That's is a prime example of what I am talking about.
See the real world of OSS mindset is divided into two camps.
1. Those who actually write and develop software and feel it should be free [and protected] to share. Those are the GCC, kernel, gnome, etc... developers
2. Those who couldn't write and support a "hello world" program but use/have OSS tools just because they think that possession of OSS tools makes them part of the crowd. Typically this camp is the type that doesn't really know what the OSS issues are and will jump to amazingly bad conclusions like "patents are evil" etc...
You sir, are a good example of the 2nd camp. You can't comment on my post with a legitimate remark so you jump off the wild end. When did I say I support the SSSCA [or DMCA for that matter].
See I, unlike you, have a stable middle ground. I appreciate [and make use of as well deploy myself] the use of OSS design philosophies. I give away the code to all my projects [such as my crypto library at libtomcrypt.sunsite.dk or my Winamp DSP plugins]. I fear the SSSCA and DMCA but I don't irrationally put down all business practices [while expecting to make money in the industry!] such as patents and copyrights.
Also, what is with the AC post. That is a good sign that you probably don't want to be associated with your post. So if you don't believe in what you wrote why did you write it?
Patents are not evil, and people for OSS could be for patents as well.
What OSS people are for is the free exchange of community property. That is, projects developed by many should be free for many. OSS advocates will not [and should not] say that privately developed ideas, techniques, algorithms, etc should be community property.
As to your "anyone can code", while yes anyone can "code" or "hack", not everyone can seriously put a product worth using together. Being able to hack out a couple lines of code is useful, but being able to document, clarify and support your software is something else that most OSS zealots are not willing todo.
Not every person who can run GCC will make an OS that will replace Windows. So as to the general notion "we don't need MSFT", why yes we do for serveral reasons
1. For the time being Linux sucks. Its far too diverse for people to pick and use properly. Lots of people have no clue what an OS is, let alone Linux, let alone the distinction between Debian, Suse, Mandrake and Redhat Linux.
2. MSFT Windows provides something that Linux gurus can look up to in terms of usability. Sure we know that Windows has its share of bugs and downfalls. When it comes to user interfaces and ease of use though windows wins hands down.
Overall I'd say your post shows a lack of understanding of the issues at hand. OSS and patents for instance are not the same issue. OSS is the opposite of a trade secret. You can for example, copyright OSS software [OSS does not mean GPL]. A trade secret [or closed sourced] system on other hand is what OSS types are trying to denounce.
As to patents, there is merit in patents as there is in copyrights. Being able to secure your rights to something you researched and developed is the keystone to a money-based society. While patents have been abused totally the approach is not without merit.
Try to put this in perspective. If all ideas were free and all programs for any task were free [including specialized software for say controlling a FABS] who would want to write code? I mean you wouldn't do it for a living obviously. There is only so much money to be had for tech support. I mean how many people install RH linux and *never* pay for tech support?
That and this "pay for tech support" type model encourages bad documentation and coding. e.g. hard to use programs require more help.
Personally I would buy [had I a job] software for the brand name seal of approval type bit. I mean I would buy a copy of Word just because I would get some feeling that its quality code I am buying a copy of [or license to use, whatever].
Its like buying a car. Anyone could build their own, or get one from a third party, but lots of people buy "Fords" for the sole reason there is a sort of trust behind the name. They can think that they are buying something with a track record.
Overall, I think people should be encouraged to follow the OSS method but not to fear or loath patents/copyrights just because they don't follow a hippy view of the world. Also the GPL bandwagon should be abolished as well. Its far too dangerous and from what many have observed too easy to breach.
I really don't think trashing SMTP is the right idea. There's just too much invested into it to scrap it. It would make much more sense to work with the IETF to create a new RFC in consortium with various mail server and mail client makers to create an extention to the protocol.
"extentions" lead to "voluntary updates" which means people won't use them.
If I use a filter and noone else does then I won't get email.
Either ISPs should keep more uptodate with other trouble ISPs [not just their users] or the SMTP system should be rethought.
So by all means, change SMTP... but it should be a big chunk of the mail client/server industry that takes responsibility for the change.
Suppose I [or someone else] implements a new system that uses HashCash [properly]. Given that the new system is easy to setup and use it would probably catch on since spam would be down. Then it would be survival of the fittest. Eventually other protocols would be more popular than SMTP.
We are trying to cling to a system not designed with spammers in mind.
Instead of trying to make it illegal to send spam [which is not going to stop it anyways] why not just invent whole new protocols?
Primarily I'd add a hashcash payment system. Where in order for you to send me a message [that I would eventually see] you *must* do some work [e.g. find an N-bit collision].
