Thanks for the clarification - you'd think I would research this myself, but I figured that getting the answer directly might get the most accurate response (honest!).
Personally I agree about being careful about the SMTP servers; I'm just not that enthused with customers who contact me and are convinced that an ISP with tens of thousands of users in their area alone can just flick a switch and change the mail servers because they said so. It's much like the customers we get who ask for "more bandwidth" not because it's slow, but because they think they can get special treatment (and of course, they don't even think that they might have to pay for it if it's available).
Now, if a group (unofficial or not) asks a concern of theirs to be looked into by the ISP, that's one thing... but I think far too many users basically think that they own the ISP because they pay X amount of dollars per month.
Re:Hate to say this ,but it's not such a bad thing
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1
Well, one thing I do know is that most of SMTP servers can't be used when you're not on the 'native' connection, and when on dial-up you usually (but not always, I've found) have to specify that you're logging into the server in your settings. That's enough to at least deter "casual" spamming.
Anyways, what's this about RFC 2505 and BCP 30? In my line of work the only concern is "open-relay" versus "closed-relay," and that's about it. My particular situation doesn't require me to work on the servers themselves.
Hate to say this ,but it's not such a bad thing
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As a tech support rep for a not-so-small ISP, I can't help but think that the shutdown of an anti-spam blacklisting service would be a good thing.
One reason is that it often feels like they're overbearing - all too eager to put an ISP on the list (regardless of the relative quantity of spam) but not so eager to take them off. I can't help but think of the blacklisting of Hollywood stars in the '50s for communist beliefs; real or just perceived, you became a scapegoat for the real source of the problem (in this case, the actual spammers).
The other and personally more important reason is that it creates unrealistic expectations of ISP response. I once had a customer who expected us (the ISP) to change the mail server over to closed-relay (I don't even know if it WAS open-relay then) simply because he - one person - could not get Bigfoot's mail forwarding to work, as they used a blacklist site that happened to include our mail servers. To someone in tech support, that's about the same as asking "can you give my modem more bandwidth?" It sounds selfish and shows the relative ignorance of the customer.
Basically, these blacklists convince people that their ISP is some sort of monster (I don't think most ISPs say "let's go open-relay so companies we don't profit from can spam people!"), and worse in that they convince users that they can get support for things the ISP doesn't operate, just because they asked about it. How many of these blacklist sites warn you that most ISPs can't support the services of other companies? Almost none (if any). How many ask you to contact your ISP if their servers are on the blacklist, regardless of where the conflict is? Probably most (if not all) of them. As a result we get customers like the one I had, who are told by the site to contact us and expect us to change a major aspect of the service just because a single person (and we've had very few people in total) said so.
Besides, how much of this actually works? I believe most of our servers are now closed-relay (that customer wasn't the impetus, of course) but customers still get all kinds of spam, and they still think it's their ISP's fault (I've had customers tell me that WE were the spammers, that we sold their e-mail addresses, and so on). On top of this we get customers who actively complain that they can't send mail from accounts with us when they're away, when they could before.
It's not absolutely dire, but really... just like McCarthy, spam blacklists can frequently pass beyond genuine concern into unhealthy paranoia.
Whether it's a legitimate case or not, I don't really care - I can't get over the Morrison & Foerster homepage. Mofo overview, mofo offices, mofo talk radio...
I wonder what the employee awards are like - Badass Mofo of the Month?
Here in Canada, we have laws preventing discrimination against people based on things such as race and gender, and it does apply to things such as hate-inciting websites - but as recent events have shown, if anything we're MORE likely to protect freedom than in the US. You don't see CSIS (our equivalent to the CIA) or the RCMP tripping over themselves to use a Carnivore-like system, for example, and I do believe that we recently protected someone AGAINST improper use of the DMCA.
Free speech is undoubtedly important, but should we allow speech made with the intent to deny that right to others? If many racists and other hate groups had their way, all people of other ethnic groups, religions, and sexual orientations would be forbidden from any participation in society (such as speech or voting). Some of these hate groups would even go so far as to deny others the satisfaction of living.
Again, I think that free speech is critical to a happy and liberated society, but I also don't want to see a friend silenced (or worse) simply because they're Asian, or Jewish, or anything else that doesn't fit someone's too-narrow interpretation of "human."
