Yep. I'm not sure if I was on some kind of blacklist, but Roger's would drop about 10% of the my openvpn UPD packets and bittorrent downloads were severly hampered too. This caused my VoIP conenction running over the VPN to continually drop packets causing enough audio problems that the service was unusable.
Roger's is evil for doing this. They are controlling who their customers can connect to, much the same as if they blocked or distorted telephone calls to Telus.
If at all possible, quickly create a worm that will undo this damage. Issue a press release showing the level of effort made by some to stop the DDOS attack.
Post instructions on how to minimize the SCO DDOS attack. A HOWTO may be appropriate.
Issue a press release signed by Linus, RMS, Bruce Perens, et al, condemming the attempt to discredit the community.
I've only really ever used the sound cababilities of linux to play MP3s. I think I played a recording of Rishard Stallman in au format once. Point being that I've had numerous problems.
Many times XMMS won't work on my system since I am using Window Maker. It works fine under GNOME, but I don't want to use such a bloated and slow WM. I use a 150 MHz pertium, so its barely good enough to play MP3s. (Listening to MP3s while using Netscape seems to rapidly cause me great amounts of frustation.)
Many times the MP3 sound comes out at half speed or twice the speed. Between kernel re-compiles I'm lucky if it works again at all. I did get it working under 2.3.99-pre3, but that was more flakely then 2.2.14.
Why? Is it the player, the cards or the drivers? Is it going to get better in the future?
I know there are answers to all of these problems, but overall sound seems to be on ongoing issue.
Faces competition as a Free OS from *BSD's, particularily FreeBSD
Has a short history, therefore reveal situations where Linux has not been used because of past limitations.
Currently still has performance issues at the high end
Now, add an "independent" third party (re: Mindcraft or Dvorak) and you have Microsoft's strategy. Oh, and don't forget to exploit the competiviness between the users.
Point One: You argue the consumer has a choice, therefore MS is not a monopoly.
This is a black and white view. Clearly, a consumer always has a choice - I choose to use a satellite phone instead of telephone service and pay 100 times as much - therefore the telephone company is not a monopoly. Right? Wrong.
There are always expensive and alternatives means of avoiding monopolies. Usually, the alternative means aren't practical.
The point is that there isn't much of a choice
Point Two: You seem to implicitly state that a government protected monopoly is and should be restricted from predatory actions against other firms.
Fine, but you ignore monopolies without government regulation/protection. How do you think monopolies become regulated in the first place? Consumer / general use software is a rather new industry. There is a good case to be made that MS has a very high market share and a lock on the market - thus they are a monopoly. Any monopoly is prohibited from predatory actions, and government regulated monopolies are regulated to prevent exactly this.
Anytime you interact with a commercial entity generally you benefit, as well as they do. The end result of this may be money, both in Andover's case and in your own case. A lot of the services that you use lines somebodies pockets. Everytime you looked at one of slashdot's pages you generated money for slashdot and whomever controlled the advertising at the top.
It seems as though you're opposed to other's making a profit? Why? You are free to create a competing service and make it better then slashdot.
On a related note, do you notice how many people "love" the idea of a free OS? But hey, doesn't Linus make money due to the fact that Linux is popular? I want my share! I use Linux dammit! I use it a lot!
I'm curious, because the same MSVC++ program should run on all the Windoze platforms, shouldn't they?
And what makes W2K horrid as a server? Stability? I wouldn't want a development machine crashing either, although I guess one could afford a few more BSOD's if only one person is using the system.
That sounds great, since time is expensive. However, you fail to mention 34 of the 35 possible fax server solutions. Not only that, but the cost of Zetafax (as found at http://www.tmcnet.com/articles/ctimag/0498/review0 03.htm) is $525 for a 5 user version or $2,250 for 50 users.
I think that this means Hylafax looks much better, especially considering that you will get all your upgrades for free (both the application and the OS). If it takes a few hours to understand and install, hey, at least you'll be able to maintain the software better too.
Do you work for Zetafax? Micro$oft? You certainly aren't able to provide much helpful advice.
