(1) Remove all traces of FrontPage from your system if you haven't already done so (or, more simply, never install it).
(2) Return FP to either the dealer it was purchased from (if still in shrink-wrap) or to M$ themselves, along with a statement that you disagree with the EULA and that you therefore request a full refund.
(3) Select one of Lord only knows how many HTML editing/publishing packages that don't come from Redmond, and that have no such silly restrictions. Said packages can be commercial, shareware, or open-source, your choice.
(4) Put up a site, authored with said alternative package, that explicitly takes pokes at M$, M$NBC, and all the others listed in the FP EULA, and rest secure in the fact that there's not a bloody thing they can do about it.
(5) Watch the Redmondians stew in their own juices. Once word of this becomes widespread (if it hasn't already), I would expect to see sales of FrontPage plummet.
FP is pure bloatware anyway, and I would not be at all surprised if it breaks multiple pieces of the W3C standards. Why use it at all?
Out of all the replies I've read (probably didn't get 'em all), I'm surprised that no one seems to have mentioned Zyxel.
I was a Beta tester for their Prestige-312 router/firewall. It is explicitly designed to share a DSL connection with a bunch of systems, and it has a -very- configurable packet-state inspective (new word?) firewall built right in.
I still have my P312, and it has served me very well indeed for the last two years. Granted, it doesn't do IPV6 just yet, but it does have full-featured NAT available to translate 1:1, 1:Many, Many:1, and a built-in DHCP server as well.
So it's gotten to the point where the choice between a robotic dog and a real one is based primarily on cost of ownership?
I pray that we, as a race, never descend to such an emotional low point. How can you place a monetary value on things like loyalty, affection, and playtime? How about saving the life of an animal who might otherwise have been euthanized simply because they were unwanted?
And that doesn't even touch on the added security for yourself, your family, and your house.
My first sight of the Aibos and their ilk turned me cold within seconds wondering "Good Lord, why?!" I see no reason to change that opinion. Sony can take what they want and shove it up their waste-disposal plumbing.
My entire 'net presence (I'm self-hosted) is based on used equipment, mostly Sun. SPARC IPC for primary DNS, SPARClassics for mail and web, and a big Compaq ProLiant 5000 with RAID-5 for FTP, backup DNS, and emulating an NT PDC thanks to Samba. Pretty soon, I'll be adding a DEC (original DEC, not post-Compaq takeover) VAX 4000/300 for a backup/maintenance and bootserver system.
Every single system in that list would have gone to the landfill if I hadn't taken some gifts, and gone scrounging at various electronics swap meets and surplus stores. Instead, it's all serving useful purposes thanks to a little cleanup and judicious application of NetBSD into everything.
With the exception of one failed disk drive, the stuff has been utterly solid, reliability-wise. Don't EVER let anyone tell you that the used/surplus market isn't worth the effort! They'll either be lying through their teeth, paranoid that "used" means "bad," or trying to guard some hidden treasure that they've found for themselves.;-)
Criminys, Katz. You have a unique talent for taking a blatantly simple problem and turning it into a multi-page editorial.
The answer is simple: Ban spam, shoot all the spammers, and the worldwide E-mail load will drop by at least 70%!
Screw the brain/computer tap...
on
Working Nerve Chip
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I find it sad that the first thing someone thought about when they saw this story was that it brought us one step closer to a (completely unnecessary, and downright dangerous in my eyes) machine-to-brain interface.
Hello?! Did it ever occur to such people that such a device has great possibilities for repairing or bypassing damaged nerves in, say, folks who have been paralyzed? Yeegads, people! Get a clue! If this can be made to work effectively in humans, it's just possible that the wheelchair-bound could regain their mobility!
We've got enough info overload right now without being linked to a bunch of frelling computers. Let's think of giving someone with, say, cerebral palsy a whole new and stable degree of motor control before we start browsing the web on the insides of our retinas, hmmm?
