If SCO is purchased, Darl McBride, Chris Sontagg, David Boies and the other scheming liars that stand by SCO will walk away rich. I'd much rather endure this retardedness for awhile longer and see them rot in prison, embarassed. I hope they are found guilty and their families are grossly ashamed.
Okay, I read it, but it doesn't change my opinion.
Too many techno-dorks are wrapped up in detail. There's something called "suspending disbelief," where you relax and forgive some of the details to enjoy it and actually HAVE A GOOD TIME READING. It's not perfect, but you know what? Geek authors tend to make shitty novelists and vice versa.
The book is great. It's got errors. But it's still a fun story, even if the plot is semi-predictable and the characters are characicatures.
So people will switch from a word processor to a spreadsheet? (.sxc is a "Calc" file, I'm sure you mean.sxw files, which are "Writer" files.)
I already distribute.sxw files, and it annoys most people. I tell them why, and then send them a PDF. That usually annoys business people too, since they can't edit it. I tell them that if they MUST edit it, I can send them an RTF. I'm sure they roll their eyes and think, "Dammit, send me a friggin DOC file, you twit."
I have read every Dan Brown book and many Jane Austen books. I don't know why I feel like a pussy when I tell people that I love Jane Austen stories, probably because they are all pretty much the same chick-flick kind of story: a lower-middle class adolescent woman in fear of becoming a spinster finds the right man but he does not reciprocate the interest, so she suffers in silence rather than confess her love for him and when proposed marriage from another well-to-do man, even if it puts her, undeservingly, in the right spot of society, rejects it because her principles do not allow for her to enter into a loveless marriage but it all ends up okay, because the man she loves comes around in the end. Tweak a few details, like in P&P, and you have a Jane Austen story to be sure.
Dan Brown's best book, IMHO, is Digital Fortress. I read it one night between 11:30 and 6:00 AM. I couldn't put it down. It will DEFINITELY cater to this crowd - it's really a great book. If you want to get into DB, I recommend you read them in order - Digital Fortress, Angels and Demons, Deception Point, and Davinci.
If you're looking for Grail lore - check out Holy Blood, Holy Grail. If you're looking for incredible stories about the Catholic Church, check out The Christ Conpiracy.
Simple, because most ISPs don't give a shit. Remember, American ISPs may have to conform to American law, but most spam is routed through Asia, specifically China, or other offshore sites. ISP level blocking only would work on the way in, which would probably require extra work, and therefore, higher costs for you, the consumer. On the way out just can't be trusted.
No, a much better solution would be to prevent spam from reaching its destination. If not, the next logical step is some sort of unique ID, which the receiving server could key back via reverse lookup to verify the e-mail's point of origin. If it looks to be a fake - aka, not generated by the server it reports - then it is tossed.
Before you chuck the entire protocol, do you have a solution for a better one?
Until you know how you're going to repair the problem, let's not get too excited about scrapping a protocol that still has a lot of flexibility. I've learned a lot about SMTP in the last few months, if there was universal agreeement as to WHAT to do, we could probably accomplish it in place.
What are the options? Whitelists, blacklists, red lists, gray lists, hash cash, filters, etc. No one can agree HOW to combat the problem. A new protocol would accomplish nothing without a planned solution that makes palpable the limitations of SMTP. Til then, let's not get hasty about blowing it off.
No, you're thinking of Lindows. And it's not nearly as bad as you think - they didn't replace the authors' names. All they did is rebrand some of the apps, like gaim became 'Lindows Messenger' if I recall (incidentally, they contribute to the gaim project financially) and OpenOffice.org and some Koffice pieces became Lindows Office (just like Lycoris did). The authors' names are all there - although they may have added some of their own names, which is really ok if they've changed the code at all.
I'm not defending it, I'm just saying, it's not as bad as people make it out to be.
this is like MS saying that we're not developing any new features for Win 98 two months before Win 2000 is released
Bull, it is! If MS did this, people would be in an UPROAR about forced upgrades. Face it, most Slashdotters EXPECT Microsoft to provide new features but they defend Linux stopping development on their stable product before the next version is even released.
2.6 is on feature freeze as it should be. But to end the entire kernel series forcing an upgrade to a new kernel that doesn't exist yet? How can you tell me that's not premature?
