The point is that: if you buy a car, don't read the manual and then it fails because you didn't do something you could have (viz. find out that the brake pedal is in an unusual place) then its your fault. You (if it really mattered to you) could have checked the problems out yourself. You could have hired someone else to do the checking. You could have followed any number of paths to ensure that the given problem does not exist.
You mean just like when you implement IIS and didn't put patches on or take steps to adequately secure the box. You know, something you could have done. Not doing that is also your fault
Uh, that would be an Exchange server. And it has single instance storage. 200 people with the message in their Inbox, 1 copy of the message in the database store. It works both ways...
That resulted in ships being towed back into port (twice!) because their NT Domain servers corrupted their database, couldn't reboot,
umm, no. If you do a bt of research, you'll find that it was caused by a divide by zero error in their database app (i.e. sloppy coding). Nice try though.
No Mr AC, I'm not comparing tariffs to Microsofts actions at all. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote again. I'm asking why the government of the US would want to prosecute Microsoft for violating the free market, when they quite obviously don't care about the free market. This has nothing to do with Microsofts actions at all.
As far as I know, the New Zealand steel industry is not heavily subsidised by our government. Why should our steel industry be punished because the Americans are so inefficient?
Do you expect it to be any different? The USA isn't interested in a free market, so why would they punish Microsoft? Yesterday, the USA announced 30% tariffs on imported steel in order to protect their own steel workers. If they don't care about the free market between countries, why would they care about the free market inside their own?
Ummm, there is indeed a safe mode in Win2K. Next time it's booting, press F8 and get a list of ways to boot: Safe Mode, Safe Mode with Networking, Directory Services Restore mode. Safe mode is pretty much equivalent to safe mode on Win9x.
Re:Don't forget mars_nwe - the NetWare emu
on
Samba Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
Well wrong again. If you read what you wrote, and then read the document you'll see that you wrote that it's "encapsulated netBEUI", which is just wrong. It's NetBIOS over TCP/IP, which is very very different. From the very document you posted "SMB can run over multiple protocols" & "can be used over TCP/IP". Even the diagram shows that you're wrong - NetBEUI is almost monolithic, covering the Session, Transport & Network Layer. NetBIOS is a Session layer only, which then relies on TCP/IP or IPX (or even DecNET) as it's transport.
Re:Don't forget mars_nwe - the NetWare emu
on
Samba Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
Umm, no it doesn't. It runs directly over TCP/IP.
Re:By your silly definition, Mr. Editor,
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why "should" you be able to choose that?
Because I want to see a return for my labour. Letting someone give away my product (that's what it is - I produce it) gains me nothing, when I need to see a return for my time. Sure, you can argue that software is overpriced, and marginal costs are low etc etc, but I still need to see a return. I simply can't do that if everyone is free to distribute my work. If you choose to distribute your work for free, that's fine, but I want to distribute mine for money.
You are asking for the ability to choose what someone else is allowed to do. You want the "power" to tell someone else "You can see this, but you can't use what you see"
Damn right I do. Our societies choose these things all the time. I can't smoke drugs legally in this country, that's a decision society has made, choosing what I'm allowed to do.
Re:By your silly definition, Mr. Editor,
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 1
But copyright law already does that. If you let anyone use your software, they CAN make archival backups. They CAN transfer the copyright and all archival materials to someone else. They CAN implement ANY idea embodied by the work and use it as their own intellectual property. The only thing you have control over is the specific expression you use.
Except they don't have the right to redistribute the software, something that the GPL strictly enforces. If you want to choose a license that allows viewing the source but not to redistribute source or binaries, you should be free to choose that. It is precisely the redistribution clauses that means you can't make money by selling GPL software, nothing else.
If I'm not mistaken, Sleepycat made no money from Open Source. It made money from licensing the product in a closed source manner.
Re:There are alternatives... besides proprietary
on
SourceForge Drifting
·
· Score: 1
Well, this is the rub isnt it. I would suggest that once youve written the code for someone it is no longer 'yours'. The act of creation needs to be compensated (hence the real logic that software is a "service").
Or what you really mean is that software writing is a service. Software distribution, support, patching etc is not. Nor is marketing, sales etc. Software is a good, just because it's easily redistributed doesn't make it a service. And where does the act of creation end? When you ship the software? What about bugfixes/service packs/feature enhancements?
