This is an option, but MS/SCO/whoever may well respond with a simple "we deny everything, and we are not showing you our code, so there!". Without any concrete evidence, there is no legal recourse. Even with concrete evidence, they would fight it to the end.
The point is the FUD, rather than the fight. I'm suggesting we have a powerful way to hurt them back if needed, and that the threat of it might make them (MS, whomever) think twice before attacking. All we need to do is suggest that they are dishonest thieves who are leaving thousands of customers open to lawsuit (we can even say that there are ways we can make it impossible to indemnify their customers, regardless of any truth to that idea). In short, I'm saying "two can play at the SCO game."
Now what would be more useful, ultimately, is some way to enforce copyright/patent law for closed-source code
Excellent point, and if there were any justice in the U.S., that's how things would be done.
Because it is closed source, who can say if your free software project's code isn't in there, GPL or not!!
Hmmmm. Actually, this might be something we can use. Turning SCO tatics on their head, someone could easily accuse MS of stealing their "IP" (copyrighted software, etc.) to put in their TCP/IP stack code. Same goes for Linux, Apache, BIND, Sendmail, anything open. The problem SCO has created for us -- that they've made claims that no one can freely substantiate or deny because the proof is unavailable -- would work here, too. MS could deny our (legal) accusations, but they would never show us the code. We could use SCO's tactic and turn the world on its head!
(FSF Lawyer) "How can you trust that MS isn't using our code, if MS won't show the code to the world? How can you be sure the copyright holder won't sue MS along with all of MS's customers, including you?"
I can imagine FSF or another representative body offering licenses to MS customers, licenses which would guarantee we would not litigate against them for using MS code that contains our IP. We wouldn't do that, of course, because we feel forced to be the Good Guys[tm], but maybe even a publicly stated hint that we could easily do stuff like that might put the fear of God in the right places.
Simply restated: we can use SCO tactics even better than SCO can, against anyone we think is threatening us, including MS. This is because open source software is available to the world, making it seem very likely that someone has taken some of its copyrighted content and included it in commercial products. (Yes, don't tell me, this has already happened in some small-potatoes companies.)
I'm saying we've got them by the ear. SCO's tactics have created amazing FUD considering that it's all talk and absolutely no proof. Imagine what we could do with that same approach -- and it'd be easier for us, because any of our software products could have been incorporated without our knowledge. All we need to do is make the accusation.
here's a big difference between a book and an idea, or a CD and an idea, or a piece of software and an idea.
There is almost no difference; that's my point. And what difference there is does not matter. The movie Back to the Future is an idea. It does not exist in the tangible universe. You cannot own it. Just because it's an expression doesn't mean it's left the realm of ideas.
How am I kidding myself about a song being an idea? If it's not an idea, what is it? A grapefruit? Madonna's performance of "Like a Virgin" is "owned" -- what is a performance? An activity, an idea -- maybe the word "concept" will make more sense to you. It's certainly not a tangible object that can be owned. It's intangible from the start, can be reproduced infinite times, and therefore has no value. It ain't scarce, and in a capitalistic society, scarcity = value.
Try and think of it this way: I invent a machine that clones apples. They're perfect clones. You can eat them safely. This machine becomes very popular. Now, the company that owns the apple tree that we first grabbed an apple from to clone -- now they want money because they "own" every apple the machines clone. It's stealing! Theft! What, exactly, is being stolen? An idea. And they're claiming that every expression of that idea is therefore theirs. Bullshit. Change your business model; you didn't invent the idea of apples to begin with, and yours aren't even very good apples. We just happened to pick your tree;. You might as well be a scribe suing Guttenberg because you own the concept of "a mechanism for putting letters on paper."
Riiight. Ideas are just like tangible things, and we should own 'em like we own land. Good idea.
