Stupid, stupid article. No one knows how many attacks there are. The
numbers are entirely nonsense. My guess is that whoever wrote that saw some
way to make money by saying it.
mi2g is a company that makes more money if you
think the sky is falling.
Many more stories like that, and Slashdot will stop being popular.
The article says, "But attacks on Windows/IIS systems have already dropped
by 20 per cent on last year's figures, from 11,828 to 9,404."
My guess is that attacks occur about 20 times per hour for each IP address.
That's how computers are rooted within 25 minutes of connecting to the
Internet; there are continuous attacks to find weaknesses. That's how many I
see, anyway.
That number cannot be the number of successful attacks, either. Most people
who are rooted do not report that fact to anyone. Many Windows users would not
even know they have been successfully attacked. How could they report it?
Change in subject: At the top of every article, it says, "The
Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We
are not responsible for them in any way."
This sounds like you own your comments, doesn't it? However, the OSDN Terms of Service says at section "4.
CONTENT", paragraph 6,
"In each such case, the submitting user grants OSDN the royalty-free,
perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and
license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create
derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole
or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media,
or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any
applicable Open Source Initiative-approved license."
The contract is written in such a way as to appear that it has been made
intentionally confusing. However, it looks like "comments are owned by
whoever posted them" means that, yes, you own the intellectual property
you created, but VA Software Corporation owns it too.
This appears similar to owning a car, but under the condition that someone
else can use it at any time, and without notifying you. In any case, The
Fine Print is misleading; it is not all of the fine print, although
that line at the top of each story certainly encourages you to believe it is.
I don't know about Internet attacks, but we are seeing a rise in the
number of sneaky contracts. This seems due to the presence of people with no
technical knowledge at technically oriented companies. These people cannot
contribute to the real work of the companies; all they can do is invent ways
to abuse the customer.
EULA: I've been studying their methods, and I have a sneaky contract of
my own. I agree to VA Software Corporation's sneaky contract if they agree to
mine: At any time of my choosing, VA Software Corporation will give all
managerial and financial control of the company to me.
I stand behind everything I said. I did a scan of my article with a search program and found that I said nothing about QuickEdit. This was a mistake, there is a bug in QuickEdit that I forgot to mention. I have corrected the mistake, and updated the web page; Windows XP is buggier than I had said.
Perhaps you confused QuickEdit with Fast Paste mode. I had discussed fast paste mode:
"The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft
employees say there is no plan to fix this."
This issue was confirmed in writing by a Microsoft employee, speaking officially.
Microsoft may be worse than you know:
on
MS Palladium Patent
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."
No, they didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But
Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command
line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited
capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then
it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)
The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names.
Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.
Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.
The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.
When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.
People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command
line interface DOS, and in Windows XP has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only
under DOS.
Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any
response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP,
because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people
have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.
Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.
Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:
Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
Fax Service
File Signature Verification
Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
Microsoft Application Error Reporting
Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
Microsoft Help and Support Center
Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
Microsoft Management Console
Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
Microsoft Network Availability Test
Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
MS DTC Console program
Run DLL as an app
Services and Controller app
Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies
your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect
to Microsoft computers.
These are just the ones I know. There may be others.
So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's
bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because
Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example,
as of July 7, 2002, there are 18
unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.
It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S.
government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's
law-breaking. The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on
the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.
Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information
is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the
only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the
operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.
Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows
XP: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.
Note that the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft article. So, if you have a failure, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.
Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming
network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000
server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.)
Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same
problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker.
Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor
resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do
in Windows 98.
Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a
Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it,
the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back
in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer.
Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user
less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently
intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch gave Microsoft
administrator privileges over user's computers. If users want to patch
their system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, they
must give Microsoft legal control over their machines. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper. You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.
Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.
These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.
I strongly support FreeAmp. I agree with previous posters that Open Source
lives forever but closed source often dies. Where is Harvard Graphics now, for
example? At one time it was the best in its field, now people can't remember
that it existed. Software companies often self-destruct. One day, FreeAmp will
be the best player, and only old-timers will even know that WinAmp existed,
especially considering people won't be using Windows any longer, and WinAmp
has Windows in its name.
But Open Source projects are also often self-destructive. The first step of
many Open Source projects is to pick a stupid name. Zinf? That's disgusting.
Only insiders know what it means. Everyone else has to struggle with the name
until they become an insider too.
My favorite self-destructive name is Killustrator. The originators of Apache
server tried to be self-destructive by calling their product "A patchy
server", but were saved by the fact that the same syllables sound like the
name of an American Indian tribe. A lot of open source names have been
acronyms that began with the words "Yet another".
