We have skimmed over the history sections for too many years, but today it is fun to (finally) start learnning.
You actually make a very good point. Until the lawsuit, all I knew is that Unix was a really old operating system, and Linux was designed to be a clean room clone of it. BSD was a different implimentation of it, and they were in some lawsuit with AT&T years ago. Thats about it.
Because of this, I have learned that Linux distros are riddled with BSD. BSD is more than "different than linux" and is more different than I thought. The history of Unix is not linear, but has branched and recombined over the years. Some of BSD and Unix is based on PD software. Many companies have stripped the copyright info out of their code over the years and don't know where it came from. And more.
You are correct that all this information and more was quite boring to read before now, and harder to find. But having a deeper understanding of the roots of Unix and Linux is probably a good thing for those of us who like and use it.
Also, reading the history of Unix in a single book offers only a single perspective, where reading it from all the different links shown herein demonstrate that there are many facts that are forgotten over the years, and there are some historical points that are debateable.
the GPL itself is likely to get tested if this ever goes to court too. I think that is something that we all WANT to happen to build some case law in support of the GPL.
I would agree. The GPL may or may not be tested in this case, but its quite possible. The case also has the potential to test the concept of IP in general, and how far you can take a contract regarding IP, such as claiming everything that is made based upon a product belongs to the original copyright holder. To me, that is a serious issue.
Until this case, I was not aware of how screwed up the whole Unix situation was, with so many people owning bits and pieces. Novell has certain rights to change SCO's actions, SCO owns the code, Open Group owns the trademark. BSD is supposed to be free of any obligations except trademarks.
Its to the point where I am willing to pitch in a few bucks, we all buy ALL the Unix IP, and then release it into the public domain.
The artice demonstrates, that (1) and (2) are false, and SCO must know that.
(1) Is demonstrated to be false, by the very definition of UNIX,
(2) Is demonstrated to be false, by the existence of S/390 UNIX, and by the fact that Windows NT could become UNIX in future, etc.
The fact that SCO must know that is demonstrated by SCO's history with trademark licensing and attribution, UNIX certification of SCO products, etc.
good point. i had not thought of that in that exact way before your point was made. i was not aware S/390 came from a different code base, but found some tasty nuggets while googling.
I had commented previously that it is like a cheap soap opera, but a good, cheap soap opera for nerds. It is a compelling story, with good guys and bad guys, and all kinds of plot twists, unusual characters, and viewpoints.
Its not really a simple "SCO v IBM" situation, but a tangled legal mess that includes Open Group, SGI, Sun, OSX, BSD, MS, OSS, the GPL, RMS, and lots of other acronyms. You can't write fiction this good.
I would agree with your evaluation of/. editors on the pacing as well. Its probably a good compromise to keep all parties in balance. Can't wait 'til tomorrow's episode;)
Seems to be the usual overload of people bitching about too many SCO stories. Here is a simple answer:
Don't read them. Some of us want a daily SCO update. It's ok that you don't want daily stories, but you can read the other stories instead of filling up the place with complains.
You obviously know jack about Mac users. None of them care about "gcc or about any code made for linux". They only care about a pretty desktop and dehumanizing non Mac users. Your Clancy quote is prove enough of that.
I didn't quote Clancy, dumbass.
And I know plenty of Mac users who use gcc. I can't help it if YOU hang with idiots.
not to add to your troll (too late) but obviously you know shit about macos. Seems to me that OSX is pretty much BSD with a cool desktop. Since you can run gcc and compile just about any code made for linux/unix/bsd on it, it seems pretty cool to me. The only thing lacking is power, which the 970(g5) has now cured.
You sound like you are talking about MACOS 8 or 9. Then again, you post as AC, so everyone will know how clueless you are, but not know who you are.
adding to your point, it appears these countries are attempting to develop a "better Linux" to provide competition. Its not like Japan is going to create a law requiring anyone who owns a computer to use this form of Linux.
Microsoft seems to be pissed because some governments are going to be assisting the competitive process. I thought it was ok for government (any) to foster healthy competition.
