I know.. It's like those hidden camera stories you see on the news. "Our reporter goes undercover to sell drugs and kill hookers." So it's OK for reporters, but not me?
I have no problem with them as long as they don't spam. The fact that they need to make money doesn't make it OK for them to spam. Also, I believe I signed up for one of their premium boards and I still received spam. I think they harass all their users equally..
Overly technical legislation is never good.. this is like spam laws that say you have to put ADV in the subject. What about wireless and other non-SMTP spam? There are plenty of ways to spam someone that don't include a subject field.
In the same way, there are plenty of ways to 'link' to a site. Does this only restrict A HREF? How about setting window.location in Javascript? Or I could make a dummy form and use buttons for links. What if I put in the URL of a porn site but don't make the link clickable? What if I just mention a web site's name, as in "I bought it on the eBay site?" Also, if I own a.kids.us domain am I liable for content on message boards? Am I liable if my site gets hacked and someone posts links to Yahoo.com?
EZBoard are a bunch of lowlife spammers. I opted out of all e-mail when I signed up.. nevertheless they sent me spam and continued even after I unsubscribed.
I think the open source model, at least its most popular implementation, has proven that it can write great software but is unable to make it 'mainstream.' This is understandable if you take a look at the number of great programmers working on open source and compare that to the number of graphic and UI designers as well as product managers. Yes, every project needs good management and not every programmer is a good manager or designer. A manager must decide what features are needed, how to make the user's experience consistent, and how to unify the goals of the project. Often this isn't done in open source programming and you end up with overlapping, hard-to-use features and multiple ways to accomplish the same task. Some would call this power, I call it confusion.
I'm assuming that by mainstream you mostly mean it has a good UI. They've made great strides but I think the problem is one of control. Even a large distributor like Red Hat doesn't have much control over the contents of the individual packages. They just don't have the manpower and the business model to allow them to customize every software package to fit in with their vision of the end-user experience. So you end up with a distro that ships with 5 or so shells, 2 good window managers with completely different interfaces, and thousands of free applications each with their own quirks, UI, and configuration file. Folks, this is not mainstream. It's not the fault of the developers, it's a problem inherent in the open source model.
Now switch gears.. if our word 'mainstream' means widely used, well it already is. Look no further than Apache/PHP. Also tons of mainstream, non-free software includes free components such as OpenSSL. There are also individual packages that I would consider mainstream such as VirtualDub. Maybe Grandma isn't going to use it, but VirtualDub is widely accepted as a great package for video processing.
People like you, who constantly quote past MS security holes, must also be constantly reminded that popular UNIX software is not without vulnerabilities. If you are expanding the scope to bugs that have been solved for years, I'd like to remind you that there are serious exploits for Apache, OpenSSH, bind, and sendmail. This selective memory that you zealots seem to have isn't getting us anywhere. There's plenty of valid ways to criticize Microsoft, but constant reminders of past exploits is not one of them.
You always need some sort of code to work with a given format of XML data. You can't just feed an XML document into your browser, and expect your browser to magically turn into a full-featured word processor. Word processing software will have to have support for specific XML document formats. While I agree that MS should use an open standard, the truth is Sun will end up reading and writing XDocs.
"If something like Windows plays any part at all in your system design, you should probably give up now."
Just another piece of FUD from an OS elitist, who apparently has amnesia about the numerous past exploits in Apache, BIND, Sendmail, OpenSSH, etc. Nevermind the fact that every single Fortune 500 company uses Windows in some form. I guess they all need to give up now, their systems will never be fully secure.
Furthermore, the article says it's for developers but it seems to be filled with information for IT people - don't trust your firewall, watch out for Oracle, watch out for Apache, don't use Windows. I thought I was going to be reading an article on software best practices, instead I'm just reading a guy ranting about why IT pros should use open source. Bleh.
Fixed. I am honored that you have taken such offense to my post, as to visit my web site (presumably to 'dig up the dirt'). I would explain the problem to you, but I have no doubt that you wouldn't understand it since it doesn't involve 'perls' and 'apaches'. Do you always spend so much time investigating your online adversaries? If not, I'm honored that you are so obsessed with me specifically.. presumably my post hit some kind of nerve.
I myself am devoid of Microsoft zealotry. It's simply a platform that I and all of my high-paying clients use. I don't have any high-paying clients who use Lunix, except as a cheap web server. Please reflect on your Lunix zealotry, and decide whether it is the best use of your time.
The fact that your OS requires an entire HOWTO, in order to get sound working, is a dead giveaway to the fact that it ISN'T INTENDED, and NEVER WAS INTENDED, to run on the desktop. The Lunix zealots who think that Grandma Bessie will read the FUCKING ALSA HOWTO so she can play her Public Enemy MP3's are smoking some good stuff, and I WANT SOME OF IT!
