I thought that the fact you could choose what EXEs are allowed to run was going to make XP virus and trojan free?
I remember when the guy who made shields up was barking about how XP having unix sockets was going to spell the end of the internet the MS response was "you can control what EXEs are run, so you'll never have to worry about trojans, so irc bots and whatnot are never going to be an issue".
By "grow" you mean "continue using their illegal monopoly to continue doing illegal things that they have been proven guilty for in court", right? I'm all for companies growing, but MS is big enough already, dontcha think?
If Norton Aquired McAfee, or if winzip aquired winrar, or whatever, that's ok, that's competition in the market. When MS *is* the market, it's a different story. Of course, they have bought enough polititions that it's not like anything is going to be done about it, even if anyone does say anything, right?
Hey, clue-stick people. Spammers don't care. They don't give two shits about who they are sending to or in some cases, what they are sending to them. They are either sending out whatever email that someone pays them to, or they have a list of email addresses they bought and couldn't care less if the emails are a) legit or b) in the demographic they asked for (if they bothered to ask).
The way that spam works is the more people you send to, the more chance you will make a profit, regardless of the risk. The cost of sending a few million email messages, or getting a new AOL/ISP account if your old one is shut down is minimul compared to what you'll get back if just one sucker sends you money for viagra, penis enlarger, fat loss pills, or spam blockers.
If you reduce the number of emails you send out by screening for certain age ranges that means that instead of sending out 5,000,000 messages you're only sending 4,999,900 (or whatever) and that's less potential eyes, and therefor less potential buyers.
In short, as sick as it is, it just doesn't make financial sense for spammers to care about who they are sending to (at least the non "legal" spammers anyway). Based on the number of spams for breast enlargement, they don't even check the most basic demographic information anyway.
This doesn't mean that a) when I have kids they're going to have either a spam filter or white listed email coming to them as well as parental guidance / watching and b) all spammers don't deserve to be hung and quartered, then violated by a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire, but not necissarily in that order....
If you've ever seen linux talk, or read his book, that's his attitude (as I see it, YMMV, IANAL, IMHO, etc). He wants to program cool stuff that interests him. He couldn't care less about linux vendors, desktop wars, or 90% of the shit that "the linux community" is concerned about. I'd be willing to wager that if no one but him used Linux he's *still* be hacking away on it, because that seems to be the sort of person he is (the fact he's more a manager of code now than a coder aside).
I for one agree with his apathy... it's denying the sort of media circus that could result. Think about how much better all our lives would have been if the media had chose apathy in the OJ case (I know I'm going OT here) and just reported "OJ on trail for murder" and then proceeded onto the next story.
Personally I'm ignoring it all too, until some code that is actually damning is produced, or there is actually a legal leg to stand on, it's just noise.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my perl, which is mostly just noise as well.
True, but anyone with a) a virus scanner running b) enough brains to see that latest-hot-single.mp3.vbs is not something you want to download and c) the ability to use the mouse-over function to see the actual filename can deal with it:)
Regardless, only one player in the market leads to monopoly type situations, whereas > 1 leads to competition (even if it is sucky competition) which is good.
Sure, and I forgot to mention I was a debian guy before gentoo.
Gentoo has a couple of things I like, outside of the standard "it's 31337 cause I compile everything!!!!!" line that everyone gives.
Since portage ebuilds are really just a bunch of files describing how to compile other files, it keeps old versions. One thing that pissed me off with debian was that if I upgraded to some just released package and it completely b0rked things up (more common in unstable of course, but it has happened before), and I had to go back to $newversion -1 to fix things, or do a db dump, or use the previous version to backup my data, or whatever (I know the.deb sometimes does this, but bear with me) I had to search mirrors and hope they hadn't been updated or go searching through the pool or ask around on irc, or hope that I hadn't chosen "delete downloaded files".
With portage I just go into the directory and do a "emerge -.ebuild" from the list of available ebuilds, which will let me install the older version (or really any previous version). I think that debian now has an archive site now, but this used to be a big piss off for me, especially in unstable's various postgres updates (which of course didn't have binary compatibility with the previous versions db).
Gentoo also seems to be a big quicker with new versions of software being supported. The ability to just copy program-1.1.ebuild to program-1.2.ebuild when a new version comes out is nice too, as 99% of the time it'll work, *and* you get the new version installed into the package management system without having to "pollute" your system with non-package managed tarball installs.
But that's just my thoughts, completely offtopic. I still love debian, regardless of what I'm using now, and it graces all my servers:)
I've been a gentoo guy for a while now, but at my last job I decided to try one of the "end user" distros and as the other guy was running it, I chose mandrake (the 9.1 beta at that time).