Actually, there is an old scam where a con man sends invoices to thousands of companies, hoping a few percent will just pay it, not questioning. Its usually for something like "advertising services" or similar, and its usually not too large, say $100 to $300. but if 3% pay an average of $200, and you send it to 10,000 companies, that is $60,000. Cost: about 50 cents per counting printing, postage, etc. So you turn $5000 into $60,000. Not a bad return.
Perhaps there is a parallel here. SCO doesn't really expect every company to pay licensing, they just need enough to pay to keep the stock prices up, so their "prearranged sale of stocks" will be profitable.
Just another thought - For all of you folks that work in consultancies that depend upon and recommend Linux:
How has the SCO FUD affected your relations with your clients both financially and in other business relation aspects?
Thats a good question, and is often answered with FUD of its own (both parties) or simply over generalized.
Our company (less than 25 stations) was beginning a migration before the FUD started. The boss approached me with concerns, and is warmer toward MS now. Our biggest concern is applications, not SCO, but the lawsuit has put a small shard of glass in his brain regarding Linux. I don't think it will make a huge difference, but if it REALLY came down to a 50%/50% decision, it may be what puts him over the edge.
After I showed him the article about Ernie Ball here on slashdot, and showed him some of the terms of MS's new licensing (plus the costs) he is not excited about MS. We are running an ANCIENT network, and MUST upgrade in the next few months. He didn't like the idea about auditing, or fines for accidental non-compliance. (we don't use any apps that would have us pirating anyway, just accounting stuff) I will forward to him the article on Office here on the front page as well. We are still using Office 97, and have no reason to upgrade, except maybe to Open Office:D Of course, now he is slightly leary of open source stuff, and he's really not a PHB, but a pretty reasonable boss.
In a nutshell: Its making a small difference to us, but MAYBE enough to push the boss away from open source software in general. This is making my job hard, because now i have to look at both MS and Open Source solutions for this network upgrade.
virtually every Dell with xp pro has a 30-35mb partition on it, "EISA" style. This is true for their servers and Pro machines, not sure about xphome boxes. WHY, I have no idea, most of the dell's i buy are servers with NO OS installed, and the Dell XP pro boxes I have, I got used.
If you use the setup disk that comes with dell servers to auto-reformat everything, it will still create that 30mb EISA partition, then prompt you for your OS install disk of choice (linux, obviously). Their do have decent kickstart files on the install disk, making installing linux somewhat faster if you don't mind their default settings on the version that they support (last dell server I bought was for RH 7.2, been a while)
The EULA's can't be enforcable (IANALEBIR/.) and I personally can't wait until this finally goes to court. I can't see how any EULA is enforceable without you signing it. Even the GPL says you can use without acceptance/permission since you didn't sign anything, you just can't distribute it without acceptance.
Someone was once joking about sending Bill Gates a letter with a $5 bill inside, and a note "by opening this letter, you agree to sell me your car for $5. Please forward your keys and title to..."
I personally believe in moving to IPv6 and making people accountable to a particular IP. ie: you sign up for aol, you always get the same IP (no dynamic anymore). If problems come from that IP, you know the block belongs to AOL, and you can trace it back. same for cable modem access, etc. Spam comes from 12.12.12.12.12? Trace to albany.ny.rr.com, they comply with law, supply records and "bill smith" is responsible. some isp in Korea won't comply? black list them.
Dynamic IP's must die, there is no accountability.
The main problem is you lose privacy, which makes some people completely freak out, yelling "unconstitutional!!!", which is total garbage, since the law that offers privacy protection is the Privacy Act of 1974, and NOT the constitution. The key is to only provide the info on a warrant from police, and then take the spammers and script kiddies and publicly rake them over the coals. The rest of us keep most of our privacy.
Lots of people cry how we have to have 100% anonyminity on the web, but it just ain't gonna happen that way if you want to kill spam and attacks. I don't see where there is any law that says you have the right to 100% privacy on the net. It would be nice, but its not practical.
Don't bother flaming, instead think of a REAL solution that doesn't have this kind of accountability.
Don't mean to argue your point, but I would imagine that most open relays do not have MX records associated with them. Most people who would setup an MX record would be using it for mail, and would be more likely to set it up correctly. I would tend to think most open relays (lately) are from newbs setting up boxes and not updating them, and just using them as clients unknowingly having everything ON, including ISS, etc. Older versions of redhat left sendmail wide open as well.
