And smash YaST, up2date, APT and Yum with Novell ZENworks! Seriously, ZENworks has got to be the best patch pusher I've ever seen. Viruses? Bah! Sendmail holes? Bah! SSH problems? Bah!
With a click, 1000 computers get the patch and automatically apply it.
They just killed their brand. There is no "RedHat Linux."
And my point is, what as end users and business users care about brand? I'm an engineer; I want something useful or, in the case of Coke, something that tastes good. I could care less if Linux's adoption "rate" was slowed by the recent decisions by Redhat and Novell/Suse.
I'm not offended by their decisions; in fact, I applaud them. Maneuvering into different market segments is an overall good thing for Linux and healthy for diversity. Can you imagine if we all operated like Gentoo? Or Debian? Or Redhat? Or Suse? Or whatever-other-distros-you-can-name?/. commentators talk about the monoculture thing and now we're all getting upset about diversity in Linux. I don't get it; it's just more whishy-washy politics and lack of reading between the lines.
Bzzz! Denial is the first stage. We're all in this together. Just because RH is running after a market to make money in does not mean they are giving up their ideals. ES and AS are still available for download, as is are their clustering management tools.
Folks, no one's turning into a bad tomato, nothing is wrong with RH and Suse. I'm serious. Give it six to nine months and you'll see.
No one's along just for the ride, all of these guys have made tremendous contributions from the kernel to the compiler to the desktop. RH CEO's comments are strategically patterned after the current corporate IT thought for the purpose of aligning a market strategy that will better sell their ES, AS line of Redhat. Get over it.
This ain't a stab in the back and we don't need to stoop down to the level of derogatory diatribes. I hate to break the reality here, but these comments are in no way offensive nor damaging to the future of Linux.
Everyone in the world needs to just sit down, breathe deeply and count backwards from 15 to 1. Then, remember, "not everything what everyone says is an offense against me". Say that as your mantra for the next hour.
Until the big name Linux distros settle down, it could be hard to convince businesses to buy an unsure thing.
Not in my company of 2000 people. In our group, we implement million dollar control systems that are based on Linux. At this point, my boss could care less if it was from Redhat, Suse or Gentoo. He cares about it being stable, workable, and generally usable by the customer. Basically, he relies on us, as the engineers, to get working -- not on the Linux distros.
I actually had to convince him to buy RH AS 2.1 just to evaluate its use and gauge their support services.
Either way, linux growth is going to stop dead for a good chunk of time while these issues with Redhat and Suse settle down.
Puhhleeze. Please stop the/. cronyism, fanaticism, and sensationalism. It's getting quite stale in here and it makes the web log stink.
I'm running short on time, so I'm going to let the moderators mark me as Troll as I don't have 30 links to back up these statements. But, I'm pretty sure that:
1. Linux, the kernel, will see continuing development without care towards Suse or Redhat. 2. GNU is still going to develop their wonderful tools. 3. The important projects on sf.net are still moving forward. 4. There are other distros. 5. There are many independent parties packaging for Redhat and Suse; nice updates can be obtained from them.
If you guys are so up in your panties about this move, go elsewhere for support. You can get updates elsewhere. I've successfully been maintaining servers in the 30 or 40 just using apt-get and kickstart -- for free.
Interesting analogy... except 66% of the spam is something about sex. How would this activity do anything to reduce spam from being poured into my inbox?
Or are there parallels in biological contexts that show parasitic organisms actually inducing host organisms to have sex? But, maybe you shouldn't since bringing this out would cause an influx of more spam beyond what Viagra has brought. Maybe, the word is "Mum"...
...if you purchase the Advanced Server editions, they come with non-GPL software.
Unbeknownst to many, AS2.1 and AS3.0 are readily downloadable distributions, just like any other. I actually have a boxed copy of RH9, RH7.2 and AS2.1, all of which contain primarily free software.
I believe you are also wrong, in that you missed the redhat-logo package. Those aren't GPL'ed.
Well, it's one of those things that's common sense. Redhat wouldn't want Joe, Dick, and Jane to repackage a system and put proprietary packages such as the Nvidia drivers, Lucent Winmodem drivers and other closed source pieces and put the name Redhat on it. If you read the license: (/usr/share/redhat-logos-x.x.x/COPYING), it really is quite similar to the Artistic license with provisions to protect their trademark, which you mentioned about protecting their brand name.
I hope you can code... I'm going to try to take these piecemeal and see if the explanation helps.
