First, are you absolutely certain that this is not a case of spyware hijacking your computer? Malware "vendors" maybe obnoxious and they may be evil, but they're not stupid. Your problem here sounds like a classic case of spyware rather than someone taking over DNS for an ISP. Some other posts in this article have pointed that out, AFAICS. It's pretty simple to figure out if that's your problem.
If you must use Windows, then I fail to see what the point is in getting in your snide comments about the thing not being secure. If you're using Windows 9x, then you deserve whatever it is you're getting - if you're using Windows 2000 or XP then you're just plain stupid. Windows is as secure as you make it, just like any other OS. Using SSH doesn't make you any more 1337 if you don't know how to secure your computer(s). It just makes you look even dumber.
Of course, if this is indeed a case of spyware you let into your computer (because they hardly get in any other way), then not only are you stupid, you're just plain retarded, and you're strutting your stupidity in front of a few hundred thousand people.
OTOH, if someone did indeed hijack your ISPs DNS, then using a router and NAT with the IP addresses of the DNS servers hard-coded into the configuration would have saved you from this. If all you have between the cable modem and your PC is a piece of CAT5, you also deserve to be clobbered.
This may be harsh, but I have no patience for people who like to assert that Windows is unsafe when they really don't know what they're doing.
So they can still use *BSD and all the other excellent free software out there that is not licensed under the GPL. Much like when governments dictate the use of some type of software, it may come as a surprise that others can also dictate not to use that particular type of software.
In any case, I hope this definitely goes through. Maybe then some of the people releasing their hard work under the GPL will think twice instead of just using "the license everyone uses" and screwing themselves in the process.
Hey, I have an idea. How about an icon of RMS in a borg suit? Assimilation can work both ways.
FOAD, you useless turd. Go play with your transformers or something and stop fantasizing about being other than a pathetic troll.
I'm going to really start hunting you now. Whenever you post anything other than as AC, I'll reply with my "this is a known impostor troll" template until you stop or lose all your karma and have to post at -1. Eventually you'll be reduced to posting snide AC replies to my posts while you snort and giggle down in your parent's basement, and that works just fine by me.
Oh, no. You've got me all wrong here. I am not anti-Mac or anti-Apple or anything like that. I don't use Macs and to be honest I really don't care if they stop making them or take over the market or whatever. It's this weird Apple fetish Slashdot has that puzzles me, that's all.
i find it hard to see how anyone takes you seriously
"Seriously"? Surely you jest.
Were all laughing at you, not with you
Is that supposed to make me feel bad, or just amuse me?
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
If I were an Apple customer and wanted to buy a cheaper, better alternative to a Mac, I'd disagree with you. If I were someone trying to sell a cheaper, better alternative to Macs I'd also disagree with you.
But let me see if I get this right - Apple is not a monopoly because they don't have the market share, right? They're not "technically" a monopoly event though they engage in the same practices as "convicted monopolies". So I shouldn't fear them now, I should fear them later?
then you won't be just another raving moron and microsoft corporate toadie
"Raving moron"? Well now, that hurts. I guess I'll have to call you... let's see... hmmm... a brain-dead zealot. Or maybe a slobbering fanboy? I wonder what rhymes with "subject has head up his ass"... hmmm...
I cannot believe you got FP on my story. I hurt you now!!!
Re:If MS were to use such strategies, would anyone
on
Platform Evangelism
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
MS only thinks of technical evangelism as war if you idea of war is scorched earth that nobody can live on.
Right, because we all know this type of thing is never done by companies like Apple, Borland, IBM, Sun, Cisco, etc. Or (heavens forbid) people who advocate open source software. At least company wars are fought in level fields - the "good vs. evil" mentality that permeates most open source zealots is downright cynical and pathetic at best.
(btw, spare me the "m$ is a monopoly so teh [sic] rules are difrereent [sic] with them" line)
The words "evangelism" and "evangelist" are all wrong. They have an obvious religious overtone that conveys the wrong message. The job should have neither military (as in this case) or religious tones of any type. They're software products, for fsck's sake.
I remember during the Team OS/2 vs. ClubWin wars on USENET there was a drive within Microsoft to rename the position to "Technical Advocate". It failed because some product managers (not project managers) argued that "advocate" wasn't an agressive enough term. Sigh.
By and large though, Microsoft evangelists tend to be nice people (like Scoble, who used to organize the Fawcette industry conferences for a long time). Much different from sales drones and even most enterprise support reps.
Free Software is very loosely defined. Open Source is very narrowly defined.
Hmmm, I disagree.
But feel free to disagree.
Right.
Name one piece of Open Source Software that does not meet the four freedoms of Free Software.
Whoa there, chief. Don't get all excited. I was actually framing a question more than criticizing your post.
Now, for an example, let's say that Microsoft releases the source to Windows, but it comes with a license that restricts what you can or cannot do with the source. That to me would be an "open source" deal with none of the freedoms. Right?
Just another excuse for RMS to bitch and moan about the world not follwing his wonderful lead. Right up there with the never-ending "let's beat this horse until it's pulp" publicity-garnering sound byte about the "obnoxious advertising clause in the BSD license". Repeated by brainless zealots and GNU zombies everywhere when the *BSD vs. Linux argument rears its ugly head, even though the "clause" was removed years ago.
Every instance of Open Source Software is also an instance of Free Software. There is not one Open Source program that is not also Free Software.
I'm hardly the open source expert and all, but I do believe you have it backwards. Free software as defined by RMS and the FSF implies that software to be open source. OTOH, open source does not necessarily imply the strict definition of "free".
Maybe I'm wrong here - this is my perception of the FSF's definition of "free" vs. just "open source".
Oh, look. Another impersonating troll. Never mind the dot preceding your user name - I doubt Perens would have such detailed information regarding a Windows license. You sound like you actually use Windows.