How does your NT box seem for stability anyway? Perhaps that might be important too?
What strange about that comparision is that 120 years ago guns started to become very cheap to manufacture due to industrial technology. Using the price of a gun in terms of dollars or gold isn't a very good measurement of value.
What has really risen dramatically is the ability of a person to buy an ounce of gold or a rifle. The cost today is about 1% of an average annual salary, while 120 years ago it was probably 10%.
Maybe the most important feature of gold is that the value of it is largely based on the worldwide market, albeit a market under control of all the rich countries. Currency, on the other hand, is completely controlled by the individual government, albeit most governments have obligations to other government in the form of treaties and agreements. Thus, if if trust your government there is no need for gold. If you don't trust your government and you do trust all the governments together, buy gold. If you don't trust any government, stockpile food, water and weapons. Or perhaps just a lot of weapons.:-) And a few beautiful girls.
You stated: "Doesn't it make it obvious that their chips have had hugely inflated prices?"
Yes, but inflated over what? Pay attention to all the costs to make chips, not just the cost to manufacture one more chip.
You also stated: "Sure, AMD's Athlon probably has a hugely inflated price, too, but it was planned to be a lot cheaper than the slower competing chips from Intel."
This makes no sense. Do you really think a chips costs can be planned? I think they are just making the best chips they can, and pricing them accordingly.
Chips cost very little to actually make, but cost a lot to set up i.e. design and plant costs. As long as they don't sell below their cost to make, which I have heard is around $25, then the rest is margin. Pricing is complicated because of this. They price for the highest profit, of course, and this is nowhere near the price to make these chips.
I think this is purely a competitive/predatory move meant to keep market share. It sucks for AMD, but they should have foreseen this. I don't see how they can make it in the long term unless they gain an advantage over Intel, and I don't think that will happen.
I don't believe this. Why is this posted as an AC? Could it be some one of these M$ employee in the story above trying to counter Linux and influence Linux users / potential users? To me, this happy NT story about using familiar unix software tools is most likely complete BS and represents a likely method of attacking Linux.
If this is true, then tell me what company had Unix and linux system and went to all NT successfully? Microsoft? I suspect that any company switching to NT never got rid of *all* their Unix systems.
Here's a good quote: "but frankly, I hate KDE, GNOME, and all that unstable, resource hungry crap that everyone works on."
And NT isn't unstable, resource hungry and used by everyone (where this AC works)? Nothing about Linus seems unstable to me, beside a few networking quirks that are nothing compared to the problems I have had using Windows.
Here's another: "I'm still learning windows and I haven't decided yet and hell, I can always go dual-boot, no?"
Yeah, and you use Linux? What is there to decide? Unless you need M$ Office there is no comparision. I think any person who has used Linux much knows a lot about being able to dual boot. That is one of the basic features, since you need it whether you're loading a different kernel or booting windoze.
I disagree. I think he needs a new development platform, but this is art. Obviously a huge undertaking and the result is fascinating. Knowing how much time was spent creating it only makes it better. It reminds me of those strange things people build, like the glass house somewhere in Canada.
"I think people tend to make far too many biased statements when arguing either for or against Microsoft products."
You show yourself to be a good example of this phenomenon.
"Linux supporters invariably claim that Linux is faster and more stable, while Microsoft devotees tend to rely on the easier setup and configuration of Microsoft's operating systems and software."
Perhaps from your perspective. What about stability and the ability to fine tune and configure the system? Also, I think you are NOT talking about setup, but about installation.
"This test just goes to show that every operating system has good parts and bad parts."
No, this test just goes to show that Microsoft can pay for whatever results it wants.
"While Microsoft may be the current lead in speed and usability, Linux is still a little bit ahead in stability (notice I said "a little bit")."
Yeah, but you're wrong. Linux is much further ahead in stability, and given a fair test shows itself to be more usable and configurable (notice I said "configurable" not easy to configure).
"I think the main reasons for this are resources and one of the fundamental rules of capitalism."
Fine, let's hear your theory on how the world works.
