Modules compile and work wonderfully for me with Linux 2.4.14 (using the virgin source). I can provide you with deb packages, if you like.;) nick at infowks dot com if you're interested.
BestCrypt is available for Windows and Unix. In fact, the source for the Linux tools is available (not GPL). And as long as your encrypted volumes are in a format all platforms can read (i.e., FAT), BestCrypt is a wonderfully implemented cross-platfrom solution.
Recently, NSI deactivated one of my client's domains with no notice six months after the yearly renewal fee had been paid. NSI customer service informs me that the domain was shut off because the renewal fee was never paid. When I told the service rep we'd already paid, he told me they had no record of it. Lacking a confirmation number or credit receipt, my client decided to pay them again. Cool beans, right? Not exactly. Three days pass and the domain is still inactive. I call customer service and they tell me that payment is due on the domain. Amazed, I get the go-ahead from my client and we pay for the domain. Again. Cool beans, right? Wrong. Three more days go by, and you can guess what customer support told me when I called them. So after paying them a _third_ time, NSI finally reactivated the domain, much to my client's clients' joy.
This incident has actually inspired my client to get into the registrar business. He figures he should have no shortage of rebounding disgruntled NSI customers available for the taking.
Personally, I recommended that my client fax a copy of his credit receipt to NSI and formally dispute their ripping him off, but the invoices weren't available, and it would have only been more customers and email lost if he had taken the time to get them.
This mail is a response to your article, "Denial and the Ravaging of
Cyberspace".
> While some view it as an expansive bastion of decentralized
> communication and democratic discourse, the Internet now functions quite
> differently overall. In total, the World Wide Web is scarcely more
> civic-minded than your local bank.
Had you not used the terms 'Internet' and 'World Wide Web' so
interchangeably, I might not be writing this letter; but your claim that
the decentralized and democratic nature of the Internet is an illusion is
grossly misleading and technically incorrect. Beyond the confusing
interchanging of terms, you imply that the biggest demonstrated use for
the Internet is for commercial profit, which is simply outrageous.
To validate your gross generalization of the purpose of the Internet,
you cite the statistics quoted after these next two paragraphs. These
statistics apply not to the Internet, however, but to the World Wide Web,
which is what your article is really about - though to many it would appear
otherwise. Indeed, to the average Joe, the Internet is composed solely of
the World Wide Web, despite the popularity of Email and instant messaging,
which have nothing to do with the Web.
But these statistics appear to be flawed even when applied solely to
the Web.
> Websites operated by just four corporations account for 50.4 percent of
> the time that U.S. users of the Web are now spending online, the
> authoritative Jupiter Media Metrix research firm reported in early
> summer. At the top of the heap were AOL Time Warner's sites, with 32
> percent of all minutes spent online in the nation, followed by
> Microsoft (7.5 percent) and Yahoo (7.2 percent).
America Online's software will open the AOL web site when a user starts
the AOL software. This is not a conscious decision made by AOL users. This
fact, combined with the overwhelming popularity of the America Online
Internet service (not the web site, mind you but dial-up and ADSL services
that force users to browse with the AOL web browser), should be enough to
render this statistic nearly irrelevant.
In addition to the AOL software's default setting, many AOL user
services are web-based, such as email and instant messaging. This traffic
should not be considered 'browsing'. One wouldn't consider an AOL user
opening Eudora to check their mail or opening AOL Instant Messenger to
converse with their friends a valid statistic for web browsing.
Microsoft's Internet Explorer, the web browser built into Microsoft
Windows 98 and above, will open the Mircosoft web site when a user starts
the software. This is not a conscious decision made by Internet Explorer
users. This fact, considering that most everyone runs Windows
(statistically speaking), should be enough to render this statistic nearly
irrelevant.
In addition to the Microsoft software's default setting, Microsoft
offers free services similar to AOL.
Yahoo, debatably the World Wide Web's most user-friendly search engine,
seems to be a relevant statistic. I am not aware of any instance where
users are automatically delivered to this site. It should be noted that
Yahoo also offers many free web services similar to Microsoft's and AOL's.
So web statistics don't mean a thing, espcially since services, which
were previously utlilized by applications run on end-user computers, are
now being provided via the web, and have nothing to do with browsing,
reading content, or making purchases.
> To make matters appreciably worse, the owners of some key search engines
> are avidly prostituting their services. (The most powerful search-scam
> offenders include AltaVista, AOL, Microsoft and Lycos. For details,
> visit www.commercialalert.org.) These days, if you use one of the
> Internet's main search engines to find whatever, the chances are good
> that the top results came from dollars rather than relevance or
> quality.
I'm suprised to read mention of this since your article frequently
refers to statistics that are blatantly influenced by the capitalist search
for the almighty buck. In fact, your article exclusively discusses
capitalist interests, forgetting that there exist people in this country
and the world that don't give a damn about money where the Internet
is concerned, and use it every day as a means to their own non-commercial
ends.
In fact, commercial interest on the Internet is the only topic your
article seems to cover. The free and secure excange of information between
_any people anywhere in the world_ seems to be completely forgotten. Your
article could be summarized as follows...
"Based on marketing research, people are spending most of their time on
the web buying things, or thinking about buying things. People are
constantly being spammed with pop-up ads and persuaded to waste their
money on things they otherwise wouldn't be buying. Corporate America is
doing its best to keep people collared and leashed, but judging by the
recent technological slow-down, there aren't enough resources (consumers)
to go around."
Commercial-free Internet avenues, such as communities erected around
ideasls of free exchange of software and ideas, email and instant messaging,
social exchange, and perhaps the most potentially important, FreeNet[1]-
and Gnutella[2]-like de-centralized, distributed networks, are all
excluded from your analysis of Internet freedom. Possibly you weren't
aware that these avenues existed; possibly you were.
The relevant and disturbing reality is that J.Q. Public isn't aware of
these free resources that wait to be tapped. He goes where the Internet's
Big Three want him to go. They lay out his path for him, and consequently,
that path detours him past ads for products and services that he, more
often than not, doesn't need.