Its not very hard to make a list of ip's with port 25 open, and to create a script that will test to see if the relay is open or not. I am not a programmer, but I think I could hack together a perl script to do this in about an hour.
My main point is that the spammers ARE probably attacking people without MX records, usually fools with computers right on a T1 with no firewall and no updates. I traced many spams (two years ago) directy to open relays on client machines in Mexico.
Try holding a seminar in the USA on how to covertly build a home-brew nuclear weapon and sneak it into public buildings.
You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. You can't incite a riot. You can't libel someone either. You probably CAN do what you are stating in a way, except you would have a difficult time finding a building to rent to hold the seminar. You can also publish your information about how to make bombs on the web, as its already been done (Anarchist's Handbook is easy to google).
Free speech is NOT the same as "saying anything you want". That misses the whole point. Free Speech covers political speech and artistic expression, everything else is kind of fuzzy. It is also against the law to advocate overthrowing the US govt. by violent means, which the home brew nukes might be seen as.
The US does have the strongest laws protecting free speech. This doesn't mean we are 100% at protecting them, thats what the courts are for. The real irony is that in America, you have the freedom to express any ideas just about anywhere, as long as it is not pro-christian. (for the record, Im not christian, but I know hypocracy when I see it)
AOL also does not allow mail from my SDSL network, so I am in the exact same position. It pisses me off. But it is still their right to decide this, just as I can filter anything I want on any of my networks.
It's called "tortious interference in a business relationship". In some states, AOL may be forced to pay triple damages plus law fees (note, triple damages would cover lost business).
And you should know that if an hosting provider is sending tons of spam (much illegal) to AOL, then they are interfering with their ability to provice service to their customers. Unless AOL is singling them out for other reasons (put them out of business, etc) or the action is negligent (which its not, its a legal, reasonable but drastic measure) then there is NO damages.
No ISP can demand that another ISP accept its mail. The internet doesn't work that way, and never has. If AOL decides it will only accept email from other AOL customers, then they have the legal right to do this. If they want to accept only email from "bob@*.com" then they can.
I am just beside myself because so many people here just don't get that. Any ISP can filter out any content they want. they can block all customers from *.net addresses if they choose. They can not allow images to be transfered on port 80. They can have an interface that allows only Mac users to connect if they want. You can chose to not use their services. But you don't have the RIGHT to cash in every time some company doesn't do what YOU think they should.
You say: But this isn't e-mail destined for AOL itself, but rather its customers. No one is saying private individuals can't filter this e-mail if they wish.
<rant style="common sense"> AOL gets one billion emails a day. 2/3rds are spam (read prior articles here on/. for references or google it). Spam costs them money, so they are justified in trying to deal with it.
It amazes me how people bitch endlessly about spam, but when a company filters it (and inevitably messes up trying) you freak out. It is not like AOL is trying to charge you for sending to someone on AOL.
Don't like it? Quit AOL. Don't have AOL? Then its not hurting you. Need 100% guarantee that all email will arrive? Don't expect it for $23 a month, get your own mail server. Didn't read the Terms of Service where it says "we try, but shit happens?" then read it next time.
Write this down: You don't have a RIGHT for your AOL service to work correctly. You have an EXPECTATION that it will. If it doesn't, ask for your money back for the last month and switch ISPs.
Why, for the love of jeebus, does everyone think that if they pay money for something, service becomes a constitutionally protected RIGHT? You have an expectation, a term of service, and the RIGHT to ask for your money back if they don't perform, but you don't have a RIGHT to perfect service (get the distiction?) But not damages, unless they are grossly negligent, which filtering isn't. God it is disgusting how sue happy everyone is, especially when there is so many choices for ISP in almost every town. </rant>
Free Speech is a right. Bearing arms is a right. Voting is a right. Getting 100% of what you expected isn't.
the fact that AOL IS a monopoly in the ISP market for the most part.
AOL is by no one's measure, a monopoly. They are even losing market share. They have the right to filter in any way they see is the best for their company.
