It's been years since I used their DirecWay service (it was DirecPC back then), but back then they were one of the slimiest companies around. That surprised me as I was, and still am, a DirecTV subscriber and have always been quite happy with that service.
DirecPC implemented a "Fair Access Policy" (FAP) to try and reign in high-volume users, even though they sold the service as "unlimited internet". That, in itself, was understandable, but the way they implemented it was deplorable. I don't know if it's still around or not.
At some arbitrary point, DirecPC would decided you'd violated the FAP (the limits of which were closely held secrets not to be divulged to mere mortals) and would drop your current connection. They'd subsequently throttle new connections down to about 300-450 baud for some unspecified period of time (usually several days). Worse, their "customer service" would never tell you if you'd actually been FAPed, leaving you to wonder if the problem would eventually rectify itself, or if you had a hardware or antenna-alignment issue that required action on your part. Coupled with their pathetic drivers which would frequently just stop working until the machine was power-cycled, you never really knew what the hell was going on.
By way of example, I could always trigger a FAP violation by attempting to download one of the abundant MSVC patches. The patch weighed in at about 100MB, and DirecPC would always drop at 70MB and then be useless for the next three days. I actually had to fall back to a 28.8 modem to get the patches.
I'm know they eventually settled a class-action suit over their FAP, but I don't remember the exact details. I do know I dropped them at that time and would never go back.
Qworst said exactly the same in Colorado ("oops, our mistake, we never intended to actually sell your calling records"). Now, less than one week later, they're petitioning the FCC for the right to do whatever they want with our data, including selling it to their "valued" partners.
Actually I'd have preferred he followed Phil Katz (sp?) zip model: he released the zip format to the public then created proprietary utilities (pkzip/pkunzip) to implement it. Right from the start there was a very clean, clear delineation between what was public and what wasn't.
SSH Inc. took a decidedly different route and didn't bother to raise the trademark issue until the protocol became popular. So while that decision raises many emotions in me, sympathy isn't one of them.
Just because the dweeb behind the video-store counter can't change his company's rules doesn't mean you have to play by them. I've never once had a problem giving a bogus SSN to companies that have no right to it but insist on having it. That includes video stores, cable companies, and even the university I'm attending, which seems to think SSNs make brilliant student ids.
Occasionly you'll find a company that will refuse SSN 123-45-6789 because it's "obviously invalid." It's almost pathetic when they turn around and gladly accept 521-43-9876. Guess it just look better.
Of course, if your SSN is 521-43-9876, then you might want to pick a different number....;-)
What makes you believe Microsoft will adhere to this standard any more than they've adhered to the others? He said himself that any customer will be able to take the Standard and "superset" it. Care to guess who'll be first in line?
Microsoft has never given anything more than lip-service to existing standards. A C# standard won't fair any better.
Actually, the point he makes (albeit indirectly) is that "people who don't have time....to learn the ins and outs of o/s administration" should not be handling os adminstration. Think about the advice he's giving to new NT admins: enable guest on shared drives, and give yourself admin permission so you don't have to worry about forgetting a password. In linux terms, that translates to: export your NFS drives to the network with no security and always login as root. Wonderful. How many newbies are going to take his advice and never once realize the implications?
The fact that a particular system is easy to configure doesn't mean that it's easy to configure well. That's true no matter which OS you choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not Colorado? We already have a bridge named Bob... http://www.avon.org/BobtheBridge.cfm/
It's been years since I used their DirecWay service (it was DirecPC back then), but back then they were one of the slimiest companies around. That surprised me as I was, and still am, a DirecTV subscriber and have always been quite happy with that service.
DirecPC implemented a "Fair Access Policy" (FAP) to try and reign in high-volume users, even though they sold the service as "unlimited internet". That, in itself, was understandable, but the way they implemented it was deplorable. I don't know if it's still around or not.
At some arbitrary point, DirecPC would decided you'd violated the FAP (the limits of which were closely held secrets not to be divulged to mere mortals) and would drop your current connection. They'd subsequently throttle new connections down to about 300-450 baud for some unspecified period of time (usually several days). Worse, their "customer service" would never tell you if you'd actually been FAPed, leaving you to wonder if the problem would eventually rectify itself, or if you had a hardware or antenna-alignment issue that required action on your part. Coupled with their pathetic drivers which would frequently just stop working until the machine was power-cycled, you never really knew what the hell was going on.
By way of example, I could always trigger a FAP violation by attempting to download one of the abundant MSVC patches. The patch weighed in at about 100MB, and DirecPC would always drop at 70MB and then be useless for the next three days. I actually had to fall back to a 28.8 modem to get the patches.
I'm know they eventually settled a class-action suit over their FAP, but I don't remember the exact details. I do know I dropped them at that time and would never go back.
I used to get that too. It's a hardware problem...
Qworst said exactly the same in Colorado ("oops, our mistake, we never intended to actually sell your calling records"). Now, less than one week later, they're petitioning the FCC for the right to do whatever they want with our data, including selling it to their "valued" partners.
Just another reason to hate monopolies....
Actually I'd have preferred he followed Phil Katz (sp?) zip model: he released the zip format to the public then created proprietary utilities (pkzip/pkunzip) to implement it. Right from the start there was a very clean, clear delineation between what was public and what wasn't.
SSH Inc. took a decidedly different route and didn't bother to raise the trademark issue until the protocol became popular. So while that decision raises many emotions in me, sympathy isn't one of them.
Just because the dweeb behind the video-store counter can't change his company's rules doesn't mean you have to play by them. I've never once had a problem giving a bogus SSN to companies that have no right to it but insist on having it. That includes video stores, cable companies, and even the university I'm attending, which seems to think SSNs make brilliant student ids.
Occasionly you'll find a company that will refuse SSN 123-45-6789 because it's "obviously invalid." It's almost pathetic when they turn around and gladly accept 521-43-9876. Guess it just look better.
Of course, if your SSN is 521-43-9876, then you might want to pick a different number.... ;-)
So let OpenSSH follow the Samba example:
SMB ==> Samba
SSH ==> Sasha
And Sasha's easier to say....
What makes you believe Microsoft will adhere to this standard any more than they've adhered to the others? He said himself that any customer will be able to take the Standard and "superset" it. Care to guess who'll be first in line?
Microsoft has never given anything more than lip-service to existing standards. A C# standard won't fair any better.
Southpark, eh?
Looks like you forgot the step where Bill starts dating Saddam Hussein.
What, UPS doesn't pay taxes?
Actually, the point he makes (albeit indirectly) is that "people who don't have time....to learn the ins and outs of o/s administration" should not be handling os adminstration. Think about the advice he's giving to new NT admins: enable guest on shared drives, and give yourself admin permission so you don't have to worry about forgetting a password. In linux terms, that translates to: export your NFS drives to the network with no security and always login as root.
Wonderful. How many newbies are going to take his advice and never once realize the implications?
The fact that a particular system is easy to configure doesn't mean that it's easy to configure well. That's true no matter which OS you choose.