Linux is a wonderfully unique environment and it always will be. You will always find crappy documentation and projects that are hacked together. The ability to hack together things quickly to fill our needs is one of the powers of Linux and one of the reasons that I use it.
However, this environment is not kind to a newbie and can be very frustrating.
I think what you will see over the next few years is better setup support and more proprietary products. The free hacker tools and projects will always be there for the techies but non-techies will have more and more well documented professional products that can be purchased.
Linux is truly a wonderful environment that is robust enough to support both open and closed source products.
Okay, after reading through the posts I think that there are a few things that need to be made clear.
1. Standardizing Linux distros does not mean that EVERYTHING would be the same. There is still room to customize. What standardizing would mean is that programmers would be reasonably sure that each distro would have a standard base from which to work. For example, as a developer I would know that I could count on certain libraries being available and that those libraries would be backward compatible so that I wouldn't have to recompile my products for each new version of a distro.
2. I would also like a standard way to handle copy/paste so that I know that other applications would have access to the data that gets copied from my product and that my product would have access to data copied from other developer's applications.
3. Standardizing Linux does not mean that we would only have one desktop. The most popular desktops are KDE and Gnome and clearly we already have programs that run on both desktops quite nicely. However, it would be a really good idea for these two rivals to get together and agree to standardize certain things, if possible, in an effort to make both desktops easier to support. This would be good for everyone.
A base standard for Linux distros would help developers develop their products and be assured that they would run hassle free on most flavors of Linux. This is good for the developers and good for the users.
Remember that no one is forced to comply with any standards but those who do will be making it easier for developers to support their distribution. I'm not sure that United Linux is the way to go but it wouldn't hurt to look at the standards that they intend to adopt.
You are correct that we need to keep doing things right. However, standardizing parts of Linux is not doing things the wrong way.
As a developer, I would like to know that I can count on certain libraries being included in the distributions for which I write code. I would also like to feel confidant that the libraries will stay backward compatible so that I don't have to keep rewriting / recompiling my products for new versions.
This doesn't mean that all distributions will be the same. It only means that there would be a 'Lowest common denominator' that programmers could count on. This is 'working smarter.'
Re:Good News
on
Mandrake News
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"we forget about people who have Sony vaio laptops and want all the buttons to function properly:) it's the little things that make the difference..."
You hit the nail right on the head there. We must must make every effort to ensure that everything works and is easy to setup. It's not always going to be possible to support every piece of hardware as there are companies who will not release the needed information.
However, We can improve in a number of ways. First of all, much of the documentation that comes with open source software really sucks. I'm an IT professional and I struggle with it. I don't see how a non-IT person would stand a chance with some of this crap. I understand that documenting a project is not fun. I hate documenting my own work but I also know that it is a very important part of a project.
Another thing that we should move toward is a standard set of libraries that all programmers can count on being there. And the API should not become incompatible from one release to another without a very good reason.
The developers of libraries should allow other developer's to purchase a license (at a reasonable price) that would allow them to link and still keep their code proprietary. I believe that some offer this but at a price of about $1,200.00. This would be an insignificant cost for a major software company if the Linux platform would support the kind of return that would allow justification. However, Linux, as of yet, doesn't have a large enough user base that is willing to pay for programs to make this price justifiable.
Joysticks should be better supported and fonts still have a way to go.
I use Linux at home for my desktop and home server but I think that we are a number of years away before Linux will be truly ready for the average home user.
"Interestingly, the offer comes at a time when state governments are showing interest in rival Linux operating system as the latter's source code is free and downloadable from the internet."
If Microsoft share's it's code with India its source will be also.:-)
"Borland, like Microsoft, also sells programming tools that allow software developers to build programs for Microsoft's.NET Internet software. But unlike Microsoft, Borland's tools allow developers to run their applications in non-Microsoft environments..."
And this I fear is the motivation. Borland sells an excellent tool called Kylix that runs on Linux. The product has two IDEs. The first is equivalent to Borland's Delphi and the second is the equivalent to Borland's C++Builder.
