Does Microsoft still not ship their OS with an ssh client out of the box?
They do not ship an SSH client. However, they have shipped with Remote Desktop since XP. SSH isn't much use for Microsoft's GUI-centric world. Now, you can argue about the advantages of the command line, and I'd agree with you, but Microsoft doesn't agree, and they do provide an equivalent for their mindset. So that's not a terribly good example.
(A better complaint is why they introduced this WinRM crap. *That's* RSH/SSH all over again, just NIH. Idiots.)
Windows does have a rather large set of tools for administration automation, even remote admin automation, but it suffers from (1) being poorly documented, (2) being as confusing as the Unix toolset, complete with convoluted syntax and arcane command names, and (3) Microsoft keeps changing the damn thing.
So I agree with your conclusions, but your supporting evidence is a bit iffy.
If Windows is so easy to configure then why is it misconfigured so horribly?
Because most IT people are cowboy admins. The idea of seeking out and reading Best Practices documentation is completely beyond them.
I rather suspect Linux is easier to manage, if you know what you're doing. I certainly believe Linux is easier to fix when it's broken. And there's the whole not-beholden-to-any-one-company thing, which is a big selling point for me. But the fact remains, the number of IT people who just don't get it is high.
If you offer a free service, and then take it away in an attempt to monetize your service, of course users are going to get upset.
What are you going to do, stop paying them?
Dyn's attitude seems pretty straight forward: 1. As long as you keep your free account current, they'll continue giving you service for free. 2. If you let that account lapse, you may have to choose a different name, but they'll still give you service for free 3. You are, of course, welcome to go elsewhere, and stop using their free service
DynDNS providing a free service most people are locked in to using them even if they now have to pay.
Ah, no, they won't. The worst that can happen is, if someone can't keep their name registered, despite having a whole month to do so, with warning emails, they *might* have to switch to a *different* but *still free* name. (If they happened to choose one of the names which are still free, not even that.)
Their free service harmed competition and now they're reaping the rewards.
Dyn wasn't the first free DNS provider. Granite Canyon was around before them, if nothing else. And there have certainly been other free contemporary providers. So that's not true, either.
This is important because some people might not have seen an email from DynDNS for a decade or more, and will be very surprised when their things stop working after all this time.
It will only stop working if *your* stuff stops working. And they'll email you telling you your free account is going to expire before it goes.
After getting a *decade* of free service, complaining that you *might* have to change to a *different* but *still free* name, but *only* if you can't keep *your own stuff* working, seems like a bit much to me. Just how much of a handout do you want?
I'm astounded at the sense of entitlement people are displaying over this issue. It's *FREE* but that's still not cheap enough for some people.
using the fact that users can't move their subdomains to anywhere else to force them to pay for an overpriced service
How are they forcing anyone to pay for anything? You're welcome to get your free DNS name with any other provider who offers that. Heck, they'll even keep giving you free service. Only if you want a particular vanity domain do you have to pay for it.
It's not actually terribly hard to run your own dynamic DNS
Then go ahead. It's not hard, so not crummy to ask you to do it, right?
My problem is the bait and switch. If I was going to *pay* for a domain, I sure as hell wouldn't have selected one as limited as a DynDNS subdomain, but I did because it *was* free. Paying to have a host record in one of their domain when for the same amount of money I can have my own domain seems ridiculous.
So, let me get this straight: 1. You were getting something for free 2. They changed things, and let you know as long as you kept your infrastructure working, they would continue to give it to you for free 3. You failed to keep your infrastructure working 4. You are under no obligation to keep using the service 5. You can continue getting something for free, for a name change 6. Or you can even pay, if you really value the name that much 7. Or you can jump ship and go elsewhere, paying or free
And that's crummy? Your sense of entitlement staggers me.
Bait-and-switch implies that there's some investment on your part. There's none. You started paying nothing and you can still pay nothing. You're complaining that not only must Dyn give you a handout, they have to give it to you *your way*.
Ever hear the expression, "Beggars can't be choosers"?
If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.
The thing is, donating does help the victims. It just isn't as simple as going into Wal-Mart and buying a Band-Aid. If people didn't donate during the X-1 disaster, then there would be no resources for X. If people don't donate during the X disaster, there will be no resources for X+1. The Red Cross responds to disasters around the clock -- it's a continuous, non-stop, all-the-time operation. You can't just earmark funds for *one* thing, and trying to do so makes no sense -- by the time the money gets there, it will be too late.
