I'm strongly against binarys myself...
I personaly would like it if the avrage user did download the source and use that instead of a precompiled binary..
There are just to many advantages to compiling from source that a person gives up.
It's soul disadvantage is that it's a long compile and many "newbies" or "not expert users" don't know how to compile.
In the long run... if you don't care... you don't care.. and if you don't care and don't want to mess with a long compile (and maybe a long download as binarys tend to be smaller than source) then download the binary.
Newbies need a start ground.. binarys is that ground..
So.... binarys unless you have a really good reason... (like scripts where the code is never compiled or only compiled at [load/run]-time
A long time ago the Internet transfered data as text. Web links etc.
Graphic images were in (now obsolete) X11 formats.
I rember a friend predicting modems would get fast enough that people could transfer graphics instead of going with a text experence.
At the same time he made this prediction I was working with a BBS that wanted to support Rip Script a simplifyed graphics protocal for 2400 baud dial up.
More bandwith did not give us better graphics but worse web pages and lazy design.
Now we should face facts.. The Internet isn't going to improve with bandwith.. It improves with better software and newer protocals.
Someone on IRC was bitching becouse she had to use a JAVA applet to get on IRC.. It seems her cable provider desided to block all ports but port 80 efectivly cutting off everything but the web. Thats pritty messed up.
Thats just it.. the web isn't the Internet..
Telnet works just fine.. I irc every day and well.. Napster.. a whole unique protocal..
The Internet may change.. The web may burn out (with the only decent browsers as far as I can tell being for Amiga) but the Internet lives on.
I'm not even convenced the web has peeked...
I think what has happend was that land line bandwith has reached a limit. Not a technical one but a burrocratic one. Bandwith has allways progressed at a slower rate than everything else and now that we reached the limit of phone lines it's progressing even slower as we attempt to develup whole new technologys for digital sigal. Thanks to the burrocratic issues the red tape gets thicker and the bandwith grows at a slower rate. But bandwith demands increase a great deal faster.
I personally invision a day when land lines are limited to back bones and high bandwith carryers.. ISPs.. webhosts.. that level of things. This is allready at an insainly high speed and is likely to get faster. But consummer connectivity will increasingly go to radio IP. There is more flexability here. Each modem may addopt a new unque protocal. Yes that means each ISP will have to support your exact modem. It will complicate things a tad. Think like when 56k had 2 standards.. only worse...
USR will have one standard, Hays will have it's own standard, Ricochet is allready out there with it's standard.
A noname will be "USR protocal" or "Hays protocal" a noname with a noname protocal means your screwed.
Each protocal will have it's own issues. This one will have no compression. This one will lose data if the signal is weak. This one is effected by smogg.
Expect to have experts in radio bandwith...
On the other hand.. It will have some advantages. No more relying on local monopoloys for connections. No more having to deal with the phone or cable companys with wiring up your box.
It also means if you move you don't transfer the line to your new place.. you simply pack up your modem and take it with you.
I might add that over the next few years radio IP will come in the form of portable IP exclusivly. It won't start getting the sereous bandwith untill you start needing a larg antana. That won't happen for a long time yet.
On that note.. Radio IP has jumpped into broudband like speeds. Slow not comparable to cable or DSL but faster than dialup.. It isn't 100% there yet however.
As for protocals... I think we have a few more years to beat out of HTML before it's dead.
Also we are relying on bandwith to improve video.. video compression can do quite a bit for bandwith.
>The problems with censorware are: 1. Inaccurate or undocumented listings. 2. Listings for things other than those said. The RBL has neither of these problems.
The RBL has quite a history of questionable listings and mistakes...
They deal with the problems in quite the same way as any censorware filter. Meaning they ignore it..
You elected him to police your users..
AboveNet placed him in power over the whole Internet.
There is a diffrence...
Say AoL picks up a filter.. then any e-mail rejected by that filter dosn't get past that filter to AoL... fair enough...
Say AoL dosn't pick a filter but it's traffic passes through AboveNet... gets filtered FOR them...
Well thats not the case anymore becouse AboveNet dropped it's filter..
I've long had an objection to AboveNet filtering peer traffic.
I was once all for the RBL and MAPS before I discovered how they operate.
