I've found myself in similar predicaments. When it comes to governance, boards make decisions, not individuals. Directors must have enough respect for their fellow board members to be willing to hear differing opinions. Why should Bob hold so much power of the other directors? Is Bob really that bossy, or are the other directors really that insecure? Either way, the board should address this problem before anything else. If Bob is truly offended by a relevant suggestion, it is possible that unrealistic expectations were set when he joined the board. Or, perhaps he shouldn't be on the board in the first place.
Lastly, the points you make as to why the system should be abandoned could be indicators of other problems.
1. See point 4--if no one uses the system, no wonder there are out of date documents. Systems must be maintained. 2. Again, see point 4--if no one uses the system, no wonder it's disorganized. Systems must be maintained. 3. Why haven't the others taken an interest in learning how the system works? 4. Is this really accurate? Perhaps it's become a monster because no one uses it and Bob finds himself overwhelmed.
Perhaps all the members could use a lesson in cooperation. Has anyone spoken to Bob to see how he feels about the system? He may have designed it, but even he should be able to see its flaws. Perhaps Bob never got any input from anyone else who uses the system. Of course, that requires people to actually use the system in the first place. Perhaps Bob never got any input from the intended users before building the system. In my personal experience, I've learned not to invest a significant amount of time in a project unless it will help me, personally, or the folks it will benefit are actively involved in its creation. If it's not going to help me and no one else cares, why should I waste my time?
Open specs do not need to give away hardware tricks manufacturers used to make the hardware better, faster, or what not. Specs are meant as a reference of what the hardware can do, how to get it to do it, and maybe some basic implementation notes and examples. Enough information so software developers can *use* the hardware, and users can figure out if they need or want it.
If someone wants to know how the hardware is made in intricate detail, take it apart yourself. Information is needed to verify that it should do what it's meant to do, and enough to allow developers to develop software that can use the hardware (after all, selling something one can't use is useless, go figure.).
This just in: Linux is about as dead as (if not moreso than) BSD. Yes, it's true, Linux is dying at about twice the rate, possibly even more, than BSD.
For the clueful readers: this is just an attempt to see how many/. readers will actually skip reading this comment completely, and reply with raving banter glorifying Linux, as I'm sure they will no doubt do so any chance they get. Indeed, Linux is dying at twice the rate if not more than BSD. If you take into account the fact that BSD is thriving, then you'd realize that the above comment makes perfect sense: Linux is thriving twice as much BSD, and if not, then my guess is only a wildly inaccurate low figure.
This is in response to all the postings that BSD is dead or dying in many of the numerous threads on Slashdot, all of which having about as much warrant as my saying Linux is dying. Yes, this is much like the contents of the subject of this very message you're reading, it's totally false, has no merit whatsoever. That's the point.
I hope that I prove to at least some people that saying BSD is dead is much like saying Linux is dead. That's hardly accurate. It just so happens that it's much easier to *see* that Linux isn't dead, than it is to see BSD isn't dead, given the fact that many of you are using Linux at this very moment, or at the very least, have Linux installed and devote some amount of time to it.
Indeed, I am using BSD right now, and I know for a fact that it's not dead. But, I also take enough time to realize that Linux isn't dead either.
This is an experiment, the results of which should prove quite interesting, if not very entertaining. Enjoy!
...for most cable companies high speed is a loss leader way to try to entice people to stay with cable for their TV needs...
Now that should make a little more sense...
Firstly, idealists such as yourself don't care about "real competition" : You want to see AT&T and TW be forced to hand over billions of dollars of infrastructure so that someone else can provide magical bandwidth for free.
It's quite obvious you don't know, or don't care, where I'm coming from. If there were no economy based on monetary units, there would be no need for monetary units, and nothing would be valued by meaningless paper. Think about that one a bit, hm? And second, don't tell me what I don't want, I am fully capable of deciding that myself.
