"They" are not doing anything. Its a private, not for profit group that is doing this, not the Copyright holders. The copyright holders (Eugene Roddenberry, son of Gene) have come in toward the last, and given alot of leeway because he feels the project is exactly what his father would want. Additionally, many talented people from the movie industry have donated (or near donated) their time for the project. The producers are paying for the entire project out of their own pockets, with no method for recovering their expenses.
It is not being sold, its given away. They plainly state that this is their interpretation of what years 4 and 5 would be. Its looks like a pretty cool project, and once the slashdotting is done on their site, you can download for FREE.
This looks pretty damn cool to me, a fan based trilogy with decent acting, and very good visual effects, putting a new spin on Star Trek, while remaining fairly faithful to the original. They even state in their FAQ (link above) that they will NOT screw up the timeline.
They decided that going for the visual resemblence of TOS cast was more important than hiring (or recruiting, I'm sure tons of people would volunteer) people who actually can act to play the parts.
After visiting their site, and reading their FAQ (while slooowly downloading the trailer..) I read this direct quote...
How will the characters be portrayed?
The original Star Trek characters are so well known that the task of recasting the parts seems impossible. We are not casting people who look or act like the original actors. What we don't want is a parody - an actor imitating William Shatner doing Kirk for example. We want actors who will be able to remind us of our old friends, but bring to the characters a new life, a fresh interpretation, not a stale imitation. The cast we are assembling are actors first - and a few have only now begun viewing TOS episodes. But what they bring to the table is talent and vitality. They will be believable as these characters and will be as effective as any Trek cast thus far! In addition, the cast will be seen in a "21st Century" light. Our crew has grown as they reach their 4th year together!
I already have an internal, but the reason I am looking for an external is so I can take it with me camping, with the laptop. It already has a DVD player, and some camps have cable, or use the antenna on the RV. This is much smaller than dragging a TV around, better picture, bigger picture than many tvs, and I can play my casino games if nothing is on;)
Maybe it's because some people here are actually interested in real discussion?
but it takes swimming through a lot of garbage to find it some days.
On another note, I have heard about Microsoft working on AV software for a few YEARS now. I searched this page for the word "vaporware" and found nothing, ironically. They used to make AV software, and it wasn't that good (win 3.0 days).
The monopoly talk has probably slowed them down but the biggest complain I had heard over the years was that the OS should be more virus proof to start with, so it should be included in Windows. And of course, that including it free with the OS is abusing their monopoly because it hurts competition. They can't win.
The people that bitch the loudest over the lack of security on Windows are the first to bitch that they are hurting other companies by giving the AV away. Of course, they bitch about other actions by Microsoft, and we all agree with some of it.
There is a certain amount of irony, considering many of us use lots of free software. How many of us run Linux (using iptables), with Spamassassin, ClamAV, MainScanner, tripwire and other products that you often have to buy seperately with Windows. I am one of those that use both OS's, and so are most of users on slashdot, to one degree or another.
So, its ok if its free (as in beer) on Linux, but not on Windows? Free (as in speech) aside, for the average user its a better value if it works and its free, and its incorporated. I don't trust Microsoft for many reasons, but I am not so sure I can trash them if they did give it away, considering I get the same thing for free (with more choices) on Linux now.
Sovtek also makes tubes. You can guess where they are located. I can't remember if GrooveTube makes their tubes in the US still or in Mexico. There are a few others, but all in Europe, I believe.
This is based upon my experience with guitar amps, keep in mind, but the tubes in guitar amps are pretty standard fare, 6V6, 6L6, EL84, EL34, 12AX7, 12**7s, etc. Even the better amps use tubes in the rectifier, but I can't remember the model numbers off the top of my head. A good guitar amp with have one power tube (6V6/6L6/EL34) for each 20 to 30 watts of output and 3 to 5 12AX7s for the preamp. EL84s are used mainly for Class A amps (pentode, etc) rather than A/B amps (switching amps).
Also, Macintosh stereo amps, and other audiophile grade amps. Back around 89, I worked in a FM radio station in Texas that still used tubes for their output, 100,000 watts on stick over 1000 feet tall! Was still fairly common then.
But there are still several applications for tubes, where digital/ic just doesn't hold up.
If they want people to test the system, they should come up with a way to get average people to use the system.
1. Make it work 2. Make it profit 3. There is no step three
Right now I would image they are more concerned with the technical aspects first. I would bet they would then open it up to most testers to get feedback on the usability. What good is a nice interface if the system is down all the time?
