http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=82727&th re shold=2&commentsort=3&tid=123&tid=141&tid=188&tid= 99&mode=thread&pid=7250774#7251136
I'm amazed at how confused everyone is - it's not a copyright issue, it's a distribution issue. It's not a god-given right to make "the music" available globally at will. Even if there was no law against this redistribution, I'd consider it immoral.
The artist themselves however, have to get a clue. They are the ones feeding the monster. At the bottom of the chain is the music distribution industry. When that changes, so will the world.
No, civil disobedience is not the way to change the law, and makes you look like an irrational fanatic whose only mode of operating within your society is to break its rules. Acts of civil disobedience will only give the RIAA more firepower against the little guy and more credibility in the House and Senate.
The right way to do it is to destroy the recording industry by not buying the products they spoon feed us. It's a complicated situation because the very artists we want to hear are on those lables. These artists should get off those labels. They see no dollars from the publishing royalties anyway, and it's debatable whether P2P is actually killing CD sales. Didn't hurt Metallica, and they were against P2P/napster, but the last effort they put out was a real giving affair with more than just 10 tunes. I don't even like them musically but have to respect their flexibility.
Stand up for your civil rights, fight monopolies. But don't distribute music that isn't yours to distribute: that's actually stealing; if you want to burn a CD under fair use rights for backup to play in the car, or let your kid play, fine. But if you make a hifi copy of music available through your computer systems to anyone who can connect with technology x/y/z over the Internet, you've crossed the line.
No, I don't like the system. But I support the artists I like by buying their recordings and videos, and then not giving copies of these away.
Consider that ISC stepped up to the plate and delivered a sensible solution in the midst of many unknowns at the time - Verisign did the breaking, not ISC.
Sorry, but ISC BIND is the most standards compliant implementation widely available, and djbdns is still incomplete. Switching name server software is not the answer to the problem of Verisign commandeering the COM and NET zones for their own profit.
I have been running 8 ISP 9.2.1 BIND servers for nearly a year without a single hiccup, security breach or question of performance.
Please review the history of ISC BIND development vs. security issues. You'll see that they've done an admirable job of clearing up loads of problems.
You should not be using BIND 8, although it is still supported. I've had a very good experience with BIND 9.2.x, and I did not roll out the patch at the time because I suspected that Verisign would remove the problem shortly and they did. It was my lucky guess, it could have worked out otherwise.
Thanks for the pointer to privoxy. I should check it out, but it's going to be hard, I've got squid/squidGuard replacing banner ads, and filtering 500K+ child corrupting web sites:) so it's gonna be hard to yank it...
They are not really doing anything other than replacing occurences of words in a text stream. THAT is simple. Lots of ways, lots of tools. I'm talking about replacing "offensive" content in an article automatically, but the article somehow still makes sense.. like another post said, that is a CS dissertation in the making.
If I were modding I would mod you God +5. You are completely correct here. I am constantly astounded by hearing the things which are said out loud in professional environments and the extent to which most people with jobs are doing anything but work.
When you consider how labor intensive it would be to come up with a sensible rendition of the article with "bad stuff" omitted - how do you propose it could be done.
Programatically? Has anyone heard of a proxy/filter doing this? I haven't.
For anyone who thinks my remark is flamebait, no, that's how it really works. The Stereophile review is not an objective review, other factors are in play in the real world folks. Reviewers and editors are subject to lobbying. I've been taken out to some very expensive Manhattan restaurants by Dell people - tell me Apple doesn't do the same.
No, the review is not objective, and for the record, while Apple's products are aesthetically visionary, over the past 10 years that I've been computing, they've failed to impress on technical benchmarks and general performance, while the company spends millions shooting their advertising mouth off, having spent most of the past ten years trying to keep a flawed business model afloat.
Maybe the G5 will finally change these truths, but my objective observation is that Mac zealots are among the most fervent religious fanatics I've encountered. Objective you say? Hard for me to say that, because several of my friends are serious Mac people, designers and people that work at Adobe.
Was I modded flamebait by a Mac zealot? Fair enough, this is/.
uh, dudes, you forgot the Microsoft logo on your client page..
