"you might be able to use a window manager running on a remote box but I would imagine it would not like it much."
For a lark, I tried doing this with KDE (on a P75 with 16MB RAM, and I turned up all of the eye-candy - opaque window moves, etc..) - the results were amusing... (the word "slow" doesn't begin to describe it..)
if I get bored some day I'll try it with Enlightenment:o)
Pepsico recently "persuaded" the government to allow caffienated citrus drinks to be sold in Canada - last I heard (which admittedly was last December) it should be available near the end of 2000 (I know, that's a long time to a geek, but damn speedy for a government regulation:o)
I'll never drink it of course - I don't like the way that Pepsico got the government to change the regs ("We don't want to add the caffeine because it's a stimulant, we add it because it improves the flavour - oh, and we never EVER market to kids, or use children in our advertising, or tell people to drink our products because of the caffeine")
Since I stopped working graveyards, Coke has enough kick for me.. (before then, it was Jolt all the way.)
"Linux would have to decide whether it wants to be on desktop or on the Server side."
A good gaming OS does not a necessarily have to be a good Desktop OS - the two are entirely different things.
As far as a good desktop OS, I find myself much happier with Linux/X/KDE than with Windows. It's easier (and more consistant) to use, and I find myself much more productive than under Windows. (It's more functional, and more stable.)
A gaming OS needs to reduce the number of obstacles between the hardware and software - this is (more or less) something Windows has done - however it's done so at the cost of stability (functionality is a different matter - it's less functional than KDE, but I believe that the functionality that is there is the primary cause of its' instability.)
A year ago, I believed that Windows still had a place in computing, in the role of the desktop; that Linux wasn't going to evolve into a useful desktop OS.
This has changed - I still believe that Windows has a place, but now as a game OS, as Linux has proven (to me) that it can be more "user-friendly".
I'm not so convinced that this will remain to be true - next year may see Linux on top of Windows for game performance. (But I'm not holding my breath:o)
Theoretically, I can see at least one good use of this stuff: remote administration.
A network admin/tech support department could save time by emailing auto-installing software updates to clueless users' machines, instead of having to trudge out to each users' machine to do the install..
Of course, this is just in theory - in reality, I've never seen it used, and I honestly think the *nix method (telnet/ssh/whatever) is less prone to abuse.. even telnet requires a PASSWORD to verify that the person attempting to to use the system is who they say they are..
All in all, it MIGHT have it's uses, if it were implemented in a more secure manner.
"I'm suprised no one has even thought of not associating.vbs files as executables with explorer, have notepad open them instead. "
People have thought of it..
In fact, I created a simple.reg file to do this, and emailed it to all of the users here (as well as another organization that got hit the last time).. it worked pretty well.
To get a patent, you need to have something physical, not just an idea.
Wrong. It is possible to patent a "business model", or a even a software algorithm (MP3, anyone?) - both are ideas, and neither are physical
This is what people here are bitching about - (among other things) it shouldn't be possible to patent the non-physical.
You seem to understand this with your firewall example - but you miss the point that if you word it technically enough, you'd probably get a patent on it. Try it, and let me know how it goes.
Just because my financial institutions make it possible or me to conduct business via the web does NOT make it ok to deep link to my bank account information.
If your bank account publishes your financial information as a page on it's web site, without using some form of access control, I think it's time you changed financial institution.
Similarly, anyone providing fee-based content, who doesn't understand.htaccess DESERVES to get deep-linked.
Speaking from experience (I designed a pay-per-porn site a few months ago) it's not rocket science; the first thing you realise is this: every piece of content _MUST_ be protected. I think it's pretty naieve to to say "Please do not bookmark this page, because once your subscription has expired, we can't stop you from viewing all our content." and expect people to actually do as you ask.
Well, I wouldn't say that it runs... more like it walks... SLOWLY... after you kick it hard enough...
The first thing I noticed about the Linux version is that you can't download or install only what you need - you have to install (and spend time downloading) the whole damn thing...
Second, it hangs when you view the default home page!(?) - giving it a URL (like slashdot.org:o) from the command line allows you to bypass this.
