Bah, next you'll be claiming that Darl doesn't really have X-ray vision, and that SCO isn't about to make a bzillion dollars and transform into a lifeform composed of pure energy. Some people are so cynical.
The company has signed one large customer up to its Intellectual Property License for Linux. [...] "Instead of doing mass-mailings we're now taking a very targeted approach," [Darl McBride] said.
Yes, Darl, Microsoft has let you re-announce that they gave you $10 for a license, and yes, we know that everybody else has ignored you. Do you have any actual news, or are you still just trying to spin your past ineptitude into shinola again?
We need a sweepstake on when he's going to (illegally) dump his stock and head to Brazil for a face change. I'm guessing it'll be the day before they actually hit a court with this farce.
There is absolutely no evidence that Welchia is worse than Blaster, as a cursory reading of the linked article would reveal to anyone who passed the fourth grade.
If you're unpatched, you either get Welchia, or you get Blaster. They both hose your network. If you're too stupid to block the ports and apply the patches, then you're going to get one or the other.
Go on, pick one. Not that it makes any difference. Welchia isn't worse than Blaster. Sure, it opens a port, and everyone is assuming (why?) that this is a back door, but as long as you're unpatched and your 135 port is open, arbitrary code can be run on your box anyway, so how does Welchia make that worse?
That this is starting to read like a The Onion article? You know, one of the recent ones that starts with a moderately amusing title - "SCO claims 'All your code base are belong to us'" - but then just dribbles on and on until you get tired of reading it.
SCO are trolling for dollars. We should stop helping them out by disseminating their bullshit. We shouldn't even bother to refute it, because by doing so, we make it looks as though there's something there that needs refuting. Nuh huh. Until they back up their claims by listing the source, there is no story here. They're simply begging for publicity to sell shares to pointy haired morons. Let's not be a party to that any more.
Smoke and mirrors. I'll bet you ten bucks that this is an empty box and a manual, that it doesn't detect card counting, it just lets the casino say that it's detected card counting, which is a banned activity.
What they detect is people winning small and often. That's what they're really banning. How you achieve it is irrelevant. If you achieve it through blind luck, you'd still be thrown out. This magic system just lets them pretend that they've got a reason for doing so.
Casinos have rules that say you must lose. Only an idiot would accept those terms. Fortunately, that's exactly the people the casinos want to attract. Everybody (by which I mean the casinos) wins!
Under no circumstances is Nachi worse than Blaster.
If you're vulnerable to Nachi, you're vulnerable to Blaster. It's not a question of whether Johnny NoPatch gets Nachi, it's a case of whether he gets Nachi or Blaster.
The fix for Blaster will protect you from Nachi.
A virus checker that can remove Blaster can remove Nachi.
Getting Nachi will stop you getting Blaster, even if Nachi is removed.
If Blaster wasn't in the wild, Nachi would be abhorent. But the thing is, Blaster is in the wild. It's folly to pretend otherwise.
I can see the pragmatic value of this form of worm, as long as it follows the rule that it should under no circumstances do more damage than the worm that it blocks. Sure, I'd still like to kick the crap out of whoever released it, but I'd shake his hand first.
The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org. [...] I don't have a desktop machine, only a laptop. It runs Debian GNU/Linux
He'll enjoy the benefits of using Debian, but he'll try and stop anybody else using it? My, what a high moral stance.
Taking a step towards freedom is a good thing--better than nothing. The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps
Well, you should know, Richard. You keep taking those baby steps.
As a result, I think that we should focus our efforts not on encouraging more people to take the first step, but rather on encouraging and helping those who have already taken the first step to take more steps.
Dear Richard; please stop parasiting off of a distribution that you aren't prepared to even give the courtesy of a link to. Further, please put up or shut up. I might do as you do, but I'm not much minded to do as you say.
ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist [non-free software] and put an end to it
When the dust settles, there will be fewer engineers, and more marketeers and obscenely overpaid CEO's at the cloven companies. Because, as we all know, it doesn't matter how good your product is, as long as you have decent market segmentation, and an CEO with a zillion share options.
Well, frenzied zealot, perhaps you'd like to try running BSD, or VxWorks, or just maybe you'd like to write and run your own operating system, much as notorious software pirate Lunix Thorvalds did back in the early 1990's.
Well, perhaps you'd like to run something other than lunix. Perhaps, just perhaps, you'd like to write and run your own operating system, much like notorious software pirate Lunis Thorvalds did.
Inventors for all practical purposes now means corporate entities, because if they can ban the tools required to investigate and experiment with technology, then the era of the individual inventor is over. The ability of corporations to stifle scientific investigation now rivals that of the Inquisition.
Now the question isn't "what can I invent?", but "can I afford a lawyer to defend my right to invent?"
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, next you'll be claiming that Darl doesn't really have X-ray vision, and that SCO isn't about to make a bzillion dollars and transform into a lifeform composed of pure energy. Some people are so cynical.
The company has signed one large customer up to its Intellectual Property License for Linux. [...] "Instead of doing mass-mailings we're now taking a very targeted approach," [Darl McBride] said.
Yes, Darl, Microsoft has let you re-announce that they gave you $10 for a license, and yes, we know that everybody else has ignored you. Do you have any actual news, or are you still just trying to spin your past ineptitude into shinola again?
