We need some laws that force work into the public domain if it wont be exploited for the private domain.
So you're saying if I create something really great, and decide not to sell it or let anyone use it, that there should be a law where you can come and take my creation and put it in the public domain?
For those that already purchased TivoNet or TurboNet... I read that you can buy the WAP11 from linksys, run the ethernet from your TivoNet/TurboNet into the WAP11, and set it up so that it acts like a client instead of a normal wireless hub... connecting to your real hub. Since I have a couple items in my living room that can be internet connected, I was looking into this. I wonder if you can connect a regular ethernet hub into the WAP11, and then run all your devices into the hub. Or is the WAP11 limited to one IP address negotiation...
The question is not whether they can provide an OS without a browser embedded - it's whether it is reasonable to modify their current OS's to that end.
Reasonable? You mean like this:
Judge: Hello. Having been found guilty of illegaly maintaining your monopoly, would you please allow us to break up your company?
MSFT: No, we feel that is unreasonable.
The broke the fucking law. Who cares what they feel is reasonable?
I don't mind if you use it on your own system, but a bunch of lawyers forcing its removal from the Windows retail or OEM distribution is fucking insane.
Would you also think it's insane to break up a monopolist like Microsoft, since that would likely also impair your business?
If so, your basic premise is that anything that could disrupt your business is insane, even if it's justified.
If that is not your position, then you should see where Microsoft has broken the law and they will be punished. Those building their businesses on top of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices will suffer as well.
Simple. A lot of the core functionality in Windows is based on standard web protocols - like the help system. As is thier future business model -.Net is based on SOAP and XML, don't forget.
I don't have a problem with them using MSIE's rendering engine to render their help pages for the OS. All that is required is that single DLL which provides functions capable of rendering.
Same thing with SOAP and XML. Sure, load those DLL's up if you need to.
But the browser does not need to be INTEGRATED with the operating system. What do we mean when we say INTEGRATED? We are talking about Windows loading up MSIE into memory when the operating system starts! Mozilla does the same type of thing when you specify the 'quick start' method for it. The difference is you have to load Mozilla up IN ADDITION to MSIE. I'd like to choose not to load MSIE at all, and load only Mozilla.
BTW, KDE uses Konquerer for it's help system too, does it not? So, an HTML renderer built into a desktop environment isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue.
You, like many people, are confusing BUNDLING with INTEGRATION. I don't care if MSIE is installed with Windows, really. But don't require that it be loaded into memory all the time! I don't refer to the help pages in Windows. I don't use SOAP or.NET or MSIE's XML technology. Even if I did, load just the DLL's you need, not the entire MSIE system.
It really boils down to trying to make every other Windows browser look bad.
Gee, I was thinking about using browser X, but look how fast MSIE loads up!
Too bad they don't realize it's loaded during bootup... talk about rigging.
But that way we would all have BeOS's cool features with or without Be. If Linux matched BeOS with the support of its codebase, would you still be upset just because it would be named Linux?
There is no comparison between Linux and BeOS. Linux is a programming geek's sandbox. BeOS is elegant and fun to use (and to program for).
So if Linux was just like it is today, but with the advanced tricks from BeOS, I still wouldn't use it. The thing I like about BeOS is the simple design, the great API, and the way the UI is designed.
And for those of you who would want to keep the Be name alive and well, with the source code you could have. Your loss as well as ours. Did anyone win in this scenario besides Microsoft and Apple?
Sort of... there is a new open source operating system being worked on right now, OpenBeOS. The kernel is [based on] NewOS, written by a former Be engineer. The goal is binary compatability with BeOS. There is a separate (related) project, called The Glass Elevator, which is looking at cool new features to add after the first release... but the first release is basically trying to pick up right where R5 left off. Progress is being made.
http://open-beos.sourceforge.net/
This project would have never taken off without Be's demise, and Be would never have released BeOS as open source.
Independent of any other arguments, if BeOS was OSS, then BeOS would be alive today. And no Be fans would be crying PERIOD.
We told you so.
No, you are user #556136. You didn't tell me jack shit.
On top of that, this argument is pointless. Yes, it would be great if I had the source code in my hands now released under an open source license. But the reality is Be, as a company, would have been crazy to do it. Their one claim to fame was their technology. Releasing it open source would have been incredibly stupid for Be. Secondly, a lot of the stuff in BeOS was licensed and could not be released as open source.
Why did they STOP SELLING BeOS when they "changed focus"?
