Ok, and if you were a spammer, where would you rather host your spam bot? On grandma's Win98 box connected to a modem that ocassionally comes online, or a big Linux/Solaris/whatever server on a DS3? Because while Linux may not be very popular as a desktop OS, it's certainly common as a server. And servers tend to have much better connections than a normal computer. Servers are going to be more highly scrutinized. Where I work, we have multiple IDS watching the network, and bandwidth monitors that watch for spikes. If a host started using up any significant amount of our bandwidth, we'd know, and we'd shut it down. Not so for most home computers. Bot infections can last for years on home computers when the user doesn't know that there's something wrong, or that they need to fix something.
Linux in its default configuration has no open ports and can be installed safely without a firewall defending it. Can't say the same about many MS OSes. Certainly not Windows 9x, of which there's still a lot of copies running out there (and not supported anymore, thanks MS!) Linux is a kernel. A distribution of Linux could easily have open ports, and could have vulnerabilities in those services.
As an example, much of the spam I see points to domains that are registered to an individual who alternately claims to live in Tahiti or Finland. Its rather difficult to get either countries' law enforcement to care when there's only a certain set of data to even suggest this person lives there, and the registrars are willing to cover this person's trail continuously. The cynic in me doubts that having real information would get much more accomplished. I guess there's probably a bit more paperwork involved in getting the real information, and if the registrar is in another country, it may be impossible. I can give you that. But I'm not convinced that the problem it solves (and the few people that the problem affects) is worth the loss of legitimate anonymity. I guess that on this point, we'll have to agree to disagree (to use an overused expression.)
Actually, I think my disagreement with you on that statement is probably the root of our disagreement on the issue itself. The bulk of spam that I receive is attempting to sell prescription drugs at a discount over the internet. That's pretty interesting. I've gone through my spam folder (I archive all of it) and I can categorize it thusly: 36% viruses 32% stock spam 20% drug spam 5% Bayesian poisoning 7% unknown
So perhaps we're both applying preconceptions unfairly.
First, assuming that the drugs are what they claim to be, there is inherent danger in selling them without a prescription. If the purchaser were to use them incorrectly, or if they were to go for sale elsewhere afterwards, they could cause life-threatening problems. But this is a risk that the buyer takes upon himself. If they re-sell them, they are committing another crime, which ought to be punished as such. But to me, that seems irrelevant, anyway, because on legal issues, the government can get the WHOIS information that you're seeking. If these people aren't being prosecuted, make sure that the blame is assigned appropriately.
Also, the type of people likely to buy the drugs that these spammers promote are not the type of people who are likely to try to figure out if it is a legitimate dealer. The subset of people who are willing to buy the drugs, willing to find out if it's legitimate, and knowledgeable about the workings of the Internet (with respect to the WHOIS database, specifically) is going to be even tinier.
I suppose that if private registration was unavailable, then vigilante justice could be used, but that would also probably be illegal.
As to the other spam I get, with stock spam, almost all of the same arguments apply. Frankly, if you take stock advice from random sources, you probably shouldn't complain when you fall victim to a pump-and-dump scam. Bayesian poisoning is irritating, but not something to get too upset about, and we won't be able to stop virus traffic[1] by stopping conventional spammers.
I hate to sound uncaring, but I just can't believe that enough people a) buy drugs from spam, b) would look up the WHOIS information if they could, c) get bad drugs that cause problems, and d) pass those drugs on to other people (i.e. aren't just taking the risk upon themselves) in order to justify banning private registration.
There are lots of issues in this world where we have to weigh privacy and individual rights against larger problems facing the world. I, like many others, tend to err on the side of privacy and individual rights. In this case, I feel stronger about it than in many, since spam, while an annoyance, is certainly not life-threatening in 99.9% of cases.
If there were no spammers, stalkers, or other problems on the Internet, I would have less of a problem with giving out my address. So I guess it works both ways.
I keep my registration information private to avoid spammers (both the e- variety and the snail- variety.) There is a noticeable volume of e-spam that I get to the published technical contact address for one of my domains--an address which I don't use for anything else.
The thing is, generally speaking, there's no reason for random people to need that information. If the government needs it, they can get it. If someone wants to contact me for legitimate reasons, my registrar will let me know. Otherwise, having that information available is nothing more than a liability.