In fact by using these tools, companies can develop Microsoft products and easily port them to Linux. Microsoft doesn't want that on the desktop.
Remember what happened when Microsoft bought Corel shares? Corel almost immediately announced that there would be no further development on Corel Linux. Of course Corel management said that the decision had nothing to do with Microsoft's purchase. Yeah, right...
So all I've got to say is if you want to use these excellent tools you may want to buy them soon!
"An OEM copy, a route that very few firms follow when they buy servers..."
You are out of your flippin' head. Almost all firms purchase PCs in bulk that have a Microsoft OS preinstalled. I don't know of a single company that would buy hundreds or even thousands of PCs and make a separate purchase for retail versions of the OS. It's just not done. The extra cost of a retail version over what you will pay for preinstalled versions is not insignificant. Of course I have read your post in which you dispute this.
Like I said, I am an IT professional with over twenty years of experience. I am currently working in an all Microsoft environment and have watched as the cost of using Microsoft products have sky rocketed.
You on the other hand have obviously never had to manage a data center and are only parroting the Microsoft FUD that you have been given. Get with the program. Even Microsoft doesn't claim a lower TCO anymore. Oh yeah, You didn't say that Microsoft servers have a lower TCO, you said that it's a wash. And further you feel that $40,000.00 for a single license is insignificant and somehow the cumulative costs of thousands of Microsoft licenses don't significantly affect TCO.
Thank God you aren't a manager at my data center.
We use Microsoft products but we aren't clueless about the costs.
BTW, I said Apache web server but I was thinking Postgresql server. One of the reasons for wanting unlimited connections is for supplying data to web servers.
Also the $40,000.00 is just for the SQL server license. There are many more licenses and fees. Further the life expectancy of such a product is nowhere near ten years. With constant upgrades comes constant licensing fees.
Microsoft ties the license of its operating system to the hard drive so we can't just upgrade our servers and install the operating system that we have already purchased. Microsoft makes sure that with each new server box we must pay for new OS licenses. The costs just go on and on.
"Oh, uh, yeah. Well during MY support call they said "Eric Damron is a poopy head!".
What an intelligent thing to say. And by the way, The period should go inside the quotes, not outside. "Blah, blah, blah, stupid insult." Not "Blah blah blah stupid insult".
And again you don't have a clue about what size of organization would use four processor servers. $40,000.00 is a lot of money period. You could run Linux and an Apache web server for $0.00 in licensing fees and have unlimited connections so don't tell me that the costs are a wash.
And yes, having a "graybeard" and twenty plus years experience gives me a big advantage. I know how to manage a datacenter I doubt that you do.
Re:This is GOOD for Sysadmins!
on
Largo Loving Linux
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"do you mind pointing out that whitepaper?"
This was from a support call. $250 per pop btw.
Your "experience" certainly does NOT trump my twenty years of experience. The fact that you appear to be clueless as to the costs of Microsoft licensees proves that.
We purchase unlimited client licenses for our SQL server. It costs us $10,000.00 PER PROCESSOR!! So for a four-processor server we're looking at 40 grand. And that's just for the SQL server!
I suggest that you finish college before trying to pass yourself off as an administrator.
Re:This is GOOD for Sysadmins!
on
Largo Loving Linux
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"Using the average wisdom of Slashdot is a perilous exercise. The average Slashdotter knows astoundingly little about Windows development, the Windows platform, or Windows administration, although they never fail to proclaim their mastery of the same."
I work in an all Windows IT environment so your statement does not apply to me.
"Firstly, countless studies have shown that in the TCO game it is a wash"
Actually that's not correct. Linux servers are really no harder to maintain than Microsoft servers in fact due to their stability they are less troublesome. So, even if the cost of administrating them is a wash we still have licensing issues. Microsoft charges a HUGE amount for that. So TCO of a Linux network is about half of the TCO of a Windows network.
For a shop that is switching to Linux there is an initial learning curve that would drive the cost of training up but this would also be true of a Linux shop that was going to switch to Windows.