...because HP's "support" is not something I've been terribly impressed with.
When Adaptec bought out DPT, it was mainly to get their hands on decent RAID technology because Adaptec(rap) couldn't seem to make a decent RAID adapter to save their lives. I wrote to DPT's support department at the time, expressing concern that their support for legacy DPT hardware would suffer because they had been bought out by, as I put it, the 'Microsoft of the SCSI adapter industry.'
Oh no, they hastened to assure me in response. Our FTP site will be untouched.
Meadow-muffins! Less than a year later, the entire DPT support site was moved to AdapteCrap's. A number of files for DPT's older RAID and caching SCSI host adapters mysteriously vanished, never to be seen again, and no one's owning up to how or why it happened.
If HP pulls the same stunt with DECompaq, will there be any support left for any hardware over two years old?
I don't know if this is going to be good, bad, or indifferent. From what I've seen, though, the quality and quantity of tech support is inversely proportional to the size of the company in question.
In short: Better start archiving any older support files you may need from Compaq's FTP and web sites. HP may decide to clean house.
...an interesting side-effect, one that is not limited to the standard AM/FM broadcast bands that most of the population is already familiar with. Specifically, any sort of chilling of online streaming, no matter who does it or why, could result in some stations getting back on the 'shortwave' bands (which some have already abandoned in favor of Internet pipes).
Granted, this tends to apply more to non-U.S. stations than anyone else, but those of you who have broadband HF receivers may want to start tuning around some more over the next year or so. You may get some interesting QSL cards out of it.
".you're behind the times. Fiberchannel, firewire, and yes, IDE, have made SCSI obsolete. IDE made SCSI obsolete?... on the high end, let's give SCSI a well deserved retirement, with fanfare and honors, and replace it with more modern stuff, please..."
I'm sorry you feel this way. I could not disagree more vehemently. You appear to be basing your statement solely on "price/performance" points rather than hard technical facts. For my part, I've been using SCSI exclusively, in every system I have, since 1990 and I have not the slightest regret about it.
I will grant that SCSI is not for everyone, but take it in context. It was never DESIGNED to suit the demands of Joe/Jane Consumer. It was designed to be a versatile and (relatively) simple-to-use I/O bus for just about any type of computer system or data processing device. With versatility and power comes complexity; It's as unavoidable as breathing, and it has always been true that SCSI requires a little more in the way of technical know-how to take full advantage of.
No matter how many "enhancements" are kludged into it, IDE was still never designed, from the GROUND UP, to be a multi-device, multi-tasking I/O system. Where else can you find a system where, if you have two drives, the second one is almost entirely dependent on the electronics of the first to do its job while its own onboard electronics go largely unused?
Compare that with a SCSI bus where every device, if properly designed, has the smarts to become an initiator or a target, and where such devices can do direct transfers to/from each other without intervention from the system CPU. Given that, and especially comparing it with IDE's truly brain-dead interface (IDE is an interface, NOT a true bus), I don't see how you can possibly come to the conclusion that SCSI devices don't have "enough brains per drive."
SCSI has been around, in one form or another, since at least 1982. It has been, and continues to be, used on everything from PC's to mainframes. As for your "Price/Performance" points, I would say that the used/surplus market can easily undercut what little advantage IDE may have in this area.
SCSI is indeed an excellent answer for many applications. You don't have to take my word for it: I think the mountain of equipment Out There that uses it, and how long said equipment has been around, AND the fact that ANSI continues to develop the spec, shows that SCSI has stood the test of time, and will continue to do so.
I'm sorry if this upsets you. The complaint department is upstairs, third door on the right.
The reviewer comments that there may actually be too much information in the book, and that newcomers to the subject of SCSI may get lost. My response is that the book itself was never really written for beginners; It was written, IMO, as a technical reference for folks who are in the range between decently hardware-literate (able to build a system without too much trouble) and engineering technician. Witness the oscilloscope examples. How many would-be SCSI users in the Joe/Jane Consumer arena have even seen an O-scope, let alone could guess how to use one or what they're useful for?
