[Ignoring other responces that say basicly you don't know what your saying]
This would be cool.. so we could like build a gravity wave gun by building up a massive amount of element 115?
And then launch them and protons right behind them so they spontaneously convert to 116 in fight creating.. an antimater gun...
Now we can make an SDI (StarWars) Satlight that accually works.. oh wait that wasn't using anti-matter.. that was using "Dosen't matter" (as in.. all replys to press questions "Dosn't matter")
I'm sorry to say this but..
My brain just can not help see the similaritys between "First Lock" "First Light" and "First Post"
Each clamming to be "the first" however with "Lock" and "Light" it's scientific..
If Slashdot Trools were scientists I'm sure on any new scientific discovery a bunch of them would search the research and then race to see who can prove it first and all announce a "First" all at once on the same bit of research.
A tip for Linux bashers and other Satanic cults
on
Quimby2000
·
· Score: 1
The Bible also says (and I'm kinda cleaning this up to modern english) Don't judge or you risk being judged.
I'm not Christian but I think lines like this are part of what Christanity is all about..
the "Loving" and "Caring" god of Christianity is missing from todays dogma and thats really sad. A good philosophy lost to paranoia and hate.
Oh about the "Subject" of my reply.. Tit for tat.. I don't see why Microsoft begging Linux bashers can't be called Satanists after all the insults thrown at Linux advocates.
Yes it's a tool.. and carry a tool box full of Fisher Price tools and insult Craftsmen and see if you ever get taken sereously...
Yes the GPL dose require you make the source code publicly available..
It dosn't require you to make the source code available before the product.
It also dosn't mean anything if the source code is burnt into the hardware.. Meaning it's no good for anyone who dosn't buy the machine.
Anyway it dosn't matter.. He dosn't need to GPL his own software (just becouse it runs on Linux).
All that is needed is to provide the changes made to Linux.. Those changes would purely be to make Linux work better on the hardware and of no use to anyone who dosn't have that hardware.
If SDMI strip SDMI
Automaticly removes SDMI watermark on files.
Now that would be intresting... automatic removal of SDMI off files...
Include it in CD rippers.. include it in well.. everything...
Watermark go byebye...
> Until some other fad comes along.
I've worked with computers sence the late 1970s..
Every so many years something is decryed a fad.. But it dosn't fade away..
Free software dates back to the 1950s.. the FSF was founded in the 1980s. Linux early 1990s.
I've had debates with Apple ][ users, Commodore users, Mac users, Amiga users, Windows users
The temple of Tux is down the street from the temple of the C64..
Linux "Zellots" are no less rabbid than supporters of any other operating system...
Even Windows.. of one I know accually considers it blasphamy to compare Windows to Geoworks.. (Something I have a habbit of doing.. can you see the diffrence? Beyond Geoworks running on an XT I don't)
Temple of Tux.. very appropreate.. yes... fanatical. I agree...
People don't get fanatical over nothing...
About FADs...
Posting messages on-line (BBSes).. just a fad..
e-mail.. Just a fad
Free software.. (Declared a fad every 2 years in the 1980s)
The Internet (Just a fad) (Declared so in the late 1980s)
Slashdot's a fad too...
Even owning your own computer is a fad..
Yet it's so very interesting how thies "FADs" never seem to die off...
Self serving redefining words
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
I've seen it happen WAY WAY WAY to often.
"Dos is not an operating system" this being said when Dos was getting old.
It's been universally considered an Os for nearly 10 years (the 1980s) and not much diffrent from CP/M (Historicly still considered an os). Just boot loaders and some primitive interfacing but thats all a computer needed at the time.
Then there are groups who redefine the word "Religion" to mean "Christianity" as an easy political move to disguard the freedom of religion for anyone else. (In the United States.. sorry must rember the rest of this big blue marble)
Ok... So Coke a Cola isn't a Soda...
DVD movies are not entertainment
TV is not a broudcast medium
The HP 48 isn't a calculator
This BatMan coffie mug (on my desk) isn't a cup
It's not a bug it's a feature
This thing at the end of my leg is not a foot
And finnaly...
This Zip drive is NOT a disk drive...
This is getting stupid... Yes Unix is an os...
I've only seen two credable efforts to question a software pacages status as an os.
Forth: becouse it's ground up a programming language. But it's powerful enough and it is used as an Os
Windows: Becouse it's the only os to boot under annother os (Dos). This brings a sereous credability issue to the existence of Windows as an os.
However...Dos yealds all control to it leaving Windows "in control".
