As many people will probably point here, you should check out Evolution's "virtual folders".
JWZ once proposed a more sophisticated approach to store mail without the hierarchical folder structure limits. You can read about it here:
Intertwingle
I don't what came out of that. I think it is a good idea still waiting to be implemented.
"With NAFTA, many USA jobs that paid over $20 an hour left
for Mexico where they pay a small fraction."
Hm, I wonder where those American jobs are then, haven't seen many
around lately. The only effect of NAFTA that I've seen is that now it
is very hard for locals to create successful business establishments.
Now they have to compete against all those Seven Elevens,
Grease Monkeys, Burger Kings, Wal Marts, you name it. And beat them. And do it with
a family budget.
I read the article with great interest. You see, if you think you
will have problems with uneven distribuition of wealth, you probably
should take a look at us third-worlders (and yes, fellow Mexicans
reading Slashdot, we very much are third-worlders, no matter what that
fuck Fox tells the press). Compared to you Americans, we are
authorities in uneven distribution of wealth. You are amateurs, we
are the experts on that.
(Now don't get me wrong, I do love my country. I am very proud of
being Mexican, I have the highest regard for my people, and I do want
to live all my life here among them, and then die right here. I'm
just pissed off at some stupid politicians and other evil kinds of
people, that's all. Same goes for Colombia, second greatest place in
the world:-))
Anyway, I regret to report that I don't think much of the essay.
It started quite well, but all that giving money thing is just too
naive. Inflation will be the first and smallest of your problems.
The really big one is, as someone said here before, that you'll be
rewarding people for being slackers. So you arrange for
people to live comfortably without having to put some effort in it. Your most educated people will probably go ahead and do creative and
useful stuff. But the rest? Want to bet on what the white trash
would do? I put 20 pesos on MTV and E! entertainment, for what is worth.
And that will destroy you. That and the arrogance and greed of
those few that end at the top of the foodchain---go read Thucydides on
The Peloponnesian War to see how fast you identify yourselves in that tale,
and how precisely that attitude fared for the great Athenian
empire.
Now I regret even more that I just wrote all that without having
something constructive to propose here. I honestly wish someone would
figure out this wealth distribution thing because, robots or no
robots, it already causes no end of grief in most parts of the world. And I can't see a solution, short of a radical culture shift. Like, say, I think a great society would be one where you have to work to get
around, but one in which your status depends on how much you give
away. Like open source, indeed. Say you put a restaurant and give
away the food, and everyone does so, and then the one that makes the
best food gets the best gifts from everyone...
Oh shit, and I was complaining about naivety. Never mind. I just
think that that Hobbit tradition, the one about giving presents on
your birthday, would be rather welcome in this "do whatever it takes
to make more of a profit" kind of world.
By the way SCO's stock is looking i wouldn't be surprise that, in true N.Korean fashion, SCO claims tomorrow to posses Nuclear Weapons, and demand one to one talks will the capitalist-scum IBM. Either that, or something about a mighty Jihad, Saurons dark forces, the mother of all court battles, the shadows, etc...
It seems they couldn't wait for tomorrow: they have issued a
statement
already. Interesting quote:
"If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL."
Move away from the GPL? That's a new one for SCO, isn't it? Perhaps this is what they're going to push now, to fuel outrage from us Linux people.
Their stock is up a bit now. But I'm not too impressed by the reply. Given SCO's, ahem, vigor, when it comes to public statements, I was expecting them to sue the catholic church, as someone here suggested. Anything short of that is kind of boring.
No, if they encumber the linux codebase with their own license, then the GPL becomes void and no longer can be used to distribute Linux [...] In fact, if they actually make anyone pay to run linux, then they can be sued by the contributor of every other piece of code for copyright violation. After all, they distributed the rest of the code without a valid license to do so.
Quite insightful. I have a question now. Couldn't the kernel developers use this to force SCO to reveal once and for all exactly what code is in Linux that infringes on their "intellectual property"? (whatever that means)
What I mean is, what if some fifty, or say a hundred kernel developers individually sue SCO for copyright infringement? The argument is that, since SCO claims to have the rights to impose a license on Linux, then the GPL becomes void, and they cannot distribute Linux at all. But they are doing it, distributing Linux, even as I write! Thus, by their own claims, they are infringing on the copyrights of quite a lot of coders.
Just think of the DoS to SCO's legal team! And the headlines: SCO bitchslapped by dozens of lawsuits by Linux developers! And of asshole McBride being called as a witness for the prosecution to show how the GPL is void and they are infringing copyright!
But the important part is, it seems to me that then SCO would have to either (a) claim themselves guilty of copyright infringement, be fined and forced to compensate the copyright holders (paying through the nose, I only hope), making themselves the laughingstock of the whole industry; or (b) admit they did not have any rights over Linux to begin with, ending this madness once and for all.
Of course, I'm no lawyer, not even a citizen of the U.S. of A., so I may be just wanking here. Also, if things were to go through my (otherwise happy) option (b), that could be not too good for the kernel developers (I'm thinking about they losing their suits and having to pay attorney fees and so). But maybe the EFF could give some support here. At least I would gladly donate for this cause.
No, not in the sense that you were talking about. You said that the GPL granted a license to redistribute. That's not correct. The GPL doesn't grant permisison to redistribute; it mandates redistribution.
Ah, but it doesn't!
See, in the license, there is text in sections 1, 2, and 3, stating that you may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the software source code, modify it, and copy and distribute it in executable form; and it lays the terms and conditions under which you can do such things. Then in sections 4 and 5, it states that you may not do those things except as expressly provided by the license, and that you are not required to accept the license, but reminds you that nothing else gives you any rights over the software: if you don't like the terms, then more power to you, just don't use the thing (I think that sounds only fair, given that you didn't pay for it). The rest of the sections deal with exceptions, namely patents, laws, warranty, etc.
I don't see anywhere that it "mandates redistribution". Furthermore, section zero states clearly that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." So, most people (e.g., users, not developers or distributors) are even less restricted. I mean, if I just want to use the software, that particular activity is not controlled in any way by the license.
I'm sorry, I just can't see how it can be construed that the GPL mandates redistribution.
So the GPL, a license that effectively waives copyright protection, is equivalent (legally) to a declaration of copyright forfeiture.
I don't think so. Again, I can't see any text in the license stating that the copyright holder waives all protection. On the contrary, the GPL relies on copyright protection, and I'm sure that forfeiting the copyright is the last thing in the mind of an author that chooses the GPL (otherwise, she would probably gone with something BSD'ish, or even plain and clean public domain).
