There is even a
conspiracy theory on news site Slashdot that the anti-Torvalds rhetoric may have the underlying aim of persuading the open source community to switch to Hurd -- an alternative to the Linux kernel that is being developed by the Free Software Foundation.
It was a JOKE. Note the (Score:5, Funny) tag. Just an FYI for all you non-geek journalists reading Slashdot: if you're not laughing, you should interpret (Score:5, Funny) as a clue that some piece of geek humor may have just gone way over your head. Do not take comments on Slashdot seriously, especially if you see (Score:5, Funny). This would be a mistake.
This has been a public service announcement from the Geek Nation Communication Explanation Foundation.
Well, (sigh) sticking by your stated parameters, I'd say Ektron is probably the best product I know of. http://www.ektron.com/ It's not great, but it's better than a lot of other crappy Windows-Instant-Intranet products, and it costs less than many of them.
Nice place to work, by the way.
"We'd like it free, but if you suggest using any of the best tools available for the job, free or otherwise, we're going to give you a faceful of vitriolic blowback, mmmkay? We know what kind of problems these 'free software' products cause with all their stability and interoperability. Just asking for trouble if you start messing around with that stuff. Hey, you know, this free software stuff is all just a paradigm shift anyway, it would be just great if you could spend some time trying to find someone willing to pay us to use their software, and if I could manage it from my cellphone that would be great. Mmmmkay?"
I noticed you don't say who your ISP is. Could this be because there's a good reason their IP addresses got listed on MAPS?
If I were you, I wouldn't be railing against MAPS. They're just keeping track of where the spam is coming from. The parties at fault are mail providers who blindly block mail based on the contents of a single blacklist, and very possibly *YOUR ISP*. I would be VERY curious about how your ISP's addresses got listed. The best way to avoid getting your mail blocked is not doing business with spam-friendly ISPs.
I run a mid-sized mail system (~20-30K messages/day), and we do block spam based on RBLs. But any particular message only gets blocked if it gets a very high SpamAssassin score, which means it hit multiple RBLs, and it got a high Bayes score, and probably hit other rules too.
Blindly blocking mail based on a single RBL hit is going to cause trouble, as demonstrated by today's story. With the anti-spam tools available today for free, one would think this practice would have already faded into history. Even if the biggest ISPs get too much mail traffic to make a full SpamAssassin-type analysis of every message practical, you'd think they would at least require hitting multiple low-FP RBLs before blocking mail outright.
Instead I moved on to Gentoo (where I found quickly portage to be a hell of a lot more flexible than apt, despite years of learning apt voodoo)
It took you years to learn "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade"? OK, yeah, there's apt-cache search, apt-get source, apt-get install and apt-get remove, maybe dpkg -P and dpkg -S... That much voodoo packed into anything less than a decade is simply mind-blowing. I'm not surprised you moved to greener pastures.
How many people do you know who can express themselves with precision in English? How many Slashdot posts have no speling errors, typos, or grammatical errors?
<TINFOIL_HAT> Maybe it WILL be embarassingly ill-configured. Maybe it's a Microsoft-behind-the-scenes PR stunt targeting Linux' excellent security reputation. Security is, after all, one of the biggest reasons to move away from Windows. </TINFOIL_HAT>
Hey, it's Slashdot. If I can't post a Microsoft conspiracy theory here, where CAN I post it?
As alluded to in the article, the next chapter in the war against spammers is not going to be in blocking open relays or known spammers. Rather, more and more spammers are using hordes of broadband-connected and spyware/virus-infested zombie hosts to do their dirty business.
Uh, where have you been? Non-malware open relays haven't even been on the radar for the last two years. Practically all spam comes from either virus zombies or known spammers hiring offshore ISPs to provide them with 'legit' relays. This isn't a "new trend." It's changed very little over the past couple years, the only trend I've seen lately is that MORE spam is coming from spam-friendly offshore ISPs, who seem to have a nearly endless supply of unblacklisted IP addresses to cycle through. Hello, APNIC?
All junctions have to be in an approved enclosure. Your electrician can install a long box that runs the length of the room (next to the cable trays) over every row of racks, and then put a 220 locking socket over every rack. Each box will have a conduit run to your panel.
Thirded. Parent described "rat's nest of cables." Take that very literally. Finding the spot where the rats/mice have eaten the insulation off your ethernet cables and chewed through the wire is no fun.
Rats are not threatened by dust kitties, even those as large as will grow under a raised floor.
Overhead 220v power and cable ladders are definitely the best way to go. Hire a good HVAC guy to design your airflow system to keep the whole room cool.
