Right. I think what the original poster may have been thinking of was, if a truck full of software drives through Montana on its way from Washington to Iowa, the state of Montana cannot interfere in interstate commerce. Iowa, Washington and the federal government can, and here Iowa is.
Umm... it ships out of the box with all ports closed. If the web server you install on top is actually secure (as you say), then how can the OS be compromised remotely?
I'm not questioning that there is no local security, but if you've got physical access to the box anyway, most systems aren't very secure.
1) yes, if you open up some potential security holes such as the AppleShare IP server (which is probably far more secure than SMB/CIFS).
2) no, unless you run extra software which may not be secure, such as VNC.
3) Jobs demonstrated a diskless netbooting iMac on stage a couple years ago; the client ran Mac OS 9 but the server was Mac OS X. Of course the same can be done with OSX clients. I'm not sure what all this allows you to do; it's not something I've played with at all. Of course, you should be able to netboot a *nix OS on Mac hardware, but the hardware is a bit pricey for that sort of thing.
Say for sake of argument there were new regimes in Tuvalu and Tonga, who demanded back control of the.tv and.to domains, which have been delgated to others for more profitable use than as a useful country codes. That would irk a lot of people.
Western Samoa is another such example, yes. However, I think if those governments chose to willingly break all existing registrations, they should be free to do so. If, on the other hand, they announced some bone-headed decision that would break existing registrations without being aware of the consequences, ICANN or whoever needs to beat some sense into them. I don't get the impression that South Africa wants to break existing registrations, they're just not aware of the procedures necessary for transferring everything to a new system without breaking things (which is why ICANN's rules exist - to prevent breaking things).
Now.. if only we could get those same brilliant minds working on a compiler that produces a single executable that works on both platforms, and shares as much code as possible.
Personally I've been wondering why Apple hasn't released Cocoa for at least Win32, which (although it's probably not been kept updated) they had working not that long ago. Porting it to Linux and Solaris would certainly be a good thing. If it's as cool as all the NeXT people say it is, Apple could make a killing on licensing, and we'd have cross-platform binaries (Cocoa apps can be packages that include binaries for multiple CPUs, while sharing non-executable resources [which can be localized easily]).
Whoever owns the root name servers should control the delegation of all the top-level domains. Period.
Yes, and they should delegate ccTLDs to the appropriate entities as determined by the current government of the country to which the TLD has been assigned. Period.
So if the South African government and ICANN don't agree, then each DNS administrator (at least for the main root nodes that others consider authoritative) around the world, or for that matter each non-root DNS server operator who knows how, can select whichever ".za" TLD server they prefer. The government can run one, and the incumbent can run one.
This is a pretty bad idea. The result of this is that nobody really knows whether a particular.za domain will work, depending on what DNS servers they might happen to be using at the time. Consequently the value of the.za TLD will be reduced to nearly zero, and everyone will stop using it, except the fanatical nutballs and the spammers.
Frankly, it is more important what John Sidgemore thinks, because he runs the largest backbone ISP.
Just because Worldcom provides connectivity to a large number of ISPs doesn't mean a large number of users query Worldcom's DNS servers. End users normally query their own ISP, which queries ICANN's root servers directly - not Worldcom. I've worked for several different ISPs and have not yet seen one that used its backbone provider's DNS servers.
It's pretty obvious that the South African government is incompetent in this matter. Next thing you know they'll be running their social security DB off of Microsoft.NET Passport!
Then that's their business. As long as they don't break the rest of the DNS system, the country's government should be given full control of the country's domain name. The software they choose to use, and the consequences of doing so, should be entirely up to them. To do otherwise undermines the whole idea of ccTLDs.
Read site description. Originally, this was News for nerds. Stuff that matters.. It only picked up the ridiculously anti-MS slant after it was bought by VALinux.
Slashdot is a bit less pro-Debian than it once was, perhaps, but it's always been pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft. Your user ID doesn't suggest that you've been around long enough to know, though.