Yes they do, this is just one of the articles discussing this, here.
They have a much higher ratio of PhDs than Microsoft, or just about anyone short of a hospital. They also give their employees the freedom of spending 20% of their time working on any unrelated subject they choose, appearantly in the hopes that the outcome of this research will benefit Google, or at least will make the better PhD's with more than one iron in the fire, WANT to work for them.
That is his JOB, to point out shortcomings of the system. He is a tester, and he is doing it for FREE. Google doesn't want testers who get 3 emails a day, they want people to test the living shit out of the service and point out what is wrong with it. Everyone knows Google will try to fix all the bugs, so all the press, good or bad, is still good press.
If Google barfs when handling 999 messages in 4 minutes during testing, image when several million people have gmail accounts. Fortunately, now Google has an even to look at to see what the problem is. When you are trying to harden a system, YOU MUST BREAK IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, to see where it is weak. This is what is happening.
My impression is that the tech's at Google are spending a significant amount of time saying "oh shit, never thought of that, cool." which is the ENTIRE REASON FOR TESTING. They can't think of every situation by themselves. This is also the entire concept behind "open software is more secure". Google's gmail is going to have bugs at this stage and lots of them, period. Google knows this, hell, everyone knows this (this is why its in testing, and not open to the public yet, duh)
It not whinning, its stating the facts, which Goggle obviously WANTS him to gather, as a TESTER. Seems to me that he is going beyond the call of duty to test their servers, since he is spending a fair amount of his own time.
You can get over 120db, although I sincerely doubt most people would own that kind of equipment. I had a system with six Klipsch Cornwall II, and 3000 watts RMS (really, not peak. this is over 2x the power the speakers were rated for) and could achieve amazing spls. The efficiency of the systems, coupled with overpowering the system with amps with tons of headroom (power doesn't kill speakers, square waves from clipping amps do...). Had it metered. Of course, it also used 2x31 band eq, a white noise generator with matching mic and spectrum analyser for relatively flat output. Entire system was under $15,000. The Klipsch, as well as other cabs I have owned, were rated for over 100db 1w/1m@1k. (want to say over 103, actually) Most speakers are not nearly as efficient.
Its not just the power, its the efficiency, along with the total setup.
What about dynamic range? CD's are acceptible, but not great in that quality. Maybe listening to some old Van Halen, it doesn't matter, but listening to classical or jazz, it does.
Maybe CD-Rs, but CDs have the aluminum INSIDE the disk. Kinda hard to peel off. You can even restore terribly scratched CD's with Novus, as long as the scratch wasn't deep enough to put pressure on the aluminum ( a ball point pen will run the aluminum, for instance )
I don't see how they could peel, considering the actual content is internal in the medium.
Reminds me of the old Cold War joke about Pravda. If the US and USSR played a game of basketball, and the US won, Pravda would be proudly proclaiming how the USSR came in second place, but the US came in second from last place.
I'm no accountant, so take all this with a grain of salt, but -- in the US, advertising costs must be expensed, not capitalized.
I'm not an accountant, but in Marketing and own a couple businesses as well. You are 95% correct, with one small exception. If you are Oscar Meyer, you expense the TV commercials, but you may depreciate (capitol investment) the giant hot dog shaped car that you drive around to events. As a very loose rule, if its advertising but you can touch it, you probably have to depreciate it (consider it capitol investment).
This would be giant banners, vehicles, displays, blimps, and other tangibles that are used "in support" of advertising, and are often advertisements in themselves.
They need to start prosecuting under the existing laws before making yet more new laws.
Amen! Part of the problem is the view of "spam crimes". Police are too busy arresting pot smokers (who we all know are sooooo dangerous). You just don't get headlines for busting spammers. It seems that the police still see spam as victimless, more of an inconvenience than a billion dollar crime. We don't have much of a choice on this one, local cops don't have the ability to deal with this, since it is interstate rather than intrastate crime. This is one of those few times when we need the feds to actually do something, such as shutting down, fining, and jailing those companies that use spam to get business.
Considering that the vast majority of email is spam, the vast majority of mail servers are purely to deal with it. We are about to move our mail server offsite simply because spam is eating all our bandwidth, and its cheaper to move the mail server to a rented rack where the bandwidth is much cheaper. This is a real cost as well.