Great point. I'd also like to add: enough with the "Intellectual Property" nonsense. The lawyers in the interview keep referring to the Constitution providing for such an idea; it does not. Nowhere is there the slightest suggestion that ideas (or their implementation) are == property. You cannot own the intangible, no matter how many times you repeat the words. If it doesn't exist, you can't own it. Say it to yourself.
Disagree? Hand me a song, and I'll reconsider. (That's the song itself, not a CD, not sheet music representing the song, but the song itself. Hand it to me.) The song is just an idea we all agree on. It does not and cannot exist in tangible reality.
You cannot own ideas -- or, let's say that you can (even though the Constitution says otherwise). I know your idea (your song, let's say). I would have to conclude that you now own the piece of my brain that knows your song. You can probably charge me royalties for knowing it, unless I can prove I have forgotten it (and how can I do that?). You own part of me.
You might think I'm being hyperbolic, but I think this is a reasoned conclusion: the concept of "intellectual property" is tantamount to slavery. The name itself implies it: you own part of people's intellects.
Let me restate this: why are they comparing pre-alpha software with production releases?
Most simple answer: because they wanted to find flaws. The second most popular web software is ISS. This looks like a Microsoft tactic: anonymously hire this company to "evaluate" code so that the results look unbiased. Everyone will likely realize that the competitor is Microsoft's ISS, so it doesn't need to be stated bluntly. MS wins; another (small) battle for mindshare is won.
Getting a burstable line to the net is not hard at all; most ISPs work that way (you pay for 6 mbps, for instance, but have a 100 mbps ethernet line, so you just pay when you burst above 6).
One thing you guys might want to think about is using a bandwidth arbitrator for when you do have a busy day. There's one good project I know of: the Linux Bandwidth Arbitrator. It's easy and free, and it'll keep individual users from hogging bandwidth -- and meter all users to whatever rate you choose. It's based on the Linux bridging code, so the arbitrator will be invisible above Layer 2 (thereby being a little more secure).
How is SCO going to prove that the code was stolen from their product, and not the other way around?
Well, they can try to say that some Linux code that they shoehorned into the SysV sources was there for years.
But: IBM and others have had the SysV source for a long time, so it wouldn't be hard to verify that SCO is lying. SCO may have the "originals", but they're not the only ones with the source.
I think that Atkins can/does reduce appetite, and therefore the total amount of calories consumed.
It definitely does reduce appetite -- the old "eat noodles and you're hungry again an hour later" thing is gone, and you stay satisfied for a long time. In fact, it's almost too good at that -- I will occasionally realize that I'm getting really hungry and that I'd barely noticed.
I obviously don't like it when others try to say that this is the entire basis for the diet -- you eat less, so of course you lose weight -- but I have to admit it plays a role.
On the other hand, fat and protein foods tend to have a lot more calories, so it's not a simple correlation.
Let me just kick in here and bolster this: going on Atkins does not mean automatically eating less food. Overweight people probably should eat less food, but low-carb diets do not primarly work by reducing calories, as mhanoh says above.
Now, why would people be making claims like this? FUD. The sales of Carb-rich food (simple carbs in stuff like Pringles, Cocoa Puffs, Snackwells, yogurt, ad nauseum) = Big Business. And Slashdot readers know what happens when Big Business is threatened with reduced profits. Letting someone borrow a book is committing Print Piracy, right? Reducing your intake of simple carbs -- or even most carbs -- is anywhere from "not really working" to "bad for your health", depending on where you listen.
As a guy who's lost 35 lbs and kept it off with Atkins + reasonable exercise, I can tell you that those ideas are FUD -- and untrue.
The legendary "Girl's Guide to Geek Guys" by Mikki Halpin (and originally published in Bunnyhop, a great 'zine) is slashdotted at antioch.edu, apparently.
HTTP is definitely faster, because there are fewer security checks, and there's no reverse connection to make. As with most things, it's not a matter of what's empirically better, but what's more appropriate for which task. If you need a quick download and you don't think any data is going to be distorted beyond TCP's ability to sort through, HTTP is your man. When integrity counts, FTP or some other protocol with more stringent checks would be the choice.
