It's pretty obvious that the zip codes are public, since that's how the public sends mail to a particular place. If the zipcode were "private" it would be practically impossible to do business by mail. Or to use it for any other purpose for that matter.
There is a way to look up any Zip Code on line, you can do it at the USPS's Zip code lookups page
That said, the only people who have a use for a large database of zipcodes are mass marketers, and IMHO they OUGHT to pay for having it. I don't want it to be any easier than it needs to be for those morons to send me dead trees.
But it looks like they picked the right time to bring in John Cleese as his replacement.
Au revoir, Q!
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
No I can't unfortunately. What I can do is point you to the GNHLUG archives at http://codemeta.com/archives/index.html and suggest that you read the threads "how linux users do it," "Matt's Proposal - 'GNU Inside'," and "Defence of RMS and Linux"
The most unfortunate part is that there are a slew of messages missing from those threads, owing to a server crash. But what you will find, unlike his copious responses to arguments against calling Linux distributions "GNU/Linux" distributions, is a complete and utter lack of response to the GNU Inside idea.
I'm reasonably certain that there was at one time at least one message where he said that that was not enough, but I'm not positive and if there was it appears to be one of the missing messages. If nothing else, one can make the argument that his silence is rejection by default. He certainly wasn't warm and openly receptive to the idea.
If he were, you would no doubt already be seeing some logo of the sort on the packages of the various distributions. I don't think any of them would find such a thing objectionable, and as you will see if you read through those threads, the community (or at least our part of it, which I think is a fair representation of the whole) is widely in favor of getting GNU credit. The majority of us just want RMS to leave the name alone. It isn't up to him what companies/groups/people call a given Linux distribution, as much as he would like it to be.
Man, if that #2 of RMS isn't trying to depict him as Jesus....
:)
(A joke! Laugh!)
Re:The word you are looking for is distribution.
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely. But RMS refers to a distribution as "the GNU/Linux System" so I am using his words in my argument.
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
Oh, one other thing:
When you say "give credit to the authors" you make it sound like the GNU Project coders are the only authors. I agree that those people wrote a large chunk of the code, but if your intention is to give credit in the title of the product, then you must also include the authors of BSD/MIT X/XFree86/Sendmail Inc/etc etc which get's hugely unweildy and, let's face it, completely ridiculous.
Giving the authors credit in the product name is inappropriate... that's what CREDITS are for, and the names of the authors are included in the credits in the source code.
And again, see this comment for a much more appropriate, and completely rejected by RMS, method of getting the GNU project credit.
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
wrote "a GNU utilit_y_", not GNU utilit_ies_.
Sure, but the original author wrote:
I looked at some source for some linux command line utils.
What I was pointing out is that since it is not known that all of those "linux command utils" were GNU utils, and very likely they were NOT all GNU utils, since many of the command line utilities on a Linux system come from BSD and numerous other sources, your assertion that he should use GNU in place of Linux is invalid. Something more generic is called for.It may be that qualifying them with "linux" isn't technically correct, but neither is "GNU" and linux does get the meaning across.
Then you went on to say:
You must have a strong wish to criticize the GNU Project and RMS, if you will criticize _me_ for things you only imagine that I wrote. ... Why is it wrong to give credit to the authors, who in the aegis of the GNU Project, wrote large parts of the system?
I have a strong wish to quell RMS and his followers' desire to misname a product in the name of a holy crusade.
It is not wrong to give credit to the authors, and I never said it was. For more on how I feel that should be done, see THIS COMMENT
Carnage
Re:YART - Yet Another RMS Triumph
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
Tom, I'm assuming you're referring to Robert J. Morris, Jr.? Author of the famous Internet Worm?
Robert Morris (Sr.) was also famous, as he was the head of NSA at the time.
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 2
Even if you could do it in 3 months (which I highly doubt), it's completely irrelevant.
The most important point I'm trying to get across is, the end product is still YOUR product, and you have the right to call it whatever you want (so long as it doesn't infringe someone else's trade mark, of course).
If I put together my own Linux distribution, I could call it Carnage Linux, Carnage GNU/Linux, Skatanafas, Joe's computer pizza, or whatever else I want to call it. Nothing in the GPL, restricts me from doing so. Whatever I chose to call it, if you called it by some other name, you would simply be WRONG.
Let Stallman make his own distribution, then he can call it RMS GNU/Linux. Debian has chosen to adopt his naming convention, and their product is rightfully called Debian GNU/Linux. Others have not, and calling it so is misnaming it.
