers have been showing to be not true.
The community simply decided to inform itself that it was doing a great job, apropos of nothing. The single metric that was cited during those times was the infrequency of kernel crashes -- but there's a lot more to software quality than how often the OS crashes. The open source community's quality standard comes from the UNIX world, which has long been content with finicky systems in need of constant tweaking, and in which most of the members of the community were supported financially by the fact that the quirkiness of the systems kept them employed as system administrators.
Again, you seem to be presenting a strawman. Quality standard for software depends upon the specific application/implementation. As a system administrator
(yes, for a BigCorp(tm)), the system stability of every *nix system I have
ever seen/worked on, is/was not dependant upon 'quirkiness'. Even the Windows
admins where I have/do worked, acknowledge(d) that unix admins work less than
they do. What keeps us employed is our skills. We solve problems, we create
systems and prevent problems through application of knowledge and experience.
Now that some open source projects use bug tracking, it's become clear that the actual defect curve of large open source software shows an ever-increasing number of bugs, not the "shallowness" predicted by Eric Raymond in his religious essay.
Not an accurate conclusion, given the premises and assertions.
You fail to account for (or ignore, your choice)
several factors that would (and likely do) cause
any increase in a bug count.
One primary cause would be the increase in users.
A higher user count leads to a higher amount of 'eyeballs'
finding the bugs. This is a step towards squashing the bugs.
The increased finding and reporting of bugs, combined with the introduction
of new packages and software, is the most rational, and logical, cause for
the number of actual bugs currently unresolved.
In no way does this invalidate the assertion "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.".
In order for you to 'prove' that the assertion is flawed, you must first
reduce the number of factors to one: the eyeball->bug-shallowness ratio.
Then, you must prove that we have enough eyeballs.
You have done no such thing, and I would posit that you cannot do so.
At best, you would be able to show (for example) that the
rate at which bugs are fixed is decreasing (accunting for the increase in
bug reporting), and use that as evidence the
assertion may be flawed. However, if the reverse is indeed true, namely
that bugs are being fixed at an increasing rate (again, accounting for
the increase in the rate of bug discovery), then you would have to
recognize that the evidence would support the asstertion.
We can see that, just as with his claim that open source projects manage themselves, he was mistaken.
No, as noted above, you may be seeing that, but your assertion is
neither a given, nor supported by evidence. The projects you mention are,
indeed managing themselves. have you considered the idea that you do not
understand what he means by 'project management', and are misapplying the
conecpt you are perhaps used to? Just because they use tools to do so,
does not mean they are not managing themselves.
However, upon further consideration, you are actually raising another strawman.
You assert that ESR claims that OSS projects need zero
'project management'. This, is in fact, not true. ESR specifically refers
to 'conventional project management', where you have a team of managers
that exist solely to delegate responsiblilites, and define things. They don't
code; all they do is 'manage'. ESR specifically questions what that style
of project management 'buys' us, given the success of projects that do
not utilize this method, and the increased ease during transitions compared
to other similiar projects that do utilize traditional project management.
He then goes on to conclude that the traditional methods of project management
are not needed in open source, which, given the success of large
open source projects without use of traditonal project management methods,
is really more of an observation of fact, as opposed to anything near a
'religious doctrine'.
Regarding your comparison of stealing cars to downloading mp3's: it is crap. and I mean that in a nice way;)
Consider this situation:
Joe can't afford a BMW
Joe physically removes a BMW from the lot
What is wrong here? He took something from another without permission. The victim (BMW) has been harmed, because they cannot under any condition sell the car, as they no longer have it. Furthermore, they have invested money and capital in the car, thus they incurr a loss. A wrong has occurred.
Now consider this one:
Joe can't afford a Big Pig CD
Joe finds the song(s) he likes on the web
Joe downloads them
No harm has occurred. Why? Joe has in no way caused any damages to BigPig (or their label). They can still sell their CD's, and he has deprived them of no items. "But what about lost sale?" You ask? WHat lost sale? Remember, Joe couldn't afford their CD. What did they lose? What EXACTLY did they lose?