Yeah, I might be willing to make that trade, if you add in one more piece: as per the Constitution, only the original author can hold a copyright. And that author must be a human, not any kind of corporation or publishing house.
I got both Hacking Linux Exposed 2nd edition and Real world Linux Security 2nd Edition this year, and hacking Linux Exposed is infinitely better.
I cannot disagree more. I bought some of the Hacking Unix/Linux series, and they're pretty much large-type-to-fatten-the-book, punk-cracker-posturing affairs. They're worthless for a working admin.
OTOH, Real World Linux Security -- albeit the first edition -- has been invaluable to me and my team. Toxen knows his stuff, and when we say that, we mean he knows specifics. Like: here's what to do to prevent chroot jails from being broken out of. Here's some stuff you've never seen before to harden Sendmail.
I cannot imagine why someone would recommend the 'Exposed' series, unless said person is the author or something. That series is not of help to someone who actually has to do this stuff on a regular basis. It is of help if you like to read some socially inept guys posture about what mad hackz they know about.
Careful, Tom Ridge doesn't like open access much. If 802.11 is not not encrypted, you must be a terrorist -- see that article the other day.
Big Problem with VRRP That No One Ever Mentions
on
VRRP
·
· Score: 2
The biggest problem I've run into with VRRP -- no one here has mentioned it, and neither does the author of the book -- is that it insists on using MULTICAST MAC addresses for the virtual routers.
Why's that so bad? Because Cisco routers refuse to accept Multicast MAC addresses as responses to their ARP requests.
That means: VRRP no worky, if you're connecting to a Cisco box.
If you happen to admin the Cisco routers, fine, you can change the settings, etc. But what if the next router upstream is run by your ISP? And what if the ISP won't make the change?
There are better solutions; heartbeat (www.linux-ha.org) is usually sufficient for routers. Now if VRRPv3 comes out and they've made the multicast MAC thing optional, I will be happy to change my mind.
Which is true -- and you get what you pay for. The Windows guys generally know less about inner workings and what a protocol is and how things really work. They're really good at clicking buttons, though.
Sounds like you've never worked for a company of any decent size.
A support contract means leverage when the software breaks and you need a fix 'right now'.
You can't get immediate response from some joe off the newsgroups.
Actually, I worked at Oracle for more than two years. There were two types of admins there: the ones who used tech support like a crutch, and the ones who actually solved problems.
This has been true everywhere I've worked: the guys who depend on tech support have a problem status of "waiting on a solution from the vendor," while the DIY guys usually have the problem solved, often with a solid explanation of what happened and why it won't happen again.
You want an instant fix? It's so rare for a tech support contract to produce one; usually, you're left waiting all day, only to get an answer of "just upgrade," or "here's a patch, try this" (with varying results).
And as for newsgroups: you don't need to depend on someone to answer you quickly. See, chances are that with any given problem you're going to have, someone else has already:
had the problem
found a fix, or
received a good answer from someone
You don't need a personalized answer unless you're really doing something non-standard. Most of the time, the answers are already on mailing lists or even in FAQs. And let's not forget IRC help channels -- I've never actually used one, but a friend of mine swears by them.
For instance, with Checkpoint Firewall/1, my experience with tech support has produced fairly questionable results, while http://www.phoneboy.com/, the unofficial Checkpoint info site, has nearly always produced valuable help for us. Why? Because phoneboy is a working admin; the drones manning tech support lines are not, and neither are the developers those guys get their info from. Developers are usually quite unaware of real-world scenarios, so their perspective is usually skewed in an unhelpful way.
So -- I guess if you need to make political excuses ("still waiting on tech support, sir"), then tech support is useful. But if you actually need to solve problems, you need to learn how to be resourceful. IMHO.