While the principle of a spam blacklist seems sound, from my own experience the hardest blows have been to the average user (and the ISP tech support that has to deal with them when they complain).
Working that tech support, I've had to deal with a few people who complained that they couldn't use a mail forwarding service, or otherwise couldn't get mail going, simply because the mail server had been put on some arbitrary blacklist with no regard for legitimate users (and given the ISP, this isn't exactly small). And yet the spam still manages to get through, somehow!
Admittedly, it isn't an overwhelming problem, but that only perpetuates it for the people who do experience it: a few reports (at best) per month, out of thousands of more pressing mail issues, are not likely to have ISPs changing their mail systems. It doesn't help that many of the people who do worry are using a 3rd-party mail service (which the ISP can't support), and that this can cause headaches for the people who want to use their ISP's mail from work (but can't get the SMTP server address for the office).
Given that the deluge of spam hasn't really been stopped, I suspect that blacklists are like plugging dam leaks with your fingers... it won't help much, and will probably cause you and others more trouble than it's worth.
It's this kind of condescension that lets Windows dominate the market unnecessarily. Do you assume that Apple's computers are for stupid people from genuine experience with the OS, or are you just generalising because it's labeled as easier to use compared to Windows or Linux (and hence doesn't seem "manly" to you)?
If you want, OSX has a Unix-based command terminal on top of the GUI. Apache is built-in for a web server (provided you aren't going to violate your ISP's terms of service with it). You can customize the Dock's size, position (including auto-hiding it), and whether it magnifies icons when you move your mouse over them. There's plenty of network configuration options if you need them.
If you're worried about hardware upgrades, get a PowerMac G4 - they have a bay expressly designed to make upgrading easy. iMacs aren't for "stupid people," they're for people who don't feel they need to upgrade except for when they get a new computer altogether. Not everyone 'needs' a new video card or hard drive every 6-12 months, or even at all. If I'm just using AppleWorks or Word, why bother?
But I'm likely making assumptions of my own, and I apologize. I'll ask you then: what, exactly, about Macs do you think makes them limited to "stupid people?" Maybe you should visit Apple's OSX site and find out. Just having lots of visual flash and a one-button mouse doesn't put your hardware or OS on a lower plane of existence.
If you believe in evolution (and you're entitled not to - it's not a concrete thing), then humans have seriously tampered with it!
When you think about it, there are all kinds of social and technological catch-alls in place that allow someone to survive who isn't "fit" - mentally or physically - to do so on their own. I'm pretty sure that if you dumped most any average Slashdot visitor into the woods, they'd starve to death... likely because they forgot to eat while looking for an Ethernet jack for their laptop.:)
We also have a view of medicine that tries to actively "correct" bodies, even when the abnormality isn't necessarily a detriment. For example, quite a few people in the past have had six fingers on each hand - and some of those are genuinely functional. However, we often have the extra fingers removed anyways, simply because "it isn't normal." Obviously, we still respect changes such as height and strength, but anything else is viewed as "freakish."
Basically, we allow or encourage a halt in any biological advancement through all our innovations. I'm not necessarily saying that we should just toss out our technology and start hunting again - just that we shouldn't be surprised if it turns out that humans remain unchanged for a longer than usual (such as it is) time.
It's been said before in this topic, but there's no real backing apart from that prior article (which in itself isn't much evidence). I think that Comcast would likely face more trouble than it's worth if they started shutting off connections using NAT: customers that leave (as they can't afford paying, say, twice as much per month to keep their computers online), lawsuits from individual users, and even lawsuits from hardware and software makers citing concerns over anti-competitiveness(as Comcast would be forcing customers away from Linksys, D-Link et. al. to boost their own profits).
Besides, in my ISP tech support work I see this all the time: "a friend of a friend says that you're going to start charging $60 a month / cut bandwidth in half / disconnect people with routers..." and then they ask why - as though it were already a certain fact! If an ISP institutes a policy banning NAT altogether, they'll let you know. Most broadband ISPs specifically warned their users (in general) in e-mail and on their websites about Code Red well before they started cutting off individual connections, so there shouldn't be any difference here.
