I agree wholeheartedly. To "do battle" with Microsoft is to attempt the engage them fully on their terms. Nobody can out-market, out-spend, out-featurize, out-PR, or out-legislate Microsoft because that's how they've built themselves up to where they are now. Their monopoly has caused most of the computer industry to define success exactly how Microsoft views their own strengths and benefits to the user, so there is no way to compete with them in the ways that computer companies have traditionally competed with each other.
What Linux seems to have done so far (in most cases, but that BSD seems to do better) is to take a page out of the tenets of Judo (and probably other martial arts as well): the best defense is to NOT BE WHERE THE OPPONENT IS STRIKING. Microsoft will waste all of their energy trying to drag Linux into the marketing game, the legislation and lobbying game, the featuritis and well-publicized second-system effects game, and so on. Nobody who is using Linux these days cares that Linus doesn't buy a five-lot booth at CES as a monument to himself and his helpers, nobody cares that laws can't be passed to require people to use Windows, and nobody cares that Linux isn't competing with Windows on anybody's terms. They aren't competing because - Microsoft themselves said it best - you can't compete with free. So competing has nothing to do with winning, and the proof is the adoption rate of Linux. Ta da!
But hey, you know...I wouldn't be as good at the command line as I am now if it wasn't for 15 years of DOS throughout my youth. So party the night away, Uncle Bill, you deserve it.
Sorry to inform you, but nobody gives a flying fuck about Mareeen O'Gara or SysCon except Pamala Jones and her thralls. (As evidenced about the 100s of groklaw articles published about those noname losers.)
Yeah, dude. Obviously. And a lot of those fuckos feel seriously wronged and may not have one's normal moral boundries in place.
I suppose you'd like us to adopt the moral compass of an anonymous poster with a chip on their shoulder? Way to go, champ.
You don't have to control every fucking little inch of your property with an iron fist.
Yes he does. I bet he would get fired if he didn't. If you sold fear insurance, it would be in your best interest to keep telling people the sky is falling. This is what he does, and he sings for his supper.
>The Tin-foil hat perspective of this debacle is that MO'G is actually >provoking PJ to sue. This will put PJ's personal info into public court >records, which is exactly what MO'G (and SCOg) wants.
PJ wouldn't have to put her personal info into public court records if it is determined that what Maureen O'Gara has done is a criminal act.
I don't think it's necessarily over-reaction since her tone has caused this situation to simmer under the surface for quite a while now. She has (apparently) built up enough enemies who are willing to hit back when she starts a(nother) fight. It sucks that it's just a matter of advertisers pressure (if indeed so) and not a situation where she is compelled to apologize publicly.
But like I posted elsewhere, six of the ten "Latest Articles" at sys-con are by Maureen O'Gara, so it doesn't look like anything has happened yet anyway.
Six of the ten "Latest Articles" at sys-con.com are by Maureen O'Gara as of two minutes ago. I'm glad I long ago ad-blocked everything sys-con, but by the speed of their server it looks like they're gonna rake it in on impressions alone.
I don't know where you live, but around here anybody who admins machines that are exposed to script kiddies tend to have things like cellphones and 24-7 coverage as part of their job description. Your line of reasoning just strikes me as weird, since security problems are one of the main reasons for nighttime visits and weekend upgrades (along with badly coded daemons/services that have to be babysat). I just don't get it.
>>The very idea of killing someone over something so trivial as a router makes me sick. >> >If you don't want to get shot then don't steal. It's really that simple.
Great logic! How about "If you don't want to get DDoS'ed, then don't run a gambling website"? Works perfectly! Man, now we can solve all sorts of problems like that. Thanks for the insight.
>> and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's? >> >Please excuse my asking, oh well-armed-one, but WTF for? >The glock is a fine weapon, and being an admin for an ISP is a fine >job, but I can't quite see the relationship between the two things...
The connection is that a story about ISP admins is the perfect opportunity to tell the Slashdot world that you know what a "Glock 19" is.
Of course, that's not what I or The Register is saying.
Only that the Truth often gets lost when the Facts are repeated by people who don't know what they're talking about (forum posters, not the Groklaw folks).
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Why shouldn't facts be repeated? How is truth affected by the facts? Why the capitalization? It sounds like you're being an apologist for the prevalence of spin applied to meaning, so I'm curious about what you're trying to say.