Wouldn't a load time advantage have a LOT more to do with USE flags reducing binary size on Gentoo, not with your march? Absolutely.
When I ran Gentoo (several years ago) it was on a laptop. For 99% of my binaries, there was no perceptible difference between -O2, -O3, generic i686 or compiled for my architecture (or any combination thereof.) There was, however, a noticeable difference with -Os (compiling for size) and with not compiling against every possible library that I might want to link in. Size was noticeable (though I never ran out of disk space, so it might not have saved me much) and load times were very noticeable. But once you start using the computer, most of the time, you'll be I/O bound or waiting on user input, so the speed optimizations really don't gain you much.
If you read the DMCA, it states that nothing in the DMCA hampers fair use. To that end, it is legal to make a backup copy of a DVD that you own. It's unclear as to whether or not this extends to creating tools to do so (though it damn well should.) Unfortunately, it probably does not extend to distributing tools to do so, and only a handful of people really have the skills and knowledge to create their own.
And yes, if they didn't tell you, you wouldn't be allowed to print any, without breaking copyright laws. That's not clear. In copyright law, there is the concept that you have a right to use the media for its intended purpose without an explicit license. The coupon, in this case, must be printed to be used for its intended purpose.
Furthermore, there may be an implied license from the coupon provider if they provide a "print" link.
I don't want the death of physical media, because the alternative is (at the moment) DRM-encumbered soft media. With HD-DVD, we'll probably always be able to rip to whatever format we like. With Blu-ray, that's much less likely given the BD+ stuff. With softmedia...it's a complete unknown at this moment, but whatever it is, it will almost certainly require Windows to play it (and rip/convert it, if that's your goal.)
The wording of the GPL as provided in the kernel leaves out the common "or (at your option) any later version [of the GPL]." This means that only the copyright holder can change the license--releasing kernel code under GPLv3 would be a violation of the license provided with the kernel, which states that it must be released under GPLv2.
It's significant because Linus is not the only copyright holder to code in the kernel. Lots of people have contributed and haven't signed over their copyright. It would take a collaborative effort to change the kernel license.
I haven't confused social with biological evolution. I've suggested that they're somewhat entwined.
Someone earlier in the thread asked why we would shave, making ourselves appear younger. I posit that we do so because on an unconscious level, we seek younger mates because evolutionarily, they were healthier and more capable. I don't suggest that this was the reason that someone initially took a razor to his face--rather, I suggest that it's the reason that this tradition has stuck around. People who shaved were more successful because of the unconscious attraction, and so shaving became the norm.
Now, I'm no scientist, nor anthropologist. I'm pretty much just throwing stuff out there for the sake of discussion. But I don't think that your statements are really appropriate to the post.
A good straight razor will last you a lifetime and give you a better shave than those crappy Gilettes. And it's something you can pass on to your children.
As for your nature argument, it's bollucks. There are great biological reasons to choose a younger mate. Young men are more likely to be able to kill and protect the tribe than old men. Young women will produce healthier children, and will live longer to produce more children so that the species has a higher chance of survival.
I think that disk space on the OS level is still dealt with in powers of 2, ultimately. Legal block-size values for ext3 are 1024, 2048, or 4096 bytes per block (from the mkfs.ext3 man page.) NTFS has a default cluster size of 4096 bytes. Even if there is no internal need to use powers of 2 (and I'm not making this claim because I'm not sure that there isn't a good reason), that's how it's done now, and changing things would just cause worse confusion. Hundreds of software applications that deal with disk assume that things will be dealt with in powers of 2. An update to the OS would be a massive change, because I'm sure that any shortcuts and optimizations are contingent upon power of 2 addressing. I think it's here to stay on the OS level.
-The 'disk' in 'floppy disk' refers to the internal disk. On hard drives, the platters really are quite hard. On floppy disks, remove the outer shell, and they are quite definitely flexible.
-RAM is an acronym for "Random Access Memory." It is not a direct opposite of ROM. Random access implies no appreciable speed loss when accessing any given portion of the memory. RAM, as a term, counters such technologies as tape drives, which incur a huge penalty for seeking.