Bullshit. I have Bellsouth FastAccess in Atlanta. I have fiber running through my front yard with an ethernet switch burried across the street. It's 4 wire ethernet running to my switch running PPPoE as the transport protocol.
Fine. That's not DSL. I was talking about DSL, not all broadband Internet services that may be offered by phone companies.
Then, maybe the phone companies should use a different key, right?:-) Maybe a circuit number would work. I mean, do you have a phone number for your T-1 line? I didn't think so.
Some CLECs like Rhythms (now Worldcom) do this. They offer dry lines.
I was wondering if anybody sees this as the same type of monopolistic behavior MS was convicted of when they bundled IE with the OS?
Technically, you cannot have DSL unless you have a phone line. It doesn't have to have voice service on it, but you must at least have a copper pair from your house to the DSLAM (usually to the central office, sometimes to a remote terminal if you're lucky, with a fiber line from the RT to the CO). Since most phone companies keep track of DSL lines based on your phone number (it's basically used as a database key), it would be awkward for them to provice you DSL service without you having a phone number assigned, which you normally wouldn't without voice phone service, but if they had a way to reference it, it could be done.
But, the cost of a DSL line (usually around $30/month not including the ISP cost) is based on the idea that you already have voice phone service, so some of the costs of providing DSL service (such as physical wire maintenance) are covered by the money you pay for voice phone service.
It should be possible for you to get a dry line (a phone line with no dialtone) and put DSL on that. This would be cheaper than phone service, but there would still be a charge for it. However, since demand for this is very small, phone companies have no incentive to offer it.
If Apple started to distribute Mozilla as the default browser instead of IE, it would also help Mozilla to gain market share.
Awhile ago I saw an Apple ad aimed at UNIX geeks with a Netscape 6 icon in the Dock. For the first time in years, the MSIE icon was nowhere to be found. I think that may be a sign of things to come. Apple wouldn't ship Mozilla, but I think they will ship Netscape 7.
For example, the mail client is absolutely useless, because almost all Windows business users use Outlook or Outlook Express.
The browser is absolutely useless too, because all Windows business users use Internet Explorer.
Uhhhh....
Seriously, if you don't need the mail client, that's why you have the option of not installing it. I, however, enjoy having a cross-platform client that works the same way on every system I use it on - something that Microsoft will never give me (they have trouble getting software to work the same way on one platform, let alone four).
...ever since Netscape shat out that awful 4.x source code so many years ago.
Yep, that's why the Mozilla team threw it away and started over.
Kindly crawl back under the rock from whence you came.
We're forced to use Mozilla at work 'cause IE has more holes than a Peter North fan club. On a Win32 platform it's unstable with many instances running (I suspect they're all the same process), crashes for no apparent reason, takes forever to load and is fugly.
Enable the QuickStart thingie, and change the theme to Modern - that should help with loading and fugliness. And be sure you're running 1.0RC3, or wait another 2 weeks for 1.0.
When you're cutting and pasting a URL in, you can't then highlight the current URL and delete, because then you have to go back and RESELECT what you wanted to paste. It's a pain.
This is one of the things I hate most about X, and one of the reasons I use a Mac for my desktop work.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you on crack? The .com/net/org TLDs have been managed by Verisign (formerly Network Solutions), a private company, for the last several years.
Am I the only one who first thought TLD = Thermoluminescient Dosimiter?
Yes.
Right. I think what the original poster may have been thinking of was, if a truck full of software drives through Montana on its way from Washington to Iowa, the state of Montana cannot interfere in interstate commerce. Iowa, Washington and the federal government can, and here Iowa is.
Mac OS 9 does not have any security.
Umm... it ships out of the box with all ports closed. If the web server you install on top is actually secure (as you say), then how can the OS be compromised remotely?
I'm not questioning that there is no local security, but if you've got physical access to the box anyway, most systems aren't very secure.
1) yes, if you open up some potential security holes such as the AppleShare IP server (which is probably far more secure than SMB/CIFS).
2) no, unless you run extra software which may not be secure, such as VNC.