As far as your proclamation that NT 4.0 servers are stable enough never to need a reboot I say BULLSHIT! Under the advice of Microsoft we reboot at least once a month.
Quake 3 is an older game but it is still quite popular. And the point is that if games are written for Linux they need not be slow. The graphics in Quake 3 are quite intense and yet the Linux version has better frame rates than the Windows version when using OpenGL and a decent graphics card that has the correct drivers installed.
The fact that few gaming companies write native Linux code is not a reflection on the capabilities of Linux just on the current viability as a money maker. This will hopefully be chancing in the next few years and we will see many more native Linux games.
Make sure that they understand that Linux can be a great gamming PC. Be sure that you demo Linux on a decent PC with an accelerated graphic card, the correct drivers for it and then demo Quake 3.
Email services as we know it must fundamentally change. The only workable solution that I see is white listing.
I know that there are great filtering programs out there but I end up going though all of the spam anyway to make sure that I don't flush an important message. The only difference is that instead of deleting spam from my inbox, I'm deleting it from my spam folder.
I ISP needs to implement white listing on there server and it needs to be made so that list maintenance is as easy as possible.
One idea is to put a disposable 'code' word as part of the email address. emails with the correct code word would pass directly through and the sender's email address would be added to the white list automatically. The code word part could be changed by the owner at any time.
Any mail received that didn't have the correct code word OR the sender's address wasn't already white listed would be put into a queue. The ISP's server would automatically reply to the sender with a message that basically says "You are not on this person's white list. If you are not a spammer and want to be added please reply to this message with a single line in the body: X2ke34Y."
The ISPs would want to vary the above message to make it difficult for a spammer to automate the reply. Maybe "Please reply with the second word from the third sentance and the forth word from the first sentance all in caps." Anyway, you get the idea.
If the person follows the instructions and replies the queued message is forwarded and the sender's email address is added to the white list. Most spammers use faked email addresses so they won't even get the instructions. Queued emails will be held for a predetermined time period before being sent to the bit bucket.
The ISP should provide an easy way for the user to deal with the few spammers who will actually provide a legitimate email address and follow the instructions to force their spam through.
This would be a big change and a bit more of a hassle but not nearly the hassle of wading through hundreds of 'Increase the size of your penis' spams each day!
"Wrong. Executives across the country are empowered with discharging mercy where due--a breakup is a death sentence for a corporation, and Bush would be in his right to give MS a pardon to avert their breakup if he felt it was good for the country. That's his call, and if we don't like it we can pick someone else in two years."
A death sentence?? Really?? Gee I see that the Bell Telephone Co. seems to have survived a breakup. The fact is that for a company as big as Microsoft it is no "Death Sentance" at all. They should be busted up.
I completely agree with your assessment. It is not the fact that the source is closed that makes it buggy.
Although if you have a lot of people looking for bugs as it is in open source rather than a few overworked individuals that have management breathing down their backs as in many proprietary shops, I think that fewer bugs may slip through.
You are correct and it is perfectly understandable that a corporation such as Microsoft is in business to make a profit. Satisfying their customer's, putting out a good product and ensuring security are all secondary to the primary goal of profit.
One might say that if their secondary goals are not met that their primary goal of making a profit will not be met either; that all the goals are tied together. And to a point this is true.
However, only if Microsoft perceives its shoddy security as a real income killer will it spend the resources to correct the situation through better coding or lead people to believe that it has done so though a PR campaign.
The main thing that people need to remember is that Corporate America doesn't have a heart. It's only function is to make profit and morals, compassion and generosity are generally unprofitable.
It's hard to tell if an Open Source project has more security bugs than a Microsoft product being that we can't look at Microsoft's source. Hoever, with the enormous number of bugs being found in Microsoft products it's hard to believe that Open Source could be worse!
Like the saying goes: "The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!"
"(c) In this case, the name is actually deserved, as what they're fighting for is not to ban Open Source software from government contracts, but only to ensure that the US government not *require* Open Source, which would eliminate as an option most current closed software."