I'm not well versed in American law, since I'm not American neither, but I was under the impression that the only thing you can lose by not protecting it zealously is a trademark. It would probably take a big contract, with very explicit language and a couple of signatures by the author, to waive copyright protection.
Oh, great. First you got sarky about my intelligence, then you decided to insult an entire country OF WHICH I AM NEITHER A CITIZEN NOR A RESIDENT. You're nothing but a gianormous troll, aren't you?
Come on, lighten up, he just made an observation. I agree with him, for my part: that concern about profit sounds very American. And even though I don't like it, it is not necessarily bad: I'd say that's what makes Americans so good at making money. They are very good at that, and it has worked nicely for them. So maybe they won't take it as an insult.
Re:Why bother
on
fvwm Turns Ten
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why don't FVWM developers focus on something more modern, like GNOME, KDE or XPDE? Especially the latter, since it focuses on "duplicating Windows XP interface down to the pixel point". I've always maintained that Linux needs to be virtually indentical to Windows in feel, down to the DOS prompt drive letters to make the techies feel at home.
Well, I use FVWM. It is my WM of choice, and I like it a lot. It is small, it is (very) fast, it is scriptable, it does not look nor act like a Windows knock-off (though you can probably make it, both, of course). And I use it on fast machines, mind you, it's not that I couln't use KDE. It's just that I like plain X + FVWM better.
And it does have some cute features. I have impressed a couple of friends with FVWM's "stroke" thing, starting apps and controlling audio volume and stuff, by drawing shapes on the screen with the mouse---though I must say that I don't really have much use for that, save for showing off.
How else are you going to see mass adoption?
I wonder why is that so many of you regard mass adoption as something so desirable that justifies turning a first-class Unix system (oops, hope no SCO spies are reading this) into a bad Windows clone. Or even a good one. I just can't see the point: if a user needs something Windows-like, well, there is Windows already.
If I were to say what to do, I'd have people stop wasting time cloning Windows, and use it to make Linux a better Unix. And as for GUIs, I'd like to see a good GUI in the Unix style. Like, say, apps with hybrid command line/graphic interfaces. Graphic pipelines, perhaps? Or if you have to copy it, something in the NextStep/OSX style (last time I checked, GNUStep was nowhere near usable). I don't know.
But then again, neither me nor you nor anyone can make Linux developers do this or that; everybody is free to choose what to do with our Linux-hacking time. Fortunately.
The old System V code is part of Antique Linux, the source to which has been made available under a free license. I think it was a Caldera license.
Sorry, you lose.
Actually, caldera placed under a "BSD-style" license some 16 bit UNIX versions (for the PDP-11 CPU), as well as 32V; but system III, system V, and successors, were explicitly excluded.
You can see the announcement
here (email from Jan 2002). From there you can get the license letter in PDF, Caldera logo and all.
But anyway, this is probably irrelevant. I already read some people here quoting SCO on that their beef is with "Linux 2.4 and later". Pray tell, what code from ancient UNIX could have been added to the kernel during the 2.3 cycle? It just does not make sense.
i always just call it linux no matter what kind I'm using.. do people actually call it gnu/linux rather than linux? or even KDE/Gnu/Linux ??
do you just type it, or actually say "I use gnu linux"
I use "GNU/Linux" when I'm writing something "formal", like technical documentation, or a proposal or contract, a security report for a customer, things like that. It is a bit impractical, but I find it appropriate and descriptive.
In most other cases I use plain "Linux". And I don't remember ever saying out loud G-N-U Linux, only writing it.
Now, "GNU/Linux" is already ugly enough -- "KDE/GNU/Linux", to me, is taking it just a bit too far (though I don't know why is that I don't find "Debian GNU/Linux" as hard to swallow... perhaps I'm just used to it). If I'm going to refer to the whole operating system, including the GUI (as every non-technical user sees it), I just use "RedHat" or "Debian", or "Knoppix". Or maybe just "KDE" or "Gnome". It's not as if a non-technical user will care about who wrote his kernel and UNIX tools.
I am not going to say that you are wrong, because I know a lot of people who thinks like you. Actually, I know more people with your opinions than with mine, so your points are probably valid, even though I can't get me to accept even a single one of them.
Just to waste some time, and to offer a different perspective, here's what I think of them:
A) Cryptic Command Names. Still there in Linux
Right. And I like them that way.
The thing is, I love the command line. I do most of my work with it. Sometimes even for quite visual tasks, such as some video processing tricks. As of now, I still don't know of any GUI user that can work as fast as me using an X terminal (not saying that there are none, just that I've never seen one). Furthermore, having dealt with several flavors of CLI in the past (the CTOS executive, the infamous DOS, a couple of mainframeish screen-oriented beasts), I've come to the conclusion that the UNIX style is the best by far. Granted, it may not be the easiest, but it isn't the hardest either, and is compact, practical, and amazingly flexible.
And the last thing I need is having to type a long, "non-cryptic" name, or (dear Lord) taking my hands off the keyboard to muck around with some pictures on the screen, when all I want is to copy a couple of files.
B) "Unix was like Homer, handed down as oral wisdom."
Man, this is so true. I got most of my UNIX knowledge passed down to me by upperclassmen and professors. It is amazing how much training it takes in UNIX to do something simple in Windows. For example, recursively searching through a subtree for some text in a file.
Well, I can think of some good points about this oral tradition thing. It allows the story to evolve smoothly. Good stuff stays, it is enhanced and embellished. Ugly stuff gets replaced and forgotten. I can't see what's wrong with that.
(Btw, even though the command line does require you to read some manuals, your example... well, grep -r is hardly difficult at all, I think. Replacing the text would be a better example, requiring you to understand find -exec and sed or the likes. Though I don't know how hard it is to do it in Windows or the Macintosh, for comparation.)
C) Terminal Insanity. Still there in many ways. VT100 pops up its ugly head decades after it should have been killed.
Yes, I've seen that in the past. I haven't had terminal problems in a long, long time, though, using Linux default configurations. So I can't really share that urge of "killing" something that works correctly. I've also seen a lot of NetBIOS/SMB madness in Windows, but that does not mean that it had to be killed. Even though it is a hideous networking scheme, it is useful. Just configure it properly.
D) The X-Windows Disaster. X-Windows is what first made me question UNIX's superiority. Dang X sucks. Bad. What a mess! "Motif Self-Abuse Kit" made me laugh because my brief experience programming Motif was one of the worst in my life. It was a mess of void pointers and pointers to functions that was an absolute pain to program.