It appears some people just can't wrap their heads around this fact. It's the Tragedy of the Commons, all over again.
Read my comments elsewhere in this subthread, and you'll see some of the other things I do with tree tabs. I really do find it incredibly useful and powerful, to the point where anything else is like a kid's-toy-version of the web. The only drawback is when I sit down at a computer that *doesn't* have these features, I'm hampered.
The other two extensions I live and die by are: * BarTab - Unload tabs that you aren't using * Session Manager - Save/restore tabs between browser sessions
I will warn you, that once you try out these things, you likely won't be able to surf the web happily without them.
I can't imagine you always browse in a fashion that is requiring that much tab organization.
Actually, yes, I pretty much do. The web is made of links, and tree tabs let me arrange tabs as I surf the web. Take Slashdot. I'll have a tab for the home page, a tab for each story discussion, a tab for each sub-thread that I want to show more comments for, and a tab for each comment I'm replying to. Elsewhere I've got Facebook and its subtabs for things happening there. If I'm watching a Youtube video, I'l often see "Related" videos I want to watch, and then *those* have related videos -- each gets a subtab. I routinely have well over 100 tabs open. I think I've got around 150 right now, at home.
I really do mean it when I say I find the web isn't usable without tree tabs. It'd be like using a browser without a "Back" button. Possible, but incredibly tedious.
Tree view tabs, even opening a ton of sites only go down half way then it is empty space to the bottom...
Heh. I always need the tree collapse capability, or the tab list scrolls. I've currently got 150 tabs, according to Session Manager. Thanks to BarTab, most of them aren't loaded at any given time. I suppose you could say I'm using tabs like bookmarks, and in a way, you're right, except this alleviates the need to go to the separate thought-space of bookmarks.
The one thing that keeps me off Chrome for serious web browsing is the lack of a **full** equivalent to Tree Style Tab. I've found various attempts, but until something with all the critical features is available, I can't leave Firefox.
And yes, it's that important. I find serious web browsing without tree tabs is basically unusable.
Some analysis of Chrome extensions I've tried follows below, along with a longer explaination of why tree tabs matter.
----- Why tree tabs are important
Critical features:
* Arrange tabs in a hierarchy (subordinate/superior relationships) * Links middle-clicked to open in a new tab, open under the current tab * You can collapse branches of the tabs tree, like a folder tree in Explorer/Outlook * You can drag tabs around to restructure the tree
For example, my current top-level hierarchies at work are "PVI clusterfsck", "vern buerg list", "to read", "vmware ctrl alt del", "new server", and "training". "training" has four immediate subtabs, each for various training providers we use at $WORK. Each of those is an exploration of their course hierarchy. I can expand or collapse any section or subsection as my focus changes. I can also bookmark branches for later.
For me, at least, knowledge isn't linear, it's tree structured. The Back/Forward paradigm is totally inadequate for the task.
Unfortunately, it's lacking some features. The biggest is that it doesn't actually replace the tab bar across the top of the screen. Rather, it gives you a new toolbar button, which, when clicked, drops down a tree structure. No way to make that appear permanently, that I can see. (TreeStyleTab appears much like a "side bar" in Firefox.) The tree structure does reflect which tab opened from which. But I can't drag tabs or branches to organize them, nor can I collapse/expand branches.
Similar to the "Tree Style Tabs (Beta)" above. Same button-not-a-sidebar issue. Does allow collapse/expand, which is good. It opens up a new Google Chrome window to hold collapsed tabs (with the message to minimize it and forget about it), which is rather kludgey. Still can't drag tabs.
Same button-not-a-sidebar issue. Tab structure doesn't appear to reflect browsing history. Seems to have only two levels, a "folder" it creates, and all your tabs. Does allow dragging of those tabs, but I'm not sure what the point is. Can't find a way to create a folder. I'm not quite sure what the point is.
-----
Some of these limitations might be due to Chrome's architecture, rather than the extension programmers. In particular, I suspect Chrome just doesn't let extensions have enough access to the UI to do anything really useful. Which is a shame, because Chrome feels so much faster than Firefox.