Someone should investigate this as a social phenomenon. Why does a programmer
who is intelligent in other areas of his life start a new project and name
it "I'm an idiot"? Lack of self-esteem?
The name of a project is very important in attracting developers and users.
What writer wants to review a product named "Fussbudget"?
Even if software is free, there is still a need for marketing. Marketing is
just creating good communication between developers and users. Stupid names
are bad communication.
In the U.S., ask what company is calling. Then say "Put me on your do not call list." Say nothing more. That is very effective, since they can be sued in small claims court if they call back. Use exactly that language and nothing else, the sentence has legal meaning. This works perfectly for me.
When you are that poor your social values are almost completely overwhelmed by poverty.
The Vietnam government officials live as we and other people from the wealthy countries in the west do, showing what they truly believe. The officials are only worried about control, nothing more.
It is because of government policies like this that Vietnam is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a family income of about $390 per year. When the government is so destructive, it is difficult for people to help themselves. Source: BBC Country profile: Vietnam
Quote from the article:
Some party leaders are worried, however, that too much economic liberalisation will weaken their power base and introduce "decadent" ideas into Vietnamese society.
The "party leaders" have plenty of money, of course, and they care only about themselves.
Funny, but that's probably not the explanation. Sometimes the Slashdot software moves comments around. Maybe the one that is first now was second before.
It's not that no one at IBM knows how to set up a high-volume site. IBM just has poor management. They don't realize that something like this reflects on them more than advertisements.
A lot of people want to use Samba as a PDC. Now that we have Mozilla and Open Office and Samba DCs, there are only a few more steps to eliminating Microsoft products from business offices. I'm not against Microsoft, but they don't serve their customers very well.
Slashdot Mirror
Stupid, stupid article. No one knows how many attacks there are. The numbers are entirely nonsense. My guess is that whoever wrote that saw some way to make money by saying it.
mi2g is a company that makes more money if you think the sky is falling.
Many more stories like that, and Slashdot will stop being popular.
The article says, "But attacks on Windows/IIS systems have already dropped by 20 per cent on last year's figures, from 11,828 to 9,404."
My guess is that attacks occur about 20 times per hour for each IP address. That's how computers are rooted within 25 minutes of connecting to the Internet; there are continuous attacks to find weaknesses. That's how many I see, anyway.
That number cannot be the number of successful attacks, either. Most people who are rooted do not report that fact to anyone. Many Windows users would not even know they have been successfully attacked. How could they report it?
Change in subject: At the top of every article, it says, "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
This sounds like you own your comments, doesn't it? However, the OSDN Terms of Service says at section "4. CONTENT", paragraph 6,
"In each such case, the submitting user grants OSDN the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable Open Source Initiative-approved license."
The contract is written in such a way as to appear that it has been made intentionally confusing. However, it looks like "comments are owned by whoever posted them" means that, yes, you own the intellectual property you created, but VA Software Corporation owns it too.
This appears similar to owning a car, but under the condition that someone else can use it at any time, and without notifying you. In any case, The Fine Print is misleading; it is not all of the fine print, although that line at the top of each story certainly encourages you to believe it is.
I don't know about Internet attacks, but we are seeing a rise in the number of sneaky contracts. This seems due to the presence of people with no technical knowledge at technically oriented companies. These people cannot contribute to the real work of the companies; all they can do is invent ways to abuse the customer.
EULA: I've been studying their methods, and I have a sneaky contract of my own. I agree to VA Software Corporation's sneaky contract if they agree to mine: At any time of my choosing, VA Software Corporation will give all managerial and financial control of the company to me.
Title: "OpenBSD 3.0 Honeypot Whitepaper"
What's a white paper? In this case it isn't paper.
Are there other colors? Could he have written a gray paper? Why not go all the way and call it a purple paper?
The title of the article says, "Can we trust Microsoft's Palladium?"
This question can be answered merely by shortening the title: "Can we trust Microsoft?"
That's amazing! Why waste your time on trolling? Surely cleaning lint from your belly button is more important.
Other activities more interesting, satisfying, and productive than trolling:
Be more frou-frou than Martha Stewart: Clean all the seeds from a box of strawberries.
Count the ants in an ant colony. Give each of them a name.
Watch carefully as a seed becomes a large oak tree.
I stand behind everything I said. I did a scan of my article with a search program and found that I said nothing about QuickEdit. This was a mistake, there is a bug in QuickEdit that I forgot to mention. I have corrected the mistake, and updated the web page; Windows XP is buggier than I had said.
Perhaps you confused QuickEdit with Fast Paste mode. I had discussed fast paste mode:
"The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this."
This issue was confirmed in writing by a Microsoft employee, speaking officially.