The idea is simple and if implemented correctly will be a huge deterrent to sending spam. Specially if it takes you 2 seconds or so to prepare the email!
I think as a project I will implement a trivial version of this over TCP. In reality though it would be nice to see real professionals tackle something like this.
Face it SMTP is outdated and wholly inappropriate!
first off dhs.org is not my server. Its a free web redirect.
My DNS entry typically is from dns2go.com e.g.
tomstdenis.dns2go.com
Second, I am running XP so typically I use Outlook. You might not have fun pinging me since I told my router to deny all non forwarded incoming traffic.
Anyways, I still say just blocking all of Asia will solve alot of these problems.
I saw that....hmm for those of us not using command line email tools...
I still think that the client and servers should use a Hashcash style system. Its far more apt to protect users. Just force the clients to find the hash collisions and make your server enforce them [e.g. reject messages without collisions].
Post your email address to a usenet group then tell me the same story.
Fuck I get like 20 emails [from the same ISP in korea] a day. About buy some shitty sweaters and what have not.
The only reason I use my yahoo account is for the time being it gets slightly less spam than my hotmail one.
I honestly and whole heartedly believe spammers should just be shot. No fines or jail, just bring em out in the street and shoot them. They are a leech on what is good in the world and honestly don't deserve to live.
Blatantly false. A monopoly occurs when one company has an overwhelming predominance in a market.
By this logic both Pepsi and Coke have monopolies on the same market. Both companies can easily crush any competition in turns of advertisements, product placements and endorsements.
Stop your yuppy whining and actually but your mind towards solving real problems.
Bundling software in an operating system that has an overwhelming predominance makes competing products irrelevant so it too can easily fall into category of abusing a monopoly power to extend into other areas.
Not true. MS Windows comes with "wordpad" but I still use Open Office. It comes with "paint" but I still use Gimp, it comes with "calc" but I still use Maple, it comes with...
Believe it or not, people buy MSFT OSes for the sole reason that its familar and has the tools [such as iexplore, wmp, etc..] that they *want* to use.
Basically this anti-trust thing *disallows* me from *choosing* to buy and use MS OSes and their associated software.
In the end what will happend will be you get MS Windows, then a URL to a website where you can download all the other tools people *want* to use because some lame ass yuppy judge ruled that bundling tools in a package is a bad idea.
Bundling software with the OS makes sense. Do you buy a car without seatbelts? Are you now restricted [e.g. there is a monopoly] on seat belts?
Bundling software with the OS is just a good idea. What *is* a bad idea is forcing people to use it. Sure Explorer is installed, but if I am yuppy enough I can use Mozilla [works with all Windows, I tried XP last night and it worked well].
There exists a choice, just 99% of the users don't want to use yuppy software.
Lets compare email clients. Outlook to Mozilla Mail. Outlook sports filters [alot more than mozilla] for *BOTH* usenet and email. Mozilla has limited filtering for mail and barely anything for usenet.
Lets compare word processors. Well lets not. I run WinXP and I don't use Office at all. In fact it didn't come with my XP disk. I use open office [build 641] for my word processing.
Its high time you guys get off the soap box and realize whats what. A monopoly exists only when there is no choice, not when its not taken. Just because the plethora of users of windows choose to use explorer [which comes bundled] doesn't mean they are not free to use *ANY* other win32 browser [opera, mozilla, netscape,...].
Besides, if linux didn't suck so much it would have more users and this would all push over. But, oh, wait, Linux does suck and its not going to win any favour points.
Why not just develop applications for windows then? I mean if Windows is unfair in the OS department you can still win in other applications. The trick is you have to write something that the end user will like more.
See the business world is about what the customer wants, not what you want. Compare MSVC to the GCC standard suite [such as DJGPP or Cygwin].
GCC is a really cool compiler, but is has no IDE which is a big requirement for students just getting into programming. In the end there is little choice. Use GCC and make learning "for loops" harder than it has to be, or use MSVC [or perhaps LCC-Win32].
This "unfairness" is just a way to be a big sore luser. If you can't write software that competes then shut them down other ways.
Personally I hope that MSFT just gets a fine and moves on its way and that others realize that they really have to code more user friendly applications so that in the future we really do have a choice in the Desktop x86 OS wars.