"Microsoft has far more resources than Linux hackers could ever hope to have."
Wrong. Linux has far more developers that Microsoft has. Of course, they range from full time kernel hackers to those that do PR work on Slashdot and are innumerable, making this a unfair comparision.
"While they may not have nearly as many developers working on the product, they do have a relatively closely-organized team all communicating within the group and heading for specific goals."
Really? Are you sure?
"They have entire company departments devoted to testing, user interface design, code beautification, etc."
If this was true, so what? Creating a department isn't the same as actually achieving anything.
"Linux, on the other hand, doesn't have quite as organized a structure."
Hey, you got one sentence right!:-)
"This isn't to say that the development of Linux is worse or less efficient, it's just disadvantaged in some areas, by no fault of its own."
Wrong, that sounds like a fault to me, however you fail to describe any such fault. Furthermore, you fail to notice any positive attribute of Linux development.
"As for that major capitalistic principle, it gives Microsoft both an advantage and a disadvantage."
What principle would that be? Greed is good?
"Microsoft's goal is to make money."
I disagree. Microsoft's goal is more likely to control everything they can. The fact that they make money is just the result of that control.
"In order to attain this goal, they must have a superior product in order to get people to buy it (let's leave the monopoly crud out of this for a moment)."
Perhaps, but most likely they can better attain their goal by control.
"Therefore, Microsoft strives to make the best, fastest, and most usable product out there."
I don't think so. Being the best, fastest and most usable is impossible, since so many different aspects of software contribute to its quality, speed and usability. Microsoft is not suited for all tasks equally. I think Microsoft is best at being a desktop for users.
"And when they fail, they generally try to fix the problem as soon as possible via service packs, hot fixes, etc."
Yeah, sure. I think "as soon as possible" can have a lot of different meanings. It could mean:
As soon as they want to fix the problem
As soon as the fix is available
As soon as they feel the fix is necessary. Later being better.
As soon as enough fixes are found to create a service pack, which includes a lot of unnecessary features further cementing Microsoft's control
"On the other hand, this is also a disadvantage because rather than implementing features that are needed by a few customers, they implement only features that are needed by a majority of customers."
Oh, is that why the system sucks so much? Why don't they make it more configurable and usable then?
"This is where Linux has an advantage, obviously, due to its open-source model."
Well, not so obviously but yes, I agree with the advantage.
"I won't get into it much further than this, but I think we should all at least give Microsoft the credit they deserve."
Thanks, I hate replying to people like you. By the way, Microsoft deserves no credit.
"For the most part, they do try to have a good quality product, and their latest work (e.g., SQL Server 7.0, Office 2000, NT 5.0/Win2000, IIS 5.0) has been of exceptional quality (at least, from my point of view)."
Yeah, they try to gain control of all the market's they enter by whatever means they can. Is Office 2000/NT 5 really that good? It hasn't been released yet and Office 97/NT 4 was supposed to be pretty good too. What didn't they just update their previous good product instead of forcing everybody to upgrade? WHY?
Why not view this as a challenge? I'd be willing to bet that Linux could catch up with and even surpass NT's benchmarks within a year or less.
WTF? Why would you ever change your mind? Doesn't Microsoft have an undeniable advantage?
And yes, I expect flames galore for saying good stuff about Microsoft...
Yes, the article is wrong. But so what? I like that fact that mis-information exists about Linux, especially in a widely read newsrag. These kinds of articles will just help create a divide between the ignorant and those that can think for themselves. It won't change the facts at all. Most corporations will never help improve Linux - they'll just jump on whatever bandwagon the WSJ tells them to. Very few corporations have a reason to help improve Linux and free software. Who **NEEDS** them? I'd rather see them spend money on NT and have a good laugh then anxiously await mass acceptance by corporations.
Uhh, don't all the linux distributions use the same kernel? I think so, although I haven't personally used all of them. I know RedHat does things a little differently, but then again with GPL'd applications your point really is completely wrong.
Source code availability makes this problem completely incorrect, although as a BeOS user you don't see it like this.