I grepped through my logs yesterday, where we use Squirrelmail, Spamassassin and ClamAV. Over 97% of the activity is to deal with viruses and spam. Ninety Seven Percent. We have a semi-dedicated server for mail (does a few other minor tasks), and this is just for 15 mail accounts. In the real world, this would be major overkill, but unfortunately, its necessary. Even while the CPU usage is fairly low, the box is slow to ssh into simply from I/O overload, dealing with the volume of spam.
Except that you could say the same thing about IBM before they jumped on the Linux bandwagon.
I don't think alot of people here understand IBM's contributions to Linux. It did not start in 1999. IBM was the first "big boy" to offer any support in the way of drivers and such for Linux, way before it was popular. As I stated earlier, the old cartoon that asked, "How do you make a penguin fly?" and showed a penguin duct taped to a jet with the name IBM on it. Their support of Linux started way before most people knew what Linux was. I was running Linux on IBM PC Server 325 boxes back in 97-98, way before they went public with massive support. RedHat 6 installed out of the box, with all hardware fully supported. I tried installing Solaris 8 when they opened it up in 2000, but it would not install at all.
IBM also support Intel and AMD processors, while Sun came late with AMD. IBM supports and has always supported a wide range of systems, from desktops, laptops, entry level servers, to big iron. Sun does not. IBM has supported Windows, OS/2, AIX, OS/400, DOS, and a few Linux distros, from TurboLinux to RedHat and SuSe, without preference.
Lets not forget that while Sun GAVE SCO money for "licensing", IBM walking into court carrying a big stick for all of us, and still is. Remember, they are fighting for their right to GIVE us their original code, free of charge.
More importantly, IBM took the risk and put a BILLION into Linux without any assurance it would pay off, this after YEARS of quietly supporting Linux by providing drivers and hardware info. Sun has been dragged into Linux, kicking and screaming the whole way. They came up with their own version of Linux (RedHat with the name changed) then dropped Linux totally. Then they picked it up a year later. You simply can not compare the two.
Sun HATES you for loving Linux. IBM doesn't really care what distro you use, although they prefer anything not MS related. (although they will give you 100% support if you DO choose MS)
You are correct about one thing: IBM is making billions because of Linux. The difference is, they put their money where their mouth is, and made promises to the GPL community, and so far they have kept their end of the deal 110%.
Personally, I hope IBM continues to make billions and billons with Linux. You and I get to see the code, we get good prices on great hardware. We can choose to NOT buy IBM and still get the benefits. AND they have seen that their investment into GPL software reaps tremendous rewards. Go IBM!
Read my comment again. I didn't say Sun has never contributed to Open Source, I said I don't have much of a reason to think they are on "our side" (original emphasis)
They open sourced StarOffice(OO) AFTER commercial failure, with the goal of taking market share from Microsoft. Yes, it was a nice gesture, and its a great program, but NO they didn't open source it from the beginning, and they didn't do it because of 100% benevolence. They did it simply because they felt it was the best way to screw Microsoft.
Now, they haven't published this as direct as I state, but I know my roots. I remember Sun's version of "open" versus Linus's. I appreciate the contributions that Sun has made, but I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
IBM threw $1billion at Linux, crossed their fingers, and it worked out wonderful for them. IBM has ALWAYS been more open toward Linux. (speaking of roots, remember the OLD joke: how do you get a penguin to fly, and the cartoon has a penguin duct taped to a jet marked "IBM"? Yea, I know my roots.)
Every attempt Sun has made toward opening source has been considerably more half assed, and for very different reasons. They have been very reluctant to impliment it, they have treated Linux and open source in general as the bastard step child, and begrudgingly offered some Linux products, purely to maintain their customer base. Go google for FUD, as Sun has put out their share.
They have also contributed to SCO and this whole mess we are in now, with nary an explanation, or a valid one anyway.
No, Sun is simply a company that wishes it was Microsoft, and if Sun had 97% marketshare, they would be just as big of bastards as Microsoft is. Both companies have done some good, but the only thing that has kept Sun from being as "evil" as Microsoft is they don't have the deep pockets or the market monopoly. Their history clearly states this, as do their current actions.
The question isn't really if the code has any SVR5 in it, as it likely has little. The real question is how "derivative" is defined, and how that applies to the license Sun had with AT&T and more recently, SCO.
SCO Says No Way To a GPL Solaris, Moves Trial Back
No one really expected Sun to GPL Solaris, or expected that SCO will allow them to without a threat of lawsuit. This only gives SCO something else to bitch about, and Sun and excuse to do nothing about opening their code base. Sorry to be so negative, but I haven't had much of a reason to think that Sun is on "our side" when it comes to open source software.
