Granted, things would probably be better if banks were 100% responsible, but why should a bank be responsible for someones stupidity?
All information I see from banks et all, says *never ever* give your authentication information away to anyone - not even to them. If people chose to disregard that advice, and refuses to learn anything about security, I don't think the bank should be responsible.
I think requiring two-factor is a reasonable request. It *does* raise the bar a bit.
But alas, what is the reason people have become so afraid of having to learn something? It's because they are using computers and operating systems that tout that you shouldn't *have* to learn. This simply isn't true, ever, but if you tell that to people enough times, they'll start believing it, and stop trying to learn something.
I'm sure there will always be people who doesn't know anything but Windows. The point is *not* to convince everyone to switch, as I see it. Ok, I believe many people would today benefit from switching, but this is not the point....
I believe in choice. We need enough Linux-users that the hardware-vendors will lose a significant market-share if they go Windows-only. Ideally, we would need the same for the BSDs, BeOS, Plan 9, and every other OS there is out there, but right now, I think Linux is a sensible first step of getting vendors to realize that the desktop-world consist of more than Microsoft and Apple. Besides, those who *really* do get it, and release open-source drivers and/or specifications, will also do good for the rest of the platforms out there.
The point is not world domination. I'd settle for a significant market-share. We're on our way there, but it *will* take time, and it *will* take effort. For those who are willing to do *something*, my original post is a good first step. It's something *everyone* can do, regardless of knowledge and competence.
Because 90-odd percent likes Windows, doesn't care and/or doesn't know better, makes it just so much more important for those of us who *do* care, to do everything we can to *at least* not support the monopoly.
My advices are something everyone can follow. Heck, even if you are a Windows-user, the above advices are good ideas. I think we can call it proven that competition has made Windows better the later years. Restoring competition can only make Windows better. Unless they go broke, but I doubt that's going to happen in our lifetime.
So, my answer is: Everyone, even Windows users, should care that there is competition to the Windows-monopoly. And making that competition along Open Source and open standards makes sense. It doesn't have to be called Linux, but that's the hottest open platform nowadays, and our best hope for getting vendors to understand what we talk about...
(And yes, BSDs and other open source-systems will also benefit. That's what open source and standards-compliance is all about!)
I doubt we're going to make everyone care any time sure. But I'm at least going to do *my* minimum-effort to improving and restoring competition in the IT-world. Be a part of the solution, don't be a part of the problem!
Hardware-support is a no-brainer. It's really simple: *do your research before you buy*, and it will be equally well supported in Linux.
Do not reward the monipoly. Reward standard-friendly hardware vendors who help the community, not hardware-vendors who help the monopoly.
I haven't got any hardware-problems with Linux. I simply don't buy non-compatible hardware.
As for software/features, it is getting better by the day in Linux, and I am more productive on a *nix-platform than a Windows-platform.
No, I will not surrender my independence, and I encourage all who are remotely interested in competition and freedom in the software-market to do as me.
In addition, my advocacy-strategy is one that I recommend to everyone:
1) When you go to a hardware-store, ask the clerk for Linux-compatibility! Let him know that there *is* a demand. Do it regardless if you know the answer or not (unless it's written on the box).
2) In case they don't know, and you don't know, ask for their return-policy. Don't buy if you can't return it!
3) Never buy Windows-only-hardware, even if the machine which is going to use it is currently a Windows-machine. Things may change, and some time in the feature, the hardware will be used in a Linux-machine. And even if not, the monopoly does not deserve rewarding!
Last, but not least, do not support the Windows-monopoly by being the virus/spyware-janitor for all your Windows-friends. It's quite relieving not having to bother *at all* with the Windows-viruses/spyware. Let them fix their own mess if they choose to take the lazy way and go with the monopoly. Don't be the one who makes it easy for them to use Windows!
And when they're ready, get them hooked on Linux;) Offer them transition-help, it will reduce your burden with Windows-questions long-term.
and no - I'm not really a fundamentalist. I believe everyone *should* have the right to choose. But the monopoly limits *my* right to choose, so I fight the monopoly. When competition is restored, mission is accomplished, not when MS is broke. If MS goes broke if they don't have a desktop-monopoly, however, I will not really feel sorry for them. I believe competition to be more important.
No, I wasn't really referring to that. I was referring to the fact that even the democrats are more to the right than the right-wing politicials here in social-democratic Norway, for example.
Americans tend to refer to social-democracy as communism. While I was just stating that there are fundamental differences.
What lies in social-democracy, is that a certain, pretty large, part of society is under government-control because it's deemed to be a fundamental right for people. Things like health care and education. Of course this means higher taxes to pay for this, thus the rich sponsor the educations and health care of the poor people who don't pay much taxes anyways.
Personally, I don't really mind paying taxes as long as I know it's used sensible. The problem lies in accepting how the money are used. But noone really disputes that health care and education is a fundamental right, here.
