So your objection isn't to this ruling, but the one you're imagining will come later? As I quoted from the article (which as usual it doesn't look like anyone has bothered to read) this ruling does not apply to cable or satellite television. Broadcasters may want to use it universally, but the ruling they seek would not allow them to do that. You can still record your HDTV so long as you get your TV through cable or satellite. Of course I still think this sucks, as I value the idea that I could use the antenna on my TV to pick up programming, but in practice I'm not going to do that any time soon.
The rule would not affect consumers who record shows the old-fashioned way, with VCRs. Nor would it affect programming received on a cable or satellite system, in part because consumers pay for that content.
I was worried I wouldn't be able to use my PVR to time shift, but it looks like this won't change a thing except for those who are picking up the free to air signal. I'm still against this on principal, but at least it wouldn't affect me (or most of us I would think) since I subscribe to satellite.
Yes, like I said, I feel sorry for what they've gone through, and I didn't mean to support the DDoS'ers. However I've been very tempted to DDoS some of these lists myself as they keep jeopardizing the business I've worked very hard to build. Of course I'd never do that or condone it, I just like to dream about it.
If you think about it, by instructing sites all over the world to reject email from my users they've launched their own distributed attack against me. Not DoS attacks, but meaningful attacks none the less. Can I call the FBI in against them? Of course not. I have wondered if I would have a case against them though for the harm they have caused my business. I'm just not the type to go around suing people.
I'm sorry for the trouble these guys have had, but I've had more trouble with black lists then benefit. I've been black listed many times for stupid reasons. Like one of the sign-off's mentioned, I've had @mydomain.com used to send spams, had to handle the bounces and then been blacklisted on top of that. I've had spam link to a page I host even though the spam wasn't advertising the page, it was using the page to support the sale of its product. The page was about water safety, and posted by someone with no connection to the spammers. I've twice been blacklisted and once had UUNet filter my IP allocation because users had uploaded old vulnerable versions of FormMail.pl to their web sites and spammers found and abused the hole. Both times I had found and removed the offending script before getting shut down, only to be blacklisted/filtered AFTER fixing the problem.
As you might have guessed I have no love for RBL type services. I think their hearts are in the right place, but I'm tired of getting caught in the cross-fire. Since at some point, in order to benefit spammers have to be contacted by consumers, law enforcement should be able to track them down. I'd love to see that sort of thing become common. I can't see a technological solution even with a complete overhaul of how email works. I like the fact that a stranger can email me if they like. I just want to see legal limitations on that contact to prevent spam.
The problem with the dnscache (djbdns) patch is that it filters based on IP addresses. While this is the obvious solution, I don't think it is the best solution. I think BIND's approach is to list the domains that should be delegate only, and that is a better approach because that way they can't just change the IP every day to avoid getting blocked.
Better yet (and I could very well be wrong here) I'd like to see a patch that would force all TLD's to be delegate only. I don't know of any examples off hand where that would be a problem on the Internet... Maybe in an internal network, in which case the sysadmins just don't apply the patch or disable the feature.
I should add - This feature is available in the C++ that comes with Visual Studio.NET 2003, and no - I'm not talking about "managed code". I'm talking compiling to machine code and turning on a compiler switch.
I host web sites. Here's a webalizer chunk on User Agents from a piece of November I called up just to see if it was close:
Top 15 of 5486 Total User Agents
# Hits User Agent
1 200870 9.80% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)
2 169779 8.29% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)
3 161822 7.90% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; Win 9x
4.90)
4 73991 3.61% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)
5 72181 3.52% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)
6 70011 3.42% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)
7 63082 3.08% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98)
8 54560 2.66% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x
4.90)
9 46702 2.28% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)
10 43299 2.11% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
11 41167 2.01% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 4.0)
12 37536 1.83% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Mac_PowerPC)
13 33620 1.64% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 95)
14 29224 1.43% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98)
15 28778 1.40% Mozilla/3.01 (compatible;)
Ok, #12 says it is Mac, and #15 doesn't say at all. I host the primary site for the UNIX Socket FAQ, which you would expect to bring in a significant chunk of Linux users, but it isn't even in the top 15. Maybe users are masking their user agent? Maybe some, but not many.