Something which is not a derived work, but does invoke the clause about "as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program"
Original GPL Library Function
void function() {
printf("RMS Rules!\n"); }
Program Invokes It
int main() {
function(); }
Something which is merely aggregation.
GPL Program - Linux 'ps'
Located in/bin/ps
Proprietary, money-raking program
int main(int argc,char *argv[]) {
char cmdbuf[256] = { 0 };
sprintf( cmdbuf, "/bin/ps -p %d", argv[1] );
stream = popen(cmdbuf); ... parse stream and due stuff here... }
The first two examples above require that the program be GPL'd. That's why there's a LGPL and a GPL. LGPL will allow the second to be linked without needing to be LGPL/GPL, so you're only bound to the first example. So, let's review:
* GPL requires the first two examples to be GPL. * LGPL requires only the first example to remain LGPL. * Neither require the third to be GPL, as it's quite absurd to make such a demand.
The third also can be mapped onto the problem of a Linux distribution and whether its separate packages should all be GPL or not. The keywords from GPL are Identifiable Sections (aka rpm -qi redhat-logos) and independent and separate works (aka png/jpeg files aren't artistically and creatively produced by a GPL-protected program. I'd like to see this program if it exists...)
The purpose of the GPL is to protect the rights of the end/common user. The copyright power is utilized and wielded by the original author so that these rights can be enforced where deemed necessary. Thus, the GPL is the ultimate in preventing man-in-the-middle attacks (gratuitously stolen from security contexts). The BSD license fails to offer this protection and therefore, many works will become inaccessible when intercepted first by a company or an organization.
You see, the concern, mainly, is all about the source. It's all about understanding how a thing ticks, if that's what behooves you. Once the program is in binary or working form and there are other sub-units that are primarily just there to function as part of the original intent of some overriding wrapper program (kernel), then that doesn't require you to release your program as GPL. This same reasoning applies in other operating systems and environments as well. Hence, if you develop on Apple, it belongs to you, not Apple. If you develop a program on MS, it belongs to you, not MS. Although, if you read the confusing EULA that comes with the respective developing environments, you might think otherwise.
When RedHat ships GPL'ed software and non-GPL'ed software together is "RedHat Linux" a larger work, and as the kernel is GPL'ed then all other software must be?
[WARNING: This is not an argument; just information]
Let me remind the reader that non-GPL != proprietary license. There are licenses compatible with the GPL and those that are not. Those that are not, lack the freedom that the FSF requires that we, as users, should have.
Just for information, although Redhat Linux is not as strict as say Debian in their license adherence, they are one of the most stringent among corporate Linux distributions. Hence weird things like no Nvidia, no Flash, no Realplayer, no MP3.
Computing the number of GPL packages is pretty easy. They probably have this on their website, but I'm too lazy to google it up. So, from the commandline (Redhat 9):
$ rpm -qai | grep License | while read l; do expr "$l" : '.*License: \(.*\)'; done >/tmp/licenses
$ wc -l/tmp/licenses
1435 # Total number of licenses
$ grep ^GPL$/tmp/licenses | wc -l
662 # Total packages with *pure* GPL licensing
$ grep GPL/tmp/licenses | wc -l
949 # Total packages with pure and hybrid GPL licensing
Then we compute percentages (using bc or expr, just for fun...)
$ expr 662 \* 100 / 1435
46 # Percentage of *pure* GPL packages
$ echo "scale=2;662.0 / 1435.0" | bc
.46 # Same as above, but using bc to get a decimal in (the geek way)
Oh and, also the percentage of pure and hybrid GPL packages:
$ expr 949 \* 100 / 1435
66 # Two thirds!!
By inspection, the rest of the 1/3 are licenses such as: MIT, Artistic, Apache, BSD, Public Domain, Freely Distributable, etc. All of which the source code is freely available. There are no commercial/closed licenses and btw, you might want to read this piece from the linux kernel (named COPYING):
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Yeah! It's called J2EE. You should check it out sometime. I'm sure the next incarnation, J3EE, will suck the living juice out of any quantum computer thrown at it.
1. int main() { printf("hello world\n"); return 0; } 2. Recursive invocation of main, printing randomize letters and spaces of length 11 until you print hello world. 3. This one is left as an exercise for the reader.
when/. banners that are big and white that blend in with the background and you keep clicking on to maintain window focus so that you can scroll down to see the comments are dead and gone.