The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared.
And this is bad why?
Disaster relief is complicated, and thus expensive. You need supplies, equipment, and people with training. Between getting people to donate, getting funds to where they need to be, getting goods procured, getting people trained, and then moving it all to where it needs to be, the lead time is non-trivial. This isn't a hard drive; you can't just order it from NewEgg and have it there next day.
I don't get this objection to disaster relief organizations being prepared for disasters.
[The Red Cross] basically raise money during every disaster, and while they send support, the impression they give during fundraising that, for example, your money goes to help with X disaster, is not what they are really doing.
You're right, because when a disaster strikes, the Red Cross is there from day one (or often even before day one, if it's predictable), and so those assets were funded *months* or even *years* in advance. Otherwise it would take six months to get the aid there, and everyone would already be dead.
When you see a disaster on TV and make a donation, that actually ends up paying for the *next* disaster. That's not a bad thing. Especially since the next disaster might be where you are.
The Red Cross saves lives every damn day. Not just the big disasters that make the news, but when someone's house burns down, or needs blood for a live-saving operation (Red Cross runs a lot of blood drives), or any number of other things.
Sorry if this doesn't fit with your world view, but disaster relief isn't like buying books on Amazon. It's a wee bit more complicated.
I don't think most of what the CIA does would qualify as "honest". They're spies, aka liars, thieves and criminals.
While that's certainly true of the CIA's operational aspects, their IT guys are mostly just IT guys, just like any other organization -- just with higher value IT assets than most orgs. File storage, printing, word processing, spreadsheets, databases, etc., don't change just because the data is classified. Communications (phones, networks, email, etc.) get rather more complicated, due to security, but ultimately they're after things the corporate world is, too -- they just have rather higher security standards than most orgs. But ultimately an Exchange server is still just an Exchange server.
You need a lot of support personnel for every actual spy, or even intelligence analysis. IT, accounting, HR, purchasing, engineers, doc control, etc. Even PR (marketing).
The open source folks have continued to struggled with closed Microsoft office formats with little or no progress in some areas. Are employees subjected to the same treatment?
Having read the Microsoft "Open XML" specification, I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't really understand all the details of the classic Office file format, either. Seriously. I'd bet good money there's a lot of old, poorly documented that nobody really understands anymore. It was prolly written by programmers in 1995 who have long since moved on.
The suburbs -- and unless you're a farmer, you live in the suburbs, not the country -- are even less "survivable". Think about the goods that you consume on a daily basis (including food, water, oil/gas/other fuel, etc.), and the infrastructure it takes to get them there. Now think about the fact that you need to get those goods not only to your house, but to millions of other houses over a huge, spread-out area.
Cites are more efficient, but they depend more on the technology.
Where I grew up qualified as suburban, by your definition, and likely by some others. But we had our own water well and septic system. We had oil heat, but we also had a wood barrel stove that could keep the place warm. We had a small garden, a large yard. We had wooded lands around us. This was the norm for the town. There were even small farms around.
If civilization collapsed overnight, our way of life would be drastically altered, and a lot of people wouldn't be able to cope, I'm sure. But we would have had a chance. My dad used to hunt deer, we could cut wood for fuel, we could expand the garden, we'd even be able to open the well cover and get water with a bucket and rope after the generator ran out of gas.
In the city, you would have two choices: Leave or die.
Was it actually connecting? What I read was that domains existed, implying that connections could be made.
CarrierIQ was reported to be connecting to IP addresses which reversed to domain names containing "vzw". Could CarrierIQ have set-up names with "vzw" without actually having VZW as a customer? Sure. Heck, maybe VZW really *isn't* using VZW. If so, I expect they're using some other solution that does the same thing.
As a VZW corporate customer, I am intimately familar with VZW's corporate policy of treating customers like luncheon meat. Whereas with the other carriers, I only know of that policy through hearsay. I certainly haven't heard anything that makes me think that any big US wireless carrier wouldn't pull this kind of stunt. The entire industry MO is "we own the customer".
For the free hostname, you have to submit an update at least once every 30 days, even if your IP address hasn't changed. Otherwise, the free account will be deleted.