No, your article focuses on what capitalist interest tells you you it
should focus on. Not the potential that the Internet already provides for
personal expression and communication that exist outside the scope of the
World Wide Web, but the heaping mess of overlapping, floundering
ecommercialization that _is_ the World Wide Web.
> But faith in the democratic character of the Internet is resilient; a
> myth that will not die. And the more that huge outfits ravage
> cyberspace, the more useful the mythology becomes, laying a thick fog
> over the realities of mega-media domination.
The supposed '[mythical] democratic character' of the Internet is
precisely what makes capitalism on the Web possible. It is the same
character that allows people to exchange data with whomever they please,
as securely as they please.
The corporate eye will watch where the people go, as the corporate body
feeds on them. On the Internet, the eye is intently focused on the Web. If
demographic research showed the public's favored method for information
exchange to be, say, Gnutella or Usenet[3], the corporate bodies would
attempt to dominate these mediums. (In fact, Usenet has degraded much in
the last few years thanks to the influx of small, fly-by-night businesses
spamming the hell out of Usenet newsgroups and making a generally un-
pleasant place.)
> For a time, the Internet seemed to elude the profit-driven matrix
> squeezing media and public life. Some illusions die hard. But hopefully
> we can move forward with new resolve to fight against corporate power
> -- and for truly democratic media.
You're suggesting forward momentum to online ideology that already
exists. In fact, its right under your nose, you just have to bother to
reach for it. Learn and research _FACT_, not marketing and demographic
statistical nonsense. The long, hard road isn't resisting corporate
influence, it's persuading other people to resist and find avenues where
personal freedom reign supreme - which your article hasn't done very well.
You could have attempted to promote your supposed goal of moving
forward to fight corporate power by making your readers aware of tools and
information already available to them - by showing your readers that there
is more to the Internet than the World Wide Web and commercial dominance.
Some of the larger threats to personal freedom on the internet, or more
specifically, those that threaten free speech, have received no mention in
your article. Take the DMCA[4], for example, which has recieved very little
mainstream attention despite the freedoms it wants to take from the
public. Or the idiotic imprisoning of Dmitri Sklyarov[5] thanks to the DMCA.
The MPAA vs 2600[6] case. The insulting hypocrisy spread by Hilary Rosen
of the RIAA[7]. MP3.com's recent legal problems[8] thanks to unsanctioned
activities of their users.
People must be educated; spouting meaningless (and perhaps misleading)
statistics will only confuse.
After all, marketing theory seems to break down once people realize
that they're being marketed. Would fish take the bait if they knew their
was a hook in the middle?
Respectfully yours,
Nicholas A. Zigarovich
---------
Footnotes:
[1] Freenet is a peer-to-peer network designed to allow the distribution
of information over the Internet in an efficient manner, without fear of
censorship. More information can be found at:
About: http://freenetproject.org/
[2] Gnutella is an open, decentralized, peer-to-peer search system that is
mainly used to find files. Gnutella is neither a company nor a particular
application. It is also not a Web site; in particular, it is not this one,
which is merely a hub for Gnutella and Gnougat information. It is a name
for a technology, like the terms "e-mail" and "web."
About: http://gnutella.wego.com/
[3] Usenet is a distributed bulletin board system and the people who post
and read articles thereon. Originally implemented in 1979 - 1980 by Steve
Bellovin, Jim Ellis, Tom Truscott, and Steve Daniel at Duke University,
and supported mainly by Unix machines, it swiftly grew to become
international in scope and, before the advent of the World-Wide Web,
probably the largest decentralised information utility in existence.
[4] DMCA, or the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, is a bill (supposedly
passed at the request of Hollywood to illegalize trading of multimedia
files on the Internet) which provides a means for corporations to imprison
anyone who uses a product in a way that is not approved by the producing
corporation. This eliminates the consumer's rights of ownership.
[5] Dmitri Sklyarov is a Russian programmer. He is known for reverse-
engineering Adobe Corporation's encrypted PDF text file format,
effectively rendering any 'secure' PDF readable by any interested party.
He was arrested and charged at the request of Adobe Corp. with violating
the anti-trafficking provision in section 1201 (b)(1)(A) of 17 USC, which
was made law by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), and
secondly, with "aiding and abetting" under 18 USC 2.
[6] In early 2000, the MPAA filed suit against 2600, a 'hacker' magazine,
for telling their readers how to access the movie files stored on DVD
discs. The case is still ongoing.
About: http://www.salon.com/tech/view/2000/05/01/rosen/
About: http://www.riaa.com/About-Lead-1.cfm
Interview: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,39108,00. html
Interview: http://www.narip.com/networknews/archives/rosen.ht m
[8] MP3.com was a hopeful Internet business designed to allow artists to
exchange their music without succumbing to the greed of the record
industry. So the recording industry sued the pants off of them.
I feel some subtle hostility and contempt towareds SSH Communications Security Corp in your post. How unfortunate. SSH Secure Shell is a good idea and a great product. Without the graciousness of SSHCSC there would be no free alternative, and many more people may have suffered because of this particular vulnerability. Are you advocating open-source solutions or spreading propoganda? Its a tough call - you choose your words almost too well.
Its great to see helpful notices like this on Slashdot, but if you could just check your hostility at the door...
As someone pointed out in another post, there's more to this issue of C++ bashing than just writing code in a given language. Knowing how to read library sources in their native language is important, though admittedly not required for taking the first steps.
Fledgling Linux developers may also benefit from learning C++ because the OS, most core administration tools, and the majority of userland utilities and applications use C or C++. I don't believe any other language can offer this benefit.
Keep in mind I don't personally enjoy C++ more than any other language, so I am not defending one language over another. I'm just trying to get the facts straight. If we're going to bash authors of articles for suggesting a supposedly poor choice of language for beginners to use, I'd at least like some explanation.
Nick
PS -
I didn't know GTK+ had bindings for so many other languages. Pretty cool.
Being so opposed to developing desktop applications for the Linux desktop using C++, what would you suggest starting out with? Last time I checked, C and C++ were the two best choices for building fast, robust GUI applications (bindings for scripting languages not included), just as this article says. That is, of course, unless the largest Linux desktop players _aren't_ GNOME and KDE, as I've been led to believe.
