According to http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/port- numbers, SMTP runs on 25/TCP and 25/UDP. Although most traffic is on TCP, perhaps there's MTAs that would accept UDP. --
Your work should have a VPN to minimize sniffing of internal mail traffic sent by work-from-home people.
Likewise smtp.work.com shouldn't be relaying messages from random IPs just because the sender claims to be someguy@work.com. Otherwise smtp.work.com *will* become a spam server.
Limited Port 25 access is going to be a universal fact of life on the spam-filled Internet of the future, so everyone might as well get used to it. Most of this is due to the limitations of the SMTP protocol, so it only makes sense to layer other authentication mechinisms such as VPNs. --
Those older systems do not have a BIOS or OS-independant firmware of any sort and can only and will only bootstrap MacOS from the internal ROMs. (Perhaps you can burn your own bootstrapping ROMs and replace the Apple one, which is usually socketed.)
If it's any consolation, even Apple's own Unix, A/UX, bootstrapped out of the MacOS. --
I'm aware of the Hobbit and the PReP support. My personal theory is that Gassee thought he could sell BeOS back to Apple the whole time (or almost the whole time) the company was alive up to that point. The BeBox was a demonstration to Apple of a 'better' Macintosh.
When it came down to it, Gassse asked for too much money (your "Be passing on Apple?" comment in #28 is a load), and was forced to wander the forest of Intel hardware incompatibility.
Who the hell is holding a grudge?
You, for example, seem to be pretty unhappy about the no G3 support issue. If Apple's so dead in the future, why do you want their hardware? --
The reason BeOS doesn't run on new Macs is that Gasse(sp?) hates Jobs. Simple as that.
Yeah, that truly makes sense. Gassee risks ruining his company because he doesn't like a former co-worker. Mm-Hmm...
Stop all of this bullshit - BeOS was on PowerPC for one big reason - Gasse thought he could sell the company to Apple. (Think about it - would any company that really wanted to be in the OS business target Macs as their sole platform? And now they have their OS roadmap, why would Apple want to f-up their precious hardware/software integration and move boxes for Be?)
Well, Jobs made the deal, Gassee didn't, BeOS got funding for a port from Intel, OS X has been in beta for years, and the rest is history.
I swear, BeOS people should just stick the technical advantages they have. There's no use holding a grudge against Apple for not buying your precious OS, because you can still go and run it on a nice Ghz Intel box. As for the Apple people, MacOS is a great piece of work. Whether it's the piece of work they wanted is a different question, but I suspect that most of them are just happy about the reverse-buyout of NeXT and Jobs. --
The reasonable definition of UNIX(tm) is contained here: http://www.opengroup.org/public/prods/xxm0.htm
AT+T heritage is not required. A number of independant products have been certified as UNIX, including Microsoft Interix (a UNIX subsystem for NT), and OpenVMS, OS/400, and so on. A particular Linux or BSD distribution shouldn't have too much trouble qualifying, if someone wanted to do the testing and put up the money. --
Yeah, but lots of Microsoft customers have a policy that "We won't deploy until Service Pack X ships". Microsoft is of course aware of this, and rushes to get Service Pack X out as soon as possible. In the Win2K case, there were good testing reasons to hold some of the SP1 fixes out of release, but there were also good marketing reasons to get a service pack to market quickly. --
Re:Do owners have good reasons to keep people out?
on
Infiltration
·
· Score: 2
If I owned an old abondoned building I would try very hard to keep people out of it.
On the other hand if you owned an abandoned building, and had insurance, maybe you wouldn't worry so much about homeless people sneaking in and lighting fires. In fact you might even encourage them... --
Re:Steam Tunnels: Dark, exciting then, now just da
on
Infiltration
·
· Score: 2
The tc.umn.edu steam plant was still active at least back in the mid-90s when I was there - it just seemed abandoned. Despite the notorious tunnel security and the legends surrounding it, the steam plant (schmutzfabrik, people called it) was almost notoriously unguarded, so much so that it was a favorite high school drinking location. Later, it was just a convenient shortcut to cut from campus over to the St. Anthony Main area. Just don't go down to the parking lot on the river flat, because it seems to be where the U cops like to idle their engines and eat donuts.
(The U tunnels on the other hand, were always a mystery - with stories of people getting busted for even standing around storm drain pipes, or going through a door in the student union and ending up on the other side of campus or down by the river. Some of these stories might be real -- go to the U engineering library and look at some of the utopian underground societies the civil engineering department was dreaming up in the 1970s.) --
A full featured Unix with 100% binary compatibility with Windows would be worth paying for.