... against IE we have agreed to give Microsoft a good faith reprieve...
Excellent. They've been under such tremendous pressure lately, plus fighting the war against open source - hell where does the day go??
...and have taken down our 'Unpatched' page.
Don't blame you. Fingers must be killing you typing up those new vuln reports twice a day..
This was done in both a spirit of cooperation and for the good of the internet as a whole.
Removing problem reports? Good thinking. There you go again, trying to improve the integrity of the Internet - just like it says on your home page.
As the ubiquitous browser that is utilized to access the internet, we all depend on IE too much to have crooks, social deviants, malcontents and crackers...
Crackers? Put that crack pipe down for just one second and rpm -ivh mozilla-1.0.1-35.i586.rpm
This reprieve will allow MS to develop and review their test cases, patches and Service Packs in a more normal, predictable and unforced manner.
Exactly! you sure can't put your best foot forward if you're running ragged trying to patch thousands of security holes in a sinking Titanic of a monolithic bloated piece of shit architecture. You grant reprieves? Gee, can I have one?
In addition, PivX Solutions has a two fold approach to assisting with the realities of the current situation. First, we are available to consult....
Ah now I get it, the sales pitch for you.
Secondly, we are developing a mitigation utility tool that will act as a "Qwik Fix" to many of the IE vulns that MS is working on patching presently.
Well I hope you patented "Quik Fix". A ring to it. Like it man!!!
This utility will buy Microsoft more time to develop, test and release...
the successors to XP and Windows 2003 Server, while not fixing their broken ass insecure software, and continuing on the path of thumbing their nose at the user, IT, and Security communities while continuing on the thousand day march toward fucking the American public.
USB2.0 High Speed is advertised (well flash drives anyway) with data transfer rates of "up to" 480Mbits per sec (IIRC 100Mbits=~12MegaBytes), but that refers to read speeds with no other impediments in play.
Try writing large files or a stream of small files to a USB2.0 flash disk. Pretty darn slow!! I haven't done any real measurements so this is subjective. Perhaps I should say DOG SLOW for any scientific method types out there.
Another fork in the linux kernel tree -sigh-. "ServiceManager" sounds like it came out of Redmond.
"does a check on SomeService's dependencies.."
Tell me how that is going to end up being simpler than init and scripts in place now. If ServiceManager ends up being written in C, it's going to need initialization/configuration in the form of text files - or something!!
What do you mean "as soon as X is runnable we start GDM" ? A lot of us run servers, don't even use X and want defaults to default to NO X.
Thought provoking but (respectfully) incorrect thinking:
The COTS guys who "lost" their job because a competing Open Source package was found to be any one or more of
1) cheaper 2) easier to deploy/maintain 3) architecturally superior 4) unencumbered by an unknown future pricing structure 5) -fill in another OSS advantage here-
lost their jobs for the correct reason, this is what happens in a free competitive economy.
Additionally if they've been clinging to their old model, while ignoring the changes in the software world since around 1994, they deserve the hard lesson.
May I point out that in a free economy, the inventive ones can create jobs.
I would like to think that for every proprietary software job "lost" that the OSS world might gain the expertise of yet one more soul.
It's easy to blame this situation on the software. Mistake. What's hard to create is superlative customer commitment and high-level professional services. It centers around the human interaction, not the tools -- successful people are always making money by helping their customers succeed with new and better tools/methodologies.
I am also in my 40s and still go to paper books a lot of the time (esp. OReilly ), and while I first go to get news, factual, biographical information on the web, I often back it up with a lookup on another source, a book, if I have it, and at least try to attribute the source of the information. I am especially trying to discourage our 8-year-old (who just goes to Google, finds what he needs, and assumes it is correct) from blindly trusting what he finds on the web, and often ask him what he would do if our ISP wasn't working and he needed an answer. He gets the idea:)
The creativity of Darl hath no end, having come full-circle past the point of being amusing it is now becoming inspirational !!
Had Darl and Co. applied all this effort and creative thinking toward the improvement of OpenServer and Caldera Linux they might have had a customer base and a little revenue these days..
