The GPL requires that any software based upon the original also be GPL. Would it not be possible to release an encryption system (even as simple as "a=b, b=c, c=d", etc so that HAL becomes IBM), get it widely used as open-source, under a license which states: This software is available for free use, modification and redistribution by all, excepting decryption by any other than the intended recipient - and of course, the intended recipient is always in plaintext Then if any gov't used any evidence based on "decrypting" the simple code, all you have to do is show that the mail was encrypted with that software, and countersue the goverment involved.... Okay, if I was plotting assasinating the US President I'd be disinclined to use something simple; use PGP or something as an "extra", but the point is that even a simple code with the correct legal terming would make it impossible to incriminate yourself by using the software.
I am in the UK where we are under threat of the RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) bill - suitably named in a Reverse-Polish stylee, which has terrifying consequences!
As a Christian who couldn't give a **** about FOOTBALL - that's football, not "futbal" or "soccer" or even "socor"... Yes, I'm also from the UK:
This raises a few points, many of which we all know already, if we spend a moment to think about it:
There are too few.TLDs - we need.religion (or.rel, whatever), maybe even.soc,.sport,.whatever
Squatting would then be eliminated, and the whole thing of sueing someone over a domain would be moot, and hopefully, illegal - just get yourself something more suitable under a better TLD.
OT1H, I would expect corinthians.com to be the Book of Corinthians (1&2), being the longest standing PUBLICATION of that name (naturally, the city of Corinth has the best grab!).
OTOH, romans.com, deuteronomy.com, genesis.com, mark.com, matthew.com, luke.com, john.com and all the rest should also be legit Bible quotes.... Then you get Corinthians.NIV.rel, Corinthians.TEV.rel, etc (different TRANSLATIONs of these books; the Bible wasn't written in English, you know; it was Hebrew and Greek). So then we get Corinthians.Orig.rel (the Greek), Corinthians.de.rel (the German translation) etc. etc. etc.
So all we need are more TLDs and a more sensible approach. Haven't we all tried registering domains just to find it's already been taken? Just get another! I own steve-parker.org; steveparker.com was taken, ditto steveparker.org, and so on.
Find something to suit, and you'll be fine.
For those who have legit problems here, more TLDs will help.
Frasier Crane - and his brother Niles - are nouveau riche kids of a retired cop.
Okay, things go wrong for comedy effect, but he is in control of his life (unlike Arthur Dent), and is wealthy.
Let's see - what's the criteria of success in the states? $$$$. Oh yeah.
So what's the difference? Frasier is in control and rich; Arthur is a typical English bloke. Arthur is an anti-hero; Fraiser's just a comedy character.
Hey, at least you're not in the UK! If I said anything which anyone else thought might just possibly be libellous (or maybe possibly or just a slight hint that I might say something libellous in the future, or maybe no such hint at all) me and my ISP could be sued over it! Stay in the US! Even liberty.org.uk have gone to the States:-)
Lawyers have their own language. Programmers have their own language. (that is, in terms of their communication; I'm not talking programming language.) English is another language entirely. It has a few shared words with the above two languages; that is all.
Which leads to the question: I see some cool OSS software... say, the Linux Kernel. (let's go for gold!) I want to make a WAD OF CASH. I look at how it works, use the IDEAS behind it (the lines of code are nothing; the methodologies and INSPIRATION of the coders is the real benefit) I use those ideas to write my own Closed-Source Linux-compatible Kernel... PS. My name is William H Gates III And look! I've got a closed-source Linux! Next, the World!
As a/.er who lurks more than posts, I've got a simple IANAL FAQ... I suspect others have been unsure about this, too... I took a GPL (not LGPL) CGI-C library to get some upload-file-to-webserver stuff; modified it extensively to do what I want it to do, and use it on a webserver which is about to go live on the internet. So I've forked some GPL; no problem. GPL allows that AFAIK. But am I obliged to distribute my source? I am running (on MY machine) but not distributing the binaries... Since FSF don't seem to be pursuing Mattel, I can't see that I'm in any legal danger for a site restricted to 12 users (may grow as the company grows), but from a legal point of view, what are my responsibilities?
