I don't know about you but I can't wait until the government adopts it for their missle controls. World War 3 will be an accident.
"Did we fire a missle?" "I said to my friend it's mighty bound ta happen in Japan and the computer thought i said make bombing happen in Japan" "Shit."
Will Verisign be around that long? Does this make sense?"
The way things are looking now with all their lawsuits and monopolistic practices, Verisign might not make it to 2005, never mind 2104.
Tivo's service will die
on
TiVo Will Die
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The idea of charging $13/mo for a programming schedule will die. I forsee that there will be so much competition for DVR's and PVR's that the service fee will keep dropping down to free.
Then, they will have a simple box to type ANY phone number or IP Address (if a network interface is present) to download from, and cable/satellite providers will give you free access to a scheduling server of some sort, and there will be a standard for these schedules.
I don't really care about the AOL Internet Service, Microsoft can buy it and crush it and spit it out to the dumpster for all I care. What I'm worried about is projects like AIM and Mozilla. Mozilla (and Netscape, another AOL product) are the biggest competitors to IE, and for good reason: they don't suck.
I rely on AIM for day to day communication, but Microsoft would simply merge it into the shitty Windows/MSN Messenger services, creating one terrible horrible disgusting network. Then they could start charging for IM too.
And they would DEFINATELY disband the Mozilla team and get rid of netscape completely. Although the Mozilla developers I imagine would pick up the browser in their spare time after work, or become sponsored by a 3rd party, it still has potential to damage Mozilla.
I wouldn't care in that case, as long as the company has the ability to set those limits.
I hate when people complain about privacy in the workplace. You're at work, the company owns the computer... not you! And if you bring in your own computer (laptop or otherwise), they still own the network you're logged on to. It's a place of business.
I admit it's rude to spy on employees while they're working, but they have all the right (and should have it) to do this.
So I don't care if my company starts using this technology. I will never buy this technology personally, because if I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars, nobody should be telling me I can't run this or that. But at work, it's not your computer anyway.
You're actually asking a question like this on slashdot? You know you're going to get Linux as your answer.
Seriously, when I first ran Windows 98 on my mom's computer, she got so frustrated with Outlook Express refusing to check her mail that she gave up using a computer several times.
After convincing her to go back, she managed to obtain a virus. She freaked and refused to use a computer again. So I installed Linux, and she has been happy ever since.
The tech support calls have been cut into a third. And when she needs help, often it's just an ISP-related problem.
Now people claim that Windows is idiot-proof and Linux is hard. Well, my mom hasn't had any problems with Linux, but was constantly frustrated with Windows. So, perhaps Linux is "idiot-proof" and Windows is difficult to use.
To many people this may be considered a troll, but I'm being serious here and the guy asking the question should take this seriously.
So grandma's just supposed to download stunnel and whip up a tunnel so she can check her email without broadcasting her password to the world?
And while she's at it, I'm sure she'll download OpenPGP and drop in some encryption. Heck, maybe she'll learn perl or C and whip up a few extensions of her own!
Ummm, no... the email client could be configured to use SSL by giving a little checkbox called "Click here to use SSL". I believe OE already does. The program can also integrate PGP encryption.
If I tell somebody to do something, and they do it incorrectly, do we rewrite the English language? If telemarketers keep calling, do we rebuild every phone network on the planet with "magic anti-telemarketer code"? Maybe we should change traffic lights because some people drive through red lights!
So, we just need a standard for authentication that works with SMTP. You just said that the problem is that there are no standards for SMTP extensions. That is not a problem with the protocol itself, but a human problem.
So, the IEEE or ISO or whoever simply needs to approve standards for these. Problem solved. A rewrite of the protocol would change nothing.
As for the security issue, well, SMTP can be tunneled through SSL. Did we reinvent HTTP to add encryption? No, we added an SSL layer on top of it. We only need to use SSL on the client side, because servers relay in plain text. But the password (or authentication data) is never relayed anyway, nor should it be. So encryption from workstation to server is all that's needed.
For encryption of the actual message, well, that doesn't even need to be an SMTP feature (although it could be). Just encrypt the message with OpenPGP or whatever you want.
So I do understand these issues, I just don't see how a protocol rewrite would help.
That doesn't justify an open relay. You should authenticate yourself to the server somehow, or restrict it to your system only. I really like SMTP-AUTH.
What exactly is wrong with SMTP exactly? It's a simple protocol.
Server: Hello, this is smtp.somesystem.com. Client: Hello, this is johndoe.myisp.com. Client: Deliver message to: janedoe@myisp.com. BEGIN MESSAGE Hey. I'm having fun in Florida. Hope to see ya soon! END MESSAGE Server: Ok, I'll give her the message.