I've been an admin for about 12 years now. In all that time, I cannot think of an instance where tech support actually got me out of a jam or actually helped at all -- except maybe to supply a patch.
Your mileage may vary, but I don't know any admins who depend on tech support staffs except for blackbox software.
That's not because I reverse-engineer the code; it's just because as an admin, it's my job understand how stuff works and to be able to work out what problems are. That's what a tech support contract gives you -- the ability to have someone else do part of your job.
I suppose if you really need that, well, get the tech support and pay the money. But you'd be better off learning to troubleshoot on your own.
In nearly all cases, if you have competent admins, you don't need support. Tech support staff are by and large not good at troubleshooting and are don't know the products they support very well.
On the other hand, most trouble can be solved by groups.google.com, good investigation and troubleshooting, and sometimes an upgrade.
There aren't really many options, because the browser has to recognize the signer, and the major browsers only recognize Verisign (and Thawte, which is also Verisign).
RSA is the company that started Verisign, so you can guarantee they'll not be of help.
If this is a situation with a limited client base, like a company, you can self-sign and send everyone your CA certificate and have them all import it into their browsers (all browsers support this, I believe). But what a pain.
I wish the news was better, but you're right -- it's a scam. The problem isn't technical; it's political.
Provide a service/product which enables users to convert their MP3s to a new - free - format and forget about MP3. I think I am missing something here, am I?
Well, yeah:
the thing that reads the MP3 files (to convert it) would cost 75 cents
there are a lot of hardware players that will only play MP3 anyway
Slashdot Mirror
Would this be a violation, then? Isn't all versions of original UNIX what SCO claims it owns?
SCO can't really do anything to ANYONE's customers except their own.
That's untrue. SCO can sue anyone, particularly if they have legit claims to "intellectual property" being distributed without their permission.
Of course, they do not have legit claims. But they certainly can sue anyone, not just their own customers.
This is an option, but MS/SCO/whoever may well respond with a simple "we deny everything, and we are not showing you our code, so there!". Without any concrete evidence, there is no legal recourse. Even with concrete evidence, they would fight it to the end.
The point is the FUD, rather than the fight. I'm suggesting we have a powerful way to hurt them back if needed, and that the threat of it might make them (MS, whomever) think twice before attacking. All we need to do is suggest that they are dishonest thieves who are leaving thousands of customers open to lawsuit (we can even say that there are ways we can make it impossible to indemnify their customers, regardless of any truth to that idea). In short, I'm saying "two can play at the SCO game."
Now what would be more useful, ultimately, is some way to enforce copyright/patent law for closed-source code
Excellent point, and if there were any justice in the U.S., that's how things would be done.
Because it is closed source, who can say if your free software project's code isn't in there, GPL or not!!
Hmmmm. Actually, this might be something we can use. Turning SCO tatics on their head, someone could easily accuse MS of stealing their "IP" (copyrighted software, etc.) to put in their TCP/IP stack code. Same goes for Linux, Apache, BIND, Sendmail, anything open. The problem SCO has created for us -- that they've made claims that no one can freely substantiate or deny because the proof is unavailable -- would work here, too. MS could deny our (legal) accusations, but they would never show us the code. We could use SCO's tactic and turn the world on its head!
(FSF Lawyer) "How can you trust that MS isn't using our code, if MS won't show the code to the world? How can you be sure the copyright holder won't sue MS along with all of MS's customers, including you?"
I can imagine FSF or another representative body offering licenses to MS customers, licenses which would guarantee we would not litigate against them for using MS code that contains our IP. We wouldn't do that, of course, because we feel forced to be the Good Guys[tm], but maybe even a publicly stated hint that we could easily do stuff like that might put the fear of God in the right places.
Simply restated: we can use SCO tactics even better than SCO can, against anyone we think is threatening us, including MS. This is because open source software is available to the world, making it seem very likely that someone has taken some of its copyrighted content and included it in commercial products. (Yes, don't tell me, this has already happened in some small-potatoes companies.)