The big deal is that there IS NO 2.6 yet! How can we have the maintainer of, what is as of this writing, the current branch of Linux saying nothing new is going in?
Seriously, if 2.6.2 or 2.6.3 were out, this would be a much different scenario, but we're only at 2.6.0-test11, so refusing to add new features to the newest non-development kernel strikes me as a major league bad decision!
people don't have to use it. They can tell Marco and Linus to fuck off for stranding them after they told their execs that Linux was better and more stable - which might be the case for the server uptime, but perhaps not for the development model.
And the companies that make money off Linux, especially the ones like Red Hat who have yet to use any sort of 2.6 for anything, who EMPLOY people who make major contributions, don't have to continue to contribute the time of their employees.
Open source may not mean the developers OWE you something, but there are expectations that are fair, like not abandoning the current standard before the next one has already come out!
Come on!
Advertisers, Take Note!
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Want to reach the IT Community? Want to get to Linux users? Have an important message you simply must convey in serious terms to IS Professionals?
We have the answer! The staff of ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES will sue anyone - AND WE MEAN ANYONE! - to get your message across. Don't have a case? That's okay, we don't care! We expect to lose.
Nothing will get your word out faster and with a more poigant stab than a lawsuit. We managed to get our three-quarter dead client SCO the front page of popular news site Slashdot over a hundred times this year alone!
Here are some quotes from our clients:
"We were just about to go under, so with the help of ATTORNEY DAVID BOIES, we went ahead and claimed ownship of the whole of UNIX! We probably won't win, but our stock is up thousands of percents!"
-Chris Sontagg, unnamed tech company
"I am a stupid monkey, but all up-to-date IT professionals know my name. Did I just say up to date? David, quick, patent that term so we can sue Red Hat!" -Darl McBride, professional Ass Hat
You too can get the word out! Just call ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES at 1-888-US-FRAUD!
I like it. It reminds me of Captain Nemo from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Of course, you'll probably be sued by Disney and Pixar, but it's still a cool name.
Although we're all getting comfortable with it, I'd like to see the name UserLinux go bye-bye. In fact, "Linux" is getting to be scary word to a lot of execs, especially as Red Hat and Sun announce their pricing, which is getting up there.
I like names like MorphOS, which are much more friendly. Frankly, I'd love to see a catchy name withOUT the word Linux in the title and have th tagline be "Built On Linux" or "Based on Linux."
Look, I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but how is this insightful? This is another tinfoil hat theory that has no real proof to back it up. Sure, it could be true, but I do NOT condone this whole blame it all on Microsoft because they happen to benefit movement.
Grow up. Remember just yesterday there was discussion about how a) open source advocates love a good fight and b) they always blame everything on Microsoft?
Sorry, the murder-manslaughter thing was a a bad example. If I had more time, I'd find a reference for this, but I know for a fact that there is at least one case where there was a robbery/shooting where the attempted murder charge failed, so they charged the guy with larceny (or some other theft charge) and it stuck. Same incident. Two trials. That's really what I was getting at.
You certainly CAN be tried for the same crime twice. You cannot, however, be tried on the same charge. Not to mention, you can be tried in criminal court, and then again in civil court, a la OJ Simpson.
No, admittedly, it's not likely that the Justice system - if you call it that - would try you for manslaughter after finding you "not guilty" of murder, but you CAN be found guilty of one infrigement and not of another - for the same crime.
I'd say the lion's share of today's motherboards are NOT YET CAPABLE of booting to USB, certainly not the PCs with which you'd really want to use such a distro. I can't imagine going back to boot floppies.
I don't know about new, more modern mobos though - they may be able to boot to a USB or firewire device.
Slashdot Mirror
If SCO is purchased, Darl McBride, Chris Sontagg, David Boies and the other scheming liars that stand by SCO will walk away rich. I'd much rather endure this retardedness for awhile longer and see them rot in prison, embarassed. I hope they are found guilty and their families are grossly ashamed.
But I'm not bitter.
Audrey. The eVilla. The list goes on.
Internet appliances came and went. All in the blink of an eye. What you're talking about has happened. And failed.
as well as storing music, holds digital camera images and can be used as a dictation machine and alarm clock.
Yes.