RMS's arguments are mainly centered around getting due credit for the work the FSF and GNU project did. No one disputes that they deserve credit. But he can't simply co-opt the name of a thing to suit his own purposes.
Incidentally, as part of that same argument on the GNHLUG mailing list, it was proposed by those who think like me that we get the various distributions to adopt some sort of "GNU Inside" -type endorsement to give GNU the credit it definitely deserves. Jon "maddog" Hall, president of LI and (recently) former chairperson (or "reluctant chairperson" as he prefers) of GNHLUG, was willing to take this to the distributions to make it happen, but it was not enough for RMS. He INSISTS that GNU/Linux is the proper name, and won't settle for anything else.
PLEASE, don't get the idea that I don't like RMS. I have nothing but respect for the man and the work that he's done. I appreciate his ideals (mostly) and all the effort he has put in to spread them. BUT, I think he's being a little pig-headed about this one issue. Especially when alternative (and IMHO more appropriate) means of giving credit are available, but rejected by him.
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
Sure, but he didn't say that it appeared in ALL of the utilities' source code, just that it popped up a lot. Therefore the GNU qualifier is incorrect, since grammatically it assumes that ALL of the utilities he looked at were GNU utilities, which is not known.
More importantly, you, like RMS himself, did not refute my second point.
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 1
Oh really?
I want you to download the source code for every package RedHat ships standard with RH 6.1, compile it, create RPMs for it, write a graphical installer, write all the rc scripts to make everything work, and THEN tell me that RedHat didn't do much work to put together thier distribution.
I expect to hear back from you in about 2 years.
Re:RMS wrote too much code :-)
on
RMS The Coder
·
· Score: 2
That's just silly.
Point #1: There are hundreds of command-line utilities on a Linux system that were not written under the umbrella of the GNU project or the FSF, despite the fact that they are distributed with the GPL. So how the hell do you know if he meant a GNU command line utility or a Linux command line util?
Point #2: The GPL does not restrict the redistribution of GNU utilities, and does not require one to name a product which redistributes those utilites with a name that mentions GNU.
The overall Linux system is a product of the work of whoever puts it together, i.e. RedHat Linux. The code was written by hundreds of people, but it was put together in usable form by the wonderful people at Redhat. THEY are the ones that decide what their product is called, and they have chosen to call it RedHat Linux. Anything else you call it is simply wrong.
I made this point to RMS in an argument we had on the GNHLUG mailing list, and he was unable to refute this point.
It sounds to me like NSI is screwing lots of people over. I am yet another person who has a registered domain, who is having trouble with NSI updating my info.
My listed e-mail address rather abruptly became invalid, so I needed to change my contact info as well as my DNS servers. Fortunately (or so I thought) I have an associate who still has a valid e-mail address listed as one of the contacts on my domain agreement. He filled out the necessary change forms, and EVEN AFTER RECEIVING CONFIRMATION that the changes were completed, they are not.
I am also having trouble getting my contact info changed, also despite having received conformation that it was done. I finally managed to find a phone number for NSI (by doing a whois lookup on them) and called to complain, and they now say they'll do the change if I fax them a signed letter with a photocopy of my driver's license.
Why should I need to do this? We already know that they collect data about their customers, and providing them with a copy of my ID will give them more information about me than I feel they have a right to have.
Sounds like we should band together and file a class action law suit against these assholes. I hate lawyers and lawsuits but I can't think of anyone more deserving of being sued at the moment.
captain_carnage@hotmail.com [ My normal e-mail address has been broken since 11/30/99 and will continue to be until the inept and unscrupulous jackasses at NSI decide to change it ]
Sun is a for-profit company. I like Open Source as much as the next guy, but you just can't expect them to GIVE AWAY (in the speech sense) the keys to the fort.
Will SO stay freely available? Well, in the long term, who can say? But in the short term, probably at least a couple of years, it MUST be free, since this is Sun's marketing strategy to combat Microsoft. The whole idea is that they give away what Microsoft makes you pay for, thereby stealing market share from Microsoft and hopefully making them a weaker company. Our reasons may be different, but I think we in the OSS community all want this.
As for comments about "What has Sun done for Linux?" Sun DOES NOT exist to help linux. They exist to make money. Despite this they have done things in the past that have benefited the Linux community.
Remember people, Sun can't give away EVERYTHING, or they will not be able to continue as a company. Wether anyone likes it or not, we still live in a capitalist economic structure, and for-profit companies are necessary. Stop being so selfish and small-minded.
> They're not talking about making new laws, passing new legislation, etc...