Take from this what you will, I just thought it was interesting...
RMS is not only responsible for the licsense that most GNOME software falls under, but also for a very large chunk of the compiler that builds it. I think I can appreciate where you're coming from, but to say that RMS hasn't made a significant contribution to GNOME seems absurd to me. I don't call it GNU/Linux either, but the man deserves a lot more recognition than he gets. Very few of us hard core Linux types would be where we are without the contributions of RMS. GNOME is symbolic of the fight against propriatary software, and RMS deserves a position on that board just as much as Miguel does, even if for different reasons. I do not believe that GNOME would exist without RMS.
I have to agree... I am a member of the eff, and feel it is very important to defend our eroding civil liberties. When I see any attack on privacy, I automatically feel my temper flare and want to fight it. Katz is right. It is time to step back and think about the trade off between safety and our civil rights. I'm not saying that the trade off will always be worth it, but we should take the time to understand it before condemning it.
Not to mention the whole c++ i/o system with cout and cin, etc.
I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw the example code using printf.
Also I don't think c++ should be put down for lack of a high level string type or safe associative arrays. One needs only look so far as the Standard Template Library for these things.
This seems to almost parallel UNIX/Windows. UNIX consists of lots of little tools, and each does its job well. Users can choose the best tool for the job. Windows includes all-in-one, where every application has every feature the way the developer wanted, and the user doesn't have to worry about knowing how to make the pieces work together. C++ lets the user (of the language) decide which string class to use, and whether or not to include garbage collection. D appears to provide these as decided by the developer (of the language), removing the burden from the user, and aiding in consistancy across different projects.
I'm not saying one way is better than the other, but I like UNIX and c++ myself. Most people like Windows, maybe they'll like D too.
Hook it up to a water or wind mill, and have it serve a web-cam page of itself running. We should have enough power left to run a quick-cam, shouldn't we?
There is no magic to multiplying 5 digit numbers in one's head. Systems like The Trachtenberg System of Speed Mathematics (called Basic mathematics in the edition of the book that I have) can teach this trick to anyone who is good with figures.
I don't read ntbugtraq, but I searched the archives for 'weenies' and didn't come up with anything. I wonder if the FP98 extensions for UNIX are affected.
strings shtml.exe | grep -i ween
didn't show any matches. Of course we'd expect them to hash the password anyway.
I think the lack of codec's would be first problem. We could use patent free publicly available codecs, but I don't think we'll find anything near as good as Real, MS or Apple have.
The second problem is the server. Even a napster style arrangement needs a server to allow clients and servers to find one another. The lawers would probably go after the person running the server. This could work with a distributed server arrangement like DNS plus some sort of dynamic root server setup plus public codecs, or dynamically linking to closed source codec libraries. Maybe we could use IRC servers as a difficult to shut down way of distributing dynamic server addresses. There are options... I'm not going to stop thinking about this any time soon. Anyone interested in participating in such a project can email me at vic@zymsys.com. I may not be able to participate in the long run, but I can at least help us start.
I bought an Indy hoping to run Linux on it. Linux on MIPS hardware doesn't even run X-Windows. I'd be really happy if this support for hardware OpenGL is extended to the Indy. Then maybe I'll have X-Windows on it! Of course I doubt I'll ever see that. The last status update for the project on SGI's web site is almost a year old.
Yes, I have studied Python, and have used it, but only to learn about it. I haven't done anything serious with it. I liked it a lot, but I like other languages better. I'm not totally biased against interpreted languages. I've done major projects in java and php for example.
It comes down to choosing the best tool for the job. For one web site I was working on I used a combination of c, c++, bash and php. Each did something that it was better suited for than the others. I like having that kind of flexability, so I don't like the idea of python, or any other language being mandated.
Ok, they had me up until the bit about having to build the tools in python.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against python, or scripting in general, but these tools scream c or c++ to me.
I can understand wanting to standardize on one language to help make this "suite" a cohesive whole, but they've got to select the right tool for the job. Hell, I don't even have python installed on most of the boxes I use, but you can bet c and c++ will always be there.