Really? Here is a quote from their web site:
"For many years, governments have made important contributions to technology by funding basic software research. When public funds are used to support software research and development, the innovations that result from this work should be licensed in ways that take into account both the desirability of broadly sharing those advances as well as the desirability of applying those advances to commercialized products."
The above means NO GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR GPL PROJECTS. And of course Microcrap has been spreading FUD about how if you use Linux everything you develop for it must be GPLed. A false statement but some will believe it. So Government agencies will be very reluctant to use it.
What the jerks like Adam Smith from Washington wants is for Microsoft to continue to contribute to their campaign funds. This guy is sponsoring legislation that WOULD MAKE IT ILLEGAL for tax dollars to be spent on GPL software development.
Microbrain wants to force the government to spend tax dollars on software development that it alone can use to SELL TO THE PEOPLE WHO PAID FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT!! And as a bonus throw another road block in the fically responsible GPL development.
Yeah, you and I are paying for the development costs so it is only right that we be ensured that we ALL can FREELY USE WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.
Adam Smith would have you paying for the development and then turn it over to Microsoft so that they can pretty it up, add a few vulnerabilities and make us pay for it again! I say bullshit on that!
This is just another one of Microsoft's dirty tricks. Nothing more.
If anyone from IBM is reading this it may be a good time to start fighting this rat-fuck.
Representative Adam Smith from Washington State is cosponsoring a bill that would make it illegal for Federal tax dollars to be spent on Open Source code that is under the GPL and similar licenses.
The Microsoft lobbyists are fighting hard to buy our lawmakers. Clearly Adam Smith's loyalties lie with Corporate America rather than the average American.
Please help me to convince Adam Smith and all Representatives that they should represent the average American and not just Corporate America.
His Washington D.C. Address is:
116 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
His Tacoma Address is:
1717 Pacific Avenue #2135
Tacoma, Washington 98402
I wrote him a letter laying out my concerns and he replied as follows:
Thank you for contacting me regarding open source software. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me on this important matter. Please allow me a moment to explain the situation as well as my position on this matter.
The debate over open source software revolves primarily around information security and intellectual property rights. As you may know, open source software refers to a computer program whose source code is made available to the general public to be improved or modified as the user wishes. Closed source programs are those whose source code is not made available and can only be altered by the software manufacturer. In the case of closed source software, updates to a program are usually distributed in the form of a patch or as a new version of the program that the user can install but not alter.
For some, open source software is viewed as a means to reduce an organization's dependence on the software products of a few companies while possibly improving the security and stability of one's computing infrastructure. For others, open source software is viewed as a threat to intellectual property rights with unproved cost and quality benefits. Critics of open source software suggest that it is less secure than closed source software because it allows a potential hacker to search the source code to discover and exploit flaws. Some computer security experts suggest that it is not possible to conclude that either open source or closed source software is inherently more secure.
The use of open source software by the federal government has been gaining attention as organizations continue to search for opportunities to enhance their information technology operations while containing costs. Public-private partnerships have been hallmarks of technological innovation and government has played a positive role in fostering innovation by allowing the private sector to develop commercial products from the results of publicly funded research.
During my time in Congress questions over cyber-security have been of growing concern. At the same time, it is vital that we continue to encourage and foster technological growth and new and innovative ideas.
It is my belief that cyber-security will improve if federally funded research and development is made available to Americans under intellectual property licenses that allow for further development and commercialization of that work-product.
Please be assured that I am a strong supporter of research and development and I will work hard to increase our investment in new ideas and new technology. I hope that you have found this information helpful and that I have clarified any questions you might have had.
Slashdot Mirror
I really love my hound dog but I guess for 3.2 million I could loan him to the military...
Linux is a wonderfully unique environment and it always will be. You will always find crappy documentation and projects that are hacked together. The ability to hack together things quickly to fill our needs is one of the powers of Linux and one of the reasons that I use it.
However, this environment is not kind to a newbie and can be very frustrating.
I think what you will see over the next few years is better setup support and more proprietary products. The free hacker tools and projects will always be there for the techies but non-techies will have more and more well documented professional products that can be purchased.
