Have you ever tried to run or at least taken the time to look at the way businesses are managed? You go and you say, "well street corner X will give me direct access to Y # of people at a cost of Z. I estimate A% of them will walk in just off the street. I will be able to reach B% more people because of my location". That's marketing.
"And why do you have to go to a mall because of marketing?"
That's how you know the mall exists.
"Can't you go because you need something?"
Not if you don't know it's there.
"And online directories can contain marketing, but not necessarily. They are simply informational, just like a phonebook."
A phonebook is marketing. Especially the yellow pages, even without the half-page ads. Even getting listed AT ALL in the yellow pages costs a bit of money, because it is marketing. Being listed in the white pages is not marketing, because someone would already have to know who you are to find you. But to be listed by category in the yellow pages is marketing, and is sold as such.
All online directories are marketing. The first part of any successful web marketing plan is getting listed on dmoz.org, google.com, and any dedicated directories.
Try to run a business some day and you'll see what I mean. People can't find you through ESP. You have to tell them you exist and what you do, and make people know how much better you are than others.
Being in a mall is a *gasp* marketing decision. The reason you know to go to a mall is *gasp* marketing. Having attractive signs and wall displays is *gasp* marketing. Online directories are *gasp* marketing.
None of this would be available without marketing.
Are you against industry, too? Industry (including computers) simply cannot exist without marketing.
The only way to start a business is with marketing.
The only way people know about your business is with marketing.
Without marketing, the only type of work that would be available would be farming for yourself. Without marketing, how would you let others know you have something to sell?
The bond is held by IronPort, not Microsoft. Neither one actually gets the money, though.
IronPort is trying to provide the way to real spam-prevention services. If they don't have any credibility, noone will buy their services, and they will go out of business.
This really is a smart move. It's too bad Slashdot is too much in the "hate Microsoft" / "hate all forms of email marketing" line to see it.
By the way, what professor at OSU teaches assembly language? I've been wanting to show them my book for a while, but they don't even teach assembly language at OSU-Tulsa or OSU-Okmulgee.
Honestly I think that assembly language should be learned first, just so that you know what your computer is actually doing under the hood, and you use that as a basis for all of your future learning.
Don't get me wrong, I don't use assembly language day-to-day, but knowing assembly language has helped me out immensely. Check out the book I wrote on assembly language in my sig.
I've never seen a good GNOME book that tells you how to do all sorts of fun stuff like write Nautilus shell extensions, do Bonobo stuff, write filesystem filters, add Evolution plugins, and do drag-and-drop the right way.
Most of them stick to Gtk+, with a bit of touching on the basics of the GNOME UI, but nothing that really delves into how to make it all work together.
"In linux sometimes stuff just works. Then again...sometimes you have a library problem..or maybe the wrong kernel version/module. Or maybe some driver wasnt loaded right, etc etc."
I don't see how this is different with Windows. I've seen this time and time again with Windows. The Media Player won't work. Need to download a new codec. Ach! This screwed up my install. Should've just used Linux and MPlayer - hassle-free video.
Then there's the problems that sometimes Windows itself behaves differently depending on which version of Microsoft Office you're running. Running version X.Y will allow certain software to run, but if I run A.B it will fail.
It seems either
(a) you never have actually tried to install something on Windows that didn't come with it
"While it's true that XML structures will change, they're text, meaning that anyone with 10 minutes and some knowledge of Python/Perl/$script_language_in_10_yrs can write a script to convert XML type 1 to XML type 2."
Not necessarily. You apparently haven't been exposed to some of the crap that passes for XML. For example, I wouldn't say that this is any more useful than binary data, but it's valid XML:
You can convert Word from it's different forms with Perl/Python/Whatever as well, and in all cases, you have to know what the structures MEAN. That's true for XML as well as binary data.
Simple formats are simple whether their representation is binary or XML. Complex formats are still complex even if they are represented via XML. The only help that XML gives is that it is (a) editable by a text editor, (b) _potentially_ human readable, but ONLY if it was designed that way, and (c) allows you to share the tokenizer with more than one application. There are a few other advantages of XML, but truth be told, it's only a step forward if Microsoft _chooses_ to make it's XML format a step forward.