Check out Microsoft Interix, which is a UNIX subsystem for NT (http://www.microsoft.com/catalog/display.asp?subi d=22&site=10464&x=32&y=15) Unfortunately, it looks like MS is burying this product in their website, so it might be going away. --
Whether or not GM killed of trolleys, they frankly don't make a lot of sense in low-density suburban area, where most Americans seem to live.
Well, that's a different conspiricy! Suffice it to say that GM was a big real estate developer and also so home appliances in those days...
(Although the federal loan subsidy policies of the day were the real motivating factor behind the suburbs. Not that I can blame people. After being cooped up in an apartment through the depression and the war, with no money and rationing, and nothing getting maintained and nothing new getting built for 30 years, a nice shiny Chevrolet and your own federally subsidized 1/2 acre probably sounded pretty good!) --
Ridership peaked in the late 1920s Well, no shit. Cars became available to the middle class. Has nothing to do with Streetcars versus GM manufactured buses.
Ridership peaked in the late 1920s, True, but most major cities' bus routes run exactly on the old streetcar lines. So consider this advantage theoretical.
Streetcars require dedicated rights-of-way. False. They are called *Street*cars, you know.
First of all, after the depression and the rise of autos, most of the nations private streetcar systems were in serious decline when GM moved in, with cars and tracks dating back to the 1890s. However, that forstalled the inevitable, since even after the bus conversion, almost every US mass transit system was in public recievership by the early 1970s anyway.
Second, buses were only more economical in the era of cheap 50s gas and friendly loans from General Motors. If anyone had the choice in keeping an electric system or switch to gas today, they'd stick with electric. Also, unlike those 50-year old streetcars, none of those GM busses lasted longer than 20 years before having to be replaced, by the taxpayers.
Third, GM's tactics in this business were horrible. In Minneapolis, for example, they conspired with mobsters to essentially loot the system, and left the company as a bankrupted shell after they had to rip up the lines and sell the fleet for scrap. Where once the only sigificant operational cost was labor (the system was powered by a hydroplant), they then had big loans from GM and ongoing gasoline and tire costs. These sorts of tactics from a company that a 70% marketshare at the time were disgusting. This is hardly a secret conspriciy theory either -- GM ran newspaper ads bragging about what they were doing, and knew that in an environment where 'Whats good for GM is good for America', and the faux moderinity of gasoline busses, they were politically safe.
Well, anyway, stand out on Market Street in San Francisco some time with your dollar. See if you get on the 40s streetcar or the 80s bus, and see which provides better service. --
A hospital I worked at in the early 90s put in a brand new computer-controlled pneumatic tube system at the cost of nearly a million dollars. So, yes, they are still in use. --
Nice recasting of history, but most streetcar systems didn't shut down, with some friendly investment from GM and various other parts suppliers, until the 1950s. So, sure it's doubtful that a 1943 investigation would have turned anything up.
San Francisco, CA still runs streetcars, including some nicely restored 1940s models, and some brand new Italian ones. Beats taking the bus. --
While the original was really just a predicition, Intel's marketing and engineering plans depend on doubling the performance/price of the CPU every 18-24 months ot ensure a healthy stream of upgraders and new applications. (Substitute clock speed for performance as necessary.)
Somebody made a Audio CD-R full of Atari 2600 games which could be played with CD player and a Starpath Supercharger (a tape drive interface for the 2600). My only guess is that the Starpath didn't have a REM lead. --
Netscape cut off it's own airsupply as much as Microsoft ever could by blowing their competitive advantage with the horrid pile of nonstandard buggy crap known as Communicator 4.x.
4 years until the next major upgrade didn't really help either. Considering, it's actually quite amazing that they still have 20% of the end user market. --
There were posts from employees there on the last article. The IT staff apparently wasn't just undereducated, they were non-existant, with the IT Director position being unfilled for more than a year. Plus they had a "WordPerfect is the standard" policy that was bogus and unenforced.
So, users and departments 'obtained' their own copies of MS Office. Which pretty much ensures that they was a little piracy and that they would never find all the paperwork. And thus they were screwed. --
It's fashonable on Slashdot to point out "Fragmentation!? Let me list all 200 versions of Windows blah,blah,blah" (Thanks holding back the dramtical florish by not reciting every service pack and B version with UL elements BTW!)