(Still this kind of Os design is no harder than writing a Dos app and any Dos app writer is fully experenced in all the issues faced when creating Windows)
It's fine to tolerate this to some degree...
After all in the 1970s expert programmers (who coded on mainframes etc) felt a "real computer" had to have a larg scale CPU (Not a microchip).
But this addatude didn't mean much...
To consider Unix "Not an os" simply becouse Unix is not like anything else he is familure with (thats a total of TWO other systems.. thats not much of a knowladge base to form an option) is pritty dumb.
For 30 years experts had no problem calling Unix an os.
I'm no os expert.. (I wrote one.. I've used many) but gezz...
MacOs and Windows act more like software pacages (a few apps, BIOS and an interface). They are operating systems but to me it's very hard to see it.
Then there is Unix.. everything about it SCREAMS "Operating system".. You can tell whats what. Everything in it's place and everything makes sence.
Shouldn't someone at least know a little computer history before he has a position where he can write an editorial?
Back when Dos was what everyone used you needed to publish how your hardware works.
Drivers were provide in the appications so EVER app coder needed access to your hardware specs or he couldn't write a driver into his apps.
Now hardware venders can just make a driver for Windows.
This means no specs...
This will eventually backfire..
While hardware venders make drivers for the tripple threat of MacOs, Windows and Linux they don't bother with BSD or BeOs or anyone other than the main three.
Hardware makers will find that BSD and Solarus do not bother to reverse engenear anything and if you want to sell hardware to a wide audence you MUST provide specs or you will only be supported by those you support directly.
So eventually I'd say addatudes like this will eventually bite them on the bumm...
In Mitnicks time you HAD to explain everything in microscopic detail or people wouldn't get it.
(I rember this.. trying to explain a BBS to someone they just assumed BBSes were a scam with hidden billing.. some people are byond all hope).
Basicly you were stuck with explanning everything in micro detail so nobody would get confused or misunderstand what you said and blame you later for his own assumptions.
The GPL dosn't prevent forks... for the most part it encurages them.
Your required to relase code changes when you release a binary.. Zap! A new fork...
It accually dosn't become a fork unless people keep maintainning it.
What usually happends to all those Linux patches is they end up in the main kernel..
The GPL encurages forks.. the community encurages murging and in the end forks happen a lot.. we just don't see it...
How MAPS should work =! how it dose work
on
MAPS Sued Again
·
· Score: 2
MAPS clames to work pritty much the way they should. For the most part thats exactly how they DO work. But it dosn't stop there.
How you are told it works.
SysAdmin are basicly just adding MAPS filter to e-mail filters. Thats what it's for thats how it's used if MAPS makes a few mistakes tuff luck so you can't e-mail a bunch of people if e-mail is really that importent you'll get a more respectable e-mail provider or maybe even a better ISP.
Yes this is certenly part of what MAPS is and it is how it got it's start.
But that is the volintary filter. There is the involintary filter to consider.
Why oh why do sooo many lump AboveNet with MAPS?
Look at AboveNets policys and you'll see why. You'd think becouse it's explainned in the AUP that it only effects users of AboveNet however it dosn't. It effects ALL traffic going over AboveNets network.
This has the potental to effect all of the Internet. (At least anyone trying to send packings from North America to Europe)
MAPS dosn't mention this much at all. However explainning why MAPS includes websites of spammers seems to at least acnowladge the fact that Above IS in fact doing this.
For a small part I'm ok with Above filtering the transatlantic linkup for spam. But it would be nice if they'd leave other data packets alone.
(A lot of stupid American spammers don't have a clue and are spamming people who must pay for a mettered connection)
However even this makes the notion of a volintary filter a pure facad.
A lot of thies lawsutes are about wanting to spam. Plain and simple.
But there are some who are just saying "Hay I complyed and you guys are ignoring me and I can't afford to keep calling you guys on the phone all day"
And I've said this stuff before and someone invarably replys with a link to the MAPS website. So let me reply to that before it happends.
Someone sould sue MAPS for false advertising over that link. This isn't how things are done over there. Nice idealistic guideline that is 100% ignored.
For a while I maintainned a website with webpages detailling RBL abuses... But I've long ago shut it down. I've fought spam for a long time and to find one of the key forces to fighting spam itself not entirely honnest really bothers me. But this is not my fight and I'm not intrested in fighting for the long term. Here is a place to start doing some research on RBL abuse.
For more information try Google or AltaVista
You can sue Microsoft but you lose becouse of the liccens agreement..
But people think if they can pick a target they can sue. So what targets dose Linux have?
