Thanks for the link But i have a question. Who does this benifit most Linux/BSD/Unix or Microsoft??? I just get the fealing this will allow people to write better code that can then turn and be ported to windows. Just my mind.
Nope. It undoubted hurts Microsoft and helps Linux. Think about it. If Kylix were released today, how many Linux applications could be then compiled on the Windows platform? Yes, the answer is 0. However, how many applications can be compiled for Linux? 100's of thousands, probably. So, it'll greatly increase the applications available for Linux, while starving the Windows platforms that before had sole rights to the applications.
Side effect is that Unix and Linux boxes could get their connection to printers refused because of this.
No, it's actually the other way around. Windows clients could get their connections to printers and files refused because of this. Kerebros is supposed to authenticate once, and the let you have access to all resources you have permission to, without continually reauthenticating. However, It'll end up that Windows clients will only have access to resources on Windows servers. So you can't have Samba running as your server. Microsoft profusely apologizes for the inconvinience. (Yeah, right!)
Seems like that's where possession of (L0pht)Crack comes in.
Ah, but it wasn't the possession that was illegal. I can possess all the password cracking tools I want and I won't be charged with a felony. It is illegal use of password cracking tools that makes possession an issue.
So, what I'm trying to say is that possession itself isn't the issue. It is how you use a tool when it is in your possession that gets you a felony charge for possession of that tool.
why should a computer program which can have perfectly legitmate uses be banned like this?
Read the article. The summary was mis-leading. He wasn't charged for having password cracking tools. He was charged because he stole password and other information from companies. He just happened to use password cracking tools to assist in the felony.
The brief synaposis on/. reads that the people were arrested for just having the program. Am I they only one who interrupted the synaposis this way?
Nah, that's exactly what it says. Kind of worried me for a minute, because I don't live far from Hopkins and I have password cracking tools. I felt better when I actually read the article and found out that he was not charged for having the tools, but for using them in illegal activities.
This guy was not charged because he had L0phtcrack, but because he used it to steal passwords from companies. It's like a locksmith having tools to break locks. He wouldn't be charged with a felony for possessing lock-breaking tools. However, if he used them to break into a store, and steal inventory, then he would be charged with a felony for use lock-breaking tools.
Whether it's lock-breaking tools, or guns, or axes, or 2x4's, or password-cracking tools, they can all be used ethically, or illegally. If used ethically, you won't have a problem. But if used illegally, should it be any surprise that you are charged with a felony?
Facts please. Tell your fellow/.-readers the name of the bank which is doing that. This is absurd.
It's not totally absurd. Just doesn't have anything to do with the example at hand. If your bank, or in my case, Credit Union, is really small, ie has assets less then $3 million, then there isn't enough work to demand a mainframe. A singel server will often do the job. Any real I/O intensive work (printing statements) will be outsourced to 3rd parties who will have mainframes.
Of course, any large national or statewide bank, will use mainframes. To attest otherwise is just plain silly.
I think blocking is the wrong solution, and I don't agree with what the religious right is trying to do either. However, this statement on the front-page really cracked me up....and why nothing anyone does is going to stop fundamentalists from bringing issues like this to America's ballots.
When you barely are able to complete a paragraph about your rights, and then talk about wanting to take away someone elses rights, that's too much. They have just as much a right to think such issues are important, as we think the issues are important in a different way. But that is one of the results of living in a democratic society where everyone has a voice. There's going to be a lot of different voices, and it is wrong to censor them because they are different. It is just as wrong for you to want to block fundamentalists, as it is for fundamentalists to block, say, the Nazi party, or the Socialist Party.
In the worst case scenario, just email them to yourself at work, supposing you've got the bandwidth to upload from home to Beam IT and download from Beam It to work, you cand do the same with your own files and alleviate the middleman that's causeing all the controversy
NO, NO, NO!! You aren't uploading whole the track with Beam-It, just a little "key" to verify that you have the CD. Then you stream it back to your audio player.
So I guess MS is going to tie this into WebTV/MSN and generate revenue from subscriptions.