Speaking as a second-year EE student, and as someone who's spent 20+ years doing hands-on with all kinds of electronics, the book came as a very welcome reference for me. I would not, however, recommend it for someone who just wants to find out enough about SCSI just to make use of it. For that, I would suggest http://www.scsifaq.org
I would suggest to the reviewer to place a book in context before writing said review. It just plain looks better in print.
...I feel compelled to point out something that EVERYone seems to have missed.
Let me say first that I see no reason whatsoever to wire every imaginable device to the 'net outside of government and the bureausplats wanting to be able to monitor anything they can think of on demand.
Think about it: Fridges, washers, dryers, toasters... they were all built to serve specific purposes, and those purposes are not in any way, shape or form assisted by connecting the device in question to some global network. So why connect them unless you want to know when they're on, what they're doing, etc.?
Now, with that said... If the marketdroids and polly-tishuns are going to insist that everything be "connected," there needs to be an "off" switch or similar way to 'pull the plug' as it were for ANY such interconnected device. Furthermore, the basic function of the device in question must NOT be impaired by doing so. Consumers will never buy into such crap otherwise (heck, they may not buy into it now).
I still want to know which bonehead(s) thought it would be a good idea to connect appliances to the 'net in any case...
...that @Home's rich crop of spammers just might be to blame for their current troubles?
Think about it: Lots of admins (myself included -- I have LARGE amounts of @Home's IP space in our mailserver's local 'Deny' files) start blocking mail traffic, legitimate or not, from @Home's IP space due to spammer infestations. Personally, with only ONE exception, every single piece of mail I've seen from @Home in the past two years has been spam.
Anyway, @Home users get ticked off because, all of a sudden, they can't mail baby pictures to Aunt Gracie on Orville's Internet Service in Flyspeck, OH. Why? Because Orville's is blocking traffic from @Home. Orville's other users AND admins were complaining about the spam load from @Home, and Orville himself decided to do something about it.
Ticked-off @Home customers bail when @Home can't/won't do anything about their network's spammers. @Home loses revenue. @Home's share price drops. @Home sinks like the Titanic.
At the risk of sounding mean and nasty, I'm not going to cry very much for @Home. Their demise means only one thing to me: Less disk space taken up on my servers due to reduced size of my 'Deny' file.
It has come to my attention that your recent post on the web site 'Slashdot' contains the exact specifications for our soon-to-be complete Internet worm that will enable me to (finally!) Take Over The World!
Because of the sensitive nature of this project, I must insist that you retract your post immediately. In return for your cooperation, I am prepared to offer you the position of Governor of New Zealand, a fifteen-foot high Tesla coil, and a lifetime supply of food pellets.
I cannot agree entirely with this statement. I would say that, more accurately, it depends heavily on the TYPE of computer in question.
Example: The early-90's vintage Sun "Lunchboxes" (the SPARC IPC, IPX, Classic, and LX) make wonderful small web or mail servers. I should know; My 'net presence depends on them. Electrical-wise, you can easily run a pair of them on what a single PC pulls. Reliability-wise, they're light-years ahead of most PCs outside the big server-class systems.
Processing power? Heck, does it really matter? They get the job done, and they get it done pretty darn quick. Remember that SPARC architecture is radically different from any PC, and NetBSD runs pretty darned efficient no matter what platform it's on.
Best of all, I acquired a whole stack of them for less than $100.00. Beat THAT with a stick!
The same holds true of some of the later MicroVAX systems. Right now, I'm working on cleaning up a VAX 4000/200 minitower, getting it ready for NetBSD, and to be an NIS master and boot server for my domain. Its power drain at full load (which I won't ever reach) is about the same as a mid-sized PC.