If you use RedHat then you sue RedHat...
If you use Debian then you sue the Debian organisation.
Etc..
Alternitively you may sue the Free Software Foundation (As most of Linux is GNU software anyway and comes from the FSF).
All that asside.. If you sue any of thies organisations.. You'll lose..
Sue Microsoft... You'll lose...
Same deal.. diffrent group.. and there IS a target to sue.. So your legal team can look like dopes..
In the mean time...
Sence like the early 1980s software companys have included a shrinkwrap liccens that says they are libal only up to the ammount you paid for the software...
Thats right... I could never sue the people who wrote most of the software for my old Commodore 64.
But I had targets...
So for people who want targets.. Yes they exist.. sue the Distro... or alternitivly the FSF.
Not that it makes any diffrence.
Becouse people are not taking the time to understand the problems or the accused causes it's easy to cast blame.
I blame Katz, The Republicans and the Democrats for all the youth violence.
Other people can role out fake research showing what bad political policys lead to the violence and others can misquote Katz to create the facad of his rasing violence.
You can have long debates with self proclamed experts.
But as I'm blamming a ranter and two political partys people will accually look at my clames and see they hold no water.
But if nobody pokes it... my statment creates the illusion of an airtight case.
Internet the cause of violence?
Yes yes.. keep kids out of schools... education is the cause of school violence...
The kids can not be exposed to knowladge..
No web pages.. no libarys.. no speaking at all...
Keep them in ignorent issolation to the age of 21....
Becouse we are morons.. errr I mean becouse Internet causes violence...
Basicly people see the kernel as the Os and everything else as an ad on.. the compiler as detatchable.
Look at Dos...
Remove everything but the MsDos kernel..
install 4Dos for the command line.. install Norten Utilitys for the utilitys...
It's still MsDos..
The rule folows for all Unix systems... The kernel is the os.. the rest just prop it up.
That is why Linux is seen as the os..
GNU is great but installed on SunOs it's still SunOs..
Some Unix venders see nothing wrong with shipping Unix systems with NO compiler what so ever.
Unless you plan to write software... you don't need it.
And IT managers seem to agree with this...
Once the system is working and no changes are needed the compiler may be disposed of.
So the kernel gets top priority... no matter how much much work went into the rest of the system. The kernel gets the credit...
(Kinda like your manager getting the credit for all your hard work)
>Love or hate them, MS is the most important player in the OS market right now. And they will be for some time.
Thats undeniable...
Don't hold your breath that Microsoft will go away anytime soon.. But then don't lay any bet's on Microsoft's longevity eather.
Anything may happen...
I don't think anything will come of the DoJ thing but it sure dose set up a good PR target for say.. Apple, IBM or the new Amiga.
I'd say Microsoft would be injured more by an attack from the backside (A direction they don't expect) than from say Linux or Apple.
But don't expect BSD, BeOS or Amiga to be totally beond such a thing...
Bill Gates is a programmer but he's more known for his busness efforts than his code.
Ranking Gates amoung techs is kinda like ranking the CEO of RedHat instead of Alan Cox or the CEO of Transmeta instead of Linus.
If the founder of Commodore were listed I'd expect people to scream fuzzy blue mud.
Like Gates he is(was?) a tech and like Gates he is more known as a busness man not as a tech.
You don't give a Nobel prize to the scientists boss...
Now if the head of the original Windows dev team got recognition over Linus.. That might be debatable.. and if Linus got on a list of busnessmen.. that would be really screwed up...
Why are Windows mags testing Linux in the first place?
(Slightly off topic but it dose get to the hart of what the Troll only glazed.. every Linux vs NT benchmark seems to come under attack on Slashdot)
Windows mags are read by Windows admin. They don't subscribe to such mags to be told about OTHER operating systems.
The only need information on ONE operating system.. Windows.
They don't need to know if Windows is better than Linux only how to make Windows NT run at it's best.
If they did prove Linux was better than Windows NT then what?
Microsoft faithful would unsubscribe in discust. Linux converts wouldn't need the publication anymore.
Why? They do it to keep readers.. becouse if they switch to Linux.. they won't need the Microsoft publication anymore...
"Dumb" users have an advantage of "Security by no access".
Basicly a server is granting limited access to the world. Even if that server runs only to deliver data to 3 people around the world it must grant enough access to everyone that it may verify the identity.
Any time you grant limited access there is a danger of a defect granting unlimited access.
"Dumb" users generally don't run server software and don't grant any access to start with.