I respect your opinion, but it doesn't really matter whether or not you like C++ if its is one of only two options for Linux desktop programming. That being said, I feel its a bit unfair to imply that this article may not be worth its salt because it is simply stating the facts.
I disliked the Sci Fi Channel's production of 'Dune' on many levels, most of which I'll try to describe and rationalize here (although I wish I'd had a notebook handy while watching the movie). Also, I wish I could say more, but I'm writing this from work, and must be brief.
Before I continue, let me say that I don't believe the movie was intended to meet the high expectations I placed upon it. I am a notoriously harsh judge of literature and movies. I am of the opinion that Hollywood has lowerd out standards of what dictates a 'good movie', and of the many productions released to the public every week, almost none are worthy of attention. I feel that 'Dune' is not far off from Hollywood's ideal of a 'good movie'.
I feel I should also recognize that many of you probably liked the movie quite a bit, and may even be offended to hear me speak so lowly of it. Let me assure you, I criticize only the movie and not its viewers. If you liked it, I truely envy you. I regret that I couldn't sit down and simply take the movie for what it was. When given the choice between disappointment and satisfaction, believe me when I say I'd choose the latter. I only wish it were a conscious choice.
To summarize the previous paragraph, I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone, nor am I saying mine is better than anyone else's. My opinion is exactly that, so please take it as such.
Moving on...
Actors
Alec Newman
Its interesting that Hemos should mention Luke Skywalker in his post - my roommates and I made the same comparison last night. Alec Newman was a horrible choice for Paul Atreides, and played a big hand in ruining the movie for me. As an actor, he had far too much animosity and angst than seems appropriate for Paul's character. I realize that Paul is a teenager, but he's also had a fine education, Bene Gesserit training, and has been staring responsibility in the face his entire life. Alec Newman portrayed a somewhat spoiled little boy who seemed upset when he didnt get his way rather than the proud, diciplined, selfless heir to the House Atreides. I'm not suggesting that the book-bound Paul Atreides was the perfect son and student, but at least he portrayed a noble upbringing. Alec Newman came nowhere close.
William Hurt
I wish I like William Hurt. He seems like a nice guy with a bunch of potential, but his way of droning slowly and unemotionally through dialog make me dislike the characters he attempts to portray. Not that I've been exposed to much of his work. To date, Dark City, Lost In Space, and Dune have been all that I retain in memory. But if these three are at all like his other works, I'd rather save myself the frustration and simply dislike his style altogether.
Ian McNeice
I don't have much to say about Mr. McNeice, partly because he's so unremarkable, and partly because I'm taking time out of work to write this.
He wasn't a bad Baron Harkonnen per se, but he was leagues away from being compelling in the least.
General Environment
Sets
The 'sets' looked more like today's insta-offices with a futuristic pastel twist. You know, those types of offices usually used by new dot-com'ers that can be erected in a day or two. On the surface, they present an acceptable look for conducting business, but closer evaluation of materials and style show haste in construction and generic, bottled stylistic themes. Honestly, the color motifs chosen for this movie made me want to gag. Everything had disgusting amounts of white, blue, purple, and bright red. This was especially noticable on Arrakis, which should have portrayed a desolate and worn appearance, but instead reminded me of my company's reception area.
On top of that, every wall, floor, decoration, and piece of furniture that we saw in the movie was perfect and unblemished. Everything was bright and cheerful. Nothing looked remotely, lived in, tarnished, used, or even broken.
Extras
So did they borrow the extras from MTV music video shoots or what? Especially the extras on Arrakis, those who were supposed to be Fremin. They had the slightest of five o'clock shadows set on perfect, clean, unblemished faces. No one in this movie - let me stress that: no one - looked like they had ever seen a single day of hardship. Dressing actors in rags does not present the image of a virtually indentured labor class.
Sardaukar
There was a confrontation between (I believe) Gurney and a Sardaukar soldier. Does anyone remember this? Does anyone remember thinking the Sardaukar looked stoned? If anyone should have looked fierce and intimidating, it should have been the Sardaukar. The movie's Sardaukar looked like they would turn tail and run from a pack of wild dogs, much less the Atreides and Fremin.
Character
Or rather, the lack of. There was nothing distinctive about any character in this movie. They were all extremely bland, reciting their lines in an almost monotonous, can't-wait-to-get-back-to-my-trailer kind of way. I feel that people watching this movie with no previous knowlege of the story would have quickly become bored with character development, since there was virtually none at all. Alec Newman gave Paul Atreides something of a personality, even if it was Luke Skywalker-esque. But the Duke Atreides? What happened to the powerfully compassionate leader who's people showered him with love? What happened to the sensuality and mystery of the Bene Gisserit, those who weave destiny, those whos' accumulated knowlege is incomprehensible?
What happened to the mystery and awe behind Paul's destiny? Just because the messiah-like nature of the Paul's character is a common one in SciFi/Fantasy stories doesn't mean it should be cheapened down to just another sub-plot.
The characters were so uninteresting that I wouldn't think of suggesting this movie to someone wanting to become familiar with the Dune experience.
CGI
The money that should have gone into finding good actors and designing convincing sets were wasted on bad special effects. My definition of 'bad special effects' could be synonymous with 'obvious special effects'. CGI looks like CGI. Its too shiney and perfect to be convincing, yet its the best we've got. It appears that the makers of this movie decided to throw money at animators to have an abundance of 'extrodinary' visually appealing scenes, but I think they missed the fact that the story is what captivates most people, not the mental image of what the future will be like. When I read Dune, I experience the thoughts and emotions of the characters. That I can relate with these characters emotionally is what makes me revel in that experience. That such careful planning and plotting is etched into the story makes it intellectually appealing. Is this just an action-adventure flick or the retelling of a unforgetable tale of love, hate, mystery, romance, and politics?