If you send updates *too often*, you'll get blocked for abuse. "Too often" isn't defined anywhere that I find easily, but more than once every several days or so is a good threshold to use. You'll get an email if this happens. Also, the "too often" limit only applies if your IP address hasn't actually changed -- legit updates get a different scale.
I update every 15 days, and have never had an issue.
Since you mention your model is having intermittent trouble anyway, it sounds like the problem is just crappy modem software. There's a lot of that out there. (LinkSys's DNS update client was broken for *years*, and they're one of the biggest SOHO router vendors.) I'd suggest disabling DNS update on your modem and using a known-good client on a PC behind your modem.
It's disheartening that DynDNS are such complete shit heads.
I've done business with Dyn, Inc., before, and found them cluefull and willing to help. I know some of the people who work there, and they are not complete shit heads.
Sorry about your situation. Another reason to hate the DMCA, I think.
So it's not proprietary (limited to or owned by them). You might call it non-standard, but if that draft was accepted it would be on the IETF standards track.
Also, Dyn *does* offer DNS UPDATE support, but only for paying customers:
Agreed -- this is old news. I got my notice about this change on 27 Aug 2010 -- about a year and a half ago. Submitter has been asleep at the switch.
Given that they're still giving me free stuff, just not quite as much free stuff, I didn't really feel all that upset about it.:)
Here's most of the text of the notice:
From: "DynDNS Support" To: dragonhawk@ Subject: Changes to NEW DynDNS.com Accounts Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:39:14 -0300 Reply-To: support@dyndns.com Return-Path: marketer@bouncelabs.com
What changes are you talking about?
Previously we allowed each Dynamic DNS account to have 5 free hostnames and you could select them from 88 different domains that we own. Now this will be limited to 2 free hostnames from 18 DynDNS branded domains.
Also, we are increasing the number of hostnames that come with a DynDNS Pro upgrade. Previously, each DynDNS Pro upgrade gave you the ability to add 25 additional hostnames. We are increasing that number to 30.
Why are you making these changes?
There are a number of reasons that we thought it was important to make these changes now.
Having 88 free domains to choose from was overwhelming for many of our new users. By reducing this to 18 it makes it easier for people to get started. By limiting the free options to the DynDNS branded domains, it helps grow the awareness of our services. Although we are happy to offer our free services, we simply ask that you help spread the word to other people who might find our paid services helpful. We have to pay those bills somehow. Looking at the stats of our users over the past 12 years, we see that the vast majority of people only use 1 free hostname. Our support team has seen a lot of confusion caused by the five free hostnames, so when you combine that with the normal use case, it just made sense. We are allowing the 2nd hostname for those who need to create a WebHop to access your hostname. If you are going to need more than 1 or 2 hostnames there's a good chance you are using us for something important. If that's the case, we simply ask that you pay $15/yr for the DynDNS Pro upgrade, which provides a number of other benefits. If you are using our services for business critical needs, you should consider our Custom DNS service. What will happen to my current account and hostnames?
Nothing, as long as you keep your hostnames active and up-to-date. If you allow your account or hostnames to expire, you will have to select from the new domains instead and will be limited to the 2 free hostnames. To ensure you arenâ(TM)t affected by these changes, upgrade to DynDNS Pro for just $15/yr. Again, there are a number of other benefits to upgrading.
You're just trying to force us to pay you, aren't you?
No, not really. As long as you keep your account active, you won't be affected by these changes. We would never want to have a user feel like they were forced to use our services. This does not seem to be a very good business model to us. You do your part (log into your account or update your hostname monthly) and we will do ours (continue to offer free Dynamic DNS services to you).
Slashdot Mirror
Does Microsoft still not ship their OS with an ssh client out of the box?
They do not ship an SSH client. However, they have shipped with Remote Desktop since XP. SSH isn't much use for Microsoft's GUI-centric world. Now, you can argue about the advantages of the command line, and I'd agree with you, but Microsoft doesn't agree, and they do provide an equivalent for their mindset. So that's not a terribly good example.
(A better complaint is why they introduced this WinRM crap. *That's* RSH/SSH all over again, just NIH. Idiots.)
Windows does have a rather large set of tools for administration automation, even remote admin automation, but it suffers from (1) being poorly documented, (2) being as confusing as the Unix toolset, complete with convoluted syntax and arcane command names, and (3) Microsoft keeps changing the damn thing.