Basicly they have lost prospective. I still refuse to have anything to do with RBLs filters.
For more on RBLs past go here
Now that AboveNet has discontinued it's peer filtering it dosn't matter to me how slipshot the RBL is.
If ISPs willingly filter e-mail this way and users don't object then great.. Horray.. I myself will never trust my spam filtering to MAPS.
My ONLY objection is the packet filtering that AboveNet did..
They have stopped.. and my only objection to the RBL is gone...
I hear that free software thing is really dangerous to the economy.. Big communist plot.. dangerous to capitalism and inovation..
We should crush it...
A perfict annolog.... Napster... DVD DeCSS Decode.
Ok not perfict... The tool is admittedly for spammers...
But they themselfs aren't spamming...
The software is insainly easy to write after all..
On the other hand the music industry has made up it's mind that Napster IS a piracy tool. The movie industry has similer views about DeCSS..
At the same time anyone who'd like to voice discontent to the authors of this program won't be able to do so...
I personally would like to reverse engenear this program and see if I can't just add something to my procmail filter so it'll reject e-mail sent by this software.
When I write my operating system I'm going to folow Microsofts example.
In my liccens agreement I'll require that bugs in my operating system can only be published by me. The same with bug fixes.
I may issue liccens allowing a select few to publish bugs and bug patches but thats totally up to me.
All my bug reports and bug patches will be posted on my website. Nobody gets credit for finding bugs of course...
The goal of my operating system is to become the worlds crappyest operating system on the face of the earth....
(My spelling of course gose a long way to getting it there)
More to the point it's Microsoft wanting total control.
Microsoft allways makes the argument that when they don't have total control the consummer suffers.
But for all they crys for inovation.. Inovation dosn't happen in a vacume.
Microsoft dosn't trust it's users, dosn't trust develupers who code for them.. they don't even trust the Microsoft trainned SysAdm...
It's the SysAdms job to track this stuff.. Microsoft puts out the best patch they have.. They can update as submit new updates to bugtrap as things progress.. They don't need to retroactivly change bugtrap reports.. can they retroactivly change the work allready done? No.. they can't.. Change the bugfix and issue a NEW report..
Why dose anyone trust a company so clearly incapable of trust...
Microsofts view of Linux is compleatly surreal and anything Microsoft offers for Linux would reflect this.
The Linux community at core wouldn't touch anything Microsoft if they had to.
Microsofts develupers wouldn't take it sereously and nither woule Linux develupers..
On the technical side...
It's a lot more posable than people may think...
Win32 dosn't need to replace X11... Win32 would replace QT/KDE and GTK/Gnome. Done right we could have Win32/KDE.. GTK/WinGUI etc...
As long as Microsoft respects the existing inferstructure it should work out ok...
Existing Unix apps would continue to run with the new layer and new software could have a fallback position for people who won't use Microsofts layor.
I think if Microsoft did this in say 1996 it would have been accepted.. But not today...
It's not bullshit.. There is a very good chance the Mac users won't accept a Unix system as a MacOs and there is equally a good chance Unix users won't accept a Mac as a Unix system..
So far the more rabid and informed Linux/Unix/Mac types are all for it. That dosn't mean the avrage Mac user will like it and some of the Unix grunts have allready expressed doupt..
In addition... the BSD liccens was made to make this sort of thing posable...
The GNU liccens however has proven to be not so flexable.. Remeber the KDE/QT mess...
Apple hasn't pulled that trick off yet...
On that note.. Apple pulled the trick of bringing a hackers computer (The Apple//) to the mainstream and later a mainstream computer (Macintosh) to the hackers.
So if anyone CAN mix open and closed source philosophys it's Apple.
Microsoft attempted to bring us a User Friendly hacker system and ended up delivering Windows... Even mimicing Apples GUI hasn't done the trick..
>You're not in hacker-land anymore. RedHat, Mandrake, Corel, etc are all trying to get into the mainstream.
Trying... not successful..
Keep in mind you just listed the most attacked distros..
RedHat (Most Buggy), Mandrake (Formerly Most buggy before RedHat 7), Corel...
>There are few people that would trade the Win32 GUI software base for the L*UNIX one. Most people would switch from the Linux software base to the Windows one in a heartbeat. Remember, Win32 has a whole lot of OSS ports.