It's an OK point, but it ignores that fragmentation has hurt Microsoft from a technical standpoint. Specifically, the WinNT versus Win9x divide that we've been living through for the last 5 years (and for 2 more at least if we are lucky) has screwed both casual 9x users by dumping a crap product on them and the professional NT users by refusing modern hardware support (etc).
The only thing MS's fragmentation has helped is their bottom line. Because they can segment the market with their monopoly, they can charge three times as much for the product that actually works (NT) and deliver it only to moneyed corporations sophisticated enough to pay for it and deploy it. Everyone else gets a comprismised hack for their $50 OEM fee.
As for Win3.1, DOS, OS/2, the original Win95 and all of the other bizarro turns in Microsoft's historical OS strategy, it's been bad for users, but it can sorta be explained away by the fact that PCs were pretty limited machines until fairly recently, and PC OS design was always a comprimise for backcompat and low memory requirements.
Of course, as bad as MS fragmentation has been, the UNIX side has always been worse, which is the big reason that MS won the desktop wars. --
Seriously, these guys never solved anything, and despite the Single UNIX Standard, they never healed any wounds. Instead, the problem dissapated when they ceeded the desktop to Microsoft and the UNIX boys just hunkered down to sell big high-profit servers. So, Zander's seen it all before, but his take come from the background that Sun is just as clueless as RedHat or anyone on how to sell multivendor unix to desktops and small servers. At least Linux has a philosophical solution ot this problem - open software. --
Yes, but the greater point is that if Sun or a BSD distro included the 600MB of usual Linux Distro RPMs, it would be quite easy to create a setup that would be virtually indistinquisible from the average Linux install to the normal user. (The big exceptions being system level things like vitural consoles and the solaris mounter deamon. The other under-the-hood differences are handled by developers in a fairly transparent way.)
I would love to have an out-of-the-box installation of Solaris x86 that included KDE, mutt, GNU Utils, and so on. The big reason there isn't such a thing is not licencing, it's the fact that UNIX vendors (and maybe include BSD in there because of the old school aesthetic) have been rather bullheaded about making a nice, rich user environment, and instead have been stuck in a 1988-style time bubble, and are moving so many headless server that it's a low priority. --
Slashdot Mirror
According to http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/port- numbers, SMTP runs on 25/TCP and 25/UDP. Although most traffic is on TCP, perhaps there's MTAs that would accept UDP.
--
Your work should have a VPN to minimize sniffing of internal mail traffic sent by work-from-home people.
Likewise smtp.work.com shouldn't be relaying messages from random IPs just because the sender claims to be someguy@work.com. Otherwise smtp.work.com *will* become a spam server.
Limited Port 25 access is going to be a universal fact of life on the spam-filled Internet of the future, so everyone might as well get used to it. Most of this is due to the limitations of the SMTP protocol, so it only makes sense to layer other authentication mechinisms such as VPNs.
--
IMHO, the lack of "Bullshit" and "Incoherent" options has made Slashdot the place it is today.
--
if (year < 2000) {
if (document.all)
year = "19" + year;
else
year += 1900;
}
Looks like VAXGeek is running an older version of IE that fails the Y2K test.
--
Those older systems do not have a BIOS or OS-independant firmware of any sort and can only and will only bootstrap MacOS from the internal ROMs. (Perhaps you can burn your own bootstrapping ROMs and replace the Apple one, which is usually socketed.)
If it's any consolation, even Apple's own Unix, A/UX, bootstrapped out of the MacOS.
--
I'm aware of the Hobbit and the PReP support. My personal theory is that Gassee thought he could sell BeOS back to Apple the whole time (or almost the whole time) the company was alive up to that point. The BeBox was a demonstration to Apple of a 'better' Macintosh.
When it came down to it, Gassse asked for too much money (your "Be passing on Apple?" comment in #28 is a load), and was forced to wander the forest of Intel hardware incompatibility.
Who the hell is holding a grudge?
You, for example, seem to be pretty unhappy about the no G3 support issue. If Apple's so dead in the future, why do you want their hardware?
--
The reason BeOS doesn't run on new Macs is that Gasse(sp?) hates Jobs. Simple as that.
Yeah, that truly makes sense. Gassee risks ruining his company because he doesn't like a former co-worker. Mm-Hmm...
Stop all of this bullshit - BeOS was on PowerPC for one big reason - Gasse thought he could sell the company to Apple. (Think about it - would any company that really wanted to be in the OS business target Macs as their sole platform? And now they have their OS roadmap, why would Apple want to f-up their precious hardware/software integration and move boxes for Be?)