Until you answer that last question, with a reasonable and accurate answer that shows an actual _theft_ (look it up if you have to), your analogy is not only failed, it is misleading and absurd.
What is your solution? Shall we put a direct hyperlink on Yahoo! to the Anarchist's cookbook so that script kiddies can stop their DoS attacks and start making napalm in their garage?
Why do people seem to feel the need when faced with an argument they can't logically counter, they swing to extremes, putting words into the argument that didn't exist? You did precisely this.
Did you see anyone make those suggestions? Nope. You did, not anyone else.
Want to know how to 'reduce crime'? Deal with it, don't try to 'prevent it'. Care to guess how many ways you can commit a crime, even unknowingly? want to reduce the crime? Reduce the crime possibilities. Guaranteed to work. And without spending extra money, and eavesdropping on communications.
And instead of spending 5 hrs searching you should have sent an email to the Roxen mailinglist and you'd received an answer within less than 1 hr I'm sure.
Unless, of course you were mentioning a bug in Roxen. I don't know how much this translates to Pike's suppor tcommunity, but the Roxen one leaves a lot to be desired. More so on the part of the Roxen folks themselves. This has been one of the larger reasons I have not spent the time to bother learning pike.
Slashdot Mirror
And, just for the record, no you do not _have- to assign copyright to Sun. Read it further please.
r ig ht.html
They _ask_ that you do if you submit more than ten lines of code, but, since it is Licensed under the LGPL, they cannot require you to.
And, to clarify, the code sun released is under a dual-licnese, you choose which you want to use, not them.
http://www.openoffice.org/copyright/assign_copy
Oh, you mean the way I need tk and perl to build a kernel? What? You mean you didn't notice those requirements when compiling your kernel. Oh, and for sake of sanity, I will assume you meant configuring not building. Yes, it is an important distinction.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, for those of you complaining about 'requirements' and dependencies, take a trip down the current kernel and tell me what you find. Why, what is this laying here in the scripts tree? Why, three little perl scripts called checkconfig.pl, checkhelp.pl, and checkincludes.pl.
And what have we over here? Why, sitting in close proximity to those perl scripts, I see some .tks. yup, xconfig needs *gasp* TCL/TK!! Oh, the horror! Why, it even reuires an externel INTERPRETER called /usr/bin/wish!! My Gawd the insanity! Quick! Somebody clean this all up, and bring it down to ONE rather than several!
Oh, wait ... I forgot for the moment that you were complaining about that.
And perhaps someone can explain just _why_ in today's world, we should not require something like this for kernel configuration? "embedded..." whatever, embeddeds don't build their kernel. Face it, in the vast, vast majority of the cases (say, 95-99% of them), you are not pining away for a few megabytes (if that) of storage space. In nearly all non-embedded distributions, you already have python. Not that is would be hard to install it _anyway_.
Really, I see this whining about a 'python requirmeent' as little more than smoke and mirros to hide the fact that the current system is failing, has been for a long time, and you (the whiners, collectively) are too [lazy|incompetent|complacent] enough to take upon yourself making such a change (for the better) yourself.
Really, you people would have complained about any scripting language, had you not noticed the sad state of affairs currently at hand under /usr/src/linux. And guess what, there are valid reasons for not using shell: it sucks for this kind of thing. I thought this was Linux-land, where we use the best tool for the job, not stick to the old way simply cuz "that's how it is done around here"
Unless you are maintaining entries, you really have no business griping about the choice of language, so long as the job gets done, and an interface/spec is provided. As an end user (you know, the kernel-building kind ;), all you really care about is: does it produce good kernel configs, and does it do so with a nice enough to use interface for me, be it clui or gui? Beyond that, it's irrelevant, and so much tempest in a teapot.
Sure, for the astute, you may realize that you may not neccessarily need all those perl and tcl/tk options (what? not use 'make checkconfig'?? ;^). But then again, you could also just edit your config by hand too. And then you could avoid whatever language was chosen. There is still a makefile in the end, and you could play with that and others till your heart is content (and your eyes bloodshot, fingers numb ... etc. etc. etc.)
