If the system was broken, and the developer wouldn't fix it, and wouldn't let anyone reveiw it, then why is it being used?
It might as well have been criticised for not being made of cheddar cheese, than not being open source. The problem isn't that it's closed, the problem is that some idiot still wants to use it, even though it's broken.
Par for the course, as is usually the case with the Trashdot editors, I read the article and they aparently didn't.
I couldn't find one reference to anything malfunctioning due to the closed source software. Only mechanical problems and HR problems.
In fact, the closest I could find was: "Poll workers had trouble activating machines because of mechanical malfunctions or poor training"
I live and work in Broward County, and I for one would prefer that they use a closed source system. As is usually the case, and often ignored, is that closed source == accountability. When something goes wrong, I want to know exactly who's responsible. There should be someone (a person) or something (a corporate entity) responsible, in a real-world way. This means monitarily, civilly, and criminally. Frankly, I (and everyone else I've talked to) don't want the vote tallying code to be written by some kid in another country with nothing to lose if his code's screwed up.
But getting back on topic, the Nazi editors just used another lame opportunity to bash non open-source software.
I'm certainly a proponent of open-source, but it has it's place. Likewise closed-source has it's place as well. Each can be used as a tool, and a tool should fit the job. You wouldn't race the Indy 500 in a tank, and you certainly wouldn't want to take your Ferrari off-road.
Should Da Vinci have included detailed painting instructions for making your own Mona Lisa? Think about it.
Although the article doesn't say it in so many words, I'm sure they're talking about corporate desktops here, and are certainly not including home users.
Corporate use has never been a stronghold of the Mac, and probably never will be outside of media (print/graphics/audio/video) shops.
Let's see Linux outpace the Mac in these areas, as well as the education market, and then you'll have something to brag about.
If you've been compromised even once, you frankly don't know what you're doing.
I work NOC in a mostly Windows shop. We have several hundred NT and 2K boxes, and have never been compromised. The only machines that got hacked *ever* were customer owned boxes that the customer failed to patch against CodeRed.
If you patch the box properly, firewall it properly, turn off unnecessary applications and services, and run a correctly configured IDS, then a windows box can be just as secure as any other OS.
A few days ago I post a good story abount how the new terrorist database system keeps crashing, and get rejected: 2002-08-23 20:52:48 Terrorist database often crashes (articles,news) (rejected)
But somehow, this makes it onto slashdot...
On the other hand, I don't wanna get off topic so why don't you just do like everyone else, and get MRTG and set it to SNMP to your router and get the interface statistics directly.
No, I wouldn't agree to Dell modifying Windows, and you've only strengthened my point. I'm not saying that the software shouldn't be modified. I'm saying that once modified, it should no longer carry the name "iDVD", just like a Dell only version of Windows should no longer be called Windows (I dunno, perhaps 'Dindows'?).
The patch should also change the name of the software out of fairness. How many support calls do you think this company will get when someone can't burn a DVD on hardware that was unsupported before? And how many do you think Apple is going to get? As someone else pointed out, there is no version of OSX for Intel. That's why. Also, do you think Apple will give you support when you can't get OS9 to run under Basilisk? No way, but they don't prevent you from running it, do they?
Of course Apple is going to do what is in Apple's best intrest. They are a company, not a charity. They exist in order to make money, not to make your life easier or better.
It's on you as the consumer to treat yourself like a corporation and put yourself first. Do what's in your best interest. If that means buying Apple products, then I guess both of you will be happy. If that means not buying Apple products, then I guess Apple wouldn't be happy. But then it's on them to make you want to buy their products.
Just don't go around slighting Apple for doing what any sound business would by protecting it's interests. If you don't like their policies, don't buy their products. If they give a shit, they'll change their ways. If they don't, who knows.
Getting back on topic, how would you feel if someone plagiarized your Master's Thesis, inserting a bunch of bullshit in the middle, then submitted it with your name still on the paper?
If you ask me, I say this is a good use of the DMCA. That's right, a good use.
Apple is using the law to prevent people from modifying it's software with a third-party patch that enables the software to do something it wasn't intended to do.
What's wrong with that? Picture the average Mac user who's gonna use this software. Now picture the same person when he burns a bunch of coasters, or the program keeps crashing, or something worse. Who's he gonna blame? Apple, because they made the iDVD software, right? Even though though it was the third-party patch that allowed him to run the software on unsupported hardware in the first place.
The fact is, unsupported means unsupported. It's as simple as that. You can bet your sweet ass that [insert company name here] doesn't want to hear about it when their Windows software doesn't work under Wine or Lindows. It's the same thing. Think of Wine as the "patch" that allows you to run the software in an unsupported environment.
I say cheers to apple for standing up for their rights.
Why not start an advertising firm like this, fax...email...telemarketing...all kinds of spam.
You can charge the spammers (advertisers) exorbitant amounts of money to use your spamming services. Your 'recipient' base would not only opt-in, but they would be paid.