Unfortunately some moderators still fall for this kind of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to Slashdot!!!
I have some black helicopters and a bridge over the Tigris river for sale, if you're interested (I bet you are).
If you must use Windows, then I fail to see what the point is in getting in your snide comments about the thing not being secure. If you're using Windows 9x, then you deserve whatever it is you're getting - if you're using Windows 2000 or XP then you're just plain stupid. Windows is as secure as you make it, just like any other OS. Using SSH doesn't make you any more 1337 if you don't know how to secure your computer(s). It just makes you look even dumber.
Of course, if this is indeed a case of spyware you let into your computer (because they hardly get in any other way), then not only are you stupid, you're just plain retarded, and you're strutting your stupidity in front of a few hundred thousand people.
OTOH, if someone did indeed hijack your ISPs DNS, then using a router and NAT with the IP addresses of the DNS servers hard-coded into the configuration would have saved you from this. If all you have between the cable modem and your PC is a piece of CAT5, you also deserve to be clobbered.
This may be harsh, but I have no patience for people who like to assert that Windows is unsafe when they really don't know what they're doing.
Well, I'm posting from my own account, so it's up to you to decide that. But I'm certainly not Miguel.
In any case, I hope this definitely goes through. Maybe then some of the people releasing their hard work under the GPL will think twice instead of just using "the license everyone uses" and screwing themselves in the process.
Hey, I have an idea. How about an icon of RMS in a borg suit? Assimilation can work both ways.
I'm going to really start hunting you now. Whenever you post anything other than as AC, I'll reply with my "this is a known impostor troll" template until you stop or lose all your karma and have to post at -1. Eventually you'll be reduced to posting snide AC replies to my posts while you snort and giggle down in your parent's basement, and that works just fine by me.
Be very fucking afraid.
The Bungi (221687)
No, sorry. That would be me. The real Miguel de Icaza is here. His UID is 7116. I just occasionally pester this obnoxious troll =)
If you want to contact Miguel (I think your comments are quite interesting), I'm sure his contact email address is somewhere in go-mono.com.
Oh, no. You've got me all wrong here. I am not anti-Mac or anti-Apple or anything like that. I don't use Macs and to be honest I really don't care if they stop making them or take over the market or whatever. It's this weird Apple fetish Slashdot has that puzzles me, that's all.
i find it hard to see how anyone takes you seriously
"Seriously"? Surely you jest.
Were all laughing at you, not with you
Is that supposed to make me feel bad, or just amuse me?
Well if you're asking me, I'd rather you just don't.
You're 15 years old
Nope.
and you think it's cool
Nope.
to spout off crap like
Nope.
Jobs is worse than Gates?
Nope.
Go away
Nope.
you're too stupid even for Slashdot.
Most definitely nope, since I've been reading through your posts.
If I were an Apple customer and wanted to buy a cheaper, better alternative to a Mac, I'd disagree with you. If I were someone trying to sell a cheaper, better alternative to Macs I'd also disagree with you.
But let me see if I get this right - Apple is not a monopoly because they don't have the market share, right? They're not "technically" a monopoly event though they engage in the same practices as "convicted monopolies". So I shouldn't fear them now, I should fear them later?
Ah, Slashdot logic.
Really. And why is that?
What is going on!!??
Of course they do. The problem is that they're not good, and Microsoft is not evil.
Just off the top off my head. I'd Google some more, but I really don't have the time to enlighten you further.
then you won't be just another raving moron and microsoft corporate toadie
"Raving moron"? Well now, that hurts. I guess I'll have to call you... let's see... hmmm... a brain-dead zealot. Or maybe a slobbering fanboy? I wonder what rhymes with "subject has head up his ass"... hmmm...
There is more truth there than you know.
Long live pico!!!
I cannot believe you got FP on my story. I hurt you now!!!
Right, because we all know this type of thing is never done by companies like Apple, Borland, IBM, Sun, Cisco, etc. Or (heavens forbid) people who advocate open source software. At least company wars are fought in level fields - the "good vs. evil" mentality that permeates most open source zealots is downright cynical and pathetic at best.
(btw, spare me the "m$ is a monopoly so teh [sic] rules are difrereent [sic] with them" line)
I remember during the Team OS/2 vs. ClubWin wars on USENET there was a drive within Microsoft to rename the position to "Technical Advocate". It failed because some product managers (not project managers) argued that "advocate" wasn't an agressive enough term. Sigh.
By and large though, Microsoft evangelists tend to be nice people (like Scoble, who used to organize the Fawcette industry conferences for a long time). Much different from sales drones and even most enterprise support reps.
Hmmm, I disagree.
But feel free to disagree.
Right.
Name one piece of Open Source Software that does not meet the four freedoms of Free Software.
Whoa there, chief. Don't get all excited. I was actually framing a question more than criticizing your post.
Now, for an example, let's say that Microsoft releases the source to Windows, but it comes with a license that restricts what you can or cannot do with the source. That to me would be an "open source" deal with none of the freedoms. Right?
Just another excuse for RMS to bitch and moan about the world not follwing his wonderful lead. Right up there with the never-ending "let's beat this horse until it's pulp" publicity-garnering sound byte about the "obnoxious advertising clause in the BSD license". Repeated by brainless zealots and GNU zombies everywhere when the *BSD vs. Linux argument rears its ugly head, even though the "clause" was removed years ago.
I'm hardly the open source expert and all, but I do believe you have it backwards. Free software as defined by RMS and the FSF implies that software to be open source. OTOH, open source does not necessarily imply the strict definition of "free".
Maybe I'm wrong here - this is my perception of the FSF's definition of "free" vs. just "open source".
Unfortunately some moderators still fall for this kind of thing.