I'm sure there'll be lots of people who'll be happy to sign up for your always super fast, no limits $20/month system. Oh wait, that should be free.
Sure, and they would be had. Check out DirecTV DSL. It's very reasonable service, for a very reasonable price. Read the service agreement, it's thorough, and written by a company who seems to know what they're doing. This is not written by your loss leader-productizing firm. Go read one of their service agreements. Charter's, for example, last time I checked was written by one of those millions of typing monkeys, last time I checked. If Shakespear is possible, I suppose anything is. It's no wonder the service they offer is complained about by the majority of people.
In my area right now I can get DSL, cable, high speed two way radio, satellite (including the uplink now), along with dial-up.
First off, let me say: you lucky bitch. And what thriving metropolis is this you speak of?
Anyway, now that you're starting to make some sense...I can see where you are coming from. Now understand where I am coming from: a typical American neighborhood where there are two choices: dial-up or cable. Other places have dial-up or DSL. And by Cable or DSL, I mean a monopoly. There is more often than not only one Cable provider, or one DSL provider, and there's were we start having problems. A place like where you are has competition, so naturally things would seem reasonable.
As far as round-the-clock DS1 speeds go...do cable providers claim to offer roud-the-clock speeds 50x greater than dial-up? Yes; it's advertised thusly in virtually every commercial. Do cable providers often provide such a service: no, because they don't really care about their cable Internet service, it's just a "loss leader", and a way to make a few extra bucks while keeping a select customer base (i.e., the clueless computer illiterates) happy. It works for them and their clueless happy users. It does not work for me, but alas, I am slummed into it because there is a coincidental monopoly. That monopoly is caused by deregulation. Now do you see where I'm coming from?
There is a massive difference between "always on" and "always at 100%"
Yes, and with today's service providers, it's hard to find one that offers both but provides both, let alone is reliable. But while there may be a difference with always on and always at 100%, why should it matter? If a service offers something, it should offer it and that's that. Afterall, we pay for what we have, whether or not we use it. If we can't use it all the time, why are we paying for it all the time?
Again, it is high speed : Yesterday...
...in a convenient and usefully small period of time...
Good for your convenience. We're not all the same, and not all of us can stand small intervals of time. Some of us actually have attention spans.
Bwahahahahaahah. I think you need to pay a little more attention to that Grade 11 economics class.
I'm not talking economics, I'm talking philosphy, and being whismical at that. If you didn't pick that up, perhaps you should be the one going back to grade school.
...but I won't bother explaining human nature to someone...
I well versed in human nature, being one, thank you.
Uh...yes? Ignoring the fact that about 3/4 of the high speed providers have gone bankrupt in the last couple of years (boy, they're just making money hand over fist!), for most cable companies high speed is a loss leader way to try to entice people to stay with cable for their TV needs...
It's only their fault they've gone backrupt and haven't managed their service properly. It's only their fault their network was a piece of shite after they severly oversubscribed and undermanaged it.
In the mean time switch to verizon online or some other crappy service which doesn't push such crap on you.
That sounds like a sure-fire way to go under to me. Let's just all go out and offer a piece of shit product to promote our other piece of shit product!
Now, let me get this straight. You're saying that not only are they already losing money as it is, raising prices to keep in business, they are a bullshit cable company...now let's introduce true competition. Prices go down farther, they lose more money, and how do they stay in business then?
In the mean time switch to verizon online or some other crappy service which doesn't push such crap on you.
If Verizon Internet service is much like their cellular service, they'll be charging you a $35 deductable to exchange your cable modem when you forget your email password.
Ok smarty, how about proof? Do we not require, by law, something beyond a reasonable doubt? I would call "We have information indicating such-and-such abitrary act occuring [but we won't provide it to you]" a reasonable doubt. Unless someone provides the "information indicating", they can all fuck off.
...provide the means for someone else to perform a criminal act, you can be held partly responsible for that act...