I'm not convinced this is necessarily troll-bait (though that just might make me a troll l-)
Even if it is a troll, it may sound convincing to some lurkers... surely OSS is the New Wave which has replaced the FSF?
Let's have some comparisons in IANAL english:
Some stuff: Free and Open Source *are* two entirely different concepts; public domain" - as mentioned earlier, is different again, and just means that you can move binaries (and/or source) around without paying the author some cash. Free Software is an ideology; software does not belong to its author - this is running oblique to the American Way so if often not understood... Open Source is just like any other software (incl. M$, PD, Free, whatever), with the source available - as it may be with any of the above.
In short, Free Software is the idea; OSS is *one* implementation of that idea. Okay, with OSS you have the option of submitting what you think is an improvement to the development tree; it may be crap and included; it may be fantastic and ignored. Many OSS advocates don't like Sun's license; they're saying up front that they don't really want/need external input; OSS is the same, but they might, depending upon the project coordinator. All this amounts to is free beer. Oh, and free speech if the people in control of that project like what you say/code. Free Software is - free (speech), free (beer). But it is (ironically) more OPEN about its limitations; yes, you have to be an "insider" to get your gcc/emacs/etc contributions seriously considered.
The OSS movement is one implentation of that principle. Any real-world implementation of an idealogical concept is by definition dirtier, with flaws inbuilt by the people doing the interpretation and implementation.
Is this true? I've not heard of this case before, but from what they're claiming on interix.com it looks as though they must be using gcc - unless they've suddenly developed a massively-capable compiler in-house without anyone knowing it.... if this software is available but the source isn't - when the compiler is the base of it - surely this *is* a major breach of the GPL?
I know that (even now) M$ are a mighty force to take on... just waiting til the point where they employ more lawyers than programmers... but shouldn't this be tackled?
Hey! My mum uses Outlook! (doesn't yours?) Doesn't yours? I can't honestly say that Un*x is ready to replace MS-Win, so that's what they use. And no, she doesn't know what the fsck she's doing; she's 59! She doesn't care....... I work in computing and care about that - she works in counselling and cares about that. I've probably fscked up a lot of ppl just by my social incompetence; she's in danger of fscking her computer by her technical incompetence. There's no need to say that either of us are idiots, just specialists in different fields. Okay, in a work environment, users should be more "obedient" - help them! Remove their outlook links if they don't use it! But for my mother, I'm kinda worried....
Somebody gonna give us an absolute on this? Don't do email in winderz myself, so I don't know - only do M$Word - also Melissable! M$'s file formats aren't open... If I've received an email from someone, I want it to be readable whatever OS / mail client I'm in - so Winderz can't see Linux partitions, so I don't do email in winders.
Windows doesn't have/usr/share/magic; associations are purely based on the final.xxx of the filename. (AFAIK)
But what damage could a.sh do in, say, Pine? Well, not a lot; the script would be shown; you have the option of viewing it and then, if you like, save and run....
But the fact is, any high-exposure software (mail-client, Napster, whatever) is vulnerable, not just because it runs under a single-user OS, but because it's a prime target; who'd bother exploiting a weakness in kmail / elm / pine / etc?
This isn't of course forgetting (OSS)sendmail's many security holes... it also is high-exposure, and often runs as root(0)... Why bother with file permissions when you've got an exploit letting you become God?
Okay, it's easy when a Windows user is root by default.
What I'm saying is:
It's not just M$ / closed software which is vulnerable to this kind of exploit; anything in wide use is the main target.
This means that OSS is far from invincible to this kind of attack - especially as it gets more popular - sendmail is an old and tried example of this. Worth bearing in mind before we slam Closed / M$ software for being so buggy
This doesn't excuse M$ for allowing Outlook to run these scripts any more than it excuses sendmail authors from their responsibility.