...and that threat is for us poor people in tech support for OTHER ISPs who might have to suddenly deal with people who are
A) using Linux, and yet
B) have no idea how to use a computer.
Isn't this a fundamental contradiction of the laws of nature? I can literally see an AOL user's mind seizing up and dying when you start talking about extracting a.tar.gz file or having to login as root.
I wouldn't have full information, but from my own experience I can tell you that most of your contact avenues with @Home support (standard e-mail, phone, etc.) just wouldn't have that information unless it were true (and they were aware of it). It would have too serious an impact on e-mail to go unignored.
Generally, if it's only a rumour, don't contact the company asking for information; 99% of the time it's just a rumour. We get that at work (not @Home, although I subscribe to a former @Home service) all the time: people are convinced that one cable modem is faster than another (when they don't even max out the speed on either), or that they're suddenly going to get 4 Mbps speeds, or something else that doesn't have any official backing.
I'm not accusing, just noting something as both a user and a cable modem tech support rep.
...and that's the fact that the middle-class ultimately has to get *a* computer to be considered acceptable, and for many in this demographic the computer is simply a tool to get things done. They aren't hardcore gamers who need GeForce 3s to play the latest and greatest, or 3D modellers who consider a 19" monitor the bare minimum. They browse the web, type up e-mail and letters to friends and family, maybe play a few games, and (invariably these days) download music.
For them, the new iMac is likely perfect. OSX is a very visually-oriented OS and tends to avoid as little cryptic PC logic as possible. Ever had some casual user say "I didn't want the program anymore, so I deleted the folder" (not realizing that Windows still has associations with it)? On a Mac - even in OS9 - doing something so simple as that actually works! There aren't really any special rules depending on what you're doing, so there are fewer surprises for the average user.
The new iMac also helps a lot with space; the computer takes up as much of a desk footprint as many smaller monitors do. You don't have to position the computer exactly to get the monitor into a proper angle, either. Cords? There's only the cord for power and the obligatory ones for the mouse and keyboard. It's all simple and straightforward.
So, why isn't the Mac selling like mad? The sad truth is that most people just don't go to much effort in researching the computers they buy. They often gravitate towards whatever appears to be the largest computer store (or the closest), and buy whatever fits their price range and needs. Macs tend to be crowded into corners of stores, if they're there at all - and rarely are the sales clerks qualified to explain just why an 800 MHz G4 is faster than the Celeron 1200 in the next aisle, or why OSX would actually be better than Windows for what they want to do.
I find it hypocritical to say that Microsoft is horrible and that people have to look for alternatives, yet attack the most genuinely viable alternative the average person would consider. Is the only acceptable alternative (if you're trying to avoid buying Windows altogether) to custom-build a Linux or BSD PC that, as of now, wouldn't really address the problems with PCs today? I don't think so. As far as I see it, Apple's challenge isn't in hardware at all - it's overcoming marketing and the pack mentality of the PC buyer.
One thing I'm glad MS has learned (or at least hasn't botched) is to make sure that IIS isn't automatically installed with non-server editions of Windows! Just because you're a "professional" (as Windows 2000 and XP might have you believe) doesn't mean you're inclined to - or capable of - hosting a web server.
It also keeps people out of trouble with broadband ISPs; I'm sure a few people have been shocked to have their connection cut and receive a phone call because they didn't get a patch for Code Red. Likewise, it prevents "casual" hosting of web servers; if you're determined, you can do it, but most ISPs are tired of people treating their $40-a-month cable modem connection like it's worth $400 (or more!) instead. The more recent treatment of IIS will at least force this to be a deliberate move by the user.
I've noticed that it's governments, more than any other institution or demographic, that seem to latch on to Linux the most (witness adoptions in Scandinavian countries, the NSA in the States, China and so on). However, most distributions don't specifically target government at all; they generally either go after the serious Linux user or try to focus on user-friendliess (Corel and Mandrake, as examples).
What if focusing on government demands was the answer? Ask them what they want, or develop with government needs (security, administration, etc.) in mind. If you do it right it shouldn't be hard to convince a government, be it municipal, provincial/state or maybe even national, that it's in their best interest to use a very cheap OS with few security holes and entertainment-based distractions (as much as we love Solitaire).