That's something I've heard quite often. And still can't see why so many people is so upset with X. For me, X is just fine. It used to be hard to configure, what with all those modelines and stuff. And Motif sucked hard, indeed (though not as hard as Win 3.11). But nowadays configuration is automatic, it has acceleration, there are quite good APIs for programming it... hell, my laptop runs videos better than my friend's, which is identical but runs XP. Considering that most vendors only support Windows, that's an impressive feat.
Which makes me think... when some card or hardware feature or software does not work in X, why does everybody assume it's X fault? Why is that nobody blames the manufacturer for not releasing decent XFree86 drivers/ports?
I can't believe somebody modded you up for that. This doesn't even begin to approach the level of security that the likes of Trusted Solaris and high end IBM software is at.
Well, I think it's better to see someone starting to walk that path, rather that just sitting there complaining that Linux doesn't even begin to approach the level of security of some other OS.
It's just a collection of security fixes and patches. It's not even introduction of an ACL system like TrustedBSD [trustedbsd.org] has. It's just a half-assed attempt at a security audit to remove the existing bugs.
From what I saw, after a cursory look at their page, they are using the RSBAC patch, which allows for quite a lot of security models (it is even extensible, like PAM on steroids, it seems). ACLs are just one of the supported models. The capabilities and resource models look quite useful, and I am very interested in learning more about their "functional control", "privacy" and "role compatibility" models. Also note the "malware scan" model, which scans for viruses and the likes on execution. Also, they state that models can be combined, and, furthermore, it seems that this can be applied to network accesses, not just files, which sounds like something I really, really want.
(Read the list of models with brief descriptions at their overview page.)
Note that I'm not familiar with this software (yet), so I can't say if it really is as good as it seems. But it looks very interesting --and a far cry from a "half-assed attempt at a security audit". I intend to try it as soon as I can.
I'm sure [Debian is] technically quite excellent, but all I need is to get my code written and my research done. From my perspective, as long as I can burn a RedHat CD and install it on as many computers as I want, it's no less "free" than Debian, regardless of whether or not it includes Netscape 4.
Which is perfectly fine, I'm sure, with most Debian developers and users. Use RedHat, by all means. It is good enough for personal use, maybe even as a server if you don't have to run tens of boxes (and maybe even for that, nowadays, I've heard good things about their network upgrade system, "RedHat Network" or what it's called).
As for myself, I use Debian mostly because I like its quality and stability, its reliable maintenance infrastructure (having to maintain a lot of servers makes oneself very partial to that apt-get, dpkg-reconfigure thing), and the overall sense of order that I draw from their packaging process.
Having said that, I would be more careful than you before dismissing the ethical underpinnings of the Debian organisation, or even stating them as a reason for not using Debian. That is the point in your reasoning that I'm having most trouble dealing with, akin to not taking free Unicef mugs and postcards because of all that human-rights agenda and stuff behind them.
Once upon a time, I was a rabid Amiga enthusiast. I learned a lot of things on that cute little box. Particularly, I learned to work the Video Toaster and the included Lightwave 3D. I learned it so well that I started making a living off it, doing video processing for a small publicity agency and an industrial design department at my U. Then the Amiga died, and having all that skills (well, most of them) suddenly became as useful as being the world's greatest kazoo player: who gives a shit? I had to learn something new to stay in business, because the company that made the tools I used stopped making them (or, at least, I became unable to buy them, which amounts to basically the same thing).
The same thing happened a couple more times with other commercial products (say Borland's C++ builder, Cisco's Netsys software, maybe Sun's Java in the not-too-distant future). So now I'm predictably more cautious when choosing what tools to spend time learning and using, for both work and play. Open source stuff doesn't die --not unless it really needs to die because it is replaceable with something undisputably better, and also free. And even so, nothing really dies until there remains absolutely no one still using it (I also can pull from memory several first-person examples, such as Dumpleton's OSE library, the GNU Pascal Compiler... hell, the wonderful Nethack).
Back to Debian: I appreciate greatly that the dudes putting toghether this wonderful distro are so picky regarding the license of the software (or, in this case, documentation). It saves me the work of doing that myself. I know that, for everything I apt-get install, I can spend my time learning every detail without worriying about that knowledge becoming useless and obsolete anytime soon.
So, wrapping it up: I'm also the kind of guy who looks for the tool that works. And I also place highest on my priorities to "get things done", rather than some abstract philosophical issues. But I deeply thank Debian for being so strict, even pedant, about legal issues. There is no other computer system that makes me feel as comfortable about spending any amount of time with, than a Debian system.
The paper deals with web servers handling ten thousand simultaneous TCP connections. But most of it is not particularly related to HTTP or web problems, but with more general socket I/O stuff --particulary with the ways of dealing with readiness/error notifications (e.g. select(), poll(), asynchronous signals, etc.). It also discusses other kind of limits (threads, processes, descriptors).
It is quite enlightening. It may be a bit outdated --I remember reading it about the time Netcraft was doing all that noise about Windows being faster than Linux as a web server-- but I'm sure most of it is very relevant.
This will never become law. The prior "administration", whose party (the PRI) ruled the country for 80+ years is simply doing what they do best - make empty populist gestures and try to push crap through congress to see what happens.
This is most definitely true.
And the current administration is unabashedly pro-business (and unfortunately pro-church as well)
As is this, too.
and since the system is similar to the US, I doubt the prez will sign it. He'll just veto it because along with his party (the PAN) he's in bed with everyone from EMI to Coca-Cola.
But this, I'm not so sure. Fox is indeed in bed with most big companies, more so if he sees them as "foreign investors". However, I think the likes of EMI, Sony Music, etc., would very much like this ridiculous bill becoming law. I mean, that's the fashionable thing these days in the US of A, isn't it? I mean, extending copyrights to insane time limits.
I'm afraid of the PAN going for the "if the US does it, we should do it too" stance. A lot of them think that way. I was actually very surprised (in the best of ways) when Fox didn't agree to support Bush in his stupid war. That really wasn't like him at all.
And the leftist party, the PRD, is somewhat diminished lately. So, with the PRI and the PAN having majority in congress, this could have a good chance at becoming law:-/
And the company doing this? I know them - my brother used to work here. They're used by the various families who own newspapers in Mexico to hassle each other with stupid copyright claims all the time. Of course "OLIVARES & CIA." obliges gleefully since they take a cut. Ambulance chasers of the 21st century.
Very interesting. That's useful information. Thanks for sharing it.
Yes, the earth is a finite resouce as long as your neighbor kid's mom continues to take short trips to the supermarket in her Lincoln Expedition or Navigator or other guzzler....