They didn't, they licensed others to do it for them (GoBe for the U.S., others in other parts of the world).
They have BeOS 6 in the can.
Says you. They didn't really. Take a look at the last build done before the engineers left. You can find it floating around the internet, because someone at Be released it. It wasn't ready, by any means, and I wouldn't consider it "6.0," but rather 5.x.
And even if they did have BeOS 6 in the can, it takes A SHITLOAD of resources to get a release done! They changed focus to get a fresh start and reduce the burn before they ran out of money. Releasing a new version of the desktop OS would not have fit nicely into this plan.
Look at their statements - they are a public company.
Believe me, I did. I and my family invested a lot of money for us -- over $25,000 in total. We were in their stock since the IPO.
BeOS was bringing in almost all the money they needed
Ummm, Be was losing many millions of dollars every quarter. BeOS was certainly NOT PROFITABLE. I don't know where the hell you got that idea.
sales were increasing rapidly when they decided to stop selling it
Complete bullshit.
What were they thinking?
"How do we survive the longest?"
They would still be in business now if they had continued selling BeOS -AND- gone after the internet appliance market.
Armchair CEO'ing is fun, eh? Sorry, you are wrong. It's simple economics.
wends \Wends\, n. pl.; sing. [14]Wend. (Ethnol.) A Slavic tribe which once occupied the northern and eastern parts of Germany, of which a small remnant exists.
Really.
wendv. tr.
To proceed on or along; go: wend one's way home.
See, later on, you'll learn about verbs versus nouns in your English classes.
Re:A silly business model doomed Be to failure
on
Be Throws in the Towel
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Everyone was, at that time, aware of the "chicken and egg" problem: a new platform has no software, so no users will migrate to it, so nobody will write software, etc. This problem had doomed every new platform. Everyone was aware of it. Be decided to forge ahead anyway, while offering no solution to this problem whatsoever.
Wrong. Be did have a solution. They made it easy to install/run BeOS alongside Windows and Linux. Then people could easily switch into Be for things that it excelled at, such as multimedia. Their plans are all clearly laid out in their lawsuit against Microsoft, if you care to read it.
The result, predictably, was that BeOS had no applications. Running that nifty teapot demo got a little old, and nobody felt compelled to pay for it.
Clearly someone who never used BeOS for more than a couple days (or past 1997). BeOS had plenty of decent applications, many of them cheap or free. GoBe productive is a great office application, for example. Ever used it?
And how did Windows get so popular? Ahh, I forgot, they weren't going up against any entrenched monopolists in the desktop market. Apple's only still around because they started at the same time as Microsoft, and could build up a loyal userbase, which sustained them long enough to build a niche.
Be was only ever TRYING to build a niche based on multimedia, they never had that niche market, though. It takes time. Hard to do when an 800lb. gorilla is using illegal tactics to stall you.
If you're going to make a new commercial desktop OS, forge an alliance with Adobe etc and have app makers lined up BEFOREHAND. The game console makers know this.
Yes, let's turn to the game console makers for examples of great businesses! Need I list all the failed game console makers in the past decade? It's a fairly high percentage of all game console makers!
Besides, I'm sure it would have been cheap to get a company like Adobe to port their huge application (Photoshop) to an OS with a tiny market. Great business strategy... if your business has billions to burn.
Re:Shot themselves in the foot a long time ago.
on
Be Throws in the Towel
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Good Lord. Here we go again.
They've been dead ever since they decided to "change focus" from multimedia to networking.
They didn't change focus from media to networking. They changed focus from burning many millions a month on an OS that no OEM would distribute, to a company burning only ~$1 million a month, selling licenses to companies for an internet appliance OS. Companies such as Sony and Compaq. This has been rehashed too many times already, read a little history. If Be had not changed focus, they would have been dead many months sooner, since they were burning 10x as much cash, and still not selling the OS.
They had steinberg lined up, high-end sound card makers were starting to announce driver support plans, then they "change focus."
Ooh! They had Steinberg lined up! And some sound card drivers ANNOUNCING support plans. YIPPEE!! What were they thinking when they changed focus? I mean, we all know with a powerhouse like Steinberg lined up, and sound card drivers announced, success is sure to follow quickly!
As if the networking niche wasn't completely saturated already.
When Be changed focus, it wasn't saturated at all. The IA market was just starting out. No one owned the market like Microsoft owns the desktop market. And why the hell do you keep referring to it as 'networking'? It's not like they were trying to compete with any networking companies.