If you can get government workers to be exposed to Linux every day at work, it would encourage them to use it at home (though some might try to avoid it if the experience is unpleasant). That would then increase the general user base and give more reason for civilians to use it (as their friends would use it).
I hate to sound like I'm marketing it, but what about DSDN? It's true that it doesn't run over existing technologies, but for 10 Mbps Internet access it's considerably cheaper than the current alternatives (such as direct fibre-optic lines) and is supposed to cost about as much for the end user as their cable or DSL ISP already does.
It's already in use in Denver as well as a section of Utah, and it's supposed to be very fast in practice - not just theory. The Denver ISP has a site at wideopenwest.com and the company that designed the technology is at switchpoint.com. Switchpoint is the one testing it in Utah as far as I know.
I also know that Slashdot has mentioned this tech before, but it bears repeating this for others; we'll never get past sub-standard cable and phoneline solutions if people don't demand alternatives.
I've heard at least one or two people here worry about HP's security in HP-LX (and HP-UX) and I have to say this: anyone who depends on their OS as the primary basis of security - at least in this day and age - is not properly looking at security in the first place.
If you are (or were) a network admin, would you host an Internet server without a firewall just because you used one OS and not another? I don't think so. Total security involves additional layers on top of the OS - firewalls, requiring passwords for many or all access points, and so on - as well as an admin that keeps up to date on security holes and works to plug them.
That's not to excuse OS developers who leave their products ripe for abuse, but so long as reasonable steps are taken as part of the OS I wouldn't be slandering its maker - that is, unless they're promising something they know they can't deliver.
HDTV generally needs more than the standard digital cable box from a given provider. For example, Rogers Cable here in Ottawa (Canada) offers HDTV as an extra on top of the digital cable package, but instead of using the normal digital cable box you get an HDTV box (which costs more to rent). If I've read correctly you get your standard digital cable channels as well as those for HDTV.
Don't pretend you're on a higher plane of existence just because you use open-source software... Apple is a company based on profits, and OSX is a major factor in those profits. Would you rather they went bankrupt and force people to only have two real choices for an OS... and Linux requiring much more effort to use well?
In my experience, publicly claiming some sort of inherent superiority in ideals is more a confirmation of how much further you have to go.
There wouldn't be too much incentive though, since essentially it would just be a superset of id's technology in many cases. In other cases the engine makers wouldn't be in an as advantageous situation as id - Lithtech licenses are important to both Lithtech and Monolith's survival, even if the license is of an older version.
I don't doubt the usefulness of having an older engine to work with, but game developers tend to be a little more hand-to-mouth. As it stands... if there's only one game developer who open-sources their prior code, id Software might as well be it. Their code is routinely cross-platform and flexible.
That certianly seems easy enough - it's just that there's a reputation for indecipherability. Maybe I'm just longing for the days of BASIC or Logo (I can remember learning those back in elementary school)!
I suppose you're right about server usage, but it's still not entirely gaping holes in Microsoft's software. Part of it is Because It's Microsoft Syndrome; they're the big, bad corporation, and it's likened to a moral duty to ruin their software as much as possible.
I know I sound like I'm apologizing for any security holes, but I'm trying not to - honest! It's just that when a hole in a Unix-based or a 3rd-party app shows up (and, though more rarely, they do show up), little attention is paid to it.
The simple fact is that the majority of these worms and viruses are targeted at Microsoft because... well, they're Microsoft, and they hold the majority. Non-Windows users laugh, but the fact is that if most people used Linux, we'd be seeing many more attempts to exploit Apache, Mozilla, and most other Internet apps commonly used for the OS. If we all stuck to OSX we'd likely have exploits developed to attack OSX Server, Mail, Netscape, and so on.
That's not to say that Microsoft's IIS or SQL software is rock-solid, just that we wouldn't be hearing of "yet another worm" if it weren't for the worm makers' desire to cause the most damage possible. I do agree that any network admin who leaves a critical server without a password should likely incur whatever wrath is inflicted upon him as a result of it!
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the clarification - you'd think I would research this myself, but I figured that getting the answer directly might get the most accurate response (honest!).