I would not call Europe communist in general. Granted, we *are* more to the left - way more - than the US. But the fundamental difference is that we *do* have ownership rights, can start private companies, and there is a free market.
However, we do have more things that are deemed to be the responsibility of the society. Things like education. Things like health service. Things that everyone generally need.
I think this is a good thing. It (tries to) give everyone equal opportunity, regardless if they come from a rich or a poor family. Of course, it's not absolute, there are still private health service, there's private schools. But the general idea is that there are some fundamental rights people have, that the government should provide.
Other than that, I (as a european) does not feel particularily that I live in a communist country.
But for a country where everything is so much skewed to the right as in US, I guess that everything else is communist...
Well, it can still be "better" in itself, as in having more features, better features and be more stable. And it will all be irrelevant if it isn't near 100% compatible with the monopolist. This is the reason OpenOffice has to spend time and effort chasing Microsoft all the time.
If Microsoft could again make a super-proprietary format that only they could read, and not having regulation in one form or another stopping them, it would probably make sense, economically. And this is the reason it is important to preserve free competition in the market, to regulate the monopolists. If you can't do that, someone could end up "owning" the market without anyone being able to realistically make a dent in their market.
My boss once had asked me if I could finish a pretty huge, but not impossible, task - by "end of tomorrow". I said "yes, with a good, productive day with few interruptions, that's doable". Day after, he was out of town for a meeting with the customer, whom he had promised this.
Now, my boss wasn't exactly calm about these things, and easily got nervous, so about every half hour, he'd call me and ask for the progress. Around 3 pm, as he once again called me and asked "How's it going? Will you still be finished today?", I told him:
"No. I won't. Unless you hang up that damned phone immediately, and don't call me again. Ever. At least not today." - then I hung up on him.
He didn't call me again, but a couple of hours later, he returned, not very pleased, saying my behaviour wasn't quite acceptable. But he got a little bit more pleased when I told him I was finished...
Moral: don't know if there is one, except that everyone, including your boss, can be told to go fuck off - and if you generally do your job, he'll probably even forgive you.
What I don't like about draconian laws about P2P, the abundance of DRM, etc, is that the providers seem to view the customers as "potentially criminal everyone of them". Besides, law isn't equal everywhere in the world. At least in Norway, I can so far *legally* download from the P2P networks. That's not against the law. Uploading, on the other hand, you can't legally do without permission.
DRM is another thing. It goes against the fair use laws that most countries have. Add legal protections of DRM to that, and the media companies can effectively decide whether the customer is allowed to use their legally given rights to copy for personal use.
Add that to the blatantly misleading numbers that the record companies are giving about their losses. Fact is, there hasn't been any proven loss in sale since the introduction of P2P, *despite* them doing everything they can to make their customers hate them. That sort of puzzles me.
Now, personally I haven't downloaded anything significantly off P2P networks. Oh, I have downloaded an mp3 or two just to get a feel for the music of some random artist, but if I like what I hear? I'll buy the good damned album. Like almost everyone else I know.
Except a few die-hard P2P-users, that nowhere near weighs up the added marketing. And most of them would definitely not have *bought* everything they've downloaded, so the loss isn't realistic at all..
So please - do *not* go around believeing that all free software/open source-users are hardcore copyright infringers also. It's simply not true. I think the hardcore copyright-infringers are much more likely to use the latest and "greatest" version of Windows. Pirated, of course. But a few of them will probably also use, and even like and advocate, free software/open source. Is is the free software community that is at fault for that?
No, that is no joke. I once was sent a binary file in the mail, named correctly as it was supposed to be. But, the application (which ran on Unix) wouldn't use it. Well, "file" (on my Linux-desktop) was able to tell me why, it was a word-document! Opening it up, I could see that it was actually the file, embedded in a word document, saved as the original file name!
Never fails to amaze me how everyone just assumes everyone else uses Microsoft Word as extensively as they do...
Well. Then, they are not ready for Linux yet. It's true. There is a different requirement for a desktop Linux, a simple webserver-Linux, a mail-server-Linux and high-end top-notch database server-Linux. All of them *can* be solved with most any Linux-distribution out there, but if I were to run an Oracle-database on it, I'd make damned sure Oracle would support it. That limits my option in that regards.
For a simple web-server, or a mail-server, run entirely in-house, it would all depend on the skills and preferences of the people who's going to design and set it up. Because you WILL need people with skills, no matter what OS you will run services on.
For my personal use, I prefer Debian, but for the one Linux-server I've set up at my current work (we're using commercial Unix, mainly), I went with our more-or-less-standard, SuSE Linux - because I want more people than me being able to maintain it.
The idea of choice, and that there are more than one good answer to a question, might be hard to understand and accept.
We could of course all together agree that SuSE Linux is the *best* Linux, today, but I seriously believe that without competition between the distributions itself, we would not see the innovation we see today. So in the end, I think having more than one distribution benefits us all. Whether or not we use them all or stick with the one we have learnt to love, does not matter that much.