Being a "monopoly" is more than your opinion, its a legally definable market condition that AOL does not enjoy. They are big. They are the 800 pound gorilla. But they are not a monopoly in any legal sense.
You could sue, but of course there would be a limit to what a court would be willing to grant. When you pay for something, there is an expectation that you get what you pay for. Unless there was a good reason that the mail got blocked, it's not out of the question to ask for some recompense.
Read your TOS. No isp guarantees 100% of anything, as they can't. I have two T1s. Even they guarantee only 99.99% uptime (good enough for me) but I PAY for the service, and if they fail to provide, they only pay for the service that was under the 99.99%. As much as I don't care for AOL, they have the right (or should) to block any service from anyone. They are not a monopoly, they are just a big stupid company that offers internet access for, well, less learned internet users.
If your dialup ISP or cable service is down for a day, you get back a day's worth of isp cost. You don't get the $1000 worth of business you missed because of it (if its that important, get a real service). Even with our dual T1s, no one guarantees us AOL will accept our mail or anything else, EXCEPT that we can hit the backbone in less than 55ms and that THEY won't block data.
That isn't an enterprise backup solution. It is a hack. An enterprise backup solution won't require a full backup of every file each time the backup is performed.
Um, YEA, its a hack, but you don't have to backup every file with this method either. You can use tar to only refresh files, or use only wget and -u them. You can pull a full backup once a week and update daily. I do this not because it is l33+, I do it because I can store the files over a T1 in very short order, as in minutes. I don't dump the files, i back them up in small units,/etc is on tar,/var/www/html is another, as is/var/spool/mail,/var/www/cgi-bin,/root, etc. This is not the ONLY method for backup I use, but it is the best for a medium corporation that uses the internet extensively for business. A small business can just rent space from yahoo, so this isn't a solution, just as a large corporation or enterprise wouldn't use it as a sole method. But a reasonable sized manufacturer or distributor, well, I know it works because it has proven it does.
If the web server dies, I can take ANY backup box, copy over/etc/httpd/conf &/var/www/*, move it over a T1 in a few minutes (in the background) while I tweak the firewall and in literally 10 to 15 minutes, I have a fully operational replacement server. Of course, I would have been using my secondary web server during this time, but its not designed for a full load like the backup all purpose box is. This means 5 minutes (even remote) to get the site up by aliasing the IP to the secondary box (which is running other services), and less than an hour (including drive time) to be fully operational on the backup all purpose server. It remains the web server until parts/new server arrive. This can be done pretty easily for any other server as well, except mail, which is on a mirror raid, so it has some redundency built in, but IS switchable as well. Also, you can backup to the offsite server in a way that IT can become the web server if your T1 is down. ns1 on internal network, ns2 on that box, not updated, with the secondary IPs already setup. Your only problem is cached DNS, which you can set the expiry down (say 15 minutes), as long as your DNS server can handle the traffic. Its also faster than restoring from tape under most circumstances.
I don't mean to be smug, but its pretty easy to run a network with state of the art gear, including multiple backup tape systems, but those of us in the real world want to have the same benefits (or similar) on a beer budget. This is one example of how we do it. I don't feel this makes me less leet, rather, it gives me the ability to find a solution with limited tools, where other 'hackers' could only draw up a parts list, and spend their way to a solution.
Ugly? Yes, but quite effective. Affordable? For lots of purposes, very. Reliable? Very, especially since its not the only method. Easy? Is to me, but I'm not a master hacker, I just know how to do what I know how to do. A hack? Maybe, but thats the idea of using linux, at least to me. There is more than one way to do things, and your own hand rolled solution is often the best for YOU.
Slashdot Mirror
We have skimmed over the history sections for
too many years, but today it is fun to (finally)
start learnning.
You actually make a very good point. Until the lawsuit, all I knew is that Unix was a really old operating system, and Linux was designed to be a clean room clone of it. BSD was a different implimentation of it, and they were in some lawsuit with AT&T years ago. Thats about it.
Because of this, I have learned that Linux distros are riddled with BSD. BSD is more than "different than linux" and is more different than I thought. The history of Unix is not linear, but has branched and recombined over the years. Some of BSD and Unix is based on PD software. Many companies have stripped the copyright info out of their code over the years and don't know where it came from. And more.