I agree. $149 isn't the "real" price. First of all, We know that this product won't be on the market for a long time. Maybe even a year or 2. I think Microsoft is betting on the fact that those specs will be commodity parts by that time, and won't be expensive to use. 2nd, you know that Microsoft will have rebates, and MSN deals to lower the price. I think that that when it's out, it'll be closer to the $600 range. But after the rebates, promotional "coupons", and your 3 year contract to the MSN "gaming service", you'll be able to get it at the slick price of $149.
I'm kind of curious whether Transmeta will gain enough popularity outside of the Slashdot/Geek circles to really compete in the processor market. Very few of my engineering friends have even heard of Transmeta or Crusoe.
Actually, consumers don't need to "know" about Crusoe. They just go to the local computer retailer, there's the webtop, notebook, pda, whatever, and they buy it. It's the OEM's that need to know about Crusoe, and they know about it.
Aw, come on. Sure there is. Censorship prevents you from getting something you want. Labeling makes it easier to determine what you want. Censorship may be present with labelling, but labelling itself is not censoring.
Okay, consider it this way. Is it censorship that food products are labelled "The chemical dioxitribe may cause reactions in people who have blue eyes and blonde hair"? No. Censorship is when those food products are no longer available to anyone, even if they don't have an effect to most people.
Now, if a store decides that 89% of the population is affected by this food product, and decide not to carry it, then that can be called censorship. Who knows, maybe they wouldn't have known about the problem without the label, because people would have bought it anyways. But not selling something is their choice to make. They have finite shelfspace and they want to maximise their profits.
Now, whether it's food, or music, it doesn't matter. Labelling isn't censorship, it's responsibility. It helps those who are adversely affected to ignore it, and those interested in it to find it. If it is no longer profitable to a store to sell a product, *maybe* that could be considered censorship, but that's their choice, and they will do what is profitable. I tend to believe that it's not censorship, it's just business.
Is it censorship that Microsoft won't let OEM's dual-boot BeOS on systems that have Windows preloaded?
Part of the frenzy of DeCSS is due to the fact that for every liscensed DVD player sold, the DVD consortium collects a 20$ fee.
As you point out, it's not about piracy. It's not about encryption. It's not even about keeping the little guy out of media. It's not even about DVD players on Linux.
It's 100% about money. It's about that $20 licensing fee. After all, would Sony pay that $20 per product license fee, if they could legally implement the decryption? Of course not. No one would. And then where would be MPAA be? There'd be no one controlling the industry, and maintaining standards that allow us to buy a DVD player and play DVD's without worrying about imcompatibilities.
Linux increased in distribution at the expense of Netware and the Commercial Unixes
People keeping saying this over and over again, that Linux won't hurt NT, but will kill other Unixes, but is this a reasonable assumption? Why would anyone replace their high-end Unix server with Linux? Won't it make more sense that they'd replace their NT e-mail server, file server, web server, and proxy server with Linux?
The fact that NT has been replaced by Linux installations can be documented. But can it be documented that someone using a high-end Unix server has replaced it with Linux?
"Microsoft makes more money before the morning coffee break every day of the year" than all the purveyors of Linux made in the entire year" Because every NT system has purchased a copy of NT - that's not true with linux.
Don't forget, it's not like money isn't going anywhere. Money always goes somewhere. In the case of someone using NT, that money primarily goes to Microsoft, to Bill Gates and to the stockholders. But in the case of Linux, that money is freed up to go to employees or other people who among other things, work the make the company better. As a result, the money goes to feed many families, instead of just build up Bill's portfolio.
You are flat-out wrong. This is exactly what the filter-mongers want you to think, that this issue is porn; but if that's the case, why block alt.atheism and soc.feminism? Cyber Patrol has, at least according to Peacefire.org .
I agree. I've had my opinion about filtering for a long time, that it's a flawed approach, and extremely dangerous to depend on. However, without actually trying filtering myself, I might have been just making it all up. So when I heard that CrossingGuard was a free server-based filtering service, I decided to try it out for myself and see if I was right or wrong.
I was wrong! Maybe CrossingGuard is just an extremely poor service, but I assume that they are giving their best effort, and that they are representative of other filtering based services. I also do not know if they do white-list or black-list based filtering. I believe it's black-list.