Linux is truly a wonderful environment that is robust enough to support both open and closed source products.
Things will get better. Hang in there.
Okay, after reading through the posts I think that there are a few things that need to be made clear.
1. Standardizing Linux distros does not mean that EVERYTHING would be the same. There is still room to customize. What standardizing would mean is that programmers would be reasonably sure that each distro would have a standard base from which to work. For example, as a developer I would know that I could count on certain libraries being available and that those libraries would be backward compatible so that I wouldn't have to recompile my products for each new version of a distro.
2. I would also like a standard way to handle copy/paste so that I know that other applications would have access to the data that gets copied from my product and that my product would have access to data copied from other developer's applications.
3. Standardizing Linux does not mean that we would only have one desktop. The most popular desktops are KDE and Gnome and clearly we already have programs that run on both desktops quite nicely. However, it would be a really good idea for these two rivals to get together and agree to standardize certain things, if possible, in an effort to make both desktops easier to support. This would be good for everyone.
A base standard for Linux distros would help developers develop their products and be assured that they would run hassle free on most flavors of Linux. This is good for the developers and good for the users.
Remember that no one is forced to comply with any standards but those who do will be making it easier for developers to support their distribution. I'm not sure that United Linux is the way to go but it wouldn't hurt to look at the standards that they intend to adopt.
You are correct that we need to keep doing things right. However, standardizing parts of Linux is not doing things the wrong way.
As a developer, I would like to know that I can count on certain libraries being included in the distributions for which I write code. I would also like to feel confidant that the libraries will stay backward compatible so that I don't have to keep rewriting / recompiling my products for new versions.
This doesn't mean that all distributions will be the same. It only means that there would be a 'Lowest common denominator' that programmers could count on. This is 'working smarter.'
"we forget about people who have Sony vaio laptops and want all the buttons to function properly:) it's the little things that make the difference..."
You hit the nail right on the head there. We must must make every effort to ensure that everything works and is easy to setup. It's not always going to be possible to support every piece of hardware as there are companies who will not release the needed information.
However, We can improve in a number of ways. First of all, much of the documentation that comes with open source software really sucks. I'm an IT professional and I struggle with it. I don't see how a non-IT person would stand a chance with some of this crap. I understand that documenting a project is not fun. I hate documenting my own work but I also know that it is a very important part of a project.
Another thing that we should move toward is a standard set of libraries that all programmers can count on being there. And the API should not become incompatible from one release to another without a very good reason.
The developers of libraries should allow other developer's to purchase a license (at a reasonable price) that would allow them to link and still keep their code proprietary. I believe that some offer this but at a price of about $1,200.00. This would be an insignificant cost for a major software company if the Linux platform would support the kind of return that would allow justification. However, Linux, as of yet, doesn't have a large enough user base that is willing to pay for programs to make this price justifiable.
Joysticks should be better supported and fonts still have a way to go.
I use Linux at home for my desktop and home server but I think that we are a number of years away before Linux will be truly ready for the average home user.
"Interestingly, the offer comes at a time when state governments are showing interest in rival Linux operating system as the latter's source code is free and downloadable from the internet."
:-)
If Microsoft share's it's code with India its source will be also.
"Borland, like Microsoft, also sells programming tools that allow software developers to build programs for Microsoft's .NET Internet software. But unlike Microsoft, Borland's tools allow developers to run their applications in non-Microsoft environments..."
And this I fear is the motivation. Borland sells an excellent tool called Kylix that runs on Linux. The product has two IDEs. The first is equivalent to Borland's Delphi and the second is the equivalent to Borland's C++Builder.
In fact by using these tools, companies can develop Microsoft products and easily port them to Linux. Microsoft doesn't want that on the desktop.
Remember what happened when Microsoft bought Corel shares? Corel almost immediately announced that there would be no further development on Corel Linux. Of course Corel management said that the decision had nothing to do with Microsoft's purchase. Yeah, right...
So all I've got to say is if you want to use these excellent tools you may want to buy them soon!
