Why dont you try to get Linksys to release the specs for your hardware so that a linux developer has a chance to make it work?
People that gripe about linux not supporting hardware dont seem to realize that if it was up to the linux devs, every piece of hardware in existance *would* be supported. But its not. The HW vendors like to keep their 'trade secrets', and like to give the specs to MS only (under NDA which MS happily agrees to, but developers of OSS would cant because otherwise they cant release the code).
That doesnt change the hypothesis. You are suggesting that if the tech installed software with security holes he might be liable. If thats the case, installing Windows itself is far more dangerous than any non-MS software.
And they are going to complain about a *FREE* loaner that doesnt happen to have the exact same system as their machine on it? OFW. I think they will either take it or leave it. And perhaps the same 30% (or more) will decide they like the OS on the loaner, and may ask if/how they can get the same on their own machine.
In these days of "CD's" that arent really CD's (eg embedded DRM, whatnot), vinyl certainly has the aspect that there is really no feasible way to DRM it. And, assuming it is the best possible analog recording one can get, if one has decent analog inputs on a soundcard, one can make a pretty decent MP3 of it to import to iPod - which of course you'd want to do on the very *first* play of the record (and then carefully return it to its sleeve, and store it in a safe location)
No, MS just has to ensure that the vast majority of the populace remains ignorant enough that the OEM's realize that it would kill them if they *didnt* include Windows, enough so that they are willing to agree to mandatory Windows-on-every-box-wether-you-want-it-or-not licensing. When was the last time you actually made a conscious decision to purchase a retail copy of Windows? I bet never. Either the (discounted by said licensing terms) price was padded on to the price of the machine you bought, or you made a copy of someone else's.
As far as hardward being 'supported' by linux - it could do so easily, if the hardware vendors made the same tech data available to its developers that they do to Microsoft. Of course, this would mean making it available to the general public, and that would mean giving away their valuable 'trade secrets' so many dont want to do that.
For the record, the error that comes up if you try to access a nonexistent host/domain isnt a '404', as it doesnt come from a webserver, it comes internally from your browser. A 404 would only come up if you got a valid host, but the rest of the URL was nonexistent.
The former is unaffected by the mentioned modifications to the DNS that earthlink is doing - you still get/.'s 404 page. For the latter, your *browser* would normally tell you that the domain doesnt exist. With what earthlink (and previously, Verisign) set up, is that the DNS pretends the domain *does* exist, and returns an IP under the control of earthlink (Verisign) which serves up whatever it wants (eg, advertising), and there is no way for your browser to easily tell that the site doesnt really exist. The only real solution is to not use their DNS/resolvers, which fortunately, for anyone with a clue, isnt that hard. I havent used my ISP's DNS services (at least not since I was no longer the engineer in charge of them, anyway)
My suggestion was that you not utilize any email service from Comcast - it is trivial to obtain email service elsewhere, including storage of that email that you can retrive directly via POP/IMAP/webmail without having to utilize anything related to email that Comcast has any control over.
And in fact, very little of what you pay Comcast (or any broadband provider) is related to their email service. The primary cost is the broadband access. The only reason they provide email at all is to help tie customers to them to discourage them from switching if they find a better deal for access. Heck with SBC you get 'Yahoo email', which is free anyway.
The entire debate on this matter would be completely and utterly irrelevant (and no one would care, on either side) but for the fact that there is still little to no true open competition for wired broadband Internet access. Most people, IF they are lucky, can choose between either the cable company that holds a geographic monopoly for cable over their service area, or DSL from whoever bought out the 'Baby Bell' that holds a geographic monopoly over the copper loop infrastructure in their location, which forces them to also obtain basic telephone service from them (occasionally one can choose to get DSL from a blessed 'partner', but the phone service is still required and still has to be from the monopoly, not a CLEC)
And that is only for the *lucky*. The unlucky sometimes only have one of the above options available (usually cable, for folks who are too far away from the telco switch for DSL), or just as often neither (both too far for DSL, and no cable service in their area)
Wireless is an interesting option, but usually requires either a hefty up-front investment, and/or a minimum term commitment. Weather, trees, and distance all affect reliability and usability as well.