But, there is security to know that if your Linux vendor lets you down, and doesn't give you the level of support that you feel you need, you have the option of switching to a different vendor without *too* much hassle, and gradually.
The reason there exists that many Linux distributions, is because it's relatively easy to do it. And part of the freedom in the GNU license, is that you can do *exactly* that - take something, build on it, and redistribute and even make money on it. Take away that freedom, and much of the innovation would stop.
This is simply not true. Microsoft MUST have known the security implications, and chosen to ignore it. Just as they did a few years earlier, when tying Outlook/IE/Windows together. If nothing else, they should have learnt from that experience.
I can remember thinking "oh my god, this can never be secure" when hearing about both of these happenings. So it was definitely on peoples horizon, at least on mine, and from somewhere, I must have gotten it:)
So no, there is no need to excuse Microsoft here. They knew or should have known there would be problems all right.
I have taken the route of *not* learning Windows. Seriously. Whenever I get asked about a Windows problem, I simply can not answer. Because when it comes to Windows, I'm a stupid user.
Side effect is that I have a more fun job, because I never have to do Windows stuff at all:) (Windows? Sorry - don't know it)
OK. I admit that I used harsh words, but there is a grain in truth in it. If everyone uses IE simply because that's what people design pages for and that they can't stand a misaligned paragraph or an overlapping element noiw and then, they are voting that IE-dependence is good, or in the best case, that they don't care.
I realize there are pages - for some people, they are important pages (their internet bank, for example) that they need to access.
But - face it, most people that use IE does so simply out of convencience, beause that's what everyone uses, and that's what works best with the current crop of web-sites. Their behaviour is strikingly similar to the behaviour of sheep. They are part of the problem - at least NOT part of the solution.
The biggest part of the problem, though, are the web designers non-standard code. They use the argument that it's "too expensive" to design for every browser there is, when they can catch so many people with just designing for IE. That's also a non-solution.
In reality, a part of the IE crowd will have to migrate to non-IE and more of the web developers will have to design according to standards, if the web is ever to become a better place. For everyone, not just for the IE users.
Now, I encourage everyone to at least *try* firefox - or opera, or whatever what's not IE. Just try. And see if you can use it. If some pages does not look as they do in IE, see if it's something you can live it. And educate yourself, perhaps validate it, and see if the web designer needs education. validator.w3.org is easy to use.
Why should you care? Why, because you want a better browsing experience! If IE gets some competition, Microsoft will have to compete again. To develop their browser. Even the IE lovers should be interested in the alternative browsers gaining ground.
So, if you haven't already done so, try an alternative browser. I don't care if it's Opera, Firefox or Konqueror. Any will do. Everything that gives IE some competition. Competition is good. For everyone.
By refusing to go with IE, and using alternatives, you are part of the solution. Granted, we are, by ourselves, only a small part. But, this is the same as voting. Why should we vote, when "my" small vote counts only so little?
The point is: With alternative browsers getting a significant market share, it will be a disadvantage to design only for IE. They will lose actual business. This is the way we want it to be.
The choice is simple: Do you want to be a sheep and use IE, just because it's the easy way out, or do you want to be part of the ones using alternatives, thus helping to push standards?
It's up to you. Be a part of the problem or be a part of the solution.
The reason so many pages works so well in IE and not in others, is *not* that IE works better. It's just that people design and test against IE. And not against the other browsers. The reason for this? IEs market share.
By tolerating and giving in to this, using IE, you are part of the problem. *You*, and the millions others that tolerates this. Firefox works very well today. Some IE-specific pages not rendering quite as nice as in IE, is a *very* small price to pay, compared to the benefit there is in restoring the notion of designing browser-independent, STANDARD HTML.
The reason we others like the fact that the share of people using Firefox grows, is *exactly* this. We like competition. We like standards. We like there being alternatives.
And, some of us doesn't have the option of using IE at all, without switching operating system.
I just read the terms of use of spamforum.biz, at http://www.spamforum.biz/terms.htm - can these be legal at all?
Basically, the click-through license will make you agree not to sue anyone affiliated with the site, or any contributors, etc. Leaving out the question whether click-through is valid, this is not something that I would want to risk.
I advise anyone that is concerned against spam, and possibly want to contribute to the fight against spam at some point, to not enter this site , if you want to avoid the risk of getting sued for "breach of contract" (the one you signed by entering the site).
I have the impression that "good christians" will stop at nothing to get the "right person" elected. After all, in their mind, they simply are right, the notion that they can be wrong does not exist.
So, what is the wrong in helping the right side a little bit, when the poor "wrong side" is simply misguided?
I realize that many christians are more balanced than this, but the people that GWB relies upon, isn't. In their mind, GWB is a deeply religious man, and having a christian in charge that does the "right thing, in the name of God", can never be wrong.
I forgot to take my thrusty Palm Vx out of my pockets, and ended up running it through the waching machine. Let it sit without using it for two weeks in a dry, warm place, just to be safe. It worked perfectly after that.