That's pretty much how SMTP works. What could you change? How else could it work? It gives the server the information it needs to deliver... any other solution would have to do the same...
SMTP is also easy to extend without causing incompatibilies like the switch to IPv6. It's all command-based like FTP. By adding a new command, you can add a new feature. SMTP Auth, for example, works that way.
SMTP servers can add hooks as well. For example, it can be programmed to run spamassassin after receiving the message, or compare to blacklists/whitelists, or even authenticate the server through DNS or some directory scheme. The possibilities are endless.
If that happens then the person who put the code into the project should be prosecuted. Why would the accusation hurt open source?
Open source is less likely to have that problem in the first place. I mean, the code is open, so the programmer would get caught. Closed source software, on the other hand, is more likely to contain illegal code, because nobody can easily prove it, being closed and all.
After having 48 days uptime on my own desktop (until a damn power failure killed it), I can honestly say that the ONLY problem I ever have on my network is with Windows networking. Especially when it comes to printing to SMB printers using Samba. Windows likes to randomly lock people out (my dad insists on using Windows, while my mom and I both run strictly Linux.)
I've never had to troubleshoot any connectivity problems or software problems, because I build everything right the first time. My router (also running Linux) has almost 5 months uptime. I never touch it. Why should I? I NEVER have problems with it.
But I'm always wasting time fixing Windows and Windows-related services.
Yea, the company I work for still runs Win95, 98, and NT4. We only have 1 Windows 2000 system.
Since they all work just fine (although they are slowwww sometimes), there is no reason to upgrade. We're on a secure network, so security patches are of very little concern (yea, I know inside users can be a threat, but hey, it's not my network!)
I blame Bill Gates for it. He and Microsoft designed the "Zero Administration" thing so Windows never has to be administered. Now companies can lay off their entire IT department and just hire 1 guy at minimum wage to sit in a wooden chair and click "Re-image System" every 2 hours. Then their systems fail due to Microsoft bug exploits and they lose all their customers. They then go out of business and even that mimimum-wage guy is now out of a job.
Re:My ultimate answer to DRM is to keep my radio..
on
Who Needs Radio?
·
· Score: 1
Until congress bans radios because they violate some stupid new law that everybody will hate, but allow it to pass anyway.
So you mean those who produce and distribute good music will become successful and those who produce and distribute crap will have to find another hobby? What kind of a country do you think we live in?!
Doesn't SCO ship GNU software (Samba is what I'm thinking of) with their UNIX system? They use a license that they are claiming to be unconstitutional?
First of all, I'd like them to explain which part of the constitution it violates. Secondly, if they could prove it does... I'd like to see them get sued for breaking the law!
Putting laws and restrictions on their business practices puts them on fair ground with the rest of the industry. They can still win. But if they win then, it's fair (or so we can hope). But not letting them have a certain market share is Unamerican. As long as they play on fair grounds (either willfully or by force), they should be given a chance to succeed.
If we restrict their market share, then what is the point of staying in business? The government won't let you be successful, so why try?
You cannot force market share. That defeats the point of business. Don't get me wrong. I hate Microsoft as much as the next person, but you can't tell them not to succeed. The government should ban their licensing restrictions and OEM dealerships and all their abuses of the monopoly. That way Microsoft will be on fair grounds.
Then, if Windows wins in the market place... it's because people WANT Windows, not because they NEED Windows.
What you've proposed is like catching somebody cheating in a race. Then you allow that person to continue racing, under the condition that they don't win. What's the point then? As long as they win *FAIRLY*, they can do what they want...
Here's my independant study, which is not biased in anyway towards either system.
Here are my test systems and benchmark results:
System 1 - Windows 2003 Server 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM and a RAID array of SCSI drives 100Mbit Ethernet connection.
System 2 - Windows XP Professional 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 with 512 MB of RAM and a 7200 RPM Serial-ATA drive 100Mbit Ethernet connection.
Here are my results of downloading a 500 MB file from the server using CIFS:
Time it took to recognize the system: 30 seconds
Time it took to transfer the file: 3 minutes
Now, with Samba:
System 1 - Redhat Linux 9 with a Pentium Pro and 32 MB of RAM 10Mbit ethernet connection
System 2 - Redhat Linux 9 with an AMD K6-2 200 MHz, 48 MB of RAM, and a 10 Mbit ethernet connection
Here are my results of downloading a 500 MB file from the server using CIFS:
Time it took to recognize the system: 3 minutes
Time it took to transfer the file: 2 and a half hours
Now there's proof that Windows Sever 2003 is significantly faster than Redhat Linux w/ Samba.