At least I would know when I'm going to crash...
"An OEM copy, a route that very few firms follow when they buy servers..."
You are out of your flippin' head. Almost all firms purchase PCs in bulk that have a Microsoft OS preinstalled. I don't know of a single company that would buy hundreds or even thousands of PCs and make a separate purchase for retail versions of the OS. It's just not done. The extra cost of a retail version over what you will pay for preinstalled versions is not insignificant. Of course I have read your post in which you dispute this.
Like I said, I am an IT professional with over twenty years of experience. I am currently working in an all Microsoft environment and have watched as the cost of using Microsoft products have sky rocketed.
You on the other hand have obviously never had to manage a data center and are only parroting the Microsoft FUD that you have been given. Get with the program. Even Microsoft doesn't claim a lower TCO anymore. Oh yeah, You didn't say that Microsoft servers have a lower TCO, you said that it's a wash. And further you feel that $40,000.00 for a single license is insignificant and somehow the cumulative costs of thousands of Microsoft licenses don't significantly affect TCO.
Thank God you aren't a manager at my data center.
We use Microsoft products but we aren't clueless about the costs.
BTW, I said Apache web server but I was thinking Postgresql server. One of the reasons for wanting unlimited connections is for supplying data to web servers.
Also the $40,000.00 is just for the SQL server license. There are many more licenses and fees. Further the life expectancy of such a product is nowhere near ten years. With constant upgrades comes constant licensing fees.
Microsoft ties the license of its operating system to the hard drive so we can't just upgrade our servers and install the operating system that we have already purchased. Microsoft makes sure that with each new server box we must pay for new OS licenses. The costs just go on and on.
"Oh, uh, yeah. Well during MY support call they said "Eric Damron is a poopy head!".
What an intelligent thing to say. And by the way, The period should go inside the quotes, not outside. "Blah, blah, blah, stupid insult." Not "Blah blah blah stupid insult".
And again you don't have a clue about what size of organization would use four processor servers. $40,000.00 is a lot of money period. You could run Linux and an Apache web server for $0.00 in licensing fees and have unlimited connections so don't tell me that the costs are a wash.
And yes, having a "graybeard" and twenty plus years experience gives me a big advantage. I know how to manage a datacenter I doubt that you do.
"do you mind pointing out that whitepaper?"
This was from a support call. $250 per pop btw.
Your "experience" certainly does NOT trump my twenty years of experience. The fact that you appear to be clueless as to the costs of Microsoft licensees proves that.
We purchase unlimited client licenses for our SQL server. It costs us $10,000.00 PER PROCESSOR!! So for a four-processor server we're looking at 40 grand. And that's just for the SQL server!
I suggest that you finish college before trying to pass yourself off as an administrator.
"Using the average wisdom of Slashdot is a perilous exercise. The average Slashdotter knows astoundingly little about Windows development, the Windows platform, or Windows administration, although they never fail to proclaim their mastery of the same."
I work in an all Windows IT environment so your statement does not apply to me.
"Firstly, countless studies have shown that in the TCO game it is a wash"
Actually that's not correct. Linux servers are really no harder to maintain than Microsoft servers in fact due to their stability they are less troublesome. So, even if the cost of administrating them is a wash we still have licensing issues. Microsoft charges a HUGE amount for that. So TCO of a Linux network is about half of the TCO of a Windows network.
For a shop that is switching to Linux there is an initial learning curve that would drive the cost of training up but this would also be true of a Linux shop that was going to switch to Windows.
As far as your proclamation that NT 4.0 servers are stable enough never to need a reboot I say BULLSHIT! Under the advice of Microsoft we reboot at least once a month.
"Several tons of snail mail spam every day might just annoy him as much as his spam annoys me," wrote one of the anti-spammers.
Ralsky is indeed annoyed. He says he's asked Bloomfield Hills attorney Robert Harrison to sue the anti-spammers."
What's the problem Alan? I'm sure that every piece of snail mail spam you are getting has an opt-out option!