Personally I agree about being careful about the SMTP servers; I'm just not that enthused with customers who contact me and are convinced that an ISP with tens of thousands of users in their area alone can just flick a switch and change the mail servers because they said so. It's much like the customers we get who ask for "more bandwidth" not because it's slow, but because they think they can get special treatment (and of course, they don't even think that they might have to pay for it if it's available).
Now, if a group (unofficial or not) asks a concern of theirs to be looked into by the ISP, that's one thing... but I think far too many users basically think that they own the ISP because they pay X amount of dollars per month.
Well, one thing I do know is that most of SMTP servers can't be used when you're not on the 'native' connection, and when on dial-up you usually (but not always, I've found) have to specify that you're logging into the server in your settings. That's enough to at least deter "casual" spamming.
Anyways, what's this about RFC 2505 and BCP 30? In my line of work the only concern is "open-relay" versus "closed-relay," and that's about it. My particular situation doesn't require me to work on the servers themselves.
As a tech support rep for a not-so-small ISP, I can't help but think that the shutdown of an anti-spam blacklisting service would be a good thing.
One reason is that it often feels like they're overbearing - all too eager to put an ISP on the list (regardless of the relative quantity of spam) but not so eager to take them off. I can't help but think of the blacklisting of Hollywood stars in the '50s for communist beliefs; real or just perceived, you became a scapegoat for the real source of the problem (in this case, the actual spammers).
The other and personally more important reason is that it creates unrealistic expectations of ISP response. I once had a customer who expected us (the ISP) to change the mail server over to closed-relay (I don't even know if it WAS open-relay then) simply because he - one person - could not get Bigfoot's mail forwarding to work, as they used a blacklist site that happened to include our mail servers. To someone in tech support, that's about the same as asking "can you give my modem more bandwidth?" It sounds selfish and shows the relative ignorance of the customer.
Basically, these blacklists convince people that their ISP is some sort of monster (I don't think most ISPs say "let's go open-relay so companies we don't profit from can spam people!"), and worse in that they convince users that they can get support for things the ISP doesn't operate, just because they asked about it. How many of these blacklist sites warn you that most ISPs can't support the services of other companies? Almost none (if any). How many ask you to contact your ISP if their servers are on the blacklist, regardless of where the conflict is? Probably most (if not all) of them. As a result we get customers like the one I had, who are told by the site to contact us and expect us to change a major aspect of the service just because a single person (and we've had very few people in total) said so.
Besides, how much of this actually works? I believe most of our servers are now closed-relay (that customer wasn't the impetus, of course) but customers still get all kinds of spam, and they still think it's their ISP's fault (I've had customers tell me that WE were the spammers, that we sold their e-mail addresses, and so on). On top of this we get customers who actively complain that they can't send mail from accounts with us when they're away, when they could before.
It's not absolutely dire, but really... just like McCarthy, spam blacklists can frequently pass beyond genuine concern into unhealthy paranoia.
Whether it's a legitimate case or not, I don't really care - I can't get over the Morrison & Foerster homepage. Mofo overview, mofo offices, mofo talk radio...
I wonder what the employee awards are like - Badass Mofo of the Month?
Here in Canada, we have laws preventing discrimination against people based on things such as race and gender, and it does apply to things such as hate-inciting websites - but as recent events have shown, if anything we're MORE likely to protect freedom than in the US. You don't see CSIS (our equivalent to the CIA) or the RCMP tripping over themselves to use a Carnivore-like system, for example, and I do believe that we recently protected someone AGAINST improper use of the DMCA.
Free speech is undoubtedly important, but should we allow speech made with the intent to deny that right to others? If many racists and other hate groups had their way, all people of other ethnic groups, religions, and sexual orientations would be forbidden from any participation in society (such as speech or voting). Some of these hate groups would even go so far as to deny others the satisfaction of living.
Again, I think that free speech is critical to a happy and liberated society, but I also don't want to see a friend silenced (or worse) simply because they're Asian, or Jewish, or anything else that doesn't fit someone's too-narrow interpretation of "human."
While the principle of a spam blacklist seems sound, from my own experience the hardest blows have been to the average user (and the ISP tech support that has to deal with them when they complain).
