FWIW, the registry fee may drop from $18/$9 to $12/$6 effective January 15, 2000 with the tentative agreement between NSI and ICANN. It's not clear to me if this is final now or not.
Geektools offers a whois proxy and web interface that first queries a registry database to determine the registrar whois to query for the domain in question. Note that other registrars don't use NIC handles, or at least, only NSI NIC handles can be found via geektools.
I'm also looking at moving several domains from NSI to register.com. It's straightforward if you have the same postal address on your driver's license as in the registrant address of the domain in question (not contact addresses). Otherwise you will have to either update the domain with NSI to your driver's license address first, or provide other convincing documentation.
I've registered only a few domains, I'm not an ISP. But my experience with NSI has been a continuing nightmare, since I'm not big they ignore me and in particular I cannot get updates processed without many repeated attempts and followups, despite careful checking that authentication was correct. Worse, the notifications they constantly claim to be sending to listed contacts are never sent (for the last few months anyway).
register.com on the other hand has been exemplary. Most changes I can make online, and when I've resorted to customer service (only once, via email) the response was fast and the service good.
I'm considering transferring all my domains to register.com, but that's complicated by the fact that they all use a private mailbox postal address which I cannot easily document belongs to me (I get no bills there, it's not on my license, etc.) Once I find a way to provide documentation that that postal address belongs to me, I'll go ahead and transfer them, even though I lose over a year on several of remaining registration. (You pay again and start the 2 year period over when transferring.)
Anyway, unless you already have a volume relationship with NSI that you're happy with, and especially if you're not going to be registering dozens of domains a year, I can recommend register.com from personal experience.
This "you better give it away or I'll give it away" attitude amongst free software fanatics is exactly what scares real software companies away from supporting open source OSes.
I personally think anyone who feeds, clothes, or houses, or provides computers or connectivity RMS should be hunted down by a posse of real, paid developers.
The ACLU is not a substitute for your own legal counsel. They are not "happy to provide pro-bono legal services to defend the first amendment" in the general sense that you imply. Many ACLU participating attorneys may in fact be happy to provide pro bono (no hyphen) defense of the First Amendment, but the ACLU itself is interested in setting precedent that will broadly affect the legal system, not in fighting every fight themselves. More notably, this isn't a First Amendment issue. The government is not attempting to limit anyone's free speech. If the site were being hosted by a paid webhosting provider, there would be a potential breach of contract case, but since Harvard was donating its equipment and bandwidth and chose (rather rudely, perhaps) to cease donating said items. I've read the material on attrition.org, and a number of press pieces on the antionline disputes. I'm withholding judgement until I can see antionline for myself again. Do me a favor, join the ACLU and learn about it and help the group in its defense of the Bill Of Rights. If you do that, I doubt you'll continue to offer their services as you do in this post.
Amen! My first question was why the site's maintainer didn't have his own backup, and my second question is why he wasn't hosting the site himself or paying someone to host it, rather than leeching Harvard's bandwidth.
It's not stock LFS, and it differs substantially from LFS, so I'm sure someone will say it's not a journalling file system.
NTFS uses transaction logs for all filesystem metadata changes, for fast restarts without a full fsck, basically. It uses transaction processing to roll back and/or roll forward all in-progress changes to the disk structure (but not the user's data) and recover a consistent state after catastrophic failure (power or bluescreen) without spending exponential amounts of time based on volume size cross-checking everything.
For more information, see the section titled Recoverable File Systemhere.
it's auditing not logging WSJ finds lacking
on
WSJ Says Linux Lags
·
· Score: 1
I think folks are getting hung up on the WSJ reporter's use of the word "logging" -- I suspect what they really find lacking is auditing, which Windows NT and some commercial Unixes offer.
Not many people have played with NT's auditing capabilities much. They're somewhat primitive (tending as auditing does to generate huge logs needing sophisticated analysis to be useful) but when used selectively can be very powerful. Every Windows NT object that has permissions in NT-speak (an ACL) also has a so-called SACL, or security (read auditing) Access Control List. Play around with User Manager on NT (musrmgr for local security accounts, usrmgr for domain) and enable auditing via Policy menu Audit option. If you enable file and object auditing you will find that the permissions dialog now includes options to control auditing per file or directory (which is accomplished by editing the SACL).
This is not a trivial add-on, it's integral to the base security services of the OS. Comparable auditing capabilities are not available for Linux or FBSD to my knowledge.
Ooh, good catch on the lawyers name. Before posting in response to the earlier/. thread on this topic, I tried to find any other web references to a Michael Scott DeWitt without any luck. Seems very likely MS has been set up as a presumptive bad guy in this April Fool's joke.