Then scroll to the bottom of the page.
no it isn't. Go learn about networking and routing before making such an untenable claim.
What are you missing?
A familiarity with what RBL is fully.
The simple fact that web and email travel over different ports. The fact that blocking spam means blocking it via smtp, not by blocking tcp/ip.
If mail comes from www.macromedia.com, you don't accept mail from there. If that is, your goal is to not get spam. Blocking ALL traffic from an IP to stop smtp traffic is stupid, asinine, and pathetic.
heh, someone needs to set upa MAPS-using-company blackhole list. If they use RBL to so anything more than fidlle with email traffic itsself, blackhole them. of ocurse, this means blackholing MAPS, but, hey, they don't care if they throw the baby out with the bathwater (their words). In simple words: They feel the ends justify whatever means they choose.
If you don't like the policies of your local grocer, you don't frequent them. If you think others should not frequent the grocer, You picket. you do not go out and barricade his place in, and prevent others from using it. That is what happened here.
MAPS/RBL is the latter, when used for anything other than rejecting email. Technically, above.nyet, with assistance and means provided by MAPS, is hijacking parts of the network. Technically, they committed denial of service.
(Insightful? Please, simple-minded is more like it. Somebody needs to mod this back down.)
No, you did not think.
So, you believe that your ISP can freely, and clandestinely block anything from you without your permission?
So, you'd be fine if they started secretly blocking slashdot, and didn't let you know right?
If you had _read_ the issue, you would know that the issue is NOT the blocking, but the clandestine blocking, that is the issue. if an ISP wants to say 'we blovk all traffic from the foo domain', that is just fine (and was NOTED IN THE ARTICLE).
Why? Because they told their customers about it. if thay had not done so, that woudl be bad. in this case, Above.net was doing it _SECRETLY_.
Try strapping your legs down so your knees don't jerk them around like that so much.
And backbone providers should _never_ do the blocking. Let the final ISP do it.
In this case, Above.net's policy is to block their own customers before confirming. but there is nothing on their site about blocking websites of cmpanies not hosted by them, or their customers.
now, it seems that hey are NOW trying to cover their arse, and have a 'new' policy in the wings.
Which tells you they will block other providers whenever they see fit to.
http://www.above.net/new_anti-spam.html
current/old one at:
http://www.above.net/anti-spam.html
note that they don't just block the mail traffic, they block ALL traffic. And since they ar enot _Just_an_ISP_, this effects more people than their customers. This is wrong. period. What about the poor sap that unknowingly gets routed through above.net's network?
This type of censorship is viral, for it goes beyond the provider's own network. Thus, the requirements and standards should be higher.
MAPS is so draconian that they could, by their rules, block anybody and everybody. Read their rules.
The net, just as government, should follow the Principle of the Least Rrestrictive. this means you block only the service causing the problem. Their tyrannical policy of refusing to say just how or why a given company, service or address is antithetical to their alleged goal.
I, as an administrator and potential subscriber to the RBL deserve to know how macromedia managed to get into the list. You, as a individual who may do business with Macromedia deserve to know as well. Say you don't like doing business with spammers. Say Macromedia got on the list without their having done anything wrong. You will never know, because MAPS has no real interest in decency. They are a single minded group of people who block more than is necessary, and refuse any responsibility or accountability for their decisions or actions.
They may try the claim of "We just list, we do not block". That is horseshit; they know full well how many places do block based upon their lists 9after all, they have subscriptions which cost quite a chunk of change, and require that you indemnify them), and the impact of even 24 hours of being listed unfairly. They have the arrogance to claim that UCE/UBE is more detrimental than lost connectivity.
Their hosts, they say, will _change_ the DNS entries of certain, routing them to their 'black hole'. THis practice is wrong because it violates what sanctity DNS has. They have noauthority to alter information regarding domains they do not own. how would you feel if the postals ervice, or FedEx, or whomever is in your area, decides to just stop delivering the mail you sent out?
What if you had no choice in the matter?
withte consolidation of ISPs that is currently underway, there will be less and less opportunity for indivudal users to select alternative ISPs. And those that did select a more decent ISP, may get screwed when that company sells to an ISP they left, or chose to not patronize.