SCO and Sun do have one thing in common, however: They will both soon be dead because of Linux and the contributions of IBM and others.
But in general there aren't that many cases on Windows that you'd have to "Pay-Extra".
$time=$money;
From experience, I can tell you that anyone that is familiar with both Windows and Linux (like me) will tell you that Linux is much easier, much faster, and more simplified to setup for this purpose.
Configuring Sendmail is easy (sorta;). Installing and configuring PHP, mySQL and Perl is WAY easier on Linux (I have on both) and it works in a much more seemless way than on Windows. Configuring CRON is certainly easier than any Windows scheduling I have used. Security patches are much easier as well, using yum, apt-get or up2date (depending on distro). IIS is not that fun to setup and administer, and while you can use Apache on both platforms, it is easier for me on Linux (speed for 2.0 is about the same on both now).
Its a matter of using the right tool for the job, and saving time. Windows on the desktop is not so bad (I use both, personally) but for a simple server, it just takes much less time to install and administer Linux over Windows, AND an uninformed user is much less likely to screw up a Linux install, assuming they are not given root access, saving you downtime.
Another factor: backing up data. With Linux, I can really backup the entire machine, instead of backing up datafiles and having to reinstall to restore a windows box (which is exactly what MS says you should do). Its as simple as using DUMP and RESTORE. You can even write a very simple perl script (or bash, for that matter) that will dump the root system and upload to an ftp site as often as you care to. This speaks nothing of the ability to use the same box as a proxy server, router, firewall, file server, dns caching server, mail server, etc.
Also, while windows is much more stable since win2k (and for the most part, acceptable), my experience shows it is still not as stable as a properly configured Linux disto. which doesn't require the rebooting after updates (excepting kernels) so it can be done remotely.
For a single server situation, I have yet to see a situation where Windows can beat Linux for a "one box does it all" solution like this.
Have a catchall account that picks up all the email not handled by other accounts.
Already do, using spamassassin, clamav and squirrelmail. One problem is I don't check the catchall very often, and find it will have several thousand messages after a month. this can be quite large.
I recently just set spamassassin to auto delete spam on that account, and set the threshold to 0.1 which will catch almost everything. I guess I could just change the/var/spool/mail/[catchall] link to point to/dev/null and get the same effect, but i can't disable AV checking for a single client (spamassassin yes) so it wouldn't save me that much effort.
adding to your comment, many ISPs now give away free AV and firewall software, so price isn't the issue. There are also free version of firewall and av software for anyone anyway. I use Zone Alarm on my windows boxes, and it works great.
I guess the writer is unaware of the incredible hoops even root has to jump through to install any executable on a Linux/Unix box. (Disclaimer: Someone help me out here, if I am incorrect ) A server daemon used to relay spam/mail is an even more stultifying set of hoops to jump through.
No incredible hoops at all. There are several ways to install as root, most of which take less than 30 seconds. 3. assumes it is a perl script or precompiled binary.
make;make dep;make install or rpm -i somepackage.rpm or cp someexecutablefile/bin
apt-get and yum have other methods to easy install base packages for modern distros as well. One simple line in a shell.
Its easier than Windows in many respects, which certainly is both a good and bad thing. Often, "make dep" isn't even needed for 1. The real problem isn't installing in Linux, the problem is distros that have the default login as ROOT, such as Lindows. Even Knoppix and similar live disks are smart enough to not allow root as the default login.
Installing a relay spam/mail server would be theoretically very easy on Linux, since every distro under the sun has SENDMAIL installed. Its not a matter of installing, it would be a matter of rooting the the box, changing the/etc/mail/sendmail.mc file and doing a make/etc/mail (your linux distro may vary). Then open port 25 in/etc/sysconfig/iptables and doing a "/./etc/init.d/network restart" The hard part is rooting the box, not opening/installing the mail prog. The rest is trivial.
The main reason Linux is less likely to get rooted isn't because of smaller market share (although that obviously affects its market share of exploits), its because it is likely to have less buffer overflows because the source is inspected by so many people, AND because there is no system in Linux to prevent people from upgrading their system if it is pirated. Also, since there is no great profit in a particular program, they tend to stick around longer instead of being upgraded to a new version to just sell a new version.
The code itself is not better or worse, just inspected more. Also, there is only one place to get updates for Windows, but there are several places for updates to Linux, or you can use a different program altogether for a particular service if you choose (wsftpd, proftpd, vsftpd, pureftpd for example of ftpd choices). You can also modify and recompile the code yourself, if you are so inclined. The GPL guarantees you will have access to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Make the Star Trek name absolute mud?