Too bad, they could've given mac a run for their money in the multimedia market . ..
Yeah, I thought so too, 4-5 years ago, when they first came out on Intel's platform. Then after a few years, reality set in -- Be was running out of cash, and sales of the OS were not picking up enough steam. It takes time to compete in the desktop market, even longer when trying to compete against an entrenched monopolist that illegally uses its power to provide barriers-to-entry in the market.
How an ignorant post such as yours was marked +4 I'll never know.
Try reading the press release, where you'll notice that those holding stock as of March 15 will be considered the 'final stockholders', and will be the ones getting any disbursements from the company, including anything left over now, before the lawsuit ends.
Remember when Be was going take over the world yet us "free software zealots" who wanted the source code kept saying "but...what if Be goes under or becomes some kind of tyrant?"
But you free software zealots wanted the source code so you could copy their cool ideas over into Linux, not so you could keep Be and BeOS alive and well. The end effect would be the same for fans of BeOS.
It's Marg not Marge. (What is this, the Simpsons? Hey, now that I think about it, I think the cast of CSI should come on the Simpsons for a 'murder investigation' that happens at the Simpsons home. Much hilarity will ensue.)
No, unlike X-Files, if a room is dark and has a light switch, CSI will flip it on instead of getting out the flashlights. I haven't noticed any penchant for filming in unusually dark places to enhance the mood. (Other than when they've got the purple light out looking for semen.)
1) Never, ever auto-reply to MAILER-DAEMON or Postmaster (procmail has good regex macros for this -- use them or copy them).
Error messages sent by mail servers should have a NULL sender/return-path. Therefore your mail server should easily be able to tell what is an error message from a machine, and not reply to it.
2) Preserve the headers of messages you forward.
I think you're confusing what is going on here. There is the type of forwarding that regular people do with their mail clients. And then there is the forwarding that SMTP servers do with email messages. All proper SMTP servers are required to keep all Received: headers intact, as well as to append a Received: header giving information about how that server received the message. Apparantly one of the mail servers involved here was munging the Recieved: headers, either on accident or on purpose.
3) Set an X-Loop header and check for it (or *any* X-Loop header if you want to be paranoid).
I've never heard of an 'X-Loop' header, but any good mail server will count the number of Received: headers and kill the message if an exorbitant number of Received: headers is found. Of course, you have to rely on all the mail servers in the loop maintaining the Received: headers as they are supposed to, just like you'd have to count on them not removing an X-Loop header if you added one. However, since Received: is covered in the SMTP RFC, it's a better bet.
4) Don't autoreply to the same address twice during [definable time period].
The Received: header counting above is a more maintainable solution to loop prevention for SMTP servers.
Those things just seem like common sense to me. Maybe someone else here knows more about the subject than I do. There has to be a HOWTO somewhere.
I've written an SMTP server in Java for my company. The HOWTO is called the SMTP (and related) RFC's.
Tell me you instantly want to go out and buy the albums groups are hawking. The music is either pablum for the teen masses, a la Britney Spears, pseudo-intellectual neo-sensitive grunge like Creed...
Creed has sold 20 million albums. They tied the record for number of weeks at #1 after debuting at #1 in album sales for their latest album (8 weeks), and their newest album is selling faster than their last album, which itself is certified 10x multiplatinum. Their concerts are continuously sold out all across the nation.
Apparantly not everyone agrees with you about the quality of Creed's music, or whether it's worth buying the album vs. downloading it off a P2P network.
Like the friend of mine who derides Mac cases for their 'prettiness' and claims function means all the most to her, but drives a more expensive bespoilered sporty looking car with no more performance than an average one.
If your friend drove a computer around town, perhaps she would be interested in a Mac?
Slashdot Mirror
We need some laws that force work into the public domain if it wont be exploited for the private domain.
So you're saying if I create something really great, and decide not to sell it or let anyone use it, that there should be a law where you can come and take my creation and put it in the public domain?
This is called socialism.
Please move to China.
That's called an 802.11 bridge, and they've been available since the beginning. They're just a bit expensive
Not much more than good WiFi card. Look at the linksys WAP11.
and if you think about it, if you've got a wire and all anyway, why not just run it to the hub?
There's a difference between a wire that's 1' long, and a wire that's 80' long to reach my hub across the house!
I might get modded down as a troll for this, but...Isn't this charity kind of frivolous?
Forget homeless/starving/victims of war, we need to make sure sick american kids can watch "dude, where's my car?" in surround sound.