Conclusion
This was just another Sci Fi Channel made-for-tv flick. Most Sci Fi Channel productions (both TV series and movies) lack for the same reasons Dune lacked, because they all have the same weak points: bad acting, (poor) over-emphasis on the appearance of the physical environment rather than the characters and their uniqueness, unbelievably clean-cut environments, and more. (Personally, the clean-cut environments are what really run these productions into the ground for me.)
Am I alone in thinking this? Am I wrong? Am I right? I only know for certain that I'm tired of being disappointed.
Nick
ps
The last half of this post is kind of rushed, and was thrown together in bits and pieces of free time over four hours. Sorry for any jumbled thought flows, I'm trying to get everything posted before this topic dies. (This also means 'no spell-checking'.):-)
> I could turn around and point out that in your kind, gentle, emotionally controlled manner you're being quite condescending.
Yes, but that was the intended perception.:-) I know I'm as flawed as the next guy (probably more, in fact), but we're all human.
> As for the HP-UX/AIX ==> Guru, that's not quite what I intended, although I see how it came across as that. What I meant was that (any single platform) =X=> Guru, and also that it's pointless (and socially harmful) to be a zealot when you only know one thing.
Indeed. I see what you mean, I only wanted to get my point across. I do see your point and agree whole-heartedly.
As far as zealotry goes, I tend to question anyone who has a strong belief in anything.:^) I think many zealots simply lack reason for some beliefs that they hold, thanks to misinformation or no information regarding the subject matter. Based on this observation, one of my personal goals is to become completely objective in my beliefs and personal understanding of things, and not pass judgement without sufficiently understanding facts and reason.
Not that I'm always successful.:-) I guess I've just given subjectiveness versus objectiveness a lot of thought lately.
> As for considering myself a guru, all I can say is HAH! I might achieve that status in my own mind the day I die, but not before. In the meantime, I'll keep working on it.:-)
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for taking the time.:-) Imagining MacOS X in the proper context, I can see what all the fuss is about.
Nice website, by the way. When will the 'High Ego' version be available?;D
Thanks again!
Nick
Re: Pushing another... - get the OS to non-geeks!
on
BSD to Leapfrog Linux?
·
· Score: 1
I get the impression that MacOS X is being marketed as a serving solution, not a desktop operating environment. This isn't a '*NIX on the desktop' issue. You could imagine that I am asking, "Why should I take any professional interest in MacOS when Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris collectively offer me anything my company could possibly want in a UNIX?"
I'm talking about competition for favor between UNIX variants and look-alikes, not evalutaing MacOS X/BSD vs Microsoft or what my friends and family used to browse the web.
I simply don't see the attraction, other than shiney object syndrome. That is, something new and UNIXey, so it automatically grabs interest.
What warrents the excitement? That's all I want to know.:^)
Thanks,
Nick
Re: SICK OF IT! Giving up moderator points to say
on
BSD to Leapfrog Linux?
·
· Score: 1
I nodded along word for word with your post. I understand what you're saying, and I see it evidenced every time I read Slashdot comments. I think you're an asshole anyways.
If anyone should stop acting high and mighty, its you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you feel that someone is using flawed logic or is simply incorrect, point out what is wrong with that person's areguement. Don't shun them because they're not as seasoned as you. Maybe if you shared your divine knowlege of 'where the different systems shine', those poor, uninformed souls might finally reach your own level of enlightenment.
That you insinuate experience with HP-UX, AIX, et al. equates to guru status is absurd self-righteousness at its best.
If you were truely as enlightened as you proclaim, or if you even read Slashdot semi-regularly, you would realize that trolling solves nothing. Personally, I feel ashamed to even respond in this thread due to fear that people will respond to _my_ post.
...and I'm sorry you had to waste your moderation points on flame-bait.:-( They could have been used to better the atmosphere of this forum, but instead they've been used to draw extra attention to an extremely instigative message to no one in particular.
From my own experience, your physical and mental health will likely drastically improve if you learn to better control your emotions, and not let the ignorance of others get you down. I would have committed suicide by now had I not learned to look past the shortcomings of others, and overcome my own personal flaws.
I honestly don't understand the hype surrounding MacOS X. So far, the fact that Apple is producing a UNIX seems to be the only lure to people like Slashdotters.
At best, we're being handed another UNIX that could possible have more compatability issues than any other. We already have four ring leaders in free UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems as it is, and they've all been around long enough to be proven perfectly functional in production environments.
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, can someone rationalize the community interest in MacOS X? What does it offer over other UNIX environments, other than yet another OS alternative? Why should I take interest in this? Apple has never offered anything to me personally or professionally. Why should this change just because they're releasing an operating system that beats with the heart of BSD? This seems like nothing more than a toy to keep people with Mac hardware laying around entertained, coupled with a boat-load of hype.
Look at it this way: I want to be interested in MacOS X, but I can't find any reason. Please help!:^)
Relating to the topic of the article, I don't see hype being quite enough to divert people's attention away from existing free UNIX operating systems (and non-free in the case of Solaris, which seems to be most popular down commercial avenues). All hope for MacOS X lies in whether or not it can perform as well or better than other UNIX alternatives when it finally hits x86. Providing adequate support for hardware, both natively and from manufacturers, will also be an important contributing factor. If MacOS X can't do this initially, I doubt people will ever take it seriously. Initial disappointment could have lasting repercussions if it does eventually become a scalabale and stable operating system. Linux and *BSD have more than proven themselves, but MacOS X hasn't been given that opportunity.
To say that 'BSD is likely to rival Linux very soon in total number of users' while MacOS X is still in development seems absurdly silly to me, more so considering that it currently operates only on a statistically unpopular (and thus far workstation-oriented) platform. I feel that Henry Kingman has grossly underestimated the popularity and portability Linux offers, both as an extremely stable serving environment, and as an evolving desktop environment. Not to mention the other (currently available) BSDs.
Slashdot Mirror
...are working just fine for me with Debian unstable (my last dist-upgrade was last night).
I'm actually posting this from konqueror, which is displaying anti-aliased True Type Fonts quite nicely.