When you give away with your software the right to redistribute, you give away any chance of making money from it. The person who gets it is in a better position than the person who wrote it, as they can then onsell it without having to recover any of the costs of development. Why don't people get this?
In a lot of ways, I think a modified version of Microsoft's shared source is the way to go. Perhaps shipping source code with every copy you ship, but not including the right to redistribute. People can then submit bug fixes (to the software maintainer), they can have their precious source, but they just can't onsell that work to others. It doesn't actually make sense to make custom fixes anyway, it always makes sense to send changes back to the maintainer, as you then have to test and apply your patch against every new release.
Just that the something else on the side has to be massively profitable. Like incredibly proprietary hardware (see IBM). In fact, you could argue that the something on the side is your open source code, and you use that to drive your core (proprietary) business (again see IBM).
most succesful endevors in the IT world have had both open and closed source components
For example who? Microsoft would be the most successful, they don't have a lot of open source...
Of course, the free market has other cool things too. Like the fact that if you give away the right to redistribute your product, you'll go out of business. Neat isn't it?
Who exactly does do this and make money? From memory, the only company that I know of was Cygnus. There is no way a company can expect to make money from selling the software if they give away the rights to distribute the software to others. It just doesn't work - it's a fucked business model.
and what about that 10%? Are you saying they don't have the right to be paid for their work? Or are they somehow lesser programmers for working in these roles?
OK, there's a lot of hotfixes. But after that, why aren't you working smarter? For instance, put all of your desired settings in a security configuration manager inf file, import the file and the settings are all applied (ACL's, disabling services, setting registry keys, setting up auditing and event logs). There are tools there if you care to learn how to use them
Just download and install URLScan from Microsoft. It's an ISAPI plugin for IIS that filters requests before the rest of the web server sees them. It can forbid access to URL's based on extensions (e.g..exe,.ida), and those URL's that use encoded characters. It also lets you rewrite the server header (I'm currently reporting my IIS 5.0 server as Apache), as well as restricting what HTTP commands you can send to the server.
But who pays for the effort to develop this free software? How do the developers get their thirty pieces of silver every week? Software development, be it OS or application, has a cost associated with. Good business practices dictate that you recover that cost, unless you have some other method of generating revenue that will cover that cost, and still allow you to turn a profit. This is why IBM and Sun do alright with Linux, and RedHat & VA do not.
Putting people out of work as the economy becomes more efficient is not victimization. It's simply progress.
But you're not putting them out of work, you're just giving away the stuff that they put their effort into to develop. Those people still need to be paid. Or are you proposing that all software development is done by students and bludgers?
Slashdot Mirror
You mean just like when you implement IIS and didn't put patches on or take steps to adequately secure the box. You know, something you could have done. Not doing that is also your fault
Uh, that would be an Exchange server. And it has single instance storage. 200 people with the message in their Inbox, 1 copy of the message in the database store. It works both ways...
umm, no. If you do a bt of research, you'll find that it was caused by a divide by zero error in their database app (i.e. sloppy coding). Nice try though.
No Mr AC, I'm not comparing tariffs to Microsofts actions at all. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote again. I'm asking why the government of the US would want to prosecute Microsoft for violating the free market, when they quite obviously don't care about the free market. This has nothing to do with Microsofts actions at all.
As far as I know, the New Zealand steel industry is not heavily subsidised by our government. Why should our steel industry be punished because the Americans are so inefficient?
Do you expect it to be any different? The USA isn't interested in a free market, so why would they punish Microsoft? Yesterday, the USA announced 30% tariffs on imported steel in order to protect their own steel workers. If they don't care about the free market between countries, why would they care about the free market inside their own?
Ummm, there is indeed a safe mode in Win2K. Next time it's booting, press F8 and get a list of ways to boot: Safe Mode, Safe Mode with Networking, Directory Services Restore mode. Safe mode is pretty much equivalent to safe mode on Win9x.