So I agree with your conclusions, but your supporting evidence is a bit iffy.
If Windows is so easy to configure then why is it misconfigured so horribly?
Because most IT people are cowboy admins. The idea of seeking out and reading Best Practices documentation is completely beyond them.
I rather suspect Linux is easier to manage, if you know what you're doing. I certainly believe Linux is easier to fix when it's broken. And there's the whole not-beholden-to-any-one-company thing, which is a big selling point for me. But the fact remains, the number of IT people who just don't get it is high.
I gave them money so they'd stay free. They didn't stay free.
They still offer free service, just with a more limited selection of parent domain names. And only if you let your free account lapse.
I don't know how much money you've given them, either, but if it was like the parent -- $10 a decade ago -- well, $1/year is a pretty good price.
If you offer a free service, and then take it away in an attempt to monetize your service, of course users are going to get upset.
What are you going to do, stop paying them?
Dyn's attitude seems pretty straight forward:
1. As long as you keep your free account current, they'll continue giving you service for free.
2. If you let that account lapse, you may have to choose a different name, but they'll still give you service for free
3. You are, of course, welcome to go elsewhere, and stop using their free service
I don't see a sense of entitlement there.
DynDNS providing a free service most people are locked in to using them even if they now have to pay.
Ah, no, they won't. The worst that can happen is, if someone can't keep their name registered, despite having a whole month to do so, with warning emails, they *might* have to switch to a *different* but *still free* name. (If they happened to choose one of the names which are still free, not even that.)
Their free service harmed competition and now they're reaping the rewards.
Dyn wasn't the first free DNS provider. Granite Canyon was around before them, if nothing else. And there have certainly been other free contemporary providers. So that's not true, either.
This is important because some people might not have seen an email from DynDNS for a decade or more, and will be very surprised when their things stop working after all this time.
It will only stop working if *your* stuff stops working. And they'll email you telling you your free account is going to expire before it goes.
After getting a *decade* of free service, complaining that you *might* have to change to a *different* but *still free* name, but *only* if you can't keep *your own stuff* working, seems like a bit much to me. Just how much of a handout do you want?
I'm astounded at the sense of entitlement people are displaying over this issue. It's *FREE* but that's still not cheap enough for some people.
using the fact that users can't move their subdomains to anywhere else to force them to pay for an overpriced service
How are they forcing anyone to pay for anything? You're welcome to get your free DNS name with any other provider who offers that. Heck, they'll even keep giving you free service. Only if you want a particular vanity domain do you have to pay for it.
It's not actually terribly hard to run your own dynamic DNS
Then go ahead. It's not hard, so not crummy to ask you to do it, right?
My problem is the bait and switch. If I was going to *pay* for a domain, I sure as hell wouldn't have selected one as limited as a DynDNS subdomain, but I did because it *was* free. Paying to have a host record in one of their domain when for the same amount of money I can have my own domain seems ridiculous.
So, let me get this straight:
1. You were getting something for free
2. They changed things, and let you know as long as you kept your infrastructure working, they would continue to give it to you for free
3. You failed to keep your infrastructure working
4. You are under no obligation to keep using the service
5. You can continue getting something for free, for a name change
6. Or you can even pay, if you really value the name that much
7. Or you can jump ship and go elsewhere, paying or free
And that's crummy? Your sense of entitlement staggers me.
Bait-and-switch implies that there's some investment on your part. There's none. You started paying nothing and you can still pay nothing. You're complaining that not only must Dyn give you a handout, they have to give it to you *your way*.
Ever hear the expression, "Beggars can't be choosers"?
If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.
The thing is, donating does help the victims. It just isn't as simple as going into Wal-Mart and buying a Band-Aid. If people didn't donate during the X-1 disaster, then there would be no resources for X. If people don't donate during the X disaster, there will be no resources for X+1. The Red Cross responds to disasters around the clock -- it's a continuous, non-stop, all-the-time operation. You can't just earmark funds for *one* thing, and trying to do so makes no sense -- by the time the money gets there, it will be too late.
It appears some people just can't wrap their heads around this fact. It's the Tragedy of the Commons, all over again.