That's it; it's great that the US have a legal statement that ISPs are not responsible for content of their customers; here in the UK it's still open to debate whether ISPs are responsible for content of other ISPs customers, simply passing through their networks (see the Demon/GL case), or customer-created content (see the PinkPaper/Outcast case)
We are going to need some support from (who knows where?!!!) if people like Campaign Against Censorship of Internet in Britain are going to be able to reside in their own country, without having to run of the the US for legal protection!.
Taking the following four statements as widely accepted:
SCO's main strength is in Middleware and Apps SCO's main weakness is hardware support; Linux's main strength is in its Kernel and Drivers; Linux's main weakness is application support
Does SCO plan to: - use Linux as a source of better drivers to use with OpenServer, or: - take Linux and improve its interoperability with 3rd party applications eg, Oracle, Informix?
The former would be a common commercial response to GPL'd code; the latter would be a positive contribution to both the OSS and commercial communities.
Yes, the ARPAnet originated in America; courtesy of the DoD. But it was easily 10 years ago I was connected to the Net in the UK. It is international in design. Yes, it still needs guidance. It will always. What I assert, is that the guidance should come from the same source it always has - the users. I acknowledge that the users in 2000 are less technical (on average) than the users in 1970, or even in 1990. Having said that, in practice, my Mum isn't about to intervene massively in net protocols. Slashdotters are slightly more likely to do so, or at least make their voice heard. Without the growth of the ARPA into ther INTERnet, the rest of us wouldn't even BE on the internet. Do you hear me yet? About the (eg, Linux)Kernel issue: Maybe Linus didn't go insane; maybe he died; maybe M$ just decided he was insane; they wouldn't be able to keep up with the kernel releases. The OSS solution, in this scenario, would win. Maybe there's something I'm missing here: You say that telco's *could* block, eg, Linux headers if it wasn't for regulations. Please enlighten me, what USA regulations are there that prohibit packet-blocking? See MY first para; the Net isn't only USA and the USA gov't isn't needed / doesn't apply in [ironic]cyberspace[/ironic]. Universities: Your premise, as stated does not make sense. To be useful, any sw must be developed and tested. Whether that's in a uni or corporate environment, the same fact holds. This point is nothing to do with network access, just to do with the original author's grasp on history. But to take on your sub-point: Regulations can only GRANT control; no regulations = no control.
So what you can do, is use a LAN which does dictate according to protocol. Whether you connect via the internet or not is up to you. For example, if you want a guaranteed timeslot until you get access, use Token Ring. If you want your policies site-wide, use a private WAN, not the internet. You can provide your corporate WAN via, eg, a Leased Line. This guarantees you a certain amount of bandwitdth. Nothing to do with the internet - just connecting MYSITEA to MYSITEB. Run whatever protocol you want over it. That's the meaning of a PRIVATE LAN/WAN. Run any protocol you like. Your limiting factors would include: I want to use 9 different OS's on the Private net... they must all support the protocol. Tough. Your policy, your decision. (Unless they're all OSS, in which case you can build it in, of course!) I'd quote this post as OT if I could only get a gist of WHAT THE F**K the article is trying to say, other than "I am a dumbass".
As for those of you who are reading this outside of the US, the arguement is for regulating ACCESS TO THE NETWORK IN THE US.
The article is about the net in the US. However, it never botheres to say so. It talks about the internet as if the US was the only member country.
This brings to mind again (forgot about this for a while)..... As the internet grows internationally, and we have.jp,.de,.fi,.uk, etc nationalisations, but anyone can have.org,.com,.net, isn't it about time that we have something like: slashdot.org , slashdot.org.ca.us , slashdot.org.de , slashdot.org.uk , etc..... IE, Get rid of the.COM,.NET,.ORG as they tell us nothing. Most multinationals have adopted this already, having, eg, microsoft.com (main co. page, US-centric), microsoft.co.uk (similar, but UK links), etc. All we need now, is to get rid of the non-national domains. (maybe apart from.NET?) But then slashdot.org could be a conceptual site we access, with local news fed from slashdot.XX and central issues from slashdot.ORG Just a thought - It'll happen eventually. But basically there is no domain difference to identify a US domain vs. an Internet domain (as opposed to, say, a Finnish domain is.FI,.COM,.NET,.ORG - let's Know!) OT rant, maybe. But it'll get logged, and I'll be hailed an (incoherent) genius.