If and where there were truly open competition for broadband access, customers wouldnt need to care wether the telcos and cablecos wanted to sell a 'limited' pipe, becuase they could always choose a different provider. And the telcos could choose to do that and have less customers, or not to so and have more.
I think its time for some changes. Either regular broadband, require it to be universally available and content/protocol and source/destination neutral, or take control of the wired infrastructure whose buildup was subsidized by citizens under government-sanctioned monopoly back from the now mainly unregulated telcos and return it to the communities, at at the very least to a highly regulated entity.
Both the telco copper infrastructure, as well as the cable coax infrastructure, *are* both natural monopolies, and without tight regulation or control by a truly neutral party, whatever private enterprise controls either WILL (and does) abuse them to its own benefit (and to the detriment of average citizens)
Ah USB. thus thorougly useless for *networking*. sure would be nice if there was a FastEthernet version. In fact, only 10meters? Why not just use a 100baseT switch and some cat5e?
Yes, but then once the vandalism was detecting, the sme legion of persons would have their accounts flagged as unreliable. Vandals generally avoid signing their name to their vandalism.
If you dont like the email service provided by Comcast, then switch. And yes, I understand for 'broadband Internet access', there is for the most part a monopoly. You get to pick from the monopoly telco for DSL, or the monopoly cableCo. This is woeful, and the solution is a long ways off (it involves legislation to prevent broadband customers from being forced to buy other services such as phone service, from the same provider [aka illegal bundling]), and taking control of wired infrastructure (both telco copper and cable coax) away from the current monopoly corporations and returning it to the communities who subsidized its buildout.
However, all that notwithstanding, the 'email' service provided by broadband ISP's is for the most part useless, and of no value. You can continue to obtain your broadband from them, but instead obtain email service elsewhere. There exist many free options I am sure most are aware of, as well as a multitude of paid-for ones, and they are happy to compete fairly for your business (eg, there is one out there somewhere that offers the level of spam control you want) A side benefit of *not* using the bundled email service that comes with your broadband, is portability - if and when you do ever have the option to get faster and/or cheaper broadband, there will be one less thing keeping you tied to your current one.
While you wont have the satisfaction of no longer paying Comcast, you could at least theoretically send them a note explaining why you will no longer be using their email service. And depending on your mood, you could either sign the old address up for a pile of spam in the hopes of causing them to have to deal with it, or cease using it (perhaps turn it off, if possible). Neither of these is signifigant individually, but if large numbers of people did this it would either cause them more headaches, or theoretically reduce their costs (and when hell freezes over, they might actually reduce their price as a result) - but at the very least, they will know there is one more customer who will happily ditch them if a better deal comes around (be wary of DSL year-long lock in contracts with big termination fees though)
The GPL code in the network card driver you speak of didnt *infect* the code your co-worker wronte your co-worker intentionally copied the GPL code into his driver. Consider what would have happened if he had taken source code from a Microsoft program (if you had some way to access it) and used it in his program - you think MS would have been happy with that? Proprietary sofware short-circuits the whole issue by *NEVER* allowing you to even see its source code, let alone add into your program. GPL'd code allows you to benefit from it, as long as you allow the GPL community to benefit from your work as well.
So you think the original author of a program is greedy for expecting you to contribute your enhancements, but you are not greedy by using his program as a base for your enhancements, instead of writing your own? Think again. Its called share and share-alike. Kindergarten level stuff.
No, becuase such applications can be *dynamically* linked, as opposed to statically. Closed-source code can use, for example, the standard GNU C libraries, linked at run-time, without violating the GPL.
It only kills your business model if you apply the GPL to software that you wrote (which is a choice that is entirely up to you, as long as you wrote the software entirely by yourself, or with others who have agreed to let you use it under suitable terms).