Anyways, I agree with your comment about filtering not just being about porn. It's not. It's about blocking out all speech that disagrees with the views of those doing the filtering. I'm a Christian, but not a protestant. So why should be views as an Anabaptist be censored by those of mainline Protestant beliefs just because they are different?
Anyways, the following list is some of the sites that I remember being blocked, either totally, or partially, as of Feb 8.
slashdot.org
freshmeat.net linuxtoday.com upside.com about.com mp3.com anabaptistbooks.com And others...
So, instead of filtering, I think that we need to better define web content. For instance, if the web was able to be structured in a manner like Yahoo, then people *may* be able to objectively filter content based on their own preferences. "Oh, this site is under *.baseball.sports.rec, and I'm looking for little flying mammals. That site probably won't help me."
It's interesting that the paragraphs below this talk about "Unix" making up about 53% of the revenue ~ 3 billion. What are the systems that are so expensive even though they are only ~0.8 million (15%) of market-share? Sun, DEC, HP, SGI? They must have appalling licence fees.
But they do important and often critical stuff. No one would try to use NT or Linux to do what HP/UX or Solaris or AIX can do. And those who need the high-end OS' are more then willing to pay what they are worth.
It's like comparing pickup trucks to semi-trucks. It'd be foolish to believe that I can buy a semi-truck at pickup truck prices. Indeed it'd even be more foolish to attempt to use a semi-truck for what a pickup truck can do.
More then that, I'll bet that everyone who needs a semi-truck knows that they need a semi-truck and is willing to pay the price for one. We'll never see the market-share of semi-trucks overtaking that of pick-up trucks or any other vehicle class. But to say that that means that the usefulness of semi-trucks is dying out is just plain wrong.
It's the same with OS's. HP/UX does what it does very well. It was no need to be the dominant OS. Also, anyone would be foolish to believe that they can replace their HP/UX server with an NT server. Likewise, I have no plans to replace my NT server with an HP/UX one. They serve 2 completly different markets.
Now, Netware, NT and Linux compete for marketshare. They all have somewhat overlapping uses. That's like comparing sales of Chevy and Ford pickup trucks. I can accept that. And the increasing marketshare of Linux is certain stealing marketshare from something else. But it's something that it competes with. ie, Netware, and NT.
In conclusion, I think it's a fallacy to compare *all* servers in marketshare reports, just as it would be a fallacy to compare all "trucks". I think that comparing marketshare in servers that do similar things is much more valid. For instance, what Netcraft does with web servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. It undoubted hurts Microsoft and helps Linux. Think about it. If Kylix were released today, how many Linux applications could be then compiled on the Windows platform? Yes, the answer is 0. However, how many applications can be compiled for Linux? 100's of thousands, probably. So, it'll greatly increase the applications available for Linux, while starving the Windows platforms that before had sole rights to the applications.
-BrentNo, it's actually the other way around. Windows clients could get their connections to printers and files refused because of this. Kerebros is supposed to authenticate once, and the let you have access to all resources you have permission to, without continually reauthenticating. However, It'll end up that Windows clients will only have access to resources on Windows servers. So you can't have Samba running as your server. Microsoft profusely apologizes for the inconvinience. (Yeah, right!)
-BrentExcel, was, of course, a clone of Lotus 123, the PC killer app.
-BrentAh, but it wasn't the possession that was illegal. I can possess all the password cracking tools I want and I won't be charged with a felony. It is illegal use of password cracking tools that makes possession an issue.
So, what I'm trying to say is that possession itself isn't the issue. It is how you use a tool when it is in your possession that gets you a felony charge for possession of that tool.
-BrentIt doesn't. So hopefully CmdrTaco will post an update that will clear up the misinformation that the summary caused.
-BrentRead the article. The summary was mis-leading. He wasn't charged for having password cracking tools. He was charged because he stole password and other information from companies. He just happened to use password cracking tools to assist in the felony.