Now, I'm a fan of open source and use Linux almost exclusively at work. But, I couldn't help but think about the different cultures we find in the different open source projects. It seems that we, as users of the projects, are taken for granted. Here, an open source project, is reaching out and trying to gain more tested systems by enlisting beta testers to go through the config; make; install process and run a few applications to see if it works.
But, see, this is where the fun ends. When there is a problem, what next? Well, it really depends, of course, on the user's tone. But, more often than not it depends on a given projects team and whether they're willing to take the criticism/bug report as something that will help improve their system even better.
In a majority of the open source projects you get one of the following as a response to your bug reports:
1. Developers begin to whine about how they lack funding. 2. Developers whine about how they're doing this in their free time. 3. The bug goes completely ignored for one or two years, then it's "magically" fixed in HEAD, which won't be available for packaging for another 3 to 4 months. 4. Someone says, "It works in HEAD." Then the next minor release, it's still broken.
Usually the above responses come with reports that talk about more aesthetic issues, but, sometimes even serious problems go neglected at times.
Anyway, the point is: project developers are wanting, are asking, for more users. With that request, developers need to realize what they're getting into. By complaining about lack of funding and using up their free time does not get past to about 1mm deep into the skins of the project's users.
If developers are spending their "free" time working on these projects, then, what, I ask, kind of time are the users using? I mean, there is some mentality among some projects that users are bloodsucking the life out of developers. Had it occurred to anyone that developers and users live out more of a symbiotic relationship improving the project on both sides?
I know this is a rant; I just needed to get it out the door. When Linus and other open source projects make a call for Beta testers, then they need to realize that the call might bring in users who aren't particularly adept at programming and/or have knowledge of the internals of the system. How many of us are scared silly to post even the simplest of emails onto LKML? Trust me, that mailing list isn't for the weak and prideful.
My call to developers is before you write that next email about how you're spending "free" time, think about and take for granted the fact these users are spending *time* to communicate with you! I know I'm preaching to the choir posting this to/., but I hope this comment is useful and that someone can extract a morsel of truth out of it.
I do. The boneheads in IT *only* want Outlook as the corporate "mail standard". SMTP is gone. I removed the Windows partition last week because Outlook runs good enough for me under Linux to send email to the "outside".
Just use a Smart Relay. I'd rather the inconvenience be upon those setting up email servers than on me getting the associated emails, thanks. Who is to say that you patch and setup your mail correctly as not to allow spammers to relay through you?
They disappeared from our projects. Everytime we used to quote a tape drive with each cluster that we sold. Not any more!
We get two CD-RW drives for less than 5 times less the price of tape. We found that most customer sites did not use the tape after a certain amount of time; so why waste our profit margins on something useless?
Blasphemy!! All applications should be running under J2EE! The Linux Kernel should be ported over to J2EE using SOAP/XML interfaces to the module drivers while only supporting HTML-based communication protocols. XFree should too! Unix domain sockets? Bah! Message queues? Bah! Shared memory? Bah! Semaphores? Bah! FIFO pipes? Bah!
All hogwash, I tell you. It's ALL TCP/IP with HTML as the application transport and Java/J2EE at its controlling center!!!!!
And what's even worse is that if this project gains any momentum or popularity, then all one would have to do is rip kjs from the kde project and run the chunk through the js interpreter and you'd be done. At the end of the day, if you can see it on the screen folks, the spammers can extract it regardless of the underlying technological methods used to obfuscate the email.
The solution to SPAM:
1. Educate consumers not to respond to spam or its enticing advertisements. 2. Modify SMTP so that we guarantee we can find the exact source of the sender or non-complying ISP. (Via the recent verify/authentication schemes used lately.) 3. Create legislation that enables litigation for unsolicited bulk. 4. Litigate.
It's nasty, but that's the only solution. SPAMASS isn't 100%; I still have to look at my spambox...
And the funny thing is... we're all sittin' here doing arm-chair analysis eating twinkies, getting fat and risking further damage to our cardiovascular systems while pooping out our diatribes about why everyone else has to change for the "better". Good night!
The world trade center fell in such a mess because it wasn't exactly what we call a "controlled" "demolition". Under controlled situations a building can be successfully imploded in a downtown area without harming adjacent buildings. Of course, they gut the building of its appropriate warez, and then implode it. (Usually they still close the streets and sidewalks surrounding the area; just to be safe)
The cynics and muckrakers of/. are out in force this week. Nothing gets by them!