The GPL imposes no requirements on you merely for using (running) software licensed under it (unlike most common EULA's associated with shrink-wrap proprietary software, which are very restrictive)
The only time *you* are restricted by the GPL is if you want to take code that SOMEONE ELSE wrote, and modify it or include it as part of your software (eg, instead of writing your software entirely by yourself), and that SOMEONE ELSE chose to license it to you only under the GPL - in which case you have two choices: 1. Include the GPL'd code in yours, and if you distribute it, do so under the GPL, or 2. Not include the GPL'd code in yours. (Note that with proprietary shrink-wrap software - you dont get choice 1 at all - you only get choice 2, and in fact you dont even get to *see* the code, let alone consider including it in your software, becuase its hidden away and all they give you is a binary)
How about this - support standard protocols instead of specific brands of software, then its the *software's* problem to 'support' the standard protocols used by the service, rather than they other way around. And dont *add* needless restrictions by requiring the use of proprietary software - how would you like it if your home telco only 'supported' specific brands of phones?
Web sites should stop trying to check for specific brands of software or specific applications, and should just provide information directly, and with the correct MIME-Type, and let the END USER, and what, if any, software that they CHOOSE to use determine how to interpret/view/play/read/whatever it.
Correction - the most effective method, *if* one assumes the constraint that the PC must be running Windows. The *most* effective would be to simply not use Windows, but the driveling masses accept happily whatever crap the consumer OEM's spoonfeed them (via the consumer retail and online outlets), and it will be a long time before enough of them will be able to escape Microsoft's clutches.
A firewall is a *device* between a device that needs 'protection' (usually a Windows PC), and an Internet connection. Keyword *device*, as in a seperate physical piece of equipment. A piece of software running *on* a Windows PC is as vulnerable as the underlying system it runs on. Eg, completely useless. 'Software Firewall' is an oxymoron.
Not running Windows, but instead running either a proprietary platform or (preferred) something unix-based. The simplest is a simple one-way NAT (outbound connections allowed, inbound connections impossible without a specific, intentional mapping). These of course only protect against active outside attacks, and not against trojan/virus emails or websites visited from the PC. The most effective method of avoiding those is to avoid use of and remove (to the extent possible) all Microsoft email clients and web browsers from the PC.
Oh wait, its actually a new bug. Or wait, its just the same bug over and over.
Seriously, how is this news? Everyone with even half a clue (and certainly almost all/. readers) recognize that MS will repeatedly issues patches, patches to patches, and will never really fix anything. Anyone with any sense in the IT/Net field that STILL actually uses Internet Explorer except in a heavily restricted sandbox for testing websites that the driveling masses will use it to visit is either too ignorant or blindly loyal to care about security.
If for some reason/. really thinks this needs to be news, just add it as a permanent headline. In fact, heck, maybe it should get its own whole section 'Security update to MS software introduces new security hole'
I've worked on a sorting machine at the post office which had a keypad with a similar (but not identical layout) (Not worked on as in reparied, although Im looking at getting into the maintenance side, but working on as in keying the zipcodes of mailpieces) So I understand the concept, and I suppose accountants probably couldnt live without it. But I don't see a use for it outside of some specific specialized need.
"Everything to the right of the F12-key" would imply about 90% of the keyboard. Oh wait, you probably have one of those keyboards where instead of being where they belong off to the left they are in an inconvenient row at the top.
That part was a joke - I dont use a Mac. But if you see a 'capslock' key to the left of the a-key (on a common qwerty keyboard, at least), then that is a TYPEWRITER keyboard modified for computer use.
What the hell is 'F-lock'? There sure as hell isnt any such thing on my NorthGate OmniKey, nor have I ever noticed one even on currently made desktop keyboards. I have noticied them on laptops, which often to save keyboard realestate dont have a seperate set of function keys overlap them with other keys, and/or overlap laptop-specific functions (switch between LCD and external, suspend, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
Why dont you try to get Linksys to release the specs for your hardware so that a linux developer has a chance to make it work?
