To see the spammers win and block legitimate sites to stop the criminals is well... criminal. Isn't that what all of us who believe in freedom are supposed to be fighting against.
Are you saying spammers have the right to free speech on my server ? I don't think so. Sending email to me uses my resources, so I have the right to decide from whom I do (or do not) want to decide email.
Sure, advertisers have a right to free speech. Let them setup a website to promote their product, everybody who wants to see their commercials can go to their website and see it.
Suggesting that spammers have a right to free speech on the public property of others is like saying that I have the right to start digging around in your garden.
The right tool for the right job
on
The Coming Air Age
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Flight (still) has too much takeoff and landing overhead. Even if it was faster, people would go with the more convenient transport anyway.
Btw,futurists often seem to forget about people. Even if there were machines that would cook for me, why would I want it? After a stressful day of looking at source code and trying to fix bugs I like to go to the kitchen, grab a beer and start cooking. I'm not going to pay to let some machine take away my hobby!
The user base of the Linux kernel is MUCH larger than 10000. With the number of active developers on the linux kernel I think 3000 branches would even be on the low side...
Yup, I wouldn't buy one before it's being produced, either.
However, this does look like a nice project to watch and I wouldn't mind having one of these nice little toys to eg. read documentation, source code or even email while on the plane;)
Well, I can really see the convenience of using such a tool - but only if the communication between the developers follows thge push pull model.
This is not the case with Linux (the kernel) and Linus.
Linus does pull from bitkeeper trees
distributed repositories have much more benefits than the push/pull model, they are also needed so every developer can do version control on his/her own tree
There are a whole number of forks of the Linux kernel tree out there, that wouldn't have been as easily possible without bitkeeper
Given that your conclusions are based on false premises I wouldn't put too much value in them. Having a distributed SCM does matter.
YOU are missing the point.
Your use of ButtKeeper sets a very bad example.
Why are you working on Linux, anyway?
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with a closed source UNIX like Solaris or HP/UX.
Personally I like on Linux because I like the system. If you really think bitkeeper users should stop working on Linux, maybe you should ask Linus to stop development of 2.5 ?;)
As for the "bad example", you've shown a pretty bad one yourself: trying to reduce somebody's freedom of choice, under the guise of some "larger freedom". Can't get much more hypocritical than that...
And who exactly are you, to tell me which products I should or shouldn't use ?
All my patches are available in other formats too, you don't need bitkeeper to access my stuff. I'm not forcing anybody to use bitkeeper, you shouldn't try to force me to stop using bitkeeper.
Bitkeeper has improved my productivity and my contribution to open source software. Though it's not a necessary tool for my work, I'm thankful that Larry makes my work easier by allowing me to use his program.
If Bitkeeper really wants to be around they should just make sure their product is better than the competition's.
And guess what? This is exactly what bitkeeper is doing. There are a half-dozen other ways to grab the latest Linux kernel source code, you don't need bitkeeper.
The reason people use bitkeeper anyway is that it's the best tool (for them). There is no vendor lock-in or any other reason people should use bitkeeper, except for the quality of the tool.
Don't believe me? Look at my own
repository with the latest Linux kernel sources, you can grab all of them without using bitkeeper!
Bitkeeper uses the open SCCS data format to store all its data. The Linux kernel source code is available in a half-dozen other ways than bitkeeper. Linus accepts (prefers!) patches sent the oldfashioned way.
I have no explanation other than ignorance or mass panic for the phenomenon that happened here on/. today. There simply is nobody forcing people to use bitkeeper, the only reason to use bitkeeper is that it's the best tool out there.
Subversion isn't quite up to par, yet, but it does seem like the switch to 2.6/3.0 "soon" would be a good time to switch revision control systems
Sorry to shatter your dreams, but subversion is fundamentally unsuitable to a project like the Linux kernel. Sure, Linus could export his kernel to the world via subversion, but:
other developers couldn't use version control for their own development... or
other developers would need write rights to the central repository
As you know, neither of these options is acceptable. Linus wants to keep control over his tree while the other developers want to be able to have version control over their own tree.
CVS with diff&patch just doesn't cut it and neither does Subversion. Apart from the missing functionality there's also the speed problem: just imagine 1000 people asking for revision history of the kernel tree at once...
An alternative for bitkeeper really would need to be a distributed source control system, where each developer has his/her own repository locally and can push changes to (or pull changes from) other developers easily.
Bitkeeper is just a tool to access the kernel source, but it's not the only tool.
As long as people have a free choice between tar+patch, bitkeeper, rsync+sccs and other alternatives, what's the problem ?
If Bitkeeper tried vendor lock-in we would have a problem, but since bitkeeper is in no way required to work on the kernel I can't see what everybody is upset about.
The BitKeeper license is simply the logical extension of the GPL viral clause. Instead of coercing people to only use free software bitkeeper forces you to only use their software.
Please read the bitkeeper license before writing about it. All that the new free bitkeeper license said that if you develop and/or sell a competing product you don't get to use bitkeeper for free.
This means that eg. the developers of the Subversion project need to grab the Linux kernel source code in a different way. They could use ftp, rsync+sccs, http and possibly other ways too.