The major factor in the success of the Arpa/Internet is in its members. Its members have historically determined what wins and what doesn't. I guess that this is still happening, really; we're fielding problems now of dumb users who don't know what thyey're saying, which is (kind of) new. I reiterate the challenge: Somebody, somewhere, tell me of a protocol which DOES have the ability to censor data according to its content / application.../.ers seem to have swallowed this hook, line and sinker. Yes, it's a plus of TCP/IP - it's such a plus, nobody's ever (BEFORE or after) considered a protocol which wastes its time doing otherwise. However, as/.ers have pointed out (without realising that they're contradicting the article), network suppliers can perfectly easily read packet headers and strip connections to/., UUCP packets, Windows, Linux, Mac, boxen, whatever they want. Get of this bandwagon, it's gonna fall apart! Friendly advice,that's all.
If the US government passes a regulation that they must offer freedom of choice of ISP to US-based consumers, then they will have to.
Sure. I think what people are saying is, SO THE F**K WHAT - I DON'T LIVE IN THE USA. SO ANY PROPOSAL OF THE US GOV'T REGULATING THE INTERNET IS NOT VALID. Somehow, this message hasn't got through to the US. Gov't. Slightly more remarkably, it's not got through to the US population at large. Much more remarkably, very few USA slashdotters seem to have grasped this simple concept. I will reiterate until.... well, until I get bored and the US has another Depression, at which point I guess I'll smirk.
I've had the same problem with plain ol' ISPs... My main machine at the mo. happens to dual-boot Winderz (for M$-Word) and Linux, so I've had the chance to install their SW on Windoze and then read the config. and apply it to my Linux install. However, the tech. guys couldn't even help when I was trying to install the stuff on Windoze ("whaddayamean? Try U/G to Win982ndEdn... I'm using that... Oh, then it must work!... but it doesn't... sorry. [click]")
But back OT: As I say in my response to the article: Please, somebody, come up with an example of a network protocol which is not based on an end-to-end design. There. The gauntlet is thrown. And please don't quote OSI needing FTAM,uucp and suchlike; these are applications designed for a certain network protocol, but the protocol doesn't limit you to those apps - only that nobody bothered writing anything else for them!
Slashdot Mirror
Would it not be possible to release an encryption system (even as simple as "a=b, b=c, c=d", etc so that HAL becomes IBM), get it widely used as open-source, under a license which states:
This software is available for free use, modification and redistribution by all, excepting decryption by any other than the intended recipient - and of course, the intended recipient is always in plaintext
Then if any gov't used any evidence based on "decrypting" the simple code, all you have to do is show that the mail was encrypted with that software, and countersue the goverment involved....
Okay, if I was plotting assasinating the US President I'd be disinclined to use something simple; use PGP or something as an "extra", but the point is that even a simple code with the correct legal terming would make it impossible to incriminate yourself by using the software.
I am in the UK where we are under threat of the RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) bill - suitably named in a Reverse-Polish stylee, which has terrifying consequences!
This raises a few points, many of which we all know already, if we spend a moment to think about it:
- There are too few
.TLDs - we need .religion (or .rel, whatever), maybe even .soc, .sport, .whatever - Squatting would then be eliminated, and the whole thing of sueing someone over a domain would be moot, and hopefully, illegal - just get yourself something more suitable under a better TLD.
- OT1H, I would expect corinthians.com to be the Book of Corinthians (1&2), being the longest standing PUBLICATION of that name (naturally, the city of Corinth has the best grab!).
- OTOH, romans.com, deuteronomy.com, genesis.com, mark.com, matthew.com, luke.com, john.com and all the rest should also be legit Bible quotes.... Then you get Corinthians.NIV.rel, Corinthians.TEV.rel, etc (different TRANSLATIONs of these books; the Bible wasn't written in English, you know; it was Hebrew and Greek). So then we get Corinthians.Orig.rel (the Greek), Corinthians.de.rel (the German translation) etc. etc. etc.