After reading fax.com's FAQ entry about how many faxes can be sent (limited only by your budget), it occured to me that we, the people who have to put up with this crap should be getting paid as well.
I'd gladly delete emails all day, and let my fax go all night, and play phone-retard with telemarketers if it means that I'm gonna get a fat check every month.
I mean, we as people have certain resources (eyes and ears) that others are exploiting to get rich...Shouldn't we join in on the fun?
All 3 contacts for a domain name must choose an authentication method when the contact handle is created. The three choice are: Mail-From - mail's from address is used to verify the sender (laughable security) CRYPT-PW - an encrypted password is added to all requests (better) PGP - PGP encryption is used (the best)
Recently, they began phasing out Mail-From authentication because of it's insecurity.
The problem is that, a faxed letter on the company's official letterhead, and signed by an officer of the company trumps all three of these methods. So you can whip up some "Sex.com, Inc." letterhead in Word, make a transfer letter, and sign it "Joe Blow, CEO" and fax it on in.
Granted they would probably pay a bit more attention to modifications to a domain like sex.com, but this is definitely the weak link in the chain.
Ummm...wel yeah....and
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 1
"If senders fail to meet the criteria, they could be sued for trademark and copyright infringement, Mitchell said."
And if someone supposedly in another country relays off your local elementary school's mail server they can also be sued.
If I put a disclaimer prohibiting spam on my SMTP server, I can also sue spammers.
This is just plain dumb. Just because someone can be sued for something doesn't mean that it will make a shred of difference.
Re:the truth about jon carmack
on
Fragfest
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
If the system was broken, and the developer wouldn't fix it, and wouldn't let anyone reveiw it, then why is it being used?
It might as well have been criticised for not being made of cheddar cheese, than not being open source. The problem isn't that it's closed, the problem is that some idiot still wants to use it, even though it's broken.
Par for the course, as is usually the case with the Trashdot editors, I read the article and they aparently didn't.
I couldn't find one reference to anything malfunctioning due to the closed source software. Only mechanical problems and HR problems.
In fact, the closest I could find was:
"Poll workers had trouble activating machines because of mechanical malfunctions or poor training"
I live and work in Broward County, and I for one would prefer that they use a closed source system. As is usually the case, and often ignored, is that closed source == accountability. When something goes wrong, I want to know exactly who's responsible. There should be someone (a person) or something (a corporate entity) responsible, in a real-world way. This means monitarily, civilly, and criminally. Frankly, I (and everyone else I've talked to) don't want the vote tallying code to be written by some kid in another country with nothing to lose if his code's screwed up.
But getting back on topic, the Nazi editors just used another lame opportunity to bash non open-source software.
I'm certainly a proponent of open-source, but it has it's place. Likewise closed-source has it's place as well. Each can be used as a tool, and a tool should fit the job. You wouldn't race the Indy 500 in a tank, and you certainly wouldn't want to take your Ferrari off-road.
Should Da Vinci have included detailed painting instructions for making your own Mona Lisa? Think about it.
Although the article doesn't say it in so many words, I'm sure they're talking about corporate desktops here, and are certainly not including home users.
Corporate use has never been a stronghold of the Mac, and probably never will be outside of media (print/graphics/audio/video) shops.
Let's see Linux outpace the Mac in these areas, as well as the education market, and then you'll have something to brag about.
My IP address is 2130706433.
Decode that, and you're the ultimate 31337 H4X0R dude!
If you've been compromised even once, you frankly don't know what you're doing.
I work NOC in a mostly Windows shop. We have several hundred NT and 2K boxes, and have never been compromised. The only machines that got hacked *ever* were customer owned boxes that the customer failed to patch against CodeRed.
If you patch the box properly, firewall it properly, turn off unnecessary applications and services, and run a correctly configured IDS, then a windows box can be just as secure as any other OS.
I'm no physicist, but how do you move from the speed of light without accelleration?
How are they stiffling innovation?
What's to stop this company from making their own damn DVD burning software? That's right, nothing.
Apple said: hey, we don't want our software to be used for burning with this particular burner. What's wrong with that?
You want innovation? Get off your ass and write your own damn software.
I really can't believe this.
A few days ago I post a good story abount how the new terrorist database system keeps crashing, and get rejected:
2002-08-23 20:52:48 Terrorist database often crashes (articles,news) (rejected)
But somehow, this makes it onto slashdot...
On the other hand, I don't wanna get off topic so why don't you just do like everyone else, and get MRTG and set it to SNMP to your router and get the interface statistics directly.
That's cool, but do you know if it's possible to *add* a backlight to a pre-2xxx messagepad?
I have a MP110 which is ok, and I also have a MP130 which I love. I would use the MP130 everyday, but the lack of a backlight deters me.
Good for you, and your employer. More people need to read and understand this. Someone mod this up, please.