You are correct that all this information and more was quite boring to read before now, and harder to find. But having a deeper understanding of the roots of Unix and Linux is probably a good thing for those of us who like and use it.
Also, reading the history of Unix in a single book offers only a single perspective, where reading it from all the different links shown herein demonstrate that there are many facts that are forgotten over the years, and there are some historical points that are debateable.
the GPL itself is likely to get tested if this ever goes to court too. I think that is something that we all WANT to happen to build some case law in support of the GPL.
I would agree. The GPL may or may not be tested in this case, but its quite possible. The case also has the potential to test the concept of IP in general, and how far you can take a contract regarding IP, such as claiming everything that is made based upon a product belongs to the original copyright holder. To me, that is a serious issue.
Until this case, I was not aware of how screwed up the whole Unix situation was, with so many people owning bits and pieces. Novell has certain rights to change SCO's actions, SCO owns the code, Open Group owns the trademark. BSD is supposed to be free of any obligations except trademarks.
Its to the point where I am willing to pitch in a few bucks, we all buy ALL the Unix IP, and then release it into the public domain.
The artice demonstrates, that (1) and (2) are false, and SCO must know that.
(1) Is demonstrated to be false, by the very definition of UNIX,
(2) Is demonstrated to be false, by the existence of S/390 UNIX, and by the fact that Windows NT could become UNIX in future, etc.
The fact that SCO must know that is demonstrated by SCO's history with trademark licensing and attribution, UNIX certification of SCO products, etc.
good point. i had not thought of that in that exact way before your point was made. i was not aware S/390 came from a different code base, but found some tasty nuggets while googling.
I had commented previously that it is like a cheap soap opera, but a good, cheap soap opera for nerds. It is a compelling story, with good guys and bad guys, and all kinds of plot twists, unusual characters, and viewpoints.
/. editors on the pacing as well. Its probably a good compromise to keep all parties in balance. Can't wait 'til tomorrow's episode ;)
Its not really a simple "SCO v IBM" situation, but a tangled legal mess that includes Open Group, SGI, Sun, OSX, BSD, MS, OSS, the GPL, RMS, and lots of other acronyms. You can't write fiction this good.
I would agree with your evaluation of
Seems to be the usual overload of people bitching about too many SCO stories. Here is a simple answer:
Don't read them. Some of us want a daily SCO update. It's ok that you don't want daily stories, but you can read the other stories instead of filling up the place with complains.
It's just unnecessary.
You obviously know jack about Mac users. None of them care about "gcc or about any code made for linux". They only care about a pretty desktop and dehumanizing non Mac users. Your Clancy quote is prove enough of that.
I didn't quote Clancy, dumbass.
And I know plenty of Mac users who use gcc. I can't help it if YOU hang with idiots.
not to add to your troll (too late) but obviously you know shit about macos. Seems to me that OSX is pretty much BSD with a cool desktop. Since you can run gcc and compile just about any code made for linux/unix/bsd on it, it seems pretty cool to me. The only thing lacking is power, which the 970(g5) has now cured.
You sound like you are talking about MACOS 8 or 9. Then again, you post as AC, so everyone will know how clueless you are, but not know who you are.
Looks like MS is facing more competition than they'd like.
As in ANY competition?
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Bill Gates comes in and destroys Homer's internet business (that didn't do anything).
But you gotta love that butter stick pencil holder.....
adding to your point, it appears these countries are attempting to develop a "better Linux" to provide competition. Its not like Japan is going to create a law requiring anyone who owns a computer to use this form of Linux.
Microsoft seems to be pissed because some governments are going to be assisting the competitive process. I thought it was ok for government (any) to foster healthy competition.
Actually, there is an old scam where a con man sends invoices to thousands of companies, hoping a few percent will just pay it, not questioning. Its usually for something like "advertising services" or similar, and its usually not too large, say $100 to $300. but if 3% pay an average of $200, and you send it to 10,000 companies, that is $60,000. Cost: about 50 cents per counting printing, postage, etc. So you turn $5000 into $60,000. Not a bad return.