I do not agree. If my neighbor kid's mom stopped being that wasteful, our resources would last more, indeed, and that would be a good thing because we haven't figured out yet what are we going to do when we run out of resources. But of that particular resource (oil) we'll eventually run out, regardless of we being wasteful or not.
See, there's a lake near my town that's drying up alarmingly. This whole region is very dry, and we have the second largest city in the country pretty much living out of that lake. You bet there are campaigns urging people to stop using as much water as possible. Actually, it would be hard to come here and not experience the very strong "cuida el agua" vibe.
And that is just fine, I think, but not as a solution. Just as a way of buying more time to find a real solution. I mean, no tightening of water consumption, short of cutting the population in half and forcefully keeping it that way, will do any good besides making that resource last a couple of years longer.
If it were in my hands, I'd cut more than half the money and man-hours being used to advocate using less water, and would use that to fund projects that really target solving the problem. Rain collectors, pipelines from rivers far away, maybe even from the sea, I don't know. And also getting birth control in the heads of the damn people.
My point being: not wasting resources is good, but in a lot of cases, it is only a temporal solution. Thinking that that alone will keep us from exhausting the resources we have, and not taking steps to deal with that situation if/when it comes, is IMO, foolish.
and what about man pages for -many- GNU utilities that just say 'this man page is incomplete, out of date and/or wrong, see the info files for the documentation'. Even when I was running debian I still had to resort to info files for several GNU applications IIRC.
Those are very rare nowadays. AFAIK, if upstream does not include a man page, the Debian maintainer is required to write one, if it is possible at all, explaining at least the basic usage of the program.
From my experience, most programs with the dreaded "undocumented(7)" man page are, well, undocumentable. Like a lot of utilities, libraries and daemons from both Gnome and KDE, which instead of man and info, seem to prefer user-friendly (read watered-down) Windows-esque HTML manuals, browsable via their Help interfaces.
Oh, and despite all the great things that I can say about GNU software, I too find the info thing very annoying.
Ack, slashdot mangled my comment. That was supposed to read OS -LESS THAN- 10 ie MacOS Classic.
Ah. Yes, it does makes more sense. Should have guessed it:-)
Nevertheless, I stand by my point. I seem to recall that there was a MacOS web server (a "star" something?) that got a lot of praise for being fast and very secure. Wasn't there even some sort of cash prize for any hacker that could break it? Those were compelling arguments for using it. But not having a real Unix environment (say for CGI and stuff) surely kept more than one admin away from it.
(And yes, maybe the fact that it didn't do CGI was precisely the reason why it was fast and secure... Anyway, it's hard to get more off-topic than this, so I'm shutting up now.)
Very interesting. That is the first Spanish-speaking country that I know uses the word in this fashion. Are you metric?
According to this dictionary [reference.com], it's mainly the Brits who are different.
I see. But that dictionary concerns only with the USA and the British. The RAE, for instance, defines "billón" unambiguely as a million millions (with an exception for Norteamérica).
Oh yea, cuz ls, grep, and vi would be SOOOO useful on an OS 10 machine.
Well, actually the fact that I'd be able to do ls, grep and all, is the single thing that keeps me from dismissing OS X as a colourful toy.
Sure, I'm not an "average" computer user. I don't care much about what an average computer user wants. This is not because I'm an elitist (which maybe I am, somewhat), but because there is already plenty of people and companies taking care of average user's needs. I do care about the servers and infrastructure that my average users need to do their work. And if Apple would have jumped a bit earlier on the Unix wagon, maybe I'd have a couple of Apple servers around. Which in turn may have converted some of my users. I know my Linux use has converted a number of friends and coworkers: I now deal with slightly more Linux than Windows desktops (yeah, we're a tech company, not a "regular" organisation).
Oh well. What if. But the point is: that GNU boicot did close doors for Apple. And when you're the underdog, the last thing you want is getting doors closed for you, even if you were not planning to use them.
In GB, one billion is a million millions. God only knows what a trillion is.
I'm guessing a billion billions.
And then they complain about the US not using the metric standard!
Well, most countries I've been to use the metric system, and also say "a thousand millions" for 1E+9 and "a billion" for 1E+12. Actually, is there a country, besides the USA, where "a billion" is a thousand millions?
This type of blacklisting could hurt the same people existing blacklists do, but in a far more damaging way. And I don't think our methods for determining who gets blacklisted are based on some judicious process. This would give Spammers a means to fight back against this otherwise very cool system.
But this is not blacklisting. This is dynamic teergrubing. If your MTA sends mine a couple of messages, one ham and one spam, the first will get through in half a second, whereas the other will take minutes (maybe hours, depending on its running bogosity). And I'm not going to remember your IP. If tomorrow you send me only ham, the service will be as fast as it can be. If you send me only spam, then you're in for a nice queue on your disks.
And nevertheless, it really doesn't hurt as much as being RBL'ed. Your mail does come through in the end. If you're in the RBL, you're, well, blackholed.
I think I see things a bit differently. In my case, incoming mail is already classified. It's tagged with an X-Spam-Status/X-Bogosity header, and let through. My users can setup filters in their clients or Sieve rules in the server using that mark (not all of them do, just the ones that care about this stuff --but that's about 50% of them).
Now that's about as far as I can go, wrt SPAM filtering. I can't block SPAM, because no filter is perfect. I know I'll get a couple of false positives every month, and I just can't afford to block anybody if I think there's the slightest possibility that the filter could drop a message that one of my users really needed to see. They can trust the filter and setup a delete rule (as a matter of fact, a couple of them do precisely that, despite my warnings), but that's their choice, so it's ok. I won't block anyone's messages, and I won't risk losing a single message that's not for my own inbox.
Anyway, this thing allows me to make a slight modification in my setup so that all that filtering work also hits the spammers. Just a little. That's not going to make any practical difference to me or my users, not immediately at least. But I believe it will be good for the Internet, in the long run, so I think I'm going to implement it (just not with a filter in Java!).
Exactly! Sendmail, for example, allows a configuration to get around this all together. If the connection takes too long, say 5 seconds or so, then drop back and punt to your fallback server to deliver at a more leisurely pace. Meanwhile deliver another thousand messages to all of the other sites that don't use this tech.
Fine. None of those sites is mine. And if you have that thousand extra addresses in your spamlist, you were going to deliver that thousand messages anyway. It's not like what I do is making you hit the net any harder. And actually, if you do set up that drop back rule, then I won't get any more mail from you. Great, please go ahead!
Don't forget that even without optimization any mailer is capable of handling hundreds of simultaneous connections. All this does is tie up resources on your own machine while the spammer delivers to someone else. You will eventually get a delivery if you accept the connection. If you get a lot of spam, all you do is DoS youself while you NAK all of those packets.