From their FAQ... "Requiring that all tools be written in, or scriptable with, a single language will make it easier for newcomers to learn, use, and extend these tools."
How does does implementing a tool in a scripted language make it eaiser for newcomers to learn and use?
Oh well, other than that mandate this looks like a really cool project. I wish Software Carpentry all the luck on the world!
Zymurgy Systems (yes, this is my company) provides everything you list (MySQL, PHP3 module, 100MB, 1GB transfer) for $20/month except for shell access. I also offer basic hosting for $5/month.
One of the best features I offer is the ability to stick domain names on subdirectories for $3/month so that web designers can host their clients' sites and charge them whatever they want.
I do automated backups of all the config files, but I don't back up users' sites. If they go down, you'll know about it and you'll have to re-upload your content. I haven't had a disaster yet, and do have excellent uptime.
Check out Zymurgy Systems. Good quality at a low price. And of course you can trust me because its my business!;)
Hey, at least I didn't post as AC and try to pass myself off as a client...
Seriously though, I host on Linux and provide MySQL and PHP3. My servers are co-located on multiple OC-12's (I'm told) and it feels damned fast from my DSL. I also provide a really cool feature where you can point seperate domains to subdirectories on your site for $3/month each and then bill your client whatever to want as if you host their site. Needless to say this is a popular feature with web site developers!
In any case, good luck finding a decent hosting service!
Take care, Vic.
PS: I also maintain the UNIX Socket FAQ and released the source code for the FAQ engine under the GPL here. So if you like, think of supporting Zymurgy Systems as helping to support free software! In any case you can check out those sites to evaluate the speed of dynamic database driven content.
I work for what I believe to be the largest Domino hosting company in Canada (www.acemail.com)... We are very excited about the Linux version of the server. We spend a lot of money baby sitting NT boxes running Domino. If we can save money by switching to Linux you can be sure we will. We already run a lot of Sun boxes, but since IBM PC servers come with a Domino license, you can be sure that wins out for Dominso servers. If IBM lets that license be a Linux license (or honestly, any stable OS), we will run a lot of them. We're already a very pro-UNIX shop, we just need a cost effective version of Domino for UNIX/Linux/Some stable OS, and we'll switch FAST.
Soon the only thing we'll need NT for is COM support in ASP/Frontpage sites, and Domino sites that make WIN32 API calls... And not many of our sites need that. Viva le Linux!
Slashdot Mirror
Please re-read my comments. If you think I'm not against this then you didn't read closely enough.
So your objection isn't to this ruling, but the one you're imagining will come later? As I quoted from the article (which as usual it doesn't look like anyone has bothered to read) this ruling does not apply to cable or satellite television. Broadcasters may want to use it universally, but the ruling they seek would not allow them to do that. You can still record your HDTV so long as you get your TV through cable or satellite. Of course I still think this sucks, as I value the idea that I could use the antenna on my TV to pick up programming, but in practice I'm not going to do that any time soon.
I was worried I wouldn't be able to use my PVR to time shift, but it looks like this won't change a thing except for those who are picking up the free to air signal. I'm still against this on principal, but at least it wouldn't affect me (or most of us I would think) since I subscribe to satellite.
Finally I can create a Beowulf cluster without the clutter of all those machines!
Yes, like I said, I feel sorry for what they've gone through, and I didn't mean to support the DDoS'ers. However I've been very tempted to DDoS some of these lists myself as they keep jeopardizing the business I've worked very hard to build. Of course I'd never do that or condone it, I just like to dream about it.
If you think about it, by instructing sites all over the world to reject email from my users they've launched their own distributed attack against me. Not DoS attacks, but meaningful attacks none the less. Can I call the FBI in against them? Of course not. I have wondered if I would have a case against them though for the harm they have caused my business. I'm just not the type to go around suing people.