Well wrong again. If you read what you wrote, and then read the document you'll see that you wrote that it's "encapsulated netBEUI", which is just wrong. It's NetBIOS over TCP/IP, which is very very different. From the very document you posted "SMB can run over multiple protocols" & "can be used over TCP/IP". Even the diagram shows that you're wrong - NetBEUI is almost monolithic, covering the Session, Transport & Network Layer. NetBIOS is a Session layer only, which then relies on TCP/IP or IPX (or even DecNET) as it's transport.
Umm, no it doesn't. It runs directly over TCP/IP.
Because I want to see a return for my labour. Letting someone give away my product (that's what it is - I produce it) gains me nothing, when I need to see a return for my time. Sure, you can argue that software is overpriced, and marginal costs are low etc etc, but I still need to see a return. I simply can't do that if everyone is free to distribute my work. If you choose to distribute your work for free, that's fine, but I want to distribute mine for money.
You are asking for the ability to choose what someone else is allowed to do. You want the "power" to tell someone else "You can see this, but you can't use what you see" Damn right I do. Our societies choose these things all the time. I can't smoke drugs legally in this country, that's a decision society has made, choosing what I'm allowed to do.
Except they don't have the right to redistribute the software, something that the GPL strictly enforces. If you want to choose a license that allows viewing the source but not to redistribute source or binaries, you should be free to choose that. It is precisely the redistribution clauses that means you can't make money by selling GPL software, nothing else.
If I'm not mistaken, Sleepycat made no money from Open Source. It made money from licensing the product in a closed source manner.
Or what you really mean is that software writing is a service. Software distribution, support, patching etc is not. Nor is marketing, sales etc. Software is a good, just because it's easily redistributed doesn't make it a service. And where does the act of creation end? When you ship the software? What about bugfixes/service packs/feature enhancements?
When you give away with your software the right to redistribute, you give away any chance of making money from it. The person who gets it is in a better position than the person who wrote it, as they can then onsell it without having to recover any of the costs of development. Why don't people get this?
In a lot of ways, I think a modified version of Microsoft's shared source is the way to go. Perhaps shipping source code with every copy you ship, but not including the right to redistribute. People can then submit bug fixes (to the software maintainer), they can have their precious source, but they just can't onsell that work to others. It doesn't actually make sense to make custom fixes anyway, it always makes sense to send changes back to the maintainer, as you then have to test and apply your patch against every new release.
most succesful endevors in the IT world have had both open and closed source components
For example who? Microsoft would be the most successful, they don't have a lot of open source...
Of course, the free market has other cool things too. Like the fact that if you give away the right to redistribute your product, you'll go out of business. Neat isn't it?
and what about that 10%? Are you saying they don't have the right to be paid for their work? Or are they somehow lesser programmers for working in these roles?
Charging for proprietary hardware more like. Vendor lock-in is no less a problem in the hardware world...
Only if you're selling highly proprietary hardware. There's not much margin in Intel based hardware...
OK, there's a lot of hotfixes. But after that, why aren't you working smarter? For instance, put all of your desired settings in a security configuration manager inf file, import the file and the settings are all applied (ACL's, disabling services, setting registry keys, setting up auditing and event logs). There are tools there if you care to learn how to use them
Just download and install URLScan from Microsoft. It's an ISAPI plugin for IIS that filters requests before the rest of the web server sees them. It can forbid access to URL's based on extensions (e.g. .exe, .ida), and those URL's that use encoded characters. It also lets you rewrite the server header (I'm currently reporting my IIS 5.0 server as Apache), as well as restricting what HTTP commands you can send to the server.
It relies on the user executing the attachment, it doesn't execute itself.
Actually male, take a look at the photos.
Technical Evangelist (love that one)
One of my friends has Network Defender
Or perhaps Security Integrifier
But who pays for the effort to develop this free software? How do the developers get their thirty pieces of silver every week? Software development, be it OS or application, has a cost associated with. Good business practices dictate that you recover that cost, unless you have some other method of generating revenue that will cover that cost, and still allow you to turn a profit. This is why IBM and Sun do alright with Linux, and RedHat & VA do not.
Putting people out of work as the economy becomes more efficient is not victimization. It's simply progress.
But you're not putting them out of work, you're just giving away the stuff that they put their effort into to develop. Those people still need to be paid. Or are you proposing that all software development is done by students and bludgers?