I have to admit, it was very nice to not have to do anything to get things set up. Things just worked, be it the mouse, the display, the printer setup (which autoprobed the network and presented me with a list of printers and other cups servers on the network), etc. Hardware autodetection was great, and the install was the "insert cd, click, click, click, wait for 20 min, reboot" type, which the only thing I did different by default was not install kde (I like gnome, and at the time I wanted to be up as quickly as possible, without having to wait for two full desktops to load from CD.
The included tools worked very well, but they didn't seem as "integrated" as in redhat 9 (which I'm using at the place I am now). They worked great, and all had the same look, but there is definately something to be said for bluecurve and it's ability to make everything look like it works together.
I didn't get the chance to try out the windows partition resizing or ability to install in a dual boot situation.
All in all something I'd definately try again, and will (and have) recommended to friends.
And if you read the rest of the thread you see the rest of the list flame him for putting out more of the same noise as always, the sort of noise that doesn't belong on the LKML. Of course, anyone who has seen RMS knows he really doesn't talk about anything other than the GNU/Linux vs Linux thing.
I'm unsure how to moderate the parent post. Is it funny, flamebait, or troll?
Re:He's the Norton SystemWorks guy!
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Nuke him from orbit, it's the only way to be sure./bad aliens paraphrase
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I agree with most of your points, but the problem with mandating spam to include an opt out link (which I think most "legit" spam does) is that there will still be people that use the remove@ messages to harvest "live" email addresses. I tell people these days to *never* reply to spam, no matter what it says, simply because chances are better that way.
Even if all "legit" spams did this, it only takes one person to start harvesting this way and the whole thing completely looses it's meaning. And when you're in a business where a) following the rules and b) annoying people is required, providing opt-out really isn't in your best interests.
Personally I think the only way to deal with this is public execution of one spammer a week on live TV until either a) they're all gone (may have to increase the frequency a bit for that) or b) the rest get the picture.
The main thing for me would be having control of my own mail. If they decide that.mac isn't worth it, or is taking too much $, or something, they can shut it down, and people like you, with their primary email being @mac.com are hooped. I'd rather take the time to set up my own email domain and set up and be assured that it won't be grabbed out from under my feet someday. The other stuff mentioned is nice to have, and wonderfully integrated as only SJ can do, but not as important as the email IMHO.
Mail merge was a bad example, sorry about that:) Word has lots of features that hardly anyone uses, but they "win" (or won, now that they are really the only game around) because people look at the long tick list of features and figure that because it has all these features, it's better, even though they will never use more than 10% of the features.
MS has been doing this forever, since approximately, well, DOS 1.0. There was a great article about how around the time that Word 2.0 came out MS realized (I think because someone else used the same technique) that you can sell a product completely on a tick list of features that may or may not work, and that may or may not be even useful to people, but since they see that word 2.0 does mail merges and fobricating, and otherproduct 2.0 doesn't, then word must be better. Ever since that time that's how MS has done it's selling (so spake the article, which I'll try to dig up).
The way that it backgrounds is not that different, but the way it's done, or that people assume it will be done, is. MS took the "background and su/login as another user" idea and made a stupidly simple gui way of doing it (click start, choose switch user, select new user, log in, do stuff, log out, return to old user session still running) and I assume that mac is going to copy that.
Well, the songs don't expire, or require you to pay a monthly fee, you can burn them as a music CD to play anywhere, as many times as you want, and with a bit of sidestepping you can easily convert the songs to mp3 (burn to ISO image, rip from iso image to mp3). Now I don't have a mac capable of doing any of this (rev a imac w/o a burner), and I'm in canada, so I can't buy music from the apple music store anyway, so some of this is just what I've read about.
And as for only playing on apple devices... well gosh, you'd almost thing that was to try to get people to buy more macs! The fact that it only works on ipods and macs shows that mac hardware works nicely together, but there is a promised windows version of the apple music store (or itunes?) coming RSN.
Just to play devils advocate, you can copy music to a friends computer (two other computers in fact) just fine (assuming they have macs of course) and if you crack your physical CD can you go to the store and get a new one? No, you have to buy it again, just like if you wipe your hard drive you can't re-download the same songs.
I don't totally agree with all these, but the fact that they have the big 5 agreeing to this is an accomplishment in itself. There are obviously some implementation quirks (lack of support for non macs being the biggest IMHO), but the store is very new, so hopefully things will get cleaned up as time goes on.
Hi, you must have missed every other flamewar that's surrounded rms, kde and gnu/linux vs linux in the last few years.