Another NT Buggy Release
on
Linux 2.2.1
·
· Score: 1
When was the last time you saw a buggy TESTED NT kernel release? When was the last time you saw a NT kernel release? When was the last time bugs were fixed in the NT kernel the next day after they were discovered?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. I'm not sure if I was on some kind of blacklist, but Roger's would drop about 10% of the my openvpn UPD packets and bittorrent downloads were severly hampered too. This caused my VoIP conenction running over the VPN to continually drop packets causing enough audio problems that the service was unusable.
Roger's is evil for doing this. They are controlling who their customers can connect to, much the same as if they blocked or distorted telephone calls to Telus.
Re: Telco Throttling RevealedMany times XMMS won't work on my system since I am using Window Maker. It works fine under GNOME, but I don't want to use such a bloated and slow WM. I use a 150 MHz pertium, so its barely good enough to play MP3s. (Listening to MP3s while using Netscape seems to rapidly cause me great amounts of frustation.)
Many times the MP3 sound comes out at half speed or twice the speed. Between kernel re-compiles I'm lucky if it works again at all. I did get it working under 2.3.99-pre3, but that was more flakely then 2.2.14.
Why? Is it the player, the cards or the drivers? Is it going to get better in the future?
I know there are answers to all of these problems, but overall sound seems to be on ongoing issue.
ProcessTree Network TM
Right, although you overstated it. The best way to exploit this is to encourage it.
Imagine this strategy:
Find Linux's weak points and expoloit them.
Linux's weak points
Now, add an "independent" third party (re: Mindcraft or Dvorak) and you have Microsoft's strategy. Oh, and don't forget to exploit the competiviness between the users.
Classic FUD.
No, some normal disks can withstand 50G shocks while running, or 100G shocks not running - at least if my memory serves me correctly.
Point One: You argue the consumer has a choice, therefore MS is not a monopoly.
This is a black and white view. Clearly, a consumer always has a choice - I choose to use a satellite phone instead of telephone service and pay 100 times as much - therefore the telephone company is not a monopoly. Right? Wrong.
There are always expensive and alternatives means of avoiding monopolies. Usually, the alternative means aren't practical.
The point is that there isn't much of a choice
Point Two: You seem to implicitly state that a government protected monopoly is and should be restricted from predatory actions against other firms.
Fine, but you ignore monopolies without government regulation/protection. How do you think monopolies become regulated in the first place? Consumer / general use software is a rather new industry. There is a good case to be made that MS has a very high market share and a lock on the market - thus they are a monopoly. Any monopoly is prohibited from predatory actions, and government regulated monopolies are regulated to prevent exactly this.
Anytime you interact with a commercial entity generally you benefit, as well as they do. The end result of this may be money, both in Andover's case and in your own case. A lot of the services that you use lines somebodies pockets. Everytime you looked at one of slashdot's pages you generated money for slashdot and whomever controlled the advertising at the top.
It seems as though you're opposed to other's making a profit? Why? You are free to create a competing service and make it better then slashdot.
On a related note, do you notice how many people "love" the idea of a free OS? But hey, doesn't Linus make money due to the fact that Linux is popular? I want my share! I use Linux dammit! I use it a lot!
What you are talking about is predatory actions, and it is wrong when it is done by a company with a monopoly. At least, that's what the law says.
I'm curious, because the same MSVC++ program should run on all the Windoze platforms, shouldn't they?
And what makes W2K horrid as a server? Stability? I wouldn't want a development machine crashing either, although I guess one could afford a few more BSOD's if only one person is using the system.
That sounds great, since time is expensive. However, you fail to mention 34 of the 35 possible fax server solutions. Not only that, but the cost of Zetafax (as found at http://www.tmcnet.com/articles/ctimag/0498/review0 03.htm) is $525 for a 5 user version or $2,250 for 50 users.
I think that this means Hylafax looks much better, especially considering that you will get all your upgrades for free (both the application and the OS). If it takes a few hours to understand and install, hey, at least you'll be able to maintain the software better too.
Do you work for Zetafax? Micro$oft? You certainly aren't able to provide much helpful advice.