That's the lazy way of doing things. We're a lazy society. That's because we must hold *someone* within slapping distance responsible, or else we have failed ourselves and our wonderful society! What a shame *that* would be, if we didn't slap someone.
Indeed, transparent proxies are hardly ever transparent. And more often then not, they hurt the Internet more then they help. Proxies are only the precursors to censorship. A commercial entity running a transparent proxy is outright stupid. If a person wanted a proxy, that person would configure his machine accordingly. If the service wanted to configure it by default for clueless users, sure, be my guest! But at least give me the chance of changing it. Of course, I wouldn't give them the chance of a default, as they wouldn't ever come near my computer. Transparent proxies override that whole thing, and are absolutely required by all subscribers unconditionally, and that when things start breaking. And believe me, they break quickly. It only took me a few days to notice a transparent proxy (and mind you, that was only because I used it much for a week, until I got off my ass and set up the network and stopped switching the cables every evening). It would have been a few hours before I noticed if I were the only one using it.
Sure, most consumers won't notice. The ones that do are few, so why not let them out of the whole loop?
If a person is clueful enough to pick up a computer, have it connected to the Internet, and use it, that person should be clueful enough to secure the fucking computer.
Now, with that said, yes: most consumers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople aren't clueful. I would ask "and why should they be?", but I just answered that above. Companies need to stop protecting consumers from themselves and let them learn a little on their own.
Port 80 and 25 are still blocked and the TOS still forbids all "servers".
Including the server that answers ping inquiries? It's a good thing that my computer doesn't answer ping packets then!
Haha, you struck a crucial chord. Those types of service agreements do seem absurd, and they violate themselves. Without servers at even the client's end, things would be practically useless on the Internet as we no today. FTP uses client-side servers, IM uses client-side servers, video-conferencing uses client-side servers,... TONS of shite uses servers, to the point that if that term of service were completely enforce. there would likely be no users left on the service at all. People really need to understand the technology they're servicing before they service it.
They only don't offer it, because you alone wouldn't make much profit. In fact, they'd probably be loosing money if they charged to more to offer you more. Or so they would claim, and I'd be inclined to somewhat believe them. But if they offered that more widely, sure, they could make moeny off of you.
As far as the whole idea behind "business service", it's completely flawed. Someone like myself, or even you probably, is/are a home user, else, we wouldn't being using the service at home. A business class service agreement seems totally inappropriate in a residentatial area.
The problem stems most, I believe, from the bullshit that the profiteering gluntins are spreading that servers are for and only for businesses, and you can make big bucks off of it using their service, or by the most popular propoganda that filesharing takes up *so much* bandwidth, and it's illegal anyway so why not cap it and stop it as best we can. Yeah, and I'm Mahatma Ghandi. Filesharing is not so evil, or intensive, if managed properly (and there are other, more efficient ways of handling problems that do arise), and I'm not so perfect. Sue me.
I don't know about you, but when I come across an ISP advertising 24/7 always-on Internet access, I think they damn well better deliver. The courts agree, and any consumer that sues when an ISP doesn't deliver would make a very interesting (and likely winning) case.
And the problem with oversubscription is not the fault of consumers. If they advertise high-speed Internet, one should be able to assume that it is high-speed. If the schmucks oversubscribe their service, that's the ISPs own damn fault.
Second, you're philosophically hollow; I can see right through you. The Internet has become a public medium, and it always deserved to be one since the day Academia got involved with it. The only reason bandwidth isn't free is because most of the world still uses a monetary system. I, being biased towards a nonmonetary system, would whole-heartedly agree that bandwidth should be free. I would not go so far as to say bandwidth *is* free, however. I would say, though, that companies overcharge quite a bit. Do you think a bullshit cable company such as the only few cable companies offering Internet access would survive if the market were *truly* competitive?
Well I for one am forced into using NAT thanks to Charter's one-IP-fits-all scheme. I have three machines, and I would welcome two more public IP addresses. NAT does not add thin security, nor does it conserve addresses while actually being useful. It only delays the inevitable, and becomes a royal pain in the ass.