I'm sorry for the trouble these guys have had, but I've had more trouble with black lists then benefit. I've been black listed many times for stupid reasons. Like one of the sign-off's mentioned, I've had @mydomain.com used to send spams, had to handle the bounces and then been blacklisted on top of that. I've had spam link to a page I host even though the spam wasn't advertising the page, it was using the page to support the sale of its product. The page was about water safety, and posted by someone with no connection to the spammers. I've twice been blacklisted and once had UUNet filter my IP allocation because users had uploaded old vulnerable versions of FormMail.pl to their web sites and spammers found and abused the hole. Both times I had found and removed the offending script before getting shut down, only to be blacklisted/filtered AFTER fixing the problem.
As you might have guessed I have no love for RBL type services. I think their hearts are in the right place, but I'm tired of getting caught in the cross-fire. Since at some point, in order to benefit spammers have to be contacted by consumers, law enforcement should be able to track them down. I'd love to see that sort of thing become common. I can't see a technological solution even with a complete overhaul of how email works. I like the fact that a stranger can email me if they like. I just want to see legal limitations on that contact to prevent spam.
The problem with the dnscache (djbdns) patch is that it filters based on IP addresses. While this is the obvious solution, I don't think it is the best solution. I think BIND's approach is to list the domains that should be delegate only, and that is a better approach because that way they can't just change the IP every day to avoid getting blocked.
Better yet (and I could very well be wrong here) I'd like to see a patch that would force all TLD's to be delegate only. I don't know of any examples off hand where that would be a problem on the Internet... Maybe in an internal network, in which case the sysadmins just don't apply the patch or disable the feature.
I should add - This feature is available in the C++ that comes with Visual Studio.NET 2003, and no - I'm not talking about "managed code". I'm talking compiling to machine code and turning on a compiler switch.
Visual Studio.NET 2003 does this. I know it isn't popular with this crowd, but they have included it and it does work well with very little overhead.
...and you want to support their work, check out this order form for CDs:
http://www.anythingbox.com/form.htm
(Yes, I realize that you can't then try before you buy, but I'd prefer to take a chance on these guys than a lot of CDs in the store.)
I host web sites. Here's a webalizer chunk on User Agents from a piece of November I called up just to see if it was close:
Top 15 of 5486 Total User Agents
# Hits User Agent
1 200870 9.80% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)
2 169779 8.29% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)
3 161822 7.90% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; Win 9x
4.90)
4 73991 3.61% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)
5 72181 3.52% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)
6 70011 3.42% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)
7 63082 3.08% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98)
8 54560 2.66% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x
4.90)
9 46702 2.28% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)
10 43299 2.11% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
11 41167 2.01% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 4.0)
12 37536 1.83% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Mac_PowerPC)
13 33620 1.64% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 95)
14 29224 1.43% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98)
15 28778 1.40% Mozilla/3.01 (compatible;)
Ok, #12 says it is Mac, and #15 doesn't say at all. I host the primary site for the UNIX Socket FAQ, which you would expect to bring in a significant chunk of Linux users, but it isn't even in the top 15. Maybe users are masking their user agent? Maybe some, but not many.
Take from this what you will, I just thought it was interesting...
RMS is not only responsible for the licsense that most GNOME software falls under, but also for a very large chunk of the compiler that builds it. I think I can appreciate where you're coming from, but to say that RMS hasn't made a significant contribution to GNOME seems absurd to me. I don't call it GNU/Linux either, but the man deserves a lot more recognition than he gets. Very few of us hard core Linux types would be where we are without the contributions of RMS. GNOME is symbolic of the fight against propriatary software, and RMS deserves a position on that board just as much as Miguel does, even if for different reasons. I do not believe that GNOME would exist without RMS.
I have to agree... I am a member of the eff, and feel it is very important to defend our eroding civil liberties. When I see any attack on privacy, I automatically feel my temper flare and want to fight it. Katz is right. It is time to step back and think about the trade off between safety and our civil rights. I'm not saying that the trade off will always be worth it, but we should take the time to understand it before condemning it.
Not to mention the whole c++ i/o system with cout and cin, etc.
I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw the example code using printf.
Also I don't think c++ should be put down for lack of a high level string type or safe associative arrays. One needs only look so far as the Standard Template Library for these things.
