Yeah, my car is sitting out on a public street. Touching it and taking it apart shouldn't be a crime either?
That's mostly not the same thing. There's no law that stops me from putting my dirty hands all over it (assuming I did no damage) and looking in through the windows, or crawling underneath it, etc, right? Sure, it's rude, but it's not illegal. Nowhere did they say in TFA that they disassembled 'em.
If he was stupid enough to steal one, he deserved to get busted. Raiding his trailer and taking his computer is a whole 'nother story. That's just intimidation, especially since the sensors were on public land and touching them cannot be a crime.
I use Mandrake....9.2 with some cooker stuff added (newer postfix, mailman and a 2.6.6 kernel). Before that, I used 3 different versions of Caldera (3.0, 2.x and 1.3) before they became the evil SCOmpire. I used to support Caldera by buying a box set of whichever version it was. I could usually pick it up at my neighborhood Costco for under 30 bucks. It was a good deal for me and it put some money in Caldera's coffers. TANSTAAFL. Everyone was happy.
rant With Mandrake, I want to do the same thing and I'm continually astounded by HOW FUCKING EXPENSIVE it is...$50USD for the 2 CD set (which gives less than the download) and $90 for the full-featured 8 CD set. So then I say, well, let me see what it costs to join the Mandrake Club: $66...and you don't seem to get anything other than the ability to download the ISOs earlier than anyone else for that level. I'm a Mac user. I'm used to paying for software, but this is ridiculous, especially since a distro is current for only ~6 months and support's for 2 years./rant
Sure, everyone can find that out, but if it's in a dynamic block, the info they (the RIAA) don't have is who was using that IP at the time sharing was detected (by whatever means).
Speakeasy lets us run whatever the heck we want. Then again, every month or so I see their relay testing in my Postfix logs. It's a strange concept: innocent until found guilty.
...and have had them accepted. I usually find out when they're accepted when the spam starts rolling into to the custom address I set up. The 419 scammer crowd shamelessly trawls slashdot. FWIW, 22 minutes after posting to the main page is the record for the first spam to arrive
I have a separate drive (SCSI) for Win2k and I can't get lilo to boot it. It boots fine on its own (eg, I pull the power on its other drive), but chained from lilo I can't get it to work (can't use grub since the linux side is RAID 1). I know when I first installed Mandrake it added it to the lilo.conf and It Just Worked but somewhere in between the 6 months of booting into it I broke it switching drives around. Anyone have any ideas? Either here or an email to sd at pointyears dot net would be appreciated.
Clinton appointees did their best to separate the FBI and the CIA so information could not be shared. And Assholecroft signed off and renewed that alleged wall. The CIA and FBI didn't need any help not sharing any info; they've historically done it on their volition, rightly or wrongly.
Well it really comes down to your personal feelings on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, it's not fair to comment on anything which wasn't actually published, except in certain circumstances (e.g. public interest). So if someone writes a book which is full of factual errors, but then after peer review revises it to fix the problems I don't think it serves anyone's interests to slag off the original version.
Where I was going with this is what if he totally rewrites the Linux/thief sections and changes his thesis? Does the world pretend that it never happened a la 1984 even though we know it's because his hand was caught in the cookie jar?
Before a book is published the publishers/authors usually send out copies for review & comments. Then, if errors are found (for example) they can be corrected before going to print. The idea of the embargo is essentially like an NDA - because the version being read is not the final version, it would be unfair to talk publically about it.
As for free speech - this isn't a legal thing, it's purely done out of respect for the publishing process and basic good manners. Once the final version is available it's fair game for anyone.
A question I have on this is: what happens if the book changes radically between the versions? Is it okay to do (effectively) a diff between the two?
...and here I thought that (too much) of the visual inspiration for both was Windows XP (and Windows 98 before that), hence the garish colors and the unnecessary complexity and eye-candy.
Any spam you get for "bulletproof hosting" is no doubt for a server located in China. That's why they're bulletproof. No one in the country cares that they're sending spam; it's a legitimate business.