So all we need are more TLDs and a more sensible approach. Haven't we all tried registering domains just to find it's already been taken? Just get another! I own steve-parker.org; steveparker.com was taken, ditto steveparker.org, and so on.Find something to suit, and you'll be fine.
For those who have legit problems here, more TLDs will help.
Okay, things go wrong for comedy effect, but he is in control of his life (unlike Arthur Dent), and is wealthy.
Let's see - what's the criteria of success in the states? $$$$. Oh yeah.
So what's the difference? Frasier is in control and rich; Arthur is a typical English bloke. Arthur is an anti-hero; Fraiser's just a comedy character.
Hey, at least you're not in the UK! If I said anything which anyone else thought might just possibly be libellous (or maybe possibly or just a slight hint that I might say something libellous in the future, or maybe no such hint at all) me and my ISP could be sued over it! Stay in the US! Even liberty.org.uk have gone to the States:-)
Lawyers have their own language.
Programmers have their own language.
(that is, in terms of their communication; I'm not talking programming language.)
English is another language entirely. It has a few shared words with the above two languages; that is all.
Which leads to the question: ... say, the Linux Kernel. (let's go for gold!)
I see some cool OSS software
I want to make a WAD OF CASH.
I look at how it works, use the IDEAS behind it (the lines of code are nothing; the methodologies and INSPIRATION of the coders is the real benefit)
I use those ideas to write my own Closed-Source Linux-compatible Kernel...
PS. My name is William H Gates III
And look! I've got a closed-source Linux! Next, the World!
As a /.er who lurks more than posts, I've got a simple IANAL FAQ ... I suspect others have been unsure about this, too... ...
I took a GPL (not LGPL) CGI-C library to get some upload-file-to-webserver stuff; modified it extensively to do what I want it to do, and use it on a webserver which is about to go live on the internet.
So I've forked some GPL; no problem. GPL allows that AFAIK. But am I obliged to distribute my source? I am running (on MY machine) but not distributing the binaries
Since FSF don't seem to be pursuing Mattel, I can't see that I'm in any legal danger for a site restricted to 12 users (may grow as the company grows), but from a legal point of view, what are my responsibilities?
Even if it is a troll, it may sound convincing to some lurkers ... surely OSS is the New Wave which has replaced the FSF?
Let's have some comparisons in IANAL english:
Some stuff:Free and Open Source *are* two entirely different concepts; public domain" - as mentioned earlier, is different again, and just means that you can move binaries (and/or source) around without paying the author some cash.
Free Software is an ideology; software does not belong to its author - this is running oblique to the American Way so if often not understood
Open Source is just like any other software (incl. M$, PD, Free, whatever), with the source available - as it may be with any of the above.
In short, Free Software is the idea; OSS is *one* implementation of that idea.
Okay, with OSS you have the option of submitting what you think is an improvement to the development tree; it may be crap and included; it may be fantastic and ignored.
Many OSS advocates don't like Sun's license; they're saying up front that they don't really want/need external input; OSS is the same, but they might, depending upon the project coordinator. All this amounts to is free beer. Oh, and free speech if the people in control of that project like what you say/code.
Free Software is - free (speech), free (beer). But it is (ironically) more OPEN about its limitations; yes, you have to be an "insider" to get your gcc/emacs/etc contributions seriously considered.
The OSS movement is one implentation of that principle. Any real-world implementation of an idealogical concept is by definition dirtier, with flaws inbuilt by the people doing the interpretation and implementation.
Is this true? I've not heard of this case before, but from what they're claiming on interix.com it looks as though they must be using gcc - unless they've suddenly developed a massively-capable compiler in-house without anyone knowing it .... if this software is available but the source isn't - when the compiler is the base of it - surely this *is* a major breach of the GPL?