3) Jobs demonstrated a diskless netbooting iMac on stage a couple years ago; the client ran Mac OS 9 but the server was Mac OS X. Of course the same can be done with OSX clients. I'm not sure what all this allows you to do; it's not something I've played with at all. Of course, you should be able to netboot a *nix OS on Mac hardware, but the hardware is a bit pricey for that sort of thing.
i really hate the phrase "me thinks".
It's not a phrase, it's a word.
Of course, some people are idiots.
Do you have "." in your path?
This is why . is at the end of my path, and it's not in root's path at all.
Why does America have to MONOPOLISE everything?!
That's "monopolize"; if you lived over here in the great US of A instead of your silly backwards Europe, you'd know how to spell it right.
Say for sake of argument there were new regimes in Tuvalu and Tonga, who demanded back control of the .tv and .to domains, which have been delgated to others for more profitable use than as a useful country codes. That would irk a lot of people.
Western Samoa is another such example, yes. However, I think if those governments chose to willingly break all existing registrations, they should be free to do so. If, on the other hand, they announced some bone-headed decision that would break existing registrations without being aware of the consequences, ICANN or whoever needs to beat some sense into them. I don't get the impression that South Africa wants to break existing registrations, they're just not aware of the procedures necessary for transferring everything to a new system without breaking things (which is why ICANN's rules exist - to prevent breaking things).
Now.. if only we could get those same brilliant minds working on a compiler that produces a single executable that works on both platforms, and shares as much code as possible.
Personally I've been wondering why Apple hasn't released Cocoa for at least Win32, which (although it's probably not been kept updated) they had working not that long ago. Porting it to Linux and Solaris would certainly be a good thing. If it's as cool as all the NeXT people say it is, Apple could make a killing on licensing, and we'd have cross-platform binaries (Cocoa apps can be packages that include binaries for multiple CPUs, while sharing non-executable resources [which can be localized easily]).
Whoever owns the root name servers should control the delegation of all the top-level domains. Period.
Yes, and they should delegate ccTLDs to the appropriate entities as determined by the current government of the country to which the TLD has been assigned. Period.
So if the South African government and ICANN don't agree, then each DNS administrator (at least for the main root nodes that others consider authoritative) around the world, or for that matter each non-root DNS server operator who knows how, can select whichever ".za" TLD server they prefer. The government can run one, and the incumbent can run one.
.za domain will work, depending on what DNS servers they might happen to be using at the time. Consequently the value of the .za TLD will be reduced to nearly zero, and everyone will stop using it, except the fanatical nutballs and the spammers.
This is a pretty bad idea. The result of this is that nobody really knows whether a particular
Frankly, it is more important what John Sidgemore thinks, because he runs the largest backbone ISP.
Just because Worldcom provides connectivity to a large number of ISPs doesn't mean a large number of users query Worldcom's DNS servers. End users normally query their own ISP, which queries ICANN's root servers directly - not Worldcom. I've worked for several different ISPs and have not yet seen one that used its backbone provider's DNS servers.
It's pretty obvious that the South African government is incompetent in this matter. Next thing you know they'll be running their social security DB off of Microsoft .NET Passport!
Then that's their business. As long as they don't break the rest of the DNS system, the country's government should be given full control of the country's domain name. The software they choose to use, and the consequences of doing so, should be entirely up to them. To do otherwise undermines the whole idea of ccTLDs.
Um, that's great, for you and your buddies and a couple dozen other people. Doesn't do the rest of the world much good, now does it?
Read site description. Originally, this was News for nerds. Stuff that matters.. It only picked up the ridiculously anti-MS slant after it was bought by VALinux.
Slashdot is a bit less pro-Debian than it once was, perhaps, but it's always been pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft. Your user ID doesn't suggest that you've been around long enough to know, though.
Bullshit. I have Bellsouth FastAccess in Atlanta. I have fiber running through my front yard with an ethernet switch burried across the street. It's 4 wire ethernet running to my switch running PPPoE as the transport protocol.