RMS basically thinks that because linux was built with a lot of gnu tools, he and the rest of gnu are being screwed over/ignored/lost if it's not called gnu/linux, to symbolize that it's a kernel and a bunch of (gnu) tools.
Personally I'm lazy and if I could just call linux "lin" or "l" I would. That and while I respect RMS, he seems to talk about gnu/linux vs linux at every. single. opportunity. he. gets., and it's very annoying to see (which I have in person at a couple of linux world expos).
Not that I want to start a flame war here (well, I do have karma to burn) but isn't that like saying "you should charge everyone who manufactures handguns, because they are intended to kill people, and that is murder"?
Just because something is designed to do something (ie: render in a frame, kill something) doesn't mean everyone who uses it will do it that way. What if the world all used text browers (not links), you could have frames on your site but they'd never get rendered or used, would that exclude you from the patent?
Personally I think it's a complete and total crock of shit, and the argument isn't relevant, as they are just trying to make some $ and hoping people will be scared into paying (shown by going after the little guys first).
This means that they will see these crappy ads, and they will end up hating the web just like they hate email now because of all the spam.
Maybe if they all leave so will the advertisers, and leave it back to the geeks that had it at one time? No great loss....
Seriously though, if the problem becomes too bad they will change and not use the default, even if it means have some sort of pay for one-click get rid of all the bad stuff program. Either that or enough will discover how (through their kids or friends) and how to get rid of ads, or switch to mozilla/opera/netscape/firebird/safari/install a blocker will enter into the common body of knowledge.
Funnily enough in opera I got an empty pop up window when I clicked on their links. Oh well, no big loss. No hurry to install flash or whatever they use either.
I doubt IE will ever (well, maybe not ever) change this sort of "corporate friendly" behaviour and functionality (or rather, lack of functionality) as MS doesn't want to make enemies of the big boys that control the advertising world that MS doesn't already.
Every time I am forced to use a windows box and IE I remember why I don't. DHTML crap floating over the page, no tabs, flash, pop ups, pop unders banner ads period (I use a banner blocking proxy)....
The thing that gets me is that people put up with it. I guess they just don't know any better... there are pop up blockers, alternative browsers, ad blocking proxys, etc etc etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that the fact you could choose what EXEs are allowed to run was going to make XP virus and trojan free?
I remember when the guy who made shields up was barking about how XP having unix sockets was going to spell the end of the internet the MS response was "you can control what EXEs are run, so you'll never have to worry about trojans, so irc bots and whatnot are never going to be an issue".
By "grow" you mean "continue using their illegal monopoly to continue doing illegal things that they have been proven guilty for in court", right? I'm all for companies growing, but MS is big enough already, dontcha think?
If Norton Aquired McAfee, or if winzip aquired winrar, or whatever, that's ok, that's competition in the market. When MS *is* the market, it's a different story. Of course, they have bought enough polititions that it's not like anything is going to be done about it, even if anyone does say anything, right?
Hey, clue-stick people. Spammers don't care. They don't give two shits about who they are sending to or in some cases, what they are sending to them. They are either sending out whatever email that someone pays them to, or they have a list of email addresses they bought and couldn't care less if the emails are a) legit or b) in the demographic they asked for (if they bothered to ask).
The way that spam works is the more people you send to, the more chance you will make a profit, regardless of the risk. The cost of sending a few million email messages, or getting a new AOL/ISP account if your old one is shut down is minimul compared to what you'll get back if just one sucker sends you money for viagra, penis enlarger, fat loss pills, or spam blockers.
If you reduce the number of emails you send out by screening for certain age ranges that means that instead of sending out 5,000,000 messages you're only sending 4,999,900 (or whatever) and that's less potential eyes, and therefor less potential buyers.
In short, as sick as it is, it just doesn't make financial sense for spammers to care about who they are sending to (at least the non "legal" spammers anyway). Based on the number of spams for breast enlargement, they don't even check the most basic demographic information anyway.
This doesn't mean that a) when I have kids they're going to have either a spam filter or white listed email coming to them as well as parental guidance / watching and b) all spammers don't deserve to be hung and quartered, then violated by a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire, but not necissarily in that order....
If you've ever seen linux talk, or read his book, that's his attitude (as I see it, YMMV, IANAL, IMHO, etc). He wants to program cool stuff that interests him. He couldn't care less about linux vendors, desktop wars, or 90% of the shit that "the linux community" is concerned about. I'd be willing to wager that if no one but him used Linux he's *still* be hacking away on it, because that seems to be the sort of person he is (the fact he's more a manager of code now than a coder aside).