They way to stand up to places like abive.net, and MAPs is to stop using them. For this to happen, people need to be told the reality of the situation. MAPS' claims are like the 'for the children' pleas from those who have no real justification for their proposals.
MAPS preference woiuld be a non-usable internet, rather than one that had spam. yeah, that's generlly called 'cutting off your nose to spite uour face'.
yeah, and so can just about anything these days. One key omission in the newsletter arena is the fact that The Edgeis entirely san opt-in list.
IF you ask the company to send you the newsletter it is not SPAM.
the RBL maintainers are a nasty group, IMO. They presume guilt before innocence. It was probably some idiot who signed up, and forgetting he did, or forgetting how to unsubscribe, reported them as spam. It is also possible s/he took an email adress someone else had previously, and signed up; then going overboard. On top of that, blocking a website is stupid, when the alleged issue is
These days, screaming SPAM is a knee-jerk reaction.
__hey, I have an idea, why not post from your GNU-ONLY system?
..
What's that? You can't? Oh, so sorry.
Maybe we could call it Linux/GNU since a Linux _requires_ the Linux kernel. Oh, yeah guess you conveniently forgot about that part.
The whole GNU/Linux moniker just reeks of sour grapes for the GNU Kernel still not being useful. Much/most of GNU's increased usage is due to Linux providing the base for it.
Both GNU and Linux are interconnected. Putting one before another in a name is ridiculous, as it implies that one is more important. It becomes a chiken and egg situation. Linux uses GNU tools, but GNU tools require a base OS to run on, period. Hurd, you say? Feh, still waiting
It is therefore, more justified to combine the two as Linux/GNU than it is to say GNU/Linux. The smart choice is to leave the two names separate, as it recognizes each for it's own essence and contribution.
--
You commit several logical fallacies in your hypothetical situation.
You presume, without showing, that copying and ditributing an audio performance of a song to be theft.
You then further the claim by saying it is stealing from the people who recorded the song. How so, you refuse to indicate. "But they lose money" you might claim. Again, you would have to prove the loss.
Do yourself a favor, take a survey amognst people you know. Find out how many time one buys an album, and like only one or two songs, and are unhappy they bought it. It is rather common. Indeed, it has become so common, that many people refuse to buy an album for that very reason. They are not willing to spend that much money on a chance at one song or two.
So, the recording industry has made an attempt at selling 'singles'. This failed, primarily due to the inconvenience of having to load all these separate tapes or CDs.
So, if I download a hit track from a recently released album, what _exactly_ did I take from the artist? Nothing. I was not going to buy their album anyway. In order for a theft to have occured, soemthing had to be taken. In this case, and this is not an uncommon situation, no thing was taken from the artist.
Now, before any rabid people want to say the same thing about a car (I've seen that lame-assed plea of emotion before), a car is physical object that once removed from a car lot cannot then be sold again by the dealer. In the case of an mp3 or other digital format, there is no physical object to be removed. Stealing a CD from the store is theft, primarily because it is a physical thing, and that the removal of it prevents the sale, as well as constitutes a tangible loss.
For theft to occur, there has to be measurable and/or tangible loss proven. No such event has transpired here. Merely an allegation with neithe rproof, nor evidence.
In the case of 'your friend' you present, again you make several assumptions not agreed upon by your interlocutor.
You are asserting without evidence that the action would cause my friend loss. As we have demonstrated, no loss has been shown. In addition, you are presuming I would not put a friend's music up for download. Here again, you do so without regard to reality. Many do. And in many, if not the majority of said cases, the friend is thankful. I've had musicians ask me if I could do this for them. Why, you may ask? Simple, it is good for them.
In addition, there are hundreds, of not thousands, of songs available to download that you simply cannot buy in the stores anymore, if ever you could in the first place. Tell us, who is causing more harm to the artist, the person providing their songs for download, or the label that has decided to stop producing and selling their album(s)? Ohhh, how the lines they blur so rapidly, no?