People that gripe about linux not supporting hardware dont seem to realize that if it was up to the linux devs, every piece of hardware in existance *would* be supported. But its not. The HW vendors like to keep their 'trade secrets', and like to give the specs to MS only (under NDA which MS happily agrees to, but developers of OSS would cant because otherwise they cant release the code).
That doesnt change the hypothesis. You are suggesting that if the tech installed software with security holes he might be liable. If thats the case, installing Windows itself is far more dangerous than any non-MS software.
And they are going to complain about a *FREE* loaner that doesnt happen to have the exact same system as their machine on it? OFW. I think they will either take it or leave it. And perhaps the same 30% (or more) will decide they like the OS on the loaner, and may ask if/how they can get the same on their own machine.
In these days of "CD's" that arent really CD's (eg embedded DRM, whatnot), vinyl certainly has the aspect that there is really no feasible way to DRM it. And, assuming it is the best possible analog recording one can get, if one has decent analog inputs on a soundcard, one can make a pretty decent MP3 of it to import to iPod - which of course you'd want to do on the very *first* play of the record (and then carefully return it to its sleeve, and store it in a safe location)
"Want" to pay for?
No, MS just has to ensure that the vast majority of the populace remains ignorant enough that the OEM's realize that it would kill them if they *didnt* include Windows, enough so that they are willing to agree to mandatory Windows-on-every-box-wether-you-want-it-or-not licensing. When was the last time you actually made a conscious decision to purchase a retail copy of Windows? I bet never. Either the (discounted by said licensing terms) price was padded on to the price of the machine you bought, or you made a copy of someone else's.
As far as hardward being 'supported' by linux - it could do so easily, if the hardware vendors made the same tech data available to its developers that they do to Microsoft. Of course, this would mean making it available to the general public, and that would mean giving away their valuable 'trade secrets' so many dont want to do that.
The README and COPYING files included in the package document that the package is distrubuted under the Apache License v2.0
For the record, the error that comes up if you try to access a nonexistent host/domain isnt a '404', as it doesnt come from a webserver, it comes internally from your browser. A 404 would only come up if you got a valid host, but the rest of the URL was nonexistent.
/.'s 404 page. For the latter, your *browser* would normally tell you that the domain doesnt exist. With what earthlink (and previously, Verisign) set up, is that the DNS pretends the domain *does* exist, and returns an IP under the control of earthlink (Verisign) which serves up whatever it wants (eg, advertising), and there is no way for your browser to easily tell that the site doesnt really exist. The only real solution is to not use their DNS/resolvers, which fortunately, for anyone with a clue, isnt that hard. I havent used my ISP's DNS services (at least not since I was no longer the engineer in charge of them, anyway)
For instance compare http://slashdot.org/some/invalid/path
with http://an.invalid.domain/whatever
The former is unaffected by the mentioned modifications to the DNS that earthlink is doing - you still get
My suggestion was that you not utilize any email service from Comcast - it is trivial to obtain email service elsewhere, including storage of that email that you can retrive directly via POP/IMAP/webmail without having to utilize anything related to email that Comcast has any control over.
And in fact, very little of what you pay Comcast (or any broadband provider) is related to their email service. The primary cost is the broadband access. The only reason they provide email at all is to help tie customers to them to discourage them from switching if they find a better deal for access. Heck with SBC you get 'Yahoo email', which is free anyway.
The entire debate on this matter would be completely and utterly irrelevant (and no one would care, on either side) but for the fact that there is still little to no true open competition for wired broadband Internet access. Most people, IF they are lucky, can choose between either the cable company that holds a geographic monopoly for cable over their service area, or DSL from whoever bought out the 'Baby Bell' that holds a geographic monopoly over the copper loop infrastructure in their location, which forces them to also obtain basic telephone service from them (occasionally one can choose to get DSL from a blessed 'partner', but the phone service is still required and still has to be from the monopoly, not a CLEC)
And that is only for the *lucky*. The unlucky sometimes only have one of the above options available (usually cable, for folks who are too far away from the telco switch for DSL), or just as often neither (both too far for DSL, and no cable service in their area)
Wireless is an interesting option, but usually requires either a hefty up-front investment, and/or a minimum term commitment. Weather, trees, and distance all affect reliability and usability as well.