It brings in Western currency and that's all anyone cares about. It's amusing that they're more whores to the almighty dollar than we (the US) are!
Spamhaus lists China as #2 though. I'd tend to believe their analysis over anyone else's, especially when you consider how much spam 0wn3d machines on Comcast's network are spewing.
Obviously, Brown in his hatchet-job^Wresearch never read this thread which if he googled he would have. If he had, his thesis would be even more indefensible.
Google, well aware of this threat, hired a Microsoft product manager last year to oversee the Puffin project as part of its strategy to compete with Microsoft's incursion into its territory.
That's the first time that I've ever read of it going in a direction away from Microsoft. Usually, it's the other way around, Redmond sucking up the managers and staff if they can't buy or steal the technology.
I agree that the article was not a call for help, but again that shows a misunderstanding of the open-source process. By publishing an article that says, "Linux doesn't work" without disclosing exactly how it didn't work, he is doing what he feels is appropriate. But the community wants the information about what didn't work so they can fix it. Him simply stating that something didn't work is not only not productive, but it is counter-productive because is discourages others from trying Linux.
But that's missing the point. The guy plonks down a lot of money for an OS (more than I paid for OS X, way more than I paid for my download of Mandrake); he takes the CD and installs it and expects everything to work because the vendor said it would. The vendor couldn't fix it, even after being apprised of the problem. Presumably the vendor will find out what's wrong and thus return any fixes to the community? That's the vendor's obligation, not the buyer's.
Yes I understand that this puts everyone in the position of being a beta-tester for things that don't work, but that is how the system has come so far so fast. If you want to show up now and have a hassle-free system without being careful about buying the most supported hardware and not buying a mainstream distro then you are bound to annoy a few people.
The "most supported" hardware? The vendor said it was supported with no qualifications whatsoever. Mainstream distro? Aren't the all equal to the F/OSS crowd (I've argued here before that there are too many distros with too much fragmentation.)
It doesn't matter if it's a distro from "Joe's Baitshop and Linux Consulting" or Redhat. If something is sold with the expectation that it will work and it doesn't, it's not the buyer's fault.
Again, Windows and Linux work in different ways. One of those is that if you want to avoid problems you should be careful about what hardware you buy. another is that if you have a problem and you are going to write about it you will really annoy people by not exploring all options for fixing it.
Which he did by virtue of it being on the compatibility list. You actually bring up another point that wasn't covered elsewhere: The F/OSS crowd usually don't want the vendors to charge money for software, saying that they should make their money via service and support. What happens when someone buys into that line and the service and support aren't there?
I'm not saying that there is an obligation. I'm saying that they are a resource that that is willing to help, and he snubbed them by intially refusing to disclose the specs of the card. As the first letter that he published indicates, the Linux world works in a different way than the Windows world and you can't take you assumptions from one into the other.
True, but the way I read it was the first article wasn't a call for help at all; rather, it was a commentary on what had transpired. Then in the give and go in the forums where people were no doubt raising your exact point it was disclosed. Yeah, he was a little too secretive about it (that and what distro's support he had called), but I can't see that as not utilizing any community resources. It was a done deal by publication time.
What I find interesting is he didn't try any of the more mainstream distributions. Where are the Mandrakes (what I use), the Fedora's, the SUSEs, etc?
Slashdot Mirror
...he wasn't executed.
...not executed. :-(
Yes, and you pay through the nose for it. Some of us prefer to try to scrape that kind of service from someone who charges somewhat less money.
And you're getting everything you pay for. TANSTAAFL, sweetheart.
Yeah, my car is sitting out on a public street. Touching it and taking it apart shouldn't be a crime either?
That's mostly not the same thing. There's no law that stops me from putting my dirty hands all over it (assuming I did no damage) and looking in through the windows, or crawling underneath it, etc, right? Sure, it's rude, but it's not illegal.
Nowhere did they say in TFA that they disassembled 'em.
If he was stupid enough to steal one, he deserved to get busted.
Raiding his trailer and taking his computer is a whole 'nother story. That's just intimidation, especially since the sensors were on public land and touching them cannot be a crime.