You were likely labelled a troll for putting forth an argument that was entirely flawed, and possibly for the language used to present it. Though I have not seen it, I would almost expect it given your last statements above.
Bill
you can usually click your browser's stop button to stop the background music.
Don't equate stock price to company stability. Especially when the market has been in a downturn for as long as it has. A company with a high stock price and rapidly shrinking margins is worse off than a company with a low stock price and stable or improving margins, all else being equal.
but then again, all things being equal, all things are never equal.
Oh you mean like SimCity3kU, Railroad Tycoon II, EUS, Heroes III, Myth2, SMAC, and CivIII:CTP right?
The development of the 3D games helps to drive the development of good 3d drivers, as well as the use of the appropriate infrastructure in distributions.Looking at it here, I see that of the 14 games currently shipping, 7 of them are non-3d accelerated.
And actually, for them it makes business sense to work on 3d games. Those who play them tend to have more funds available for buying the games in the first place.
Looking at the list of most popular games, most of them do tend to be 3d games, so the argument that they would have made more money by concentrating on RTS style games is without merit. Additionally, the porting of 3d games has an ancilliary benefit, it disproves the notion that Linux is incapable of being a games platform. That will trend towards an increase in the available ports. Ini addition, porting the popular games is the best way to develop market share. Capitalize on the 'big names'. For exmaple, look at the people here complaining about the 'age' of the currently ported games. I'll wager these are the same people who won't buy them, and then c0omplain that Loki fell becuase nobody bought their games. In order to get the bigger games, you have to demonstrate success.
Remember, they can't just unilaterally decide to port a game they don't own. They have to convince the original makers that it would be a good idea, and that it is even feasible. Good 3d shows that 2d can be done well, it shows a commitment and a level of expertise that many game-cos insist on. If you doubt this, go get Blizzard to let you port their titles.
As far as those who see this discount as a sign of trouble, consider that many of us LUGs have been lobbying for something like this for quite some time. Also, by getting the games out to those who are on the forefront of getting Linux into the consumer's hands, they provide a more robust opportunity for Linux spread, as well as sales of their own games.
As far as you bundle issue, DUH! When you but a bundle, you don't get it until the whole thing is ready, that's why it is called a bundle. ;^)~
This applies equally well to those who refuse to use python because it uses indentation, would you not agree?
Uhh you do realize that the license on Python is for PYTHON and not for apps coded in Python, right?
No, like the sudden restart of the drive, for starters. Not to mention the voltage spikes involved in the process (which are harmfull to the rest of the machine as well).
:)
Most failures of equipment happen during the boot sequence, there are reasons.
It is a known, established, and irrefutable fact that the power on/reboot sequence is harder on a computer than leaving it on. Your monitor is a different story (it is better to have it off, though power cycling it is not good either).
Get a clue. Do some research.
Or admit you are being facetious.
It _can_.
:)
If you want a seperate copy of the rpmdb, copy it into your directory.
Then, of course, you would need relocatable packages( which can, and do, exist). After that, you specify which rpm database to use. of course, you would need to be root to install certain files into certain directories, but DUH!
The real problem lies in too many package maintainers building as root and having their build install stuff during the build.
Alternatively, it creates a higher demand for live performances through a better distribution model wherein more people are able to listen to the artist's music enough to want to see them in person.
The live performance is where the money should be once the cost of the production is covered. Said production cost is easily recouped in performance fees, provided the production cost is small. Even better: you can not reproduce faithfully, a live performance.
In the case of digital music, ie. mp3s, oggs, etc., the recording label, or artist themselves, can set up a server and provide the music at a small(!!) fee, or free. This brings the cost of distribution down dramatically, well within the realm of concert fees.
What most people fail to realize is that the RIAA is realizing their monopoly is dying. The new age provides for artists to be able to deliver their music without using the RIAA, and this scares the hell out of the RIAA.
But wait, the big move from the RIAA hasn't happened yet. Wait till they buy the algorithm to the mp3 format. Then we will see them go after mp3s of all types, just as they did/do with cds (for the uninitiated, every time you buy a blank CD, money goes to them).