Honestly you do NOT mess around in a situation like this. As a soldier you can't just say "Oh look at that speeding car lets see what they want". You have to take action and it sounds to me like procedure was followed to the best of ability.
Yeah, and if we're gonna use a laser to signal a vehicle that they should stop...let's use *green*.
If the businesses are going to make the information valuable, then their responsibility to protect it should be greater. There is a wide gap between the damage that can be done through ID-theft and the repercussions a company experiences when they let it out into the world. The only solutions to this problem that I've heard so far is for the general public to deal with it themselves, as if the companies *and* the government are telling us, "sucks to be you." I don't think this is right.
>War? Iron Grip? Jesus dude, It's software.. >I think its funny that you said this: > you can expect every trick to be used. Linux users >will be cast in the vein of the Simpson's comic book guy. > >Funny because that is exactly how I started picturing >you in my mind as I read your post.
This is because you're falling for the FUD. Read what you say, bringing people to "our side" and "tactics" are terms of strategy and opposition, but let me ask you...ever heard of a businessman reading Sun Tzu before? Well, now here we are in the middle of it. Where is the erroneous bashing? What do you think Microsoft handles better?
Instead of taking the average Slashdotter stereotype as your mark of the zeitgeist, try having some standards. I don't really see anybody talking about "us" and "them" except the status quo: Microsoft, Dildio, etc. who have entrenched interests that they perceive as being threatened. The overarching ethic in the Linux community is good, free software. Sure, the people who have 0wn3d the computer industry for the past 25 years would love to drag an adolescent into their ring, it's how they do business. This is what Dildio is trying to do: goad people who could care a whit about Microsoft's shitty software that has only changed in the past 10 years to the extent that they think the user should be controlled and mistrusted. But knowledge of this is not necessary to making good, free software. Linux has been written not as a feature-by-feature retort to the gauntlet thrown down by the master innovators in Redmond, but as an idealized operating system and set of utilities that better utilitize the hardware it runs on and the skills of those who operate those machines.
Fine, you can't get with the benefits of Linux. No one's forcing you to like it. However, there are those who would like to force you to keep using Windows. Realize that when you look down on us Simpson's Comic Book Guys that you're doing it from the luxury of entrenched power and social monopolies, the historical lynchpins of bullies throughout history. Anonymous Coward indeed!
Contrast this announcement with the *other* recent announcement that they're going to be replacing commercials in saved programs. I thought that one didn't get enough attention, that they're going to be the only company who can keep advertising revenues going in spite of time-shifting. A big deal, though I don't like the pop-up idea if it actually comes to fruition.
Anyway, some of these patents seem to hook up with these ideas. The other ones point to some more announcements and refinements in the future.
Fine. You've decided you can make a case from the victim's perspective, what a subtle use of your lawyerly skills. Attempting to turn away from making a bad problem worse, what does your training (as a techie and a lawyer, natch) tell you is the right way around this problem? What if the ISP ignores all inquiries? How do you know your solution is right vs. wrong? It doesn't result in the least impact upon the greatest number of people if it allows the spammers to keep working while you get your precious tortious interference resolved. Basically, your solution seems a bit selfish and shortsighted.
The more they howl about spammers, the less attention will be paid to the fundamentally broken qualities of Microsoft email clients. Security holes in Outlook? LOOK OVER THERE, IT'S A DIRTY SPAMMER.
WordPress has made quite a name for itself, and is a great example of open source software in action. But this incident is a blight on the community. People will see this, not know all the facts, and make their own interpretations and ideas.
Yes, but even if you know all the facts, it becomes clear that just because a piece of software is open source it is still possible to completely fuck it up. Even if it's only one of the developers who makes a bad decision. How do you fork a piece of software away from bad perception? Maybe you have to fork away from the developer himself.
Slashdot Mirror
>Not to mention going to computer shows for shareware diskettes
>containing the latest and greatest BBS clients.
What is this "BBS client" you speak of? We just used Qmodem and a phone number.
>It's spelled 'ridiculous' you fucking nimwit.
It's spelled "nitwit" you fucking dimwit.