Perhaps there is a parallel here. SCO doesn't really expect every company to pay licensing, they just need enough to pay to keep the stock prices up, so their "prearranged sale of stocks" will be profitable.
Just another thought - For all of you folks that work in consultancies that depend upon and recommend Linux:
:D Of course, now he is slightly leary of open source stuff, and he's really not a PHB, but a pretty reasonable boss.
How has the SCO FUD affected your relations with your clients both financially and in other business relation aspects?
Thats a good question, and is often answered with FUD of its own (both parties) or simply over generalized.
Our company (less than 25 stations) was beginning a migration before the FUD started. The boss approached me with concerns, and is warmer toward MS now. Our biggest concern is applications, not SCO, but the lawsuit has put a small shard of glass in his brain regarding Linux. I don't think it will make a huge difference, but if it REALLY came down to a 50%/50% decision, it may be what puts him over the edge.
After I showed him the article about Ernie Ball here on slashdot, and showed him some of the terms of MS's new licensing (plus the costs) he is not excited about MS. We are running an ANCIENT network, and MUST upgrade in the next few months. He didn't like the idea about auditing, or fines for accidental non-compliance. (we don't use any apps that would have us pirating anyway, just accounting stuff) I will forward to him the article on Office here on the front page as well. We are still using Office 97, and have no reason to upgrade, except maybe to Open Office
In a nutshell: Its making a small difference to us, but MAYBE enough to push the boss away from open source software in general. This is making my job hard, because now i have to look at both MS and Open Source solutions for this network upgrade.
virtually every Dell with xp pro has a 30-35mb partition on it, "EISA" style. This is true for their servers and Pro machines, not sure about xphome boxes. WHY, I have no idea, most of the dell's i buy are servers with NO OS installed, and the Dell XP pro boxes I have, I got used.
If you use the setup disk that comes with dell servers to auto-reformat everything, it will still create that 30mb EISA partition, then prompt you for your OS install disk of choice (linux, obviously). Their do have decent kickstart files on the install disk, making installing linux somewhat faster if you don't mind their default settings on the version that they support (last dell server I bought was for RH 7.2, been a while)
The EULA's can't be enforcable (IANALEBIR/.) and I personally can't wait until this finally goes to court. I can't see how any EULA is enforceable without you signing it. Even the GPL says you can use without acceptance/permission since you didn't sign anything, you just can't distribute it without acceptance.
Someone was once joking about sending Bill Gates a letter with a $5 bill inside, and a note "by opening this letter, you agree to sell me your car for $5. Please forward your keys and title to..."
I personally believe in moving to IPv6 and making people accountable to a particular IP. ie: you sign up for aol, you always get the same IP (no dynamic anymore). If problems come from that IP, you know the block belongs to AOL, and you can trace it back. same for cable modem access, etc. Spam comes from 12.12.12.12.12? Trace to albany.ny.rr.com, they comply with law, supply records and "bill smith" is responsible. some isp in Korea won't comply? black list them.
Dynamic IP's must die, there is no accountability.
The main problem is you lose privacy, which makes some people completely freak out, yelling "unconstitutional!!!", which is total garbage, since the law that offers privacy protection is the Privacy Act of 1974, and NOT the constitution. The key is to only provide the info on a warrant from police, and then take the spammers and script kiddies and publicly rake them over the coals. The rest of us keep most of our privacy.
Lots of people cry how we have to have 100% anonyminity on the web, but it just ain't gonna happen that way if you want to kill spam and attacks. I don't see where there is any law that says you have the right to 100% privacy on the net. It would be nice, but its not practical.
Don't bother flaming, instead think of a REAL solution that doesn't have this kind of accountability.
Remember, it only takes ONE hacker and a few thousand script kiddies to feel the wrath.
Don't mean to argue your point, but I would imagine that most open relays do not have MX records associated with them. Most people who would setup an MX record would be using it for mail, and would be more likely to set it up correctly. I would tend to think most open relays (lately) are from newbs setting up boxes and not updating them, and just using them as clients unknowingly having everything ON, including ISS, etc. Older versions of redhat left sendmail wide open as well.