1. Fills press space 2. Something to talk to your friends to give them the impression your inteligent. 3. Some form of satistfaction for linux Cult members. 4. Might spur massive layoffs at MSFT if they have to close divisions. 5. Will mess around with the only stable OS for the x86 platforms in existance that anybody could use. 6. Will get in the way of the millions of software developers would code primarily for MS platforms [e.g. win32]. 7. Probably won't change much in the end anyways. 8. Is costing the US tax payers millions of dollars. 9. Is probably giving B.Gates something to do. 10. Is boring and not really "techy" news so get over it and move along.
I'd rather just buy a 139$ 4port [plus an uplink and WAN connection for a total of 6 ports] router that also does port forwarding than use a whole dedicated computer for the task.
I dunno about you.....
Setting up the device?
1. Release your DHCP lease 2. Plug modem into it 3. Plug my comp into it 4. Use a new fixed IP done.
The particular router I have is one of the lower ends LinkSYS routers. It sports a slim design [sitting on a shelf in the basement] as well as a HTTP based setup system.
The only reason for a boot disk is to rescue a dying PC. If you want todo minimal tasks dedicated hardware is the way to go.
In my case I have my win2k installer on my second hard disk. So all I need is to be able to boot up.
In the old days I'd copy a couple of.SYS files along with MSCDEX.exe [is that what its called? its been a while...]. All in all I could have my mouse+cd+disk utils all on one 720kb disk.
To best honest I don't know how to answer. Its been 2 years since I touched on this [it was a high school independent study]. I know they use PCR in the prep. work of the test.
Slashdot Mirror
I pay about 45$ a month, but at least be thankful you have the option to get it.
Tom
Well duh, it will keep dividing into the same type of cell [unless it mutates].
Not all cells can turn into anything else. I think [not sure] its "stem" cells that can be triggered into growing into other forms of cells.
That's is a prime example of what I am talking about.
See the real world of OSS mindset is divided into two camps.
1. Those who actually write and develop software and feel it should be free [and protected] to share. Those are the GCC, kernel, gnome, etc... developers
2. Those who couldn't write and support a "hello world" program but use/have OSS tools just because they think that possession of OSS tools makes them part of the crowd. Typically this camp is the type that doesn't really know what the OSS issues are and will jump to amazingly bad conclusions like "patents are evil" etc...
You sir, are a good example of the 2nd camp. You can't comment on my post with a legitimate remark so you jump off the wild end. When did I say I support the SSSCA [or DMCA for that matter].
See I, unlike you, have a stable middle ground. I appreciate [and make use of as well deploy myself] the use of OSS design philosophies. I give away the code to all my projects [such as my crypto library at libtomcrypt.sunsite.dk or my Winamp DSP plugins]. I fear the SSSCA and DMCA but I don't irrationally put down all business practices [while expecting to make money in the industry!] such as patents and copyrights.
Also, what is with the AC post. That is a good sign that you probably don't want to be associated with your post. So if you don't believe in what you wrote why did you write it?
Tom
I'd say you've gotten it all wrong.
Patents are not evil, and people for OSS could be for patents as well.
What OSS people are for is the free exchange of community property. That is, projects developed by many should be free for many. OSS advocates will not [and should not] say that privately developed ideas, techniques, algorithms, etc should be community property.
As to your "anyone can code", while yes anyone can "code" or "hack", not everyone can seriously put a product worth using together. Being able to hack out a couple lines of code is useful, but being able to document, clarify and support your software is something else that most OSS zealots are not willing todo.
Not every person who can run GCC will make an OS that will replace Windows. So as to the general notion "we don't need MSFT", why yes we do for serveral reasons
1. For the time being Linux sucks. Its far too diverse for people to pick and use properly. Lots of people have no clue what an OS is, let alone Linux, let alone the distinction between Debian, Suse, Mandrake and Redhat Linux.
2. MSFT Windows provides something that Linux gurus can look up to in terms of usability. Sure we know that Windows has its share of bugs and downfalls. When it comes to user interfaces and ease of use though windows wins hands down.
Overall I'd say your post shows a lack of understanding of the issues at hand. OSS and patents for instance are not the same issue. OSS is the opposite of a trade secret. You can for example, copyright OSS software [OSS does not mean GPL]. A trade secret [or closed sourced] system on other hand is what OSS types are trying to denounce.
As to patents, there is merit in patents as there is in copyrights. Being able to secure your rights to something you researched and developed is the keystone to a money-based society. While patents have been abused totally the approach is not without merit.
Try to put this in perspective. If all ideas were free and all programs for any task were free [including specialized software for say controlling a FABS] who would want to write code? I mean you wouldn't do it for a living obviously. There is only so much money to be had for tech support. I mean how many people install RH linux and *never* pay for tech support?
That and this "pay for tech support" type model encourages bad documentation and coding. e.g. hard to use programs require more help.