... just waiting til the point where they employ more lawyers than programmers ... but shouldn't this be tackled?
I know that (even now) M$ are a mighty force to take on
IA(definitely)NAL
nah; just had a look - deltree lives under \WINDOWS\COMMAND\
$ mail root@some.domain.com
Hey! My mum uses Outlook! (doesn't yours?)
Doesn't yours? I can't honestly say that Un*x is ready to replace MS-Win, so that's what they use.
And no, she doesn't know what the fsck she's doing; she's 59! She doesn't care....... I work in computing and care about that - she works in counselling and cares about that.
I've probably fscked up a lot of ppl just by my social incompetence; she's in danger of fscking her computer by her technical incompetence.
There's no need to say that either of us are idiots, just specialists in different fields.
Okay, in a work environment, users should be more "obedient" - help them! Remove their outlook links if they don't use it! But for my mother, I'm kinda worried....
Somebody gonna give us an absolute on this?
Don't do email in winderz myself, so I don't know
- only do M$Word - also Melissable! M$'s file formats aren't open... If I've received an email from someone, I want it to be readable whatever OS / mail client I'm in - so Winderz can't see Linux partitions, so I don't do email in winders.
But what damage could a .sh do in, say, Pine?
Well, not a lot; the script would be shown; you have the option of viewing it and then, if you like, save and run....
But the fact is, any high-exposure software (mail-client, Napster, whatever) is vulnerable, not just because it runs under a single-user OS, but because it's a prime target; who'd bother exploiting a weakness in kmail / elm / pine / etc?
This isn't of course forgetting (OSS)sendmail's many security holes... it also is high-exposure, and often runs as root(0)... Why bother with file permissions when you've got an exploit letting you become God?
Okay, it's easy when a Windows user is root by default.
What I'm saying is:
It's not just M$ / closed software which is vulnerable to this kind of exploit; anything in wide use is the main target.
This means that OSS is far from invincible to this kind of attack - especially as it gets more popular - sendmail is an old and tried example of this. Worth bearing in mind before we slam Closed / M$ software for being so buggy
This doesn't excuse M$ for allowing Outlook to run these scripts any more than it excuses sendmail authors from their responsibility.
Yrs, Steve.
We are going to need some support from (who knows where?!!!) if people like Campaign Against Censorship of Internet in Britain are going to be able to reside in their own country, without having to run of the the US for legal protection!.
So your six year old daughter runs an ISP? Wow!
SCO's main strength is in Middleware and Apps
Does SCO plan to:SCO's main weakness is hardware support;
Linux's main strength is in its Kernel and Drivers;
Linux's main weakness is application support
- use Linux as a source of better drivers to use with OpenServer,
or:
- take Linux and improve its interoperability with 3rd party applications eg, Oracle, Informix?
The former would be a common commercial response to GPL'd code; the latter would be a positive contribution to both the OSS and commercial communities.
They were rare in the UK since we had to steal them; there must have been thousands held by German operators... surely these were not all destroyed?
Yes, the ARPAnet originated in America; courtesy of the DoD. But it was easily 10 years ago I was connected to the Net in the UK. It is international in design.
Yes, it still needs guidance. It will always. What I assert, is that the guidance should come from the same source it always has - the users.
I acknowledge that the users in 2000 are less technical (on average) than the users in 1970, or even in 1990. Having said that, in practice, my Mum isn't about to intervene massively in net protocols. Slashdotters are slightly more likely to do so, or at least make their voice heard.
Without the growth of the ARPA into ther INTERnet, the rest of us wouldn't even BE on the internet. Do you hear me yet?
About the (eg, Linux)Kernel issue: Maybe Linus didn't go insane; maybe he died; maybe M$ just decided he was insane; they wouldn't be able to keep up with the kernel releases. The OSS solution, in this scenario, would win.
Maybe there's something I'm missing here: You say that telco's *could* block, eg, Linux headers if it wasn't for regulations. Please enlighten me, what USA regulations are there that prohibit packet-blocking?