In short: Yes, the vast majority of retired PCs are not very versatile. Then again, IBM never designed the PC to be a long-lifer. The success of the entire PC line surprised the crap out of IBM as much as it did many in the industry.
HOWEVER -- Don't expect minicomputers, workstations, or other such equipment, ESPECIALLY in the non-PC realm, to follow the same pattern.
Being a Qwest.net customer, I'm in a really good position to comment on this (and you'd better believe I did my research when I heard about it!)
First off: The change only affects those customers who:
(1) Use analog dialup.
(2) Use residential DSL.
(3) Use any sort of Qwest.net web-based E-mail interface.
The change DOES NOT AFFECT YOU IF:
(1) You are a subscriber to Qwest.net's OfficeWorks or OfficeWorksLAN package.
(2) You are a subscriber to Qwest.net's DSLPro, DSL256, DSLDeluxe, or BrowseNow services.
In my case, I'm fully self-hosted. I run my own DNS, web, mail, FTP and (soon) caching NNTP servers. My Qwest DSL connection and static IP block is nothing more than a pipeline to the 'net at large. I have double-checked with the Qwest business office: The change will not affect me, or anyone else who is also self-hosted on a Qwest DSL line.
So, in summary: The only folks who have anything to worry about (and with MSN, there's PLENTY to worry about!) are the pure dialup and cheap DSL subscribers.
My deepest sympathies go out to them, and I would like to offer a brief list of alternative ISPs in the Puget Sound region that would probably be a heck of a lot better choice than anything the Redmond Empire can turn out.
http://www.blarg.net
http://www.drizzle.com (Heard good things, no direct experience with them).
http://www.kendra.com (Excellent reviews from some of my fellow Boeing employees).
For a full list of Puget Sound area ISP's, try this link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/technology/h tml98/isp_chart_030198.html
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is simple.
(1) Remove all traces of FrontPage from your system if you haven't already done so (or, more simply, never install it).
(2) Return FP to either the dealer it was purchased from (if still in shrink-wrap) or to M$ themselves, along with a statement that you disagree with the EULA and that you therefore request a full refund.
(3) Select one of Lord only knows how many HTML editing/publishing packages that don't come from Redmond, and that have no such silly restrictions. Said packages can be commercial, shareware, or open-source, your choice.
(4) Put up a site, authored with said alternative package, that explicitly takes pokes at M$, M$NBC, and all the others listed in the FP EULA, and rest secure in the fact that there's not a bloody thing they can do about it.
(5) Watch the Redmondians stew in their own juices. Once word of this becomes widespread (if it hasn't already), I would expect to see sales of FrontPage plummet.
FP is pure bloatware anyway, and I would not be at all surprised if it breaks multiple pieces of the W3C standards. Why use it at all?
Out of all the replies I've read (probably didn't get 'em all), I'm surprised that no one seems to have mentioned Zyxel.
1 2. htm
I was a Beta tester for their Prestige-312 router/firewall. It is explicitly designed to share a DSL connection with a bunch of systems, and it has a -very- configurable packet-state inspective (new word?) firewall built right in.
I still have my P312, and it has served me very well indeed for the last two years. Granted, it doesn't do IPV6 just yet, but it does have full-featured NAT available to translate 1:1, 1:Many, Many:1, and a built-in DHCP server as well.
Here's a link for more info.
http://www.zyxel.com/product/dslcablesharing/p3
So it's gotten to the point where the choice between a robotic dog and a real one is based primarily on cost of ownership?
I pray that we, as a race, never descend to such an emotional low point. How can you place a monetary value on things like loyalty, affection, and playtime? How about saving the life of an animal who might otherwise have been euthanized simply because they were unwanted?
And that doesn't even touch on the added security for yourself, your family, and your house.
My first sight of the Aibos and their ilk turned me cold within seconds wondering "Good Lord, why?!" I see no reason to change that opinion. Sony can take what they want and shove it up their waste-disposal plumbing.