Somehow their reputation has always been a ball and chain - I remember someone on the net posted (around 1995) in a newsgroup - "I'd rather have my spinal cord pulled out through my asshole than have to do system administration on SCO Unix."
No, @stake doesn't have M$ as a customer because M$ doesn't hire vendor and platform-neutral security consultants - Microsoft has got security covered - it's their number one priority - remember?
While that is interesting and I'm all for it by the way, you're ignoring the topic of updates -- this layer you propose would have no relationship with the registrars -- under a new grassroots plan, the zone data has to be gotten from a place other than the registrars, that is, by getting the referral/glue from a tld server, then on down (up?) the heirarchy. Domain owners have direct access to the registrars for Move/Add/Change (NS servers, A records, etc). All registrars have an automated process whereby additions and updates are propagated, with the luxury of being validated already, from the realm of customer MAC interface to live zone data on servers.
So, under such a wild plan,
-our zone data would be "late" - this impacts business requirements, migrations, etc.
-you'd have to employ an (compute-time) expensive update/diff mechanism, comparing their data to what you have in your tier of servers, making any changes, always relying on what's provided by tools/scripts/etc and what you'd be allowed to query for in a bulk fashion
-customer trust would remain with the current registrars until the new "tier" was not regarded as a rogue process, one not blessed by the powers that be.
Just thinking out loud on challenges that would arise, but again, I run name ISP name servers and I am all for some kind of grassroots change. Like Vixie says about BIND, "we just provide the tools":)
I am surprised that Paul Vixie did not seem to exhibit much emotion regarding the Sitefinder situation - for someone who's been at the core of what we now know as the DNS for so many years (you would think it's like his own child:).
He seemed reserved, while calmly pointing out, part by part, what is wrong with Verisign's actions. More of this is called for from the important people in the Internet technical and business community - the way community coverage has been heading, and the way comments are worded on Slashdot and other sites, is leading to resentment, anger, name-calling, and joking about Verisign and their policies, creating a situation in which the community is less likely to be taken seriously by Verisign, Microsoft, AOL, etc. Mr. Vixie also mentions that there are smart people at Verisign, reminding us that the Sitefinder "service" is the brainchild of but a handful of people, maybe even just one or two. It reminds me that as engineers, we still have to work with the other guy at a certain level.. becoming enemies doesn't help anything.
Mr. Vixie is saying that perhaps ICANN should "do something about it". This whole situation should be approached by attorneys general, from the both the branding/business practices angle mentioned by Mr. Vixie, and also from the consumer rights angle (much like telemarketers). Right now the average consumer can get effectively get rid of telemarketers, thanks to recent laws, with a single verbal or written request, but the Sitefinder service can only be circumvented using DNS tools by an engineer or technician "in charge" of the DNS servers. The web-browsing consumer has no way around this by themselves.
The original thread of 2 days ago on the Verisign fiasco contained this iab link and information, emphasizing the January date. I posted last night pointing out yet again that this response/recommendation by IAB made in January was completely ignored. Now MobyDisk is pointing this out yet AGAIN in an effort to correct your erroneous 5-Informative. Attention moderators: you are often modding important correct information down and out of sight and unimportant stuff that sounds authoritative up - come on tighten it up guys!!! Not a criticism negatively please don't take it that way - I realize for moderators there's probably too much information to have to digest quickly.
However, the IAB response is the most coherent response on technical grounds yet presented - recognize any of the names on that panel??
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying the same thing here:
h re shold=2&commentsort=3&tid=123&tid=141&tid=188&tid= 99&mode=thread&pid=7250774#7251136
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=82727&t
I'm amazed at how confused everyone is - it's not a copyright issue, it's a distribution issue. It's not a god-given right to make "the music" available globally at will. Even if there was no law against this redistribution, I'd consider it immoral.
The artist themselves however, have to get a clue. They are the ones feeding the monster. At the bottom of the chain is the music distribution industry. When that changes, so will the world.
No, civil disobedience is not the way to change the law, and makes you look like an irrational fanatic whose only mode of operating within your society is to break its rules. Acts of civil disobedience will only give the RIAA more firepower against the little guy and more credibility in the House and Senate.