If and where there were truly open competition for broadband access, customers wouldnt need to care wether the telcos and cablecos wanted to sell a 'limited' pipe, becuase they could always choose a different provider. And the telcos could choose to do that and have less customers, or not to so and have more.
I think its time for some changes. Either regular broadband, require it to be universally available and content/protocol and source/destination neutral, or take control of the wired infrastructure whose buildup was subsidized by citizens under government-sanctioned monopoly back from the now mainly unregulated telcos and return it to the communities, at at the very least to a highly regulated entity.
Both the telco copper infrastructure, as well as the cable coax infrastructure, *are* both natural monopolies, and without tight regulation or control by a truly neutral party, whatever private enterprise controls either WILL (and does) abuse them to its own benefit (and to the detriment of average citizens)
Ah USB. thus thorougly useless for *networking*. sure would be nice if there was a FastEthernet version. In fact, only 10meters? Why not just use a 100baseT switch and some cat5e?
Yes, but then once the vandalism was detecting, the sme legion of persons would have their accounts flagged as unreliable. Vandals generally avoid signing their name to their vandalism.
If you dont like the email service provided by Comcast, then switch. And yes, I understand for 'broadband Internet access', there is for the most part a monopoly. You get to pick from the monopoly telco for DSL, or the monopoly cableCo. This is woeful, and the solution is a long ways off (it involves legislation to prevent broadband customers from being forced to buy other services such as phone service, from the same provider [aka illegal bundling]), and taking control of wired infrastructure (both telco copper and cable coax) away from the current monopoly corporations and returning it to the communities who subsidized its buildout.
However, all that notwithstanding, the 'email' service provided by broadband ISP's is for the most part useless, and of no value. You can continue to obtain your broadband from them, but instead obtain email service elsewhere. There exist many free options I am sure most are aware of, as well as a multitude of paid-for ones, and they are happy to compete fairly for your business (eg, there is one out there somewhere that offers the level of spam control you want) A side benefit of *not* using the bundled email service that comes with your broadband, is portability - if and when you do ever have the option to get faster and/or cheaper broadband, there will be one less thing keeping you tied to your current one.
While you wont have the satisfaction of no longer paying Comcast, you could at least theoretically send them a note explaining why you will no longer be using their email service. And depending on your mood, you could either sign the old address up for a pile of spam in the hopes of causing them to have to deal with it, or cease using it (perhaps turn it off, if possible). Neither of these is signifigant individually, but if large numbers of people did this it would either cause them more headaches, or theoretically reduce their costs (and when hell freezes over, they might actually reduce their price as a result) - but at the very least, they will know there is one more customer who will happily ditch them if a better deal comes around (be wary of DSL year-long lock in contracts with big termination fees though)
The GPL code in the network card driver you speak of didnt *infect* the code
your co-worker wronte your co-worker intentionally copied the GPL code into his driver. Consider what would have happened if he had taken source code from a Microsoft program (if you had some way to access it) and used it in his program - you think MS would have been happy with that? Proprietary sofware short-circuits the whole issue by *NEVER* allowing you to even see its source code, let alone add into your program. GPL'd code allows you to benefit from it, as long as you allow the GPL community to benefit from your work as well.
So you think the original author of a program is greedy for expecting you to contribute your enhancements, but you are not greedy by using his program as a base for your enhancements, instead of writing your own? Think again. Its called share and share-alike. Kindergarten level stuff.
No, becuase such applications can be *dynamically* linked, as opposed to statically. Closed-source code can use, for example, the standard GNU C libraries, linked at run-time, without violating the GPL.
It only kills your business model if you apply the GPL to software that you wrote (which is a choice that is entirely up to you, as long as you wrote the software entirely by yourself, or with others who have agreed to let you use it under suitable terms).