I don't find this to be true at all..
Converting Windows users to Linux is usually just a matter of handing out CDs.. The only problem Linux has is the installation dosn't allways go smooth and that turns some people away.
On the other hand.. People bitch when a Unix system offers something other than X11..
I would like to add that X11 itself isn't a GUI it's just an interface you could conceavaly create Win32 under X11... X11/Win32 would just be annother widget set like GTK, QT, Motif and Athena.
> Including IE in Windows is no different than preloading Redhat with Netscape. It is the EXACT same thing. If you can't see that, then you must be blind
RedHat isn't Linux
and RedHat includes 3 browsers.. Netscape is an option.. unlike IE...
>> Utilities - a miriad of utilities that have increased in abundance since the Dark Beginning of Windows, which have over time decreased the demand for other company's products, such as defrag tools, editors, etc.
> Like the 100s of packages that come in the average Linux distro? More of the same
Your both nutz...
Microsoft has allways included software in Dos.. Dos tools etc... Norten Utilitys and PC tools exist becouse those tools were a joke...
If Microsoft is finnaly including quality software then horray for Microsoft.. if not then I don't see why Norten Utilitys and PC Tools can't still fill the gap.
On the Linux side... Any distribution is free to include any software they like.
Right now software venders REFUSE TO WRITE SOFTWARE FOR LINUX FOR ANY REASON.
So there isn't any commertal counterparts to push out of the market to begin with...
> Different from Notes? Nope. Get with the times. If your email program can't handle MIME or HTML, get a new email program or stop your b*tching. Nobody's going to hold your hand.
If your so for "current" why you using english? Why not Klingonise? or the language the UN is working on? Hmm Right.. becouse nobody would understand you...
e-mail isn't a multimedia anything.. it's text..
e-mail is older than dirt it isn't cutting edge.. You want a cutting edge protocal? use a cutting edge protocal. Want e-mail? Then send e-mail.
What is cutting edge in e-mail is procmail filters. Something you don't get with Windows.
Anyway HTML e-mail is Netscapes fault.. Microsoft has people sending Microsoft word files as e-mail...
Hay... kmail also supports latex, post script and PDF.....
Do you?
> Or become a Linux-zealot FUD-spewing Nut, huh? Get real
Why is it anyone who isn't 100% pro Microsoft automaticly get labled a Zealot?
No.. they can just believe what Microsoft tells them... that we all use Windows and MSIE and like it...
Linux users is a myth..
There are no browsers other than Netscape and MsIE..
On one hand it's annoying that they are gathering such information...
On the other hand it's annoying that other companys... instead of gathering the data.. just assume...
Once apon a time there were quite a few rules that when folowed would preclude the use of anything Microsoft makes.
The solution to back doors was to pay the extra $50k for the source code and review it yourself. Companys did so happly just to know they were reasonably safe.
What happend? Managers would pick operating systems in office and on the network. They'd pick what they knew.. Windows NT..
With that a freshly minted MSCE is more valuable than years of experence. With that any security rule that makes it hard for Microsoft to sell software gets throw out the window.
Someone was working on a Linux version of TradeWars a LONG time ago...
I don't accually know what happend. I guess the guy got tired of it...
It was a telnet game pritty much like the telnet BBSes that carry TradeWar 2002...
Anyone else know about this?
Called Trade Wars Next Generation or something along that lines
The Internet was full of script kiddys poorly run ISPs and broudband hosts that were tech idiots.
It was full of incompatable protocalls. Websites that couldn't be seen if you didn't use one of the top two web browsers and they both sucked.
Why would anyone want that? I mean even the preveous age of BBSes was better by mesure.
Back in the days of BBSes I rember it a tad diffrently...
The vast majority of BBSes were quite good but occasionally a few poor run systems existed.
The biggest problem was obnoxous users. The precurser to trolls and script kiddys.
Obnoxious Sysops become Idiot SysAdm..
Obnoxious users become trolls..
Script kiddies and on and on..
We didn't leave it behind.. Most of it is with us today..
And worse...
Socally it didn't improve.... We have the same mesure of assholes.. Only switching to a new ISP dosn't solve the problem the way dumpping poor BBSes did....
It's sad to see...