The right way to do it is to destroy the recording industry by not buying the products they spoon feed us. It's a complicated situation because the very artists we want to hear are on those lables. These artists should get off those labels. They see no dollars from the publishing royalties anyway, and it's debatable whether P2P is actually killing CD sales. Didn't hurt Metallica, and they were against P2P/napster, but the last effort they put out was a real giving affair with more than just 10 tunes. I don't even like them musically but have to respect their flexibility.
Stand up for your civil rights, fight monopolies. But don't distribute music that isn't yours to distribute: that's actually stealing; if you want to burn a CD under fair use rights for backup to play in the car, or let your kid play, fine. But if you make a hifi copy of music available through your computer systems to anyone who can connect with technology x/y/z over the Internet, you've crossed the line.
No, I don't like the system. But I support the artists I like by buying their recordings and videos, and then not giving copies of these away.
Just Winblowze XP and 2000
512MB required minimum? Sounds kind of steep.
Consider that ISC stepped up to the plate and delivered a sensible solution in the midst of many unknowns at the time - Verisign did the breaking, not ISC.
Sorry, but ISC BIND is the most standards compliant implementation widely available, and djbdns is still incomplete. Switching name server software is not the answer to the problem of Verisign commandeering the COM and NET zones for their own profit.
I have been running 8 ISP 9.2.1 BIND servers for nearly a year without a single hiccup, security breach or question of performance.
Please review the history of ISC BIND development vs. security issues. You'll see that they've done an admirable job of clearing up loads of problems.
You should not be using BIND 8, although it is still supported. I've had a very good experience with BIND 9.2.x, and I did not roll out the patch at the time because I suspected that Verisign would remove the problem shortly and they did. It was my lucky guess, it could have worked out otherwise.
Thanks for the pointer to privoxy. I should check it out, but it's going to be hard, I've got squid/squidGuard replacing banner ads, and filtering 500K+ child corrupting web sites:) so it's gonna be hard to yank it...
I would have modded you Devout Atheist +5. Sorry, didn't know you were in the room..
Thanks for the link, I had not seen it.
They are not really doing anything other than replacing occurences of words in a text stream. THAT is simple. Lots of ways, lots of tools. I'm talking about replacing "offensive" content in an article automatically, but the article somehow still makes sense.. like another post said, that is a CS dissertation in the making.
For you #3:
If I were modding I would mod you God +5. You are completely correct here. I am constantly astounded by hearing the things which are said out loud in professional environments and the extent to which most people with jobs are doing anything but work.
When you consider how labor intensive it would be to come up with a sensible rendition of the article with "bad stuff" omitted - how do you propose it could be done.
Programatically? Has anyone heard of a proxy/filter doing this? I haven't.
I don't understand any of the replies here.
/.
For anyone who thinks my remark is flamebait, no, that's how it really works. The Stereophile review is not an objective review, other factors are in play in the real world folks. Reviewers and editors are subject to lobbying. I've been taken out to some very expensive Manhattan restaurants by Dell people - tell me Apple doesn't do the same.
No, the review is not objective, and for the record, while Apple's products are aesthetically visionary, over the past 10 years that I've been computing, they've failed to impress on technical benchmarks and general performance, while the company spends millions shooting their advertising mouth off, having spent most of the past ten years trying to keep a flawed business model afloat.
Maybe the G5 will finally change these truths, but my objective observation is that Mac zealots are among the most fervent religious fanatics I've encountered. Objective you say? Hard for me to say that, because several of my friends are serious Mac people, designers and people that work at Adobe.
Was I modded flamebait by a Mac zealot? Fair enough, this is
Please.
... God does that stink. I love America.
"Dynamics were impressive, imaging was nuanced and detailed, and the frequency extremes sounded extended and natural"
Somebody at Apple has been buying somebody at Stereophile some serious dinners on the company plastic
Don't know the year on the IPC I would guess 1992.
IBM 11" color vga monitor, found in hallway, 1991 I think. Hangs off FreeBSD 4.7 server.