Backlinking, or posting your referral logs, is doomed to failure and rightly so. It's just a glorified way of making your site into a link farm, with the expectation that your fellow bloggers will do the same. It is serendipitous that this practice is open to 'abuse' although I would never call the abusers spammers. They are just utilizing a method for submitting data that the site owners themselves have provided. I don't see any reason to call this 'spam' since the site owners are inviting users to submit data through HTTP referral headers.
Also, this quote from the article is ludicrous: "bloggers are not thrilled, even though they ruefully admit that the log spamming may falsely boost their ranking on some search engines."
There is no search engine that bases your rank on the number of sites that you LINK to. I believe the bloggers actually mean that they're sorry to see their backlinks (read: link farms) go, since those do in fact raise search rankings. What a travesty- Sites may have to rely on the actual quality of their content, rather than trading links!
Amidst the alarmist cries in the article, "spammers will destroy our practice of posting referral logs," nobody has even mentioned that there is a ridiculously easy technical solution. Before posting a referral link, why not just have your software visit the referring site and detemine if it actually links to your page? This will defeat the referral advertisers.
He also makes an interesting aside about the founders of the Canadian company, Research in Motion (makers of the Blackberry) and their personal contribution of $120 million for research into particle physics, to illustrate what happens when technical expertise and business success can lead to.
That isn't a sentence. I for one think Slashdot should post only sentences, particularly on the front page.
Debian isn't meant for Grandpa Wilbur to install on the old Packard Bell.. SPI has never tried to market Debian to any specific group, especially inexperienced users who want an easy install.
Slashdot Mirror
You are an insane person..
While cheaper than DLT, DVD-R maxes out at 4-5 GB. It would not be effective for backing up that much data.
I know.. It's like those hidden camera stories you see on the news. "Our reporter goes undercover to sell drugs and kill hookers." So it's OK for reporters, but not me?
I have no problem with them as long as they don't spam. The fact that they need to make money doesn't make it OK for them to spam. Also, I believe I signed up for one of their premium boards and I still received spam. I think they harass all their users equally..
Overly technical legislation is never good.. this is like spam laws that say you have to put ADV in the subject. What about wireless and other non-SMTP spam? There are plenty of ways to spam someone that don't include a subject field.
.kids.us domain am I liable for content on message boards? Am I liable if my site gets hacked and someone posts links to Yahoo.com?
In the same way, there are plenty of ways to 'link' to a site. Does this only restrict A HREF? How about setting window.location in Javascript? Or I could make a dummy form and use buttons for links. What if I put in the URL of a porn site but don't make the link clickable? What if I just mention a web site's name, as in "I bought it on the eBay site?" Also, if I own a
EZBoard are a bunch of lowlife spammers. I opted out of all e-mail when I signed up.. nevertheless they sent me spam and continued even after I unsubscribed.
I'm very impressed by this drive. Imagine what you could do with a Beowulf cluster of these!
I think the open source model, at least its most popular implementation, has proven that it can write great software but is unable to make it 'mainstream.' This is understandable if you take a look at the number of great programmers working on open source and compare that to the number of graphic and UI designers as well as product managers. Yes, every project needs good management and not every programmer is a good manager or designer. A manager must decide what features are needed, how to make the user's experience consistent, and how to unify the goals of the project. Often this isn't done in open source programming and you end up with overlapping, hard-to-use features and multiple ways to accomplish the same task. Some would call this power, I call it confusion.
I'm assuming that by mainstream you mostly mean it has a good UI. They've made great strides but I think the problem is one of control. Even a large distributor like Red Hat doesn't have much control over the contents of the individual packages. They just don't have the manpower and the business model to allow them to customize every software package to fit in with their vision of the end-user experience. So you end up with a distro that ships with 5 or so shells, 2 good window managers with completely different interfaces, and thousands of free applications each with their own quirks, UI, and configuration file. Folks, this is not mainstream. It's not the fault of the developers, it's a problem inherent in the open source model.
Now switch gears.. if our word 'mainstream' means widely used, well it already is. Look no further than Apache/PHP. Also tons of mainstream, non-free software includes free components such as OpenSSL. There are also individual packages that I would consider mainstream such as VirtualDub. Maybe Grandma isn't going to use it, but VirtualDub is widely accepted as a great package for video processing.
Imagine a radioactive beowulf cluster of these!