My entire 'net presence (I'm self-hosted) is based on used equipment, mostly Sun. SPARC IPC for primary DNS, SPARClassics for mail and web, and a big Compaq ProLiant 5000 with RAID-5 for FTP, backup DNS, and emulating an NT PDC thanks to Samba. Pretty soon, I'll be adding a DEC (original DEC, not post-Compaq takeover) VAX 4000/300 for a backup/maintenance and bootserver system.
;-)
Every single system in that list would have gone to the landfill if I hadn't taken some gifts, and gone scrounging at various electronics swap meets and surplus stores. Instead, it's all serving useful purposes thanks to a little cleanup and judicious application of NetBSD into everything.
With the exception of one failed disk drive, the stuff has been utterly solid, reliability-wise. Don't EVER let anyone tell you that the used/surplus market isn't worth the effort! They'll either be lying through their teeth, paranoid that "used" means "bad," or trying to guard some hidden treasure that they've found for themselves.
Keep the peace(es).
Criminys, Katz. You have a unique talent for taking a blatantly simple problem and turning it into a multi-page editorial.
The answer is simple: Ban spam, shoot all the spammers, and the worldwide E-mail load will drop by at least 70%!
I find it sad that the first thing someone thought about when they saw this story was that it brought us one step closer to a (completely unnecessary, and downright dangerous in my eyes) machine-to-brain interface.
Hello?! Did it ever occur to such people that such a device has great possibilities for repairing or bypassing damaged nerves in, say, folks who have been paralyzed? Yeegads, people! Get a clue! If this can be made to work effectively in humans, it's just possible that the wheelchair-bound could regain their mobility!
We've got enough info overload right now without being linked to a bunch of frelling computers. Let's think of giving someone with, say, cerebral palsy a whole new and stable degree of motor control before we start browsing the web on the insides of our retinas, hmmm?
...because HP's "support" is not something I've been terribly impressed with.
When Adaptec bought out DPT, it was mainly to get their hands on decent RAID technology because Adaptec(rap) couldn't seem to make a decent RAID adapter to save their lives. I wrote to DPT's support department at the time, expressing concern that their support for legacy DPT hardware would suffer because they had been bought out by, as I put it, the 'Microsoft of the SCSI adapter industry.'
Oh no, they hastened to assure me in response. Our FTP site will be untouched.
Meadow-muffins! Less than a year later, the entire DPT support site was moved to AdapteCrap's. A number of files for DPT's older RAID and caching SCSI host adapters mysteriously vanished, never to be seen again, and no one's owning up to how or why it happened.
If HP pulls the same stunt with DECompaq, will there be any support left for any hardware over two years old?
I don't know if this is going to be good, bad, or indifferent. From what I've seen, though, the quality and quantity of tech support is inversely proportional to the size of the company in question.
In short: Better start archiving any older support files you may need from Compaq's FTP and web sites. HP may decide to clean house.
...an interesting side-effect, one that is not limited to the standard AM/FM broadcast bands that most of the population is already familiar with. Specifically, any sort of chilling of online streaming, no matter who does it or why, could result in some stations getting back on the 'shortwave' bands (which some have already abandoned in favor of Internet pipes).
Granted, this tends to apply more to non-U.S. stations than anyone else, but those of you who have broadband HF receivers may want to start tuning around some more over the next year or so. You may get some interesting QSL cards out of it.
".you're behind the times. Fiberchannel, firewire, and yes, IDE, have made SCSI obsolete. IDE made SCSI obsolete? ... on the high end, let's give SCSI a well deserved retirement, with fanfare and honors, and replace it with more modern stuff, please..."
I'm sorry you feel this way. I could not disagree more vehemently. You appear to be basing your statement solely on "price/performance" points rather than hard technical facts. For my part, I've been using SCSI exclusively, in every system I have, since 1990 and I have not the slightest regret about it.