The GPL imposes no requirements on you merely for using (running) software licensed under it (unlike most common EULA's associated with shrink-wrap proprietary software, which are very restrictive)
The only time *you* are restricted by the GPL is if you want to take code that SOMEONE ELSE wrote, and modify it or include it as part of your software (eg, instead of writing your software entirely by yourself), and that SOMEONE ELSE chose to license it to you only under the GPL - in which case you have two choices: 1. Include the GPL'd code in yours, and if you distribute it, do so under the GPL, or 2. Not include the GPL'd code in yours. (Note that with proprietary shrink-wrap software - you dont get choice 1 at all - you only get choice 2, and in fact you dont even get to *see* the code, let alone consider including it in your software, becuase its hidden away and all they give you is a binary)
If you get it for free, how can you steal it?
How about this - support standard protocols instead of specific brands of software, then its the *software's* problem to 'support' the standard protocols used by the service, rather than they other way around. And dont *add* needless restrictions by requiring the use of proprietary software - how would you like it if your home telco only 'supported' specific brands of phones?
Web sites should stop trying to check for specific brands of software or specific applications, and should just provide information directly, and with the correct MIME-Type, and let the END USER, and what, if any, software that they CHOOSE to use determine how to interpret/view/play/read/whatever it.
Correction - the most effective method, *if* one assumes the constraint that the PC must be running Windows. The *most* effective would be to simply not use Windows, but the driveling masses accept happily whatever crap the consumer OEM's spoonfeed them (via the consumer retail and online outlets), and it will be a long time before enough of them will be able to escape Microsoft's clutches.
A firewall is a *device* between a device that needs 'protection' (usually a Windows PC), and an Internet connection. Keyword *device*, as in a seperate physical piece of equipment. A piece of software running *on* a Windows PC is as vulnerable as the underlying system it runs on. Eg, completely useless. 'Software Firewall' is an oxymoron.
Not running Windows, but instead running either a proprietary platform or (preferred) something unix-based. The simplest is a simple one-way NAT (outbound connections allowed, inbound connections impossible without a specific, intentional mapping). These of course only protect against active outside attacks, and not against trojan/virus emails or websites visited from the PC. The most effective method of avoiding those is to avoid use of and remove (to the extent possible) all Microsoft email clients and web browsers from the PC.
Oh wait, its actually a new bug. Or wait, its just the same bug over and over.
/. readers) recognize that MS will repeatedly issues patches, patches to patches, and will never really fix anything. Anyone with any sense in the IT/Net field that STILL actually uses Internet Explorer except in a heavily restricted sandbox for testing websites that the driveling masses will use it to visit is either too ignorant or blindly loyal to care about security.
/. really thinks this needs to be news, just add it as a permanent headline. In fact, heck, maybe it should get its own whole section 'Security update to MS software introduces new security hole'
Seriously, how is this news? Everyone with even half a clue (and certainly almost all
If for some reason
I've worked on a sorting machine at the post office which had a keypad with a similar (but not identical layout) (Not worked on as in reparied, although Im looking at getting into the maintenance side, but working on as in keying the zipcodes of mailpieces) So I understand the concept, and I suppose accountants probably couldnt live without it. But I don't see a use for it outside of some specific specialized need.
"Everything to the right of the F12-key" would imply about 90% of the keyboard. Oh wait, you probably have one of those keyboards where instead of being where they belong off to the left they are in an inconvenient row at the top.
That part was a joke - I dont use a Mac. But if you see a 'capslock' key to the left of the a-key (on a common qwerty keyboard, at least), then that is a TYPEWRITER keyboard modified for computer use.
What the hell is 'F-lock'? There sure as hell isnt any such thing on my NorthGate OmniKey, nor have I ever noticed one even on currently made desktop keyboards. I have noticied them on laptops, which often to save keyboard realestate dont have a seperate set of function keys overlap them with other keys, and/or overlap laptop-specific functions (switch between LCD and external, suspend, etc)