Anyone who has been on irc for over 8 years remembers when DNS cache poisoning first started showing up (about 97.)
This is a quote from the "IRC Operators Guide" written in 8/97: "DNS spoofing is a relatively new hit these days on IRC. You'll generally find spoofs one of two ways - you're watching the connections (usermode +c) and an unusual hostmask appears, or a user reports one. The first thing to do is to get the user's IP address (/stats L nick), and check to see if the DNS lookup matches the IP address. If it doesn't, you know you have a spoof. With this information, you can KILL the spoof, and when it reconnects, see where the real host is and issue a K-line (which won't stop them from spoofing again, but will prevent them from signing on *without* spoofing). Some servers have the capability of D-lines, which allow you to ban by ip mask. A D-line will prevent the client from connecting at all, regardless of whether they try DNS spoofing or not. If the server supports the DLINE command, you can do/dline ipmask:reason."
It has been a well known problem since way back then and it has still not be dealt with in any real way.
As another reply, this quoting Linus himself: "PS. Don't bother telling me about subversion. If you must, start reading up on "monotone". That seems to be the most viable alternative, but don't pester the developers so much that they don't get any work done. They are already aware of my problems;)"
Very true. I dont argue that point. They could have easily left it like that and it wouldnt have hurt at all. And of course they are riding the free publicity they got. I was just saying that developing it MORE was affecting the bottom line.
By all accounts (opinions of course) Larry is a complete asshole and is doing this out of spite. I am not a fan of his. I was merely pointing out that he wasnt lying when he said that continuing development was hurting the bottom line (or was about to.)
I hadnt actually looked at Monotone yet. But from a cursory look at the website it seems to fill a void, or will once it is mature enough.
The problem I see here is the level of fragmentation in the open source SCM world. Monotone looks like it is designed from the ground up to be distributed. CVS and Subversion were not, but are both much more mature projects on the standalone side. Then you have arch which seems to fit somewhere in the middle. It would be nice to have some of these teams working together since something like a subversion with the distributed nature of monotone is what we really want here.
Beleive me, I am on the same side as you. From what I could tell the majority will be able to say "I told you so" now. That aside, arch is the only one that has a strong focus on decentralization but as you say it isnt as mature as cvs or subversion. This could be a big enough catalyst to get a few of these groups of people to work together. Wouldnt be a bad thing to see some of the good ideas and implementations in arch and subversion merged. Of course I realize this is a pretty unlikely event (sort of like gnome and kde merging efforts entirely,) but it would be a huge step forward for completely free SCM.
The problem with this right now is that BitKeeper was built to be very distributed and subversion is not. They might have to change the workflow again and use something that doesnt allow for as much easy distributed work. But that would be a major step back I would think.
It was hurting the bottom line. As he says in the article it costs them money to develop both versions since the open source one has different requirements from the commercial one.
It takes time and resources away from the commercial one as well. With all of that, it was hurting the bottom line now that they werent getting enough return on the investment.
The open source tools are not up to bitkeepers level yet. But lets hope with this that they get some more support and some more developers. This is proof that we need one. Subversion is probably the closest.
I am all for free and open source software. But can you fault someone for trying to make a profit? Dont you like eating?
When giving out the free version looks like it will start to HURT the bottom line, as the head a company with employees (who need to get paid) he has to reconsider things.
"Having quickly read the READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE". Well, good job reading an acronym.
As for Larry McVoy, the company needs to make money. I can understand that. I wish his software was free (as in freedom,) but it isnt. One of the open source efforts just needs to catch up. I say "just" but I know its a big task.
Hasnt affected me in the slightest. I took a job at 16 programming. I had to quit school near the end of 8th grade and move to another state.
That was 12 years ago. I havent had any trouble getting jobs in the computer industry with big corporations. With 12 years of experience I doubt I will have any trouble in the future either.
I think its a little different than that though, while being completely evil in every possible way I can conceive I think they have a reason for this. They want to know you have the intelligence to do those things and the drive to get things done. They dont want just any old band who isnt commited enough to go out and really promote themselves.
A lot of bands do this. It's pretty much the normal way to go about things BEFORE you get a label contract, if thats what your looking for. It seems your not, but that is the normal thing any successful band had to go through to get to the point where a label would be interested. That and actually have good music and a loyal fanbase.
It is still good advice though. One thing you might consider is holding onto all of those early recordings just incase you actually somehow make it. They will sell huge if you do.
I think it has something to do with the fact that its debian. A lot of the debian users I know have switched to other systems in the last year or so. A lot of them are trying gentoo lately. I have no numbers to back any of that up, just an observation.
Slashdot Mirror
We have. This has been a known problem since early 1997. It is well documented in the IRC community (admins and coders.)
Documents like this one from 1997: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~kennyz/doc/unix/dns.spoof
Anyone who has been on irc for over 8 years remembers when DNS cache poisoning first started showing up (about 97.)
/dline ipmask :reason."