Its not very hard to make a list of ip's with port 25 open, and to create a script that will test to see if the relay is open or not. I am not a programmer, but I think I could hack together a perl script to do this in about an hour.
My main point is that the spammers ARE probably attacking people without MX records, usually fools with computers right on a T1 with no firewall and no updates. I traced many spams (two years ago) directy to open relays on client machines in Mexico.
Guess he didn't tell you he had his reload key remapped to a script:
#!/bin/bash
while true
do
wget --no-http-keep-alive --delete-after -m -p http://www.sco.com
done
and it was on a dual cpu box parked on an OC-3, so maybe his time wasn't completely wasted
Don't do this at home kiddies, you should go own someone elses box first, or maybe a few boxes....
Just kidding, go ahead and do it at home.
Try holding a seminar in the USA on how to covertly build a home-brew nuclear weapon and sneak it into public buildings.
You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. You can't incite a riot. You can't libel someone either. You probably CAN do what you are stating in a way, except you would have a difficult time finding a building to rent to hold the seminar. You can also publish your information about how to make bombs on the web, as its already been done (Anarchist's Handbook is easy to google).
Free speech is NOT the same as "saying anything you want". That misses the whole point. Free Speech covers political speech and artistic expression, everything else is kind of fuzzy. It is also against the law to advocate overthrowing the US govt. by violent means, which the home brew nukes might be seen as.
The US does have the strongest laws protecting free speech. This doesn't mean we are 100% at protecting them, thats what the courts are for. The real irony is that in America, you have the freedom to express any ideas just about anywhere, as long as it is not pro-christian. (for the record, Im not christian, but I know hypocracy when I see it)
AOL also does not allow mail from my SDSL network, so I am in the exact same position. It pisses me off. But it is still their right to decide this, just as I can filter anything I want on any of my networks.
It's called "tortious interference in a business relationship". In some states, AOL may be forced to pay triple damages plus law fees (note, triple damages would cover lost business).
And you should know that if an hosting provider is sending tons of spam (much illegal) to AOL, then they are interfering with their ability to provice service to their customers. Unless AOL is singling them out for other reasons (put them out of business, etc) or the action is negligent (which its not, its a legal, reasonable but drastic measure) then there is NO damages.
No ISP can demand that another ISP accept its mail. The internet doesn't work that way, and never has. If AOL decides it will only accept email from other AOL customers, then they have the legal right to do this. If they want to accept only email from "bob@*.com" then they can.
I am just beside myself because so many people here just don't get that. Any ISP can filter out any content they want. they can block all customers from *.net addresses if they choose. They can not allow images to be transfered on port 80. They can have an interface that allows only Mac users to connect if they want. You can chose to not use their services. But you don't have the RIGHT to cash in every time some company doesn't do what YOU think they should.
I can't be the only one that finds the concept of an online restraining order more than a little amusing.
Does that mean AOL must keep their servers at least 10 hops away from them?
You say: But this isn't e-mail destined for AOL itself, but rather its customers. No one is saying private individuals can't filter this e-mail if they wish.
/. for references or google it). Spam costs them money, so they are justified in trying to deal with it.
<rant style="common sense">
AOL gets one billion emails a day. 2/3rds are spam (read prior articles here on
It amazes me how people bitch endlessly about spam, but when a company filters it (and inevitably messes up trying) you freak out. It is not like AOL is trying to charge you for sending to someone on AOL.
Don't like it? Quit AOL. Don't have AOL? Then its not hurting you. Need 100% guarantee that all email will arrive? Don't expect it for $23 a month, get your own mail server. Didn't read the Terms of Service where it says "we try, but shit happens?" then read it next time.
Write this down: You don't have a RIGHT for your AOL service to work correctly. You have an EXPECTATION that it will. If it doesn't, ask for your money back for the last month and switch ISPs.
Why, for the love of jeebus, does everyone think that if they pay money for something, service becomes a constitutionally protected RIGHT? You have an expectation, a term of service, and the RIGHT to ask for your money back if they don't perform, but you don't have a RIGHT to perfect service (get the distiction?) But not damages, unless they are grossly negligent, which filtering isn't. God it is disgusting how sue happy everyone is, especially when there is so many choices for ISP in almost every town.