Not exactly. It does tie up resources in my server, and also in the spammer's machine. Both he and myself have plenty of resources for this --maybe he has more than me. But I'm just dealing with him. He's dealing with my server, and a thousand more. If there's just ten more servers in that thousand playing him the same trick, then I have to take one tenth of the overhead that he'll have to take. I can do that. In fact, I want to do that.
Also, don't forget that sending NAKs (ICMP chokes, in this case) is very cheap. I don't think I could ever hit my bandwidth noticeably by sending them. As for RSTs (in case he wants to open 8192 connections to my box, only to find out that I only allow four open connections per client)... Well, that scenario looks like a DoS attack, which is clearly illegal (whereas spamming is not), so they are risking themselves way more. And it is already very hard to take a host down with half-open SYN -- with plain SYN, I'd say it's impossible unless you have more bandwidth than me, and every other admin using this tactic, put together.
As for tying up spammer resources, how many ISP's are planning to use this? Without ISP buyin, spammers will continue to vomit out garbage toward the low-hanging fruit.
Very, very few, initially. ISPs, particularly the bigger ones, are mostly reactionary. They won't move a finger, until some important customer (or enough regular ones) comes complaining why are they receiving ten times more SPAM than her friend, that uses a competing ISP. Because that's what is going to happen if tarpits become popular: spammers will implement very short timeouts in their bulk mailers, so that tarpits don't waste their precious time -- leaving them blissfully alone. Then maybe some ISPs will get off their asses and find out what their competitors are doing that they are not. And just maybe, they'll fix it.
I think that a better solution would be to RST the connection as a result of the stats and blacklist the IP for a few hours. When they retry they get a 550 or something akin, and you don't get DoSed. That is, if you're going down that road at all.
I don't think so. That breaks rule #1: you can't lose a single message. You can't block SPAM. But you can make it just a bit more expensive to send; and if enough people does the same, then bulk mailing can become a very expensive proposition.
Right, like how Africans are big-lipped, easily-cowed savages. Asterix and Obelix is racist trash - there's a reason you don't see it much in the US outside foreign language courses (and even there one only sees the most sanitized version).
Geez. Which goes to say that tou Americans have lost absolutely all sense of humour.
See, I'm Mexican. You could say I'd be sick by now of the sleepy-fat-short-brown-big-moustached-lazy-bum- leaning-on-a-cactus-under-a-big-charro-hat Mexican stereotype...
But Lucky Luke's Mexicans (by René Goscinny, writer of Asterix & Obelix), which are precisely that, are fucking hilarious.
Slashdot Mirror
As many people will probably point here, you should check out Evolution's "virtual folders".
JWZ once proposed a more sophisticated approach to store mail without the hierarchical folder structure limits. You can read about it here: Intertwingle
I don't what came out of that. I think it is a good idea still waiting to be implemented.
Hm, I wonder where those American jobs are then, haven't seen many around lately. The only effect of NAFTA that I've seen is that now it is very hard for locals to create successful business establishments. Now they have to compete against all those Seven Elevens, Grease Monkeys, Burger Kings, Wal Marts, you name it. And beat them. And do it with a family budget.
I read the article with great interest. You see, if you think you will have problems with uneven distribuition of wealth, you probably should take a look at us third-worlders (and yes, fellow Mexicans reading Slashdot, we very much are third-worlders, no matter what that fuck Fox tells the press). Compared to you Americans, we are authorities in uneven distribution of wealth. You are amateurs, we are the experts on that.
(Now don't get me wrong, I do love my country. I am very proud of being Mexican, I have the highest regard for my people, and I do want to live all my life here among them, and then die right here. I'm just pissed off at some stupid politicians and other evil kinds of people, that's all. Same goes for Colombia, second greatest place in the world :-))
Anyway, I regret to report that I don't think much of the essay. It started quite well, but all that giving money thing is just too naive. Inflation will be the first and smallest of your problems. The really big one is, as someone said here before, that you'll be rewarding people for being slackers. So you arrange for people to live comfortably without having to put some effort in it. Your most educated people will probably go ahead and do creative and useful stuff. But the rest? Want to bet on what the white trash would do? I put 20 pesos on MTV and E! entertainment, for what is worth.
And that will destroy you. That and the arrogance and greed of those few that end at the top of the foodchain---go read Thucydides on The Peloponnesian War to see how fast you identify yourselves in that tale, and how precisely that attitude fared for the great Athenian empire.
Now I regret even more that I just wrote all that without having something constructive to propose here. I honestly wish someone would figure out this wealth distribution thing because, robots or no robots, it already causes no end of grief in most parts of the world. And I can't see a solution, short of a radical culture shift. Like, say, I think a great society would be one where you have to work to get around, but one in which your status depends on how much you give away. Like open source, indeed. Say you put a restaurant and give away the food, and everyone does so, and then the one that makes the best food gets the best gifts from everyone...
Oh shit, and I was complaining about naivety. Never mind. I just think that that Hobbit tradition, the one about giving presents on your birthday, would be rather welcome in this "do whatever it takes to make more of a profit" kind of world.
It seems they couldn't wait for tomorrow: they have issued a statement already. Interesting quote:
Move away from the GPL? That's a new one for SCO, isn't it? Perhaps this is what they're going to push now, to fuel outrage from us Linux people.
Their stock is up a bit now. But I'm not too impressed by the reply. Given SCO's, ahem, vigor, when it comes to public statements, I was expecting them to sue the catholic church, as someone here suggested. Anything short of that is kind of boring.
Just nitpicking here. Shouldn't Linus be counted under Finland?
In his place, I'd put professor Eben Moglen, from Columbia Law School. A really together guy.
Quite insightful. I have a question now. Couldn't the kernel developers use this to force SCO to reveal once and for all exactly what code is in Linux that infringes on their "intellectual property"? (whatever that means)
What I mean is, what if some fifty, or say a hundred kernel developers individually sue SCO for copyright infringement? The argument is that, since SCO claims to have the rights to impose a license on Linux, then the GPL becomes void, and they cannot distribute Linux at all. But they are doing it, distributing Linux, even as I write! Thus, by their own claims, they are infringing on the copyrights of quite a lot of coders.
Just think of the DoS to SCO's legal team! And the headlines: SCO bitchslapped by dozens of lawsuits by Linux developers! And of asshole McBride being called as a witness for the prosecution to show how the GPL is void and they are infringing copyright!