Long live ogg-vorbis.
__
How droll. That has absolutely nothing to do with what you allegedly are replying to.
Nowhere was there any mention of a lack of profit, or even a desire for production.
--
Actually, nearly everyone I know would be willing to pay a small amount, provided they knew much of it was going to the artists.
:)
... oh, and pay money for it, none of which goes to the artist, and all of which could get you in legal trouble.
It really isn't that different than much of the open source/free software community. We dont mind paying programmers for their work; after all we like getting paid for ours. What we object to are the people who go out an borrow large sums of money to learn how to take a larger percentage of that money for doing little-to-nothing.
Sure, in days past, there was a larger place for these types pf people (commonly known as marketing, management, and corporate executives). That time is passing, and we must realize that.
In the past, it took large amounts of outlay to get your work (music, writing, etc.) exposed to a large audience. Now, with little expense, you can get your work exposed to hundreds of millions of people. At that point it becomes a numbers game.
I would prefer a 'market' of 100 million people, paying me 1 USD for my work than 10 million people paying me 10 USD. If for no other reason than the fact I can draw a larger crowd in concerts
This model should come as no suprise to anyone familiar with business demographics. There a a small number of very large businesses, but there is a much larger number of smaller business, that when combined, have more true economic might and influence.
So it seems to me that those arguing that nobody, or even a tiny minority would pay, do not understand the open source/free software phenomenon/movement.
I have a suspicion that many of these same people would argue that if drugs were legalize,d we would see a huge increase in the number of drug addicts and hence drug related crimes (numerically improbable). Why would this happen?
Their answer: "Because drugs would be cheap and legal".
Oh, so more people would pay smaller amounts of money to do something legal, than will pay higher amounts to do something illegal?
Hmm sounds reminiscient of:
"Many people will pay smaller amounts of money to legally download music, than will run the risk of doing the same thing illegally."
For those who don't grok that last phrase, there is, I am given to understand, quite a market for mp3 cd's. Don't have the bandwidth? Pick your songs and get a custom cd with your mp3s
Yeah, nobody will pay. just like nobody pays for their copy of Linux, or *BSD. Now go pull the other one.
No, you are incorrect. sudo uses a file called 'sudoers'. This file allows you to define specific commands, and/or groups of commands to specific users, and/or groups of users.
So, to make it clear for you ...
Let's say we have a 'print administrator'. We can allow this user to start/top/restart the print deamon, and deque print jobs. We can, through the use of sudo and sudoers, allow this user to do: /etc/rc.d/init.d/lpd restart
bash$ sudo
and restart the lp daemon. Even better, we can even have this trigger the sending of email, and will be logged in syslog. In fact, with sudo you can get as fine grained as being able to only run certain commands with certain flags (options), or with none.
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the full extent of the capability of sudo. it is merely a factual illustration of the fallacy of your claim. For further enlightenment, try the duo man page
So, your claim that sudo 'Sudo just lets a bunch of people become root' is false. Next time, perhaps you should actually learn about sudo before claiming what it can or cannot do. As it is, you just look stupid when you call someone else a moron for pointing out sudo, and claim it can't do things it can.
The doctrine that open source software is higher quality than proprietary software is a relic from a time before anyone was tracking bugs in most open source software.
I dunno where you get this alleged 'doctrine'. I've never heard it expressed. In fact, the poular mantra has been that OSS is of lower quality, and that is what OSS developers have been showing to be not true.
The community simply decided to inform itself that it was doing a great job, apropos of nothing. The single metric that was cited during those times was the infrequency of kernel crashes -- but there's a lot more to software quality than how often the OS crashes. The open source community's quality standard comes from the UNIX world, which has long been content with finicky systems in need of constant tweaking, and in which most of the members of the community were supported financially by the fact that the quirkiness of the systems kept them employed as system administrators.
Again, you seem to be presenting a strawman. Quality standard for software depends upon the specific application/implementation. As a system administrator (yes, for a BigCorp(tm)), the system stability of every *nix system I have ever seen/worked on, is/was not dependant upon 'quirkiness'. Even the Windows admins where I have/do worked, acknowledge(d) that unix admins work less than they do. What keeps us employed is our skills. We solve problems, we create systems and prevent problems through application of knowledge and experience.