I for one agree with his apathy... it's denying the sort of media circus that could result. Think about how much better all our lives would have been if the media had chose apathy in the OJ case (I know I'm going OT here) and just reported "OJ on trail for murder" and then proceeded onto the next story.
Personally I'm ignoring it all too, until some code that is actually damning is produced, or there is actually a legal leg to stand on, it's just noise.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my perl, which is mostly just noise as well.
True, but anyone with a) a virus scanner running b) enough brains to see that latest-hot-single.mp3.vbs is not something you want to download and c) the ability to use the mouse-over function to see the actual filename can deal with it :)
Regardless, only one player in the market leads to monopoly type situations, whereas > 1 leads to competition (even if it is sucky competition) which is good.
Sure, and I forgot to mention I was a debian guy before gentoo.
.deb sometimes does this, but bear with me) I had to search mirrors and hope they hadn't been updated or go searching through the pool or ask around on irc, or hope that I hadn't chosen "delete downloaded files".
:)
Gentoo has a couple of things I like, outside of the standard "it's 31337 cause I compile everything!!!!!" line that everyone gives.
Since portage ebuilds are really just a bunch of files describing how to compile other files, it keeps old versions. One thing that pissed me off with debian was that if I upgraded to some just released package and it completely b0rked things up (more common in unstable of course, but it has happened before), and I had to go back to $newversion -1 to fix things, or do a db dump, or use the previous version to backup my data, or whatever (I know the
With portage I just go into the directory and do a "emerge -.ebuild" from the list of available ebuilds, which will let me install the older version (or really any previous version). I think that debian now has an archive site now, but this used to be a big piss off for me, especially in unstable's various postgres updates (which of course didn't have binary compatibility with the previous versions db).
Gentoo also seems to be a big quicker with new versions of software being supported. The ability to just copy program-1.1.ebuild to program-1.2.ebuild when a new version comes out is nice too, as 99% of the time it'll work, *and* you get the new version installed into the package management system without having to "pollute" your system with non-package managed tarball installs.
But that's just my thoughts, completely offtopic. I still love debian, regardless of what I'm using now, and it graces all my servers
I've been a gentoo guy for a while now, but at my last job I decided to try one of the "end user" distros and as the other guy was running it, I chose mandrake (the 9.1 beta at that time).
I have to admit, it was very nice to not have to do anything to get things set up. Things just worked, be it the mouse, the display, the printer setup (which autoprobed the network and presented me with a list of printers and other cups servers on the network), etc. Hardware autodetection was great, and the install was the "insert cd, click, click, click, wait for 20 min, reboot" type, which the only thing I did different by default was not install kde (I like gnome, and at the time I wanted to be up as quickly as possible, without having to wait for two full desktops to load from CD.
The included tools worked very well, but they didn't seem as "integrated" as in redhat 9 (which I'm using at the place I am now). They worked great, and all had the same look, but there is definately something to be said for bluecurve and it's ability to make everything look like it works together.
I didn't get the chance to try out the windows partition resizing or ability to install in a dual boot situation.
All in all something I'd definately try again, and will (and have) recommended to friends.
And if you read the rest of the thread you see the rest of the list flame him for putting out more of the same noise as always, the sort of noise that doesn't belong on the LKML. Of course, anyone who has seen RMS knows he really doesn't talk about anything other than the GNU/Linux vs Linux thing.
I'm unsure how to moderate the parent post. Is it funny, flamebait, or troll?
Nuke him from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. /bad aliens paraphrase
I agree with most of your points, but the problem with mandating spam to include an opt out link (which I think most "legit" spam does) is that there will still be people that use the remove@ messages to harvest "live" email addresses. I tell people these days to *never* reply to spam, no matter what it says, simply because chances are better that way.
:)
Even if all "legit" spams did this, it only takes one person to start harvesting this way and the whole thing completely looses it's meaning. And when you're in a business where a) following the rules and b) annoying people is required, providing opt-out really isn't in your best interests.
Personally I think the only way to deal with this is public execution of one spammer a week on live TV until either a) they're all gone (may have to increase the frequency a bit for that) or b) the rest get the picture.
Either way it'd be fun
The main thing for me would be having control of my own mail. If they decide that .mac isn't worth it, or is taking too much $, or something, they can shut it down, and people like you, with their primary email being @mac.com are hooped. I'd rather take the time to set up my own email domain and set up and be assured that it won't be grabbed out from under my feet someday. The other stuff mentioned is nice to have, and wonderfully integrated as only SJ can do, but not as important as the email IMHO.
Mail merge was a bad example, sorry about that :) Word has lots of features that hardly anyone uses, but they "win" (or won, now that they are really the only game around) because people look at the long tick list of features and figure that because it has all these features, it's better, even though they will never use more than 10% of the features.