Fine. That's not DSL. I was talking about DSL, not all broadband Internet services that may be offered by phone companies.
I wish people would quit making that mistake.
Then, maybe the phone companies should use a different key, right? :-) Maybe a circuit number would work. I mean, do you have a phone number for your T-1 line? I didn't think so.
Some CLECs like Rhythms (now Worldcom) do this. They offer dry lines.
Look folks, the more we keep bastardizing the language the more confusing it will be to communicate.
And that would be doubleplusungood!
I was wondering if anybody sees this as the same type of monopolistic behavior MS was convicted of when they bundled IE with the OS?
Technically, you cannot have DSL unless you have a phone line. It doesn't have to have voice service on it, but you must at least have a copper pair from your house to the DSLAM (usually to the central office, sometimes to a remote terminal if you're lucky, with a fiber line from the RT to the CO). Since most phone companies keep track of DSL lines based on your phone number (it's basically used as a database key), it would be awkward for them to provice you DSL service without you having a phone number assigned, which you normally wouldn't without voice phone service, but if they had a way to reference it, it could be done.
But, the cost of a DSL line (usually around $30/month not including the ISP cost) is based on the idea that you already have voice phone service, so some of the costs of providing DSL service (such as physical wire maintenance) are covered by the money you pay for voice phone service.
It should be possible for you to get a dry line (a phone line with no dialtone) and put DSL on that. This would be cheaper than phone service, but there would still be a charge for it. However, since demand for this is very small, phone companies have no incentive to offer it.
Does that answer your question?
If Apple started to distribute Mozilla as the default browser instead of IE, it would also help Mozilla to gain market share.
Awhile ago I saw an Apple ad aimed at UNIX geeks with a Netscape 6 icon in the Dock. For the first time in years, the MSIE icon was nowhere to be found. I think that may be a sign of things to come. Apple wouldn't ship Mozilla, but I think they will ship Netscape 7.
For example, the mail client is absolutely useless, because almost all Windows business users use Outlook or Outlook Express.
...ever since Netscape shat out that awful 4.x source code so many years ago.
The browser is absolutely useless too, because all Windows business users use Internet Explorer.
Uhhhh....
Seriously, if you don't need the mail client, that's why you have the option of not installing it. I, however, enjoy having a cross-platform client that works the same way on every system I use it on - something that Microsoft will never give me (they have trouble getting software to work the same way on one platform, let alone four).
Yep, that's why the Mozilla team threw it away and started over.
Kindly crawl back under the rock from whence you came.
From /etc/rc on Mac OS X:
##
# Set shell to ignore Control-C, etc.
# Prevent lusers from shooting themselves in the foot.
##
The Apple Pro Mouse Whitepaper, a PDF available from here, includes in the fine print at the bottom of the last page:
Apple does not recommend allowing an elephant to operate a Mac in any environment.
This is in reference to a statement made earlier in the document about what would happen if an elephant stepped on this mouse.
The data fork of the System file in System 7.01 (and probably other versions) contained this text:
Help! Help! We're being held prisoner in a system software factory!
Subsequent versions, according to here:
Help! Help! We're still being held prisoner in a system software factory!
Help! Help! He's STILL being held prisoner in a system software factory!
Mercenaries hit the factory and freed the prisoners.
We're forced to use Mozilla at work 'cause IE has more holes than a Peter North fan club. On a Win32 platform it's unstable with many instances running (I suspect they're all the same process), crashes for no apparent reason, takes forever to load and is fugly.
Enable the QuickStart thingie, and change the theme to Modern - that should help with loading and fugliness. And be sure you're running 1.0RC3, or wait another 2 weeks for 1.0.
When you're cutting and pasting a URL in, you can't then highlight the current URL and delete, because then you have to go back and RESELECT what you wanted to paste. It's a pain.
This is one of the things I hate most about X, and one of the reasons I use a Mac for my desktop work.
Linux wins AND Microsoft loses. Why would you cann this glass only HALF full? What more do you want?