Quake 3 is an older game but it is still quite popular. And the point is that if games are written for Linux they need not be slow. The graphics in Quake 3 are quite intense and yet the Linux version has better frame rates than the Windows version when using OpenGL and a decent graphics card that has the correct drivers installed.
The fact that few gaming companies write native Linux code is not a reflection on the capabilities of Linux just on the current viability as a money maker. This will hopefully be chancing in the next few years and we will see many more native Linux games.
Apparently you have never played the Linux version of Quake 3. I'm not talking about the Windows version played by using WINE.
The Linux version of Quake 3 using OpenGL runs FASTER than the Windows version. Linux can be a great gaming PC.
Me thinks that you are the one with the FUD!
Make sure that they understand that Linux can be a great gamming PC. Be sure that you demo Linux on a decent PC with an accelerated graphic card, the correct drivers for it and then demo Quake 3.
That should get their attention.
If Microsoft had used this they may not have used a butterfly as the MSN mascot.
I guess it didn't occured to the Microsoft management that using a bug for a Microsoft mascot wasn't a good idea.
"Refrigerators To Cool With Sound"
So what. I live near the Capital of Washington State. We plan on heating our homes through the use of political speeches!
Email services as we know it must fundamentally change. The only workable solution that I see is white listing.
I know that there are great filtering programs out there but I end up going though all of the spam anyway to make sure that I don't flush an important message. The only difference is that instead of deleting spam from my inbox, I'm deleting it from my spam folder.
I ISP needs to implement white listing on there server and it needs to be made so that list maintenance is as easy as possible.
One idea is to put a disposable 'code' word as part of the email address. emails with the correct code word would pass directly through and the sender's email address would be added to the white list automatically. The code word part could be changed by the owner at any time.
Any mail received that didn't have the correct code word OR the sender's address wasn't already white listed would be put into a queue. The ISP's server would automatically reply to the sender with a message that basically says "You are not on this person's white list. If you are not a spammer and want to be added please reply to this message with a single line in the body: X2ke34Y."
The ISPs would want to vary the above message to make it difficult for a spammer to automate the reply. Maybe "Please reply with the second word from the third sentance and the forth word from the first sentance all in caps." Anyway, you get the idea.
If the person follows the instructions and replies the queued message is forwarded and the sender's email address is added to the white list. Most spammers use faked email addresses so they won't even get the instructions. Queued emails will be held for a predetermined time period before being sent to the bit bucket.
The ISP should provide an easy way for the user to deal with the few spammers who will actually provide a legitimate email address and follow the instructions to force their spam through.
This would be a big change and a bit more of a hassle but not nearly the hassle of wading through hundreds of 'Increase the size of your penis' spams each day!
"Wrong. Executives across the country are empowered with discharging mercy where due--a breakup is a death sentence for a corporation, and Bush would be in his right to give MS a pardon to avert their breakup if he felt it was good for the country. That's his call, and if we don't like it we can pick someone else in two years."
A death sentence?? Really?? Gee I see that the Bell Telephone Co. seems to have survived a breakup. The fact is that for a company as big as Microsoft it is no "Death Sentance" at all. They should be busted up.
I completely agree with your assessment. It is not the fact that the source is closed that makes it buggy.
Although if you have a lot of people looking for bugs as it is in open source rather than a few overworked individuals that have management breathing down their backs as in many proprietary shops, I think that fewer bugs may slip through.
You are correct and it is perfectly understandable that a corporation such as Microsoft is in business to make a profit. Satisfying their customer's, putting out a good product and ensuring security are all secondary to the primary goal of profit.
One might say that if their secondary goals are not met that their primary goal of making a profit will not be met either; that all the goals are tied together. And to a point this is true.
However, only if Microsoft perceives its shoddy security as a real income killer will it spend the resources to correct the situation through better coding or lead people to believe that it has done so though a PR campaign.
The main thing that people need to remember is that Corporate America doesn't have a heart. It's only function is to make profit and morals, compassion and generosity are generally unprofitable.
It's hard to tell if an Open Source project has more security bugs than a Microsoft product being that we can't look at Microsoft's source. Hoever, with the enormous number of bugs being found in Microsoft products it's hard to believe that Open Source could be worse!