"I wasn't advocating migration, nor was I suggesting sticking with Microsoft."
I wasn't suggesting you were. I was just commenting on the fact that many people are quick to point out that "OpenOffice isn't free" but fail to point out that in the same vein "Microsoft isn't $499".
Honestly, I have no idea which would be better for these people, but the first step to figuring it out is to be sure you are viewing them both from the same standpoint and not applying double-standards.
Where I work, I have a pretty large say in what is installed, and we, for the most part, use Microsoft Office because of the amount of documents we receive from customers with macros in them. Many of our installations, however, have both, because of OOo Impress.
"With OOo's XML I do look forward to being able to see my documents 20 years from now just as they are today"
XML is not the panacea you think it is. It's just a different way to write data structures. If you don't change the data structures, you're stuck with the same mess even if it's in XML.
"And while it may seem that OO.org does everything MS Office does, there may be advanced features in Office that either don't exist in OO.org, or aren't compatible from one format to the other."
The converse is true, too. For example, I use OOo Draw all the time, and I don't think there is a corresponding program in Microsoft Office (I could be wrong). In addition, I use OOo's export to PDF/Flash options all the time from Impress, while Microsoft Office does not have those features in PowerPoint.
In addition, with OOo, your IT guys have a much higher chance of being able to solve complex problems, because they have the source.
This is true, but sometimes this idea is used improperly. For example, I've heard it said "Linux is free only if your time costs nothing." Well, it could equally be said "Windows is only $300 if your time costs nothing."
So, to say OOo is free is just as wrong as to say Microsoft Office costs $499. If someone said Microsoft Office costs $499 would you correct them? If not, perhaps you shouldn't also be correcting people who say that Linux is free. It's kind of a double-standard.
Re:Why all the MTA anti-sendmail holy wars?
on
Postfix 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"The one potentially bad thing about your mention of Postfix using fixed-length records, is that is usually the root cause for buffer overflows."
Incorrect. What Postfix does is BREAK UP a message into fixed-length pieces so that a buffer overflow CANNOT occur.
Buffer overflows are a problem when you ASSUME that a field is of X length but it's actually Y. Since Postfix breaks up lines into fixed-length quantities, it prevents lots of potential problems because there is no way that a line could overflow.
Re:Why all the MTA anti-sendmail holy wars?
on
Postfix 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's not the flaws, it's the architecture and development methodology, although I've heard both have been revamped in 9, I haven't checked myself.
Postfix has several security policies:
1) no process will ever _touch_ user data as root 2) all data is converted into fixed-length records for internal use 3) each program is small and does one task using the least privilege concept
There are others, but I can't think of them right now. Up until V8, sendmail had the monolithic, let's-run-everything-as-root concept. It's not that sendmail has flaws, it's that sendmail is so susceptible to flaws just by its design.
Again, I'm not aware of the improvements done in V9, as I had already switched to Postfix.
Many of us are cheap bastards. I pay approx $12/month for dialup through eskimo.com. My shell access is perfectly acceptable in response time, as well as the websites I visit (slashdot can be a little slow, but google, yahoo, christdot.org, and the informational sites I visit all load at a decent speed).
In addition, I'm not even at 56k. I'm connecting on a used 28.8 modem because my computer came with one of those stupid winmodems and I had to switch with my parents.
It's really not a bad gig. I have SDSL at work, so I can download anything I want overnight at work, and burn CDs to bring it home. I'm not missing anything.
I disagree. Computers are difficult to change and difficult to get to perform contextually like humans are. On the other hand, humans are easily adaptable. You'll wind up with the best results by doing a little of both, but really "catering to the users" doesn't mean much, as it depends on the user.
I almost never cater to the user, but instead cater to the data model. Users always tell me how easy my programs are to use. How does this happen? Instead of trying to guess how my users think, I made my software really predictable. Therefore, with just a little nudge, users are able to figure everything out easily, because the software doesn't have any surprises. The users have to change their way of thinking a little, but that's easy for them to do.