> Just wondering what this means for joe average home linux user who isn't running a server.
For a user that is not running a server: Not a thing. Since noone other than him is supposed to have access to the machine or be able to run code on it, there's no way, other than security being compromised in other ways, that is code is going to be run. If so, the user should be happy that there are actual signs of the security breach.
For me, that is running a server at home with few and trustable users, anyone intruders running this would be a boon for me. Not that I don't take security seriously. I do. But, *if*, for some reason, someone unauthorized has gotten access to my machine, I'd rather them give themselves away by causing the machine to crash instead of doing other damage, which perhaps would go unnoticed.
I was in charge of some ancient Tower machines with NCR Unix on them. They were pretty simple, and if something failed, you could just restore backup. There were never any significant changes on the file systems. The problem was, these were spread out over the country, and I never actually physically near them. We did, however, have a support contract with a vendor.
The systems were fairly important, in that if they were down for a week or so, many customers got serious trouble, but a couple of days wasn't that critical.
One monday, there is no response from one of the servers. It turns out there has been a flooding in a server room, some network stuff (routers, switches etc.) has been replaced. I get the case on tuesday around noon.
So, after having got the local people verifying that cables are in place, I call the vendor, because I suspect a flood-related hardware error. They come early the day after, can log in on the console, but there's no response from the network. So the guy verifies the cabling, and concludes that the network card is defect.
Now, a couple of hours later, I call him again to check status. The guy hadn't done a THING. He'd been sitting there, drinking his coffee, waiting for me to tell him to order a new network card. I had assumed that was standard procedure, that they did that when finding a faulty one. My error. So, I tell him to get on the job. But, it turns out it's too late in the day to get it today, but next morning he'll be back with it.
Next morning, not too early, he was back. With a network card. But, he says, he has no knowledge on these models, hardwarewise, and can't install it himself. Moreover, there's noone in the company who really knows these models anymore. There's one guy who quit the company a few years ago that they might hire in to do it.
Now, I was getting kind of annoyed, and at the same time, it was well on its way to become critical, downtime going towards one week rapidly. So, I told him to hire the man, and I make a mental note to tell someone to not accept the probably sky-rocketing bill they'd be sending us after it. Now, thursday was almost gone, the guy was not available today, but could be in friday.
Friday comes. The expert comes. Plugs in the network cable, and leaves again.
We, Bergen Linux User Group, are going to do exactly this. What we'll end up with, is Mandrake (because of it's beginner-friendliness), Knoppix (obvious), Debian and FreeBSD, plus OpenOffice I guess.
But, equally important is information for the librarians. We're writing some short information about the distributions, with recommendations about which one they'll recommend. Mostly, I guess they should recommend Mandrake or Knoppix, but provide others on request.
Second, on the CD labels we'll provide an email-adress with a local support-email-adress, provided by us. I don't envision there to be THAT much demand that this will become unmanageable, if it does I guess it's perhaps even a plus:)
The third thing is that we provide a list of books that we think they should carry. Mostly, they'll do this, the reason they don't, is that they simply don't know what's useful.
There was also a Linux Folder project that I saw on freshmeat the other day. We'll most likely translate this into norwegian and provide it to the library.
However, upon studying the documentation carefully, it seems this was not a complete implementation, but just verifying that pigeons could support this kind of MTU. That has no been proven, future revisions of CPIP can use these results.
This does not change the fact that we *still* need other people to implement rfc1149, so that we can perform interoperability tests. As a reminder, it has to be an independent implementation, so just replecating our (BLUG, Bergen) implementation will not be enough for relevant, RFC-wise, interoperability tests. Although it could make for a nice LUG-activity still, to some?
We in Bergen will be more than willing to perform interoperability tests, but for the actual tests, I guess we have a limitation of the distance covered. A few 100 km would definitely be doable, but several 1000 km would definitely be a little too much, unless we can run the experiment for a longer time:)
I pity those who have no time to do things that are fucking useless, from time to time.
But, as an implementor of rfc1149 (I'm in the Bergen LUG), we saw this attitude quite a lot. There was basically only two kinds of feedback, those who GOT it, and those who said a variation of the above.
The truth is, we had a lot of fun, we still have a lot of fun, and I still see references to our implementation all over. Moreover, it is being used to freshen up network lectures all over the world , and I once toyed with the idea of making a documentary about IP networking based on it. Many of the concepts serves as good analogies and real-live, not dull "electrical signals" examples that no-one understand.
Actually, a normal way to motivate a pigeon is this scheme:
A pigeon is strictly monogameous. Before a flight, you keep the male and the female separated for a long time. Just before the flight, you keep them together for enough time to get them - uhm - motivated, no more than a few minutes. They'll be in quite a hurry to get home!
(and of course, only one of them flies, the other one stays home
Slashdot Mirror
Hum. I'm not sure I completely agree.
Granted, things would probably be better if banks were 100% responsible, but why should a bank be responsible for someones stupidity?