Like the saying goes: "The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!"
"(c) In this case, the name is actually deserved, as what they're fighting for is not to ban Open Source software from government contracts, but only to ensure that the US government not *require* Open Source, which would eliminate as an option most current closed software."
Really? Here is a quote from their web site:
"For many years, governments have made important contributions to technology by funding basic software research. When public funds are used to support software research and development, the innovations that result from this work should be licensed in ways that take into account both the desirability of broadly sharing those advances as well as the desirability of applying those advances to commercialized products."
The above means NO GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR GPL PROJECTS. And of course Microcrap has been spreading FUD about how if you use Linux everything you develop for it must be GPLed. A false statement but some will believe it. So Government agencies will be very reluctant to use it.
What the jerks like Adam Smith from Washington wants is for Microsoft to continue to contribute to their campaign funds. This guy is sponsoring legislation that WOULD MAKE IT ILLEGAL for tax dollars to be spent on GPL software development.
Microbrain wants to force the government to spend tax dollars on software development that it alone can use to SELL TO THE PEOPLE WHO PAID FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT!! And as a bonus throw another road block in the fically responsible GPL development.
Yeah, you and I are paying for the development costs so it is only right that we be ensured that we ALL can FREELY USE WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.
Adam Smith would have you paying for the development and then turn it over to Microsoft so that they can pretty it up, add a few vulnerabilities and make us pay for it again! I say bullshit on that!
This is just another one of Microsoft's dirty tricks. Nothing more.
If anyone from IBM is reading this it may be a good time to start fighting this rat-fuck.
Representative Adam Smith from Washington State is cosponsoring a bill that would make it illegal for Federal tax dollars to be spent on Open Source code that is under the GPL and similar licenses.
The Microsoft lobbyists are fighting hard to buy our lawmakers. Clearly Adam Smith's loyalties lie with Corporate America rather than the average American.
Please help me to convince Adam Smith and all Representatives that they should represent the average American and not just Corporate America.
His Washington D.C. Address is:
116 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
His Tacoma Address is:
1717 Pacific Avenue #2135
Tacoma, Washington 98402
I wrote him a letter laying out my concerns and he replied as follows:
Thank you for contacting me regarding open source software. I
appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns
with me on this important matter. Please allow me a moment to
explain the situation as well as my position on this matter.
The debate over open source software revolves primarily around
information security and intellectual property rights. As you may
know, open source software refers to a computer program whose
source code is made available to the general public to be improved
or modified as the user wishes. Closed source programs are those
whose source code is not made available and can only be altered by
the software manufacturer. In the case of closed source software,
updates to a program are usually distributed in the form of a patch
or as a new version of the program that the user can install but not
alter.
For some, open source software is viewed as a means to reduce an
organization's dependence on the software products of a few
companies while possibly improving the security and stability of
one's computing infrastructure. For others, open source software
is viewed as a threat to intellectual property rights with unproved
cost and quality benefits. Critics of open source software suggest
that it is less secure than closed source software because it allows a
potential hacker to search the source code to discover and exploit
flaws. Some computer security experts suggest that it is not
possible to conclude that either open source or closed source
software is inherently more secure.
The use of open source software by the federal government has
been gaining attention as organizations continue to search for
opportunities to enhance their information technology operations
while containing costs. Public-private partnerships have been
hallmarks of technological innovation and government has played
a positive role in fostering innovation by allowing the private
sector to develop commercial products from the results of publicly
funded research.
During my time in Congress questions over cyber-security have
been of growing concern. At the same time, it is vital that we
continue to encourage and foster technological growth and new
and innovative ideas.
It is my belief that cyber-security will improve if federally funded
research and development is made available to Americans under
intellectual property licenses that allow for further development
and commercialization of that work-product.
Please be assured that I am a strong supporter of research and
development and I will work hard to increase our investment in
new ideas and new technology. I hope that you have found this
information helpful and that I have clarified any questions you
might have had.