After you actually get it to go, first thing you notice is that it's S-L-O-W... takes about twice as long as 4.5 to load. Page rendering seemed faster on simple sites (such as wired.com) but slashdot took considerably longer to render than 4.5.
I'm using it to write this, and it's painfully slow... at 65wpm, my fingers outrun the text widget (as in I type a paragraph, then watch the screen as the browser finishes putting it onto the screen.)
I realize it's a beta product, but I was hoping it would at least be usable...
Downloaded the file, installed it (it dloads up to 11MB during installation) and when I try to run it - nothing! the little "Netscape6 Loading" window pops up, then goes away - that's it.
I tried running it from a command prompt, just to see if it spits any error messages - nope! You'd think that a beta version of something would at least give you some hint as to why it fails...
All in all, I'm pretty disappointed. Time to go look around the site to give them some feedback...
One of the reasons that the MPAA received the preliminary injunction against 2600 was that the judge didn't consider source code to be expression.
Since the final word now is that source code is a constitutionally protected form of expression, it's going to be easier for the DeCSS guys to fight the DMCA; the DMCA says that anything that circumvents copy control is illegal - but now the DeCSS guys can argue that this directly infringes on their First Amendment rights (because it makes their expression illegal.)
Just because source code counts as free speech does not mean that any source code you publish is protected.
This is true, but you miss the point that any source code you have rights to is protected.
DeCSS was released under an open license, which grants anybody the right to copy and distribute it - so your analogy falls pretty flat; what if you do have the authors permission?
What happens if the email server the message gets sent to is a Hotmail email adress?.
"You sent email to my Hotmail account? You mean the one that my entire bowling team has the password to? I dunno, maybe someone thought it was spam and deleted it."
How, then, do they presume to say that making an MP3 off a legally-purchased CD for use, say, at work, is different?
<p>It's different because they say it's different.</p>
<p>Their logic goes something like this:</p>
<p>Someone can make a cassette dub of a CD, and give it to a friend, this person then makes a dub (of his copy) for another friend... etc. Each time the tape gets copied, the quality degrades. (Of course, they completely ignore the point that the original copier could just make 100 copies, each with the same quality.)</p>
<p>With MP3, you make a copy, which degrades a little, and give it to a friend, this person then gives it to someone else, etc, and each time it's copied (after the initial conversion) the signal doesn't degrade.</p>
<p>This is the basis for their argument, but it misses some important points... such as it doesn't differentiate between intent and action (your intent can be compatible with fair use, but the action is still illegal - which assumes you're guilty of a crime before you've been tried).. not to mention if you follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then making analogue duplicate copies shouldn't be illegal, no matter what you intend to do with them, because the quality degrades.</p>
2: For people on cable modems, NetBEUI is a better protocol for file sharing because it doesn't get spewed out to the entire network.
My cablemodem (and the cable modems of everybody I know) is a bridge, not a router, so the NetBEUI and IPX traffic gets spewed out, choking off the neighbor's bandwidth.
Other manufacturers may make cablemodems that are routers, but mine (Terapro) and those of most of my friends (Motorola) are bridges, which means that NetBEUI would indeed be propagated.
| Do they assume that every song pirated is a lost CD sale?
Yes.
| Surely noone is stupid enough to suggest that if people didn't pirate it they'd go out and buy it?
You underestimate the stupidity of the RIAA:o)
Seriously though, what the "piracy stats" are based on is this: You have something that belongs to us. You didn't pay for it, therefore it's stolen, and therefore we have lost the amount that it is worth to us if you did buy it.
This is the farthest from logic one can get..
But in all honesty, I think a better question is this:
"How do you count what was stolen? Do you ask the theives to report to you every time they pirate?"
If you've only ever knows two cats, you can't draw a real conclusion about all cats any more than you can draw a real conclusion about all hackers from watching watching hollywood stereotypes.