-BrentNah, that's exactly what it says. Kind of worried me for a minute, because I don't live far from Hopkins and I have password cracking tools. I felt better when I actually read the article and found out that he was not charged for having the tools, but for using them in illegal activities.
-BrentThis guy was not charged because he had L0phtcrack, but because he used it to steal passwords from companies. It's like a locksmith having tools to break locks. He wouldn't be charged with a felony for possessing lock-breaking tools. However, if he used them to break into a store, and steal inventory, then he would be charged with a felony for use lock-breaking tools.
Whether it's lock-breaking tools, or guns, or axes, or 2x4's, or password-cracking tools, they can all be used ethically, or illegally. If used ethically, you won't have a problem. But if used illegally, should it be any surprise that you are charged with a felony?
-BrentOkay, that's so. It's just a small detail :) Anyways, you are right. Beowolfs have no place banks, even though small banks have non-mainframe servers.
-BrentIt's not totally absurd. Just doesn't have anything to do with the example at hand. If your bank, or in my case, Credit Union, is really small, ie has assets less then $3 million, then there isn't enough work to demand a mainframe. A singel server will often do the job. Any real I/O intensive work (printing statements) will be outsourced to 3rd parties who will have mainframes.
Of course, any large national or statewide bank, will use mainframes. To attest otherwise is just plain silly.
-BrentYes, but is someone's right to free speech blocked because they aren't allowed to get their issues on the ballot?
-BrentI think blocking is the wrong solution, and I don't agree with what the religious right is trying to do either. However, this statement on the front-page really cracked me up. ...and why nothing anyone does is going to stop fundamentalists from bringing issues like this to America's ballots.
When you barely are able to complete a paragraph about your rights, and then talk about wanting to take away someone elses rights, that's too much. They have just as much a right to think such issues are important, as we think the issues are important in a different way. But that is one of the results of living in a democratic society where everyone has a voice. There's going to be a lot of different voices, and it is wrong to censor them because they are different. It is just as wrong for you to want to block fundamentalists, as it is for fundamentalists to block, say, the Nazi party, or the Socialist Party.
-BrentNO, NO, NO!! You aren't uploading whole the track with Beam-It, just a little "key" to verify that you have the CD. Then you stream it back to your audio player.
-BrentI agree. $149 isn't the "real" price. First of all, We know that this product won't be on the market for a long time. Maybe even a year or 2. I think Microsoft is betting on the fact that those specs will be commodity parts by that time, and won't be expensive to use. 2nd, you know that Microsoft will have rebates, and MSN deals to lower the price. I think that that when it's out, it'll be closer to the $600 range. But after the rebates, promotional "coupons", and your 3 year contract to the MSN "gaming service", you'll be able to get it at the slick price of $149.
-BrentActually, consumers don't need to "know" about Crusoe. They just go to the local computer retailer, there's the webtop, notebook, pda, whatever, and they buy it. It's the OEM's that need to know about Crusoe, and they know about it.
-BrentAw, come on. Sure there is. Censorship prevents you from getting something you want. Labeling makes it easier to determine what you want. Censorship may be present with labelling, but labelling itself is not censoring.
Okay, consider it this way. Is it censorship that food products are labelled "The chemical dioxitribe may cause reactions in people who have blue eyes and blonde hair"? No. Censorship is when those food products are no longer available to anyone, even if they don't have an effect to most people.
Now, if a store decides that 89% of the population is affected by this food product, and decide not to carry it, then that can be called censorship. Who knows, maybe they wouldn't have known about the problem without the label, because people would have bought it anyways. But not selling something is their choice to make. They have finite shelfspace and they want to maximise their profits.
Now, whether it's food, or music, it doesn't matter. Labelling isn't censorship, it's responsibility. It helps those who are adversely affected to ignore it, and those interested in it to find it. If it is no longer profitable to a store to sell a product, *maybe* that could be considered censorship, but that's their choice, and they will do what is profitable. I tend to believe that it's not censorship, it's just business.
Is it censorship that Microsoft won't let OEM's dual-boot BeOS on systems that have Windows preloaded?
-BrentYes, but what about the new "horses". If they were stolen once, then shouldn't RealNames do something to protect future customers data?