Working that tech support, I've had to deal with a few people who complained that they couldn't use a mail forwarding service, or otherwise couldn't get mail going, simply because the mail server had been put on some arbitrary blacklist with no regard for legitimate users (and given the ISP, this isn't exactly small). And yet the spam still manages to get through, somehow!
Admittedly, it isn't an overwhelming problem, but that only perpetuates it for the people who do experience it: a few reports (at best) per month, out of thousands of more pressing mail issues, are not likely to have ISPs changing their mail systems. It doesn't help that many of the people who do worry are using a 3rd-party mail service (which the ISP can't support), and that this can cause headaches for the people who want to use their ISP's mail from work (but can't get the SMTP server address for the office).
Given that the deluge of spam hasn't really been stopped, I suspect that blacklists are like plugging dam leaks with your fingers... it won't help much, and will probably cause you and others more trouble than it's worth.
It's this kind of condescension that lets Windows dominate the market unnecessarily. Do you assume that Apple's computers are for stupid people from genuine experience with the OS, or are you just generalising because it's labeled as easier to use compared to Windows or Linux (and hence doesn't seem "manly" to you)?
If you want, OSX has a Unix-based command terminal on top of the GUI. Apache is built-in for a web server (provided you aren't going to violate your ISP's terms of service with it). You can customize the Dock's size, position (including auto-hiding it), and whether it magnifies icons when you move your mouse over them. There's plenty of network configuration options if you need them.
If you're worried about hardware upgrades, get a PowerMac G4 - they have a bay expressly designed to make upgrading easy. iMacs aren't for "stupid people," they're for people who don't feel they need to upgrade except for when they get a new computer altogether. Not everyone 'needs' a new video card or hard drive every 6-12 months, or even at all. If I'm just using AppleWorks or Word, why bother?
But I'm likely making assumptions of my own, and I apologize. I'll ask you then: what, exactly, about Macs do you think makes them limited to "stupid people?" Maybe you should visit Apple's OSX site and find out. Just having lots of visual flash and a one-button mouse doesn't put your hardware or OS on a lower plane of existence.
If you believe in evolution (and you're entitled not to - it's not a concrete thing), then humans have seriously tampered with it!
:)
When you think about it, there are all kinds of social and technological catch-alls in place that allow someone to survive who isn't "fit" - mentally or physically - to do so on their own. I'm pretty sure that if you dumped most any average Slashdot visitor into the woods, they'd starve to death... likely because they forgot to eat while looking for an Ethernet jack for their laptop.
We also have a view of medicine that tries to actively "correct" bodies, even when the abnormality isn't necessarily a detriment. For example, quite a few people in the past have had six fingers on each hand - and some of those are genuinely functional. However, we often have the extra fingers removed anyways, simply because "it isn't normal." Obviously, we still respect changes such as height and strength, but anything else is viewed as "freakish."
Basically, we allow or encourage a halt in any biological advancement through all our innovations. I'm not necessarily saying that we should just toss out our technology and start hunting again - just that we shouldn't be surprised if it turns out that humans remain unchanged for a longer than usual (such as it is) time.
It's been said before in this topic, but there's no real backing apart from that prior article (which in itself isn't much evidence). I think that Comcast would likely face more trouble than it's worth if they started shutting off connections using NAT: customers that leave (as they can't afford paying, say, twice as much per month to keep their computers online), lawsuits from individual users, and even lawsuits from hardware and software makers citing concerns over anti-competitiveness(as Comcast would be forcing customers away from Linksys, D-Link et. al. to boost their own profits).
Besides, in my ISP tech support work I see this all the time: "a friend of a friend says that you're going to start charging $60 a month / cut bandwidth in half / disconnect people with routers..." and then they ask why - as though it were already a certain fact! If an ISP institutes a policy banning NAT altogether, they'll let you know. Most broadband ISPs specifically warned their users (in general) in e-mail and on their websites about Code Red well before they started cutting off individual connections, so there shouldn't be any difference here.
...and that threat is for us poor people in tech support for OTHER ISPs who might have to suddenly deal with people who are
.tar.gz file or having to login as root.
A) using Linux, and yet
B) have no idea how to use a computer.