This is a quote from the "IRC Operators Guide" written in 8/97:
"DNS spoofing is a relatively new hit these days on IRC. You'll generally find spoofs one of two ways - you're watching the connections (usermode +c) and an unusual hostmask appears, or a user reports one. The first thing to do is to get the user's IP address (/stats L nick), and check to see if the DNS lookup matches the IP address. If it doesn't, you know you have a spoof. With this information, you can KILL the spoof, and when it reconnects, see where the real host is and issue a K-line (which won't stop them from spoofing again, but will prevent them from signing on *without* spoofing). Some servers have the capability of D-lines, which allow you to ban by ip mask. A D-line will prevent the client from connecting at all, regardless of whether they try DNS spoofing or not. If the server supports the DLINE command, you can do
It has been a well known problem since way back then and it has still not be dealt with in any real way.
As another reply, this quoting Linus himself: ;)"
"PS. Don't bother telling me about subversion. If you must, start reading up on "monotone". That seems to be the most viable alternative, but don't pester the developers so much that they don't get any work done. They are already aware of my problems
Seems he is already looking into using it.
Very true. I dont argue that point. They could have easily left it like that and it wouldnt have hurt at all. And of course they are riding the free publicity they got. I was just saying that developing it MORE was affecting the bottom line.
By all accounts (opinions of course) Larry is a complete asshole and is doing this out of spite. I am not a fan of his. I was merely pointing out that he wasnt lying when he said that continuing development was hurting the bottom line (or was about to.)
I hadnt actually looked at Monotone yet. But from a cursory look at the website it seems to fill a void, or will once it is mature enough.
The problem I see here is the level of fragmentation in the open source SCM world. Monotone looks like it is designed from the ground up to be distributed. CVS and Subversion were not, but are both much more mature projects on the standalone side. Then you have arch which seems to fit somewhere in the middle. It would be nice to have some of these teams working together since something like a subversion with the distributed nature of monotone is what we really want here.
Beleive me, I am on the same side as you. From what I could tell the majority will be able to say "I told you so" now. That aside, arch is the only one that has a strong focus on decentralization but as you say it isnt as mature as cvs or subversion. This could be a big enough catalyst to get a few of these groups of people to work together. Wouldnt be a bad thing to see some of the good ideas and implementations in arch and subversion merged. Of course I realize this is a pretty unlikely event (sort of like gnome and kde merging efforts entirely,) but it would be a huge step forward for completely free SCM.
The problem with this right now is that BitKeeper was built to be very distributed and subversion is not. They might have to change the workflow again and use something that doesnt allow for as much easy distributed work. But that would be a major step back I would think.
It was hurting the bottom line. As he says in the article it costs them money to develop both versions since the open source one has different requirements from the commercial one.
It takes time and resources away from the commercial one as well. With all of that, it was hurting the bottom line now that they werent getting enough return on the investment.
I must need more coffee. Its "gregg-gets-petty" day today.
Of course that was posted on April 1st....
The open source tools are not up to bitkeepers level yet. But lets hope with this that they get some more support and some more developers. This is proof that we need one. Subversion is probably the closest.
I am all for free and open source software. But can you fault someone for trying to make a profit? Dont you like eating?
When giving out the free version looks like it will start to HURT the bottom line, as the head a company with employees (who need to get paid) he has to reconsider things.
"Having quickly read the RTFA"
"Having quickly read the READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE". Well, good job reading an acronym.
As for Larry McVoy, the company needs to make money. I can understand that. I wish his software was free (as in freedom,) but it isnt. One of the open source efforts just needs to catch up. I say "just" but I know its a big task.
I cant wait for the "I told you so" articles. Lets put money on whose will be best. I have my money on Richard Stallman.
Indeed, I stand corrected. But I figure that difference is only an argument of semantics. Seems pretty much the same thing (in this case) to me.
And this means what? That they dont deserve it?
They are getting what they deserve and I hope the case does happen. They plainly stole PearPC and are trying to profit off of others hard work.
Great, go ahead and support DRM
(Someone had to.)
Hasnt affected me in the slightest. I took a job at 16 programming. I had to quit school near the end of 8th grade and move to another state.
That was 12 years ago. I havent had any trouble getting jobs in the computer industry with big corporations. With 12 years of experience I doubt I will have any trouble in the future either.
Well your opinion is your opinion, it might be wrong (as it is.) But you are entitled to it.
If Apple would stop making the DRM more restrictive with every release we wouldnt need people like him doing what he does.
I dont mind Apple having some form of DRM in iTunes. I do mind them changing it up after I already agreed to one form of it.
I guess April Fools day was named after you huh?
By far the best use of a penny arcade link on slashdot.
Evil is ans evil does.
I think its a little different than that though, while being completely evil in every possible way I can conceive I think they have a reason for this. They want to know you have the intelligence to do those things and the drive to get things done. They dont want just any old band who isnt commited enough to go out and really promote themselves.
A lot of bands do this. It's pretty much the normal way to go about things BEFORE you get a label contract, if thats what your looking for. It seems your not, but that is the normal thing any successful band had to go through to get to the point where a label would be interested. That and actually have good music and a loyal fanbase.
It is still good advice though. One thing you might consider is holding onto all of those early recordings just incase you actually somehow make it. They will sell huge if you do.
I think it has something to do with the fact that its debian. A lot of the debian users I know have switched to other systems in the last year or so. A lot of them are trying gentoo lately. I have no numbers to back any of that up, just an observation.