Wups, my bad. Since "open source license" is descriptive, it can't be trademarked. So I was wrong, you can call any damn thing you want an "open source license". Sorry. You just can't call it "OSI Certified."
Erm, what? I don't need anyone to "approve" my software's license:P
Actually, you do need their approval if you want to call it an "open source license." Of course, the open-source license you're using has probably been approved already for ages.
Yeah, well, except that they don't say anything about cost comparisons between making ethanol from cellulose versus traditional starch ethanol production. If it really is less expensive to produce ethanol from cellulose, it's REALLY cool! And you have to factor in that most cellulose is waste that would cost money to dispose of. But if it's not overall more cost effective than traditional ethanol production, then big deal. US companies are also developing new enzymes and techniques of making ethanol from cellulose. The problem is that all the processes so far are still too expensive to compete with traditional ethanol production, without being propped up by the government.
Don't give Canada too much credit - right now about 12% of US gasoline contains ethanol, vs 5% in Canada.
I'm the mail admin at a company with a little more than 500 active mail accounts. We get about 110,000 Internet messages per week, and about 80% of those are spam. We're using SpamAssassin to detect it, and running a script against syslog to get those numbers.
Our SpamAssassin server correctly detects over 99% of the spam, and rejects about 92% of it outright at our Internet gateway. The 8% least-spammy-looking-spam is tagged and allowed through to allow for false positives, though none have yet been reported.
My stuck-up-prick-o-meter won't stop beeping. Maybe I know too many brilliant, religious people. Maybe you should get out more.
Maybe you should read more carefully: "ignorant atheists are at least as bad as ignorant religious fundamentalists. But I think the latter group outnumbers the former by a thousand to one." I didn't say anything about the ratio of brilliant religious people to brilliant atheists, which is what your entire post seems to focus on, and is orthogonal to the argument that my original post was making: that religion and the scientific viewpoint are not mutually exclusive. I certainly didn't equate religion with ignorance, which seems to be how you interpreted my post.
I do think there are a lot if ignorant religious people, especially in fundamentalist groups. Many of them are in positions of authority within their organizations. According to the 2001 World Almanac, atheists number 0.5% of the North American population. Maybe not a thousand to one, but not a bad guess considering I didn't look it up until just now. I do think the average atheist is probably better educated than the average religious fundamentalist. So I'm sticking to my original statement. That doesn't mean I think the atheists are right, OK? Is the prick-o-meter still going off? Maybe you should get that thing checked.:-)
Most modern people naively assume that science, instead of being a useful tool, is an ultimately objective and unbiased way of looking at the world.
Do you have a way of looking at the world that's more unbiased than the scientific viewpoint? Do you believe that the scientific viewpoint inherently rejects all religious ideas? What leads you to that conclusion?
Yes, ignorant atheists are at least as bad as ignorant religious fundamentalists. But I think the latter group outnumbers the former by a thousand to one.
By the way, I'm not saying scientists are without bias, obviously nobody is completely without bias. What I'm saying is that science itself is the method we use to reduce and/or eliminate bias. So if you say I'm scientifically biased, you're effectively saying I'm biased against bias. It's getting pretty silly at this point. If angels descended from the heavens tomorrow, would the scientific viewpoint deny their existence? There might be some debate caused by the inexact definition of "angels," but a good scientist will not ignore any relevant data, especially that presented by her own senses.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been a public service announcement from the Geek Nation Communication Explanation Foundation.
Why is it more secure not to run as root?
500,000 Windows zombies should be the only answer you need.
Well, (sigh) sticking by your stated parameters, I'd say Ektron is probably the best product I know of.
http://www.ektron.com/
It's not great, but it's better than a lot of other crappy Windows-Instant-Intranet products, and it costs less than many of them.
Nice place to work, by the way. "We'd like it free, but if you suggest using any of the best tools available for the job, free or otherwise, we're going to give you a faceful of vitriolic blowback, mmmkay? We know what kind of problems these 'free software' products cause with all their stability and interoperability. Just asking for trouble if you start messing around with that stuff. Hey, you know, this free software stuff is all just a paradigm shift anyway, it would be just great if you could spend some time trying to find someone willing to pay us to use their software, and if I could manage it from my cellphone that would be great. Mmmmkay?"
I noticed you don't say who your ISP is. Could this be because there's a good reason their IP addresses got listed on MAPS?