I don't see why that's not possible, if there are already after-market programs that can export to PDF like Adobe Distiller.
How about a program that adds an entry to the right-click context menu that can convert SXW files into DOC and convert DOC into SXW?
Okay, I read it, but it doesn't change my opinion.
Too many techno-dorks are wrapped up in detail. There's something called "suspending disbelief," where you relax and forgive some of the details to enjoy it and actually HAVE A GOOD TIME READING. It's not perfect, but you know what? Geek authors tend to make shitty novelists and vice versa.
The book is great. It's got errors. But it's still a fun story, even if the plot is semi-predictable and the characters are characicatures.
So people will switch from a word processor to a spreadsheet? (.sxc is a "Calc" file, I'm sure you mean .sxw files, which are "Writer" files.)
.sxw files, and it annoys most people. I tell them why, and then send them a PDF. That usually annoys business people too, since they can't edit it. I tell them that if they MUST edit it, I can send them an RTF. I'm sure they roll their eyes and think, "Dammit, send me a friggin DOC file, you twit."
I already distribute
Oh well. The price you pay for being enlightened.
I have read every Dan Brown book and many Jane Austen books. I don't know why I feel like a pussy when I tell people that I love Jane Austen stories, probably because they are all pretty much the same chick-flick kind of story: a lower-middle class adolescent woman in fear of becoming a spinster finds the right man but he does not reciprocate the interest, so she suffers in silence rather than confess her love for him and when proposed marriage from another well-to-do man, even if it puts her, undeservingly, in the right spot of society, rejects it because her principles do not allow for her to enter into a loveless marriage but it all ends up okay, because the man she loves comes around in the end. Tweak a few details, like in P&P, and you have a Jane Austen story to be sure.
Dan Brown's best book, IMHO, is Digital Fortress. I read it one night between 11:30 and 6:00 AM. I couldn't put it down. It will DEFINITELY cater to this crowd - it's really a great book. If you want to get into DB, I recommend you read them in order - Digital Fortress, Angels and Demons, Deception Point, and Davinci.
If you're looking for Grail lore - check out Holy Blood, Holy Grail. If you're looking for incredible stories about the Catholic Church, check out The Christ Conpiracy.
All, of course, my two cents.
why couldn't it be done at the ISP?
Simple, because most ISPs don't give a shit. Remember, American ISPs may have to conform to American law, but most spam is routed through Asia, specifically China, or other offshore sites. ISP level blocking only would work on the way in, which would probably require extra work, and therefore, higher costs for you, the consumer. On the way out just can't be trusted.
No, a much better solution would be to prevent spam from reaching its destination. If not, the next logical step is some sort of unique ID, which the receiving server could key back via reverse lookup to verify the e-mail's point of origin. If it looks to be a fake - aka, not generated by the server it reports - then it is tossed.
Before you chuck the entire protocol, do you have a solution for a better one?
Until you know how you're going to repair the problem, let's not get too excited about scrapping a protocol that still has a lot of flexibility. I've learned a lot about SMTP in the last few months, if there was universal agreeement as to WHAT to do, we could probably accomplish it in place.
What are the options? Whitelists, blacklists, red lists, gray lists, hash cash, filters, etc. No one can agree HOW to combat the problem. A new protocol would accomplish nothing without a planned solution that makes palpable the limitations of SMTP. Til then, let's not get hasty about blowing it off.
<?php
if(!strstr($_ENV["TERM"], "SCO")) {
die("This comment is only available under NDA!");
} else {
echo $comment_body;
}
?>
Great comment. Seriously, fricken funny.
No, you're thinking of Lindows. And it's not nearly as bad as you think - they didn't replace the authors' names. All they did is rebrand some of the apps, like gaim became 'Lindows Messenger' if I recall (incidentally, they contribute to the gaim project financially) and OpenOffice.org and some Koffice pieces became Lindows Office (just like Lycoris did). The authors' names are all there - although they may have added some of their own names, which is really ok if they've changed the code at all.
I'm not defending it, I'm just saying, it's not as bad as people make it out to be.
this is like MS saying that we're not developing any new features for Win 98 two months before Win 2000 is released
Bull, it is! If MS did this, people would be in an UPROAR about forced upgrades. Face it, most Slashdotters EXPECT Microsoft to provide new features but they defend Linux stopping development on their stable product before the next version is even released.