I'm saying we've got them by the ear. SCO's tactics have created amazing FUD considering that it's all talk and absolutely no proof. Imagine what we could do with that same approach -- and it'd be easier for us, because any of our software products could have been incorporated without our knowledge. All we need to do is make the accusation.
here's a big difference between a book and an idea, or a CD and an idea, or a piece of software and an idea.
There is almost no difference; that's my point. And what difference there is does not matter. The movie Back to the Future is an idea. It does not exist in the tangible universe. You cannot own it. Just because it's an expression doesn't mean it's left the realm of ideas.
How am I kidding myself about a song being an idea? If it's not an idea, what is it? A grapefruit? Madonna's performance of "Like a Virgin" is "owned" -- what is a performance? An activity, an idea -- maybe the word "concept" will make more sense to you. It's certainly not a tangible object that can be owned. It's intangible from the start, can be reproduced infinite times, and therefore has no value. It ain't scarce, and in a capitalistic society, scarcity = value.
Try and think of it this way: I invent a machine that clones apples. They're perfect clones. You can eat them safely. This machine becomes very popular. Now, the company that owns the apple tree that we first grabbed an apple from to clone -- now they want money because they "own" every apple the machines clone. It's stealing! Theft! What, exactly, is being stolen? An idea. And they're claiming that every expression of that idea is therefore theirs. Bullshit. Change your business model; you didn't invent the idea of apples to begin with, and yours aren't even very good apples. We just happened to pick your tree;. You might as well be a scribe suing Guttenberg because you own the concept of "a mechanism for putting letters on paper." Riiight. Ideas are just like tangible things, and we should own 'em like we own land. Good idea.
Great point. I'd also like to add: enough with the "Intellectual Property" nonsense. The lawyers in the interview keep referring to the Constitution providing for such an idea; it does not. Nowhere is there the slightest suggestion that ideas (or their implementation) are == property. You cannot own the intangible, no matter how many times you repeat the words. If it doesn't exist, you can't own it. Say it to yourself.
Disagree? Hand me a song, and I'll reconsider. (That's the song itself, not a CD, not sheet music representing the song, but the song itself. Hand it to me.) The song is just an idea we all agree on. It does not and cannot exist in tangible reality.
You cannot own ideas -- or, let's say that you can (even though the Constitution says otherwise). I know your idea (your song, let's say). I would have to conclude that you now own the piece of my brain that knows your song. You can probably charge me royalties for knowing it, unless I can prove I have forgotten it (and how can I do that?). You own part of me.
You might think I'm being hyperbolic, but I think this is a reasoned conclusion: the concept of "intellectual property" is tantamount to slavery. The name itself implies it: you own part of people's intellects.
Is this something we really want? Really?
Why did they use the development branch of Apache
Let me restate this: why are they comparing pre-alpha software with production releases?
Most simple answer: because they wanted to find flaws. The second most popular web software is ISS. This looks like a Microsoft tactic: anonymously hire this company to "evaluate" code so that the results look unbiased. Everyone will likely realize that the competitor is Microsoft's ISS, so it doesn't need to be stated bluntly. MS wins; another (small) battle for mindshare is won.
Getting a burstable line to the net is not hard at all; most ISPs work that way (you pay for 6 mbps, for instance, but have a 100 mbps ethernet line, so you just pay when you burst above 6).
One thing you guys might want to think about is using a bandwidth arbitrator for when you do have a busy day. There's one good project I know of: the Linux Bandwidth Arbitrator. It's easy and free, and it'll keep individual users from hogging bandwidth -- and meter all users to whatever rate you choose. It's based on the Linux bridging code, so the arbitrator will be invisible above Layer 2 (thereby being a little more secure).
How is SCO going to prove that the code was stolen from their product, and not the other way around?
Well, they can try to say that some Linux code that they shoehorned into the SysV sources was there for years.