-Again, they're not opposites. Some ROMs can be accessed in the manner of RAM.
-The same can be said for every evolving technology. Automobiles these days often do far more than just getting you from one place to another. They can include entertainment options (CD/DVD player), navigation options (GPS), comfort options (reclining seats, climate control), etc. Gaming consoles these days may also act as media centers and portals. Your watch may have a calculator on it, and your phone may be able to access the Internet.
-At least one of your points isn't really relevant. We still call it flash if it's not removable. That's why my digital camera has 64MB of built-in flash memory. Some people probably will still call new technologies "flash drives", however I prefer "thumb drive" anyway. I guess in your pedantic world, you'll complain that it isn't the size of your thumb, or that it isn't in the shape of a thumb, or some such nonsense.
Not the original poster, but I share his sentiment.
The Wiki article is simply incorrect. If you have an optical disc that plays in an audio CD player, but it has DRM on it, it is NOT an audio CD as it does not follow the Red Book standard for audio CDs. It is a different beast which happens to work in some audio CD players.
At first glance, it sounds like a horribly semantic difference, and the two of us seem to be locked in hopeless pedantry, however it's an important difference when it comes to sales of the discs. If the packaging and marketing promote the disc as an audio CD, but it doesn't follow the Red Book standard, they are guilty of false advertising. They have tricked me by calling it an audio CD when it is not one, and may not play in players which expect to find the format of a Red Book audio CD on the disc.
Of course, they're nerfing this, too. Pretty soon, they'll be limiting the number of times you can get a free movie in-store by returning one of the BBOnline movies.
It depends. If the virus infected executables in your home directory, you have to install clean copies of those. If you've EVER sudoed, you'll have to reinstall your OS to be sure.
Now, should Mr. McBob just toss the disk in and partition the drive? Most users who have no knowledge of partitioning would assume that if they're installing Ubuntu on their systems, that it would non-destructively partition the drive so that they can use all their existing data. No, most users don't even realize that hard drives have partitions. Most users will think that they're going to run Ubuntu from Windows, and have no reason to believe that their data is in jeopardy at all, anyway.
I sometimes wonder if the people with spyware problems are at all responsible for the layers of crud on their machines. Mostly, they are. But occasionally there will be a zero-day in IE that allows a malicious website to compromise your box, or a worm will pop up on a port you have to have open for whatever reason, and at that point, you're basically screwed. You're playing Russian Roulette with the sites you visit, or a waiting game to see when someone else on your network gets the worm and it starts hitting your subnet.
Not that these scenarios couldn't happen with Linux, but they tend not to. It's probably a combination of marketshare and inherently more secure code (preventing the creation of the worms in the first place). Plus what you said--not acting like a ferret and downloading every shiny.exe that you see.
What it isn't (though I'm sure many will contradict this) is Windows "Administrator by default" mindset. That doesn't make it any easier for your computer to get infected, it just makes it easier for the crapware to hide out. If 90% of the people out there couldn't clean up their computer if all of the malware was visible (though not obvious), then not being administrator isn't going to change much.
More importantly, POP3 doesn't make use of cookies which can be intercepted. Although encrypting your entire web Gmail session would solve the problem, the attack works primarily because it's webmail.
You can actually sniff the traffic to see that your browser is making requests to Gmail over port 80. It's that magical Web 2.0 crap--you can't really tell what your browser is doing by the visual cues that have worked so well in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for not being inflammatory
36% viruses
32% stock spam
20% drug spam
5% Bayesian poisoning
7% unknown
So perhaps we're both applying preconceptions unfairly. First, assuming that the drugs are what they claim to be, there is inherent danger in selling them without a prescription. If the purchaser were to use them incorrectly, or if they were to go for sale elsewhere afterwards, they could cause life-threatening problems. But this is a risk that the buyer takes upon himself. If they re-sell them, they are committing another crime, which ought to be punished as such. But to me, that seems irrelevant, anyway, because on legal issues, the government can get the WHOIS information that you're seeking. If these people aren't being prosecuted, make sure that the blame is assigned appropriately.
Also, the type of people likely to buy the drugs that these spammers promote are not the type of people who are likely to try to figure out if it is a legitimate dealer. The subset of people who are willing to buy the drugs, willing to find out if it's legitimate, and knowledgeable about the workings of the Internet (with respect to the WHOIS database, specifically) is going to be even tinier.