-BrentI didn't know MS Word went down the tubes so many years ago. I thought it was just a recent thing...
-BrentAs you point out, it's not about piracy. It's not about encryption. It's not even about keeping the little guy out of media. It's not even about DVD players on Linux.
It's 100% about money. It's about that $20 licensing fee. After all, would Sony pay that $20 per product license fee, if they could legally implement the decryption? Of course not. No one would. And then where would be MPAA be? There'd be no one controlling the industry, and maintaining standards that allow us to buy a DVD player and play DVD's without worrying about imcompatibilities.
Tough problem, eh?
-BrentThen how come I see those little '1's with IE 5?
-BrentPeople keeping saying this over and over again, that Linux won't hurt NT, but will kill other Unixes, but is this a reasonable assumption? Why would anyone replace their high-end Unix server with Linux? Won't it make more sense that they'd replace their NT e-mail server, file server, web server, and proxy server with Linux?
The fact that NT has been replaced by Linux installations can be documented. But can it be documented that someone using a high-end Unix server has replaced it with Linux?
-BrentDon't forget, it's not like money isn't going anywhere. Money always goes somewhere. In the case of someone using NT, that money primarily goes to Microsoft, to Bill Gates and to the stockholders. But in the case of Linux, that money is freed up to go to employees or other people who among other things, work the make the company better. As a result, the money goes to feed many families, instead of just build up Bill's portfolio.
-BrentI agree. I've had my opinion about filtering for a long time, that it's a flawed approach, and extremely dangerous to depend on. However, without actually trying filtering myself, I might have been just making it all up. So when I heard that CrossingGuard was a free server-based filtering service, I decided to try it out for myself and see if I was right or wrong.
I was wrong! Maybe CrossingGuard is just an extremely poor service, but I assume that they are giving their best effort, and that they are representative of other filtering based services. I also do not know if they do white-list or black-list based filtering. I believe it's black-list.
Anyways, I agree with your comment about filtering not just being about porn. It's not. It's about blocking out all speech that disagrees with the views of those doing the filtering. I'm a Christian, but not a protestant. So why should be views as an Anabaptist be censored by those of mainline Protestant beliefs just because they are different?
Anyways, the following list is some of the sites that I remember being blocked, either totally, or partially, as of Feb 8.
So, instead of filtering, I think that we need to better define web content. For instance, if the web was able to be structured in a manner like Yahoo, then people *may* be able to objectively filter content based on their own preferences. "Oh, this site is under *.baseball.sports.rec, and I'm looking for little flying mammals. That site probably won't help me."
-BrentBut they do important and often critical stuff. No one would try to use NT or Linux to do what HP/UX or Solaris or AIX can do. And those who need the high-end OS' are more then willing to pay what they are worth.
It's like comparing pickup trucks to semi-trucks. It'd be foolish to believe that I can buy a semi-truck at pickup truck prices. Indeed it'd even be more foolish to attempt to use a semi-truck for what a pickup truck can do.
More then that, I'll bet that everyone who needs a semi-truck knows that they need a semi-truck and is willing to pay the price for one. We'll never see the market-share of semi-trucks overtaking that of pick-up trucks or any other vehicle class. But to say that that means that the usefulness of semi-trucks is dying out is just plain wrong.
It's the same with OS's. HP/UX does what it does very well. It was no need to be the dominant OS. Also, anyone would be foolish to believe that they can replace their HP/UX server with an NT server. Likewise, I have no plans to replace my NT server with an HP/UX one. They serve 2 completly different markets.
Now, Netware, NT and Linux compete for marketshare. They all have somewhat overlapping uses. That's like comparing sales of Chevy and Ford pickup trucks. I can accept that. And the increasing marketshare of Linux is certain stealing marketshare from something else. But it's something that it competes with. ie, Netware, and NT.
In conclusion, I think it's a fallacy to compare *all* servers in marketshare reports, just as it would be a fallacy to compare all "trucks". I think that comparing marketshare in servers that do similar things is much more valid. For instance, what Netcraft does with web servers.
-BrentI can program in RPM. It even compiles!!
-Brent