But: IBM and others have had the SysV source for a long time, so it wouldn't be hard to verify that SCO is lying. SCO may have the "originals", but they're not the only ones with the source.
I think that Atkins can/does reduce appetite, and therefore the total amount of calories consumed.
It definitely does reduce appetite -- the old "eat noodles and you're hungry again an hour later" thing is gone, and you stay satisfied for a long time. In fact, it's almost too good at that -- I will occasionally realize that I'm getting really hungry and that I'd barely noticed.
I obviously don't like it when others try to say that this is the entire basis for the diet -- you eat less, so of course you lose weight -- but I have to admit it plays a role.
On the other hand, fat and protein foods tend to have a lot more calories, so it's not a simple correlation.
Let me just kick in here and bolster this: going on Atkins does not mean automatically eating less food. Overweight people probably should eat less food, but low-carb diets do not primarly work by reducing calories, as mhanoh says above.
Now, why would people be making claims like this? FUD. The sales of Carb-rich food (simple carbs in stuff like Pringles, Cocoa Puffs, Snackwells, yogurt, ad nauseum) = Big Business. And Slashdot readers know what happens when Big Business is threatened with reduced profits. Letting someone borrow a book is committing Print Piracy, right? Reducing your intake of simple carbs -- or even most carbs -- is anywhere from "not really working" to "bad for your health", depending on where you listen.
As a guy who's lost 35 lbs and kept it off with Atkins + reasonable exercise, I can tell you that those ideas are FUD -- and untrue.
The legendary "Girl's Guide to Geek Guys" by Mikki Halpin (and originally published in Bunnyhop, a great 'zine) is slashdotted at antioch.edu, apparently.
The Google cache is here
Some more mirrors are here, and here at XS4ALL in Holland.
And btw, one of the pages mentions that Mikki has written a book based on the article. The book is available on the Evil Patenting Amazon.com.
HTTP is definitely faster, because there are fewer security checks, and there's no reverse connection to make. As with most things, it's not a matter of what's empirically better, but what's more appropriate for which task. If you need a quick download and you don't think any data is going to be distorted beyond TCP's ability to sort through, HTTP is your man. When integrity counts, FTP or some other protocol with more stringent checks would be the choice.
Yeah, I might be willing to make that trade, if you add in one more piece: as per the Constitution, only the original author can hold a copyright. And that author must be a human, not any kind of corporation or publishing house.
I got both Hacking Linux Exposed 2nd edition and Real world Linux Security 2nd Edition this year, and hacking Linux Exposed is infinitely better.
I cannot disagree more. I bought some of the Hacking Unix/Linux series, and they're pretty much large-type-to-fatten-the-book, punk-cracker-posturing affairs. They're worthless for a working admin.
OTOH, Real World Linux Security -- albeit the first edition -- has been invaluable to me and my team. Toxen knows his stuff, and when we say that, we mean he knows specifics. Like: here's what to do to prevent chroot jails from being broken out of. Here's some stuff you've never seen before to harden Sendmail.
I cannot imagine why someone would recommend the 'Exposed' series, unless said person is the author or something. That series is not of help to someone who actually has to do this stuff on a regular basis. It is of help if you like to read some socially inept guys posture about what mad hackz they know about.
Careful, Tom Ridge doesn't like open access much. If 802.11 is not not encrypted, you must be a terrorist -- see that article the other day.
The biggest problem I've run into with VRRP -- no one here has mentioned it, and neither does the author of the book -- is that it insists on using MULTICAST MAC addresses for the virtual routers.
Why's that so bad? Because Cisco routers refuse to accept Multicast MAC addresses as responses to their ARP requests.
That means: VRRP no worky, if you're connecting to a Cisco box.
If you happen to admin the Cisco routers, fine, you can change the settings, etc. But what if the next router upstream is run by your ISP? And what if the ISP won't make the change?