They only run CLIENT software. Unless the client dose something amazingly stupid (like run programs as part of e-mail or wordprocessor files or use wordprocessor files as e-mail) the user is generally safe from harm.
(People or companys who ship client software that allows such things to happen shouldn't be trusted to write ANY software.)
If you run a server (like NcFTP) you really should know what your doing and read the BugTraps etc.
If your just a "Dumb" user then just use clients known to not do stupid things (like run scripts in e-mail, word processors or web browsers... or use word processors as net clients)
DeskTop Linux systems really should be devoid of server software as it's an unneeded security risk.
If you arn't an admin you shouldn't act as one...
If you are going to run server software you need to take full responsability for this...
There is no such thing as a "User friendly" server.
On this note... MacOs and Dos are the two most secure Internet operating systems.
This becouse they come shipped Internet UNready..
(Dos dosn't need Windows for Internet access.. just an Internet Network driver)
The only software running is the software being used.
Linux distros generally come with a bunch of servers installed by default and that is bad news for a workstation...
From my side...
This is the game of keepping crackers in the dark.
We tryed this in the 1970s... The result was techs who didn't know enough about security to protect themselfs against crackers.
This gave crackers the image of "All powerful hackers" in the 1970s.. but in the 1980s the reality came through as it was just a matter of not doing some really stupid things.
The techs didn't know thies were stupid things becouse they weren't talking to each other hoping to keep crackers in the dark. In the end only the techs were in the dark.
That is the problem here. In trying to keep the script kiddys in the dark you WILL keep they techs in the dark. That dosn't mean you'll keep the crackers in the dark.
If you publish NOTHING you expect the defect will be fixed before a cracker will discover it. The chances of this are increadably small.
If you publish the fact that the defect exists "I" can remove the offending software. The crackers can publish an exploite for script kiddys and a bugfix will take an unsuaully long time as most of the good guys don't have an exploit to work with.
Or you can publish an exploit...
"Dumb" users as a rule don't have anything to worry about.
They don't run the kind of software that makes cracking posable...
"Dumb" in quotes BTW becouse.. they aren't dumb just not techs. Thats gotta be reasonable.
I think however the casual user should know as much about computers as they do about cars.
Not enough to build one from ground up or how to fix an engen.. But enough to know to put gass in the tank and change the oil.
Yes the avrage user should know if a pacage he is using has a defect. But for now the News media dose that job pritty nicely... Malisa, and "ILoveU"...
They need not worry about defects in NcFTP.. as a rule the avrage user shouldn't be running NcFTP to start with... When they are.. thats the problem to fix...
>It's disgusting. If only there was a competitor....
My appartment manager signned a deal with a company that provides broudband (Cable modem) to bring in lines of there own.
(I don't know how that works)
So we have two cable jacks.. one for AT&T and one for Siren (or whatever)...
I use nither but plan to give Siren a try...
>>Hey, it's just like the phone company takes a cut every time you phone in an order from a catalog... oh wait, they don't.
>Sure they do -- someone's paying for that 800 number.
This assuming there IS an 1-800 number.
When I do catalog orders I end up paying postage..
They find out not only are they NOT batterys but they are NOT human.
The each one of them represents THOUSANDS of locusts connected together as a massive computers driving cars.
The artifical environment keeps them together and the "agents" are software defects...
Our herros get swished by a big boot...
If there was one Linux distro couldn't Microsoft just buy it out?
This won't happen and not for the reasons stated.
Debian will give up AptGet if they think it's good for Debian..
RedHat will give up RPM if they deside it should happen..
Slackware will pkgtool if they think they should..
But they will not clone each other.
Each Distro must compeate by targetting a diffrent group with diffrent needs. It's all Linux but diffrent forms of Linux and each behave diffrently.
Debian has AptGet becouse it's segment needs it.
RedHats users want RPM...
Slackware users demand a Linux that folows the KISS princaple.
Each folowing a diffrent market...
Linux an Os devided to be stronger... oh so very strange
>But even Linus has said that LINUX is not as good as the NT/2000 platform from MS in some categories.
This is a trueism that really isn't bound to Linux or NT...
Dos is better than Windows 9x in some areas..
CP/M is better than Windows 2000 in some areas.
One must rember that to cover one area you need to ADD feature to cover annother you must remove same.
Linux is getting closer than anyone else to having all the features you'll need and the ability to throw them all away..
But that is a very very very long ways off..
In the mean time... I can not imagin what I'd use NT for...
Slashdot Mirror
[Ignoring other responces that say basicly you don't know what your saying]
This would be cool.. so we could like build a gravity wave gun by building up a massive amount of element 115?