I don't see what the big problem is with this "if you compete with me you no longer get my product for free" clause...
Proprietary products, as it's been pointed out in the past, tend to limit their users to only their own products.
This problem is called "vendor lock-in" and it happens when the proprietary software stores your data in a format that can't be accessed by other software.
Bitkeeper doesn't suffer from this problem since its data is stored in SCCS format (GNU CSSC can handle that fine) and it will happily export patches so people that don't use bitkeeper can access the latest source code.
Vendor lock-in is NOT an argument against bitkeeper.
we are being asked by Torvalds to consider only our own desires
Nonsense. All Linus is asking for is for people to be able to make their own choices. Linus choses to use bitkeeper, but he doesn't force that choice on you in any way.
You can get the latest Linux Kernel source code by ftp, rsync, etc... You can even get the full revision history from the bitkeeper tree without using bitkeeper:
Wow... We use CVS at work and certainly haven't felt it isn't "industrial enough" to handle what we're after. Quite the opposite in fact.
Now try using the same CVS repository with all the Linux kernel developers and part-time developers. Imagine a single CVS server with 10000 users and 3000 branches.
A source control system with a central repository just doesn't scale well enough, you need to have a system with distributed repositories and the ability to send diffs between any random developer. CVS and Subversion just don't cut it for a project as huge and active as the kernel.
What standard of hackproofing should every Mom & Pop on the internet have to meet, and why?
As far as I'm concerned, everybody has the right to decide exactly how secure they make their server.
The flip-side of this liberty is that I have the full right to accept or deny any email I want and I have chosen to block email from open relays, so if Mom & Pop want to mail me, they'll have to make their server secure enough to meet my standards.
Btw, I'm using DSBL for my open relay and open proxy blocking...
Re:This is the way it should be...
on
KDE Gets The Hat
·
· Score: 2
No distro should take preference over which is the default windowmanager... choices!
RedHat has as much right to make choices as you have. If they think their users like having a default desktop with the important apps on it, they have every right to create such a desktop.
Yes, the #kernelnewbies channel was moved over at the end of june already, together with #linux.nl, #dsbl and (I think, not sure) #php.
Of course, we moved to OFTC, which is run very well by a number of ex-OPN staffers. As an added bonus, their ircd has some nice protection against flooders and spammers, so the move to OFTC has technical advantages too...
Again.. I don't accuse spews. Spam is a problem, and everyone is free to decide how to deal with it on their own.
I agree the system works. Unfortunately for anyone doing business in Costa Rica, there IS no competition. You have no choice. None whatsoever, and given the way things work, it's going to take quite a while to actually get changes made.
I guess that just means you have to find a way to put pressure on your ISP to get the spammers removed from your network, otherwise you'll slowly get disconnected from the internet.
Connecting to my server is not a right, it's a priviledge. If an ISP hosts too many spammers it'll end up in SPEWS and I won't allow connections from it.
My server, my rules. Your ISP, your money, your rules. If enough ISPs block all trafic from RACSA(sp?) maybe they will find a reason to terminate the spammers. It worked for other ISPs, just google and see how many ISPs already kicked off the spammers now hosted by your ISP.
RFC 2142 requires every domain (with email) to have the abuse@domain.tld and postmaster@domain.tld addresses. IBM.com is a domain, so it is supposed to follow the rules in RFC 2142.
If they don't follow the RFC that's fine with me. However, I believe listing them at rfc-ignorant.org
is a good thing so people who have chosen not to exchange email with domains who do not play by the rules have a chance to block IBM's mail automatically.
Re:Relay-testing
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
However, when you are a self-appointed policeman of the internet...
They're absolutely not self-appointed.
When I chose to use ORBZ on my mail server, I "appoint" the administrators of that DNSBL list.
The spammers using the "free speech" argument will run into the same thing; their right to free spam^H^Heech stops at the border of my private network.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, advertisers have a right to free speech. Let them setup a website to promote their product, everybody who wants to see their commercials can go to their website and see it.
Suggesting that spammers have a right to free speech on the public property of others is like saying that I have the right to start digging around in your garden.
... so, who's going to print the shirts ? ;)
Flight (still) has too much takeoff and landing overhead. Even if it was faster, people would go with the more convenient transport anyway.
Btw,futurists often seem to forget about people. Even if there were machines that would cook for me, why would I want it? After a stressful day of looking at source code and trying to fix bugs I like to go to the kitchen, grab a beer and start cooking. I'm not going to pay to let some machine take away my hobby!
The user base of the Linux kernel is MUCH larger than 10000. With the number of active developers on the linux kernel I think 3000 branches would even be on the low side...
Yup, I wouldn't buy one before it's being produced, either.
;)
However, this does look like a nice project to watch and I wouldn't mind having one of these nice little toys to eg. read documentation, source code or even email while on the plane
Given that your conclusions are based on false premises I wouldn't put too much value in them. Having a distributed SCM does matter.
As for the "bad example", you've shown a pretty bad one yourself: trying to reduce somebody's freedom of choice, under the guise of some "larger freedom". Can't get much more hypocritical than that...