I agree wholeheartedly. To "do battle" with Microsoft is to attempt the engage them fully on their terms. Nobody can out-market, out-spend, out-featurize, out-PR, or out-legislate Microsoft because that's how they've built themselves up to where they are now. Their monopoly has caused most of the computer industry to define success exactly how Microsoft views their own strengths and benefits to the user, so there is no way to compete with them in the ways that computer companies have traditionally competed with each other.
What Linux seems to have done so far (in most cases, but that BSD seems to do better) is to take a page out of the tenets of Judo (and probably other martial arts as well): the best defense is to NOT BE WHERE THE OPPONENT IS STRIKING. Microsoft will waste all of their energy trying to drag Linux into the marketing game, the legislation and lobbying game, the featuritis and well-publicized second-system effects game, and so on. Nobody who is using Linux these days cares that Linus doesn't buy a five-lot booth at CES as a monument to himself and his helpers, nobody cares that laws can't be passed to require people to use Windows, and nobody cares that Linux isn't competing with Windows on anybody's terms. They aren't competing because - Microsoft themselves said it best - you can't compete with free. So competing has nothing to do with winning, and the proof is the adoption rate of Linux. Ta da!
But hey, you know...I wouldn't be as good at the command line as I am now if it wasn't for 15 years of DOS throughout my youth. So party the night away, Uncle Bill, you deserve it.
LinuxWorld Editor James Turner weighs in late, and thickens the plot.
Sorry to inform you, but nobody gives a flying fuck about Mareeen O'Gara or SysCon except Pamala Jones and her thralls. (As evidenced about the 100s of groklaw articles published about those noname losers.)
Yeah, dude. Obviously.
And a lot of those fuckos feel seriously wronged and may not have one's normal moral boundries in place.
I suppose you'd like us to adopt the moral compass of an anonymous poster with a chip on their shoulder? Way to go, champ.
You don't have to control every fucking little inch of your property with an iron fist.
Yes he does. I bet he would get fired if he didn't. If you sold fear insurance, it would be in your best interest to keep telling people the sky is falling. This is what he does, and he sings for his supper.
>The Tin-foil hat perspective of this debacle is that MO'G is actually
>provoking PJ to sue. This will put PJ's personal info into public court
>records, which is exactly what MO'G (and SCOg) wants.
PJ wouldn't have to put her personal info into public court records if it is determined that what Maureen O'Gara has done is a criminal act.
I don't think it's necessarily over-reaction since her tone has caused this situation to simmer under the surface for quite a while now. She has (apparently) built up enough enemies who are willing to hit back when she starts a(nother) fight. It sucks that it's just a matter of advertisers pressure (if indeed so) and not a situation where she is compelled to apologize publicly.
But like I posted elsewhere, six of the ten "Latest Articles" at sys-con are by Maureen O'Gara, so it doesn't look like anything has happened yet anyway.
Six of the ten "Latest Articles" at sys-con.com are by Maureen O'Gara as of two minutes ago. I'm glad I long ago ad-blocked everything sys-con, but by the speed of their server it looks like they're gonna rake it in on impressions alone.
Cracktastic!
I don't know where you live, but around here anybody who admins machines that are exposed to script kiddies tend to have things like cellphones and 24-7 coverage as part of their job description. Your line of reasoning just strikes me as weird, since security problems are one of the main reasons for nighttime visits and weekend upgrades (along with badly coded daemons/services that have to be babysat). I just don't get it.
>>The very idea of killing someone over something so trivial as a router makes me sick.
>>
>If you don't want to get shot then don't steal. It's really that simple.
Great logic! How about "If you don't want to get DDoS'ed, then don't run a gambling website"? Works perfectly! Man, now we can solve all sorts of problems like that. Thanks for the insight.
>> and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's?
>>
>Please excuse my asking, oh well-armed-one, but WTF for?
>The glock is a fine weapon, and being an admin for an ISP is a fine
>job, but I can't quite see the relationship between the two things...
The connection is that a story about ISP admins is the perfect
opportunity to tell the Slashdot world that you know what a "Glock 19" is.
Apples and apples, QED.
>I have no solid answer, but in the case of some of these offenders -
>you let them out and you know they will do it again...
Maybe one step would be to put more effort into rehabilitation.
Of course, that's not what I or The Register is saying.
Only that the Truth often gets lost when the Facts are repeated by people who don't know what they're talking about (forum posters, not the Groklaw folks).