Niko
Modules compile and work wonderfully for me with Linux 2.4.14 (using the virgin source). I can provide you with deb packages, if you like. ;) nick at infowks dot com if you're interested.
niko
BestCrypt is available for Windows and Unix. In fact, the source for the Linux tools is available (not GPL). And as long as your encrypted volumes are in a format all platforms can read (i.e., FAT), BestCrypt is a wonderfully implemented cross-platfrom solution.
niko
Recently, NSI deactivated one of my client's domains with no notice six months after the yearly renewal fee had been paid. NSI customer service informs me that the domain was shut off because the renewal fee was never paid. When I told the service rep we'd already paid, he told me they had no record of it. Lacking a confirmation number or credit receipt, my client decided to pay them again. Cool beans, right? Not exactly. Three days pass and the domain is still inactive. I call customer service and they tell me that payment is due on the domain. Amazed, I get the go-ahead from my client and we pay for the domain. Again. Cool beans, right? Wrong. Three more days go by, and you can guess what customer support told me when I called them. So after paying them a _third_ time, NSI finally reactivated the domain, much to my client's clients' joy.
This incident has actually inspired my client to get into the registrar business. He figures he should have no shortage of rebounding disgruntled NSI customers available for the taking.
Personally, I recommended that my client fax a copy of his credit receipt to NSI and formally dispute their ripping him off, but the invoices weren't available, and it would have only been more customers and email lost if he had taken the time to get them.
niko
Dear Norman,
y =usenet
t ml
. en.html
d istance.htm
_ eff_sklyarov_elcomsoft_pr.html
A A_DVD_cases/
. html
t m
h 716.htm
_ 1.html
_ mp3_dc_3.html
This mail is a response to your article, "Denial and the Ravaging of
Cyberspace".
> While some view it as an expansive bastion of decentralized
> communication and democratic discourse, the Internet now functions quite
> differently overall. In total, the World Wide Web is scarcely more
> civic-minded than your local bank.
Had you not used the terms 'Internet' and 'World Wide Web' so
interchangeably, I might not be writing this letter; but your claim that
the decentralized and democratic nature of the Internet is an illusion is
grossly misleading and technically incorrect. Beyond the confusing
interchanging of terms, you imply that the biggest demonstrated use for
the Internet is for commercial profit, which is simply outrageous.
To validate your gross generalization of the purpose of the Internet,
you cite the statistics quoted after these next two paragraphs. These
statistics apply not to the Internet, however, but to the World Wide Web,
which is what your article is really about - though to many it would appear
otherwise. Indeed, to the average Joe, the Internet is composed solely of
the World Wide Web, despite the popularity of Email and instant messaging,
which have nothing to do with the Web.
But these statistics appear to be flawed even when applied solely to
the Web.
> Websites operated by just four corporations account for 50.4 percent of
> the time that U.S. users of the Web are now spending online, the
> authoritative Jupiter Media Metrix research firm reported in early
> summer. At the top of the heap were AOL Time Warner's sites, with 32
> percent of all minutes spent online in the nation, followed by
> Microsoft (7.5 percent) and Yahoo (7.2 percent).
America Online's software will open the AOL web site when a user starts
the AOL software. This is not a conscious decision made by AOL users. This
fact, combined with the overwhelming popularity of the America Online
Internet service (not the web site, mind you but dial-up and ADSL services
that force users to browse with the AOL web browser), should be enough to
render this statistic nearly irrelevant.
In addition to the AOL software's default setting, many AOL user
services are web-based, such as email and instant messaging. This traffic
should not be considered 'browsing'. One wouldn't consider an AOL user
opening Eudora to check their mail or opening AOL Instant Messenger to
converse with their friends a valid statistic for web browsing.
Microsoft's Internet Explorer, the web browser built into Microsoft
Windows 98 and above, will open the Mircosoft web site when a user starts
the software. This is not a conscious decision made by Internet Explorer
users. This fact, considering that most everyone runs Windows
(statistically speaking), should be enough to render this statistic nearly
irrelevant.
In addition to the Microsoft software's default setting, Microsoft
offers free services similar to AOL.
Yahoo, debatably the World Wide Web's most user-friendly search engine,
seems to be a relevant statistic. I am not aware of any instance where
users are automatically delivered to this site. It should be noted that
Yahoo also offers many free web services similar to Microsoft's and AOL's.
So web statistics don't mean a thing, espcially since services, which
were previously utlilized by applications run on end-user computers, are
now being provided via the web, and have nothing to do with browsing,
reading content, or making purchases.
> To make matters appreciably worse, the owners of some key search engines
> are avidly prostituting their services. (The most powerful search-scam
> offenders include AltaVista, AOL, Microsoft and Lycos. For details,
> visit www.commercialalert.org.) These days, if you use one of the
> Internet's main search engines to find whatever, the chances are good
> that the top results came from dollars rather than relevance or
> quality.
I'm suprised to read mention of this since your article frequently
refers to statistics that are blatantly influenced by the capitalist search
for the almighty buck. In fact, your article exclusively discusses
capitalist interests, forgetting that there exist people in this country
and the world that don't give a damn about money where the Internet
is concerned, and use it every day as a means to their own non-commercial
ends.
In fact, commercial interest on the Internet is the only topic your
article seems to cover. The free and secure excange of information between
_any people anywhere in the world_ seems to be completely forgotten. Your
article could be summarized as follows...
"Based on marketing research, people are spending most of their time on
the web buying things, or thinking about buying things. People are
constantly being spammed with pop-up ads and persuaded to waste their
money on things they otherwise wouldn't be buying. Corporate America is
doing its best to keep people collared and leashed, but judging by the
recent technological slow-down, there aren't enough resources (consumers)
to go around."
Commercial-free Internet avenues, such as communities erected around
ideasls of free exchange of software and ideas, email and instant messaging,
social exchange, and perhaps the most potentially important, FreeNet[1]-
and Gnutella[2]-like de-centralized, distributed networks, are all
excluded from your analysis of Internet freedom. Possibly you weren't
aware that these avenues existed; possibly you were.
The relevant and disturbing reality is that J.Q. Public isn't aware of
these free resources that wait to be tapped. He goes where the Internet's
Big Three want him to go. They lay out his path for him, and consequently,
that path detours him past ads for products and services that he, more
often than not, doesn't need.