All information I see from banks et all, says *never ever* give your authentication information away to anyone - not even to them. If people chose to disregard that advice, and refuses to learn anything about security, I don't think the bank should be responsible.
I think requiring two-factor is a reasonable request. It *does* raise the bar a bit.
But alas, what is the reason people have become so afraid of having to learn something? It's because they are using computers and operating systems that tout that you shouldn't *have* to learn. This simply isn't true, ever, but if you tell that to people enough times, they'll start believing it, and stop trying to learn something.
I'm sure there will always be people who doesn't know anything but Windows. The point is *not* to convince everyone to switch, as I see it. Ok, I believe many people would today benefit from switching, but this is not the point....
I believe in choice. We need enough Linux-users that the hardware-vendors will lose a significant market-share if they go Windows-only. Ideally, we would need the same for the BSDs, BeOS, Plan 9, and every other OS there is out there, but right now, I think Linux is a sensible first step of getting vendors to realize that the desktop-world consist of more than Microsoft and Apple. Besides, those who *really* do get it, and release open-source drivers and/or specifications, will also do good for the rest of the platforms out there.
The point is not world domination. I'd settle for a significant market-share. We're on our way there, but it *will* take time, and it *will* take effort. For those who are willing to do *something*, my original post is a good first step. It's something *everyone* can do, regardless of knowledge and competence.
Because 90-odd percent likes Windows, doesn't care and/or doesn't know better, makes it just so much more important for those of us who *do* care, to do everything we can to *at least* not support the monopoly.
My advices are something everyone can follow. Heck, even if you are a Windows-user, the above advices are good ideas. I think we can call it proven that competition has made Windows better the later years. Restoring competition can only make Windows better. Unless they go broke, but I doubt that's going to happen in our lifetime.
So, my answer is: Everyone, even Windows users, should care that there is competition to the Windows-monopoly. And making that competition along Open Source and open standards makes sense. It doesn't have to be called Linux, but that's the hottest open platform nowadays, and our best hope for getting vendors to understand what we talk about...
(And yes, BSDs and other open source-systems will also benefit. That's what open source and standards-compliance is all about!)
I doubt we're going to make everyone care any time sure. But I'm at least going to do *my* minimum-effort to improving and restoring competition in the IT-world. Be a part of the solution, don't be a part of the problem!
- Vegard
Hardware-support is a no-brainer. It's really simple: *do your research before you buy*, and it will be equally well supported in Linux.
;) Offer them transition-help, it will reduce your burden with Windows-questions long-term.
Do not reward the monipoly. Reward standard-friendly hardware vendors who help the community, not hardware-vendors who help the monopoly.
I haven't got any hardware-problems with Linux. I simply don't buy non-compatible hardware.
As for software/features, it is getting better by the day in Linux, and I am more productive on a *nix-platform than a Windows-platform.
No, I will not surrender my independence, and I encourage all who are remotely interested in competition and freedom in the software-market to do as me.
In addition, my advocacy-strategy is one that I recommend to everyone:
1) When you go to a hardware-store, ask the clerk for Linux-compatibility! Let him know that there *is* a demand. Do it regardless if you know the answer or not (unless it's written on the box).
2) In case they don't know, and you don't know, ask for their return-policy. Don't buy if you can't return it!
3) Never buy Windows-only-hardware, even if the machine which is going to use it is currently a Windows-machine. Things may change, and some time in the feature, the hardware will be used in a Linux-machine. And even if not, the monopoly does not deserve rewarding!
Last, but not least, do not support the Windows-monopoly by being the virus/spyware-janitor for all your Windows-friends. It's quite relieving not having to bother *at all* with the Windows-viruses/spyware. Let them fix their own mess if they choose to take the lazy way and go with the monopoly. Don't be the one who makes it easy for them to use Windows!
And when they're ready, get them hooked on Linux
and no - I'm not really a fundamentalist. I believe everyone *should* have the right to choose. But the monopoly limits *my* right to choose, so I fight the monopoly. When competition is restored, mission is accomplished, not when MS is broke. If MS goes broke if they don't have a desktop-monopoly, however, I will not really feel sorry for them. I believe competition to be more important.
No, I wasn't really referring to that. I was referring to the fact that even the democrats are more to the right than the right-wing politicials here in social-democratic Norway, for example.
Americans tend to refer to social-democracy as communism. While I was just stating that there are fundamental differences.
What lies in social-democracy, is that a certain, pretty large, part of society is under government-control because it's deemed to be a fundamental right for people. Things like health care and education. Of course this means higher taxes to pay for this, thus the rich sponsor the educations and health care of the poor people who don't pay much taxes anyways.
Personally, I don't really mind paying taxes as long as I know it's used sensible. The problem lies in accepting how the money are used. But noone really disputes that health care and education is a fundamental right, here.
I would not call Europe communist in general. Granted, we *are* more to the left - way more - than the US. But the fundamental difference is that we *do* have ownership rights, can start private companies, and there is a free market.