I suppose that if private registration was unavailable, then vigilante justice could be used, but that would also probably be illegal.
As to the other spam I get, with stock spam, almost all of the same arguments apply. Frankly, if you take stock advice from random sources, you probably shouldn't complain when you fall victim to a pump-and-dump scam. Bayesian poisoning is irritating, but not something to get too upset about, and we won't be able to stop virus traffic[1] by stopping conventional spammers.
I hate to sound uncaring, but I just can't believe that enough people a) buy drugs from spam, b) would look up the WHOIS information if they could, c) get bad drugs that cause problems, and d) pass those drugs on to other people (i.e. aren't just taking the risk upon themselves) in order to justify banning private registration.
There are lots of issues in this world where we have to weigh privacy and individual rights against larger problems facing the world. I, like many others, tend to err on the side of privacy and individual rights. In this case, I feel stronger about it than in many, since spam, while an annoyance, is certainly not life-threatening in 99.9% of cases.
If there were no spammers, stalkers, or other problems on the Internet, I would have less of a problem with giving out my address. So I guess it works both ways.
I keep my registration information private to avoid spammers (both the e- variety and the snail- variety.) There is a noticeable volume of e-spam that I get to the published technical contact address for one of my domains--an address which I don't use for anything else.
The thing is, generally speaking, there's no reason for random people to need that information. If the government needs it, they can get it. If someone wants to contact me for legitimate reasons, my registrar will let me know. Otherwise, having that information available is nothing more than a liability.
I'm no Gentoo fan, but if you compile at night when you aren't using your computer anyway, you haven't wasted much time.
That said, having to compile constantly, coming back to broken emerges, etc. is one of the things that really turned me off of the distribution.
When I ran Gentoo (several years ago) it was on a laptop. For 99% of my binaries, there was no perceptible difference between -O2, -O3, generic i686 or compiled for my architecture (or any combination thereof.) There was, however, a noticeable difference with -Os (compiling for size) and with not compiling against every possible library that I might want to link in. Size was noticeable (though I never ran out of disk space, so it might not have saved me much) and load times were very noticeable. But once you start using the computer, most of the time, you'll be I/O bound or waiting on user input, so the speed optimizations really don't gain you much.
If you read the DMCA, it states that nothing in the DMCA hampers fair use. To that end, it is legal to make a backup copy of a DVD that you own. It's unclear as to whether or not this extends to creating tools to do so (though it damn well should.) Unfortunately, it probably does not extend to distributing tools to do so, and only a handful of people really have the skills and knowledge to create their own.
Furthermore, there may be an implied license from the coupon provider if they provide a "print" link.
I don't want the death of physical media, because the alternative is (at the moment) DRM-encumbered soft media. With HD-DVD, we'll probably always be able to rip to whatever format we like. With Blu-ray, that's much less likely given the BD+ stuff. With softmedia...it's a complete unknown at this moment, but whatever it is, it will almost certainly require Windows to play it (and rip/convert it, if that's your goal.)
The wording of the GPL as provided in the kernel leaves out the common "or (at your option) any later version [of the GPL]." This means that only the copyright holder can change the license--releasing kernel code under GPLv3 would be a violation of the license provided with the kernel, which states that it must be released under GPLv2.
It's significant because Linus is not the only copyright holder to code in the kernel. Lots of people have contributed and haven't signed over their copyright. It would take a collaborative effort to change the kernel license.
I haven't confused social with biological evolution. I've suggested that they're somewhat entwined.
Someone earlier in the thread asked why we would shave, making ourselves appear younger. I posit that we do so because on an unconscious level, we seek younger mates because evolutionarily, they were healthier and more capable. I don't suggest that this was the reason that someone initially took a razor to his face--rather, I suggest that it's the reason that this tradition has stuck around. People who shaved were more successful because of the unconscious attraction, and so shaving became the norm.
Now, I'm no scientist, nor anthropologist. I'm pretty much just throwing stuff out there for the sake of discussion. But I don't think that your statements are really appropriate to the post.
A good straight razor will last you a lifetime and give you a better shave than those crappy Gilettes. And it's something you can pass on to your children.