Personally I would buy [had I a job] software for the brand name seal of approval type bit. I mean I would buy a copy of Word just because I would get some feeling that its quality code I am buying a copy of [or license to use, whatever].
Its like buying a car. Anyone could build their own, or get one from a third party, but lots of people buy "Fords" for the sole reason there is a sort of trust behind the name. They can think that they are buying something with a track record.
Overall, I think people should be encouraged to follow the OSS method but not to fear or loath patents/copyrights just because they don't follow a hippy view of the world. Also the GPL bandwagon should be abolished as well. Its far too dangerous and from what many have observed too easy to breach.
Tom
usenet is for mass discussion.
smtp is for personal single person delivery.
I think its a matter of choosing the right tool for the right job. Besides failing usenet there are a ton of weblogs to use...
Tom
send the email with a HTTPS URL link. They enter there SIN on the secure page and it gives them the paper they would have gotten.
That way you can make sure of a few things
a) Privacy
b) They actually read the message
Tom
I really don't think trashing SMTP is the right idea. There's just too much invested into it to scrap it. It would make much more sense to work with the IETF to create a new RFC in consortium with various mail server and mail client makers to create an extention to the protocol.
... but it should be a big chunk of the mail client/server industry that takes responsibility for the change.
"extentions" lead to "voluntary updates" which means people won't use them.
If I use a filter and noone else does then I won't get email.
Either ISPs should keep more uptodate with other trouble ISPs [not just their users] or the SMTP system should be rethought.
So by all means, change SMTP
Suppose I [or someone else] implements a new system that uses HashCash [properly]. Given that the new system is easy to setup and use it would probably catch on since spam would be down. Then it would be survival of the fittest. Eventually other protocols would be more popular than SMTP.
Tom
We are trying to cling to a system not designed with spammers in mind.
Instead of trying to make it illegal to send spam [which is not going to stop it anyways] why not just invent whole new protocols?
Primarily I'd add a hashcash payment system. Where in order for you to send me a message [that I would eventually see] you *must* do some work [e.g. find an N-bit collision].
The idea is simple and if implemented correctly will be a huge deterrent to sending spam. Specially if it takes you 2 seconds or so to prepare the email!
I think as a project I will implement a trivial version of this over TCP. In reality though it would be nice to see real professionals tackle something like this.
Face it SMTP is outdated and wholly inappropriate!
Tom
first off dhs.org is not my server. Its a free web redirect.
My DNS entry typically is from dns2go.com e.g.
tomstdenis.dns2go.com
Second, I am running XP so typically I use Outlook. You might not have fun pinging me since I told my router to deny all non forwarded incoming traffic.
Anyways, I still say just blocking all of Asia will solve alot of these problems.
Tom
I saw that....hmm for those of us not using command line email tools...
I still think that the client and servers should use a Hashcash style system. Its far more apt to protect users. Just force the clients to find the hash collisions and make your server enforce them [e.g. reject messages without collisions].
Tom
Post your email address to a usenet group then tell me the same story.
Fuck I get like 20 emails [from the same ISP in korea] a day. About buy some shitty sweaters and what have not.
The only reason I use my yahoo account is for the time being it gets slightly less spam than my hotmail one.
I honestly and whole heartedly believe spammers should just be shot. No fines or jail, just bring em out in the street and shoot them. They are a leech on what is good in the world and honestly don't deserve to live.
Tom
I know you are kidding but that is a good example of U.S superiority. A world problem must have a U.S dominated solution
Going to "google" to cheat? Um usenet exists for the sole reason of promoting discussions.
Wierd...
Blatantly false. A monopoly occurs when one company has an overwhelming predominance in a market.
...
By this logic both Pepsi and Coke have monopolies on the same market. Both companies can easily crush any competition in turns of advertisements, product placements and endorsements.
Stop your yuppy whining and actually but your mind towards solving real problems.
Bundling software in an operating system that has an overwhelming predominance makes competing products irrelevant so it too can easily fall into category of abusing a monopoly power to extend into other areas.
Not true. MS Windows comes with "wordpad" but I still use Open Office. It comes with "paint" but I still use Gimp, it comes with "calc" but I still use Maple, it comes with
Believe it or not, people buy MSFT OSes for the sole reason that its familar and has the tools [such as iexplore, wmp, etc..] that they *want* to use.
Basically this anti-trust thing *disallows* me from *choosing* to buy and use MS OSes and their associated software.
In the end what will happend will be you get MS Windows, then a URL to a website where you can download all the other tools people *want* to use because some lame ass yuppy judge ruled that bundling tools in a package is a bad idea.