I will grant that SCSI is not for everyone, but take it in context. It was never DESIGNED to suit the demands of Joe/Jane Consumer. It was designed to be a versatile and (relatively) simple-to-use I/O bus for just about any type of computer system or data processing device. With versatility and power comes complexity; It's as unavoidable as breathing, and it has always been true that SCSI requires a little more in the way of technical know-how to take full advantage of.
No matter how many "enhancements" are kludged into it, IDE was still never designed, from the GROUND UP, to be a multi-device, multi-tasking I/O system. Where else can you find a system where, if you have two drives, the second one is almost entirely dependent on the electronics of the first to do its job while its own onboard electronics go largely unused?
Compare that with a SCSI bus where every device, if properly designed, has the smarts to become an initiator or a target, and where such devices can do direct transfers to/from each other without intervention from the system CPU. Given that, and especially comparing it with IDE's truly brain-dead interface (IDE is an interface, NOT a true bus), I don't see how you can possibly come to the conclusion that SCSI devices don't have "enough brains per drive."
SCSI has been around, in one form or another, since at least 1982. It has been, and continues to be, used on everything from PC's to mainframes. As for your "Price/Performance" points, I would say that the used/surplus market can easily undercut what little advantage IDE may have in this area.
SCSI is indeed an excellent answer for many applications. You don't have to take my word for it: I think the mountain of equipment Out There that uses it, and how long said equipment has been around, AND the fact that ANSI continues to develop the spec, shows that SCSI has stood the test of time, and will continue to do so.
I'm sorry if this upsets you. The complaint department is upstairs, third door on the right.
The reviewer comments that there may actually be too much information in the book, and that newcomers to the subject of SCSI may get lost. My response is that the book itself was never really written for beginners; It was written, IMO, as a technical reference for folks who are in the range between decently hardware-literate (able to build a system without too much trouble) and engineering technician. Witness the oscilloscope examples. How many would-be SCSI users in the Joe/Jane Consumer arena have even seen an O-scope, let alone could guess how to use one or what they're useful for?
Speaking as a second-year EE student, and as someone who's spent 20+ years doing hands-on with all kinds of electronics, the book came as a very welcome reference for me. I would not, however, recommend it for someone who just wants to find out enough about SCSI just to make use of it. For that, I would suggest http://www.scsifaq.org
I would suggest to the reviewer to place a book in context before writing said review. It just plain looks better in print.
...I feel compelled to point out something that EVERYone seems to have missed.
Let me say first that I see no reason whatsoever to wire every imaginable device to the 'net outside of government and the bureausplats wanting to be able to monitor anything they can think of on demand.
Think about it: Fridges, washers, dryers, toasters... they were all built to serve specific purposes, and those purposes are not in any way, shape or form assisted by connecting the device in question to some global network. So why connect them unless you want to know when they're on, what they're doing, etc.?
Now, with that said... If the marketdroids and polly-tishuns are going to insist that everything be "connected," there needs to be an "off" switch or similar way to 'pull the plug' as it were for ANY such interconnected device. Furthermore, the basic function of the device in question must NOT be impaired by doing so. Consumers will never buy into such crap otherwise (heck, they may not buy into it now).
I still want to know which bonehead(s) thought it would be a good idea to connect appliances to the 'net in any case...
...that @Home's rich crop of spammers just might be to blame for their current troubles?
Think about it: Lots of admins (myself included -- I have LARGE amounts of @Home's IP space in our mailserver's local 'Deny' files) start blocking mail traffic, legitimate or not, from @Home's IP space due to spammer infestations. Personally, with only ONE exception, every single piece of mail I've seen from @Home in the past two years has been spam.
Anyway, @Home users get ticked off because, all of a sudden, they can't mail baby pictures to Aunt Gracie on Orville's Internet Service in Flyspeck, OH. Why? Because Orville's is blocking traffic from @Home. Orville's other users AND admins were complaining about the spam load from @Home, and Orville himself decided to do something about it.