I don't necessarily agree with what you believe would happen if the Windows users migrated to Linux. There are some people who are trying to make Linux more palatable for Windows people. Some of this is beneficial, but some of it does introduce the Windows culture into Linux (I'm all for ease-of-use, but the culture issue is my sticking point).
If we stay true to our culture, yet be more newbie-friendly, I think the acceptance of Linux, if it happens, will in fact be the acceptance of the Linux _culture_. There's no reason to use Windows once you accept the Linux culture. That's why you have all of these stories of people who are tired of the Microsoft culture, and then just dual-boot just to try Linux. The fact is, once you have given up on the Microsoft culture, there is NO REASON (well, very few reasons) to use Microsoft software.
Hopefully, computing will get back to what it was in the green-screen days - a way to make business operations better. I've never heard anyone complain about a green-screen terminal being too hard to use. Why? Because when it's your job to use it, you learn it. And when you have green-screen terminals, there really isn't much room to use your computer to play games, download useless software, or find yet another way to annoy your systems administrator. Everything "just works". Linux is a very "get-it-done" oriented system, and hopefully returning to Linux will return to the days when computers really help your bottom line, and don't just add an additional distraction to your workforce.
Technically, Linux is not less susceptible, but culturally it is. The Windows culture that it established for itself is one of "Don't look under the hood, we'll take care of the details". While the Linux culture is to always look under the hood at the details, or at least make sure that someone else is taking care of that.
In addition, with Linux, you can have distributions aimed at neophytes which prevent this sort of thing, and then other distributions for experienced users who just want to be uber-productive.
Slashdot Mirror
"How is being in a mall marketing decision?"
Have you ever tried to run or at least taken the time to look at the way businesses are managed? You go and you say, "well street corner X will give me direct access to Y # of people at a cost of Z. I estimate A% of them will walk in just off the street. I will be able to reach B% more people because of my location". That's marketing.
"And why do you have to go to a mall because of marketing?"
That's how you know the mall exists.
"Can't you go because you need something?"
Not if you don't know it's there.
"And online directories can contain marketing, but not necessarily. They are simply informational, just like a phonebook."
A phonebook is marketing. Especially the yellow pages, even without the half-page ads. Even getting listed AT ALL in the yellow pages costs a bit of money, because it is marketing. Being listed in the white pages is not marketing, because someone would already have to know who you are to find you. But to be listed by category in the yellow pages is marketing, and is sold as such.
All online directories are marketing. The first part of any successful web marketing plan is getting listed on dmoz.org, google.com, and any dedicated directories.
Try to run a business some day and you'll see what I mean. People can't find you through ESP. You have to tell them you exist and what you do, and make people know how much better you are than others.
Being in a mall is a *gasp* marketing decision. The reason you know to go to a mall is *gasp* marketing. Having attractive signs and wall displays is *gasp* marketing. Online directories are *gasp* marketing.
None of this would be available without marketing.
Are you against industry, too? Industry (including computers) simply cannot exist without marketing.
The only way to start a business is with marketing.
The only way people know about your business is with marketing.
Without marketing, the only type of work that would be available would be farming for yourself. Without marketing, how would you let others know you have something to sell?
Actually Linux supports both plain dynamic libraries AND shared libraries.
The bond is held by IronPort, not Microsoft. Neither one actually gets the money, though.
IronPort is trying to provide the way to real spam-prevention services. If they don't have any credibility, noone will buy their services, and they will go out of business.
This really is a smart move. It's too bad Slashdot is too much in the "hate Microsoft" / "hate all forms of email marketing" line to see it.
From IronPort's site it looks like they are just allowing opt-in email.
By the way, what professor at OSU teaches assembly language? I've been wanting to show them my book for a while, but they don't even teach assembly language at OSU-Tulsa or OSU-Okmulgee.
Honestly I think that assembly language should be learned first, just so that you know what your computer is actually doing under the hood, and you use that as a basis for all of your future learning.