Well, Jobs made the deal, Gassee didn't, BeOS got funding for a port from Intel, OS X has been in beta for years, and the rest is history.
I swear, BeOS people should just stick the technical advantages they have. There's no use holding a grudge against Apple for not buying your precious OS, because you can still go and run it on a nice Ghz Intel box. As for the Apple people, MacOS is a great piece of work. Whether it's the piece of work they wanted is a different question, but I suspect that most of them are just happy about the reverse-buyout of NeXT and Jobs.
--
The reasonable definition of UNIX(tm) is contained here: http://www.opengroup.org/public/prods/xxm0.htm
AT+T heritage is not required. A number of independant products have been certified as UNIX, including Microsoft Interix (a UNIX subsystem for NT), and OpenVMS, OS/400, and so on. A particular Linux or BSD distribution shouldn't have too much trouble qualifying, if someone wanted to do the testing and put up the money.
--
Yeah, but lots of Microsoft customers have a policy that "We won't deploy until Service Pack X ships". Microsoft is of course aware of this, and rushes to get Service Pack X out as soon as possible. In the Win2K case, there were good testing reasons to hold some of the SP1 fixes out of release, but there were also good marketing reasons to get a service pack to market quickly.
--
If I owned an old abondoned building I would try very hard to keep people out of it.
On the other hand if you owned an abandoned building, and had insurance, maybe you wouldn't worry so much about homeless people sneaking in and lighting fires. In fact you might even encourage them...
--
The tc.umn.edu steam plant was still active at least back in the mid-90s when I was there - it just seemed abandoned. Despite the notorious tunnel security and the legends surrounding it, the steam plant (schmutzfabrik, people called it) was almost notoriously unguarded, so much so that it was a favorite high school drinking location. Later, it was just a convenient shortcut to cut from campus over to the St. Anthony Main area. Just don't go down to the parking lot on the river flat, because it seems to be where the U cops like to idle their engines and eat donuts.
(The U tunnels on the other hand, were always a mystery - with stories of people getting busted for even standing around storm drain pipes, or going through a door in the student union and ending up on the other side of campus or down by the river. Some of these stories might be real -- go to the U engineering library and look at some of the utopian underground societies the civil engineering department was dreaming up in the 1970s.)
--
Whoops - try http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/
--
A full featured Unix with 100% binary compatibility with Windows would be worth paying for.
i d=22&site=10464&x=32&y=15) Unfortunately, it looks like MS is burying this product in their website, so it might be going away.
Check out Microsoft Interix, which is a UNIX subsystem for NT (http://www.microsoft.com/catalog/display.asp?sub
--
Whether or not GM killed of trolleys, they frankly don't make a lot of sense in low-density suburban area, where most Americans seem to live.
Well, that's a different conspiricy! Suffice it to say that GM was a big real estate developer and also so home appliances in those days...
(Although the federal loan subsidy policies of the day were the real motivating factor behind the suburbs. Not that I can blame people. After being cooped up in an apartment through the depression and the war, with no money and rationing, and nothing getting maintained and nothing new getting built for 30 years, a nice shiny Chevrolet and your own federally subsidized 1/2 acre probably sounded pretty good!)
--
Ridership peaked in the late 1920s
Well, no shit. Cars became available to the middle class. Has nothing to do with Streetcars versus GM manufactured buses.
Ridership peaked in the late 1920s,
True, but most major cities' bus routes run exactly on the old streetcar lines. So consider this advantage theoretical.
Streetcars require dedicated rights-of-way.
False. They are called *Street*cars, you know.
First of all, after the depression and the rise of autos, most of the nations private streetcar systems were in serious decline when GM moved in, with cars and tracks dating back to the 1890s. However, that forstalled the inevitable, since even after the bus conversion, almost every US mass transit system was in public recievership by the early 1970s anyway.
Second, buses were only more economical in the era of cheap 50s gas and friendly loans from General Motors. If anyone had the choice in keeping an electric system or switch to gas today, they'd stick with electric. Also, unlike those 50-year old streetcars, none of those GM busses lasted longer than 20 years before having to be replaced, by the taxpayers.
Third, GM's tactics in this business were horrible. In Minneapolis, for example, they conspired with mobsters to essentially loot the system, and left the company as a bankrupted shell after they had to rip up the lines and sell the fleet for scrap. Where once the only sigificant operational cost was labor (the system was powered by a hydroplant), they then had big loans from GM and ongoing gasoline and tire costs. These sorts of tactics from a company that a 70% marketshare at the time were disgusting. This is hardly a secret conspriciy theory either -- GM ran newspaper ads bragging about what they were doing, and knew that in an environment where 'Whats good for GM is good for America', and the faux moderinity of gasoline busses, they were politically safe.