As for your nature argument, it's bollucks. There are great biological reasons to choose a younger mate. Young men are more likely to be able to kill and protect the tribe than old men. Young women will produce healthier children, and will live longer to produce more children so that the species has a higher chance of survival.
Doesn't really matter. Linus does not have the legal right to release Linux under another license.
I think that disk space on the OS level is still dealt with in powers of 2, ultimately. Legal block-size values for ext3 are 1024, 2048, or 4096 bytes per block (from the mkfs.ext3 man page.) NTFS has a default cluster size of 4096 bytes. Even if there is no internal need to use powers of 2 (and I'm not making this claim because I'm not sure that there isn't a good reason), that's how it's done now, and changing things would just cause worse confusion. Hundreds of software applications that deal with disk assume that things will be dealt with in powers of 2. An update to the OS would be a massive change, because I'm sure that any shortcuts and optimizations are contingent upon power of 2 addressing. I think it's here to stay on the OS level.
-The 'disk' in 'floppy disk' refers to the internal disk. On hard drives, the platters really are quite hard. On floppy disks, remove the outer shell, and they are quite definitely flexible.
-RAM is an acronym for "Random Access Memory." It is not a direct opposite of ROM. Random access implies no appreciable speed loss when accessing any given portion of the memory. RAM, as a term, counters such technologies as tape drives, which incur a huge penalty for seeking.
-Again, they're not opposites. Some ROMs can be accessed in the manner of RAM.
-The same can be said for every evolving technology. Automobiles these days often do far more than just getting you from one place to another. They can include entertainment options (CD/DVD player), navigation options (GPS), comfort options (reclining seats, climate control), etc. Gaming consoles these days may also act as media centers and portals. Your watch may have a calculator on it, and your phone may be able to access the Internet.
-At least one of your points isn't really relevant. We still call it flash if it's not removable. That's why my digital camera has 64MB of built-in flash memory. Some people probably will still call new technologies "flash drives", however I prefer "thumb drive" anyway. I guess in your pedantic world, you'll complain that it isn't the size of your thumb, or that it isn't in the shape of a thumb, or some such nonsense.
Not the original poster, but I share his sentiment.
The Wiki article is simply incorrect. If you have an optical disc that plays in an audio CD player, but it has DRM on it, it is NOT an audio CD as it does not follow the Red Book standard for audio CDs. It is a different beast which happens to work in some audio CD players.
At first glance, it sounds like a horribly semantic difference, and the two of us seem to be locked in hopeless pedantry, however it's an important difference when it comes to sales of the discs. If the packaging and marketing promote the disc as an audio CD, but it doesn't follow the Red Book standard, they are guilty of false advertising. They have tricked me by calling it an audio CD when it is not one, and may not play in players which expect to find the format of a Red Book audio CD on the disc.
So no. No audio CDs have DRM.
Of course, they're nerfing this, too. Pretty soon, they'll be limiting the number of times you can get a free movie in-store by returning one of the BBOnline movies.
Pretty lame.
Maybe the people who make operating systems should fix these problems WITHIN THE OS. Operating systems are supposed to do this anyway!
That wasn't Heisenberg.
It depends. If the virus infected executables in your home directory, you have to install clean copies of those. If you've EVER sudoed, you'll have to reinstall your OS to be sure.
Not that these scenarios couldn't happen with Linux, but they tend not to. It's probably a combination of marketshare and inherently more secure code (preventing the creation of the worms in the first place). Plus what you said--not acting like a ferret and downloading every shiny
What it isn't (though I'm sure many will contradict this) is Windows "Administrator by default" mindset. That doesn't make it any easier for your computer to get infected, it just makes it easier for the crapware to hide out. If 90% of the people out there couldn't clean up their computer if all of the malware was visible (though not obvious), then not being administrator isn't going to change much.
More importantly, POP3 doesn't make use of cookies which can be intercepted. Although encrypting your entire web Gmail session would solve the problem, the attack works primarily because it's webmail.
You can actually sniff the traffic to see that your browser is making requests to Gmail over port 80. It's that magical Web 2.0 crap--you can't really tell what your browser is doing by the visual cues that have worked so well in the past.