Before I start.. I'm going to use the words "get it" in a way ESR dose not.. so don't jump...
It's sad becouse amoung companys Sun "gets in" in terms of technology. Posably one of the few left who really do.
On the other hand they don't "get it" in terms of market.
Sun aims at the ultra high end and while that in itself is a good plan they leave no exit.
As computers get more powerful fewer will need the ultra high end. This means fewer will need to pay for Suns most expensive servers.
Why buy a $10,000 Sun when a $600 Compaq dose the job?
A server needs to reliably deliver data to thousands of people at any given moment. Nothing more nothing less.
The simple fact is Linux dose the job.
Yes if someone attacks the server Solarus handles it better. On the other hand it dosn't make any real diffrence what the server dose during those times. If nobody can reach the server it dosn't matter how well it reacts.. or if it reacts at all.
Sun has allready cut off it's own exit and there is no turnning back.
The mass market servers are here. It's only a matter of who's mass market server will rule the day... MacOs, Linux, BSD, or Windows NT/2K
Sun is the next Amiga... a good company with a great product dying purely due to poor busness planning
> The scary thing is you might actually be serious. If so, I'm dumbfounded at that level of total ignorance of history. Please say you were just trolling!
I think he is sereous...
Be affrade.. people really are that ignorent of history...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm strongly against binarys myself...
I personaly would like it if the avrage user did download the source and use that instead of a precompiled binary..
There are just to many advantages to compiling from source that a person gives up.
It's soul disadvantage is that it's a long compile and many "newbies" or "not expert users" don't know how to compile.
In the long run... if you don't care... you don't care.. and if you don't care and don't want to mess with a long compile (and maybe a long download as binarys tend to be smaller than source) then download the binary.
Newbies need a start ground.. binarys is that ground..
So.... binarys unless you have a really good reason... (like scripts where the code is never compiled or only compiled at [load/run]-time
A long time ago the Internet transfered data as text. Web links etc.
Graphic images were in (now obsolete) X11 formats.
I rember a friend predicting modems would get fast enough that people could transfer graphics instead of going with a text experence.
At the same time he made this prediction I was working with a BBS that wanted to support Rip Script a simplifyed graphics protocal for 2400 baud dial up.
More bandwith did not give us better graphics but worse web pages and lazy design.
Now we should face facts.. The Internet isn't going to improve with bandwith.. It improves with better software and newer protocals.
Someone on IRC was bitching becouse she had to use a JAVA applet to get on IRC.. It seems her cable provider desided to block all ports but port 80 efectivly cutting off everything but the web. Thats pritty messed up.
Thats just it.. the web isn't the Internet..
Telnet works just fine.. I irc every day and well.. Napster.. a whole unique protocal..
The Internet may change.. The web may burn out (with the only decent browsers as far as I can tell being for Amiga) but the Internet lives on.
I'm not even convenced the web has peeked...
I think what has happend was that land line bandwith has reached a limit. Not a technical one but a burrocratic one. Bandwith has allways progressed at a slower rate than everything else and now that we reached the limit of phone lines it's progressing even slower as we attempt to develup whole new technologys for digital sigal. Thanks to the burrocratic issues the red tape gets thicker and the bandwith grows at a slower rate. But bandwith demands increase a great deal faster.
I personally invision a day when land lines are limited to back bones and high bandwith carryers.. ISPs.. webhosts.. that level of things. This is allready at an insainly high speed and is likely to get faster. But consummer connectivity will increasingly go to radio IP. There is more flexability here. Each modem may addopt a new unque protocal. Yes that means each ISP will have to support your exact modem. It will complicate things a tad. Think like when 56k had 2 standards.. only worse...
USR will have one standard, Hays will have it's own standard, Ricochet is allready out there with it's standard.
A noname will be "USR protocal" or "Hays protocal" a noname with a noname protocal means your screwed.
Each protocal will have it's own issues. This one will have no compression. This one will lose data if the signal is weak. This one is effected by smogg.
Expect to have experts in radio bandwith...
On the other hand.. It will have some advantages. No more relying on local monopoloys for connections. No more having to deal with the phone or cable companys with wiring up your box.
It also means if you move you don't transfer the line to your new place.. you simply pack up your modem and take it with you.