However, we do have more things that are deemed to be the responsibility of the society. Things like education. Things like health service. Things that everyone generally need.
I think this is a good thing. It (tries to) give everyone equal opportunity, regardless if they come from a rich or a poor family. Of course, it's not absolute, there are still private health service, there's private schools. But the general idea is that there are some fundamental rights people have, that the government should provide.
Other than that, I (as a european) does not feel particularily that I live in a communist country.
But for a country where everything is so much skewed to the right as in US, I guess that everything else is communist...
Well, it can still be "better" in itself, as in having more features, better features and be more stable. And it will all be irrelevant if it isn't near 100% compatible with the monopolist. This is the reason OpenOffice has to spend time and effort chasing Microsoft all the time.
If Microsoft could again make a super-proprietary format that only they could read, and not having regulation in one form or another stopping them, it would probably make sense, economically. And this is the reason it is important to preserve free competition in the market, to regulate the monopolists. If you can't do that, someone could end up "owning" the market without anyone being able to realistically make a dent in their market.
That's not really free competition either.
My boss once had asked me if I could finish a pretty huge, but not impossible, task - by "end of tomorrow". I said "yes, with a good, productive day with few interruptions, that's doable". Day after, he was out of town for a meeting with the customer, whom he had promised this.
Now, my boss wasn't exactly calm about these things, and easily got nervous, so about every half hour, he'd call me and ask for the progress. Around 3 pm, as he once again called me and asked "How's it going? Will you still be finished today?", I told him:
"No. I won't. Unless you hang up that damned phone immediately, and don't call me again. Ever. At least not today." - then I hung up on him.
He didn't call me again, but a couple of hours later, he returned, not very pleased, saying my behaviour wasn't quite acceptable. But he got a little bit more pleased when I told him I was finished...
Moral: don't know if there is one, except that everyone, including your boss, can be told to go fuck off - and if you generally do your job, he'll probably even forgive you.
- Vegard
What I don't like about draconian laws about P2P, the abundance of DRM, etc, is that the providers seem to view the customers as "potentially criminal everyone of them". Besides, law isn't equal everywhere in the world. At least in Norway, I can so far *legally* download from the P2P networks. That's not against the law. Uploading, on the other hand, you can't legally do without permission.
DRM is another thing. It goes against the fair use laws that most countries have. Add legal protections of DRM to that, and the media companies can effectively decide whether the customer is allowed to use their legally given rights to copy for personal use.
Add that to the blatantly misleading numbers that the record companies are giving about their losses. Fact is, there hasn't been any proven loss in sale since the introduction of P2P, *despite* them doing everything they can to make their customers hate them. That sort of puzzles me.
Now, personally I haven't downloaded anything significantly off P2P networks. Oh, I have downloaded an mp3 or two just to get a feel for the music of some random artist, but if I like what I hear? I'll buy the good damned album. Like almost everyone else I know.
Except a few die-hard P2P-users, that nowhere near weighs up the added marketing. And most of them would definitely not have *bought* everything they've downloaded, so the loss isn't realistic at all..
So please - do *not* go around believeing that all free software/open source-users are hardcore copyright infringers also. It's simply not true. I think the hardcore copyright-infringers are much more likely to use the latest and "greatest" version of Windows. Pirated, of course. But a few of them will probably also use, and even like and advocate, free software/open source. Is is the free software community that is at fault for that?
No, that is no joke. I once was sent a binary file in the mail, named correctly as it was supposed to be. But, the application (which ran on Unix) wouldn't use it. Well, "file" (on my Linux-desktop) was able to tell me why, it was a word-document! Opening it up, I could see that it was actually the file, embedded in a word document, saved as the original file name!
Never fails to amaze me how everyone just assumes everyone else uses Microsoft Word as extensively as they do...
Well. Then, they are not ready for Linux yet. It's true. There is a different requirement for a desktop Linux, a simple webserver-Linux, a mail-server-Linux and high-end top-notch database server-Linux. All of them *can* be solved with most any Linux-distribution out there, but if I were to run an Oracle-database on it, I'd make damned sure Oracle would support it. That limits my option in that regards.
For a simple web-server, or a mail-server, run entirely in-house, it would all depend on the skills and preferences of the people who's going to design and set it up. Because you WILL need people with skills, no matter what OS you will run services on.
For my personal use, I prefer Debian, but for the one Linux-server I've set up at my current work (we're using commercial Unix, mainly), I went with our more-or-less-standard, SuSE Linux - because I want more people than me being able to maintain it.
The idea of choice, and that there are more than one good answer to a question, might be hard to understand and accept.
We could of course all together agree that SuSE Linux is the *best* Linux, today, but I seriously believe that without competition between the distributions itself, we would not see the innovation we see today. So in the end, I think having more than one distribution benefits us all. Whether or not we use them all or stick with the one we have learnt to love, does not matter that much.