People like you, who constantly quote past MS security holes, must also be constantly reminded that popular UNIX software is not without vulnerabilities. If you are expanding the scope to bugs that have been solved for years, I'd like to remind you that there are serious exploits for Apache, OpenSSH, bind, and sendmail. This selective memory that you zealots seem to have isn't getting us anywhere. There's plenty of valid ways to criticize Microsoft, but constant reminders of past exploits is not one of them.
You always need some sort of code to work with a given format of XML data. You can't just feed an XML document into your browser, and expect your browser to magically turn into a full-featured word processor. Word processing software will have to have support for specific XML document formats. While I agree that MS should use an open standard, the truth is Sun will end up reading and writing XDocs.
Only on Slashdot, is every topic somehow related to the RIAA, the MPAA, or the DMCA.
"There might be a tenth planet? The RIAA needs to pay attention to it!"
"Futurama got cancelled? Repeal the DMCA at once!"
"RMS posted a rant? If only the MPAA learned its lesson from this!"
He lost me right here,
"If something like Windows plays any part at all in your system design, you should probably give up now."
Just another piece of FUD from an OS elitist, who apparently has amnesia about the numerous past exploits in Apache, BIND, Sendmail, OpenSSH, etc. Nevermind the fact that every single Fortune 500 company uses Windows in some form. I guess they all need to give up now, their systems will never be fully secure.
Furthermore, the article says it's for developers but it seems to be filled with information for IT people - don't trust your firewall, watch out for Oracle, watch out for Apache, don't use Windows. I thought I was going to be reading an article on software best practices, instead I'm just reading a guy ranting about why IT pros should use open source. Bleh.
Wow, looks like someone put dd on a boot disk! Will the innovation never cease?
Come on, there IS a reason people pay for ghost. I for one, would like some assurance that I can clone disks that aren't exactly identical..
Thanks for the name correction RMS. Expect the telegram later today - it'll read, "NOBODY FUCKING CARES EXCEPT YOU STOP."
Fixed. I am honored that you have taken such offense to my post, as to visit my web site (presumably to 'dig up the dirt'). I would explain the problem to you, but I have no doubt that you wouldn't understand it since it doesn't involve 'perls' and 'apaches'. Do you always spend so much time investigating your online adversaries? If not, I'm honored that you are so obsessed with me specifically.. presumably my post hit some kind of nerve.
I myself am devoid of Microsoft zealotry. It's simply a platform that I and all of my high-paying clients use. I don't have any high-paying clients who use Lunix, except as a cheap web server. Please reflect on your Lunix zealotry, and decide whether it is the best use of your time.
The fact that your OS requires an entire HOWTO, in order to get sound working, is a dead giveaway to the fact that it ISN'T INTENDED, and NEVER WAS INTENDED, to run on the desktop. The Lunix zealots who think that Grandma Bessie will read the FUCKING ALSA HOWTO so she can play her Public Enemy MP3's are smoking some good stuff, and I WANT SOME OF IT!
Well, your script doesn't have to send a referral string - it doesn't even have to work from the same IP as your website.
It takes a pretty sophisticated script to work out that a hit from wilddonkeysex.com is probably bogus
My favorite site!
Backlinking, or posting your referral logs, is doomed to failure and rightly so. It's just a glorified way of making your site into a link farm, with the expectation that your fellow bloggers will do the same. It is serendipitous that this practice is open to 'abuse' although I would never call the abusers spammers. They are just utilizing a method for submitting data that the site owners themselves have provided. I don't see any reason to call this 'spam' since the site owners are inviting users to submit data through HTTP referral headers.
Also, this quote from the article is ludicrous: "bloggers are not thrilled, even though they ruefully admit that the log spamming may falsely boost their ranking on some search engines."
There is no search engine that bases your rank on the number of sites that you LINK to. I believe the bloggers actually mean that they're sorry to see their backlinks (read: link farms) go, since those do in fact raise search rankings. What a travesty- Sites may have to rely on the actual quality of their content, rather than trading links!
Amidst the alarmist cries in the article, "spammers will destroy our practice of posting referral logs," nobody has even mentioned that there is a ridiculously easy technical solution. Before posting a referral link, why not just have your software visit the referring site and detemine if it actually links to your page? This will defeat the referral advertisers.
That isn't a sentence. I for one think Slashdot should post only sentences, particularly on the front page.
You get what you pay for.. surprise!
Debian isn't meant for Grandpa Wilbur to install on the old Packard Bell.. SPI has never tried to market Debian to any specific group, especially inexperienced users who want an easy install.
It's great that Slashdot has been reduced to stealing their copy from Kuro5hin, word for word.
I wrote an article on Kuro5hin that addresses many of these concerns, specifically related to traffic law enforcement. Give it a read..
George W. Bush didn't say that, Dan Quayle did.
Huh? It's written for DEVELOPERS. Did you even read the page?