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Why shouldn't facts be repeated? How is truth affected by the facts? Why the capitalization? It sounds like you're being an apologist for the prevalence of spin applied to meaning, so I'm curious about what you're trying to say.
Honestly you do NOT mess around in a situation like this. As a soldier you can't just say "Oh look at that speeding car lets see what they want". You have to take action and it sounds to me like procedure was followed to the best of ability.
Yeah, and if we're gonna use a laser to signal a vehicle that they should stop...let's use *green*.
>That sounds large for a thin client, but this is truly Windows XP with
>a lot of crap stripped out. IE and MSN messenger are included,
So what "crap" was stripped out, then?
He didn't say he was using an iBook.
In the RIAA's case, they have not provided a way to conduct the same behavior legally. You're conflating compliance with prohibition.
If the businesses are going to make the information valuable, then their responsibility to protect it should be greater. There is a wide gap between the damage that can be done through ID-theft and the repercussions a company experiences when they let it out into the world. The only solutions to this problem that I've heard so far is for the general public to deal with it themselves, as if the companies *and* the government are telling us, "sucks to be you." I don't think this is right.
>War? Iron Grip? Jesus dude, It's software..
>I think its funny that you said this:
> you can expect every trick to be used. Linux users
>will be cast in the vein of the Simpson's comic book guy.
>
>Funny because that is exactly how I started picturing
>you in my mind as I read your post.
This is because you're falling for the FUD. Read what you say, bringing people to "our side" and "tactics" are terms of strategy and opposition, but let me ask you...ever heard of a businessman reading Sun Tzu before? Well, now here we are in the middle of it. Where is the erroneous bashing? What do you think Microsoft handles better?
Instead of taking the average Slashdotter stereotype as your mark of the zeitgeist, try having some standards. I don't really see anybody talking about "us" and "them" except the status quo: Microsoft, Dildio, etc. who have entrenched interests that they perceive as being threatened. The overarching ethic in the Linux community is good, free software. Sure, the people who have 0wn3d the computer industry for the past 25 years would love to drag an adolescent into their ring, it's how they do business. This is what Dildio is trying to do: goad people who could care a whit about Microsoft's shitty software that has only changed in the past 10 years to the extent that they think the user should be controlled and mistrusted. But knowledge of this is not necessary to making good, free software. Linux has been written not as a feature-by-feature retort to the gauntlet thrown down by the master innovators in Redmond, but as an idealized operating system and set of utilities that better utilitize the hardware it runs on and the skills of those who operate those machines.
Fine, you can't get with the benefits of Linux. No one's forcing you to like it. However, there are those who would like to force you to keep using Windows. Realize that when you look down on us Simpson's Comic Book Guys that you're doing it from the luxury of entrenched power and social monopolies, the historical lynchpins of bullies throughout history. Anonymous Coward indeed!
Tying the content to revenue generating relationships. I don't see that affecting the quality of wikipedia at all. Nope, not one bit.
Contrast this announcement with the *other* recent announcement that they're going to be replacing commercials in saved programs. I thought that one didn't get enough attention, that they're going to be the only company who can keep advertising revenues going in spite of time-shifting. A big deal, though I don't like the pop-up idea if it actually comes to fruition.
Anyway, some of these patents seem to hook up with these ideas. The other ones point to some more announcements and refinements in the future.
Fine. You've decided you can make a case from the victim's perspective, what a subtle use of your lawyerly skills. Attempting to turn away from making a bad problem worse, what does your training (as a techie and a lawyer, natch) tell you is the right way around this problem? What if the ISP ignores all inquiries? How do you know your solution is right vs. wrong? It doesn't result in the least impact upon the greatest number of people if it allows the spammers to keep working while you get your precious tortious interference resolved. Basically, your solution seems a bit selfish and shortsighted.
The more they howl about spammers, the less attention will be paid to the fundamentally broken qualities of Microsoft email clients. Security holes in Outlook? LOOK OVER THERE, IT'S A DIRTY SPAMMER.
WordPress has made quite a name for itself, and is a great example of open source software in action. But this incident is a blight on the community. People will see this, not know all the facts, and make their own interpretations and ideas.
Yes, but even if you know all the facts, it becomes clear that just because a piece of software is open source it is still possible to completely fuck it up. Even if it's only one of the developers who makes a bad decision. How do you fork a piece of software away from bad perception? Maybe you have to fork away from the developer himself.