"They" are not doing anything. Its a private, not for profit group that is doing this, not the Copyright holders. The copyright holders (Eugene Roddenberry, son of Gene) have come in toward the last, and given alot of leeway because he feels the project is exactly what his father would want. Additionally, many talented people from the movie industry have donated (or near donated) their time for the project. The producers are paying for the entire project out of their own pockets, with no method for recovering their expenses.
It is not being sold, its given away. They plainly state that this is their interpretation of what years 4 and 5 would be. Its looks like a pretty cool project, and once the slashdotting is done on their site, you can download for FREE.
This looks pretty damn cool to me, a fan based trilogy with decent acting, and very good visual effects, putting a new spin on Star Trek, while remaining fairly faithful to the original. They even state in their FAQ (link above) that they will NOT screw up the timeline.
After visiting their site, and reading their FAQ (while slooowly downloading the trailer..) I read this direct quote...
Read the FAQ for yourself.
I already have an internal, but the reason I am looking for an external is so I can take it with me camping, with the laptop. It already has a DVD player, and some camps have cable, or use the antenna on the RV. This is much smaller than dragging a TV around, better picture, bigger picture than many tvs, and I can play my casino games if nothing is on ;)
Maybe it's because some people here are actually interested in real discussion?
but it takes swimming through a lot of garbage to find it some days.
On another note, I have heard about Microsoft working on AV software for a few YEARS now. I searched this page for the word "vaporware" and found nothing, ironically. They used to make AV software, and it wasn't that good (win 3.0 days).
The monopoly talk has probably slowed them down but the biggest complain I had heard over the years was that the OS should be more virus proof to start with, so it should be included in Windows. And of course, that including it free with the OS is abusing their monopoly because it hurts competition. They can't win.
The people that bitch the loudest over the lack of security on Windows are the first to bitch that they are hurting other companies by giving the AV away. Of course, they bitch about other actions by Microsoft, and we all agree with some of it.
There is a certain amount of irony, considering many of us use lots of free software. How many of us run Linux (using iptables), with Spamassassin, ClamAV, MainScanner, tripwire and other products that you often have to buy seperately with Windows. I am one of those that use both OS's, and so are most of users on slashdot, to one degree or another.
So, its ok if its free (as in beer) on Linux, but not on Windows? Free (as in speech) aside, for the average user its a better value if it works and its free, and its incorporated. I don't trust Microsoft for many reasons, but I am not so sure I can trash them if they did give it away, considering I get the same thing for free (with more choices) on Linux now.
Sovtek also makes tubes. You can guess where they are located. I can't remember if GrooveTube makes their tubes in the US still or in Mexico. There are a few others, but all in Europe, I believe.
This is based upon my experience with guitar amps, keep in mind, but the tubes in guitar amps are pretty standard fare, 6V6, 6L6, EL84, EL34, 12AX7, 12**7s, etc. Even the better amps use tubes in the rectifier, but I can't remember the model numbers off the top of my head. A good guitar amp with have one power tube (6V6/6L6/EL34) for each 20 to 30 watts of output and 3 to 5 12AX7s for the preamp. EL84s are used mainly for Class A amps (pentode, etc) rather than A/B amps (switching amps).
Also, Macintosh stereo amps, and other audiophile grade amps. Back around 89, I worked in a FM radio station in Texas that still used tubes for their output, 100,000 watts on stick over 1000 feet tall! Was still fairly common then.
But there are still several applications for tubes, where digital/ic just doesn't hold up.
ack, i meant 2. make it pretty
dammit, struck down by force of habit, lol. That is why I added 3 already, to simply remove the add on comments "make profit".
You have to pardon the error, I have been coding all day, and I am not a programmer. Obviously, I am not as thunk as you drink I am....
If they want people to test the system, they should come up with a way to get average people to use the system.
1. Make it work
2. Make it profit
3. There is no step three
Right now I would image they are more concerned with the technical aspects first. I would bet they would then open it up to most testers to get feedback on the usability. What good is a nice interface if the system is down all the time?
Google has some pretty bright minds aboard
Yes they do, this is just one of the articles discussing this, here.
They have a much higher ratio of PhDs than Microsoft, or just about anyone short of a hospital. They also give their employees the freedom of spending 20% of their time working on any unrelated subject they choose, appearantly in the hopes that the outcome of this research will benefit Google, or at least will make the better PhD's with more than one iron in the fire, WANT to work for them.
Now you're complaining...
