Though "prepend" substitutes for "appending to the beginning", its certainly not bad grammer, nor worth anyone's time in this forum. Then why am I writting this (-;
> Remember, they are up against people who are > actively searching for exploits. This is not > your average user we're talking about finding a > hole in the system.
I can see it is not the norm, but I have had a good experience with a counter offer. In my situation I was working for a school system (so I was not in a corporate envrironment), and I implicitly trusted my boss. In this particular case I was offered a substantial pay raise to stay, and it really did work out. I guess the main thing in this case is my boss and I were friends that mutually respected one another and understood where the bounderies were (i.e. I was not the boss). Again, that is unfortunately not the norm, so don't take this as advice, just as a historical archive.
Wrong. Wrong Wrong. When you sign up with an ISP, they are providing general purpose internet connectivity. When you buy a business account, you are buying that and:
1) Better service (i.e. technical support).
2) Perhaps a static IP address.
3) Web hosting, email hosting for multiple
accounts.
4) Some other item that adds value to the service
thus justifying the added cost to you.
Also, business class service is meant for situations where more bandwidth needs to be allocated for your use (such as with a web server that gets many hits).
Differentiating your servous based on what applications you use, if the application does not use any more bandwidth that any other regular users use, is just unacceptable.
I personnaly do have a business account, but that was because I was willing to pay for a static IP.
It highly depends on their desire to really do business with you, but one thing I have done, when signing a contract with my ISP, is to quite simply cross out the terms I did not agree with. For instance with Time Warner, they have clause saying that no NAT devices can be used. I crossed that out, told the salesman and signed the contract. Also, making more people aware of these onerous business practices is a good thing, as more people will let the businesses doing these thing know there displeasure with their pocket books and otherwise.
This has nothing to do with capitilism. If you
sell me paper I can write anything I want on it.
If you sell me a pen, I can write anything I want
with it. How is front page different.
Beyond that I am sure it is not legal for a
company to try to supersede the constitution in
their authority and restrict your rights to free
speech contractually. Actually, that more people do not see this as an offense is what is the real
problem.
On another point, capitalism (which I am completely for) does not negate the laws of the land. Otherwise, it would be OK to fence stolen
items, or to sell various contraband. Hey, its
capitalism, so its OK to kill people for a fee...I have gone to the absurd side, but that is exactly
what Microsoft has done by trying to deny constitutional rights by their EULA.
The real issue is that someone with much more malicious intent can use these sort of holes to:
a) Send messages through the news media.
b) Publish misinformation that could cost lives.
The first is only an annoyance to the authorities, as they would not necessarily expect criminals/terroist to use this as a means of communication. The latter can have drastic results.
I don't know if you know or not, but you do not have to use EarthLink's browser with their ISP service. Its not like AOL, which a gateway to the internet (or it was last time I checked). As a sysadmin, I have seen more trouble created for my users by them loading some companies "starter" disk for their ISP, and I am talking some real dysfunctional systems being created. At anyrate, at least for my users, the right choice is to just use MS Dial-up Networking services directly (well the real right choice is to put some form of UNIX on your box (-;), and avoid those unnecessary, poorely written, non-standards complient ISP written starter kits.
Its unfortunate that people obstenately sully the meaning of the word hacker by relating it to a person performing criminal/malicious activity via a computer and/or networks. That person is a criminal (and activists at times break laws; for good or ill they are still defined by the goverment whose laws they broke as criminals [whether they were right or wrong is a different issue]). A hacker on the hand is just a curious individual that likes to pull things apart (virtual or no), examine them, understand them, and use them in creative ways. Most programers could be called hackers (which is why I refer to my self as a hacker). Linus Torvalds and others like him are hackers; the individuals mentioned in the article are criminals. Please get your terminolgy correct.
It is not the right thing to do, nor is it the reasonable thing to do, nor is it even an open source thing at all. The term ssh is used throught out the industry, and in public standards documents as the word denoting a particular protocol that allows encrypted interactive text based sessions to a remote server. The term ssh is so much a common word that it should not ever have been trademarked, and certainly by now its trademark has validity whatsoever. The word has sinked so far into the public domain that most of my collegues and myself use the word as verb to describe the use of the ssh protocol to connect to a remote machine. Have you recently said something like:
I need to ssh over to that machine.