I don't think you read it very well:
(2) The extent to which new technology tools, capabilities, or legal authorities may be required for effective investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet;
He's talking about creating whole new law enforcement agencies here. Plus:
(1) The extent to which existing Federal laws provide a sufficient basis for effective investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet, such as the illegal sale of guns, explosives, controlled substances, and prescription drugs, as well as fraud and child pornography.
This reads to me, "The extent to which we need to write new laws, that our new law enforcement agencies can enforce."
Er, nope... Baud and bps are NOT the same thing. 56k modems actually connect at 2400 BAUD, but through modulation and compression are able to transmit data at 56k bps (theoretically -- we all know in practice it's a little less).
It IS worth noting that the server will be the only thing that is ported, just as it is also worth noting that e-mail can be configured to be downloadable by any POP mail client, such as Netscape mail, Eudora, or what have you. This is how I get my mail now, and it beats Notes Client by a long shot (IMHO).
All of the comments I've read are bogus -- they fail to take into account the only thing that really matters: If a good cracker wants to compromise your box, it's only a matter of time before they take it. The only 100% secure box is one that isn't connected to any networks.
The problem at a university is made worse by the fact that by it's very nature, the university is about sharing information, so it must have a certain amount of openness, which will inevitably result in a security hole. I saw someone touting MIT's Athena software... Don't think for a second that MIT doesn't get hacked, just ask anyone who works in the AI lab at MIT (either professionally or academically) -- they get hacked constantly.
As for your concerns about using a compromised box on the university network for a home base, this is just a waste of breath. If the cracker doesn't use a linux box on the local network, they'll use any number of commercial business servers (which of course, have fast connections) that are badly configured as a base instead. There's hardly any difference. The only issue is that we need to protect the university from civil action based on the actions of a cracker... why should a university be responsible for actions of a criminal who has invaded a third party's machine? This is simply absurd and is a question that you should bring up to your legislators if it concerns you. Make them protect the universities by writing new laws.
This isn't to say that you should just give up, but as an admin at a university, you should resign yourself to the fact that you're going to have security problems. About the best you can do is keep the dorm computers on different subnets making sure NOT to give any of them any sort of trust relationship, lock down your servers as best you can with diagnostic tools and things like kerberos and/or ssh (but be careful if you use them both since there are security bugs in some versions of ssh when used with kerberos), and have a beer and pray.
Any administrator worth his salt isn't going to allow these boxes trust relationships, and sure as hell won't allow root access to the university systems from them. The university's best defense is to clamp down security on their machines as much as possible. Worrying about the linux boxes is a waste of time. And there likely are far more windows boxes on the network, which can also be attacked.
You're going to have crackers breaking in to your network wether you have well-configured or misconfigured or NO linux boxes on your network. Don't penalize the users for the misdeads of others.
Feel free to send comments to me at captain_carnage@hotmail.com
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty obvious that the zip codes are public, since that's how the public sends mail to a particular place. If the zipcode were "private" it would be practically impossible to do business by mail. Or to use it for any other purpose for that matter.
There is a way to look up any Zip Code on line, you can do it at the USPS's Zip code lookups page
That said, the only people who have a use for a large database of zipcodes are mass marketers, and IMHO they OUGHT to pay for having it. I don't want it to be any easier than it needs to be for those morons to send me dead trees.
But it looks like they picked the right time to bring in John Cleese as his replacement.
Au revoir, Q!
No I can't unfortunately. What I can do is point you to the GNHLUG archives at http://codemeta.com/archives/index.html and suggest that you read the threads "how linux users do it," "Matt's Proposal - 'GNU Inside'," and "Defence of RMS and Linux"
The most unfortunate part is that there are a slew of messages missing from those threads, owing to a server crash. But what you will find, unlike his copious responses to arguments against calling Linux distributions "GNU/Linux" distributions, is a complete and utter lack of response to the GNU Inside idea.
I'm reasonably certain that there was at one time at least one message where he said that that was not enough, but I'm not positive and if there was it appears to be one of the missing messages. If nothing else, one can make the argument that his silence is rejection by default. He certainly wasn't warm and openly receptive to the idea.
If he were, you would no doubt already be seeing some logo of the sort on the packages of the various distributions. I don't think any of them would find such a thing objectionable, and as you will see if you read through those threads, the community (or at least our part of it, which I think is a fair representation of the whole) is widely in favor of getting GNU credit. The majority of us just want RMS to leave the name alone. It isn't up to him what companies/groups/people call a given Linux distribution, as much as he would like it to be.