For contrast, you should meet my cat, DC (stands for Dumb Cat)
He possesses the following traits:
- He understands his name - He comes when you call him (regardless of whether it's dinnertime or not.) - He greets me at the door when I get home. - He fetches (really!) - He doesn't sharpen his claws on the furniture (anymore:o) - He's social (whenever I have guests, he insists on being part of the group - he watches whoever is talking, and occasionaly adds a "meow" when there is a lull in the conversation, plus he'll sit on pretty much anyone's lap and purr, but only after he's been invited.)
This is great news, if it works, but the biggest problem with it is storing the hydrogen. I'm not talking about it's volatility (although that's an issue).. It's my understanding that hydrogen is a difficult thing to store efficiently - it's a gas, so you will get significantly less mileage out if it than you would from an equivalent volume of gasoline. It would annoy me if I had to stop to refuel every hour on the Highway (if there even were pitstops that frequent.) (I'm not knocking the technology - it's a good start.. but this only gets us halfway...)
Well, to be honest, I don't think the problem is unique to Linux..
Every OS has/had it's own rabid zealots..
I remember back in the Amiga days, the flames I got when I mentioned something positive about PC's or Macs (I was, and still am an Amiga user - I migrated from a C64 to an A1000 in 1987, and I still have an old A3000 connected to my home network, and I still use it regularly - however it's seeing less and less use compared to my PC's, which mostly run Linux - although I keep one around which dual-boots into Windows to keep my wife happy.)
When Lightwave came out for Windows, I was severely flamed by several idiots who had switched, and were calling my trusty old A3000 "useless", and that I should get a P100, which would run circles around it (I actually HAD a P100, and with the A3000's processor upgrade, speed was pretty much the same..) These were the same people who flamed PC users just a couple of years before. They knew nothing significant about either operating system, except the one they used was "best", and that they had to flame anyone who disagreed, or had a differing opinion.
And today it continues with Linux. It's just the latest in a long line... I've seen Zealots of the Mac, OS/2, Windows, Amiga, Atari, C64, and even SuperNintendo (and, to a lesser degree, Sega)
In short, there will always be idiots with low self-esteem, who's only means of feeling good about themselves is to bash people who don't agree with them. There's nothing (really) that we can do about it. You can't reason with them, you can't shoot them, and you can't stop them from being stupid; this is a fact of life on the Internet - if you're posting an opinion, be prepared for the nutcases who think you're challenging them.
Sorry, I didn't mean for my post to come across as "my server is better than your server" - I was just pointing out the error is assuming that because the "big three" were listed as vulnerable, that all webserver are vulnerable. And yes, I agree that just because someone doesn't respond that they're not vulnerable - but the CERT document doesn't say that Roxen WAS contacted (in fact, it doesn't say anything about them at all.) Now, I may have an incomplete understanding of the problem, but it seems to stem from websites allowing people to post HTML tags in guestbooks and such.. so if the webserver strips out all HTML tags, how does "a simple server patch" not solve the problem? As I said, if the server by default dequotes all HTML (and RXML, and MySQL) tags, how can you say that the server is still affected?
Basically, all clients and all Web servers are affected by this problem
Well, in a word, no.
Apache, MS, and Sun's server products are affected by this, but that's hardly every web server.
Roxen is not affected, as by default it dequotes all input sent by a client. If explicitly requested, the web page author can get the raw data, but by default, the designer doesn't have to worry about it. (This is one of my favourite features of Roxen:o)
Co-incidentally (or perhaps not), Roxen is the web server used by Securityfocus.com (the administrators of BugTraq)
Slashdot Mirror
The 2.0 series is still a development version - major portions of code have been rewritten, and the instability should be expected.
Try 1.3.122, I'm sure you'll find it very stable.
"Man, I can't believe you kissed a girl! That is SO gay!"
-Jimbo Jones
"you might be able to use a window manager running on a remote box but I would imagine it would not like it much."