And then launch them and protons right behind them so they spontaneously convert to 116 in fight creating.. an antimater gun...
Now we can make an SDI (StarWars) Satlight that accually works.. oh wait that wasn't using anti-matter.. that was using "Dosen't matter" (as in.. all replys to press questions "Dosn't matter")
I'm sorry to say this but..
My brain just can not help see the similaritys between "First Lock" "First Light" and "First Post"
Each clamming to be "the first" however with "Lock" and "Light" it's scientific..
If Slashdot Trools were scientists I'm sure on any new scientific discovery a bunch of them would search the research and then race to see who can prove it first and all announce a "First" all at once on the same bit of research.
The Bible also says (and I'm kinda cleaning this up to modern english) Don't judge or you risk being judged.
I'm not Christian but I think lines like this are part of what Christanity is all about..
the "Loving" and "Caring" god of Christianity is missing from todays dogma and thats really sad. A good philosophy lost to paranoia and hate.
Oh about the "Subject" of my reply.. Tit for tat.. I don't see why Microsoft begging Linux bashers can't be called Satanists after all the insults thrown at Linux advocates.
Yes it's a tool.. and carry a tool box full of Fisher Price tools and insult Craftsmen and see if you ever get taken sereously...
Yes the GPL dose require you make the source code publicly available..
It dosn't require you to make the source code available before the product.
It also dosn't mean anything if the source code is burnt into the hardware.. Meaning it's no good for anyone who dosn't buy the machine.
Anyway it dosn't matter.. He dosn't need to GPL his own software (just becouse it runs on Linux).
All that is needed is to provide the changes made to Linux.. Those changes would purely be to make Linux work better on the hardware and of no use to anyone who dosn't have that hardware.
If SDMI strip SDMI
Automaticly removes SDMI watermark on files.
Now that would be intresting... automatic removal of SDMI off files...
Include it in CD rippers.. include it in well.. everything...
Watermark go byebye...
Well if they want to pretend it can't be cracked then we'll just throw up a Napster/GnuTella system that cracks em.
"But it dosn't exist.. it's a myth becouse it can't be cracked.. see?"
Call it MCSDMIDN Mythological Cracking SDMI Distributation Network..
Wasn't there a boycott on that SDMI crack challange?
> Until some other fad comes along.
I've worked with computers sence the late 1970s..
Every so many years something is decryed a fad.. But it dosn't fade away..
Free software dates back to the 1950s.. the FSF was founded in the 1980s. Linux early 1990s.
I've had debates with Apple ][ users, Commodore users, Mac users, Amiga users, Windows users
The temple of Tux is down the street from the temple of the C64..
Linux "Zellots" are no less rabbid than supporters of any other operating system...
Even Windows.. of one I know accually considers it blasphamy to compare Windows to Geoworks.. (Something I have a habbit of doing.. can you see the diffrence? Beyond Geoworks running on an XT I don't)
Temple of Tux.. very appropreate.. yes... fanatical. I agree...
People don't get fanatical over nothing...
About FADs...
Posting messages on-line (BBSes).. just a fad..
e-mail.. Just a fad
Free software.. (Declared a fad every 2 years in the 1980s)
The Internet (Just a fad) (Declared so in the late 1980s)
Slashdot's a fad too...
Even owning your own computer is a fad..
Yet it's so very interesting how thies "FADs" never seem to die off...
I've seen it happen WAY WAY WAY to often.
"Dos is not an operating system" this being said when Dos was getting old.
It's been universally considered an Os for nearly 10 years (the 1980s) and not much diffrent from CP/M (Historicly still considered an os). Just boot loaders and some primitive interfacing but thats all a computer needed at the time.
Then there are groups who redefine the word "Religion" to mean "Christianity" as an easy political move to disguard the freedom of religion for anyone else. (In the United States.. sorry must rember the rest of this big blue marble)
Ok... So Coke a Cola isn't a Soda...
DVD movies are not entertainment
TV is not a broudcast medium
The HP 48 isn't a calculator
This BatMan coffie mug (on my desk) isn't a cup
It's not a bug it's a feature
This thing at the end of my leg is not a foot
And finnaly...
This Zip drive is NOT a disk drive...
This is getting stupid... Yes Unix is an os...
I've only seen two credable efforts to question a software pacages status as an os.
Forth: becouse it's ground up a programming language. But it's powerful enough and it is used as an Os
Windows: Becouse it's the only os to boot under annother os (Dos). This brings a sereous credability issue to the existence of Windows as an os.