Tom
So it's OK to use vendor B's software as long as I've already paid MS for their version?
Nobody said you have to buy MSFT software though. I bought my PC in parts and not one dime of it went to buying a MSFT OS.
If you really hate MSFT software install a crippled OS like Linux or something. All the power to ya.
Personally I bought MS Windows for the sole fact that its a complete suite of desktop tools, not just a core OS.
Tom
First off.
...].
Bundling software with the OS makes sense. Do you buy a car without seatbelts? Are you now restricted [e.g. there is a monopoly] on seat belts?
Bundling software with the OS is just a good idea. What *is* a bad idea is forcing people to use it. Sure Explorer is installed, but if I am yuppy enough I can use Mozilla [works with all Windows, I tried XP last night and it worked well].
There exists a choice, just 99% of the users don't want to use yuppy software.
Lets compare email clients. Outlook to Mozilla Mail. Outlook sports filters [alot more than mozilla] for *BOTH* usenet and email. Mozilla has limited filtering for mail and barely anything for usenet.
Lets compare word processors. Well lets not. I run WinXP and I don't use Office at all. In fact it didn't come with my XP disk. I use open office [build 641] for my word processing.
Its high time you guys get off the soap box and realize whats what. A monopoly exists only when there is no choice, not when its not taken. Just because the plethora of users of windows choose to use explorer [which comes bundled] doesn't mean they are not free to use *ANY* other win32 browser [opera, mozilla, netscape,
Besides, if linux didn't suck so much it would have more users and this would all push over. But, oh, wait, Linux does suck and its not going to win any favour points.
Tom
Why not just develop applications for windows then? I mean if Windows is unfair in the OS department you can still win in other applications. The trick is you have to write something that the end user will like more.
See the business world is about what the customer wants, not what you want. Compare MSVC to the GCC standard suite [such as DJGPP or Cygwin].
GCC is a really cool compiler, but is has no IDE which is a big requirement for students just getting into programming. In the end there is little choice. Use GCC and make learning "for loops" harder than it has to be, or use MSVC [or perhaps LCC-Win32].
This "unfairness" is just a way to be a big sore luser. If you can't write software that competes then shut them down other ways.
Personally I hope that MSFT just gets a fine and moves on its way and that others realize that they really have to code more user friendly applications so that in the future we really do have a choice in the Desktop x86 OS wars.
Tom
1. Fills press space
2. Something to talk to your friends to give them the impression your inteligent.
3. Some form of satistfaction for linux Cult members.
4. Might spur massive layoffs at MSFT if they have to close divisions.
5. Will mess around with the only stable OS for the x86 platforms in existance that anybody could use.
6. Will get in the way of the millions of software developers would code primarily for MS platforms [e.g. win32].
7. Probably won't change much in the end anyways.
8. Is costing the US tax payers millions of dollars.
9. Is probably giving B.Gates something to do.
10. Is boring and not really "techy" news so get over it and move along.
Tom
I'd rather just buy a 139$ 4port [plus an uplink and WAN connection for a total of 6 ports] router that also does port forwarding than use a whole dedicated computer for the task.
I dunno about you.....
Setting up the device?
1. Release your DHCP lease
2. Plug modem into it
3. Plug my comp into it
4. Use a new fixed IP
done.
The particular router I have is one of the lower ends LinkSYS routers. It sports a slim design [sitting on a shelf in the basement] as well as a HTTP based setup system.
The only reason for a boot disk is to rescue a dying PC. If you want todo minimal tasks dedicated hardware is the way to go.
Tom
In my case I have my win2k installer on my second hard disk. So all I need is to be able to boot up.
.SYS files along with MSCDEX.exe [is that what its called? its been a while...]. All in all I could have my mouse+cd+disk utils all on one 720kb disk.
In the old days I'd copy a couple of
Tom
format A: /s
copy edit.* A:
copy fdisk.* A:
copy format.* A:
copy scandisk.* A:
Wow... my very own MSDOS SDCRK [that's super-duper-crash-recovery-kit for you laymen].
Tom
That and OGG vorbis is not spectacularly better than MP3 *AND* MP3 decoder chips can be bought in mass quantities.
They are making a product, not a statement.
Tom
Ah, ok I misread that. You're right the essence of the article is that the problem was more complex.
Tom
To best honest I don't know how to answer. Its been 2 years since I touched on this [it was a high school independent study]. I know they use PCR in the prep. work of the test.
There is something missing from the picture...
Tom
In theses cases the judge will rule much like they do for "he said she said" type cases. Nothing new, move it along.
Tom