I use Mandrake....9.2 with some cooker stuff added (newer postfix, mailman and a 2.6.6 kernel). Before that, I used 3 different versions of Caldera (3.0, 2.x and 1.3) before they became the evil SCOmpire.
/rant
I used to support Caldera by buying a box set of whichever version it was. I could usually pick it up at my neighborhood Costco for under 30 bucks. It was a good deal for me and it put some money in Caldera's coffers. TANSTAAFL. Everyone was happy.
rant
With Mandrake, I want to do the same thing and I'm continually astounded by HOW FUCKING EXPENSIVE it is...$50USD for the 2 CD set (which gives less than the download) and $90 for the full-featured 8 CD set.
So then I say, well, let me see what it costs to join the Mandrake Club: $66...and you don't seem to get anything other than the ability to download the ISOs earlier than anyone else for that level.
I'm a Mac user. I'm used to paying for software, but this is ridiculous, especially since a distro is current for only ~6 months and support's for 2 years.
Search results for: 66.35.250.150
OrgName: Cable & Wireless
OrgID: EXCW
Address: 3300 Regency Pkwy
City: Cary
StateProv: NC
PostalCode: 27511
Country: US
ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.exodus.net:4321/
NetRange: 66.35.192.0 - 66.35.255.255
Sure, everyone can find that out, but if it's in a dynamic block, the info they (the RIAA) don't have is who was using that IP at the time sharing was detected (by whatever means).
Speakeasy lets us run whatever the heck we want. Then again, every month or so I see their relay testing in my Postfix logs. It's a strange concept: innocent until found guilty.
...and have had them accepted. I usually find out when they're accepted when the spam starts rolling into to the custom address I set up. The 419 scammer crowd shamelessly trawls slashdot.
FWIW, 22 minutes after posting to the main page is the record for the first spam to arrive
I have a separate drive (SCSI) for Win2k and I can't get lilo to boot it. It boots fine on its own (eg, I pull the power on its other drive), but chained from lilo I can't get it to work (can't use grub since the linux side is RAID 1).
I know when I first installed Mandrake it added it to the lilo.conf and It Just Worked but somewhere in between the 6 months of booting into it I broke it switching drives around.
Anyone have any ideas? Either here or an email to sd at pointyears dot net would be appreciated.
Clinton appointees did their best to separate the FBI and the CIA so information could not be shared. And Assholecroft signed off and renewed that alleged wall.
The CIA and FBI didn't need any help not sharing any info; they've historically done it on their volition, rightly or wrongly.
Well it really comes down to your personal feelings on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, it's not fair to comment on anything which wasn't actually published, except in certain circumstances (e.g. public interest). So if someone writes a book which is full of factual errors, but then after peer review revises it to fix the problems I don't think it serves anyone's interests to slag off the original version.
Where I was going with this is what if he totally rewrites the Linux/thief sections and changes his thesis? Does the world pretend that it never happened a la 1984 even though we know it's because his hand was caught in the cookie jar?
Before a book is published the publishers/authors usually send out copies for review & comments. Then, if errors are found (for example) they can be corrected before going to print. The idea of the embargo is essentially like an NDA - because the version being read is not the final version, it would be unfair to talk publically about it.
As for free speech - this isn't a legal thing, it's purely done out of respect for the publishing process and basic good manners. Once the final version is available it's fair game for anyone.
A question I have on this is: what happens if the book changes radically between the versions? Is it okay to do (effectively) a diff between the two?
...I bet he called it "The Brown Book" not because it's the guy's name, but because the book is shit!
...and here I thought that (too much) of the visual inspiration for both was Windows XP (and Windows 98 before that), hence the garish colors and the unnecessary complexity and eye-candy.
Any spam you get for "bulletproof hosting" is no doubt for a server located in China. That's why they're bulletproof. No one in the country cares that they're sending spam; it's a legitimate business.
It brings in Western currency and that's all anyone cares about. It's amusing that they're more whores to the almighty dollar than we (the US) are!