Point, but I'll take what I can get. :-)
Read my comments elsewhere in this subthread, and you'll see some of the other things I do with tree tabs. I really do find it incredibly useful and powerful, to the point where anything else is like a kid's-toy-version of the web. The only drawback is when I sit down at a computer that *doesn't* have these features, I'm hampered.
The other two extensions I live and die by are:
* BarTab - Unload tabs that you aren't using
* Session Manager - Save/restore tabs between browser sessions
I will warn you, that once you try out these things, you likely won't be able to surf the web happily without them.
I can't imagine you always browse in a fashion that is requiring that much tab organization.
Actually, yes, I pretty much do. The web is made of links, and tree tabs let me arrange tabs as I surf the web. Take Slashdot. I'll have a tab for the home page, a tab for each story discussion, a tab for each sub-thread that I want to show more comments for, and a tab for each comment I'm replying to. Elsewhere I've got Facebook and its subtabs for things happening there. If I'm watching a Youtube video, I'l often see "Related" videos I want to watch, and then *those* have related videos -- each gets a subtab. I routinely have well over 100 tabs open. I think I've got around 150 right now, at home.
I really do mean it when I say I find the web isn't usable without tree tabs. It'd be like using a browser without a "Back" button. Possible, but incredibly tedious.
Tree view tabs, even opening a ton of sites only go down half way then it is empty space to the bottom...
Heh. I always need the tree collapse capability, or the tab list scrolls. I've currently got 150 tabs, according to Session Manager. Thanks to BarTab, most of them aren't loaded at any given time. I suppose you could say I'm using tabs like bookmarks, and in a way, you're right, except this alleviates the need to go to the separate thought-space of bookmarks.
The one thing that keeps me off Chrome for serious web browsing is the lack of a **full** equivalent to Tree Style Tab. I've found various attempts, but until something with all the critical features is available, I can't leave Firefox.
And yes, it's that important. I find serious web browsing without tree tabs is basically unusable.
Some analysis of Chrome extensions I've tried follows below, along with a longer explaination of why tree tabs matter.
-----
Why tree tabs are important
Critical features:
* Arrange tabs in a hierarchy (subordinate/superior relationships)
* Links middle-clicked to open in a new tab, open under the current tab
* You can collapse branches of the tabs tree, like a folder tree in Explorer/Outlook
* You can drag tabs around to restructure the tree
For example, my current top-level hierarchies at work are "PVI clusterfsck", "vern buerg list", "to read", "vmware ctrl alt del", "new server", and "training". "training" has four immediate subtabs, each for various training providers we use at $WORK. Each of those is an exploration of their course hierarchy. I can expand or collapse any section or subsection as my focus changes. I can also bookmark branches for later.
For me, at least, knowledge isn't linear, it's tree structured. The Back/Forward paradigm is totally inadequate for the task.
-----
Tree Style Tabs (Beta)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ffididlaalcoegfcalmeldjfnihmoech
Unfortunately, it's lacking some features. The biggest is that it
doesn't actually replace the tab bar across the top of the screen.
Rather, it gives you a new toolbar button, which, when clicked, drops
down a tree structure. No way to make that appear permanently, that I
can see. (TreeStyleTab appears much like a "side bar" in Firefox.)
The tree structure does reflect which tab opened from which. But I
can't drag tabs or branches to organize them, nor can I
collapse/expand branches.
-----
Tab Sense
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oiabeebnmckkdjloeofbfladabfhedlg
Similar to the "Tree Style Tabs (Beta)" above. Same
button-not-a-sidebar issue. Does allow collapse/expand, which is
good. It opens up a new Google Chrome window to hold collapsed tabs
(with the message to minimize it and forget about it), which is rather
kludgey. Still can't drag tabs.
-----
Tabs Manager
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ioigddmjfpphkbamgbaolfkpifddnaje
Same button-not-a-sidebar issue. Tab structure doesn't appear to
reflect browsing history. Seems to have only two levels, a "folder"
it creates, and all your tabs. Does allow dragging of those tabs, but
I'm not sure what the point is. Can't find a way to create a folder.
I'm not quite sure what the point is.
-----
Some of these limitations might be due to Chrome's architecture,
rather than the extension programmers. In particular, I suspect
Chrome just doesn't let extensions have enough access to the UI to do
anything really useful. Which is a shame, because Chrome feels so
much faster than Firefox.