Isn't this a fundamental contradiction of the laws of nature? I can literally see an AOL user's mind seizing up and dying when you start talking about extracting a
I wouldn't have full information, but from my own experience I can tell you that most of your contact avenues with @Home support (standard e-mail, phone, etc.) just wouldn't have that information unless it were true (and they were aware of it). It would have too serious an impact on e-mail to go unignored.
Generally, if it's only a rumour, don't contact the company asking for information; 99% of the time it's just a rumour. We get that at work (not @Home, although I subscribe to a former @Home service) all the time: people are convinced that one cable modem is faster than another (when they don't even max out the speed on either), or that they're suddenly going to get 4 Mbps speeds, or something else that doesn't have any official backing.
I'm not accusing, just noting something as both a user and a cable modem tech support rep.
...and that's the fact that the middle-class ultimately has to get *a* computer to be considered acceptable, and for many in this demographic the computer is simply a tool to get things done. They aren't hardcore gamers who need GeForce 3s to play the latest and greatest, or 3D modellers who consider a 19" monitor the bare minimum. They browse the web, type up e-mail and letters to friends and family, maybe play a few games, and (invariably these days) download music.
For them, the new iMac is likely perfect. OSX is a very visually-oriented OS and tends to avoid as little cryptic PC logic as possible. Ever had some casual user say "I didn't want the program anymore, so I deleted the folder" (not realizing that Windows still has associations with it)? On a Mac - even in OS9 - doing something so simple as that actually works! There aren't really any special rules depending on what you're doing, so there are fewer surprises for the average user.
The new iMac also helps a lot with space; the computer takes up as much of a desk footprint as many smaller monitors do. You don't have to position the computer exactly to get the monitor into a proper angle, either. Cords? There's only the cord for power and the obligatory ones for the mouse and keyboard. It's all simple and straightforward.
So, why isn't the Mac selling like mad? The sad truth is that most people just don't go to much effort in researching the computers they buy. They often gravitate towards whatever appears to be the largest computer store (or the closest), and buy whatever fits their price range and needs. Macs tend to be crowded into corners of stores, if they're there at all - and rarely are the sales clerks qualified to explain just why an 800 MHz G4 is faster than the Celeron 1200 in the next aisle, or why OSX would actually be better than Windows for what they want to do.
I find it hypocritical to say that Microsoft is horrible and that people have to look for alternatives, yet attack the most genuinely viable alternative the average person would consider. Is the only acceptable alternative (if you're trying to avoid buying Windows altogether) to custom-build a Linux or BSD PC that, as of now, wouldn't really address the problems with PCs today? I don't think so. As far as I see it, Apple's challenge isn't in hardware at all - it's overcoming marketing and the pack mentality of the PC buyer.
One thing I'm glad MS has learned (or at least hasn't botched) is to make sure that IIS isn't automatically installed with non-server editions of Windows! Just because you're a "professional" (as Windows 2000 and XP might have you believe) doesn't mean you're inclined to - or capable of - hosting a web server.
It also keeps people out of trouble with broadband ISPs; I'm sure a few people have been shocked to have their connection cut and receive a phone call because they didn't get a patch for Code Red. Likewise, it prevents "casual" hosting of web servers; if you're determined, you can do it, but most ISPs are tired of people treating their $40-a-month cable modem connection like it's worth $400 (or more!) instead. The more recent treatment of IIS will at least force this to be a deliberate move by the user.
I've noticed that it's governments, more than any other institution or demographic, that seem to latch on to Linux the most (witness adoptions in Scandinavian countries, the NSA in the States, China and so on). However, most distributions don't specifically target government at all; they generally either go after the serious Linux user or try to focus on user-friendliess (Corel and Mandrake, as examples).
What if focusing on government demands was the answer? Ask them what they want, or develop with government needs (security, administration, etc.) in mind. If you do it right it shouldn't be hard to convince a government, be it municipal, provincial/state or maybe even national, that it's in their best interest to use a very cheap OS with few security holes and entertainment-based distractions (as much as we love Solitaire).
If you can get government workers to be exposed to Linux every day at work, it would encourage them to use it at home (though some might try to avoid it if the experience is unpleasant). That would then increase the general user base and give more reason for civilians to use it (as their friends would use it).