Spamhaus lists China as #2 though. I'd tend to believe their analysis over anyone else's, especially when you consider how much spam 0wn3d machines on Comcast's network are spewing.
..this isn't news at all. Can't say how many spams I've seen from them.
I didn't RTFA but did they point out that the vast majority of web sites that yon spam wants to send you to are also in China?
Time to start blocking off entire segments. Hell, pull the plug on the country.
PS--
Obviously, Brown in his hatchet-job^Wresearch never read this thread which if he googled he would have. If he had, his thesis would be even more indefensible.
Um, you linked to a 12 year old newsgroup flamewar? How is this a mirror of AST's latest argument (unless this is still his latest argument :)).
If nothing else, Linus "Benedict" Torvalds sure has learned a bit more diplomacy over the years....
But about every company I work for, keeps full backups for at least a year, the old daily weekly monthly scheme comes to mind..
Sure...but they didn't mention seizing backup media, just the web server.
...but my logs would have long been rotated out from January. They couldn't even imply there was something being hidden by being deleted.
However, as we saw in the Steve Jackson case, the seizure is more to punish than to glean any info.
Guess they had to since "Birth of a Nation" was already taken.
Google, well aware of this threat, hired a Microsoft product manager last year to oversee the Puffin project as part of its strategy to compete with Microsoft's incursion into its territory.
That's the first time that I've ever read of it going in a direction away from Microsoft. Usually, it's the other way around, Redmond sucking up the managers and staff if they can't buy or steal the technology.
I agree that the article was not a call for help, but again that shows a misunderstanding of the open-source process. By publishing an article that says, "Linux doesn't work" without disclosing exactly how it didn't work, he is doing what he feels is appropriate. But the community wants the information about what didn't work so they can fix it. Him simply stating that something didn't work is not only not productive, but it is counter-productive because is discourages others from trying Linux.
But that's missing the point. The guy plonks down a lot of money for an OS (more than I paid for OS X, way more than I paid for my download of Mandrake); he takes the CD and installs it and expects everything to work because the vendor said it would. The vendor couldn't fix it, even after being apprised of the problem. Presumably the vendor will find out what's wrong and thus return any fixes to the community? That's the vendor's obligation, not the buyer's.
Yes I understand that this puts everyone in the position of being a beta-tester for things that don't work, but that is how the system has come so far so fast. If you want to show up now and have a hassle-free system without being careful about buying the most supported hardware and not buying a mainstream distro then you are bound to annoy a few people.
The "most supported" hardware? The vendor said it was supported with no qualifications whatsoever. Mainstream distro? Aren't the all equal to the F/OSS crowd (I've argued here before that there are too many distros with too much fragmentation.)
It doesn't matter if it's a distro from "Joe's Baitshop and Linux Consulting" or Redhat. If something is sold with the expectation that it will work and it doesn't, it's not the buyer's fault.
Again, Windows and Linux work in different ways. One of those is that if you want to avoid problems you should be careful about what hardware you buy. another is that if you have a problem and you are going to write about it you will really annoy people by not exploring all options for fixing it.
Which he did by virtue of it being on the compatibility list. You actually bring up another point that wasn't covered elsewhere:
The F/OSS crowd usually don't want the vendors to charge money for software, saying that they should make their money via service and support. What happens when someone buys into that line and the service and support aren't there?
I'm not saying that there is an obligation. I'm saying that they are a resource that that is willing to help, and he snubbed them by intially refusing to disclose the specs of the card. As the first letter that he published indicates, the Linux world works in a different way than the Windows world and you can't take you assumptions from one into the other.
True, but the way I read it was the first article wasn't a call for help at all; rather, it was a commentary on what had transpired. Then in the give and go in the forums where people were no doubt raising your exact point it was disclosed. Yeah, he was a little too secretive about it (that and what distro's support he had called), but I can't see that as not utilizing any community resources. It was a done deal by publication time.
What I find interesting is he didn't try any of the more mainstream distributions. Where are the Mandrakes (what I use), the Fedora's, the SUSEs, etc?