I might add that over the next few years radio IP will come in the form of portable IP exclusivly. It won't start getting the sereous bandwith untill you start needing a larg antana. That won't happen for a long time yet.
On that note.. Radio IP has jumpped into broudband like speeds. Slow not comparable to cable or DSL but faster than dialup.. It isn't 100% there yet however.
As for protocals... I think we have a few more years to beat out of HTML before it's dead.
Also we are relying on bandwith to improve video.. video compression can do quite a bit for bandwith.
>The problems with censorware are: 1. Inaccurate or undocumented listings. 2. Listings for things other than those said. The RBL has neither of these problems.
The RBL has quite a history of questionable listings and mistakes...
They deal with the problems in quite the same way as any censorware filter. Meaning they ignore it..
You elected him to police your users..
AboveNet placed him in power over the whole Internet.
There is a diffrence...
Say AoL picks up a filter.. then any e-mail rejected by that filter dosn't get past that filter to AoL... fair enough...
Say AoL dosn't pick a filter but it's traffic passes through AboveNet... gets filtered FOR them...
Well thats not the case anymore becouse AboveNet dropped it's filter..
So now Vixie only polices ISPs the let him...
As one website put it soo well..
Anyone who points out the flaws of the MAPS gets thrown in with the worst of spammers...
But I'll put in it my own more umm jerk knee.. way...
Blasphamy.. how dare he say something about our all perfict god Vixie..
The fact is Slashdot isn't above reproch.. Mistakes are made.. Taco and crew screw up..
But Vixie is put on a pedistal..
Mistakes are made... and when you ignore the mistakes it just gets worse...
As http://www.ifn.net/ puts it.. no accountability...
It wouldn't be a problem if he'd just make the effort to deal with defects
I've long had an objection to AboveNet filtering peer traffic.
I was once all for the RBL and MAPS before I discovered how they operate.
Basicly they have lost prospective. I still refuse to have anything to do with RBLs filters. For more on RBLs past go here
Now that AboveNet has discontinued it's peer filtering it dosn't matter to me how slipshot the RBL is.
If ISPs willingly filter e-mail this way and users don't object then great.. Horray.. I myself will never trust my spam filtering to MAPS.
My ONLY objection is the packet filtering that AboveNet did..
They have stopped.. and my only objection to the RBL is gone...
Ahh so the lynch mob is more trustworthy than a cort order...
I hear that free software thing is really dangerous to the economy.. Big communist plot.. dangerous to capitalism and inovation..
We should crush it...
Just ban a few IPs at the DNS level...
That Linux thing is just far to dangerous..
A perfict annolog.... Napster... DVD DeCSS Decode.
Ok not perfict... The tool is admittedly for spammers...
But they themselfs aren't spamming...
The software is insainly easy to write after all..
On the other hand the music industry has made up it's mind that Napster IS a piracy tool. The movie industry has similer views about DeCSS..
At the same time anyone who'd like to voice discontent to the authors of this program won't be able to do so...
I personally would like to reverse engenear this program and see if I can't just add something to my procmail filter so it'll reject e-mail sent by this software.
When I write my operating system I'm going to folow Microsofts example.
In my liccens agreement I'll require that bugs in my operating system can only be published by me. The same with bug fixes.
I may issue liccens allowing a select few to publish bugs and bug patches but thats totally up to me.
All my bug reports and bug patches will be posted on my website. Nobody gets credit for finding bugs of course...
The goal of my operating system is to become the worlds crappyest operating system on the face of the earth....
(My spelling of course gose a long way to getting it there)
More to the point it's Microsoft wanting total control.
Microsoft allways makes the argument that when they don't have total control the consummer suffers.
But for all they crys for inovation.. Inovation dosn't happen in a vacume.
Microsoft dosn't trust it's users, dosn't trust develupers who code for them.. they don't even trust the Microsoft trainned SysAdm...
It's the SysAdms job to track this stuff.. Microsoft puts out the best patch they have.. They can update as submit new updates to bugtrap as things progress.. They don't need to retroactivly change bugtrap reports.. can they retroactivly change the work allready done? No.. they can't.. Change the bugfix and issue a NEW report..
Why dose anyone trust a company so clearly incapable of trust...