But the important part is, it seems to me that then SCO would have to either (a) claim themselves guilty of copyright infringement, be fined and forced to compensate the copyright holders (paying through the nose, I only hope), making themselves the laughingstock of the whole industry; or (b) admit they did not have any rights over Linux to begin with, ending this madness once and for all.
Of course, I'm no lawyer, not even a citizen of the U.S. of A., so I may be just wanking here. Also, if things were to go through my (otherwise happy) option (b), that could be not too good for the kernel developers (I'm thinking about they losing their suits and having to pay attorney fees and so). But maybe the EFF could give some support here. At least I would gladly donate for this cause.
Anyway. What do you think, sirs?
Ah, but it doesn't!
See, in the license, there is text in sections 1, 2, and 3, stating that you may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the software source code, modify it, and copy and distribute it in executable form; and it lays the terms and conditions under which you can do such things. Then in sections 4 and 5, it states that you may not do those things except as expressly provided by the license, and that you are not required to accept the license, but reminds you that nothing else gives you any rights over the software: if you don't like the terms, then more power to you, just don't use the thing (I think that sounds only fair, given that you didn't pay for it). The rest of the sections deal with exceptions, namely patents, laws, warranty, etc.
I don't see anywhere that it "mandates redistribution". Furthermore, section zero states clearly that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." So, most people (e.g., users, not developers or distributors) are even less restricted. I mean, if I just want to use the software, that particular activity is not controlled in any way by the license.
I'm sorry, I just can't see how it can be construed that the GPL mandates redistribution.
I don't think so. Again, I can't see any text in the license stating that the copyright holder waives all protection. On the contrary, the GPL relies on copyright protection, and I'm sure that forfeiting the copyright is the last thing in the mind of an author that chooses the GPL (otherwise, she would probably gone with something BSD'ish, or even plain and clean public domain).
I'm not well versed in American law, since I'm not American neither, but I was under the impression that the only thing you can lose by not protecting it zealously is a trademark. It would probably take a big contract, with very explicit language and a couple of signatures by the author, to waive copyright protection.
Come on, lighten up, he just made an observation. I agree with him, for my part: that concern about profit sounds very American. And even though I don't like it, it is not necessarily bad: I'd say that's what makes Americans so good at making money. They are very good at that, and it has worked nicely for them. So maybe they won't take it as an insult.
Well, I use FVWM. It is my WM of choice, and I like it a lot. It is small, it is (very) fast, it is scriptable, it does not look nor act like a Windows knock-off (though you can probably make it, both, of course). And I use it on fast machines, mind you, it's not that I couln't use KDE. It's just that I like plain X + FVWM better.
And it does have some cute features. I have impressed a couple of friends with FVWM's "stroke" thing, starting apps and controlling audio volume and stuff, by drawing shapes on the screen with the mouse---though I must say that I don't really have much use for that, save for showing off.
I wonder why is that so many of you regard mass adoption as something so desirable that justifies turning a first-class Unix system (oops, hope no SCO spies are reading this) into a bad Windows clone. Or even a good one. I just can't see the point: if a user needs something Windows-like, well, there is Windows already.
If I were to say what to do, I'd have people stop wasting time cloning Windows, and use it to make Linux a better Unix. And as for GUIs, I'd like to see a good GUI in the Unix style. Like, say, apps with hybrid command line/graphic interfaces. Graphic pipelines, perhaps? Or if you have to copy it, something in the NextStep/OSX style (last time I checked, GNUStep was nowhere near usable). I don't know.
But then again, neither me nor you nor anyone can make Linux developers do this or that; everybody is free to choose what to do with our Linux-hacking time. Fortunately.
Actually, caldera placed under a "BSD-style" license some 16 bit UNIX versions (for the PDP-11 CPU), as well as 32V; but system III, system V, and successors, were explicitly excluded.
You can see the announcement here (email from Jan 2002). From there you can get the license letter in PDF, Caldera logo and all.
But anyway, this is probably irrelevant. I already read some people here quoting SCO on that their beef is with "Linux 2.4 and later". Pray tell, what code from ancient UNIX could have been added to the kernel during the 2.3 cycle? It just does not make sense.
I use "GNU/Linux" when I'm writing something "formal", like technical documentation, or a proposal or contract, a security report for a customer, things like that. It is a bit impractical, but I find it appropriate and descriptive.
In most other cases I use plain "Linux". And I don't remember ever saying out loud G-N-U Linux, only writing it.
Now, "GNU/Linux" is already ugly enough -- "KDE/GNU/Linux", to me, is taking it just a bit too far (though I don't know why is that I don't find "Debian GNU/Linux" as hard to swallow... perhaps I'm just used to it). If I'm going to refer to the whole operating system, including the GUI (as every non-technical user sees it), I just use "RedHat" or "Debian", or "Knoppix". Or maybe just "KDE" or "Gnome". It's not as if a non-technical user will care about who wrote his kernel and UNIX tools.
I am not going to say that you are wrong, because I know a lot of people who thinks like you. Actually, I know more people with your opinions than with mine, so your points are probably valid, even though I can't get me to accept even a single one of them.
Just to waste some time, and to offer a different perspective, here's what I think of them:
Right. And I like them that way.
The thing is, I love the command line. I do most of my work with it. Sometimes even for quite visual tasks, such as some video processing tricks. As of now, I still don't know of any GUI user that can work as fast as me using an X terminal (not saying that there are none, just that I've never seen one). Furthermore, having dealt with several flavors of CLI in the past (the CTOS executive, the infamous DOS, a couple of mainframeish screen-oriented beasts), I've come to the conclusion that the UNIX style is the best by far. Granted, it may not be the easiest, but it isn't the hardest either, and is compact, practical, and amazingly flexible.
And the last thing I need is having to type a long, "non-cryptic" name, or (dear Lord) taking my hands off the keyboard to muck around with some pictures on the screen, when all I want is to copy a couple of files.
Well, I can think of some good points about this oral tradition thing. It allows the story to evolve smoothly. Good stuff stays, it is enhanced and embellished. Ugly stuff gets replaced and forgotten. I can't see what's wrong with that.
(Btw, even though the command line does require you to read some manuals, your example... well, grep -r is hardly difficult at all, I think. Replacing the text would be a better example, requiring you to understand find -exec and sed or the likes. Though I don't know how hard it is to do it in Windows or the Macintosh, for comparation.)
Yes, I've seen that in the past. I haven't had terminal problems in a long, long time, though, using Linux default configurations. So I can't really share that urge of "killing" something that works correctly. I've also seen a lot of NetBIOS/SMB madness in Windows, but that does not mean that it had to be killed. Even though it is a hideous networking scheme, it is useful. Just configure it properly.