:o)
For a lark, I tried doing this with KDE (on a P75 with 16MB RAM, and I turned up all of the eye-candy - opaque window moves, etc..) - the results were amusing... (the word "slow" doesn't begin to describe it..)
if I get bored some day I'll try it with Enlightenment
Pepsico recently "persuaded" the government to allow caffienated citrus drinks to be sold in Canada - last I heard (which admittedly was last December) it should be available near the end of 2000 (I know, that's a long time to a geek, but damn speedy for a government regulation :o)
I'll never drink it of course - I don't like the way that Pepsico got the government to change the regs ("We don't want to add the caffeine because it's a stimulant, we add it because it improves the flavour - oh, and we never EVER market to kids, or use children in our advertising, or tell people to drink our products because of the caffeine")
Since I stopped working graveyards, Coke has enough kick for me.. (before then, it was Jolt all the way.)
"Linux would have to decide whether it wants to be on desktop or on the Server side."
:o)
A good gaming OS does not a necessarily have to be a good Desktop OS - the two are entirely different things.
As far as a good desktop OS, I find myself much happier with Linux/X/KDE than with Windows. It's easier (and more consistant) to use, and I find myself much more productive than under Windows. (It's more functional, and more stable.)
A gaming OS needs to reduce the number of obstacles between the hardware and software - this is (more or less) something Windows has done - however it's done so at the cost of stability
(functionality is a different matter - it's less functional than KDE, but I believe that the functionality that is there is the primary cause of its' instability.)
A year ago, I believed that Windows still had a place in computing, in the role of the desktop; that Linux wasn't going to evolve into a useful desktop OS.
This has changed - I still believe that Windows has a place, but now as a game OS, as Linux has proven (to me) that it can be more "user-friendly".
I'm not so convinced that this will remain to be true - next year may see Linux on top of Windows for game performance. (But I'm not holding my breath
Theoretically, I can see at least one good use of this stuff: remote administration.
A network admin/tech support department could save time by emailing auto-installing software updates to clueless users' machines, instead of having to trudge out to each users' machine to do the install..
Of course, this is just in theory - in reality, I've never seen it used, and I honestly think the *nix method (telnet/ssh/whatever) is less prone to abuse.. even telnet requires a PASSWORD to verify that the person attempting to to use the system is who they say they are..
All in all, it MIGHT have it's uses, if it were implemented in a more secure manner.
Turn off Javascript before visiting those sites..
:o)
Makes a world of difference (and no, I'm not going to pretend I've never gone smut surfing
"I'm suprised no one has even thought of not associating .vbs files as executables with explorer, have notepad open them instead. "
.reg file to do this, and emailed it to all of the users here (as well as another organization that got hit the last time).. it worked pretty well.
People have thought of it..
In fact, I created a simple
Here You go:
http://www.apache.org/
http://www.sendmail.org/
http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/
You can also check RCF's #1 through 2000+
Most of the technology that makes the internet work, from email to DNS to HTTP began as (and still is) Open Source - I'd call that innovation.
Done it (MC680x0 assembly, using A68K) a few years back.. the executable was just over 2KB (with all symbols stripped.)
Never finished the CGI portion tho...
To get a patent, you need to have something physical, not just an idea.
Wrong. It is possible to patent a "business model", or a even a software algorithm (MP3, anyone?) - both are ideas, and neither are physical
This is what people here are bitching about - (among other things) it shouldn't be possible to patent the non-physical.
You seem to understand this with your firewall example - but you miss the point that if you word it technically enough, you'd probably get a patent on it. Try it, and let me know how it goes.
Just because my financial institutions make it possible or me to conduct business via the web does NOT make it ok to deep link to my bank account information.
If your bank account publishes your financial information as a page on it's web site, without using some form of access control, I think it's time you changed financial institution.
Similarly, anyone providing fee-based content, who doesn't understand .htaccess DESERVES to get deep-linked.
Speaking from experience (I designed a pay-per-porn site a few months ago) it's not rocket science; the first thing you realise is this: every piece of content _MUST_ be protected. I think it's pretty naieve to to say "Please do not bookmark this page, because once your subscription has expired, we can't stop you from viewing all our content." and expect people to actually do as you ask.
Well, I wouldn't say that it runs... more like it walks... SLOWLY... after you kick it hard enough...