> His claim was that as part of the agreement to sell all rights to Xenix to SCO, Microsoft agreed to never enter the Unix marketplace.
Microsoft did enter the Unix market with IE ports for HPUX and Solarus..
Given that SCO dropped Xenix it's quite likely any such liccens agreement (if it ever existed) is void.
Linux isn't Unix thus providing Microsoft with an easy endrun around that little issue...
and it can be argued that Windows NT is directly aimmed at the Unix market...
Microsofts view of Linux is compleatly surreal and anything Microsoft offers for Linux would reflect this.
The Linux community at core wouldn't touch anything Microsoft if they had to.
Microsofts develupers wouldn't take it sereously and nither woule Linux develupers..
On the technical side...
It's a lot more posable than people may think...
Win32 dosn't need to replace X11... Win32 would replace QT/KDE and GTK/Gnome. Done right we could have Win32/KDE.. GTK/WinGUI etc...
As long as Microsoft respects the existing inferstructure it should work out ok...
Existing Unix apps would continue to run with the new layer and new software could have a fallback position for people who won't use Microsofts layor.
I think if Microsoft did this in say 1996 it would have been accepted.. But not today...
> Again with the idealistic bullshit?
It's not bullshit.. There is a very good chance the Mac users won't accept a Unix system as a MacOs and there is equally a good chance Unix users won't accept a Mac as a Unix system..
So far the more rabid and informed Linux/Unix/Mac types are all for it. That dosn't mean the avrage Mac user will like it and some of the Unix grunts have allready expressed doupt..
In addition... the BSD liccens was made to make this sort of thing posable...
The GNU liccens however has proven to be not so flexable.. Remeber the KDE/QT mess...
>Idealistic bullshit. Its called MacOS X.
//) to the mainstream and later a mainstream computer (Macintosh) to the hackers.
Apple hasn't pulled that trick off yet...
On that note.. Apple pulled the trick of bringing a hackers computer (The Apple
So if anyone CAN mix open and closed source philosophys it's Apple.
Microsoft attempted to bring us a User Friendly hacker system and ended up delivering Windows... Even mimicing Apples GUI hasn't done the trick..
>You're not in hacker-land anymore. RedHat, Mandrake, Corel, etc are all trying to get into the mainstream.
Trying... not successful..
Keep in mind you just listed the most attacked distros..
RedHat (Most Buggy), Mandrake (Formerly Most buggy before RedHat 7), Corel...
>There are few people that would trade the Win32 GUI software base for the L*UNIX one. Most people would switch from the Linux software base to the Windows one in a heartbeat. Remember, Win32 has a whole lot of OSS ports.
I don't find this to be true at all..
Converting Windows users to Linux is usually just a matter of handing out CDs.. The only problem Linux has is the installation dosn't allways go smooth and that turns some people away.
On the other hand.. People bitch when a Unix system offers something other than X11..
I would like to add that X11 itself isn't a GUI it's just an interface you could conceavaly create Win32 under X11... X11/Win32 would just be annother widget set like GTK, QT, Motif and Athena.
> No way, all the mail I receive have to be plain ASCII text or I delete them.
My procmail filters do it for me...
>Browser - this has already been overly stated.
> Including IE in Windows is no different than preloading Redhat with Netscape. It is the EXACT same thing. If you can't see that, then you must be blind
RedHat isn't Linux
and RedHat includes 3 browsers.. Netscape is an option.. unlike IE...
>> Utilities - a miriad of utilities that have increased in abundance since the Dark Beginning of Windows, which have over time decreased the demand for other company's products, such as defrag tools, editors, etc.
> Like the 100s of packages that come in the average Linux distro? More of the same
Your both nutz...
Microsoft has allways included software in Dos.. Dos tools etc... Norten Utilitys and PC tools exist becouse those tools were a joke...
If Microsoft is finnaly including quality software then horray for Microsoft.. if not then I don't see why Norten Utilitys and PC Tools can't still fill the gap.
On the Linux side... Any distribution is free to include any software they like.
Right now software venders REFUSE TO WRITE SOFTWARE FOR LINUX FOR ANY REASON.
So there isn't any commertal counterparts to push out of the market to begin with...
> Different from Notes? Nope. Get with the times. If your email program can't handle MIME or HTML, get a new email program or stop your b*tching. Nobody's going to hold your hand.