We need a sweepstake on when he's going to (illegally) dump his stock and head to Brazil for a face change. I'm guessing it'll be the day before they actually hit a court with this farce.
There is absolutely no evidence that Welchia is worse than Blaster, as a cursory reading of the linked article would reveal to anyone who passed the fourth grade.
If you're unpatched, you either get Welchia, or you get Blaster. They both hose your network. If you're too stupid to block the ports and apply the patches, then you're going to get one or the other.
Go on, pick one. Not that it makes any difference. Welchia isn't worse than Blaster. Sure, it opens a port, and everyone is assuming (why?) that this is a back door, but as long as you're unpatched and your 135 port is open, arbitrary code can be run on your box anyway, so how does Welchia make that worse?
Lies, damn lies, statistics, Slashdot reporting.
Your oldspeak be plus ungood.
Now, can we please stop helping their astroturfing? There's no story here. All they want is publicity, any publicity. Shush now. Shush.
As opposed to being able to run arbitrary code through the DCOM overflow? You're correct to stay anonymous, coward.
That this is starting to read like a The Onion article? You know, one of the recent ones that starts with a moderately amusing title - "SCO claims 'All your code base are belong to us'" - but then just dribbles on and on until you get tired of reading it.
SCO are trolling for dollars. We should stop helping them out by disseminating their bullshit. We shouldn't even bother to refute it, because by doing so, we make it looks as though there's something there that needs refuting. Nuh huh. Until they back up their claims by listing the source, there is no story here. They're simply begging for publicity to sell shares to pointy haired morons. Let's not be a party to that any more.
Did you escape from the short bus on the way to Special School today? Are you lost? Do you know where your mommy is?
No, the marketing guys pushing this product say that. How do they know? What's their criteria for measuring it?
Snake. Oil.
Smoke and mirrors. I'll bet you ten bucks that this is an empty box and a manual, that it doesn't detect card counting, it just lets the casino say that it's detected card counting, which is a banned activity.
What they detect is people winning small and often. That's what they're really banning. How you achieve it is irrelevant. If you achieve it through blind luck, you'd still be thrown out. This magic system just lets them pretend that they've got a reason for doing so.
Casinos have rules that say you must lose. Only an idiot would accept those terms. Fortunately, that's exactly the people the casinos want to attract. Everybody (by which I mean the casinos) wins!
If Blaster wasn't in the wild, Nachi would be abhorent. But the thing is, Blaster is in the wild. It's folly to pretend otherwise.
I can see the pragmatic value of this form of worm, as long as it follows the rule that it should under no circumstances do more damage than the worm that it blocks. Sure, I'd still like to kick the crap out of whoever released it, but I'd shake his hand first.
Dear frenzied zealot,
Consider developing a sense of perspective. Honestly, truly, it's not all about lunix.
The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org. [...] I don't have a desktop machine, only a laptop. It runs Debian GNU/Linux
He'll enjoy the benefits of using Debian, but he'll try and stop anybody else using it? My, what a high moral stance.
Taking a step towards freedom is a good thing--better than nothing. The risk is that people who have taken one step will think that the place they have arrived is the ultimate destination and will stay there, not taking further steps
Well, you should know, Richard. You keep taking those baby steps.
As a result, I think that we should focus our efforts not on encouraging more people to take the first step, but rather on encouraging and helping those who have already taken the first step to take more steps.
Dear Richard; please stop parasiting off of a distribution that you aren't prepared to even give the courtesy of a link to. Further, please put up or shut up. I might do as you do, but I'm not much minded to do as you say.
ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist [non-free software] and put an end to it
Unless it's on your laptop? Lousy hypocrite.
N/T
When the dust settles, there will be fewer engineers, and more marketeers and obscenely overpaid CEO's at the cloven companies. Because, as we all know, it doesn't matter how good your product is, as long as you have decent market segmentation, and an CEO with a zillion share options.
The bane of the bazaar model.
Well, frenzied zealot, perhaps you'd like to try running BSD, or VxWorks, or just maybe you'd like to write and run your own operating system, much as notorious software pirate Lunix Thorvalds did back in the early 1990's.
It's not always about lunix.
Well, perhaps you'd like to run something other than lunix. Perhaps, just perhaps, you'd like to write and run your own operating system, much like notorious software pirate Lunis Thorvalds did.
That could replace most of my family right there.
Lose. Cede. And bollocks.
Rooted in March 2003 by a "local user". They started restores 12 days ago. Without telling anyone.
This is worse than anything that Microsoft has ever done.
They started restores 12 days ago and didn't tell anyone.
I cannot trust the FSF, ever again.
They started restores 12 days ago and didn't tell anyone .
There is no difference in practice between the FSF and Microsoft. The experiment is over.
Why do you assume it's source? foo, not foo.c
No, I don't have that option, because they want the programmer back. How do I prove that I don't have it?
Inventors for all practical purposes now means corporate entities, because if they can ban the tools required to investigate and experiment with technology, then the era of the individual inventor is over. The ability of corporations to stifle scientific investigation now rivals that of the Inquisition.
Now the question isn't "what can I invent?", but "can I afford a lawyer to defend my right to invent?"
I actually feel physically sick.
Should be "Debian Turning 1010"