This should be fun to tear apart. First, for the record: fact - you are stupid. Now I'll prove it.
less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers - virtually impossible to prove. Perhaps 1% of the market is/buying/ *BSD, but I *seriously* doubt even that figure; and the majority of *BSD systems are free for download, mind you. There goes most of the first paragraph, if not all.
The second paragraph is pure speculative opinion, and bullshitted at that. Two down.
Next up. having lost 93% of its core developers -- since when? I've seen 2 resignations during my years as a FreeBSD user. The core developer team is *not* made up of 2.15 developers. Perhaps 7% of the core development team was lost (assuming ~28 members; I don't know the figure exactly). Down goes another paragraph.
And another: Let's keep to the facts -- too late, my friend.
ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. That took a lot of thinking, mang. Are you that dense? That would assume an amount proportionate to OpenBSD's user base of NetBSD users that post to usenet. One can hardly assume that. My, you're falling flat on your ass, aren't you?
FreeBSD went out of business -- I'm sorry, I wasn't aware FreeBSD was a business. Perhaps you can point me to their URL? FreeBSD was never owned by anyone but the community itself, with perhaps a vague exception of the Regents and their contributors. Walnut Creek CDROM was a business; BSDI bought it. BSDI still is a business. Well, the mass is increasing, but the volume is staying the same. You're getting denser by the paragraph.
*BSD has steadily declined in market share? Fancy that. I haven't noticed that at all. If anything, I've noticed *more* news about *BSD, not less. More enthuasm, not less. Pay attention, eh?
Well, anonymous, you're post was 0% factual, 100% flame. Then again, we all knew that. Consider this post my talking directly to *you*, and only *you*, because you are the only one here who needs to hear it. I just wonder what you'll say next...
OpenNIC is still around, and has been for two years. It was proposed on K5 1 Jun 2000, and was operational soon thereafter. A month later, it was serving 4 alternate TLDs. Today, it serves 6 with a specific new one pending, and talks of serving out several language-related TLDs (like the ccTLDs, but for languages). Others have been around since before us, and they're still reasonably active. There's also AlterNIC, PacRoot, ORSC, ORSN, and others.
Most, if not all, alternative roots peer the majority of legacy TLDs (i.e., those of ICANN), including the new ones. We (OpenNIC) have peering agreements with AlterNIC and PacRoot, and we're working on others as well.
So, what exactly are you talking about? Geeks haven't abandoned alternative roots. We are quite active.
I don't think I'll be buying LinkSys anytime soon either; my instructor has had numerous problems with them trying to set up a couple of WAP11s. He had three of them, and they weren't working properly so eventually he ended up sending them back. He got one back; when he emailed support, the guy told him it wasn't working, so he sent it (the nonfunctional one) back, and that he didn't get the other two (yet)...how useful.
So eventually he got two newer models of WAP11s in, and they seem to work fine; I don't know what he's going to do about the older WAP11.
In a related story by CNN (near the bottom) Rep. Stearns of Florida has introduced a privacy bill in the House which, in my opinion, is quite nasty. Here's what he has to say about it on his own site:
"From these hearings, we learned that we must strike a balance in
protecting personal information without unduly interfering with the
free flow of consumer information that strengthens our economy and
benefits the consumer."
I think you got that a bit backwards. It states asserted claims of '359 are invalid, and that '355 is invalid. Not that '359 is invalid, only those asserted claims.
There is no actual text in this response, it's all in the subject line. Ignore what's written here, unless you won't mark this as a flame.
<flame style="likely-offensive">
Let's analyze the facts.
1. Fast boot ups are already here. Oh, I'm sorry, is under 30s not fast enough for you?
2. Ease of use - c'mon. The interface is practically the same in all Unix operating systems, a command line and... viola. What more could you want? (X, I know, that can be installed via *ding ding* the CLI!