I hate to sound like I'm marketing it, but what about DSDN? It's true that it doesn't run over existing technologies, but for 10 Mbps Internet access it's considerably cheaper than the current alternatives (such as direct fibre-optic lines) and is supposed to cost about as much for the end user as their cable or DSL ISP already does.
It's already in use in Denver as well as a section of Utah, and it's supposed to be very fast in practice - not just theory. The Denver ISP has a site at wideopenwest.com and the company that designed the technology is at switchpoint.com. Switchpoint is the one testing it in Utah as far as I know.
I also know that Slashdot has mentioned this tech before, but it bears repeating this for others; we'll never get past sub-standard cable and phoneline solutions if people don't demand alternatives.
I've heard at least one or two people here worry about HP's security in HP-LX (and HP-UX) and I have to say this: anyone who depends on their OS as the primary basis of security - at least in this day and age - is not properly looking at security in the first place.
If you are (or were) a network admin, would you host an Internet server without a firewall just because you used one OS and not another? I don't think so. Total security involves additional layers on top of the OS - firewalls, requiring passwords for many or all access points, and so on - as well as an admin that keeps up to date on security holes and works to plug them.
That's not to excuse OS developers who leave their products ripe for abuse, but so long as reasonable steps are taken as part of the OS I wouldn't be slandering its maker - that is, unless they're promising something they know they can't deliver.
HDTV generally needs more than the standard digital cable box from a given provider. For example, Rogers Cable here in Ottawa (Canada) offers HDTV as an extra on top of the digital cable package, but instead of using the normal digital cable box you get an HDTV box (which costs more to rent). If I've read correctly you get your standard digital cable channels as well as those for HDTV.
I believe Hauppauge does have an HDTV tuner for the PC:
http://www.hauppauge.com/html/products.htm#digital
You might not like that price though!
Don't pretend you're on a higher plane of existence just because you use open-source software... Apple is a company based on profits, and OSX is a major factor in those profits. Would you rather they went bankrupt and force people to only have two real choices for an OS... and Linux requiring much more effort to use well? In my experience, publicly claiming some sort of inherent superiority in ideals is more a confirmation of how much further you have to go.
There wouldn't be too much incentive though, since essentially it would just be a superset of id's technology in many cases. In other cases the engine makers wouldn't be in an as advantageous situation as id - Lithtech licenses are important to both Lithtech and Monolith's survival, even if the license is of an older version.
I don't doubt the usefulness of having an older engine to work with, but game developers tend to be a little more hand-to-mouth. As it stands... if there's only one game developer who open-sources their prior code, id Software might as well be it. Their code is routinely cross-platform and flexible.
That certianly seems easy enough - it's just that there's a reputation for indecipherability. Maybe I'm just longing for the days of BASIC or Logo (I can remember learning those back in elementary school)!
Perl? Isn't that the horribly complex programming language that people dread? Why would we want to support that? :)
Seriously, I hope it does well - regardless of your personal coding choices, Perl is used in many places and ought to be supported and improved.
I suppose you're right about server usage, but it's still not entirely gaping holes in Microsoft's software. Part of it is Because It's Microsoft Syndrome; they're the big, bad corporation, and it's likened to a moral duty to ruin their software as much as possible. I know I sound like I'm apologizing for any security holes, but I'm trying not to - honest! It's just that when a hole in a Unix-based or a 3rd-party app shows up (and, though more rarely, they do show up), little attention is paid to it.
The simple fact is that the majority of these worms and viruses are targeted at Microsoft because... well, they're Microsoft, and they hold the majority. Non-Windows users laugh, but the fact is that if most people used Linux, we'd be seeing many more attempts to exploit Apache, Mozilla, and most other Internet apps commonly used for the OS. If we all stuck to OSX we'd likely have exploits developed to attack OSX Server, Mail, Netscape, and so on.
That's not to say that Microsoft's IIS or SQL software is rock-solid, just that we wouldn't be hearing of "yet another worm" if it weren't for the worm makers' desire to cause the most damage possible. I do agree that any network admin who leaves a critical server without a password should likely incur whatever wrath is inflicted upon him as a result of it!
How is it very far behind, exactly? Have you tried installing a wireless NIC that sets itself up and connects without a reboot?
Linux is great for many things, but you're comparing apples to oranges at the moment.