That is his JOB, to point out shortcomings of the system. He is a tester, and he is doing it for FREE. Google doesn't want testers who get 3 emails a day, they want people to test the living shit out of the service and point out what is wrong with it. Everyone knows Google will try to fix all the bugs, so all the press, good or bad, is still good press.
If Google barfs when handling 999 messages in 4 minutes during testing, image when several million people have gmail accounts. Fortunately, now Google has an even to look at to see what the problem is. When you are trying to harden a system, YOU MUST BREAK IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, to see where it is weak. This is what is happening.
My impression is that the tech's at Google are spending a significant amount of time saying "oh shit, never thought of that, cool." which is the ENTIRE REASON FOR TESTING. They can't think of every situation by themselves. This is also the entire concept behind "open software is more secure". Google's gmail is going to have bugs at this stage and lots of them, period. Google knows this, hell, everyone knows this (this is why its in testing, and not open to the public yet, duh)
It not whinning, its stating the facts, which Goggle obviously WANTS him to gather, as a TESTER. Seems to me that he is going beyond the call of duty to test their servers, since he is spending a fair amount of his own time.
You can get over 120db, although I sincerely doubt most people would own that kind of equipment. I had a system with six Klipsch Cornwall II, and 3000 watts RMS (really, not peak. this is over 2x the power the speakers were rated for) and could achieve amazing spls. The efficiency of the systems, coupled with overpowering the system with amps with tons of headroom (power doesn't kill speakers, square waves from clipping amps do...). Had it metered. Of course, it also used 2x31 band eq, a white noise generator with matching mic and spectrum analyser for relatively flat output. Entire system was under $15,000. The Klipsch, as well as other cabs I have owned, were rated for over 100db 1w/1m@1k. (want to say over 103, actually) Most speakers are not nearly as efficient.
Its not just the power, its the efficiency, along with the total setup.
What about dynamic range? CD's are acceptible, but not great in that quality. Maybe listening to some old Van Halen, it doesn't matter, but listening to classical or jazz, it does.
Early CDs had problems with the foil peeling off.
Maybe CD-Rs, but CDs have the aluminum INSIDE the disk. Kinda hard to peel off. You can even restore terribly scratched CD's with Novus, as long as the scratch wasn't deep enough to put pressure on the aluminum ( a ball point pen will run the aluminum, for instance )
I don't see how they could peel, considering the actual content is internal in the medium.
Reminds me of the old Cold War joke about Pravda. If the US and USSR played a game of basketball, and the US won, Pravda would be proudly proclaiming how the USSR came in second place, but the US came in second from last place.
I'm no accountant, so take all this with a grain of salt, but -- in the US, advertising costs must be expensed, not capitalized.
I'm not an accountant, but in Marketing and own a couple businesses as well. You are 95% correct, with one small exception. If you are Oscar Meyer, you expense the TV commercials, but you may depreciate (capitol investment) the giant hot dog shaped car that you drive around to events. As a very loose rule, if its advertising but you can touch it, you probably have to depreciate it (consider it capitol investment).
This would be giant banners, vehicles, displays, blimps, and other tangibles that are used "in support" of advertising, and are often advertisements in themselves.
They need to start prosecuting under the existing laws before making yet more new laws.
Amen! Part of the problem is the view of "spam crimes". Police are too busy arresting pot smokers (who we all know are sooooo dangerous). You just don't get headlines for busting spammers. It seems that the police still see spam as victimless, more of an inconvenience than a billion dollar crime. We don't have much of a choice on this one, local cops don't have the ability to deal with this, since it is interstate rather than intrastate crime. This is one of those few times when we need the feds to actually do something, such as shutting down, fining, and jailing those companies that use spam to get business.
Considering that the vast majority of email is spam, the vast majority of mail servers are purely to deal with it. We are about to move our mail server offsite simply because spam is eating all our bandwidth, and its cheaper to move the mail server to a rented rack where the bandwidth is much cheaper. This is a real cost as well.
I grepped through my logs yesterday, where we use Squirrelmail, Spamassassin and ClamAV. Over 97% of the activity is to deal with viruses and spam. Ninety Seven Percent. We have a semi-dedicated server for mail (does a few other minor tasks), and this is just for 15 mail accounts. In the real world, this would be major overkill, but unfortunately, its necessary. Even while the CPU usage is fairly low, the box is slow to ssh into simply from I/O overload, dealing with the volume of spam.
Except that you could say the same thing about IBM before they jumped on the Linux bandwagon.