Anyway, the sucker's huge. You can see it about 20 km away towering over the mountains that normally block the entire cityscape of Taipei. If you're in Taiwan, you can see it from Freeway 3 just before Tucheng. It's amazing. And the antenna on top is puny in comparison with the rest of the building... trust me.
Slashdot Mirror
And smash YaST, up2date, APT and Yum with Novell ZENworks! Seriously, ZENworks has got to be the best patch pusher I've ever seen. Viruses? Bah! Sendmail holes? Bah! SSH problems? Bah!
With a click, 1000 computers get the patch and automatically apply it.
They just killed their brand. There is no "RedHat Linux."
/. commentators talk about the monoculture thing and now we're all getting upset about diversity in Linux. I don't get it; it's just more whishy-washy politics and lack of reading between the lines.
And my point is, what as end users and business users care about brand? I'm an engineer; I want something useful or, in the case of Coke, something that tastes good. I could care less if Linux's adoption "rate" was slowed by the recent decisions by Redhat and Novell/Suse.
I'm not offended by their decisions; in fact, I applaud them. Maneuvering into different market segments is an overall good thing for Linux and healthy for diversity. Can you imagine if we all operated like Gentoo? Or Debian? Or Redhat? Or Suse? Or whatever-other-distros-you-can-name?
Bzzz! Denial is the first stage. We're all in this together. Just because RH is running after a market to make money in does not mean they are giving up their ideals. ES and AS are still available for download, as is are their clustering management tools.
Folks, no one's turning into a bad tomato, nothing is wrong with RH and Suse. I'm serious. Give it six to nine months and you'll see.
No one's along just for the ride, all of these guys have made tremendous contributions from the kernel to the compiler to the desktop. RH CEO's comments are strategically patterned after the current corporate IT thought for the purpose of aligning a market strategy that will better sell their ES, AS line of Redhat. Get over it.
This ain't a stab in the back and we don't need to stoop down to the level of derogatory diatribes. I hate to break the reality here, but these comments are in no way offensive nor damaging to the future of Linux.
Everyone in the world needs to just sit down, breathe deeply and count backwards from 15 to 1. Then, remember, "not everything what everyone says is an offense against me". Say that as your mantra for the next hour.
Until the big name Linux distros settle down, it could be hard to convince businesses to buy an unsure thing.
Not in my company of 2000 people. In our group, we implement million dollar control systems that are based on Linux. At this point, my boss could care less if it was from Redhat, Suse or Gentoo. He cares about it being stable, workable, and generally usable by the customer. Basically, he relies on us, as the engineers, to get working -- not on the Linux distros.
I actually had to convince him to buy RH AS 2.1 just to evaluate its use and gauge their support services.
Either way, linux growth is going to stop dead for a good chunk of time while these issues with Redhat and Suse settle down.
/. cronyism, fanaticism, and sensationalism. It's getting quite stale in here and it makes the web log stink.
Puhhleeze. Please stop the
I'm running short on time, so I'm going to let the moderators mark me as Troll as I don't have 30 links to back up these statements. But, I'm pretty sure that:
1. Linux, the kernel, will see continuing development without care towards Suse or Redhat.
2. GNU is still going to develop their wonderful tools.
3. The important projects on sf.net are still moving forward.
4. There are other distros.
5. There are many independent parties packaging for Redhat and Suse; nice updates can be obtained from them.
Is this going to be broadcasted on the Discovery channel? I hope every team as cameras all over this thing.
If you guys are so up in your panties about this move, go elsewhere for support. You can get updates elsewhere. I've successfully been maintaining servers in the 30 or 40 just using apt-get and kickstart -- for free.
Get started here:
Freshrpms.net
DAG RPMS
ATrpms
newrpms
KDE For Redhat/Fedora
JPackage
CCRMA (Karma)
Gstreamer
Kernel 2.6.0-test
And if you want up2date style GUI, get synaptic from ATrpms.
Cybersex, anyone?
... except 66% of the spam is something about sex. How would this activity do anything to reduce spam from being poured into my inbox?
Interesting analogy
Or are there parallels in biological contexts that show parasitic organisms actually inducing host organisms to have sex? But, maybe you shouldn't since bringing this out would cause an influx of more spam beyond what Viagra has brought. Maybe, the word is "Mum"...
Unbeknownst to many, AS2.1 and AS3.0 are readily downloadable distributions, just like any other. I actually have a boxed copy of RH9, RH7.2 and AS2.1, all of which contain primarily free software.
I believe you are also wrong, in that you missed the redhat-logo package. Those aren't GPL'ed.