Stop it your breaking his trade mark!!!
That being said, what else would you call an application that does the SSH protocol?
On another front, if you look at the last instance of Tatu's opened source source code, the license expressly makes provisions for the use of the word ssh in a product. Essentially, you could talk the talk (call your self *[sS][sS][hH]*) if you walked the walk (actually conformed to the ssh protocol as defined in various RFC's).
Lastly, this has nothing to do with Open Source versus Closed Source. This is a specious legal argument being used against one organization by another organization in order to gain some cheap advantage.
Yes, I see your point, the problem is there is no reason that openSSH would ssh in there name were it not for its wide spread use as a noun to describe a particular protocol. For instance, what kind of protocol does openSSH implement? Well it implements the ssh protocol. In the case of IBM, there is no thing that there trademark either stands for or describes other than themselves. It has not become part of the popular culture to describe anything by the name
IBM except things that belong to them. Actually,
I think his claim to the SSH trademark is completely bogus; what do you think they teach students in computer science about, the SecSH protocol or the SSH protocol.
That being said if you were writting a product that implemented the ssh protocol (cause that is what is called even in the RFC's, and was called
well before Tatu's trademark) what would you call it (actually I have seen enough silly names that
for Open Source projects that I would not be amazed by the "glaSSHouse" project (-; ).
Also, look at the command ftp. Now when I speak of that command I am speaking of the general lore and RFC that have been built up about that command. There are tens of companies that have their own ftp implementation. Do you think someone should come along and trade mark it. Do you think that confusion exists between new users about who to get support for a particular version of ftp from? Tatu's basis for all of his arguments are flawed and serpentine at best.
Look I have no problems with trade marks, but this is taking it too far. What he is doing that really causes me annoyance, is that he is saying that just having the letters 's''s''h' in a word is is cause for treading on his precious trademark. Well, carried to its absurd end, then one could never use the word glaSSHouse in a product name. I am sure there are other exmaples.
Are we treading on IBMs trade mark when we call the standard math library libm.so? This is just absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Though "prepend" substitutes for "appending to the beginning", its certainly not bad grammer,
nor worth anyone's time in this forum. Then
why am I writting this (-;
> Remember, they are up against people who are
> actively searching for exploits. This is not
> your average user we're talking about finding a
> hole in the system.
You mean code testers?
enough said...james
I can see it is not the norm, but I have had a good experience with a counter offer. In my situation I was working for a school system (so I was not in a corporate envrironment), and I implicitly trusted my boss. In this particular case I was offered a substantial pay raise to stay, and it really did work out. I guess the main thing in this case is my boss and I were friends that mutually respected one another and understood where the bounderies were (i.e. I was not the boss). Again, that is unfortunately not the norm, so don't take this as advice, just as a historical archive.
Cheers...james
But do you _really_ remember Xenix. I mean it was _really_ bad as far as UNIXes go.
Wrong. Wrong Wrong. When you sign up with an ISP, they are providing general purpose internet connectivity. When you buy a business account, you are buying that and:
1) Better service (i.e. technical support).
2) Perhaps a static IP address.
3) Web hosting, email hosting for multiple
accounts.
4) Some other item that adds value to the service
thus justifying the added cost to you.
Also, business class service is meant for situations where more bandwidth needs to be allocated for your use (such as with a web server that gets many hits).
Differentiating your servous based on what applications you use, if the application does not use any more bandwidth that any other regular users use, is just unacceptable.
I personnaly do have a business account, but that was because I was willing to pay for a static IP.
It highly depends on their desire to really do business with you, but one thing I have done, when signing a contract with my ISP, is to quite simply cross out the terms I did not agree with. For instance with Time Warner, they have clause saying that no NAT devices can be used. I crossed that out, told the salesman and signed the contract. Also, making more people aware of these onerous business practices is a good thing, as more people will let the businesses doing these thing know there displeasure with their pocket books and otherwise.
Sir,
This has nothing to do with capitilism. If you
sell me paper I can write anything I want on it.
If you sell me a pen, I can write anything I want
with it. How is front page different.
Beyond that I am sure it is not legal for a
company to try to supersede the constitution in
their authority and restrict your rights to free
speech contractually. Actually, that more people do not see this as an offense is what is the real
problem.