:o) from the command line allows you to bypass this.
The first thing I noticed about the Linux version is that you can't download or install only what you need - you have to install (and spend time downloading) the whole damn thing...
Second, it hangs when you view the default home page!(?) - giving it a URL (like slashdot.org
After you actually get it to go, first thing you notice is that it's S-L-O-W... takes about twice as long as 4.5 to load. Page rendering seemed faster on simple sites (such as wired.com) but slashdot took considerably longer to render than 4.5.
I'm using it to write this, and it's painfully slow... at 65wpm, my fingers outrun the text widget (as in I type a paragraph, then watch the screen as the browser finishes putting it onto the screen.)
I realize it's a beta product, but I was hoping it would at least be usable...
Here's one:
IT DOESN'T
At least not for me.
Downloaded the file, installed it (it dloads up to 11MB during installation) and when I try to run it - nothing! the little "Netscape6 Loading" window pops up, then goes away - that's it.
I tried running it from a command prompt, just to see if it spits any error messages - nope! You'd think that a beta version of something would at least give you some hint as to why it fails...
All in all, I'm pretty disappointed. Time to go look around the site to give them some feedback...
Actually it has quite a bit to do with DeCSS.
One of the reasons that the MPAA received the preliminary injunction against 2600 was that the judge didn't consider source code to be expression.
Since the final word now is that source code is a constitutionally protected form of expression, it's going to be easier for the DeCSS guys to fight the DMCA; the DMCA says that anything that circumvents copy control is illegal - but now the DeCSS guys can argue that this directly infringes on their First Amendment rights (because it makes their expression illegal.)
Just because source code counts as free speech does not mean that any source code you publish is protected.
This is true, but you miss the point that any source code you have rights to is protected.
DeCSS was released under an open license, which grants anybody the right to copy and distribute it - so your analogy falls pretty flat; what if you do have the authors permission?
What happens if the email server the message gets sent to is a Hotmail email adress?.
"You sent email to my Hotmail account? You mean the one that my entire bowling team has the password to? I dunno, maybe someone thought it was spam and deleted it."
How, then, do they presume to say that making an MP3 off a legally-purchased CD for use, say, at work, is different?
<p>It's different because they say it's different.</p>
<p>Their logic goes something like this:</p>
<p>Someone can make a cassette dub of a CD, and give it to a friend, this person then makes a dub (of his copy) for another friend... etc. Each time the tape gets copied, the quality degrades. (Of course, they completely ignore the point that the original copier could just make 100 copies, each with the same quality.)</p>
<p>With MP3, you make a copy, which degrades a little, and give it to a friend, this person then gives it to someone else, etc, and each time it's copied (after the initial conversion) the signal doesn't degrade.</p>
<p>This is the basis for their argument, but it misses some important points... such as it doesn't differentiate between intent and action (your intent can be compatible with fair use, but the action is still illegal - which assumes you're guilty of a crime before you've been tried).. not to mention if you follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then making analogue duplicate copies shouldn't be illegal, no matter what you intend to do with them, because the quality degrades.</p>
I know two people with MS: one of them is me, and the other one is my mother (yes, really.)
Personally, I happen to think it's funny as hell.. and if I had any mod points left, I'd moderate it up as such.
2: For people on cable modems, NetBEUI is a better protocol for file sharing because it doesn't get spewed out to the entire network.
My cablemodem (and the cable modems of everybody I know) is a bridge, not a router, so the NetBEUI and IPX traffic gets spewed out, choking off the neighbor's bandwidth.
Other manufacturers may make cablemodems that are routers, but mine (Terapro) and those of most of my friends (Motorola) are bridges, which means that NetBEUI would indeed be propagated.
| Do they assume that every song pirated is a lost CD sale?
:o)
Yes.
| Surely noone is stupid enough to suggest that if people didn't pirate it they'd go out and buy it?
You underestimate the stupidity of the RIAA
Seriously though, what the "piracy stats" are based on is this: You have something that belongs to us. You didn't pay for it, therefore it's stolen, and therefore we have lost the amount that it is worth to us if you did buy it.