START.EXE operates exactly as I said.
Perhaps you were just acting out your anger.
Microsoft deserves serious criticism:
Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
"I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."
No, they didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)
The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.
Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.
The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.
When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.
People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface DOS, and in Windows XP has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.
Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.
Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.
Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:
- Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
- Fax Service
- File Signature Verification
- Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
- Microsoft Application Error Reporting
- Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
- Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
- Microsoft Help and Support Center
- Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
- Microsoft Management Console
- Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
- Microsoft Network Availability Test
- Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
- MS DTC Console program
- Run DLL as an app
- Services and Controller app
- Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
- Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies
your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
- Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect
to Microsoft computers.
These are just the ones I know. There may be others.So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 7, 2002, there are 18 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.
It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking. The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.
Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.
Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.
Note that the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft article. So, if you have a failure, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.
Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000 server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.)
Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker. Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do in Windows 98.
Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer.
Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch gave Microsoft administrator privileges over user's computers. If users want to patch their system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, they must give Microsoft legal control over their machines. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper. You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.
This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS.
Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.
These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.
Corrections and additions to this comment will be posted at http://hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm
Wow, pop under ads and casino ads. Is MSNBC going out of business?
And IBM and Unisys bought a pop under ad. What could they be thinking? Has their marketing department lost what little brainpower it had?
Not ferrets. They do too much ferreting.
I strongly support FreeAmp. I agree with previous posters that Open Source lives forever but closed source often dies. Where is Harvard Graphics now, for example? At one time it was the best in its field, now people can't remember that it existed. Software companies often self-destruct. One day, FreeAmp will be the best player, and only old-timers will even know that WinAmp existed, especially considering people won't be using Windows any longer, and WinAmp has Windows in its name.
But Open Source projects are also often self-destructive. The first step of many Open Source projects is to pick a stupid name. Zinf? That's disgusting. Only insiders know what it means. Everyone else has to struggle with the name until they become an insider too.
My favorite self-destructive name is Killustrator. The originators of Apache server tried to be self-destructive by calling their product "A patchy server", but were saved by the fact that the same syllables sound like the name of an American Indian tribe. A lot of open source names have been acronyms that began with the words "Yet another".
Someone should investigate this as a social phenomenon. Why does a programmer who is intelligent in other areas of his life start a new project and name it "I'm an idiot"? Lack of self-esteem?
The name of a project is very important in attracting developers and users. What writer wants to review a product named "Fussbudget"?
Even if software is free, there is still a need for marketing. Marketing is just creating good communication between developers and users. Stupid names are bad communication.
Give the parent post that 5th point. He's right.
I agree. Mod parent up.
In the U.S., ask what company is calling. Then say "Put me on your do not call list." Say nothing more. That is very effective, since they can be sued in small claims court if they call back. Use exactly that language and nothing else, the sentence has legal meaning. This works perfectly for me.
When you are that poor your social values are almost completely overwhelmed by poverty.
The Vietnam government officials live as we and other people from the wealthy countries in the west do, showing what they truly believe. The officials are only worried about control, nothing more.
Regarding your sig: Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Austin
Is it difficult to program idiots? They don't have much memory or CPU power.
Little known information about registration: Actually, Slashdot has only 10 readers. They each have 55,000 accounts.
Could you explain more completely how to do this?
It is because of government policies like this that Vietnam is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a family income of about $390 per year. When the government is so destructive, it is difficult for people to help themselves. Source: BBC Country profile: Vietnam
Quote from the article:
Some party leaders are worried, however, that too much economic liberalisation will weaken their power base and introduce "decadent" ideas into Vietnamese society.
The "party leaders" have plenty of money, of course, and they care only about themselves.
Wow! How do you spend almost $2,000 per subscriber on an online magazine. Are they buying premium priced electrons?
This has been around a long time, and it is not nearly as amazing and interesting as Linux.
Funny, but that's probably not the explanation. Sometimes the Slashdot software moves comments around. Maybe the one that is first now was second before.
Oh well, you got the idea, anyway.
In the world of real business considerations, it is necessary to go slow. There are many requirements besides technical ones.
It's not that no one at IBM knows how to set up a high-volume site. IBM just has poor management. They don't realize that something like this reflects on them more than advertisements.
A lot of people want to use Samba as a PDC. Now that we have Mozilla and Open Office and Samba DCs, there are only a few more steps to eliminating Microsoft products from business offices. I'm not against Microsoft, but they don't serve their customers very well.
IBM's article about using Samba as a Windows Primary Domain Controller is Slashdotted. Not a good advertisement for IBM or DB2, is it?
To any IBM engineers who read this: I suggest you learn how to set up a high volume web server from the Slashdot people.