</rant>
Free Speech is a right. Bearing arms is a right. Voting is a right. Getting 100% of what you expected isn't.
the fact that AOL IS a monopoly in the ISP market for the most part.
AOL is by no one's measure, a monopoly. They are even losing market share. They have the right to filter in any way they see is the best for their company.
Being a "monopoly" is more than your opinion, its a legally definable market condition that AOL does not enjoy. They are big. They are the 800 pound gorilla. But they are not a monopoly in any legal sense.
You could sue, but of course there would be a limit to what a court would be willing to grant. When you pay for something, there is an expectation that you get what you pay for. Unless there was a good reason that the mail got blocked, it's not out of the question to ask for some recompense.
Read your TOS. No isp guarantees 100% of anything, as they can't. I have two T1s. Even they guarantee only 99.99% uptime (good enough for me) but I PAY for the service, and if they fail to provide, they only pay for the service that was under the 99.99%. As much as I don't care for AOL, they have the right (or should) to block any service from anyone. They are not a monopoly, they are just a big stupid company that offers internet access for, well, less learned internet users.
If your dialup ISP or cable service is down for a day, you get back a day's worth of isp cost. You don't get the $1000 worth of business you missed because of it (if its that important, get a real service). Even with our dual T1s, no one guarantees us AOL will accept our mail or anything else, EXCEPT that we can hit the backbone in less than 55ms and that THEY won't block data.
Again, read your TOS.
But then, I've been using computers since I was 10...
Was that 10 as in ten, or 10 as in two?
I bought my first computer when I was 00010010, but that was almost 00010101 years ago...:)
That isn't an enterprise backup solution. It is a hack. An enterprise backup solution won't require a full backup of every file each time the backup is performed.
/etc is on tar, /var/www/html is another, as is /var/spool/mail, /var/www/cgi-bin, /root, etc. This is not the ONLY method for backup I use, but it is the best for a medium corporation that uses the internet extensively for business. A small business can just rent space from yahoo, so this isn't a solution, just as a large corporation or enterprise wouldn't use it as a sole method. But a reasonable sized manufacturer or distributor, well, I know it works because it has proven it does.
/etc/httpd/conf & /var/www/*, move it over a T1 in a few minutes (in the background) while I tweak the firewall and in literally 10 to 15 minutes, I have a fully operational replacement server. Of course, I would have been using my secondary web server during this time, but its not designed for a full load like the backup all purpose box is. This means 5 minutes (even remote) to get the site up by aliasing the IP to the secondary box (which is running other services), and less than an hour (including drive time) to be fully operational on the backup all purpose server. It remains the web server until parts/new server arrive. This can be done pretty easily for any other server as well, except mail, which is on a mirror raid, so it has some redundency built in, but IS switchable as well. Also, you can backup to the offsite server in a way that IT can become the web server if your T1 is down. ns1 on internal network, ns2 on that box, not updated, with the secondary IPs already setup. Your only problem is cached DNS, which you can set the expiry down (say 15 minutes), as long as your DNS server can handle the traffic. Its also faster than restoring from tape under most circumstances.
Um, YEA, its a hack, but you don't have to backup every file with this method either. You can use tar to only refresh files, or use only wget and -u them. You can pull a full backup once a week and update daily. I do this not because it is l33+, I do it because I can store the files over a T1 in very short order, as in minutes. I don't dump the files, i back them up in small units,
If the web server dies, I can take ANY backup box, copy over
I don't mean to be smug, but its pretty easy to run a network with state of the art gear, including multiple backup tape systems, but those of us in the real world want to have the same benefits (or similar) on a beer budget. This is one example of how we do it. I don't feel this makes me less leet, rather, it gives me the ability to find a solution with limited tools, where other 'hackers' could only draw up a parts list, and spend their way to a solution.
Ugly? Yes, but quite effective. Affordable? For lots of purposes, very. Reliable? Very, especially since its not the only method. Easy? Is to me, but I'm not a master hacker, I just know how to do what I know how to do. A hack? Maybe, but thats the idea of using linux, at least to me. There is more than one way to do things, and your own hand rolled solution is often the best for YOU.