Yeah, who cares if terminally ill children have fun before they die, anyway?
But that drunken bum who's starving because he spent his last 50 cents on a bottle of Schlitz -- yeah, I think I'm gonna help him out.
P.S. I give money to bums if they are physically or mentally challenged.
For those that already purchased TivoNet or TurboNet... I read that you can buy the WAP11 from linksys, run the ethernet from your TivoNet/TurboNet into the WAP11, and set it up so that it acts like a client instead of a normal wireless hub... connecting to your real hub. Since I have a couple items in my living room that can be internet connected, I was looking into this. I wonder if you can connect a regular ethernet hub into the WAP11, and then run all your devices into the hub. Or is the WAP11 limited to one IP address negotiation...
WAP11
The question is not whether they can provide an OS without a browser embedded - it's whether it is reasonable to modify their current OS's to that end.
Reasonable? You mean like this:
Judge: Hello. Having been found guilty of illegaly maintaining your monopoly, would you please allow us to break up your company?
MSFT: No, we feel that is unreasonable.
The broke the fucking law. Who cares what they feel is reasonable?
I don't mind if you use it on your own system, but a bunch of lawyers forcing its removal from the Windows retail or OEM distribution is fucking insane.
Would you also think it's insane to break up a monopolist like Microsoft, since that would likely also impair your business?
If so, your basic premise is that anything that could disrupt your business is insane, even if it's justified.
If that is not your position, then you should see where Microsoft has broken the law and they will be punished. Those building their businesses on top of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices will suffer as well.
Simple. A lot of the core functionality in Windows is based on standard web protocols - like the help system. As is thier future business model - .Net is based on SOAP and XML, don't forget.
.NET or MSIE's XML technology. Even if I did, load just the DLL's you need, not the entire MSIE system.
I don't have a problem with them using MSIE's rendering engine to render their help pages for the OS. All that is required is that single DLL which provides functions capable of rendering.
Same thing with SOAP and XML. Sure, load those DLL's up if you need to.
But the browser does not need to be INTEGRATED with the operating system. What do we mean when we say INTEGRATED? We are talking about Windows loading up MSIE into memory when the operating system starts! Mozilla does the same type of thing when you specify the 'quick start' method for it. The difference is you have to load Mozilla up IN ADDITION to MSIE. I'd like to choose not to load MSIE at all, and load only Mozilla.
BTW, KDE uses Konquerer for it's help system too, does it not? So, an HTML renderer built into a desktop environment isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue.
You, like many people, are confusing BUNDLING with INTEGRATION. I don't care if MSIE is installed with Windows, really. But don't require that it be loaded into memory all the time! I don't refer to the help pages in Windows. I don't use SOAP or
It really boils down to trying to make every other Windows browser look bad.
Gee, I was thinking about using browser X, but look how fast MSIE loads up!
Too bad they don't realize it's loaded during bootup... talk about rigging.
But that way we would all have BeOS's cool features with or without Be. If Linux matched BeOS with the support of its codebase, would you still be upset just because it would be named Linux?
... there is a new open source operating system being worked on right now, OpenBeOS. The kernel is [based on] NewOS, written by a former Be engineer. The goal is binary compatability with BeOS. There is a separate (related) project, called The Glass Elevator, which is looking at cool new features to add after the first release... but the first release is basically trying to pick up right where R5 left off. Progress is being made.
There is no comparison between Linux and BeOS. Linux is a programming geek's sandbox. BeOS is elegant and fun to use (and to program for).
So if Linux was just like it is today, but with the advanced tricks from BeOS, I still wouldn't use it. The thing I like about BeOS is the simple design, the great API, and the way the UI is designed.
And for those of you who would want to keep the Be name alive and well, with the source code you could have. Your loss as well as ours. Did anyone win in this scenario besides Microsoft and Apple?
Sort of
http://open-beos.sourceforge.net/
This project would have never taken off without Be's demise, and Be would never have released BeOS as open source.
It is what it is.
Independent of any other arguments, if BeOS was OSS, then BeOS would be alive today. And no Be fans would be crying PERIOD.
We told you so.
No, you are user #556136. You didn't tell me jack shit.
On top of that, this argument is pointless. Yes, it would be great if I had the source code in my hands now released under an open source license. But the reality is Be, as a company, would have been crazy to do it. Their one claim to fame was their technology. Releasing it open source would have been incredibly stupid for Be. Secondly, a lot of the stuff in BeOS was licensed and could not be released as open source.