3. There's not much wrong with the setup interface, except maybe it should spit out an estimated install size? That's about all I can think of right now. That and upgrading the X config stuff for 4.1, which is not really a big deal.
4. ONE EXCLUSIVE WM? Think about that one for a minute. That works completely against the point of alternative operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found myself in similar predicaments. When it comes to governance, boards make decisions, not individuals. Directors must have enough respect for their fellow board members to be willing to hear differing opinions. Why should Bob hold so much power of the other directors? Is Bob really that bossy, or are the other directors really that insecure? Either way, the board should address this problem before anything else. If Bob is truly offended by a relevant suggestion, it is possible that unrealistic expectations were set when he joined the board. Or, perhaps he shouldn't be on the board in the first place.
Lastly, the points you make as to why the system should be abandoned could be indicators of other problems.
1. See point 4--if no one uses the system, no wonder there are out of date documents. Systems must be maintained.
2. Again, see point 4--if no one uses the system, no wonder it's disorganized. Systems must be maintained.
3. Why haven't the others taken an interest in learning how the system works?
4. Is this really accurate? Perhaps it's become a monster because no one uses it and Bob finds himself overwhelmed.
Perhaps all the members could use a lesson in cooperation. Has anyone spoken to Bob to see how he feels about the system? He may have designed it, but even he should be able to see its flaws. Perhaps Bob never got any input from anyone else who uses the system. Of course, that requires people to actually use the system in the first place. Perhaps Bob never got any input from the intended users before building the system. In my personal experience, I've learned not to invest a significant amount of time in a project unless it will help me, personally, or the folks it will benefit are actively involved in its creation. If it's not going to help me and no one else cares, why should I waste my time?
I heard she only visits once a month.
Who says Tux isn't female, or that Beastie isn't raping Linux as an expression of power, as opposed to sexual preference?
Open specs do not need to give away hardware tricks manufacturers used to make the hardware better, faster, or what not. Specs are meant as a reference of what the hardware can do, how to get it to do it, and maybe some basic implementation notes and examples. Enough information so software developers can *use* the hardware, and users can figure out if they need or want it.
If someone wants to know how the hardware is made in intricate detail, take it apart yourself. Information is needed to verify that it should do what it's meant to do, and enough to allow developers to develop software that can use the hardware (after all, selling something one can't use is useless, go figure.).
So, you've tried it? Btw, you can highlight and delete [Li], since Linux has absolutely nothing to do with Unix and C being developed for each other.
This just in: Linux is about as dead as (if not moreso than) BSD. Yes, it's true, Linux is dying at about twice the rate, possibly even more, than BSD.
For the clueful readers: this is just an attempt to see how many /. readers will actually skip reading this comment completely, and reply with raving banter glorifying Linux, as I'm sure they will no doubt do so any chance they get. Indeed, Linux is dying at twice the rate if not more than BSD. If you take into account the fact that BSD is thriving, then you'd realize that the above comment makes perfect sense: Linux is thriving twice as much BSD, and if not, then my guess is only a wildly inaccurate low figure.
This is in response to all the postings that BSD is dead or dying in many of the numerous threads on Slashdot, all of which having about as much warrant as my saying Linux is dying. Yes, this is much like the contents of the subject of this very message you're reading, it's totally false, has no merit whatsoever. That's the point.
I hope that I prove to at least some people that saying BSD is dead is much like saying Linux is dead. That's hardly accurate. It just so happens that it's much easier to *see* that Linux isn't dead, than it is to see BSD isn't dead, given the fact that many of you are using Linux at this very moment, or at the very least, have Linux installed and devote some amount of time to it.
Indeed, I am using BSD right now, and I know for a fact that it's not dead. But, I also take enough time to realize that Linux isn't dead either.
This is an experiment, the results of which should prove quite interesting, if not very entertaining. Enjoy!
Replace that fantasy quote with this:
Now that should make a little more sense...