This is the farthest from logic one can get..
But in all honesty, I think a better question is this:
"How do you count what was stolen? Do you ask the theives to report to you every time they pirate?"
*sigh* - here's me, bored on a Sunday afternoon..
If you've only ever knows two cats, you can't draw a real conclusion about all cats any more than you can draw a real conclusion about all hackers from watching watching hollywood stereotypes.
:o)
For contrast, you should meet my cat, DC (stands for Dumb Cat)
He possesses the following traits:
- He understands his name
- He comes when you call him (regardless of whether it's dinnertime or not.)
- He greets me at the door when I get home.
- He fetches (really!)
- He doesn't sharpen his claws on the furniture (anymore
- He's social (whenever I have guests, he insists on being part of the group - he watches whoever is talking, and occasionaly adds a "meow" when there is a lull in the conversation, plus he'll sit on pretty much anyone's lap and purr, but only after he's been invited.)
This is great news, if it works, but the biggest problem with it is storing the hydrogen.
I'm not talking about it's volatility (although that's an issue).. It's my understanding that hydrogen is a difficult thing to store efficiently - it's a gas, so you will get significantly less mileage out if it than you would from an equivalent volume of gasoline. It would annoy me if I had to stop to refuel every hour on the Highway (if there even were pitstops that frequent.) (I'm not knocking the technology - it's a good start.. but this only gets us halfway...)
Well, to be honest, I don't think the problem is unique to Linux..
:o)
Every OS has/had it's own rabid zealots..
I remember back in the Amiga days, the flames I got when I mentioned something positive about PC's or Macs (I was, and still am an Amiga user - I migrated from a C64 to an A1000 in 1987, and I still have an old A3000 connected to my home network, and I still use it regularly - however it's seeing less and less use compared to my PC's, which mostly run Linux - although I keep one around which dual-boots into Windows to keep my wife happy.)
When Lightwave came out for Windows, I was severely flamed by several idiots who had switched, and were calling my trusty old A3000 "useless", and that I should get a P100, which would run circles around it (I actually HAD a P100, and with the A3000's processor upgrade, speed was pretty much the same..) These were the same people who flamed PC users just a couple of years before. They knew nothing significant about either operating system, except the one they used was "best", and that they had to flame anyone who disagreed, or had a differing opinion.
And today it continues with Linux. It's just the latest in a long line... I've seen Zealots of the Mac, OS/2, Windows, Amiga, Atari, C64, and even SuperNintendo (and, to a lesser degree, Sega)
In short, there will always be idiots with low self-esteem, who's only means of feeling good about themselves is to bash people who don't agree with them. There's nothing (really) that we can do about it. You can't reason with them, you can't shoot them, and you can't stop them from being stupid; this is a fact of life on the Internet - if you're posting an opinion, be prepared for the nutcases who think you're challenging them.
ZZZIIPPPP (this is me donning my flamesuit
Sorry, I didn't mean for my post to come across as "my server is better than your server" - I was just pointing out the error is assuming that because the "big three" were listed as vulnerable, that all webserver are vulnerable. And yes, I agree that just because someone doesn't respond that they're not vulnerable - but the CERT document doesn't say that Roxen WAS contacted (in fact, it doesn't say anything about them at all.) Now, I may have an incomplete understanding of the problem, but it seems to stem from websites allowing people to post HTML tags in guestbooks and such.. so if the webserver strips out all HTML tags, how does "a simple server patch" not solve the problem? As I said, if the server by default dequotes all HTML (and RXML, and MySQL) tags, how can you say that the server is still affected?
Basically, all clients and all Web servers are affected by this problem
:o)
Well, in a word, no.
Apache, MS, and Sun's server products are affected by this, but that's hardly every web server.
Roxen is not affected, as by default it dequotes all input sent by a client. If explicitly requested, the web page author can get the raw data, but by default, the designer doesn't have to worry about it. (This is one of my favourite features of Roxen
Co-incidentally (or perhaps not), Roxen is the web server used by Securityfocus.com (the administrators of BugTraq)