See MY first para; the Net isn't only USA and the USA gov't isn't needed / doesn't apply in [ironic]cyberspace[/ironic].
Universities: Your premise, as stated does not make sense. To be useful, any sw must be developed and tested. Whether that's in a uni or corporate environment, the same fact holds. This point is nothing to do with network access, just to do with the original author's grasp on history.
But to take on your sub-point: Regulations can only GRANT control; no regulations = no control.
So what you can do, is use a LAN which does dictate according to protocol. Whether you connect via the internet or not is up to you.
For example, if you want a guaranteed timeslot until you get access, use Token Ring.
If you want your policies site-wide, use a private WAN, not the internet. You can provide your corporate WAN via, eg, a Leased Line. This guarantees you a certain amount of bandwitdth. Nothing to do with the internet - just connecting MYSITEA to MYSITEB. Run whatever protocol you want over it. That's the meaning of a PRIVATE LAN/WAN. Run any protocol you like.
Your limiting factors would include: I want to use 9 different OS's on the Private net... they must all support the protocol. Tough. Your policy, your decision. (Unless they're all OSS, in which case you can build it in, of course!)
I'd quote this post as OT if I could only get a gist of WHAT THE F**K the article is trying to say, other than "I am a dumbass".
Well summarised.
The article is about the net in the US. However, it never botheres to say so. It talks about the internet as if the US was the only member country.
This brings to mind again (forgot about this for a while)..... .jp, .de, .fi, .uk, etc nationalisations, but anyone can have .org, .com, .net, isn't it about time that we have something like: .COM, .NET, .ORG as they tell us nothing. .NET?) .FI, .COM, .NET, .ORG - let's Know!)
As the internet grows internationally, and we have
slashdot.org , slashdot.org.ca.us , slashdot.org.de , slashdot.org.uk , etc..... IE, Get rid of the
Most multinationals have adopted this already, having, eg, microsoft.com (main co. page, US-centric), microsoft.co.uk (similar, but UK links), etc.
All we need now, is to get rid of the non-national domains. (maybe apart from
But then slashdot.org could be a conceptual site we access, with local news fed from slashdot.XX and central issues from slashdot.ORG
Just a thought - It'll happen eventually. But basically there is no domain difference to identify a US domain vs. an Internet domain (as opposed to, say, a Finnish domain is
OT rant, maybe. But it'll get logged, and I'll be hailed an (incoherent) genius.
The major factor in the success of the Arpa/Internet is in its members. Its members have historically determined what wins and what doesn't. I guess that this is still happening, really; we're fielding problems now of dumb users who don't know what thyey're saying, which is (kind of) new. I reiterate the challenge: Somebody, somewhere, tell me of a protocol which DOES have the ability to censor data according to its content / application... /.ers seem to have swallowed this hook, line and sinker. Yes, it's a plus of TCP/IP - it's such a plus, nobody's ever (BEFORE or after) considered a protocol which wastes its time doing otherwise. However, as /.ers have pointed out (without realising that they're contradicting the article), network suppliers can perfectly easily read packet headers and strip connections to /., UUCP packets, Windows, Linux, Mac, boxen, whatever they want. Get of this bandwagon, it's gonna fall apart!
Friendly advice,that's all.
Sure. I think what people are saying is, SO THE F**K WHAT - I DON'T LIVE IN THE USA. SO ANY PROPOSAL OF THE US GOV'T REGULATING THE INTERNET IS NOT VALID. .... well, until I get bored and the US has another Depression, at which point I guess I'll smirk.
Somehow, this message hasn't got through to the US. Gov't. Slightly more remarkably, it's not got through to the US population at large. Much more remarkably, very few USA slashdotters seem to have grasped this simple concept.
I will reiterate until
But back OT:
As I say in my response to the article: Please, somebody, come up with an example of a network protocol which is not based on an end-to-end design.
There. The gauntlet is thrown. And please don't quote OSI needing FTAM,uucp and suchlike; these are applications designed for a certain network protocol, but the protocol doesn't limit you to those apps - only that nobody bothered writing anything else for them!