Well, it's one of those things that's common sense. Redhat wouldn't want Joe, Dick, and Jane to repackage a system and put proprietary packages such as the Nvidia drivers, Lucent Winmodem drivers and other closed source pieces and put the name Redhat on it. If you read the license: (/usr/share/redhat-logos-x.x.x/COPYING), it really is quite similar to the Artistic license with provisions to protect their trademark, which you mentioned about protecting their brand name.
I hope you can code... I'm going to try to take these piecemeal and see if the explanation helps.
A derived work.
Original Derived Something which is not a derived work, but does invoke the clause about "as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program"
Original GPL Library Function Program Invokes It Something which is merely aggregation.
GPL Program - Linux 'ps' Proprietary, money-raking program The first two examples above require that the program be GPL'd. That's why there's a LGPL and a GPL. LGPL will allow the second to be linked without needing to be LGPL/GPL, so you're only bound to the first example. So, let's review:
* GPL requires the first two examples to be GPL.
* LGPL requires only the first example to remain LGPL.
* Neither require the third to be GPL, as it's quite absurd to make such a demand.
The third also can be mapped onto the problem of a Linux distribution and whether its separate packages should all be GPL or not. The keywords from GPL are Identifiable Sections (aka rpm -qi redhat-logos) and independent and separate works (aka png/jpeg files aren't artistically and creatively produced by a GPL-protected program. I'd like to see this program if it exists...)
The purpose of the GPL is to protect the rights of the end/common user. The copyright power is utilized and wielded by the original author so that these rights can be enforced where deemed necessary. Thus, the GPL is the ultimate in preventing man-in-the-middle attacks (gratuitously stolen from security contexts). The BSD license fails to offer this protection and therefore, many works will become inaccessible when intercepted first by a company or an organization.
You see, the concern, mainly, is all about the source. It's all about understanding how a thing ticks, if that's what behooves you. Once the program is in binary or working form and there are other sub-units that are primarily just there to function as part of the original intent of some overriding wrapper program (kernel), then that doesn't require you to release your program as GPL. This same reasoning applies in other operating systems and environments as well. Hence, if you develop on Apple, it belongs to you, not Apple. If you develop a program on MS, it belongs to you, not MS. Although, if you read the confusing EULA that comes with the respective developing environments, you might think otherwise.
I hope the above helps!
This is probably redundant, but the Citizen Watch Company URL is here, not here. Submitter must have been trigger happy.
This continues my confusion as chronicled here.
Can we get past these comments about "fixing it yourself"? Or is this just the default customer service coming out these days?
I do thank you for not Karma whoring by posting as AC.
[WARNING: This is not an argument; just information]
Let me remind the reader that non-GPL != proprietary license. There are licenses compatible with the GPL and those that are not. Those that are not, lack the freedom that the FSF requires that we, as users, should have.
Just for information, although Redhat Linux is not as strict as say Debian in their license adherence, they are one of the most stringent among corporate Linux distributions. Hence weird things like no Nvidia, no Flash, no Realplayer, no MP3.
Computing the number of GPL packages is pretty easy. They probably have this on their website, but I'm too lazy to google it up. So, from the commandline (Redhat 9): Then we compute percentages (using bc or expr, just for fun...) Oh and, also the percentage of pure and hybrid GPL packages: By inspection, the rest of the 1/3 are licenses such as: MIT, Artistic, Apache, BSD, Public Domain, Freely Distributable, etc. All of which the source code is freely available. There are no commercial/closed licenses and btw, you might want to read this piece from the linux kernel (named COPYING):
Yeah! It's called J2EE. You should check it out sometime. I'm sure the next incarnation, J3EE, will suck the living juice out of any quantum computer thrown at it.
1. int main() { printf("hello world\n"); return 0; }
2. Recursive invocation of main, printing randomize letters and spaces of length 11 until you print hello world.
3. This one is left as an exercise for the reader.
when /. banners that are big and white that blend in with the background and you keep clicking on to maintain window focus so that you can scroll down to see the comments are dead and gone.
(Sorry for the moby dick sentence..)
Now, I'm a fan of open source and use Linux almost exclusively at work. But, I couldn't help but think about the different cultures we find in the different open source projects. It seems that we, as users of the projects, are taken for granted. Here, an open source project, is reaching out and trying to gain more tested systems by enlisting beta testers to go through the config; make; install process and run a few applications to see if it works.
/., but I hope this comment is useful and that someone can extract a morsel of truth out of it.