No, your article focuses on what capitalist interest tells you you it
should focus on. Not the potential that the Internet already provides for
personal expression and communication that exist outside the scope of the
World Wide Web, but the heaping mess of overlapping, floundering
ecommercialization that _is_ the World Wide Web.
> But faith in the democratic character of the Internet is resilient; a
> myth that will not die. And the more that huge outfits ravage
> cyberspace, the more useful the mythology becomes, laying a thick fog
> over the realities of mega-media domination.
The supposed '[mythical] democratic character' of the Internet is
precisely what makes capitalism on the Web possible. It is the same
character that allows people to exchange data with whomever they please,
as securely as they please.
The corporate eye will watch where the people go, as the corporate body
feeds on them. On the Internet, the eye is intently focused on the Web. If
demographic research showed the public's favored method for information
exchange to be, say, Gnutella or Usenet[3], the corporate bodies would
attempt to dominate these mediums. (In fact, Usenet has degraded much in
the last few years thanks to the influx of small, fly-by-night businesses
spamming the hell out of Usenet newsgroups and making a generally un-
pleasant place.)
> For a time, the Internet seemed to elude the profit-driven matrix
> squeezing media and public life. Some illusions die hard. But hopefully
> we can move forward with new resolve to fight against corporate power
> -- and for truly democratic media.
You're suggesting forward momentum to online ideology that already
exists. In fact, its right under your nose, you just have to bother to
reach for it. Learn and research _FACT_, not marketing and demographic
statistical nonsense. The long, hard road isn't resisting corporate
influence, it's persuading other people to resist and find avenues where
personal freedom reign supreme - which your article hasn't done very well.
You could have attempted to promote your supposed goal of moving
forward to fight corporate power by making your readers aware of tools and
information already available to them - by showing your readers that there
is more to the Internet than the World Wide Web and commercial dominance.
Some of the larger threats to personal freedom on the internet, or more
specifically, those that threaten free speech, have received no mention in
your article. Take the DMCA[4], for example, which has recieved very little
mainstream attention despite the freedoms it wants to take from the
public. Or the idiotic imprisoning of Dmitri Sklyarov[5] thanks to the DMCA.
The MPAA vs 2600[6] case. The insulting hypocrisy spread by Hilary Rosen
of the RIAA[7]. MP3.com's recent legal problems[8] thanks to unsanctioned
activities of their users.
People must be educated; spouting meaningless (and perhaps misleading)
statistics will only confuse.
After all, marketing theory seems to break down once people realize
that they're being marketed. Would fish take the bait if they knew their
was a hook in the middle?
Respectfully yours,
Nicholas A. Zigarovich
---------
Footnotes:
[1] Freenet is a peer-to-peer network designed to allow the distribution
of information over the Internet in an efficient manner, without fear of
censorship. More information can be found at:
About: http://freenetproject.org/
[2] Gnutella is an open, decentralized, peer-to-peer search system that is
mainly used to find files. Gnutella is neither a company nor a particular
application. It is also not a Web site; in particular, it is not this one,
which is merely a hub for Gnutella and Gnougat information. It is a name
for a technology, like the terms "e-mail" and "web."
About: http://gnutella.wego.com/
[3] Usenet is a distributed bulletin board system and the people who post
and read articles thereon. Originally implemented in 1979 - 1980 by Steve
Bellovin, Jim Ellis, Tom Truscott, and Steve Daniel at Duke University,
and supported mainly by Unix machines, it swiftly grew to become
international in scope and, before the advent of the World-Wide Web,
probably the largest decentralised information utility in existence.
About: http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?quer
About: http://www.forteinc.com/agent/freagent.htm
[4] DMCA, or the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, is a bill (supposedly
passed at the request of Hollywood to illegalize trading of multimedia
files on the Internet) which provides a means for corporations to imprison
anyone who uses a product in a way that is not approved by the producing
corporation. This eliminates the consumer's rights of ownership.
About: http://www.nmpa.org/nmpa/wipofinal.html
http://slashdot.org/features/01/06/06/131232.sh
About: http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010816_eff_ftaa_alert
About: http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/
About: http://www.eff.org/Intellectual_property/
[5] Dmitri Sklyarov is a Russian programmer. He is known for reverse-
engineering Adobe Corporation's encrypted PDF text file format,
effectively rendering any 'secure' PDF readable by any interested party.
He was arrested and charged at the request of Adobe Corp. with violating
the anti-trafficking provision in section 1201 (b)(1)(A) of 17 USC, which
was made law by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), and
secondly, with "aiding and abetting" under 18 USC 2.
About: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/
About: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/20010828
About: http://www.dibona.com/dmca/
[6] In early 2000, the MPAA filed suit against 2600, a 'hacker' magazine,
for telling their readers how to access the movie files stored on DVD
discs. The case is still ongoing.
About: http://www.eff.org/Intellectual_property/Video/MP
About: http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/
[7] Hilary Rosen of the RIAA
About: http://www.salon.com/tech/view/2000/05/01/rosen/
About: http://www.riaa.com/About-Lead-1.cfm
Interview: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,39108,00
Interview: http://www.narip.com/networknews/archives/rosen.h
[8] MP3.com was a hopeful Internet business designed to allow artists to
exchange their music without succumbing to the greed of the record
industry. So the recording industry sued the pants off of them.
About: http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/review/cr
About: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nf/20010823/tc/13032
About: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010822/wr/media
I feel some subtle hostility and contempt towareds SSH Communications Security Corp in your post. How unfortunate. SSH Secure Shell is a good idea and a great product. Without the graciousness of SSHCSC there would be no free alternative, and many more people may have suffered because of this particular vulnerability. Are you advocating open-source solutions or spreading propoganda? Its a tough call - you choose your words almost too well.
Its great to see helpful notices like this on Slashdot, but if you could just check your hostility at the door...
Nick
As someone pointed out in another post, there's more to this issue of C++ bashing than just writing code in a given language. Knowing how to read library sources in their native language is important, though admittedly not required for taking the first steps.