The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared.
And this is bad why?
Disaster relief is complicated, and thus expensive. You need supplies, equipment, and people with training. Between getting people to donate, getting funds to where they need to be, getting goods procured, getting people trained, and then moving it all to where it needs to be, the lead time is non-trivial. This isn't a hard drive; you can't just order it from NewEgg and have it there next day.
I don't get this objection to disaster relief organizations being prepared for disasters.
[The Red Cross] basically raise money during every disaster, and while they send support, the impression they give during fundraising that, for example, your money goes to help with X disaster, is not what they are really doing.
You're right, because when a disaster strikes, the Red Cross is there from day one (or often even before day one, if it's predictable), and so those assets were funded *months* or even *years* in advance. Otherwise it would take six months to get the aid there, and everyone would already be dead.
When you see a disaster on TV and make a donation, that actually ends up paying for the *next* disaster. That's not a bad thing. Especially since the next disaster might be where you are.
The Red Cross saves lives every damn day. Not just the big disasters that make the news, but when someone's house burns down, or needs blood for a live-saving operation (Red Cross runs a lot of blood drives), or any number of other things.
Sorry if this doesn't fit with your world view, but disaster relief isn't like buying books on Amazon. It's a wee bit more complicated.
I don't think most of what the CIA does would qualify as "honest". They're spies, aka liars, thieves and criminals.
While that's certainly true of the CIA's operational aspects, their IT guys are mostly just IT guys, just like any other organization -- just with higher value IT assets than most orgs. File storage, printing, word processing, spreadsheets, databases, etc., don't change just because the data is classified. Communications (phones, networks, email, etc.) get rather more complicated, due to security, but ultimately they're after things the corporate world is, too -- they just have rather higher security standards than most orgs. But ultimately an Exchange server is still just an Exchange server.
You need a lot of support personnel for every actual spy, or even intelligence analysis. IT, accounting, HR, purchasing, engineers, doc control, etc. Even PR (marketing).
The open source folks have continued to struggled with closed Microsoft office formats with little or no progress in some areas. Are employees subjected to the same treatment?
Having read the Microsoft "Open XML" specification, I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't really understand all the details of the classic Office file format, either. Seriously. I'd bet good money there's a lot of old, poorly documented that nobody really understands anymore. It was prolly written by programmers in 1995 who have long since moved on.
The suburbs -- and unless you're a farmer, you live in the suburbs, not the country -- are even less "survivable". Think about the goods that you consume on a daily basis (including food, water, oil/gas/other fuel, etc.), and the infrastructure it takes to get them there. Now think about the fact that you need to get those goods not only to your house, but to millions of other houses over a huge, spread-out area.
Cites are more efficient, but they depend more on the technology.
Where I grew up qualified as suburban, by your definition, and likely by some others. But we had our own water well and septic system. We had oil heat, but we also had a wood barrel stove that could keep the place warm. We had a small garden, a large yard. We had wooded lands around us. This was the norm for the town. There were even small farms around.
If civilization collapsed overnight, our way of life would be drastically altered, and a lot of people wouldn't be able to cope, I'm sure. But we would have had a chance. My dad used to hunt deer, we could cut wood for fuel, we could expand the garden, we'd even be able to open the well cover and get water with a bucket and rope after the generator ran out of gas.
In the city, you would have two choices: Leave or die.
Was it actually connecting? What I read was that domains existed, implying that connections could be made.
CarrierIQ was reported to be connecting to IP addresses which reversed to domain names containing "vzw". Could CarrierIQ have set-up names with "vzw" without actually having VZW as a customer? Sure. Heck, maybe VZW really *isn't* using VZW. If so, I expect they're using some other solution that does the same thing.
As a VZW corporate customer, I am intimately familar with VZW's corporate policy of treating customers like luncheon meat. Whereas with the other carriers, I only know of that policy through hearsay. I certainly haven't heard anything that makes me think that any big US wireless carrier wouldn't pull this kind of stunt. The entire industry MO is "we own the customer".
Now this is particularly crummy as unlike a 'real' domain, you can't just take it to another provider ... because you are mad.
Yah, how *dare* they not let you take their property (a domain name they pay for) and use it for free?!?