However...Dos yealds all control to it leaving Windows "in control".
(Still this kind of Os design is no harder than writing a Dos app and any Dos app writer is fully experenced in all the issues faced when creating Windows)
It's fine to tolerate this to some degree...
After all in the 1970s expert programmers (who coded on mainframes etc) felt a "real computer" had to have a larg scale CPU (Not a microchip).
But this addatude didn't mean much...
To consider Unix "Not an os" simply becouse Unix is not like anything else he is familure with (thats a total of TWO other systems.. thats not much of a knowladge base to form an option) is pritty dumb.
For 30 years experts had no problem calling Unix an os.
I'm no os expert.. (I wrote one.. I've used many) but gezz...
MacOs and Windows act more like software pacages (a few apps, BIOS and an interface). They are operating systems but to me it's very hard to see it.
Then there is Unix.. everything about it SCREAMS "Operating system".. You can tell whats what. Everything in it's place and everything makes sence.
Shouldn't someone at least know a little computer history before he has a position where he can write an editorial?
Back when Dos was what everyone used you needed to publish how your hardware works.
Drivers were provide in the appications so EVER app coder needed access to your hardware specs or he couldn't write a driver into his apps.
Now hardware venders can just make a driver for Windows.
This means no specs...
This will eventually backfire..
While hardware venders make drivers for the tripple threat of MacOs, Windows and Linux they don't bother with BSD or BeOs or anyone other than the main three.
Hardware makers will find that BSD and Solarus do not bother to reverse engenear anything and if you want to sell hardware to a wide audence you MUST provide specs or you will only be supported by those you support directly.
So eventually I'd say addatudes like this will eventually bite them on the bumm...
In Mitnicks time you HAD to explain everything in microscopic detail or people wouldn't get it.
(I rember this.. trying to explain a BBS to someone they just assumed BBSes were a scam with hidden billing.. some people are byond all hope).
Basicly you were stuck with explanning everything in micro detail so nobody would get confused or misunderstand what you said and blame you later for his own assumptions.
>The GPL prevents code forks.
The GPL dosn't prevent forks... for the most part it encurages them.
Your required to relase code changes when you release a binary.. Zap! A new fork...
It accually dosn't become a fork unless people keep maintainning it.
What usually happends to all those Linux patches is they end up in the main kernel..
The GPL encurages forks.. the community encurages murging and in the end forks happen a lot.. we just don't see it...
MAPS clames to work pritty much the way they should. For the most part thats exactly how they DO work. But it dosn't stop there.
How you are told it works.
SysAdmin are basicly just adding MAPS filter to e-mail filters. Thats what it's for thats how it's used if MAPS makes a few mistakes tuff luck so you can't e-mail a bunch of people if e-mail is really that importent you'll get a more respectable e-mail provider or maybe even a better ISP.
Yes this is certenly part of what MAPS is and it is how it got it's start.
But that is the volintary filter. There is the involintary filter to consider.
Why oh why do sooo many lump AboveNet with MAPS? Look at AboveNets policys and you'll see why. You'd think becouse it's explainned in the AUP that it only effects users of AboveNet however it dosn't. It effects ALL traffic going over AboveNets network.
This has the potental to effect all of the Internet. (At least anyone trying to send packings from North America to Europe)
MAPS dosn't mention this much at all. However explainning why MAPS includes websites of spammers seems to at least acnowladge the fact that Above IS in fact doing this.
For a small part I'm ok with Above filtering the transatlantic linkup for spam. But it would be nice if they'd leave other data packets alone. (A lot of stupid American spammers don't have a clue and are spamming people who must pay for a mettered connection)
However even this makes the notion of a volintary filter a pure facad.
A lot of thies lawsutes are about wanting to spam. Plain and simple.
But there are some who are just saying "Hay I complyed and you guys are ignoring me and I can't afford to keep calling you guys on the phone all day"
And I've said this stuff before and someone invarably replys with a link to the MAPS website. So let me reply to that before it happends.
Someone sould sue MAPS for false advertising over that link. This isn't how things are done over there. Nice idealistic guideline that is 100% ignored.
For a while I maintainned a website with webpages detailling RBL abuses... But I've long ago shut it down. I've fought spam for a long time and to find one of the key forces to fighting spam itself not entirely honnest really bothers me. But this is not my fight and I'm not intrested in fighting for the long term.
Here is a place to start doing some research on RBL abuse.
For more information try Google or AltaVista
You can sue Microsoft but you lose becouse of the liccens agreement..
But people think if they can pick a target they can sue. So what targets dose Linux have?