No, you can't be responsible.
The point is they can be responsible if they look through your windows and see you murder someone and they fail to call the police.
No, I wouldn't agree to Dell modifying Windows, and you've only strengthened my point. I'm not saying that the software shouldn't be modified. I'm saying that once modified, it should no longer carry the name "iDVD", just like a Dell only version of Windows should no longer be called Windows (I dunno, perhaps 'Dindows'?).
The patch should also change the name of the software out of fairness. How many support calls do you think this company will get when someone can't burn a DVD on hardware that was unsupported before? And how many do you think Apple is going to get? As someone else pointed out, there is no version of OSX for Intel. That's why. Also, do you think Apple will give you support when you can't get OS9 to run under Basilisk? No way, but they don't prevent you from running it, do they?
Uhh...wel, duh!
Of course Apple is going to do what is in Apple's best intrest. They are a company, not a charity. They exist in order to make money, not to make your life easier or better.
It's on you as the consumer to treat yourself like a corporation and put yourself first. Do what's in your best interest. If that means buying Apple products, then I guess both of you will be happy. If that means not buying Apple products, then I guess Apple wouldn't be happy. But then it's on them to make you want to buy their products.
Just don't go around slighting Apple for doing what any sound business would by protecting it's interests. If you don't like their policies, don't buy their products. If they give a shit, they'll change their ways. If they don't, who knows.
Getting back on topic, how would you feel if someone plagiarized your Master's Thesis, inserting a bunch of bullshit in the middle, then submitted it with your name still on the paper?
If you ask me, I say this is a good use of the DMCA. That's right, a good use.
Apple is using the law to prevent people from modifying it's software with a third-party patch that enables the software to do something it wasn't intended to do.
What's wrong with that? Picture the average Mac user who's gonna use this software. Now picture the same person when he burns a bunch of coasters, or the program keeps crashing, or something worse. Who's he gonna blame? Apple, because they made the iDVD software, right? Even though though it was the third-party patch that allowed him to run the software on unsupported hardware in the first place.
The fact is, unsupported means unsupported. It's as simple as that. You can bet your sweet ass that [insert company name here] doesn't want to hear about it when their Windows software doesn't work under Wine or Lindows. It's the same thing. Think of Wine as the "patch" that allows you to run the software in an unsupported environment.
I say cheers to apple for standing up for their rights.
You have reached the Gecko... ...you probably wanted Geico...leave a message at the beep.
"And I find the fact that this is on CNN even more so"
So you go ahead and put it on Slashdot.
Way to go, CmdrDorko
As soon as you connect a computer system to the internet, you open up to all sorts of hack attempts.
I'll do just fine without voting over the internet, thank you.
hmmm...I didn't know that, thanks.
Ummm...I'm no Unix or *nix superstar so I'm probably way off, but wouldn't the whole thing be more accurate if it was reversed, as in: ./ (dot slash)?
Why not start an advertising firm like this, fax...email...telemarketing...all kinds of spam.
You can charge the spammers (advertisers) exorbitant amounts of money to use your spamming services. Your 'recipient' base would not only opt-in, but they would be paid.
After reading fax.com's FAQ entry about how many faxes can be sent (limited only by your budget), it occured to me that we, the people who have to put up with this crap should be getting paid as well.
I'd gladly delete emails all day, and let my fax go all night, and play phone-retard with telemarketers if it means that I'm gonna get a fat check every month.
I mean, we as people have certain resources (eyes and ears) that others are exploiting to get rich...Shouldn't we join in on the fun?
They do.
All 3 contacts for a domain name must choose an authentication method when the contact handle is created. The three choice are:
Mail-From - mail's from address is used to verify the sender (laughable security)
CRYPT-PW - an encrypted password is added to all requests (better)
PGP - PGP encryption is used (the best)
Recently, they began phasing out Mail-From authentication because of it's insecurity.
The problem is that, a faxed letter on the company's official letterhead, and signed by an officer of the company trumps all three of these methods. So you can whip up some "Sex.com, Inc." letterhead in Word, make a transfer letter, and sign it "Joe Blow, CEO" and fax it on in.
Granted they would probably pay a bit more attention to modifications to a domain like sex.com, but this is definitely the weak link in the chain.
"If senders fail to meet the criteria, they could be sued for trademark and copyright infringement, Mitchell said."
And if someone supposedly in another country relays off your local elementary school's mail server they can also be sued.
If I put a disclaimer prohibiting spam on my SMTP server, I can also sue spammers.
This is just plain dumb. Just because someone can be sued for something doesn't mean that it will make a shred of difference.
"quality" not "qulity"
And round and round we go.
1. Then use a normal plane, dumbass. Trust me, no one will force you to use this.
2. Crazies in various countries? This is being developed in Australia, not the US. So it's already in one "various" country.
Ummm....can you say CDDB?
Seems to me that they do exactly the same thing.