This seems to almost parallel UNIX/Windows. UNIX consists of lots of little tools, and each does its job well. Users can choose the best tool for the job. Windows includes all-in-one, where every application has every feature the way the developer wanted, and the user doesn't have to worry about knowing how to make the pieces work together. C++ lets the user (of the language) decide which string class to use, and whether or not to include garbage collection. D appears to provide these as decided by the developer (of the language), removing the burden from the user, and aiding in consistancy across different projects.
I'm not saying one way is better than the other, but I like UNIX and c++ myself. Most people like Windows, maybe they'll like D too.
Hook it up to a water or wind mill, and have it serve a web-cam page of itself running. We should have enough power left to run a quick-cam, shouldn't we?
There is no magic to multiplying 5 digit numbers in one's head. Systems like The Trachtenberg System of Speed Mathematics (called Basic mathematics in the edition of the book that I have) can teach this trick to anyone who is good with figures.
strings shtml.exe | grep -i ween
didn't show any matches. Of course we'd expect them to hash the password anyway.
I think the lack of codec's would be first problem. We could use patent free publicly available codecs, but I don't think we'll find anything near as good as Real, MS or Apple have.
The second problem is the server. Even a napster style arrangement needs a server to allow clients and servers to find one another. The lawers would probably go after the person running the server. This could work with a distributed server arrangement like DNS plus some sort of dynamic root server setup plus public codecs, or dynamically linking to closed source codec libraries. Maybe we could use IRC servers as a difficult to shut down way of distributing dynamic server addresses. There are options... I'm not going to stop thinking about this any time soon. Anyone interested in participating in such a project can email me at vic@zymsys.com. I may not be able to participate in the long run, but I can at least help us start.
I bought an Indy hoping to run Linux on it. Linux on MIPS hardware doesn't even run X-Windows. I'd be really happy if this support for hardware OpenGL is extended to the Indy. Then maybe I'll have X-Windows on it! Of course I doubt I'll ever see that. The last status update for the project on SGI's web site is almost a year old.
I work for iCraveTV's ISP, and am involved in the project. The antanas are on our roof, in Canada. No signals are captured anywhere else.
It comes down to choosing the best tool for the job. For one web site I was working on I used a combination of c, c++, bash and php. Each did something that it was better suited for than the others. I like having that kind of flexability, so I don't like the idea of python, or any other language being mandated.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against python, or scripting in general, but these tools scream c or c++ to me.
I can understand wanting to standardize on one language to help make this "suite" a cohesive whole, but they've got to select the right tool for the job. Hell, I don't even have python installed on most of the boxes I use, but you can bet c and c++ will always be there.
From their FAQ... "Requiring that all tools be written in, or scriptable with, a single language will make it easier for newcomers to learn, use, and extend these tools."
How does does implementing a tool in a scripted language make it eaiser for newcomers to learn and use?
Oh well, other than that mandate this looks like a really cool project. I wish Software Carpentry all the luck on the world!
One of the best features I offer is the ability to stick domain names on subdirectories for $3/month so that web designers can host their clients' sites and charge them whatever they want.
I do automated backups of all the config files, but I don't back up users' sites. If they go down, you'll know about it and you'll have to re-upload your content. I haven't had a disaster yet, and do have excellent uptime.
Whoever you choose, good luck!
Hey, at least I didn't post as AC and try to pass myself off as a client...
Seriously though, I host on Linux and provide MySQL and PHP3. My servers are co-located on multiple OC-12's (I'm told) and it feels damned fast from my DSL. I also provide a really cool feature where you can point seperate domains to subdirectories on your site for $3/month each and then bill your client whatever to want as if you host their site. Needless to say this is a popular feature with web site developers!
In any case, good luck finding a decent hosting service!
Take care,
Vic.
PS: I also maintain the UNIX Socket FAQ and released the source code for the FAQ engine under the GPL here. So if you like, think of supporting Zymurgy Systems as helping to support free software! In any case you can check out those sites to evaluate the speed of dynamic database driven content.
Soon the only thing we'll need NT for is COM support in ASP/Frontpage sites, and Domino sites that make WIN32 API calls... And not many of our sites need that. Viva le Linux!