What release date?
2.6 is on feature freeze as it should be. But to end the entire kernel series forcing an upgrade to a new kernel that doesn't exist yet? How can you tell me that's not premature?
The big deal is that there IS NO 2.6 yet! How can we have the maintainer of, what is as of this writing, the current branch of Linux saying nothing new is going in?
Seriously, if 2.6.2 or 2.6.3 were out, this would be a much different scenario, but we're only at 2.6.0-test11, so refusing to add new features to the newest non-development kernel strikes me as a major league bad decision!
people don't have to use it. They can tell Marco and Linus to fuck off for stranding them after they told their execs that Linux was better and more stable - which might be the case for the server uptime, but perhaps not for the development model.
And the companies that make money off Linux, especially the ones like Red Hat who have yet to use any sort of 2.6 for anything, who EMPLOY people who make major contributions, don't have to continue to contribute the time of their employees.
Open source may not mean the developers OWE you something, but there are expectations that are fair, like not abandoning the current standard before the next one has already come out!
Come on!
Want to reach the IT Community? Want to get to Linux users? Have an important message you simply must convey in serious terms to IS Professionals?
We have the answer! The staff of ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES will sue anyone - AND WE MEAN ANYONE! - to get your message across. Don't have a case? That's okay, we don't care! We expect to lose.
Nothing will get your word out faster and with a more poigant stab than a lawsuit. We managed to get our three-quarter dead client SCO the front page of popular news site Slashdot over a hundred times this year alone!
Here are some quotes from our clients:
"We were just about to go under, so with the help of ATTORNEY DAVID BOIES, we went ahead and claimed ownship of the whole of UNIX! We probably won't win, but our stock is up thousands of percents!"
-Chris Sontagg, unnamed tech company
"I am a stupid monkey, but all up-to-date IT professionals know my name. Did I just say up to date? David, quick, patent that term so we can sue Red Hat!"
-Darl McBride, professional Ass Hat
You too can get the word out! Just call ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES at 1-888-US-FRAUD!
I like it. It reminds me of Captain Nemo from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Of course, you'll probably be sued by Disney and Pixar, but it's still a cool name.
Plus, I'm sure Jules Verne would've supported Linux.
Although we're all getting comfortable with it, I'd like to see the name UserLinux go bye-bye. In fact, "Linux" is getting to be scary word to a lot of execs, especially as Red Hat and Sun announce their pricing, which is getting up there.
I like names like MorphOS, which are much more friendly. Frankly, I'd love to see a catchy name withOUT the word Linux in the title and have th tagline be "Built On Linux" or "Based on Linux."
Does anyone else agree with that?
Look, I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but how is this insightful? This is another tinfoil hat theory that has no real proof to back it up. Sure, it could be true, but I do NOT condone this whole blame it all on Microsoft because they happen to benefit movement.
Grow up. Remember just yesterday there was discussion about how a) open source advocates love a good fight and b) they always blame everything on Microsoft?
Guess what? It's apparently true.
Good ol Seth Nickell and Storage. WinFS-ish to be sure.
You're overlooking something. Actually, quite a bit....
ext3
Resier/Resier4
JFS
XFS
Sorry, the murder-manslaughter thing was a a bad example. If I had more time, I'd find a reference for this, but I know for a fact that there is at least one case where there was a robbery/shooting where the attempted murder charge failed, so they charged the guy with larceny (or some other theft charge) and it stuck. Same incident. Two trials. That's really what I was getting at.
(I am not a lawyer, of course, but...)
You certainly CAN be tried for the same crime twice. You cannot, however, be tried on the same charge. Not to mention, you can be tried in criminal court, and then again in civil court, a la OJ Simpson.
No, admittedly, it's not likely that the Justice system - if you call it that - would try you for manslaughter after finding you "not guilty" of murder, but you CAN be found guilty of one infrigement and not of another - for the same crime.
I'd say the lion's share of today's motherboards are NOT YET CAPABLE of booting to USB, certainly not the PCs with which you'd really want to use such a distro. I can't imagine going back to boot floppies.
I don't know about new, more modern mobos though - they may be able to boot to a USB or firewire device.