But, there is security to know that if your Linux vendor lets you down, and doesn't give you the level of support that you feel you need, you have the option of switching to a different vendor without *too* much hassle, and gradually.
The reason there exists that many Linux distributions, is because it's relatively easy to do it. And part of the freedom in the GNU license, is that you can do *exactly* that - take something, build on it, and redistribute and even make money on it. Take away that freedom, and much of the innovation would stop.
This is simply not true. Microsoft MUST have known the security implications, and chosen to ignore it. Just as they did a few years earlier, when tying Outlook/IE/Windows together. If nothing else, they should have learnt from that experience.
:)
I can remember thinking "oh my god, this can never be secure" when hearing about both of these happenings. So it was definitely on peoples horizon, at least on mine, and from somewhere, I must have gotten it
So no, there is no need to excuse Microsoft here. They knew or should have known there would be problems all right.
I have taken the route of *not* learning Windows. Seriously. Whenever I get asked about a Windows problem, I simply can not answer. Because when it comes to Windows, I'm a stupid user.
:) (Windows? Sorry - don't know it)
Side effect is that I have a more fun job, because I never have to do Windows stuff at all
OK. I admit that I used harsh words, but there is a grain in truth in it. If everyone uses IE simply because that's what people design pages for and that they can't stand a misaligned paragraph or an overlapping element noiw and then, they are voting that IE-dependence is good, or in the best case, that they don't care.
I realize there are pages - for some people, they are important pages (their internet bank, for example) that they need to access.
But - face it, most people that use IE does so simply out of convencience, beause that's what everyone uses, and that's what works best with the current crop of web-sites. Their behaviour is strikingly similar to the behaviour of sheep. They are part of the problem - at least NOT part of the solution.
The biggest part of the problem, though, are the web designers non-standard code. They use the argument that it's "too expensive" to design for every browser there is, when they can catch so many people with just designing for IE. That's also a non-solution.
In reality, a part of the IE crowd will have to migrate to non-IE and more of the web developers will have to design according to standards, if the web is ever to become a better place. For everyone, not just for the IE users.
Now, I encourage everyone to at least *try* firefox - or opera, or whatever what's not IE. Just try. And see if you can use it. If some pages does not look as they do in IE, see if it's something you can live it. And educate yourself, perhaps validate it, and see if the web designer needs education. validator.w3.org is easy to use.
Why should you care? Why, because you want a better browsing experience! If IE gets some competition, Microsoft will have to compete again. To develop their browser. Even the IE lovers should be interested in the alternative browsers gaining ground.
So, if you haven't already done so, try an alternative browser. I don't care if it's Opera, Firefox or Konqueror. Any will do. Everything that gives IE some competition. Competition is good. For everyone.
By refusing to go with IE, and using alternatives, you are part of the solution. Granted, we are, by ourselves, only a small part. But, this is the same as voting. Why should we vote, when "my" small vote counts only so little?
The point is: With alternative browsers getting a significant market share, it will be a disadvantage to design only for IE. They will lose actual business. This is the way we want it to be.
The choice is simple: Do you want to be a sheep and use IE, just because it's the easy way out, or do you want to be part of the ones using alternatives, thus helping to push standards?
It's up to you. Be a part of the problem or be a part of the solution.
The reason so many pages works so well in IE and not in others, is *not* that IE works better. It's just that people design and test against IE. And not against the other browsers. The reason for this? IEs market share.
By tolerating and giving in to this, using IE, you are part of the problem. *You*, and the millions others that tolerates this. Firefox works very well today. Some IE-specific pages not rendering quite as nice as in IE, is a *very* small price to pay, compared to the benefit there is in restoring the notion of designing browser-independent, STANDARD HTML.
The reason we others like the fact that the share of people using Firefox grows, is *exactly* this. We like competition. We like standards. We like there being alternatives.
And, some of us doesn't have the option of using IE at all, without switching operating system.
I just read the terms of use of spamforum.biz, at http://www.spamforum.biz/terms.htm - can these be legal at all?
Basically, the click-through license will make you agree not to sue anyone affiliated with the site, or any contributors, etc. Leaving out the question whether click-through is valid, this is not something that I would want to risk.
I advise anyone that is concerned against spam, and possibly want to contribute to the fight against spam at some point, to not enter this site , if you want to avoid the risk of getting sued for "breach of contract" (the one you signed by entering the site).
I have the impression that "good christians" will stop at nothing to get the "right person" elected. After all, in their mind, they simply are right, the notion that they can be wrong does not exist.
So, what is the wrong in helping the right side a little bit, when the poor "wrong side" is simply misguided?
I realize that many christians are more balanced than this, but the people that GWB relies upon, isn't. In their mind, GWB is a deeply religious man, and having a christian in charge that does the "right thing, in the name of God", can never be wrong.
I forgot to take my thrusty Palm Vx out of my pockets, and ended up running it through the waching machine. Let it sit without using it for two weeks in a dry, warm place, just to be safe. It worked perfectly after that.