But, see, this is where the fun ends. When there is a problem, what next? Well, it really depends, of course, on the user's tone. But, more often than not it depends on a given projects team and whether they're willing to take the criticism/bug report as something that will help improve their system even better.
In a majority of the open source projects you get one of the following as a response to your bug reports:
1. Developers begin to whine about how they lack funding.
2. Developers whine about how they're doing this in their free time.
3. The bug goes completely ignored for one or two years, then it's "magically" fixed in HEAD, which won't be available for packaging for another 3 to 4 months.
4. Someone says, "It works in HEAD." Then the next minor release, it's still broken.
Usually the above responses come with reports that talk about more aesthetic issues, but, sometimes even serious problems go neglected at times.
Anyway, the point is: project developers are wanting, are asking, for more users. With that request, developers need to realize what they're getting into. By complaining about lack of funding and using up their free time does not get past to about 1mm deep into the skins of the project's users.
If developers are spending their "free" time working on these projects, then, what, I ask, kind of time are the users using? I mean, there is some mentality among some projects that users are bloodsucking the life out of developers. Had it occurred to anyone that developers and users live out more of a symbiotic relationship improving the project on both sides?
I know this is a rant; I just needed to get it out the door. When Linus and other open source projects make a call for Beta testers, then they need to realize that the call might bring in users who aren't particularly adept at programming and/or have knowledge of the internals of the system. How many of us are scared silly to post even the simplest of emails onto LKML? Trust me, that mailing list isn't for the weak and prideful.
My call to developers is before you write that next email about how you're spending "free" time, think about and take for granted the fact these users are spending *time* to communicate with you! I know I'm preaching to the choir posting this to
I do. The boneheads in IT *only* want Outlook as the corporate "mail standard". SMTP is gone. I removed the Windows partition last week because Outlook runs good enough for me under Linux to send email to the "outside".
The question is can Saudi Arabia prevent a remake starring Tina Turner and Mel Gilbson? I hope for the love of nature they can.
Just use a Smart Relay. I'd rather the inconvenience be upon those setting up email servers than on me getting the associated emails, thanks. Who is to say that you patch and setup your mail correctly as not to allow spammers to relay through you?
> Tapes aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
They disappeared from our projects. Everytime we used to quote a tape drive with each cluster that we sold. Not any more!
We get two CD-RW drives for less than 5 times less the price of tape. We found that most customer sites did not use the tape after a certain amount of time; so why waste our profit margins on something useless?
Blasphemy!! All applications should be running under J2EE! The Linux Kernel should be ported over to J2EE using SOAP/XML interfaces to the module drivers while only supporting HTML-based communication protocols. XFree should too! Unix domain sockets? Bah! Message queues? Bah! Shared memory? Bah! Semaphores? Bah! FIFO pipes? Bah!
All hogwash, I tell you. It's ALL TCP/IP with HTML as the application transport and Java/J2EE at its controlling center!!!!!
And what's even worse is that if this project gains any momentum or popularity, then all one would have to do is rip kjs from the kde project and run the chunk through the js interpreter and you'd be done. At the end of the day, if you can see it on the screen folks, the spammers can extract it regardless of the underlying technological methods used to obfuscate the email.
...
The solution to SPAM:
1. Educate consumers not to respond to spam or its enticing advertisements.
2. Modify SMTP so that we guarantee we can find the exact source of the sender or non-complying ISP. (Via the recent verify/authentication schemes used lately.)
3. Create legislation that enables litigation for unsolicited bulk.
4. Litigate.
It's nasty, but that's the only solution. SPAMASS isn't 100%; I still have to look at my spambox
And the funny thing is... we're all sittin' here doing arm-chair analysis eating twinkies, getting fat and risking further damage to our cardiovascular systems while pooping out our diatribes about why everyone else has to change for the "better". Good night!
The world trade center fell in such a mess because it wasn't exactly what we call a "controlled" "demolition". Under controlled situations a building can be successfully imploded in a downtown area without harming adjacent buildings. Of course, they gut the building of its appropriate warez, and then implode it. (Usually they still close the streets and sidewalks surrounding the area; just to be safe)
The cynics and muckrakers of /. are out in force this week. Nothing gets by them!
Anyway, the sucker's huge. You can see it about 20 km away towering over the mountains that normally block the entire cityscape of Taipei. If you're in Taiwan, you can see it from Freeway 3 just before Tucheng. It's amazing. And the antenna on top is puny in comparison with the rest of the building... trust me.