Don't get me wrong, I don't use assembly language day-to-day, but knowing assembly language has helped me out immensely. Check out the book I wrote on assembly language in my sig.
Or the fact that it was (I think) based on SGML.
I've never seen a good GNOME book that tells you how to do all sorts of fun stuff like write Nautilus shell extensions, do Bonobo stuff, write filesystem filters, add Evolution plugins, and do drag-and-drop the right way.
Most of them stick to Gtk+, with a bit of touching on the basics of the GNOME UI, but nothing that really delves into how to make it all work together.
Just for kicks, check out this article:
e r.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PleaseLink
"In linux sometimes stuff just works. Then again...sometimes you have a library problem..or maybe the wrong kernel version/module. Or maybe some driver wasnt loaded right, etc etc."
I don't see how this is different with Windows. I've seen this time and time again with Windows. The Media Player won't work. Need to download a new codec. Ach! This screwed up my install. Should've just used Linux and MPlayer - hassle-free video.
Then there's the problems that sometimes Windows itself behaves differently depending on which version of Microsoft Office you're running. Running version X.Y will allow certain software to run, but if I run A.B it will fail.
It seems either
(a) you never have actually tried to install something on Windows that didn't come with it
(b) you are incredibly lucky
or (c) you have your head in the sand
"While it's true that XML structures will change, they're text, meaning that anyone with 10 minutes and some knowledge of Python/Perl/$script_language_in_10_yrs can write a script to convert XML type 1 to XML type 2."
Not necessarily. You apparently haven't been exposed to some of the crap that passes for XML. For example, I wouldn't say that this is any more useful than binary data, but it's valid XML:
You can convert Word from it's different forms with Perl/Python/Whatever as well, and in all cases, you have to know what the structures MEAN. That's true for XML as well as binary data.
Simple formats are simple whether their representation is binary or XML. Complex formats are still complex even if they are represented via XML. The only help that XML gives is that it is (a) editable by a text editor, (b) _potentially_ human readable, but ONLY if it was designed that way, and (c) allows you to share the tokenizer with more than one application. There are a few other advantages of XML, but truth be told, it's only a step forward if Microsoft _chooses_ to make it's XML format a step forward.
"I wasn't advocating migration, nor was I suggesting sticking with Microsoft."
I wasn't suggesting you were. I was just commenting on the fact that many people are quick to point out that "OpenOffice isn't free" but fail to point out that in the same vein "Microsoft isn't $499".
Honestly, I have no idea which would be better for these people, but the first step to figuring it out is to be sure you are viewing them both from the same standpoint and not applying double-standards.
Where I work, I have a pretty large say in what is installed, and we, for the most part, use Microsoft Office because of the amount of documents we receive from customers with macros in them. Many of our installations, however, have both, because of OOo Impress.
Solving complex problems isn't the job of IT guys? I thought that's the reason for having IT guys. Silly me.
"With OOo's XML I do look forward to being able to see my documents 20 years from now just as they are today"
XML is not the panacea you think it is. It's just a different way to write data structures. If you don't change the data structures, you're stuck with the same mess even if it's in XML.
"And while it may seem that OO.org does everything MS Office does, there may be advanced features in Office that either don't exist in OO.org, or aren't compatible from one format to the other."
The converse is true, too. For example, I use OOo Draw all the time, and I don't think there is a corresponding program in Microsoft Office (I could be wrong). In addition, I use OOo's export to PDF/Flash options all the time from Impress, while Microsoft Office does not have those features in PowerPoint.
In addition, with OOo, your IT guys have a much higher chance of being able to solve complex problems, because they have the source.
"Nothing is ever free."
This is true, but sometimes this idea is used improperly. For example, I've heard it said "Linux is free only if your time costs nothing." Well, it could equally be said "Windows is only $300 if your time costs nothing."
So, to say OOo is free is just as wrong as to say Microsoft Office costs $499. If someone said Microsoft Office costs $499 would you correct them? If not, perhaps you shouldn't also be correcting people who say that Linux is free. It's kind of a double-standard.