MS has been doing this forever, since approximately, well, DOS 1.0. There was a great article about how around the time that Word 2.0 came out MS realized (I think because someone else used the same technique) that you can sell a product completely on a tick list of features that may or may not work, and that may or may not be even useful to people, but since they see that word 2.0 does mail merges and fobricating, and otherproduct 2.0 doesn't, then word must be better. Ever since that time that's how MS has done it's selling (so spake the article, which I'll try to dig up).
The way that it backgrounds is not that different, but the way it's done, or that people assume it will be done, is. MS took the "background and su/login as another user" idea and made a stupidly simple gui way of doing it (click start, choose switch user, select new user, log in, do stuff, log out, return to old user session still running) and I assume that mac is going to copy that.
Well, the songs don't expire, or require you to pay a monthly fee, you can burn them as a music CD to play anywhere, as many times as you want, and with a bit of sidestepping you can easily convert the songs to mp3 (burn to ISO image, rip from iso image to mp3). Now I don't have a mac capable of doing any of this (rev a imac w/o a burner), and I'm in canada, so I can't buy music from the apple music store anyway, so some of this is just what I've read about.
And as for only playing on apple devices... well gosh, you'd almost thing that was to try to get people to buy more macs! The fact that it only works on ipods and macs shows that mac hardware works nicely together, but there is a promised windows version of the apple music store (or itunes?) coming RSN.
Just to play devils advocate, you can copy music to a friends computer (two other computers in fact) just fine (assuming they have macs of course) and if you crack your physical CD can you go to the store and get a new one? No, you have to buy it again, just like if you wipe your hard drive you can't re-download the same songs.
I don't totally agree with all these, but the fact that they have the big 5 agreeing to this is an accomplishment in itself. There are obviously some implementation quirks (lack of support for non macs being the biggest IMHO), but the store is very new, so hopefully things will get cleaned up as time goes on.
Not 404s then, but host not found's. By default you get the nice msn "is this the domain you meant" messages on the msn search page.
thinner and sexier. Sadly, they're also gobs too expensive for a mere mortal to afford (at least the ultra sexy powerbooks).
Hi, you must have missed every other flamewar that's surrounded rms, kde and gnu/linux vs linux in the last few years.
RMS basically thinks that because linux was built with a lot of gnu tools, he and the rest of gnu are being screwed over/ignored/lost if it's not called gnu/linux, to symbolize that it's a kernel and a bunch of (gnu) tools.
Personally I'm lazy and if I could just call linux "lin" or "l" I would. That and while I respect RMS, he seems to talk about gnu/linux vs linux at every. single. opportunity. he. gets., and it's very annoying to see (which I have in person at a couple of linux world expos).
Not that I want to start a flame war here (well, I do have karma to burn) but isn't that like saying
"you should charge everyone who manufactures handguns, because they are intended to kill people, and that is murder"?
Just because something is designed to do something (ie: render in a frame, kill something) doesn't mean everyone who uses it will do it that way. What if the world all used text browers (not links), you could have frames on your site but they'd never get rendered or used, would that exclude you from the patent?
Personally I think it's a complete and total crock of shit, and the argument isn't relevant, as they are just trying to make some $ and hoping people will be scared into paying (shown by going after the little guys first).
[Insert "stupid us patents" comment here.]
This means that they will see these crappy ads, and they will end up hating the web just like they hate email now because of all the spam.
Maybe if they all leave so will the advertisers, and leave it back to the geeks that had it at one time? No great loss....
Seriously though, if the problem becomes too bad they will change and not use the default, even if it means have some sort of pay for one-click get rid of all the bad stuff program. Either that or enough will discover how (through their kids or friends) and how to get rid of ads, or switch to mozilla/opera/netscape/firebird/safari/install a blocker will enter into the common body of knowledge.
Hoping anyway.
Funnily enough in opera I got an empty pop up window when I clicked on their links. Oh well, no big loss. No hurry to install flash or whatever they use either.
I doubt IE will ever (well, maybe not ever) change this sort of "corporate friendly" behaviour and functionality (or rather, lack of functionality) as MS doesn't want to make enemies of the big boys that control the advertising world that MS doesn't already.
Every time I am forced to use a windows box and IE I remember why I don't. DHTML crap floating over the page, no tabs, flash, pop ups, pop unders banner ads period (I use a banner blocking proxy)....
The thing that gets me is that people put up with it. I guess they just don't know any better... there are pop up blockers, alternative browsers, ad blocking proxys, etc etc etc.
Maybe it's a problem of education of the user?