On another point, capitalism (which I am completely for) does not negate the laws of the land. Otherwise, it would be OK to fence stolen
items, or to sell various contraband. Hey, its
capitalism, so its OK to kill people for a fee...I have gone to the absurd side, but that is exactly
what Microsoft has done by trying to deny constitutional rights by their EULA.
The real issue is that someone with much more malicious intent can use these sort of holes to:
a) Send messages through the news media.
b) Publish misinformation that could cost lives.
The first is only an annoyance to the authorities, as they would not necessarily expect criminals/terroist to use this as a means of communication. The latter can have drastic results.
I don't know if you know or not, but you do not have to use EarthLink's browser with their ISP service. Its not like AOL, which a gateway to the internet (or it was last time I checked). As a sysadmin, I have seen more trouble created for my users by them loading some companies "starter" disk for their ISP, and I am talking some real dysfunctional systems being created. At anyrate, at least for my users, the right choice is to just use MS Dial-up Networking services directly (well the real right choice is to put some form of UNIX on your box (-;), and avoid those unnecessary, poorely written, non-standards complient ISP written starter kits.
Its unfortunate that people obstenately sully the meaning of the word hacker by relating it to a person performing criminal/malicious activity via a computer and/or networks. That person is a criminal (and activists at times break laws; for good or ill they are still defined by the goverment whose laws they broke as criminals [whether they were right or wrong is a different issue]). A hacker on the hand is just a curious individual that likes to pull things apart (virtual or no), examine them, understand them, and use them in creative ways. Most programers could be called hackers (which is why I refer to my self as a hacker). Linus Torvalds and others like him are hackers; the individuals mentioned in the article are criminals. Please get your terminolgy correct.
It is not the right thing to do, nor is it the reasonable thing to do, nor is it even an open source thing at all. The term ssh is used throught out the industry, and in public standards documents as the word denoting a particular protocol that allows encrypted interactive text based sessions to a remote server. The term ssh is so much a common word that it should not ever have been trademarked, and certainly by now its trademark has validity whatsoever. The word has sinked so far into the public domain that most of my collegues and myself use the word as verb to describe the use of the ssh protocol to connect to a remote machine. Have you recently said something like: I need to ssh over to that machine. Stop it your breaking his trade mark!!! That being said, what else would you call an application that does the SSH protocol? On another front, if you look at the last instance of Tatu's opened source source code, the license expressly makes provisions for the use of the word ssh in a product. Essentially, you could talk the talk (call your self *[sS][sS][hH]*) if you walked the walk (actually conformed to the ssh protocol as defined in various RFC's). Lastly, this has nothing to do with Open Source versus Closed Source. This is a specious legal argument being used against one organization by another organization in order to gain some cheap advantage.
Yes, I see your point, the problem is there is no reason that openSSH would ssh in there name were it not for its wide spread use as a noun to describe a particular protocol. For instance, what kind of protocol does openSSH implement? Well it implements the ssh protocol. In the case of IBM, there is no thing that there trademark either stands for or describes other than themselves. It has not become part of the popular culture to describe anything by the name IBM except things that belong to them. Actually, I think his claim to the SSH trademark is completely bogus; what do you think they teach students in computer science about, the SecSH protocol or the SSH protocol. That being said if you were writting a product that implemented the ssh protocol (cause that is what is called even in the RFC's, and was called well before Tatu's trademark) what would you call it (actually I have seen enough silly names that for Open Source projects that I would not be amazed by the "glaSSHouse" project (-; ). Also, look at the command ftp. Now when I speak of that command I am speaking of the general lore and RFC that have been built up about that command. There are tens of companies that have their own ftp implementation. Do you think someone should come along and trade mark it. Do you think that confusion exists between new users about who to get support for a particular version of ftp from? Tatu's basis for all of his arguments are flawed and serpentine at best.
Look I have no problems with trade marks, but this is taking it too far. What he is doing that really causes me annoyance, is that he is saying that just having the letters 's''s''h' in a word is is cause for treading on his precious trademark. Well, carried to its absurd end, then one could never use the word glaSSHouse in a product name. I am sure there are other exmaples. Are we treading on IBMs trade mark when we call the standard math library libm.so? This is just absurd.