Jeweller's screwdrivers, bought 1983. Not computer hardware, but always close:-)
uh, dudes, you forgot the Microsoft logo on your client page..
... against IE we have agreed to give Microsoft a good faith reprieve ...
...and have taken down our 'Unpatched' page.
...
....
...
Excellent. They've been under such tremendous pressure lately, plus fighting the war against open source - hell where does the day go??
Don't blame you. Fingers must be killing you typing up those new vuln reports twice a day..
This was done in both a spirit of cooperation and for the good of the internet as a whole.
Removing problem reports? Good thinking. There you go again, trying to improve the integrity of the Internet - just like it says on your home page.
As the ubiquitous browser that is utilized to access the internet, we all depend on IE too much to have crooks, social deviants, malcontents and crackers
Crackers? Put that crack pipe down for just one second and rpm -ivh mozilla-1.0.1-35.i586.rpm
This reprieve will allow MS to develop and review their test cases, patches and Service Packs in a more normal, predictable and unforced manner.
Exactly! you sure can't put your best foot forward if you're running ragged trying to patch thousands of security holes in a sinking Titanic of a monolithic bloated piece of shit architecture. You grant reprieves? Gee, can I have one?
In addition, PivX Solutions has a two fold approach to assisting with the realities of the current situation. First, we are available to consult
Ah now I get it, the sales pitch for you.
Secondly, we are developing a mitigation utility tool that will act as a "Qwik Fix" to many of the IE vulns that MS is working on patching presently.
Well I hope you patented "Quik Fix". A ring to it. Like it man!!!
This utility will buy Microsoft more time to develop, test and release
the successors to XP and Windows 2003 Server, while not fixing their broken ass insecure software, and continuing on the path of thumbing their nose at the user, IT, and Security communities while continuing on the thousand day march toward fucking the American public.
Dude, abuse of power, greed, and lying to the public are not exactly "innovation". Can we please have our "weaker" Internet back? Uh, thank you.
USB2.0 High Speed is advertised (well flash drives anyway) with data transfer rates of "up to" 480Mbits per sec (IIRC 100Mbits=~12MegaBytes), but that refers to read speeds with no other impediments in play.
Try writing large files or a stream of small files to a USB2.0 flash disk. Pretty darn slow!! I haven't done any real measurements so this is subjective. Perhaps I should say DOG SLOW for any scientific method types out there.
site of the future:
http://biosupdate.microsoft.com/eula.asp
$25 an hour. Makes you look unprofessional, don't do it. I live outside of NYC. The guys who rake my leaves want 40/hr.
Whatever amount you do ask, I guarantee after you've gotten it, and gotten used to getting it, it won't be enough.
Another fork in the linux kernel tree -sigh-.
"ServiceManager" sounds like it came out of Redmond.
"does a check on SomeService's dependencies.."
Tell me how that is going to end up being simpler than init and scripts in place now. If ServiceManager ends up being written in C, it's going to need initialization/configuration in the form of text files - or something!!
What do you mean "as soon as X is runnable we start GDM" ? A lot of us run servers, don't even use X and want defaults to default to NO X.
Thought provoking but (respectfully) incorrect thinking:
The COTS guys who "lost" their job because a competing Open Source package was found to be any one or more of
1) cheaper
2) easier to deploy/maintain
3) architecturally superior
4) unencumbered by an unknown future pricing structure
5) -fill in another OSS advantage here-
lost their jobs for the correct reason, this is what happens in a free competitive economy.
Additionally if they've been clinging to their old model, while ignoring the changes in the software world since around 1994, they deserve the hard lesson.
May I point out that in a free economy, the inventive ones can create jobs.
I would like to think that for every proprietary software job "lost" that the OSS world might gain the expertise of yet one more soul.
It's easy to blame this situation on the software. Mistake. What's hard to create is superlative customer commitment and high-level professional services. It centers around the human interaction, not the tools -- successful people are always making money by helping their customers succeed with new and better tools/methodologies.