If I were you, I wouldn't be railing against MAPS. They're just keeping track of where the spam is coming from. The parties at fault are mail providers who blindly block mail based on the contents of a single blacklist, and very possibly *YOUR ISP*. I would be VERY curious about how your ISP's addresses got listed. The best way to avoid getting your mail blocked is not doing business with spam-friendly ISPs.
I run a mid-sized mail system (~20-30K messages/day), and we do block spam based on RBLs. But any particular message only gets blocked if it gets a very high SpamAssassin score, which means it hit multiple RBLs, and it got a high Bayes score, and probably hit other rules too.
Blindly blocking mail based on a single RBL hit is going to cause trouble, as demonstrated by today's story. With the anti-spam tools available today for free, one would think this practice would have already faded into history. Even if the biggest ISPs get too much mail traffic to make a full SpamAssassin-type analysis of every message practical, you'd think they would at least require hitting multiple low-FP RBLs before blocking mail outright.
How many people do you know who can express themselves with precision in English? How many Slashdot posts have no speling errors, typos, or grammatical errors?
If it helps knock the zombie effectively offline, the user is more likely to notice that there's a problem.
Sure, but if you think that means they're going to do anything about it, I've got some nice waterfront property in Florida you should look at...
Learn English. It pays.
Are there a lot of people reading Slashdot through Babelfish or some other translation service?
Is it legal to put power in overhead trays?
All junctions have to be in an approved enclosure. Your electrician can install a long box that runs the length of the room (next to the cable trays) over every row of racks, and then put a 220 locking socket over every rack. Each box will have a conduit run to your panel.
Thirded. Parent described "rat's nest of cables." Take that very literally. Finding the spot where the rats/mice have eaten the insulation off your ethernet cables and chewed through the wire is no fun.
Rats are not threatened by dust kitties, even those as large as will grow under a raised floor.
Overhead 220v power and cable ladders are definitely the best way to go. Hire a good HVAC guy to design your airflow system to keep the whole room cool.
live CD distros
like all the stars in the sky
beauty in numbers
Wups, my bad. Since "open source license" is descriptive, it can't be trademarked. So I was wrong, you can call any damn thing you want an "open source license". Sorry. You just can't call it "OSI Certified."
Gas-powered industrial popcorn popper, about $2000: http://www.concessionstands.com/items.asp?CartId=9 021705K-EVEREST-BOLO449&Cc=36GASPED&tpc=
I think this is a better comparison.
Me too. Please mod parent up.
Yeah, well, except that they don't say anything about cost comparisons between making ethanol from cellulose versus traditional starch ethanol production. If it really is less expensive to produce ethanol from cellulose, it's REALLY cool! And you have to factor in that most cellulose is waste that would cost money to dispose of. But if it's not overall more cost effective than traditional ethanol production, then big deal. US companies are also developing new enzymes and techniques of making ethanol from cellulose. The problem is that all the processes so far are still too expensive to compete with traditional ethanol production, without being propped up by the government. Don't give Canada too much credit - right now about 12% of US gasoline contains ethanol, vs 5% in Canada.
It's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay Martians. I swear to God.
I'm the mail admin at a company with a little more than 500 active mail accounts. We get about 110,000 Internet messages per week, and about 80% of those are spam. We're using SpamAssassin to detect it, and running a script against syslog to get those numbers.
Our SpamAssassin server correctly detects over 99% of the spam, and rejects about 92% of it outright at our Internet gateway. The 8% least-spammy-looking-spam is tagged and allowed through to allow for false positives, though none have yet been reported.
I do think there are a lot if ignorant religious people, especially in fundamentalist groups. Many of them are in positions of authority within their organizations. According to the 2001 World Almanac, atheists number 0.5% of the North American population. Maybe not a thousand to one, but not a bad guess considering I didn't look it up until just now. I do think the average atheist is probably better educated than the average religious fundamentalist. So I'm sticking to my original statement. That doesn't mean I think the atheists are right, OK? Is the prick-o-meter still going off? Maybe you should get that thing checked.
Yes, ignorant atheists are at least as bad as ignorant religious fundamentalists. But I think the latter group outnumbers the former by a thousand to one.
By the way, I'm not saying scientists are without bias, obviously nobody is completely without bias. What I'm saying is that science itself is the method we use to reduce and/or eliminate bias. So if you say I'm scientifically biased, you're effectively saying I'm biased against bias. It's getting pretty silly at this point. If angels descended from the heavens tomorrow, would the scientific viewpoint deny their existence? There might be some debate caused by the inexact definition of "angels," but a good scientist will not ignore any relevant data, especially that presented by her own senses.