There are better solutions; heartbeat (www.linux-ha.org) is usually sufficient for routers. Now if VRRPv3 comes out and they've made the multicast MAC thing optional, I will be happy to change my mind.
Windows admins are cheaper than Unix admins.
Which is true -- and you get what you pay for. The Windows guys generally know less about inner workings and what a protocol is and how things really work. They're really good at clicking buttons, though.
Sounds like you've never worked for a company of any decent size.
A support contract means leverage when the software breaks and you need a fix 'right now'.
You can't get immediate response from some joe off the newsgroups.
Actually, I worked at Oracle for more than two years. There were two types of admins there: the ones who used tech support like a crutch, and the ones who actually solved problems.
This has been true everywhere I've worked: the guys who depend on tech support have a problem status of "waiting on a solution from the vendor," while the DIY guys usually have the problem solved, often with a solid explanation of what happened and why it won't happen again.
You want an instant fix? It's so rare for a tech support contract to produce one; usually, you're left waiting all day, only to get an answer of "just upgrade," or "here's a patch, try this" (with varying results).
And as for newsgroups: you don't need to depend on someone to answer you quickly. See, chances are that with any given problem you're going to have, someone else has already:
- had the problem
- found a fix, or
- received a good answer from someone
You don't need a personalized answer unless you're really doing something non-standard. Most of the time, the answers are already on mailing lists or even in FAQs. And let's not forget IRC help channels -- I've never actually used one, but a friend of mine swears by them.For instance, with Checkpoint Firewall/1, my experience with tech support has produced fairly questionable results, while http://www.phoneboy.com/, the unofficial Checkpoint info site, has nearly always produced valuable help for us. Why? Because phoneboy is a working admin; the drones manning tech support lines are not, and neither are the developers those guys get their info from. Developers are usually quite unaware of real-world scenarios, so their perspective is usually skewed in an unhelpful way.
So -- I guess if you need to make political excuses ("still waiting on tech support, sir"), then tech support is useful. But if you actually need to solve problems, you need to learn how to be resourceful. IMHO.
I've been an admin for about 12 years now. In all that time, I cannot think of an instance where tech support actually got me out of a jam or actually helped at all -- except maybe to supply a patch.
Your mileage may vary, but I don't know any admins who depend on tech support staffs except for blackbox software.
That's not because I reverse-engineer the code; it's just because as an admin, it's my job understand how stuff works and to be able to work out what problems are. That's what a tech support contract gives you -- the ability to have someone else do part of your job.
I suppose if you really need that, well, get the tech support and pay the money. But you'd be better off learning to troubleshoot on your own.
In nearly all cases, if you have competent admins, you don't need support. Tech support staff are by and large not good at troubleshooting and are don't know the products they support very well.
On the other hand, most trouble can be solved by groups.google.com, good investigation and troubleshooting, and sometimes an upgrade.
Honestly -- who really uses support?
The dozens of CAs in browsers -- I'm not surprised I'm wrong; I'm a little behind the times.
But RSA did in fact start Verisign. I know this because of close personal connections to the situation.
There aren't really many options, because the browser has to recognize the signer, and the major browsers only recognize Verisign (and Thawte, which is also Verisign).
RSA is the company that started Verisign, so you can guarantee they'll not be of help.
If this is a situation with a limited client base, like a company, you can self-sign and send everyone your CA certificate and have them all import it into their browsers (all browsers support this, I believe). But what a pain.
I wish the news was better, but you're right -- it's a scam. The problem isn't technical; it's political.
Provide a service/product which enables users to convert their MP3s to a new - free - format and forget about MP3. I think I am missing something here, am I?
Well, yeah:
the thing that reads the MP3 files (to convert it) would cost 75 cents
there are a lot of hardware players that will only play MP3 anyway
Either way, it looks like it's time to see if there's a good mp3 --> Ogg converter out there. Anyone know of any?
If there was one, it'd cost 75 cents.