Ticked-off @Home customers bail when @Home can't/won't do anything about their network's spammers. @Home loses revenue. @Home's share price drops. @Home sinks like the Titanic.
At the risk of sounding mean and nasty, I'm not going to cry very much for @Home. Their demise means only one thing to me: Less disk space taken up on my servers due to reduced size of my 'Deny' file.
Keep the peace(es).
From: The Brain, C/O Acme Labs
To: jneves on Slashdot
Re: Your post of 16-Aug-01
Dear {$GENDER}
It has come to my attention that your recent post on the web site 'Slashdot' contains the exact specifications for our soon-to-be complete Internet worm that will enable me to (finally!) Take Over The World!
Because of the sensitive nature of this project, I must insist that you retract your post immediately. In return for your cooperation, I am prepared to offer you the position of Governor of New Zealand, a fifteen-foot high Tesla coil, and a lifetime supply of food pellets.
Yours in World Domination,
The Brain
(POIT! TROZ!)
(Quiet, Pinky...!)
I cannot agree entirely with this statement. I would say that, more accurately, it depends heavily on the TYPE of computer in question.
Example: The early-90's vintage Sun "Lunchboxes" (the SPARC IPC, IPX, Classic, and LX) make wonderful small web or mail servers. I should know; My 'net presence depends on them. Electrical-wise, you can easily run a pair of them on what a single PC pulls. Reliability-wise, they're light-years ahead of most PCs outside the big server-class systems.
Processing power? Heck, does it really matter? They get the job done, and they get it done pretty darn quick. Remember that SPARC architecture is radically different from any PC, and NetBSD runs pretty darned efficient no matter what platform it's on.
Best of all, I acquired a whole stack of them for less than $100.00. Beat THAT with a stick!
The same holds true of some of the later MicroVAX systems. Right now, I'm working on cleaning up a VAX 4000/200 minitower, getting it ready for NetBSD, and to be an NIS master and boot server for my domain. Its power drain at full load (which I won't ever reach) is about the same as a mid-sized PC.
In short: Yes, the vast majority of retired PCs are not very versatile. Then again, IBM never designed the PC to be a long-lifer. The success of the entire PC line surprised the crap out of IBM as much as it did many in the industry.
HOWEVER -- Don't expect minicomputers, workstations, or other such equipment, ESPECIALLY in the non-PC realm, to follow the same pattern.
Being a Qwest.net customer, I'm in a really good position to comment on this (and you'd better believe I did my research when I heard about it!)
h tml98/isp_chart_030198.html
First off: The change only affects those customers who:
(1) Use analog dialup.
(2) Use residential DSL.
(3) Use any sort of Qwest.net web-based E-mail interface.
The change DOES NOT AFFECT YOU IF:
(1) You are a subscriber to Qwest.net's OfficeWorks or OfficeWorksLAN package.
(2) You are a subscriber to Qwest.net's DSLPro, DSL256, DSLDeluxe, or BrowseNow services.
In my case, I'm fully self-hosted. I run my own DNS, web, mail, FTP and (soon) caching NNTP servers. My Qwest DSL connection and static IP block is nothing more than a pipeline to the 'net at large. I have double-checked with the Qwest business office: The change will not affect me, or anyone else who is also self-hosted on a Qwest DSL line.
So, in summary: The only folks who have anything to worry about (and with MSN, there's PLENTY to worry about!) are the pure dialup and cheap DSL subscribers.
My deepest sympathies go out to them, and I would like to offer a brief list of alternative ISPs in the Puget Sound region that would probably be a heck of a lot better choice than anything the Redmond Empire can turn out.
http://www.blarg.net
http://www.drizzle.com (Heard good things, no direct experience with them).
http://www.kendra.com (Excellent reviews from some of my fellow Boeing employees).
For a full list of Puget Sound area ISP's, try this link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/technology/
Good luck, and God help us all...