I don't think alot of people here understand IBM's contributions to Linux. It did not start in 1999. IBM was the first "big boy" to offer any support in the way of drivers and such for Linux, way before it was popular. As I stated earlier, the old cartoon that asked, "How do you make a penguin fly?" and showed a penguin duct taped to a jet with the name IBM on it. Their support of Linux started way before most people knew what Linux was. I was running Linux on IBM PC Server 325 boxes back in 97-98, way before they went public with massive support. RedHat 6 installed out of the box, with all hardware fully supported. I tried installing Solaris 8 when they opened it up in 2000, but it would not install at all.
IBM also support Intel and AMD processors, while Sun came late with AMD. IBM supports and has always supported a wide range of systems, from desktops, laptops, entry level servers, to big iron. Sun does not. IBM has supported Windows, OS/2, AIX, OS/400, DOS, and a few Linux distros, from TurboLinux to RedHat and SuSe, without preference.
Lets not forget that while Sun GAVE SCO money for "licensing", IBM walking into court carrying a big stick for all of us, and still is. Remember, they are fighting for their right to GIVE us their original code, free of charge.
More importantly, IBM took the risk and put a BILLION into Linux without any assurance it would pay off, this after YEARS of quietly supporting Linux by providing drivers and hardware info. Sun has been dragged into Linux, kicking and screaming the whole way. They came up with their own version of Linux (RedHat with the name changed) then dropped Linux totally. Then they picked it up a year later. You simply can not compare the two.
Sun HATES you for loving Linux. IBM doesn't really care what distro you use, although they prefer anything not MS related. (although they will give you 100% support if you DO choose MS)
You are correct about one thing: IBM is making billions because of Linux. The difference is, they put their money where their mouth is, and made promises to the GPL community, and so far they have kept their end of the deal 110%.
Personally, I hope IBM continues to make billions and billons with Linux. You and I get to see the code, we get good prices on great hardware. We can choose to NOT buy IBM and still get the benefits. AND they have seen that their investment into GPL software reaps tremendous rewards. Go IBM!
Read my comment again. I didn't say Sun has never contributed to Open Source, I said I don't have much of a reason to think they are on "our side" (original emphasis)
They open sourced StarOffice(OO) AFTER commercial failure, with the goal of taking market share from Microsoft. Yes, it was a nice gesture, and its a great program, but NO they didn't open source it from the beginning, and they didn't do it because of 100% benevolence. They did it simply because they felt it was the best way to screw Microsoft.
Now, they haven't published this as direct as I state, but I know my roots. I remember Sun's version of "open" versus Linus's. I appreciate the contributions that Sun has made, but I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
IBM threw $1billion at Linux, crossed their fingers, and it worked out wonderful for them. IBM has ALWAYS been more open toward Linux. (speaking of roots, remember the OLD joke: how do you get a penguin to fly, and the cartoon has a penguin duct taped to a jet marked "IBM"? Yea, I know my roots.)
Every attempt Sun has made toward opening source has been considerably more half assed, and for very different reasons. They have been very reluctant to impliment it, they have treated Linux and open source in general as the bastard step child, and begrudgingly offered some Linux products, purely to maintain their customer base. Go google for FUD, as Sun has put out their share.
They have also contributed to SCO and this whole mess we are in now, with nary an explanation, or a valid one anyway.
No, Sun is simply a company that wishes it was Microsoft, and if Sun had 97% marketshare, they would be just as big of bastards as Microsoft is. Both companies have done some good, but the only thing that has kept Sun from being as "evil" as Microsoft is they don't have the deep pockets or the market monopoly. Their history clearly states this, as do their current actions.
Roots, indeed.
please refer to the BSD lawsuit to answer how relevant that is.
The question isn't really if the code has any SVR5 in it, as it likely has little. The real question is how "derivative" is defined, and how that applies to the license Sun had with AT&T and more recently, SCO.
...this is news?
SCO Says No Way To a GPL Solaris, Moves Trial Back
No one really expected Sun to GPL Solaris, or expected that SCO will allow them to without a threat of lawsuit. This only gives SCO something else to bitch about, and Sun and excuse to do nothing about opening their code base. Sorry to be so negative, but I haven't had much of a reason to think that Sun is on "our side" when it comes to open source software.
SCO and Sun do have one thing in common, however: They will both soon be dead because of Linux and the contributions of IBM and others.
But in general there aren't that many cases on Windows that you'd have to "Pay-Extra".