Man, if that #2 of RMS isn't trying to depict him as Jesus....
:)
(A joke! Laugh!)
Absolutely. But RMS refers to a distribution as "the GNU/Linux System" so I am using his words in my argument.
Oh, one other thing:
When you say "give credit to the authors" you make it sound like the GNU Project coders are the only authors. I agree that those people wrote a large chunk of the code, but if your intention is to give credit in the title of the product, then you must also include the authors of BSD/MIT X/XFree86/Sendmail Inc/etc etc which get's hugely unweildy and, let's face it, completely ridiculous.
Giving the authors credit in the product name is inappropriate... that's what CREDITS are for, and the names of the authors are included in the credits in the source code.
And again, see this comment for a much more appropriate, and completely rejected by RMS, method of getting the GNU project credit.
Sure, but the original author wrote:
What I was pointing out is that since it is not known that all of those "linux command utils" were GNU utils, and very likely they were NOT all GNU utils, since many of the command line utilities on a Linux system come from BSD and numerous other sources, your assertion that he should use GNU in place of Linux is invalid. Something more generic is called for.It may be that qualifying them with "linux" isn't technically correct, but neither is "GNU" and linux does get the meaning across.
Then you went on to say:
I have a strong wish to quell RMS and his followers' desire to misname a product in the name of a holy crusade.
It is not wrong to give credit to the authors, and I never said it was. For more on how I feel that should be done, see THIS COMMENT
Carnage
Tom, I'm assuming you're referring to Robert J. Morris, Jr.? Author of the famous Internet Worm?
Robert Morris (Sr.) was also famous, as he was the head of NSA at the time.
Even if you could do it in 3 months (which I highly doubt), it's completely irrelevant.
The most important point I'm trying to get across is, the end product is still YOUR product, and you have the right to call it whatever you want (so long as it doesn't infringe someone else's trade mark, of course).
If I put together my own Linux distribution, I could call it Carnage Linux, Carnage GNU/Linux, Skatanafas, Joe's computer pizza, or whatever else I want to call it. Nothing in the GPL, restricts me from doing so. Whatever I chose to call it, if you called it by some other name, you would simply be WRONG.
Let Stallman make his own distribution, then he can call it RMS GNU/Linux. Debian has chosen to adopt his naming convention, and their product is rightfully called Debian GNU/Linux. Others have not, and calling it so is misnaming it.
RMS's arguments are mainly centered around getting due credit for the work the FSF and GNU project did. No one disputes that they deserve credit. But he can't simply co-opt the name of a thing to suit his own purposes.
Incidentally, as part of that same argument on the GNHLUG mailing list, it was proposed by those who think like me that we get the various distributions to adopt some sort of "GNU Inside" -type endorsement to give GNU the credit it definitely deserves. Jon "maddog" Hall, president of LI and (recently) former chairperson (or "reluctant chairperson" as he prefers) of GNHLUG, was willing to take this to the distributions to make it happen, but it was not enough for RMS. He INSISTS that GNU/Linux is the proper name, and won't settle for anything else.
PLEASE, don't get the idea that I don't like RMS. I have nothing but respect for the man and the work that he's done. I appreciate his ideals (mostly) and all the effort he has put in to spread them. BUT, I think he's being a little pig-headed about this one issue. Especially when alternative (and IMHO more appropriate) means of giving credit are available, but rejected by him.
Sure, but he didn't say that it appeared in ALL of the utilities' source code, just that it popped up a lot. Therefore the GNU qualifier is incorrect, since grammatically it assumes that ALL of the utilities he looked at were GNU utilities, which is not known.
More importantly, you, like RMS himself, did not refute my second point.
Oh really?
I want you to download the source code for every package RedHat ships standard with RH 6.1, compile it, create RPMs for it, write a graphical installer, write all the rc scripts to make everything work, and THEN tell me that RedHat didn't do much work to put together thier distribution.
I expect to hear back from you in about 2 years.
That's just silly.
Point #1: There are hundreds of command-line utilities on a Linux system that were not written under the umbrella of the GNU project or the FSF, despite the fact that they are distributed with the GPL. So how the hell do you know if he meant a GNU command line utility or a Linux command line util?
Point #2: The GPL does not restrict the redistribution of GNU utilities, and does not require one to name a product which redistributes those utilites with a name that mentions GNU.
The overall Linux system is a product of the work of whoever puts it together, i.e. RedHat Linux. The code was written by hundreds of people, but it was put together in usable form by the wonderful people at Redhat. THEY are the ones that decide what their product is called, and they have chosen to call it RedHat Linux. Anything else you call it is simply wrong.