Now that some open source projects use bug tracking, it's become clear that the actual defect curve of large open source software shows an ever-increasing number of bugs, not the "shallowness" predicted by Eric Raymond in his religious essay.
Not an accurate conclusion, given the premises and assertions.
You fail to account for (or ignore, your choice) several factors that would (and likely do) cause any increase in a bug count. One primary cause would be the increase in users. A higher user count leads to a higher amount of 'eyeballs' finding the bugs. This is a step towards squashing the bugs. The increased finding and reporting of bugs, combined with the introduction of new packages and software, is the most rational, and logical, cause for the number of actual bugs currently unresolved. In no way does this invalidate the assertion "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.".
In order for you to 'prove' that the assertion is flawed, you must first reduce the number of factors to one: the eyeball->bug-shallowness ratio. Then, you must prove that we have enough eyeballs. You have done no such thing, and I would posit that you cannot do so. At best, you would be able to show (for example) that the rate at which bugs are fixed is decreasing (accunting for the increase in bug reporting), and use that as evidence the assertion may be flawed. However, if the reverse is indeed true, namely that bugs are being fixed at an increasing rate (again, accounting for the increase in the rate of bug discovery), then you would have to recognize that the evidence would support the asstertion.
We can see that, just as with his claim that open source projects manage themselves, he was mistaken.
No, as noted above, you may be seeing that, but your assertion is neither a given, nor supported by evidence. The projects you mention are, indeed managing themselves. have you considered the idea that you do not understand what he means by 'project management', and are misapplying the conecpt you are perhaps used to? Just because they use tools to do so, does not mean they are not managing themselves.
However, upon further consideration, you are actually raising another strawman. You assert that ESR claims that OSS projects need zero 'project management'. This, is in fact, not true. ESR specifically refers to 'conventional project management', where you have a team of managers that exist solely to delegate responsiblilites, and define things. They don't code; all they do is 'manage'. ESR specifically questions what that style of project management 'buys' us, given the success of projects that do not utilize this method, and the increased ease during transitions compared to other similiar projects that do utilize traditional project management.
He then goes on to conclude that the traditional methods of project management are not needed in open source, which, given the success of large open source projects without use of traditonal project management methods, is really more of an observation of fact, as opposed to anything near a 'religious doctrine'.
Regarding your comparison of stealing cars to downloading mp3's: it is crap. and I mean that in a nice way ;)
Consider this situation:
What is wrong here? He took something from another without permission. The victim (BMW) has been harmed, because they cannot under any condition sell the car, as they no longer have it. Furthermore, they have invested money and capital in the car, thus they incurr a loss.
A wrong has occurred.
Now consider this one:
No harm has occurred. Why? Joe has in no way caused any damages to BigPig (or their label). They can still sell their CD's, and he has deprived them of no items. "But what about lost sale?" You ask? WHat lost sale? Remember, Joe couldn't afford their CD. What did they lose? What EXACTLY did they lose?
Until you answer that last question, with a reasonable and accurate answer that shows an actual _theft_ (look it up if you have to), your analogy is not only failed, it is misleading and absurd.
Why do people seem to feel the need when faced with an argument they can't logically counter, they swing to extremes, putting words into the argument that didn't exist? You did precisely this.
Did you see anyone make those suggestions? Nope. You did, not anyone else.
Want to know how to 'reduce crime'? Deal with it, don't try to 'prevent it'. Care to guess how many ways you can commit a crime, even unknowingly? want to reduce the crime? Reduce the crime possibilities. Guaranteed to work. And without spending extra money, and eavesdropping on communications.
Same with the ones on windows, none of them are flawless either.
Unless, of course you were mentioning a bug in Roxen. I don't know how much this translates to Pike's suppor tcommunity, but the Roxen one leaves a lot to be desired. More so on the part of the Roxen folks themselves. This has been one of the larger reasons I have not spent the time to bother learning pike.