Why did they STOP SELLING BeOS when they "changed focus"?
They didn't, they licensed others to do it for them (GoBe for the U.S., others in other parts of the world).
They have BeOS 6 in the can.
Says you. They didn't really. Take a look at the last build done before the engineers left. You can find it floating around the internet, because someone at Be released it. It wasn't ready, by any means, and I wouldn't consider it "6.0," but rather 5.x.
And even if they did have BeOS 6 in the can, it takes A SHITLOAD of resources to get a release done! They changed focus to get a fresh start and reduce the burn before they ran out of money. Releasing a new version of the desktop OS would not have fit nicely into this plan.
Look at their statements - they are a public company.
Believe me, I did. I and my family invested a lot of money for us -- over $25,000 in total. We were in their stock since the IPO.
BeOS was bringing in almost all the money they needed
Ummm, Be was losing many millions of dollars every quarter. BeOS was certainly NOT PROFITABLE. I don't know where the hell you got that idea.
sales were increasing rapidly when they decided to stop selling it
Complete bullshit.
What were they thinking?
"How do we survive the longest?"
They would still be in business now if they had continued selling BeOS -AND- gone after the internet appliance market.
Armchair CEO'ing is fun, eh? Sorry, you are wrong. It's simple economics.
wends \Wends\, n. pl.; sing. [14]Wend. (Ethnol.) A Slavic tribe which once occupied the northern and eastern parts of Germany, of which a small remnant exists.
Really.
See, later on, you'll learn about verbs versus nouns in your English classes.
Everyone was, at that time, aware of the "chicken and egg" problem: a new platform has no software, so no users will migrate to it, so nobody will write software, etc. This problem had doomed every new platform. Everyone was aware of it. Be decided to forge ahead anyway, while offering no solution to this problem whatsoever.
Wrong. Be did have a solution. They made it easy to install/run BeOS alongside Windows and Linux. Then people could easily switch into Be for things that it excelled at, such as multimedia. Their plans are all clearly laid out in their lawsuit against Microsoft, if you care to read it.
The result, predictably, was that BeOS had no applications. Running that nifty teapot demo got a little old, and nobody felt compelled to pay for it.
Clearly someone who never used BeOS for more than a couple days (or past 1997). BeOS had plenty of decent applications, many of them cheap or free. GoBe productive is a great office application, for example. Ever used it?
And how did Windows get so popular? Ahh, I forgot, they weren't going up against any entrenched monopolists in the desktop market. Apple's only still around because they started at the same time as Microsoft, and could build up a loyal userbase, which sustained them long enough to build a niche.
Be was only ever TRYING to build a niche based on multimedia, they never had that niche market, though. It takes time. Hard to do when an 800lb. gorilla is using illegal tactics to stall you.
If you're going to make a new commercial desktop OS, forge an alliance with Adobe etc and have app makers lined up BEFOREHAND. The game console makers know this.
Yes, let's turn to the game console makers for examples of great businesses! Need I list all the failed game console makers in the past decade? It's a fairly high percentage of all game console makers!
Besides, I'm sure it would have been cheap to get a company like Adobe to port their huge application (Photoshop) to an OS with a tiny market. Great business strategy... if your business has billions to burn.
Good Lord. Here we go again.
.
They've been dead ever since they decided to "change focus" from multimedia to networking.
They didn't change focus from media to networking. They changed focus from burning many millions a month on an OS that no OEM would distribute, to a company burning only ~$1 million a month, selling licenses to companies for an internet appliance OS. Companies such as Sony and Compaq. This has been rehashed too many times already, read a little history. If Be had not changed focus, they would have been dead many months sooner, since they were burning 10x as much cash, and still not selling the OS.
They had steinberg lined up, high-end sound card makers were starting to announce driver support plans, then they "change focus."
Ooh! They had Steinberg lined up! And some sound card drivers ANNOUNCING support plans. YIPPEE!! What were they thinking when they changed focus? I mean, we all know with a powerhouse like Steinberg lined up, and sound card drivers announced, success is sure to follow quickly!
As if the networking niche wasn't completely saturated already.
When Be changed focus, it wasn't saturated at all. The IA market was just starting out. No one owned the market like Microsoft owns the desktop market. And why the hell do you keep referring to it as 'networking'? It's not like they were trying to compete with any networking companies.
Too bad, they could've given mac a run for their money in the multimedia market . .