That's something I've heard quite often. And still can't see why so many people is so upset with X. For me, X is just fine. It used to be hard to configure, what with all those modelines and stuff. And Motif sucked hard, indeed (though not as hard as Win 3.11). But nowadays configuration is automatic, it has acceleration, there are quite good APIs for programming it... hell, my laptop runs videos better than my friend's, which is identical but runs XP. Considering that most vendors only support Windows, that's an impressive feat.
Which makes me think... when some card or hardware feature or software does not work in X, why does everybody assume it's X fault? Why is that nobody blames the manufacturer for not releasing decent XFree86 drivers/ports?
Anyway. X
Well, I think it's better to see someone starting to walk that path, rather that just sitting there complaining that Linux doesn't even begin to approach the level of security of some other OS.
From what I saw, after a cursory look at their page, they are using the RSBAC patch, which allows for quite a lot of security models (it is even extensible, like PAM on steroids, it seems). ACLs are just one of the supported models. The capabilities and resource models look quite useful, and I am very interested in learning more about their "functional control", "privacy" and "role compatibility" models. Also note the "malware scan" model, which scans for viruses and the likes on execution. Also, they state that models can be combined, and, furthermore, it seems that this can be applied to network accesses, not just files, which sounds like something I really, really want.
(Read the list of models with brief descriptions at their overview page.)
Note that I'm not familiar with this software (yet), so I can't say if it really is as good as it seems. But it looks very interesting --and a far cry from a "half-assed attempt at a security audit". I intend to try it as soon as I can.
Which is perfectly fine, I'm sure, with most Debian developers and users. Use RedHat, by all means. It is good enough for personal use, maybe even as a server if you don't have to run tens of boxes (and maybe even for that, nowadays, I've heard good things about their network upgrade system, "RedHat Network" or what it's called).
As for myself, I use Debian mostly because I like its quality and stability, its reliable maintenance infrastructure (having to maintain a lot of servers makes oneself very partial to that apt-get, dpkg-reconfigure thing), and the overall sense of order that I draw from their packaging process.
Having said that, I would be more careful than you before dismissing the ethical underpinnings of the Debian organisation, or even stating them as a reason for not using Debian. That is the point in your reasoning that I'm having most trouble dealing with, akin to not taking free Unicef mugs and postcards because of all that human-rights agenda and stuff behind them.
Once upon a time, I was a rabid Amiga enthusiast. I learned a lot of things on that cute little box. Particularly, I learned to work the Video Toaster and the included Lightwave 3D. I learned it so well that I started making a living off it, doing video processing for a small publicity agency and an industrial design department at my U. Then the Amiga died, and having all that skills (well, most of them) suddenly became as useful as being the world's greatest kazoo player: who gives a shit? I had to learn something new to stay in business, because the company that made the tools I used stopped making them (or, at least, I became unable to buy them, which amounts to basically the same thing).
The same thing happened a couple more times with other commercial products (say Borland's C++ builder, Cisco's Netsys software, maybe Sun's Java in the not-too-distant future). So now I'm predictably more cautious when choosing what tools to spend time learning and using, for both work and play. Open source stuff doesn't die --not unless it really needs to die because it is replaceable with something undisputably better, and also free. And even so, nothing really dies until there remains absolutely no one still using it (I also can pull from memory several first-person examples, such as Dumpleton's OSE library, the GNU Pascal Compiler... hell, the wonderful Nethack).
Back to Debian: I appreciate greatly that the dudes putting toghether this wonderful distro are so picky regarding the license of the software (or, in this case, documentation). It saves me the work of doing that myself. I know that, for everything I apt-get install, I can spend my time learning every detail without worriying about that knowledge becoming useless and obsolete anytime soon.
So, wrapping it up: I'm also the kind of guy who looks for the tool that works. And I also place highest on my priorities to "get things done", rather than some abstract philosophical issues. But I deeply thank Debian for being so strict, even pedant, about legal issues. There is no other computer system that makes me feel as comfortable about spending any amount of time with, than a Debian system.
You probably know about this paper already, but just in case you don't:
The paper deals with web servers handling ten thousand simultaneous TCP connections. But most of it is not particularly related to HTTP or web problems, but with more general socket I/O stuff --particulary with the ways of dealing with readiness/error notifications (e.g. select(), poll(), asynchronous signals, etc.). It also discusses other kind of limits (threads, processes, descriptors).
It is quite enlightening. It may be a bit outdated --I remember reading it about the time Netcraft was doing all that noise about Windows being faster than Linux as a web server-- but I'm sure most of it is very relevant.
This is most definitely true.
As is this, too.
But this, I'm not so sure. Fox is indeed in bed with most big companies, more so if he sees them as "foreign investors". However, I think the likes of EMI, Sony Music, etc., would very much like this ridiculous bill becoming law. I mean, that's the fashionable thing these days in the US of A, isn't it? I mean, extending copyrights to insane time limits.
I'm afraid of the PAN going for the "if the US does it, we should do it too" stance. A lot of them think that way. I was actually very surprised (in the best of ways) when Fox didn't agree to support Bush in his stupid war. That really wasn't like him at all.
And the leftist party, the PRD, is somewhat diminished lately. So, with the PRI and the PAN having majority in congress, this could have a good chance at becoming law :-/
Very interesting. That's useful information. Thanks for sharing it.
I do not agree. If my neighbor kid's mom stopped being that wasteful, our resources would last more, indeed, and that would be a good thing because we haven't figured out yet what are we going to do when we run out of resources. But of that particular resource (oil) we'll eventually run out, regardless of we being wasteful or not.
See, there's a lake near my town that's drying up alarmingly. This whole region is very dry, and we have the second largest city in the country pretty much living out of that lake. You bet there are campaigns urging people to stop using as much water as possible. Actually, it would be hard to come here and not experience the very strong "cuida el agua" vibe.
And that is just fine, I think, but not as a solution. Just as a way of buying more time to find a real solution. I mean, no tightening of water consumption, short of cutting the population in half and forcefully keeping it that way, will do any good besides making that resource last a couple of years longer.
If it were in my hands, I'd cut more than half the money and man-hours being used to advocate using less water, and would use that to fund projects that really target solving the problem. Rain collectors, pipelines from rivers far away, maybe even from the sea, I don't know. And also getting birth control in the heads of the damn people.
My point being: not wasting resources is good, but in a lot of cases, it is only a temporal solution. Thinking that that alone will keep us from exhausting the resources we have, and not taking steps to deal with that situation if/when it comes, is IMO, foolish.