If you use RedHat then you sue RedHat...
If you use Debian then you sue the Debian organisation.
Etc..
Alternitively you may sue the Free Software Foundation (As most of Linux is GNU software anyway and comes from the FSF).
All that asside.. If you sue any of thies organisations.. You'll lose..
Sue Microsoft... You'll lose...
Same deal.. diffrent group.. and there IS a target to sue.. So your legal team can look like dopes..
In the mean time...
Sence like the early 1980s software companys have included a shrinkwrap liccens that says they are libal only up to the ammount you paid for the software...
Thats right... I could never sue the people who wrote most of the software for my old Commodore 64.
But I had targets...
So for people who want targets.. Yes they exist.. sue the Distro... or alternitivly the FSF.
Not that it makes any diffrence.
Becouse people are not taking the time to understand the problems or the accused causes it's easy to cast blame.
I blame Katz, The Republicans and the Democrats for all the youth violence.
Other people can role out fake research showing what bad political policys lead to the violence and others can misquote Katz to create the facad of his rasing violence.
You can have long debates with self proclamed experts.
But as I'm blamming a ranter and two political partys people will accually look at my clames and see they hold no water.
But if nobody pokes it... my statment creates the illusion of an airtight case.
Internet the cause of violence?
Yes yes.. keep kids out of schools... education is the cause of school violence...
The kids can not be exposed to knowladge..
No web pages.. no libarys.. no speaking at all...
Keep them in ignorent issolation to the age of 21....
Becouse we are morons.. errr I mean becouse Internet causes violence...
I have a better explenation...
Basicly people see the kernel as the Os and everything else as an ad on.. the compiler as detatchable.
Look at Dos...
Remove everything but the MsDos kernel..
install 4Dos for the command line.. install Norten Utilitys for the utilitys...
It's still MsDos..
The rule folows for all Unix systems... The kernel is the os.. the rest just prop it up.
That is why Linux is seen as the os..
GNU is great but installed on SunOs it's still SunOs..
Some Unix venders see nothing wrong with shipping Unix systems with NO compiler what so ever.
Unless you plan to write software... you don't need it.
And IT managers seem to agree with this...
Once the system is working and no changes are needed the compiler may be disposed of.
So the kernel gets top priority... no matter how much much work went into the rest of the system. The kernel gets the credit...
(Kinda like your manager getting the credit for all your hard work)
>Love or hate them, MS is the most important player in the OS market right now. And they will be for some time.
Thats undeniable...
Don't hold your breath that Microsoft will go away anytime soon.. But then don't lay any bet's on Microsoft's longevity eather.
Anything may happen...
I don't think anything will come of the DoJ thing but it sure dose set up a good PR target for say.. Apple, IBM or the new Amiga.
I'd say Microsoft would be injured more by an attack from the backside (A direction they don't expect) than from say Linux or Apple.
But don't expect BSD, BeOS or Amiga to be totally beond such a thing...
Bill Gates is a programmer but he's more known for his busness efforts than his code.
Ranking Gates amoung techs is kinda like ranking the CEO of RedHat instead of Alan Cox or the CEO of Transmeta instead of Linus.
If the founder of Commodore were listed I'd expect people to scream fuzzy blue mud.
Like Gates he is(was?) a tech and like Gates he is more known as a busness man not as a tech.
You don't give a Nobel prize to the scientists boss...
Now if the head of the original Windows dev team got recognition over Linus.. That might be debatable.. and if Linus got on a list of busnessmen.. that would be really screwed up...
Why are Windows mags testing Linux in the first place?
(Slightly off topic but it dose get to the hart of what the Troll only glazed.. every Linux vs NT benchmark seems to come under attack on Slashdot)
Windows mags are read by Windows admin. They don't subscribe to such mags to be told about OTHER operating systems.
The only need information on ONE operating system.. Windows.
They don't need to know if Windows is better than Linux only how to make Windows NT run at it's best.
If they did prove Linux was better than Windows NT then what?
Microsoft faithful would unsubscribe in discust. Linux converts wouldn't need the publication anymore.
Why? They do it to keep readers.. becouse if they switch to Linux.. they won't need the Microsoft publication anymore...
"Dumb" users have an advantage of "Security by no access".
Basicly a server is granting limited access to the world. Even if that server runs only to deliver data to 3 people around the world it must grant enough access to everyone that it may verify the identity.
Any time you grant limited access there is a danger of a defect granting unlimited access.
"Dumb" users generally don't run server software and don't grant any access to start with.