Consider all the other widespread heckling and parodying of Microsoft (by other comic strips for example) that they don't try to shut down, and consider the 1st amendment and web PR backlash. No way it's Evil Bill Crushing Free Speech.
Illiad's reported heavy hinting notwithstanding, it would seem so contrary to MS's interests to pursue a few parody sites when so much anti-MS parody is out there, and they have several substantial things going on to keep their lawyers busy. It would just make MS look like a bully, a posture they have plenty of interest in avoiding at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
See Appendix B of the tentative agreement.
Try it out: http://www.geektools.com/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=c lusterfuck.net
Click here for the not-easily-found page at register.com with instructions on transferring a domain to them. Good luck!
I suspect this guy has a boatload of NSI stock or some other financial interest in libelling register.com.
register.com on the other hand has been exemplary. Most changes I can make online, and when I've resorted to customer service (only once, via email) the response was fast and the service good.
I'm considering transferring all my domains to register.com, but that's complicated by the fact that they all use a private mailbox postal address which I cannot easily document belongs to me (I get no bills there, it's not on my license, etc.) Once I find a way to provide documentation that that postal address belongs to me, I'll go ahead and transfer them, even though I lose over a year on several of remaining registration. (You pay again and start the 2 year period over when transferring.)
Anyway, unless you already have a volume relationship with NSI that you're happy with, and especially if you're not going to be registering dozens of domains a year, I can recommend register.com from personal experience.
I personally think anyone who feeds, clothes, or houses, or provides computers or connectivity RMS should be hunted down by a posse of real, paid developers.
The ACLU is not a substitute for your own legal counsel. They are not "happy to provide pro-bono legal services to defend the first amendment" in the general sense that you imply. Many ACLU participating attorneys may in fact be happy to provide pro bono (no hyphen) defense of the First Amendment, but the ACLU itself is interested in setting precedent that will broadly affect the legal system, not in fighting every fight themselves. More notably, this isn't a First Amendment issue. The government is not attempting to limit anyone's free speech. If the site were being hosted by a paid webhosting provider, there would be a potential breach of contract case, but since Harvard was donating its equipment and bandwidth and chose (rather rudely, perhaps) to cease donating said items. I've read the material on attrition.org, and a number of press pieces on the antionline disputes. I'm withholding judgement until I can see antionline for myself again. Do me a favor, join the ACLU and learn about it and help the group in its defense of the Bill Of Rights. If you do that, I doubt you'll continue to offer their services as you do in this post.
Amen! My first question was why the site's maintainer didn't have his own backup, and my second question is why he wasn't hosting the site himself or paying someone to host it, rather than leeching Harvard's bandwidth.
NTFS uses transaction logs for all filesystem metadata changes, for fast restarts without a full fsck, basically. It uses transaction processing to roll back and/or roll forward all in-progress changes to the disk structure (but not the user's data) and recover a consistent state after catastrophic failure (power or bluescreen) without spending exponential amounts of time based on volume size cross-checking everything.
For more information, see the section titled Recoverable File System here.
Not many people have played with NT's auditing capabilities much. They're somewhat primitive (tending as auditing does to generate huge logs needing sophisticated analysis to be useful) but when used selectively can be very powerful. Every Windows NT object that has permissions in NT-speak (an ACL) also has a so-called SACL, or security (read auditing) Access Control List. Play around with User Manager on NT (musrmgr for local security accounts, usrmgr for domain) and enable auditing via Policy menu Audit option. If you enable file and object auditing you will find that the permissions dialog now includes options to control auditing per file or directory (which is accomplished by editing the SACL).
This is not a trivial add-on, it's integral to the base security services of the OS. Comparable auditing capabilities are not available for Linux or FBSD to my knowledge.
Ooh, good catch on the lawyers name. Before posting in response to the earlier /. thread on this topic, I tried to find any other web references to a Michael Scott DeWitt without any luck. Seems very likely MS has been set up as a presumptive bad guy in this April Fool's joke.
Consider all the other widespread heckling and parodying of Microsoft (by other comic strips for example) that they don't try to shut down, and consider the 1st amendment and web PR backlash. No way it's Evil Bill Crushing Free Speech.
Illiad's reported heavy hinting notwithstanding, it would seem so contrary to MS's interests to pursue a few parody sites when so much anti-MS parody is out there, and they have several substantial things going on to keep their lawyers busy. It would just make MS look like a bully, a posture they have plenty of interest in avoiding at the moment.