It's quite obvious you don't know, or don't care, where I'm coming from. If there were no economy based on monetary units, there would be no need for monetary units, and nothing would be valued by meaningless paper. Think about that one a bit, hm? And second, don't tell me what I don't want, I am fully capable of deciding that myself.
Sure, and they would be had. Check out DirecTV DSL. It's very reasonable service, for a very reasonable price. Read the service agreement, it's thorough, and written by a company who seems to know what they're doing. This is not written by your loss leader-productizing firm. Go read one of their service agreements. Charter's, for example, last time I checked was written by one of those millions of typing monkeys, last time I checked. If Shakespear is possible, I suppose anything is. It's no wonder the service they offer is complained about by the majority of people.
First off, let me say: you lucky bitch. And what thriving metropolis is this you speak of?
Anyway, now that you're starting to make some sense...I can see where you are coming from. Now understand where I am coming from: a typical American neighborhood where there are two choices: dial-up or cable. Other places have dial-up or DSL. And by Cable or DSL, I mean a monopoly. There is more often than not only one Cable provider, or one DSL provider, and there's were we start having problems. A place like where you are has competition, so naturally things would seem reasonable.
As far as round-the-clock DS1 speeds go...do cable providers claim to offer roud-the-clock speeds 50x greater than dial-up? Yes; it's advertised thusly in virtually every commercial. Do cable providers often provide such a service: no, because they don't really care about their cable Internet service, it's just a "loss leader", and a way to make a few extra bucks while keeping a select customer base (i.e., the clueless computer illiterates) happy. It works for them and their clueless happy users. It does not work for me, but alas, I am slummed into it because there is a coincidental monopoly. That monopoly is caused by deregulation. Now do you see where I'm coming from?
Yes, and with today's service providers, it's hard to find one that offers both but provides both, let alone is reliable. But while there may be a difference with always on and always at 100%, why should it matter? If a service offers something, it should offer it and that's that. Afterall, we pay for what we have, whether or not we use it. If we can't use it all the time, why are we paying for it all the time?
Good for your convenience. We're not all the same, and not all of us can stand small intervals of time. Some of us actually have attention spans.
I'm not talking economics, I'm talking philosphy, and being whismical at that. If you didn't pick that up, perhaps you should be the one going back to grade school.
I well versed in human nature, being one, thank you.
It's only their fault they've gone backrupt and haven't managed their service properly. It's only their fault their network was a piece of shite after they severly oversubscribed and undermanaged it.
That sounds like a sure-fire way to go under to me. Let's just all go out and offer a piece of shit product to promote our other piece of shit product!
Now, let me get this straight. You're saying that not only are they already losing money as it is, raising prices to keep in business, they are a bullshit cable company...now let's introduce true competition. Prices go down farther, they lose more money, and how do they stay in business then?
In the mean time switch to verizon online or some other crappy service which doesn't push such crap on you.
If Verizon Internet service is much like their cellular service, they'll be charging you a $35 deductable to exchange your cable modem when you forget your email password.
Ok smarty, how about proof? Do we not require, by law, something beyond a reasonable doubt? I would call "We have information indicating such-and-such abitrary act occuring [but we won't provide it to you]" a reasonable doubt. Unless someone provides the "information indicating", they can all fuck off.
...provide the means for someone else to perform a criminal act, you can be held partly responsible for that act...
That's the lazy way of doing things. We're a lazy society. That's because we must hold *someone* within slapping distance responsible, or else we have failed ourselves and our wonderful society! What a shame *that* would be, if we didn't slap someone.