All my patches are available in other formats too, you don't need bitkeeper to access my stuff. I'm not forcing anybody to use bitkeeper, you shouldn't try to force me to stop using bitkeeper.
Bitkeeper has improved my productivity and my contribution to open source software. Though it's not a necessary tool for my work, I'm thankful that Larry makes my work easier by allowing me to use his program.
The reason people use bitkeeper anyway is that it's the best tool (for them). There is no vendor lock-in or any other reason people should use bitkeeper, except for the quality of the tool.
Don't believe me? Look at my own repository with the latest Linux kernel sources, you can grab all of them without using bitkeeper!
I have no explanation other than ignorance or mass panic for the phenomenon that happened here on /. today. There simply is nobody forcing people to use bitkeeper, the only reason to use bitkeeper is that it's the best tool out there.
As you know, neither of these options is acceptable. Linus wants to keep control over his tree while the other developers want to be able to have version control over their own tree.
CVS with diff&patch just doesn't cut it and neither does Subversion. Apart from the missing functionality there's also the speed problem: just imagine 1000 people asking for revision history of the kernel tree at once...
An alternative for bitkeeper really would need to be a distributed source control system, where each developer has his/her own repository locally and can push changes to (or pull changes from) other developers easily.
Bitkeeper is just a tool to access the kernel source, but it's not the only tool.
As long as people have a free choice between tar+patch, bitkeeper, rsync+sccs and other alternatives, what's the problem ?
If Bitkeeper tried vendor lock-in we would have a problem, but since bitkeeper is in no way required to work on the kernel I can't see what everybody is upset about.
Please read the bitkeeper license before writing about it. All that the new free bitkeeper license said that if you develop and/or sell a competing product you don't get to use bitkeeper for free.
This means that eg. the developers of the Subversion project need to grab the Linux kernel source code in a different way. They could use ftp, rsync+sccs, http and possibly other ways too.
I don't see what the big problem is with this "if you compete with me you no longer get my product for free" clause...
This problem is called "vendor lock-in" and it happens when the proprietary software stores your data in a format that can't be accessed by other software.
Bitkeeper doesn't suffer from this problem since its data is stored in SCCS format (GNU CSSC can handle that fine) and it will happily export patches so people that don't use bitkeeper can access the latest source code.
Vendor lock-in is NOT an argument against bitkeeper.
Blatant plug: you can get the latest bitkeeper kernel source without using bitkeeper.
http://ftp.nl.linux.org/pub/linux/bk2patch/
Nonsense. All Linus is asking for is for people to be able to make their own choices. Linus choses to use bitkeeper, but he doesn't force that choice on you in any way.
You can get the latest Linux Kernel source code by ftp, rsync, etc... You can even get the full revision history from the bitkeeper tree without using bitkeeper:
ftp://nl.linux.org/pub/linux/bk2patch/README
Even if Linus stops using bitkeeper, I won't.
I'll only stop using bitkeeper the moment an equivalent free alternative to bitkeeper is available.
Flaming me won't change my decision, making a free alternative to bitkeeper available will.
Now try using the same CVS repository with all the Linux kernel developers and part-time developers. Imagine a single CVS server with 10000 users and 3000 branches.
A source control system with a central repository just doesn't scale well enough, you need to have a system with distributed repositories and the ability to send diffs between any random developer. CVS and Subversion just don't cut it for a project as huge and active as the kernel.
The flip-side of this liberty is that I have the full right to accept or deny any email I want and I have chosen to block email from open relays, so if Mom & Pop want to mail me, they'll have to make their server secure enough to meet my standards.
Btw, I'm using DSBL for my open relay and open proxy blocking...
RedHat has as much right to make choices as you have. If they think their users like having a default desktop with the important apps on it, they have every right to create such a desktop.
If you don't like it, don't use it.
Of course, we moved to OFTC, which is run very well by a number of ex-OPN staffers. As an added bonus, their ircd has some nice protection against flooders and spammers, so the move to OFTC has technical advantages too...
I agree the system works. Unfortunately for anyone doing business in Costa Rica, there IS no competition. You have no choice. None whatsoever, and given the way things work, it's going to take quite a while to actually get changes made.
I guess that just means you have to find a way to put pressure on your ISP to get the spammers removed from your network, otherwise you'll slowly get disconnected from the internet.
Connecting to my server is not a right, it's a priviledge. If an ISP hosts too many spammers it'll end up in SPEWS and I won't allow connections from it.
My server, my rules. Your ISP, your money, your rules. If enough ISPs block all trafic from RACSA(sp?) maybe they will find a reason to terminate the spammers. It worked for other ISPs, just google and see how many ISPs already kicked off the spammers now hosted by your ISP.
If they don't follow the RFC that's fine with me. However, I believe listing them at rfc-ignorant.org is a good thing so people who have chosen not to exchange email with domains who do not play by the rules have a chance to block IBM's mail automatically.
When I chose to use ORBZ on my mail server, I "appoint" the administrators of that DNSBL list.
The spammers using the "free speech" argument will run into the same thing; their right to free spam^H^Heech stops at the border of my private network.