Well, anyway, stand out on Market Street in San Francisco some time with your dollar. See if you get on the 40s streetcar or the 80s bus, and see which provides better service.
--
A hospital I worked at in the early 90s put in a brand new computer-controlled pneumatic tube system at the cost of nearly a million dollars. So, yes, they are still in use.
--
Nice recasting of history, but most streetcar systems didn't shut down, with some friendly investment from GM and various other parts suppliers, until the 1950s. So, sure it's doubtful that a 1943 investigation would have turned anything up.
San Francisco, CA still runs streetcars, including some nicely restored 1940s models, and some brand new Italian ones. Beats taking the bus.
--
While the original was really just a predicition, Intel's marketing and engineering plans depend on doubling the performance/price of the CPU every 18-24 months ot ensure a healthy stream of upgraders and new applications. (Substitute clock speed for performance as necessary.)
Call it Moore's Law of CPU Marketing.
--
That is really sad that they've recycled the great "Apollo" brandname for junk Sam's Club printers.
--
Somebody made a Audio CD-R full of Atari 2600 games which could be played with CD player and a Starpath Supercharger (a tape drive interface for the 2600). My only guess is that the Starpath didn't have a REM lead.
--
Netscape cut off it's own airsupply as much as Microsoft ever could by blowing their competitive advantage with the horrid pile of nonstandard buggy crap known as Communicator 4.x.
4 years until the next major upgrade didn't really help either. Considering, it's actually quite amazing that they still have 20% of the end user market.
--
There were posts from employees there on the last article. The IT staff apparently wasn't just undereducated, they were non-existant, with the IT Director position being unfilled for more than a year. Plus they had a "WordPerfect is the standard" policy that was bogus and unenforced.
So, users and departments 'obtained' their own copies of MS Office. Which pretty much ensures that they was a little piracy and that they would never find all the paperwork. And thus they were screwed.
--
It's fashonable on Slashdot to point out "Fragmentation!? Let me list all 200 versions of Windows blah,blah,blah" (Thanks holding back the dramtical florish by not reciting every service pack and B version with UL elements BTW!)
It's an OK point, but it ignores that fragmentation has hurt Microsoft from a technical standpoint. Specifically, the WinNT versus Win9x divide that we've been living through for the last 5 years (and for 2 more at least if we are lucky) has screwed both casual 9x users by dumping a crap product on them and the professional NT users by refusing modern hardware support (etc).
The only thing MS's fragmentation has helped is their bottom line. Because they can segment the market with their monopoly, they can charge three times as much for the product that actually works (NT) and deliver it only to moneyed corporations sophisticated enough to pay for it and deploy it. Everyone else gets a comprismised hack for their $50 OEM fee.
As for Win3.1, DOS, OS/2, the original Win95 and all of the other bizarro turns in Microsoft's historical OS strategy, it's been bad for users, but it can sorta be explained away by the fact that PCs were pretty limited machines until fairly recently, and PC OS design was always a comprimise for backcompat and low memory requirements.
Of course, as bad as MS fragmentation has been, the UNIX side has always been worse, which is the big reason that MS won the desktop wars.
--
Fighting for fragmentation or against it?
Seriously, these guys never solved anything, and despite the Single UNIX Standard, they never healed any wounds. Instead, the problem dissapated when they ceeded the desktop to Microsoft and the UNIX boys just hunkered down to sell big high-profit servers. So, Zander's seen it all before, but his take come from the background that Sun is just as clueless as RedHat or anyone on how to sell multivendor unix to desktops and small servers. At least Linux has a philosophical solution ot this problem - open software.
--
Yes, but the greater point is that if Sun or a BSD distro included the 600MB of usual Linux Distro RPMs, it would be quite easy to create a setup that would be virtually indistinquisible from the average Linux install to the normal user. (The big exceptions being system level things like vitural consoles and the solaris mounter deamon. The other under-the-hood differences are handled by developers in a fairly transparent way.)
I would love to have an out-of-the-box installation of Solaris x86 that included KDE, mutt, GNU Utils, and so on. The big reason there isn't such a thing is not licencing, it's the fact that UNIX vendors (and maybe include BSD in there because of the old school aesthetic) have been rather bullheaded about making a nice, rich user environment, and instead have been stuck in a 1988-style time bubble, and are moving so many headless server that it's a low priority.
--