> Just wondering what this means for joe average home linux user who isn't running a server.
For a user that is not running a server: Not a thing. Since noone other than him is supposed to have access to the machine or be able to run code on it, there's no way, other than security being compromised in other ways, that is code is going to be run. If so, the user should be happy that there are actual signs of the security breach.
For me, that is running a server at home with few and trustable users, anyone intruders running this would be a boon for me. Not that I don't take security seriously. I do. But, *if*, for some reason, someone unauthorized has gotten access to my machine, I'd rather them give themselves away by causing the machine to crash instead of doing other damage, which perhaps would go unnoticed.
Well. My favourite support story is this one:
I was in charge of some ancient Tower machines with NCR Unix on them. They were pretty simple, and if something failed, you could just restore backup. There were never any significant changes on the file systems. The problem was, these were spread out over the country, and I never actually physically near them. We did, however, have a support contract with a vendor.
The systems were fairly important, in that if they were down for a week or so, many customers got serious trouble, but a couple of days wasn't that critical.
One monday, there is no response from one of the servers. It turns out there has been a flooding in a server room, some network stuff (routers, switches etc.) has been replaced. I get the case on tuesday around noon.
So, after having got the local people verifying that cables are in place, I call the vendor, because I suspect a flood-related hardware error. They come early the day after, can log in on the console, but there's no response from the network. So the guy verifies the cabling, and concludes that the network card is defect.
Now, a couple of hours later, I call him again to check status. The guy hadn't done a THING. He'd been sitting there, drinking his coffee, waiting for me to tell him to order a new network card. I had assumed that was standard procedure, that they did that when finding a faulty one. My error. So, I tell him to get on the job. But, it turns out it's too late in the day to get it today, but next morning he'll be back with it.
Next morning, not too early, he was back. With a network card. But, he says, he has no knowledge on these models, hardwarewise, and can't install it himself. Moreover, there's noone in the company who really knows these models anymore. There's one guy who quit the company a few years ago that they might hire in to do it.
Now, I was getting kind of annoyed, and at the same time, it was well on its way to become critical, downtime going towards one week rapidly. So, I told him to hire the man, and I make a mental note to tell someone to not accept the probably sky-rocketing bill they'd be sending us after it. Now, thursday was almost gone, the guy was not available today, but could be in friday.
Friday comes. The expert comes. Plugs in the network cable, and leaves again.
We, Bergen Linux User Group, are going to do exactly this. What we'll end up with, is Mandrake (because of it's beginner-friendliness), Knoppix (obvious), Debian and FreeBSD, plus OpenOffice I guess.
:)
But, equally important is information for the librarians. We're writing some short information about the distributions, with recommendations about which one they'll recommend. Mostly, I guess they should recommend Mandrake or Knoppix, but provide others on request.
Second, on the CD labels we'll provide an email-adress with a local support-email-adress, provided by us. I don't envision there to be THAT much demand that this will become unmanageable, if it does I guess it's perhaps even a plus
The third thing is that we provide a list of books that we think they should carry. Mostly, they'll do this, the reason they don't, is that they simply don't know what's useful.
There was also a Linux Folder project that I saw on freshmeat the other day. We'll most likely translate this into norwegian and provide it to the library.
I agree. We need interoperability tests.
:)
However, upon studying the documentation carefully, it seems this was not a complete implementation, but just verifying that pigeons could support this kind of MTU. That has no been proven, future revisions of CPIP can use these results.
This does not change the fact that we *still* need other people to implement rfc1149, so that we can perform interoperability tests. As a reminder, it has to be an independent implementation, so just replecating our (BLUG, Bergen) implementation will not be enough for relevant, RFC-wise, interoperability tests. Although it could make for a nice LUG-activity still, to some?
We in Bergen will be more than willing to perform interoperability tests, but for the actual tests, I guess we have a limitation of the distance covered. A few 100 km would definitely be doable, but several 1000 km would definitely be a little too much, unless we can run the experiment for a longer time
I pity those who have no time to do things that are fucking useless, from time to time.
But, as an implementor of rfc1149 (I'm in the Bergen LUG), we saw this attitude quite a lot. There was basically only two kinds of feedback, those who GOT it, and those who said a variation of the above.
The truth is, we had a lot of fun, we still have a lot of fun, and I still see references to our implementation all over. Moreover, it is being used to freshen up network lectures all over the world , and I once toyed with the idea of making a documentary about IP networking based on it. Many of the concepts serves as good analogies and real-live, not dull "electrical signals" examples that no-one understand.
So, rfc1149 useless? No way!
Actually, a normal way to motivate a pigeon is this scheme:
A pigeon is strictly monogameous. Before a flight, you keep the male and the female separated for a long time. Just before the flight, you keep them together for enough time to get them - uhm - motivated, no more than a few minutes. They'll be in quite a hurry to get home!
(and of course, only one of them flies, the other one stays home