Fledgling Linux developers may also benefit from learning C++ because the OS, most core administration tools, and the majority of userland utilities and applications use C or C++. I don't believe any other language can offer this benefit.
Keep in mind I don't personally enjoy C++ more than any other language, so I am not defending one language over another. I'm just trying to get the facts straight. If we're going to bash authors of articles for suggesting a supposedly poor choice of language for beginners to use, I'd at least like some explanation.
Nick
PS -
I didn't know GTK+ had bindings for so many other languages. Pretty cool.
Micheal,
Being so opposed to developing desktop applications for the Linux desktop using C++, what would you suggest starting out with? Last time I checked, C and C++ were the two best choices for building fast, robust GUI applications (bindings for scripting languages not included), just as this article says. That is, of course, unless the largest Linux desktop players _aren't_ GNOME and KDE, as I've been led to believe.
I respect your opinion, but it doesn't really matter whether or not you like C++ if its is one of only two options for Linux desktop programming. That being said, I feel its a bit unfair to imply that this article may not be worth its salt because it is simply stating the facts.
Nick
I disliked the Sci Fi Channel's production of 'Dune' on many levels, most of which I'll try to describe and rationalize here (although I wish I'd had a notebook handy while watching the movie). Also, I wish I could say more, but I'm writing this from work, and must be brief.
Before I continue, let me say that I don't believe the movie was intended to meet the high expectations I placed upon it. I am a notoriously harsh judge of literature and movies. I am of the opinion that Hollywood has lowerd out standards of what dictates a 'good movie', and of the many productions released to the public every week, almost none are worthy of attention. I feel that 'Dune' is not far off from Hollywood's ideal of a 'good movie'.
I feel I should also recognize that many of you probably liked the movie quite a bit, and may even be offended to hear me speak so lowly of it. Let me assure you, I criticize only the movie and not its viewers. If you liked it, I truely envy you. I regret that I couldn't sit down and simply take the movie for what it was. When given the choice between disappointment and satisfaction, believe me when I say I'd choose the latter. I only wish it were a conscious choice.
To summarize the previous paragraph, I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone, nor am I saying mine is better than anyone else's. My opinion is exactly that, so please take it as such.
Moving on...
Actors
Alec Newman
Its interesting that Hemos should mention Luke Skywalker in his post - my roommates and I made the same comparison last night. Alec Newman was a horrible choice for Paul Atreides, and played a big hand in ruining the movie for me. As an actor, he had far too much animosity and angst than seems appropriate for Paul's character. I realize that Paul is a teenager, but he's also had a fine education, Bene Gesserit training, and has been staring responsibility in the face his entire life. Alec Newman portrayed a somewhat spoiled little boy who seemed upset when he didnt get his way rather than the proud, diciplined, selfless heir to the House Atreides. I'm not suggesting that the book-bound Paul Atreides was the perfect son and student, but at least he portrayed a noble upbringing. Alec Newman came nowhere close.
William Hurt
I wish I like William Hurt. He seems like a nice guy with a bunch of potential, but his way of droning slowly and unemotionally through dialog make me dislike the characters he attempts to portray. Not that I've been exposed to much of his work. To date, Dark City, Lost In Space, and Dune have been all that I retain in memory. But if these three are at all like his other works, I'd rather save myself the frustration and simply dislike his style altogether.
Ian McNeice
I don't have much to say about Mr. McNeice, partly because he's so unremarkable, and partly because I'm taking time out of work to write this.
He wasn't a bad Baron Harkonnen per se, but he was leagues away from being compelling in the least.
General Environment
Sets
The 'sets' looked more like today's insta-offices with a futuristic pastel twist. You know, those types of offices usually used by new dot-com'ers that can be erected in a day or two. On the surface, they present an acceptable look for conducting business, but closer evaluation of materials and style show haste in construction and generic, bottled stylistic themes. Honestly, the color motifs chosen for this movie made me want to gag. Everything had disgusting amounts of white, blue, purple, and bright red. This was especially noticable on Arrakis, which should have portrayed a desolate and worn appearance, but instead reminded me of my company's reception area.
On top of that, every wall, floor, decoration, and piece of furniture that we saw in the movie was perfect and unblemished. Everything was bright and cheerful. Nothing looked remotely, lived in, tarnished, used, or even broken.
Extras
So did they borrow the extras from MTV music video shoots or what? Especially the extras on Arrakis, those who were supposed to be Fremin. They had the slightest of five o'clock shadows set on perfect, clean, unblemished faces. No one in this movie - let me stress that: no one - looked like they had ever seen a single day of hardship. Dressing actors in rags does not present the image of a virtually indentured labor class.
Sardaukar
There was a confrontation between (I believe) Gurney and a Sardaukar soldier. Does anyone remember this? Does anyone remember thinking the Sardaukar looked stoned? If anyone should have looked fierce and intimidating, it should have been the Sardaukar. The movie's Sardaukar looked like they would turn tail and run from a pack of wild dogs, much less the Atreides and Fremin.
Character
Or rather, the lack of. There was nothing distinctive about any character in this movie. They were all extremely bland, reciting their lines in an almost monotonous, can't-wait-to-get-back-to-my-trailer kind of way. I feel that people watching this movie with no previous knowlege of the story would have quickly become bored with character development, since there was virtually none at all. Alec Newman gave Paul Atreides something of a personality, even if it was Luke Skywalker-esque. But the Duke Atreides? What happened to the powerfully compassionate leader who's people showered him with love? What happened to the sensuality and mystery of the Bene Gisserit, those who weave destiny, those whos' accumulated knowlege is incomprehensible? What happened to the mystery and awe behind Paul's destiny? Just because the messiah-like nature of the Paul's character is a common one in SciFi/Fantasy stories doesn't mean it should be cheapened down to just another sub-plot.
The characters were so uninteresting that I wouldn't think of suggesting this movie to someone wanting to become familiar with the Dune experience.