How does your NT box seem for stability anyway? Perhaps that might be important too?
What strange about that comparision is that 120 years ago guns started to become very cheap to manufacture due to industrial technology. Using the price of a gun in terms of dollars or gold isn't a very good measurement of value.
:-) And a few beautiful girls.
What has really risen dramatically is the ability of a person to buy an ounce of gold or a rifle. The cost today is about 1% of an average annual salary, while 120 years ago it was probably 10%.
Maybe the most important feature of gold is that the value of it is largely based on the worldwide market, albeit a market under control of all the rich countries. Currency, on the other hand, is completely controlled by the individual government, albeit most governments have obligations to other government in the form of treaties and agreements. Thus, if if trust your government there is no need for gold. If you don't trust your government and you do trust all the governments together, buy gold. If you don't trust any government, stockpile food, water and weapons. Or perhaps just a lot of weapons.
You stated: "Doesn't it make it obvious that their chips have had hugely inflated prices?"
Yes, but inflated over what? Pay attention to all the costs to make chips, not just the cost to manufacture one more chip.
You also stated: "Sure, AMD's Athlon probably has a hugely inflated price, too, but it was planned to be a lot cheaper than the slower competing chips from Intel."
This makes no sense. Do you really think a chips costs can be planned? I think they are just making the best chips they can, and pricing them accordingly.
Chips cost very little to actually make, but cost a lot to set up i.e. design and plant costs. As long as they don't sell below their cost to make, which I have heard is around $25, then the rest is margin. Pricing is complicated because of this. They price for the highest profit, of course, and this is nowhere near the price to make these chips.
I think this is purely a competitive/predatory move meant to keep market share. It sucks for AMD, but they should have foreseen this. I don't see how they can make it in the long term unless they gain an advantage over Intel, and I don't think that will happen.
I don't believe this. Why is this posted as an AC? Could it be some one of these M$ employee in the story above trying to counter Linux and influence Linux users / potential users? To me, this happy NT story about using familiar unix software tools is most likely complete BS and represents a likely method of attacking Linux.
If this is true, then tell me what company had Unix and linux system and went to all NT successfully? Microsoft? I suspect that any company switching to NT never got rid of *all* their Unix systems.
Here's a good quote:
"but frankly, I hate KDE, GNOME, and all that unstable, resource hungry crap that everyone works on."
And NT isn't unstable, resource hungry and used by everyone (where this AC works)? Nothing about Linus seems unstable to me, beside a few networking quirks that are nothing compared to the problems I have had using Windows.
Here's another:
"I'm still learning windows and I haven't decided yet and hell, I can always go dual-boot, no?"
Yeah, and you use Linux? What is there to decide? Unless you need M$ Office there is no comparision. I think any person who has used Linux much knows a lot about being able to dual boot. That is one of the basic features, since you need it whether you're loading a different kernel or booting windoze.
I disagree. I think he needs a new development platform, but this is art. Obviously a huge undertaking and the result is fascinating. Knowing how much time was spent creating it only makes it better. It reminds me of those strange things people build, like the glass house somewhere in Canada.
"I think people tend to make far too many biased statements when arguing either for or against Microsoft products."
You show yourself to be a good example of this phenomenon.
"Linux supporters invariably claim that Linux is faster and more stable, while Microsoft devotees tend to rely on the easier setup and configuration of Microsoft's operating systems and software."
Perhaps from your perspective. What about stability and the ability to fine tune and configure the system? Also, I think you are NOT talking about setup, but about installation.
"This test just goes to show that every operating system has good parts and bad parts."
No, this test just goes to show that Microsoft can pay for whatever results it wants.
"While Microsoft may be the current lead in speed and usability, Linux is still a little bit ahead in stability (notice I said "a little bit")."
Yeah, but you're wrong. Linux is much further ahead in stability, and given a fair test shows itself to be more usable and configurable (notice I said "configurable" not easy to configure).
"I think the main reasons for this are resources and one of the fundamental rules of capitalism."
Fine, let's hear your theory on how the world works.