Yeah, I thought so too, 4-5 years ago, when they first came out on Intel's platform. Then after a few years, reality set in -- Be was running out of cash, and sales of the OS were not picking up enough steam. It takes time to compete in the desktop market, even longer when trying to compete against an entrenched monopolist that illegally uses its power to provide barriers-to-entry in the market.
How an ignorant post such as yours was marked +4 I'll never know.
Try reading the press release, where you'll notice that those holding stock as of March 15 will be considered the 'final stockholders', and will be the ones getting any disbursements from the company, including anything left over now, before the lawsuit ends.
Remember when Be was going take over the world yet us "free software zealots" who wanted the source code kept saying "but...what if Be goes under or becomes some kind of tyrant?"
But you free software zealots wanted the source code so you could copy their cool ideas over into Linux, not so you could keep Be and BeOS alive and well. The end effect would be the same for fans of BeOS.
It's Marg not Marge. (What is this, the Simpsons? Hey, now that I think about it, I think the cast of CSI should come on the Simpsons for a 'murder investigation' that happens at the Simpsons home. Much hilarity will ensue.)
No, unlike X-Files, if a room is dark and has a light switch, CSI will flip it on instead of getting out the flashlights. I haven't noticed any penchant for filming in unusually dark places to enhance the mood. (Other than when they've got the purple light out looking for semen.)
Its ok to have software designed to "share" possibly copyrighted music, but God forbid they mess with the GPL copyright...
Except the article was not talking about the GPL copyright, but a GPL violation.
Yeah, in the USA we're famous for our death squads. Good thing you lumped us in with Colombia and Brazil there... uhhh.
I thought the article was about Disney acquiring another senator... Hollings is annoying enough already.
Worse than that, I thought they were trading Lasseter to George W. in exchange for a senator.
He single handedly made the last general election interesting by punching a voter who was stupid enough to throw an egg at him
And I thought you folks were supposed to be so civilized over there.
"Our policemen don't even carry guns!" they say.
Huzzah!
What about ultra-wideband technology? Doesn't this solve a lot of the problems you're talking about.
1) Never, ever auto-reply to MAILER-DAEMON or Postmaster (procmail has good regex macros for this -- use them or copy them).
Error messages sent by mail servers should have a NULL sender/return-path. Therefore your mail server should easily be able to tell what is an error message from a machine, and not reply to it.
2) Preserve the headers of messages you forward.
I think you're confusing what is going on here. There is the type of forwarding that regular people do with their mail clients. And then there is the forwarding that SMTP servers do with email messages. All proper SMTP servers are required to keep all Received: headers intact, as well as to append a Received: header giving information about how that server received the message. Apparantly one of the mail servers involved here was munging the Recieved: headers, either on accident or on purpose.
3) Set an X-Loop header and check for it (or *any* X-Loop header if you want to be paranoid).
I've never heard of an 'X-Loop' header, but any good mail server will count the number of Received: headers and kill the message if an exorbitant number of Received: headers is found. Of course, you have to rely on all the mail servers in the loop maintaining the Received: headers as they are supposed to, just like you'd have to count on them not removing an X-Loop header if you added one. However, since Received: is covered in the SMTP RFC, it's a better bet.
4) Don't autoreply to the same address twice during [definable time period].
The Received: header counting above is a more maintainable solution to loop prevention for SMTP servers.
Those things just seem like common sense to me. Maybe someone else here knows more about the subject than I do. There has to be a HOWTO somewhere.
I've written an SMTP server in Java for my company. The HOWTO is called the SMTP (and related) RFC's.
That, I believe, is largely due to Yahoo using their SE. Yahoo is still king.
I guess Yahoo! changed their domain to google.com?
Tell me you instantly want to go out and buy the albums groups are hawking. The music is either pablum for the teen masses, a la Britney Spears, pseudo-intellectual neo-sensitive grunge like Creed...
Creed has sold 20 million albums. They tied the record for number of weeks at #1 after debuting at #1 in album sales for their latest album (8 weeks), and their newest album is selling faster than their last album, which itself is certified 10x multiplatinum. Their concerts are continuously sold out all across the nation.
Apparantly not everyone agrees with you about the quality of Creed's music, or whether it's worth buying the album vs. downloading it off a P2P network.
Like the friend of mine who derides Mac cases for their 'prettiness' and claims function means all the most to her, but drives a more expensive bespoilered sporty looking car with no more performance than an average one.
If your friend drove a computer around town, perhaps she would be interested in a Mac?