They only run CLIENT software. Unless the client dose something amazingly stupid (like run programs as part of e-mail or wordprocessor files or use wordprocessor files as e-mail) the user is generally safe from harm.
(People or companys who ship client software that allows such things to happen shouldn't be trusted to write ANY software.)
If you run a server (like NcFTP) you really should know what your doing and read the BugTraps etc.
If your just a "Dumb" user then just use clients known to not do stupid things (like run scripts in e-mail, word processors or web browsers... or use word processors as net clients)
DeskTop Linux systems really should be devoid of server software as it's an unneeded security risk.
If you arn't an admin you shouldn't act as one...
If you are going to run server software you need to take full responsability for this...
There is no such thing as a "User friendly" server.
On this note... MacOs and Dos are the two most secure Internet operating systems.
This becouse they come shipped Internet UNready..
(Dos dosn't need Windows for Internet access.. just an Internet Network driver)
The only software running is the software being used.
Linux distros generally come with a bunch of servers installed by default and that is bad news for a workstation...
From my side...
This is the game of keepping crackers in the dark.
We tryed this in the 1970s... The result was techs who didn't know enough about security to protect themselfs against crackers.
This gave crackers the image of "All powerful hackers" in the 1970s.. but in the 1980s the reality came through as it was just a matter of not doing some really stupid things.
The techs didn't know thies were stupid things becouse they weren't talking to each other hoping to keep crackers in the dark. In the end only the techs were in the dark.
That is the problem here. In trying to keep the script kiddys in the dark you WILL keep they techs in the dark. That dosn't mean you'll keep the crackers in the dark.
If you publish NOTHING you expect the defect will be fixed before a cracker will discover it. The chances of this are increadably small.
If you publish the fact that the defect exists "I" can remove the offending software. The crackers can publish an exploite for script kiddys and a bugfix will take an unsuaully long time as most of the good guys don't have an exploit to work with.
Or you can publish an exploit...
"Dumb" users as a rule don't have anything to worry about.
They don't run the kind of software that makes cracking posable...
"Dumb" in quotes BTW becouse.. they aren't dumb just not techs. Thats gotta be reasonable.
I think however the casual user should know as much about computers as they do about cars.
Not enough to build one from ground up or how to fix an engen.. But enough to know to put gass in the tank and change the oil.
Yes the avrage user should know if a pacage he is using has a defect. But for now the News media dose that job pritty nicely... Malisa, and "ILoveU"...
They need not worry about defects in NcFTP.. as a rule the avrage user shouldn't be running NcFTP to start with... When they are.. thats the problem to fix...
>It's disgusting. If only there was a competitor....
My appartment manager signned a deal with a company that provides broudband (Cable modem) to bring in lines of there own.
(I don't know how that works)
So we have two cable jacks.. one for AT&T and one for Siren (or whatever)...
I use nither but plan to give Siren a try...
>>Hey, it's just like the phone company takes a cut every time you phone in an order from a catalog... oh wait, they don't.
>Sure they do -- someone's paying for that 800 number.
This assuming there IS an 1-800 number.
When I do catalog orders I end up paying postage..
Very few (if any) game titles run on the NT/2000 platform.
It's 9X,Mac and Linux that get the games...
They find out not only are they NOT batterys but they are NOT human.
The each one of them represents THOUSANDS of locusts connected together as a massive computers driving cars.
The artifical environment keeps them together and the "agents" are software defects...
Our herros get swished by a big boot...
If there was one Linux distro couldn't Microsoft just buy it out?
This won't happen and not for the reasons stated.
Debian will give up AptGet if they think it's good for Debian..
RedHat will give up RPM if they deside it should happen..
Slackware will pkgtool if they think they should..
But they will not clone each other.
Each Distro must compeate by targetting a diffrent group with diffrent needs. It's all Linux but diffrent forms of Linux and each behave diffrently.
Debian has AptGet becouse it's segment needs it.
RedHats users want RPM...
Slackware users demand a Linux that folows the KISS princaple.
Each folowing a diffrent market...
Linux an Os devided to be stronger... oh so very strange
>But even Linus has said that LINUX is not as good as the NT/2000 platform from MS in some categories.
This is a trueism that really isn't bound to Linux or NT...
Dos is better than Windows 9x in some areas..
CP/M is better than Windows 2000 in some areas.
One must rember that to cover one area you need to ADD feature to cover annother you must remove same.
Linux is getting closer than anyone else to having all the features you'll need and the ability to throw them all away..
But that is a very very very long ways off..
In the mean time... I can not imagin what I'd use NT for...