CGI
The money that should have gone into finding good actors and designing convincing sets were wasted on bad special effects. My definition of 'bad special effects' could be synonymous with 'obvious special effects'. CGI looks like CGI. Its too shiney and perfect to be convincing, yet its the best we've got. It appears that the makers of this movie decided to throw money at animators to have an abundance of 'extrodinary' visually appealing scenes, but I think they missed the fact that the story is what captivates most people, not the mental image of what the future will be like. When I read Dune, I experience the thoughts and emotions of the characters. That I can relate with these characters emotionally is what makes me revel in that experience. That such careful planning and plotting is etched into the story makes it intellectually appealing. Is this just an action-adventure flick or the retelling of a unforgetable tale of love, hate, mystery, romance, and politics?
Conclusion
This was just another Sci Fi Channel made-for-tv flick. Most Sci Fi Channel productions (both TV series and movies) lack for the same reasons Dune lacked, because they all have the same weak points: bad acting, (poor) over-emphasis on the appearance of the physical environment rather than the characters and their uniqueness, unbelievably clean-cut environments, and more. (Personally, the clean-cut environments are what really run these productions into the ground for me.)
Am I alone in thinking this? Am I wrong? Am I right? I only know for certain that I'm tired of being disappointed.
Nick
ps
The last half of this post is kind of rushed, and was thrown together in bits and pieces of free time over four hours. Sorry for any jumbled thought flows, I'm trying to get everything posted before this topic dies. (This also means 'no spell-checking'.) :-)
Thanks!
> I could turn around and point out that in your kind, gentle, emotionally controlled manner you're being quite condescending.
Yes, but that was the intended perception. :-) I know I'm as flawed as the next guy (probably more, in fact), but we're all human.
> As for the HP-UX/AIX ==> Guru, that's not quite what I intended, although I see how it came across as that. What I meant was that (any single platform) =X=> Guru, and also that it's pointless (and socially harmful) to be a zealot when you only know one thing.
Indeed. I see what you mean, I only wanted to get my point across. I do see your point and agree whole-heartedly.
As far as zealotry goes, I tend to question anyone who has a strong belief in anything. :^) I think many zealots simply lack reason for some beliefs that they hold, thanks to misinformation or no information regarding the subject matter. Based on this observation, one of my personal goals is to become completely objective in my beliefs and personal understanding of things, and not pass judgement without sufficiently understanding facts and reason.
Not that I'm always successful. :-) I guess I've just given subjectiveness versus objectiveness a lot of thought lately.
> As for considering myself a guru, all I can say is HAH! I might achieve that status in my own mind the day I die, but not before. In the meantime, I'll keep working on it. :-)
I hear you - the same goes for me. :-)
Nick
maggard,
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for taking the time. :-) Imagining MacOS X in the proper context, I can see what all the fuss is about.
Nice website, by the way. When will the 'High Ego' version be available? ;D
Thanks again!
Nick
I get the impression that MacOS X is being marketed as a serving solution, not a desktop operating environment. This isn't a '*NIX on the desktop' issue. You could imagine that I am asking, "Why should I take any professional interest in MacOS when Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris collectively offer me anything my company could possibly want in a UNIX?"
I'm talking about competition for favor between UNIX variants and look-alikes, not evalutaing MacOS X/BSD vs Microsoft or what my friends and family used to browse the web.
I simply don't see the attraction, other than shiney object syndrome. That is, something new and UNIXey, so it automatically grabs interest.
What warrents the excitement? That's all I want to know. :^)
Thanks,
Nick
I nodded along word for word with your post. I understand what you're saying, and I see it evidenced every time I read Slashdot comments. I think you're an asshole anyways.
If anyone should stop acting high and mighty, its you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you feel that someone is using flawed logic or is simply incorrect, point out what is wrong with that person's areguement. Don't shun them because they're not as seasoned as you. Maybe if you shared your divine knowlege of 'where the different systems shine', those poor, uninformed souls might finally reach your own level of enlightenment.
That you insinuate experience with HP-UX, AIX, et al. equates to guru status is absurd self-righteousness at its best.
If you were truely as enlightened as you proclaim, or if you even read Slashdot semi-regularly, you would realize that trolling solves nothing. Personally, I feel ashamed to even respond in this thread due to fear that people will respond to _my_ post.
From my own experience, your physical and mental health will likely drastically improve if you learn to better control your emotions, and not let the ignorance of others get you down. I would have committed suicide by now had I not learned to look past the shortcomings of others, and overcome my own personal flaws.
Better luck next time,
Nick
I honestly don't understand the hype surrounding MacOS X. So far, the fact that Apple is producing a UNIX seems to be the only lure to people like Slashdotters.
At best, we're being handed another UNIX that could possible have more compatability issues than any other. We already have four ring leaders in free UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems as it is, and they've all been around long enough to be proven perfectly functional in production environments.
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, can someone rationalize the community interest in MacOS X? What does it offer over other UNIX environments, other than yet another OS alternative? Why should I take interest in this? Apple has never offered anything to me personally or professionally. Why should this change just because they're releasing an operating system that beats with the heart of BSD? This seems like nothing more than a toy to keep people with Mac hardware laying around entertained, coupled with a boat-load of hype.
Look at it this way: I want to be interested in MacOS X, but I can't find any reason. Please help! :^)
Relating to the topic of the article, I don't see hype being quite enough to divert people's attention away from existing free UNIX operating systems (and non-free in the case of Solaris, which seems to be most popular down commercial avenues). All hope for MacOS X lies in whether or not it can perform as well or better than other UNIX alternatives when it finally hits x86. Providing adequate support for hardware, both natively and from manufacturers, will also be an important contributing factor. If MacOS X can't do this initially, I doubt people will ever take it seriously. Initial disappointment could have lasting repercussions if it does eventually become a scalabale and stable operating system. Linux and *BSD have more than proven themselves, but MacOS X hasn't been given that opportunity.
To say that 'BSD is likely to rival Linux very soon in total number of users' while MacOS X is still in development seems absurdly silly to me, more so considering that it currently operates only on a statistically unpopular (and thus far workstation-oriented) platform. I feel that Henry Kingman has grossly underestimated the popularity and portability Linux offers, both as an extremely stable serving environment, and as an evolving desktop environment. Not to mention the other (currently available) BSDs.
Nick