If your so for "current" why you using english? Why not Klingonise? or the language the UN is working on? Hmm Right.. becouse nobody would understand you...
e-mail isn't a multimedia anything.. it's text..
e-mail is older than dirt it isn't cutting edge.. You want a cutting edge protocal? use a cutting edge protocal. Want e-mail? Then send e-mail.
What is cutting edge in e-mail is procmail filters. Something you don't get with Windows.
Anyway HTML e-mail is Netscapes fault.. Microsoft has people sending Microsoft word files as e-mail...
Hay... kmail also supports latex, post script and PDF.....
Do you?
> Or become a Linux-zealot FUD-spewing Nut, huh? Get real
Why is it anyone who isn't 100% pro Microsoft automaticly get labled a Zealot?
>>They need information about you.
>Do they...?
No.. they can just believe what Microsoft tells them... that we all use Windows and MSIE and like it...
Linux users is a myth..
There are no browsers other than Netscape and MsIE..
On one hand it's annoying that they are gathering such information...
On the other hand it's annoying that other companys... instead of gathering the data.. just assume...
Once apon a time there were quite a few rules that when folowed would preclude the use of anything Microsoft makes.
The solution to back doors was to pay the extra $50k for the source code and review it yourself. Companys did so happly just to know they were reasonably safe.
What happend? Managers would pick operating systems in office and on the network. They'd pick what they knew.. Windows NT..
With that a freshly minted MSCE is more valuable than years of experence. With that any security rule that makes it hard for Microsoft to sell software gets throw out the window.
Someone was working on a Linux version of TradeWars a LONG time ago...
I don't accually know what happend. I guess the guy got tired of it...
It was a telnet game pritty much like the telnet BBSes that carry TradeWar 2002...
Anyone else know about this?
Called Trade Wars Next Generation or something along that lines
The Internet was full of script kiddys poorly run ISPs and broudband hosts that were tech idiots.
It was full of incompatable protocalls. Websites that couldn't be seen if you didn't use one of the top two web browsers and they both sucked.
Why would anyone want that? I mean even the preveous age of BBSes was better by mesure.
Back in the days of BBSes I rember it a tad diffrently...
The vast majority of BBSes were quite good but occasionally a few poor run systems existed.
The biggest problem was obnoxous users. The precurser to trolls and script kiddys.
Obnoxious Sysops become Idiot SysAdm..
Obnoxious users become trolls..
Script kiddies and on and on..
We didn't leave it behind.. Most of it is with us today..
And worse...
Socally it didn't improve.... We have the same mesure of assholes.. Only switching to a new ISP dosn't solve the problem the way dumpping poor BBSes did....
#4) More Linux hype.. "We saved money using Linux.. Totall cost of what?"
It's sad to see...
Before I start.. I'm going to use the words "get it" in a way ESR dose not.. so don't jump...
It's sad becouse amoung companys Sun "gets in" in terms of technology. Posably one of the few left who really do.
On the other hand they don't "get it" in terms of market.
Sun aims at the ultra high end and while that in itself is a good plan they leave no exit.
As computers get more powerful fewer will need the ultra high end. This means fewer will need to pay for Suns most expensive servers.
Why buy a $10,000 Sun when a $600 Compaq dose the job?
A server needs to reliably deliver data to thousands of people at any given moment. Nothing more nothing less.
The simple fact is Linux dose the job.
Yes if someone attacks the server Solarus handles it better. On the other hand it dosn't make any real diffrence what the server dose during those times. If nobody can reach the server it dosn't matter how well it reacts.. or if it reacts at all.
Sun has allready cut off it's own exit and there is no turnning back.
The mass market servers are here. It's only a matter of who's mass market server will rule the day... MacOs, Linux, BSD, or Windows NT/2K
Sun is the next Amiga... a good company with a great product dying purely due to poor busness planning
>As for your comment about the story being rejected when you submitted it, I assume you just wrote that because you are frustrated?
It might be due purely to the note that it's a person submitting an artical on himself.
> The scary thing is you might actually be serious. If so, I'm dumbfounded at that level of total ignorance of history. Please say you were just trolling!
I think he is sereous...
Be affrade.. people really are that ignorent of history...