;). Installing and configuring PHP, mySQL and Perl is WAY easier on Linux (I have on both) and it works in a much more seemless way than on Windows. Configuring CRON is certainly easier than any Windows scheduling I have used. Security patches are much easier as well, using yum, apt-get or up2date (depending on distro). IIS is not that fun to setup and administer, and while you can use Apache on both platforms, it is easier for me on Linux (speed for 2.0 is about the same on both now).
$time=$money;
From experience, I can tell you that anyone that is familiar with both Windows and Linux (like me) will tell you that Linux is much easier, much faster, and more simplified to setup for this purpose.
Configuring Sendmail is easy (sorta
Its a matter of using the right tool for the job, and saving time. Windows on the desktop is not so bad (I use both, personally) but for a simple server, it just takes much less time to install and administer Linux over Windows, AND an uninformed user is much less likely to screw up a Linux install, assuming they are not given root access, saving you downtime.
Another factor: backing up data. With Linux, I can really backup the entire machine, instead of backing up datafiles and having to reinstall to restore a windows box (which is exactly what MS says you should do). Its as simple as using DUMP and RESTORE. You can even write a very simple perl script (or bash, for that matter) that will dump the root system and upload to an ftp site as often as you care to. This speaks nothing of the ability to use the same box as a proxy server, router, firewall, file server, dns caching server, mail server, etc.
Also, while windows is much more stable since win2k (and for the most part, acceptable), my experience shows it is still not as stable as a properly configured Linux disto. which doesn't require the rebooting after updates (excepting kernels) so it can be done remotely.
For a single server situation, I have yet to see a situation where Windows can beat Linux for a "one box does it all" solution like this.
Have a catchall account that picks up all the email not handled by other accounts.
/var/spool/mail/[catchall] link to point to /dev/null and get the same effect, but i can't disable AV checking for a single client (spamassassin yes) so it wouldn't save me that much effort.
Already do, using spamassassin, clamav and squirrelmail. One problem is I don't check the catchall very often, and find it will have several thousand messages after a month. this can be quite large.
I recently just set spamassassin to auto delete spam on that account, and set the threshold to 0.1 which will catch almost everything. I guess I could just change the
I could have sworn Taco said subscribers would be aiding in the editorial process...
They are. They get to see and comment on the dupes before anyone else does, adding their own editorial comments first...;)
adding to your comment, many ISPs now give away free AV and firewall software, so price isn't the issue. There are also free version of firewall and av software for anyone anyway. I use Zone Alarm on my windows boxes, and it works great.
I guess the writer is unaware of the incredible hoops even root has to jump through to install any executable on a Linux/Unix box. (Disclaimer: Someone help me out here, if I am incorrect ) A server daemon used to relay spam/mail is an even more stultifying set of hoops to jump through.
/bin
/etc/mail/sendmail.mc file and doing a make /etc/mail (your linux distro may vary). Then open port 25 in /etc/sysconfig/iptables and doing a "/./etc/init.d/network restart" The hard part is rooting the box, not opening/installing the mail prog. The rest is trivial.
No incredible hoops at all. There are several ways to install as root, most of which take less than 30 seconds. 3. assumes it is a perl script or precompiled binary.
make;make dep;make install
or
rpm -i somepackage.rpm
or
cp someexecutablefile
apt-get and yum have other methods to easy install base packages for modern distros as well. One simple line in a shell.
Its easier than Windows in many respects, which certainly is both a good and bad thing. Often, "make dep" isn't even needed for 1. The real problem isn't installing in Linux, the problem is distros that have the default login as ROOT, such as Lindows. Even Knoppix and similar live disks are smart enough to not allow root as the default login.
Installing a relay spam/mail server would be theoretically very easy on Linux, since every distro under the sun has SENDMAIL installed. Its not a matter of installing, it would be a matter of rooting the the box, changing the
The main reason Linux is less likely to get rooted isn't because of smaller market share (although that obviously affects its market share of exploits), its because it is likely to have less buffer overflows because the source is inspected by so many people, AND because there is no system in Linux to prevent people from upgrading their system if it is pirated. Also, since there is no great profit in a particular program, they tend to stick around longer instead of being upgraded to a new version to just sell a new version.
The code itself is not better or worse, just inspected more. Also, there is only one place to get updates for Windows, but there are several places for updates to Linux, or you can use a different program altogether for a particular service if you choose (wsftpd, proftpd, vsftpd, pureftpd for example of ftpd choices). You can also modify and recompile the code yourself, if you are so inclined. The GPL guarantees you will have access to it.