I am also in my 40s and still go to paper books a lot of the time (esp. OReilly ), and while I first go to get news, factual, biographical information on the web, I often back it up with a lookup on another source, a book, if I have it, and at least try to attribute the source of the information. I am especially trying to discourage our 8-year-old (who just goes to Google, finds what he needs, and assumes it is correct) from blindly trusting what he finds on the web, and often ask him what he would do if our ISP wasn't working and he needed an answer. He gets the idea:)
The creativity of Darl hath no end, having come full-circle past the point of being amusing it is now becoming inspirational !!
Had Darl and Co. applied all this effort and creative thinking toward the improvement of OpenServer and Caldera Linux they might have had a customer base and a little revenue these days..
Somehow their reputation has always been a ball and chain - I remember someone on the net posted (around 1995) in a newsgroup - "I'd rather have my spinal cord pulled out through my asshole than have to do system administration on SCO Unix."
No, @stake doesn't have M$ as a customer because M$ doesn't hire vendor and platform-neutral security consultants - Microsoft has got security covered - it's their number one priority - remember?
While that is interesting and I'm all for it by the way, you're ignoring the topic of updates -- this layer you propose would have no relationship with the registrars -- under a new grassroots plan, the zone data has to be gotten from a place other than the registrars, that is, by getting the referral/glue from a tld server, then on down (up?) the heirarchy. Domain owners have direct access to the registrars for Move/Add/Change (NS servers, A records, etc). All registrars have an automated process whereby additions and updates are propagated, with the luxury of being validated already, from the realm of customer MAC interface to live zone data on servers.
So, under such a wild plan,
-our zone data would be "late" - this impacts business requirements, migrations, etc.
-you'd have to employ an (compute-time) expensive update/diff mechanism, comparing their data to what you have in your tier of servers, making any changes, always relying on what's provided by tools/scripts/etc and what you'd be allowed to query for in a bulk fashion
-customer trust would remain with the current registrars until the new "tier" was not regarded as a rogue process, one not blessed by the powers that be.
Just thinking out loud on challenges that would arise, but again, I run name ISP name servers and I am all for some kind of grassroots change. Like Vixie says about BIND, "we just provide the tools":)
Which I read as: "Let the users break shit!"
I am surprised that Paul Vixie did not seem to exhibit much emotion regarding the Sitefinder situation - for someone who's been at the core of what we now know as the DNS for so many years (you would think it's like his own child:).
He seemed reserved, while calmly pointing out, part by part, what is wrong with Verisign's actions. More of this is called for from the important people in the Internet technical and business community - the way community coverage has been heading, and the way comments are worded on Slashdot and other sites, is leading to resentment, anger, name-calling, and joking about Verisign and their policies, creating a situation in which the community is less likely to be taken seriously by Verisign, Microsoft, AOL, etc. Mr. Vixie also mentions that there are smart people at Verisign, reminding us that the Sitefinder "service" is the brainchild of but a handful of people, maybe even just one or two. It reminds me that as engineers, we still have to work with the other guy at a certain level.. becoming enemies doesn't help anything.
Mr. Vixie is saying that perhaps ICANN should "do something about it". This whole situation should be approached by attorneys general, from the both the branding/business practices angle mentioned by Mr. Vixie, and also from the consumer rights angle (much like telemarketers). Right now the average consumer can get effectively get rid of telemarketers, thanks to recent laws, with a single verbal or written request, but the Sitefinder service can only be circumvented using DNS tools by an engineer or technician "in charge" of the DNS servers. The web-browsing consumer has no way around this by themselves.
Exactly.
The original thread of 2 days ago on the Verisign fiasco contained this iab link and information, emphasizing the January date. I posted last night pointing out yet again that this response/recommendation by IAB made in January was completely ignored. Now MobyDisk is pointing this out yet AGAIN in an effort to correct your erroneous 5-Informative. Attention moderators: you are often modding important correct information down and out of sight and unimportant stuff that sounds authoritative up - come on tighten it up guys!!! Not a criticism negatively please don't take it that way - I realize for moderators there's probably too much information to have to digest quickly.
However, the IAB response is the most coherent response on technical grounds yet presented - recognize any of the names on that panel??