Those are very rare nowadays. AFAIK, if upstream does not include a man page, the Debian maintainer is required to write one, if it is possible at all, explaining at least the basic usage of the program.
From my experience, most programs with the dreaded "undocumented(7)" man page are, well, undocumentable. Like a lot of utilities, libraries and daemons from both Gnome and KDE, which instead of man and info, seem to prefer user-friendly (read watered-down) Windows-esque HTML manuals, browsable via their Help interfaces.
Oh, and despite all the great things that I can say about GNU software, I too find the info thing very annoying.
Ah. Yes, it does makes more sense. Should have guessed it :-)
Nevertheless, I stand by my point. I seem to recall that there was a MacOS web server (a "star" something?) that got a lot of praise for being fast and very secure. Wasn't there even some sort of cash prize for any hacker that could break it? Those were compelling arguments for using it. But not having a real Unix environment (say for CGI and stuff) surely kept more than one admin away from it.
(And yes, maybe the fact that it didn't do CGI was precisely the reason why it was fast and secure... Anyway, it's hard to get more off-topic than this, so I'm shutting up now.)
Very interesting. That is the first Spanish-speaking country that I know uses the word in this fashion. Are you metric?
I see. But that dictionary concerns only with the USA and the British. The RAE, for instance, defines "billón" unambiguely as a million millions (with an exception for Norteamérica).
Well, actually the fact that I'd be able to do ls, grep and all, is the single thing that keeps me from dismissing OS X as a colourful toy.
Sure, I'm not an "average" computer user. I don't care much about what an average computer user wants. This is not because I'm an elitist (which maybe I am, somewhat), but because there is already plenty of people and companies taking care of average user's needs. I do care about the servers and infrastructure that my average users need to do their work. And if Apple would have jumped a bit earlier on the Unix wagon, maybe I'd have a couple of Apple servers around. Which in turn may have converted some of my users. I know my Linux use has converted a number of friends and coworkers: I now deal with slightly more Linux than Windows desktops (yeah, we're a tech company, not a "regular" organisation).
Oh well. What if. But the point is: that GNU boicot did close doors for Apple. And when you're the underdog, the last thing you want is getting doors closed for you, even if you were not planning to use them.
I'm guessing a billion billions.
Well, most countries I've been to use the metric system, and also say "a thousand millions" for 1E+9 and "a billion" for 1E+12. Actually, is there a country, besides the USA, where "a billion" is a thousand millions?
But this is not blacklisting. This is dynamic teergrubing. If your MTA sends mine a couple of messages, one ham and one spam, the first will get through in half a second, whereas the other will take minutes (maybe hours, depending on its running bogosity). And I'm not going to remember your IP. If tomorrow you send me only ham, the service will be as fast as it can be. If you send me only spam, then you're in for a nice queue on your disks.
And nevertheless, it really doesn't hurt as much as being RBL'ed. Your mail does come through in the end. If you're in the RBL, you're, well, blackholed.
I think I see things a bit differently. In my case, incoming mail is already classified. It's tagged with an X-Spam-Status/X-Bogosity header, and let through. My users can setup filters in their clients or Sieve rules in the server using that mark (not all of them do, just the ones that care about this stuff --but that's about 50% of them).
Now that's about as far as I can go, wrt SPAM filtering. I can't block SPAM, because no filter is perfect. I know I'll get a couple of false positives every month, and I just can't afford to block anybody if I think there's the slightest possibility that the filter could drop a message that one of my users really needed to see. They can trust the filter and setup a delete rule (as a matter of fact, a couple of them do precisely that, despite my warnings), but that's their choice, so it's ok. I won't block anyone's messages, and I won't risk losing a single message that's not for my own inbox.
Anyway, this thing allows me to make a slight modification in my setup so that all that filtering work also hits the spammers. Just a little. That's not going to make any practical difference to me or my users, not immediately at least. But I believe it will be good for the Internet, in the long run, so I think I'm going to implement it (just not with a filter in Java!).
Fine. None of those sites is mine. And if you have that thousand extra addresses in your spamlist, you were going to deliver that thousand messages anyway. It's not like what I do is making you hit the net any harder. And actually, if you do set up that drop back rule, then I won't get any more mail from you. Great, please go ahead!
Not exactly. It does tie up resources in my server, and also in the spammer's machine. Both he and myself have plenty of resources for this --maybe he has more than me. But I'm just dealing with him. He's dealing with my server, and a thousand more. If there's just ten more servers in that thousand playing him the same trick, then I have to take one tenth of the overhead that he'll have to take. I can do that. In fact, I want to do that.
Also, don't forget that sending NAKs (ICMP chokes, in this case) is very cheap. I don't think I could ever hit my bandwidth noticeably by sending them. As for RSTs (in case he wants to open 8192 connections to my box, only to find out that I only allow four open connections per client)... Well, that scenario looks like a DoS attack, which is clearly illegal (whereas spamming is not), so they are risking themselves way more. And it is already very hard to take a host down with half-open SYN -- with plain SYN, I'd say it's impossible unless you have more bandwidth than me, and every other admin using this tactic, put together.
Very, very few, initially. ISPs, particularly the bigger ones, are mostly reactionary. They won't move a finger, until some important customer (or enough regular ones) comes complaining why are they receiving ten times more SPAM than her friend, that uses a competing ISP. Because that's what is going to happen if tarpits become popular: spammers will implement very short timeouts in their bulk mailers, so that tarpits don't waste their precious time -- leaving them blissfully alone. Then maybe some ISPs will get off their asses and find out what their competitors are doing that they are not. And just maybe, they'll fix it.
I don't think so. That breaks rule #1: you can't lose a single message. You can't block SPAM. But you can make it just a bit more expensive to send; and if enough people does the same, then bulk mailing can become a very expensive proposition.
Look, if you're going to use it for your petty Emacs vs Vi, Linux vs BSD nonsense, you can forget about druidic brew for a long time.
On the other hand, if you're going to use it for taking over the MPAA, or Microsoft... Just let me gather some mistletoe...
Geez. Which goes to say that tou Americans have lost absolutely all sense of humour.
See, I'm Mexican. You could say I'd be sick by now of the sleepy-fat-short-brown-big-moustached-lazy-bum- leaning-on-a-cactus-under-a-big-charro-hat Mexican stereotype...
But Lucky Luke's Mexicans (by René Goscinny, writer of Asterix & Obelix), which are precisely that, are fucking hilarious.
Indeed. But everyone knows that these Gauls are crazy, by Toutatis!
Beati pauperes spiritu, I'd say.