"Microsoft has far more resources than Linux hackers could ever hope to have."
Wrong. Linux has far more developers that Microsoft has. Of course, they range from full time kernel hackers to those that do PR work on Slashdot and are innumerable, making this a unfair comparision.
"While they may not have nearly as many developers working on the product, they do have a relatively closely-organized team all communicating within the group and heading for specific goals."
Really? Are you sure?
"They have entire company departments devoted to testing, user interface design, code beautification, etc."
If this was true, so what? Creating a department isn't the same as actually achieving anything.
"Linux, on the other hand, doesn't have quite as organized a structure."
Hey, you got one sentence right! :-)
"This isn't to say that the development of Linux is worse or less efficient, it's just disadvantaged in some areas, by no fault of its own."
Wrong, that sounds like a fault to me, however you fail to describe any such fault. Furthermore, you fail to notice any positive attribute of Linux development.
"As for that major capitalistic principle, it gives Microsoft both an advantage and a disadvantage."
What principle would that be? Greed is good?
"Microsoft's goal is to make money."
I disagree. Microsoft's goal is more likely to control everything they can. The fact that they make money is just the result of that control.
"In order to attain this goal, they must have a superior product in order to get people to buy it (let's leave the monopoly crud out of this for a moment)."
Perhaps, but most likely they can better attain their goal by control.
"Therefore, Microsoft strives to make the best, fastest, and most usable product out there."
I don't think so. Being the best, fastest and most usable is impossible, since so many different aspects of software contribute to its quality, speed and usability. Microsoft is not suited for all tasks equally. I think Microsoft is best at being a desktop for users.
"And when they fail, they generally try to fix the problem as soon as possible via service packs, hot fixes, etc."
Yeah, sure. I think "as soon as possible" can have a lot of different meanings. It could mean:
"On the other hand, this is also a disadvantage because rather than implementing features that are needed by a few customers, they implement only features that are needed by a majority of customers."
Oh, is that why the system sucks so much? Why don't they make it more configurable and usable then?
"This is where Linux has an advantage, obviously, due to its open-source model."
Well, not so obviously but yes, I agree with the advantage.
"I won't get into it much further than this, but I think we should all at least give Microsoft the credit they deserve."
Thanks, I hate replying to people like you. By the way, Microsoft deserves no credit.
"For the most part, they do try to have a good quality product, and their latest work (e.g., SQL Server 7.0, Office 2000, NT 5.0/Win2000, IIS 5.0) has been of exceptional quality (at least, from my point of view)."
Yeah, they try to gain control of all the market's they enter by whatever means they can. Is Office 2000/NT 5 really that good? It hasn't been released yet and Office 97/NT 4 was supposed to be pretty good too. What didn't they just update their previous good product instead of forcing everybody to upgrade? WHY?
Why not view this as a challenge? I'd be willing to bet that Linux could catch up with and even surpass NT's benchmarks within a year or less.
WTF? Why would you ever change your mind? Doesn't Microsoft have an undeniable advantage?
And yes, I expect flames galore for saying good stuff about Microsoft...
And deserve them you do.
Yes, the article is wrong. But so what? I like that fact that mis-information exists about Linux, especially in a widely read newsrag. These kinds of articles will just help create a divide between the ignorant and those that can think for themselves. It won't change the facts at all. Most corporations will never help improve Linux - they'll just jump on whatever bandwagon the WSJ tells them to. Very few corporations have a reason to help improve Linux and free software. Who **NEEDS** them? I'd rather see them spend money on NT and have a good laugh then anxiously await mass acceptance by corporations.
That's 5,238 transactions a day.
Uhh, don't all the linux distributions use the same kernel? I think so, although I haven't personally used all of them. I know RedHat does things a little differently, but then again with GPL'd applications your point really is completely wrong.
Source code availability makes this problem completely incorrect, although as a BeOS user you don't see it like this.
When was the last time you saw a buggy TESTED NT kernel release? When was the last time you saw a NT kernel release? When was the last time bugs were fixed in the NT kernel the next day after they were discovered?
Open your mind or go away.