Indeed, transparent proxies are hardly ever transparent. And more often then not, they hurt the Internet more then they help. Proxies are only the precursors to censorship. A commercial entity running a transparent proxy is outright stupid. If a person wanted a proxy, that person would configure his machine accordingly. If the service wanted to configure it by default for clueless users, sure, be my guest! But at least give me the chance of changing it. Of course, I wouldn't give them the chance of a default, as they wouldn't ever come near my computer. Transparent proxies override that whole thing, and are absolutely required by all subscribers unconditionally, and that when things start breaking. And believe me, they break quickly. It only took me a few days to notice a transparent proxy (and mind you, that was only because I used it much for a week, until I got off my ass and set up the network and stopped switching the cables every evening). It would have been a few hours before I noticed if I were the only one using it.
Sure, most consumers won't notice. The ones that do are few, so why not let them out of the whole loop?
If a person is clueful enough to pick up a computer, have it connected to the Internet, and use it, that person should be clueful enough to secure the fucking computer.
Now, with that said, yes: most consumers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople aren't clueful. I would ask "and why should they be?", but I just answered that above. Companies need to stop protecting consumers from themselves and let them learn a little on their own.
Only ten concurrent connections? I use more then that simultaneous just with ssh!
Port 80 and 25 are still blocked and the TOS still forbids all "servers".
Including the server that answers ping inquiries? It's a good thing that my computer doesn't answer ping packets then!
Haha, you struck a crucial chord. Those types of service agreements do seem absurd, and they violate themselves. Without servers at even the client's end, things would be practically useless on the Internet as we no today. FTP uses client-side servers, IM uses client-side servers, video-conferencing uses client-side servers, ... TONS of shite uses servers, to the point that if that term of service were completely enforce. there would likely be no users left on the service at all. People really need to understand the technology they're servicing before they service it.
They only don't offer it, because you alone wouldn't make much profit. In fact, they'd probably be loosing money if they charged to more to offer you more. Or so they would claim, and I'd be inclined to somewhat believe them. But if they offered that more widely, sure, they could make moeny off of you.
As far as the whole idea behind "business service", it's completely flawed. Someone like myself, or even you probably, is/are a home user, else, we wouldn't being using the service at home. A business class service agreement seems totally inappropriate in a residentatial area.
The problem stems most, I believe, from the bullshit that the profiteering gluntins are spreading that servers are for and only for businesses, and you can make big bucks off of it using their service, or by the most popular propoganda that filesharing takes up *so much* bandwidth, and it's illegal anyway so why not cap it and stop it as best we can. Yeah, and I'm Mahatma Ghandi. Filesharing is not so evil, or intensive, if managed properly (and there are other, more efficient ways of handling problems that do arise), and I'm not so perfect. Sue me.
Now that is quite intriguing: a company that actually seems to recognize the de facto state of quite a few consumers...
I don't know about you, but when I come across an ISP advertising 24/7 always-on Internet access, I think they damn well better deliver. The courts agree, and any consumer that sues when an ISP doesn't deliver would make a very interesting (and likely winning) case.
And the problem with oversubscription is not the fault of consumers. If they advertise high-speed Internet, one should be able to assume that it is high-speed. If the schmucks oversubscribe their service, that's the ISPs own damn fault.
Second, you're philosophically hollow; I can see right through you. The Internet has become a public medium, and it always deserved to be one since the day Academia got involved with it. The only reason bandwidth isn't free is because most of the world still uses a monetary system. I, being biased towards a nonmonetary system, would whole-heartedly agree that bandwidth should be free. I would not go so far as to say bandwidth *is* free, however. I would say, though, that companies overcharge quite a bit. Do you think a bullshit cable company such as the only few cable companies offering Internet access would survive if the market were *truly* competitive?
Well I for one am forced into using NAT thanks to Charter's one-IP-fits-all scheme. I have three machines, and I would welcome two more public IP addresses. NAT does not add thin security, nor does it conserve addresses while actually being useful. It only delays the inevitable, and becomes a royal pain in the ass.
This should be fun to tear apart. First, for the record: fact - you are stupid. Now I'll prove it.
less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers - virtually impossible to prove. Perhaps 1% of the market is /buying/ *BSD, but I *seriously* doubt even that figure; and the majority of *BSD systems are free for download, mind you. There goes most of the first paragraph, if not all.