I made this point to RMS in an argument we had on the GNHLUG mailing list, and he was unable to refute this point.
It sounds to me like NSI is screwing lots of people over. I am yet another person who has a registered domain, who is having trouble with NSI updating my info.
My listed e-mail address rather abruptly became invalid, so I needed to change my contact info as well as my DNS servers. Fortunately (or so I thought) I have an associate who still has a valid e-mail address listed as one of the contacts on my domain agreement. He filled out the necessary change forms, and EVEN AFTER RECEIVING CONFIRMATION that the changes were completed, they are not.
I am also having trouble getting my contact info changed, also despite having received conformation that it was done. I finally managed to find a phone number for NSI (by doing a whois lookup on them) and called to complain, and they now say they'll do the change if I fax them a signed letter with a photocopy of my driver's license.
Why should I need to do this? We already know that they collect data about their customers, and providing them with a copy of my ID will give them more information about me than I feel they have a right to have.
Sounds like we should band together and file a class action law suit against these assholes. I hate lawyers and lawsuits but I can't think of anyone more deserving of being sued at the moment.
captain_carnage@hotmail.com [ My normal e-mail address has been broken since 11/30/99 and will continue to be until the inept and unscrupulous jackasses at NSI decide to change it ]
Will SO stay freely available? Well, in the long term, who can say? But in the short term, probably at least a couple of years, it MUST be free, since this is Sun's marketing strategy to combat Microsoft. The whole idea is that they give away what Microsoft makes you pay for, thereby stealing market share from Microsoft and hopefully making them a weaker company. Our reasons may be different, but I think we in the OSS community all want this.
As for comments about "What has Sun done for Linux?" Sun DOES NOT exist to help linux. They exist to make money. Despite this they have done things in the past that have benefited the Linux community.
Remember people, Sun can't give away EVERYTHING, or they will not be able to continue as a company. Wether anyone likes it or not, we still live in a capitalist economic structure, and for-profit companies are necessary. Stop being so selfish and small-minded.
dmartin@lancity.com
Linux
-----
I don't think you read it very well:
(2) The extent to which new technology tools, capabilities, or legal authorities may be required for effective investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet;
He's talking about creating whole new law enforcement agencies here. Plus:
(1) The extent to which existing Federal laws provide a sufficient basis for effective investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet, such as the illegal sale of guns, explosives, controlled substances, and prescription drugs, as well as fraud and child pornography.
This reads to me, "The extent to which we need to write new laws, that our new law enforcement agencies can enforce."
Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I'm just right.
Captain_Carnage@hotmail.com
Linux
-----
Linux
-----
-Carnage
Have comments? Send 'em:
Captain_Carnage@hotmail.com
Linux
-----
Linux
-----
Linux
-----
The problem at a university is made worse by the fact that by it's very nature, the university is about sharing information, so it must have a certain amount of openness, which will inevitably result in a security hole. I saw someone touting MIT's Athena software... Don't think for a second that MIT doesn't get hacked, just ask anyone who works in the AI lab at MIT (either professionally or academically) -- they get hacked constantly.
As for your concerns about using a compromised box on the university network for a home base, this is just a waste of breath. If the cracker doesn't use a linux box on the local network, they'll use any number of commercial business servers (which of course, have fast connections) that are badly configured as a base instead. There's hardly any difference. The only issue is that we need to protect the university from civil action based on the actions of a cracker... why should a university be responsible for actions of a criminal who has invaded a third party's machine? This is simply absurd and is a question that you should bring up to your legislators if it concerns you. Make them protect the universities by writing new laws.
This isn't to say that you should just give up, but as an admin at a university, you should resign yourself to the fact that you're going to have security problems. About the best you can do is keep the dorm computers on different subnets making sure NOT to give any of them any sort of trust relationship, lock down your servers as best you can with diagnostic tools and things like kerberos and/or ssh (but be careful if you use them both since there are security bugs in some versions of ssh when used with kerberos), and have a beer and pray.
Any administrator worth his salt isn't going to allow these boxes trust relationships, and sure as hell won't allow root access to the university systems from them. The university's best defense is to clamp down security on their machines as much as possible. Worrying about the linux boxes is a waste of time. And there likely are far more windows boxes on the network, which can also be attacked.
You're going to have crackers breaking in to your network wether you have well-configured or misconfigured or NO linux boxes on your network. Don't penalize the users for the misdeads of others.
Feel free to send comments to me at
captain_carnage@hotmail.com
Linux
-----