"The one potentially bad thing about your mention of Postfix using fixed-length records, is that is usually the root cause for buffer overflows."
Incorrect. What Postfix does is BREAK UP a message into fixed-length pieces so that a buffer overflow CANNOT occur.
Buffer overflows are a problem when you ASSUME that a field is of X length but it's actually Y. Since Postfix breaks up lines into fixed-length quantities, it prevents lots of potential problems because there is no way that a line could overflow.
It's not the flaws, it's the architecture and development methodology, although I've heard both have been revamped in 9, I haven't checked myself.
Postfix has several security policies:
1) no process will ever _touch_ user data as root
2) all data is converted into fixed-length records for internal use
3) each program is small and does one task using the least privilege concept
There are others, but I can't think of them right now. Up until V8, sendmail had the monolithic, let's-run-everything-as-root concept. It's not that sendmail has flaws, it's that sendmail is so susceptible to flaws just by its design.
Again, I'm not aware of the improvements done in V9, as I had already switched to Postfix.
Many of us are cheap bastards. I pay approx $12/month for dialup through eskimo.com. My shell access is perfectly acceptable in response time, as well as the websites I visit (slashdot can be a little slow, but google, yahoo, christdot.org, and the informational sites I visit all load at a decent speed).
In addition, I'm not even at 56k. I'm connecting on a used 28.8 modem because my computer came with one of those stupid winmodems and I had to switch with my parents.
It's really not a bad gig. I have SDSL at work, so I can download anything I want overnight at work, and burn CDs to bring it home. I'm not missing anything.
I disagree. Computers are difficult to change and difficult to get to perform contextually like humans are. On the other hand, humans are easily adaptable. You'll wind up with the best results by doing a little of both, but really "catering to the users" doesn't mean much, as it depends on the user.
I almost never cater to the user, but instead cater to the data model. Users always tell me how easy my programs are to use. How does this happen? Instead of trying to guess how my users think, I made my software really predictable. Therefore, with just a little nudge, users are able to figure everything out easily, because the software doesn't have any surprises. The users have to change their way of thinking a little, but that's easy for them to do.
I don't necessarily agree with what you believe would happen if the Windows users migrated to Linux. There are some people who are trying to make Linux more palatable for Windows people. Some of this is beneficial, but some of it does introduce the Windows culture into Linux (I'm all for ease-of-use, but the culture issue is my sticking point).
If we stay true to our culture, yet be more newbie-friendly, I think the acceptance of Linux, if it happens, will in fact be the acceptance of the Linux _culture_. There's no reason to use Windows once you accept the Linux culture. That's why you have all of these stories of people who are tired of the Microsoft culture, and then just dual-boot just to try Linux. The fact is, once you have given up on the Microsoft culture, there is NO REASON (well, very few reasons) to use Microsoft software.
Hopefully, computing will get back to what it was in the green-screen days - a way to make business operations better. I've never heard anyone complain about a green-screen terminal being too hard to use. Why? Because when it's your job to use it, you learn it. And when you have green-screen terminals, there really isn't much room to use your computer to play games, download useless software, or find yet another way to annoy your systems administrator. Everything "just works". Linux is a very "get-it-done" oriented system, and hopefully returning to Linux will return to the days when computers really help your bottom line, and don't just add an additional distraction to your workforce.
"I run Firefox at home, and my Ad-Aware scans still turn up numerous tracking cookies."
Tracing cookies have nothing to do with the rest of spyware. They are radically different in their intrusiveness and capabilities.
"I've even been infected with a few javascript viruses from firefox."
I've never heard of a JavaScript virus. Can you point me some links?
Technically, Linux is not less susceptible, but culturally it is. The Windows culture that it established for itself is one of "Don't look under the hood, we'll take care of the details". While the Linux culture is to always look under the hood at the details, or at least make sure that someone else is taking care of that.
In addition, with Linux, you can have distributions aimed at neophytes which prevent this sort of thing, and then other distributions for experienced users who just want to be uber-productive.