The second paragraph is pure speculative opinion, and bullshitted at that. Two down.
Next up. having lost 93% of its core developers -- since when? I've seen 2 resignations during my years as a FreeBSD user. The core developer team is *not* made up of 2.15 developers. Perhaps 7% of the core development team was lost (assuming ~28 members; I don't know the figure exactly). Down goes another paragraph.
And another: Let's keep to the facts -- too late, my friend.
ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. That took a lot of thinking, mang. Are you that dense? That would assume an amount proportionate to OpenBSD's user base of NetBSD users that post to usenet. One can hardly assume that. My, you're falling flat on your ass, aren't you?
FreeBSD went out of business -- I'm sorry, I wasn't aware FreeBSD was a business. Perhaps you can point me to their URL? FreeBSD was never owned by anyone but the community itself, with perhaps a vague exception of the Regents and their contributors. Walnut Creek CDROM was a business; BSDI bought it. BSDI still is a business. Well, the mass is increasing, but the volume is staying the same. You're getting denser by the paragraph.
*BSD has steadily declined in market share? Fancy that. I haven't noticed that at all. If anything, I've noticed *more* news about *BSD, not less. More enthuasm, not less. Pay attention, eh?
Well, anonymous, you're post was 0% factual, 100% flame. Then again, we all knew that. Consider this post my talking directly to *you*, and only *you*, because you are the only one here who needs to hear it. I just wonder what you'll say next...
OpenNIC is still around, and has been for two years. It was proposed on K5 1 Jun 2000, and was operational soon thereafter. A month later, it was serving 4 alternate TLDs. Today, it serves 6 with a specific new one pending, and talks of serving out several language-related TLDs (like the ccTLDs, but for languages). Others have been around since before us, and they're still reasonably active. There's also AlterNIC, PacRoot, ORSC, ORSN, and others.
Most, if not all, alternative roots peer the majority of legacy TLDs (i.e., those of ICANN), including the new ones. We (OpenNIC) have peering agreements with AlterNIC and PacRoot, and we're working on others as well.
So, what exactly are you talking about? Geeks haven't abandoned alternative roots. We are quite active.
I don't think I'll be buying LinkSys anytime soon either; my instructor has had numerous problems with them trying to set up a couple of WAP11s. He had three of them, and they weren't working properly so eventually he ended up sending them back. He got one back; when he emailed support, the guy told him it wasn't working, so he sent it (the nonfunctional one) back, and that he didn't get the other two (yet)...how useful.
So eventually he got two newer models of WAP11s in, and they seem to work fine; I don't know what he's going to do about the older WAP11.
In a related story by CNN (near the bottom) Rep. Stearns of Florida has introduced a privacy bill in the House which, in my opinion, is quite nasty. Here's what he has to say about it on his own site:
Quite revealing, in my opinion.I think you got that a bit backwards. It states asserted claims of '359 are invalid, and that '355 is invalid. Not that '359 is invalid, only those asserted claims.
There is no actual text in this response, it's all in the subject line. Ignore what's written here, unless you won't mark this as a flame.
<flame style="likely-offensive">
Let's analyze the facts.
1. Fast boot ups are already here. Oh, I'm sorry, is under 30s not fast enough for you?
2. Ease of use - c'mon. The interface is practically the same in all Unix operating systems, a command line and ... viola. What more could you want? (X, I know, that can be installed via *ding ding* the CLI!
3. There's not much wrong with the setup interface, except maybe it should spit out an estimated install size? That's about all I can think of right now. That and upgrading the X config stuff for 4.1, which is not really a big deal.
4. ONE EXCLUSIVE WM? Think about that one for a minute. That works completely against the point of alternative operating systems.
5. Okay, Linus.
6. Okay, Bill.
7. Okay, Gore.
Conclusion: You need help.
</flame>