Hey, BTW, I'm going to use a few dozen megabytes of storage on your hard drive, that's okay, right? Don't be crummy and say "no".
As far as I know, the rules are the same.
For the free hostname, you have to submit an update at least once every 30 days, even if your IP address hasn't changed. Otherwise, the free account will be deleted.
If you send updates *too often*, you'll get blocked for abuse. "Too often" isn't defined anywhere that I find easily, but more than once every several days or so is a good threshold to use. You'll get an email if this happens. Also, the "too often" limit only applies if your IP address hasn't actually changed -- legit updates get a different scale.
I update every 15 days, and have never had an issue.
Since you mention your model is having intermittent trouble anyway, it sounds like the problem is just crappy modem software. There's a lot of that out there. (LinkSys's DNS update client was broken for *years*, and they're one of the biggest SOHO router vendors.) I'd suggest disabling DNS update on your modem and using a known-good client on a PC behind your modem.
http://dyn.com/support/clients/
It's disheartening that DynDNS are such complete shit heads.
I've done business with Dyn, Inc., before, and found them cluefull and willing to help. I know some of the people who work there, and they are not complete shit heads.
Sorry about your situation. Another reason to hate the DMCA, I think.
DynDNS, they have maintained their lead only via a proprietary interface and a market lead.
Dyn has submitted their HTTP update API as an IETF draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jennings-app-dns-update-02.txt
So it's not proprietary (limited to or owned by them). You might call it non-standard, but if that draft was accepted it would be on the IETF standards track.
Also, Dyn *does* offer DNS UPDATE support, but only for paying customers:
http://dyn.com/support/clients/dynamic-dns-updates-via-tsig/
Agreed -- this is old news. I got my notice about this change on 27 Aug 2010 -- about a year and a half ago. Submitter has been asleep at the switch.
Given that they're still giving me free stuff, just not quite as much free stuff, I didn't really feel all that upset about it. :)
Here's most of the text of the notice:
From: "DynDNS Support"
To: dragonhawk@
Subject: Changes to NEW DynDNS.com Accounts
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:39:14 -0300
Reply-To: support@dyndns.com
Return-Path: marketer@bouncelabs.com
What changes are you talking about?
Previously we allowed each Dynamic DNS account to have 5 free hostnames and you could select them from 88 different domains that we own. Now this will be limited to 2 free hostnames from 18 DynDNS branded domains.
Also, we are increasing the number of hostnames that come with a DynDNS Pro upgrade. Previously, each DynDNS Pro upgrade gave you the ability to add 25 additional hostnames. We are increasing that number to 30.
Why are you making these changes?
There are a number of reasons that we thought it was important to make these changes now.
Having 88 free domains to choose from was overwhelming for many of our new users. By reducing this to 18 it makes it easier for people to get started.
By limiting the free options to the DynDNS branded domains, it helps grow the awareness of our services. Although we are happy to offer our free services, we simply ask that you help spread the word to other people who might find our paid services helpful. We have to pay those bills somehow.
Looking at the stats of our users over the past 12 years, we see that the vast majority of people only use 1 free hostname. Our support team has seen a lot of confusion caused by the five free hostnames, so when you combine that with the normal use case, it just made sense. We are allowing the 2nd hostname for those who need to create a WebHop to access your hostname. If you are going to need more than 1 or 2 hostnames there's a good chance you are using us for something important. If that's the case, we simply ask that you pay $15/yr for the DynDNS Pro upgrade, which provides a number of other benefits.
If you are using our services for business critical needs, you should consider our Custom DNS service.
What will happen to my current account and hostnames?
Nothing, as long as you keep your hostnames active and up-to-date. If you allow your account or hostnames to expire, you will have to select from the new domains instead and will be limited to the 2 free hostnames. To ensure you arenâ(TM)t affected by these changes, upgrade to DynDNS Pro for just $15/yr. Again, there are a number of other benefits to upgrading.
You're just trying to force us to pay you, aren't you?
No, not really. As long as you keep your account active, you won't be affected by these changes. We would never want to have a user feel like they were forced to use our services. This does not seem to be a very good business model to us. You do your part (log into your account or update your hostname monthly) and we will do ours (continue to offer free Dynamic DNS services to you).