I think, that simply, they're waiting to see what happens. The RIAA is doing exactly what the MPAA probably wants to do as well. So they're letting them go first, to see how it works. If the RIAA gets shot down in court and loses lots of money when the judge decides to grant people rights, the MPAA won't be enthustiastic about doing the same.
On the other hand, if the RIAA succeeds and dominates the world, then the MPAA can step in and do the same. So they're watching us and studying us.
They're not thieves, they're copyright infringers. A thief is someone who takes something away from its rightful owner without their permission. When you download on Kazaa, the file is offered to you, and the originator retains a copy of it. Get it right.
And besides, most people who download music also buy music. Therefore, they are customers.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you but I can't wait until the government adopts it for their missle controls. World War 3 will be an accident.
"Did we fire a missle?"
"I said to my friend it's mighty bound ta happen in Japan and the computer thought i said make bombing happen in Japan"
"Shit."
Will Verisign be around that long? Does this make sense?"
The way things are looking now with all their lawsuits and monopolistic practices, Verisign might not make it to 2005, never mind 2104.
The idea of charging $13/mo for a programming schedule will die. I forsee that there will be so much competition for DVR's and PVR's that the service fee will keep dropping down to free.
Then, they will have a simple box to type ANY phone number or IP Address (if a network interface is present) to download from, and cable/satellite providers will give you free access to a scheduling server of some sort, and there will be a standard for these schedules.
I don't really care about the AOL Internet Service, Microsoft can buy it and crush it and spit it out to the dumpster for all I care. What I'm worried about is projects like AIM and Mozilla. Mozilla (and Netscape, another AOL product) are the biggest competitors to IE, and for good reason: they don't suck.
I rely on AIM for day to day communication, but Microsoft would simply merge it into the shitty Windows/MSN Messenger services, creating one terrible horrible disgusting network. Then they could start charging for IM too.
And they would DEFINATELY disband the Mozilla team and get rid of netscape completely. Although the Mozilla developers I imagine would pick up the browser in their spare time after work, or become sponsored by a 3rd party, it still has potential to damage Mozilla.
I wouldn't care in that case, as long as the company has the ability to set those limits.
I hate when people complain about privacy in the workplace. You're at work, the company owns the computer... not you! And if you bring in your own computer (laptop or otherwise), they still own the network you're logged on to. It's a place of business.
I admit it's rude to spy on employees while they're working, but they have all the right (and should have it) to do this.
So I don't care if my company starts using this technology. I will never buy this technology personally, because if I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars, nobody should be telling me I can't run this or that. But at work, it's not your computer anyway.
You're actually asking a question like this on slashdot? You know you're going to get Linux as your answer.
Seriously, when I first ran Windows 98 on my mom's computer, she got so frustrated with Outlook Express refusing to check her mail that she gave up using a computer several times.
After convincing her to go back, she managed to obtain a virus. She freaked and refused to use a computer again. So I installed Linux, and she has been happy ever since.
The tech support calls have been cut into a third. And when she needs help, often it's just an ISP-related problem.
Now people claim that Windows is idiot-proof and Linux is hard. Well, my mom hasn't had any problems with Linux, but was constantly frustrated with Windows. So, perhaps Linux is "idiot-proof" and Windows is difficult to use.
To many people this may be considered a troll, but I'm being serious here and the guy asking the question should take this seriously.
So grandma's just supposed to download stunnel and whip up a tunnel so she can check her email without broadcasting her password to the world?
And while she's at it, I'm sure she'll download OpenPGP and drop in some encryption. Heck, maybe she'll learn perl or C and whip up a few extensions of her own!
Ummm, no... the email client could be configured to use SSL by giving a little checkbox called "Click here to use SSL". I believe OE already does. The program can also integrate PGP encryption.
If I tell somebody to do something, and they do it incorrectly, do we rewrite the English language? If telemarketers keep calling, do we rebuild every phone network on the planet with "magic anti-telemarketer code"? Maybe we should change traffic lights because some people drive through red lights!
So, we just need a standard for authentication that works with SMTP. You just said that the problem is that there are no standards for SMTP extensions. That is not a problem with the protocol itself, but a human problem.
So, the IEEE or ISO or whoever simply needs to approve standards for these. Problem solved. A rewrite of the protocol would change nothing.
As for the security issue, well, SMTP can be tunneled through SSL. Did we reinvent HTTP to add encryption? No, we added an SSL layer on top of it. We only need to use SSL on the client side, because servers relay in plain text. But the password (or authentication data) is never relayed anyway, nor should it be. So encryption from workstation to server is all that's needed.
For encryption of the actual message, well, that doesn't even need to be an SMTP feature (although it could be). Just encrypt the message with OpenPGP or whatever you want.
So I do understand these issues, I just don't see how a protocol rewrite would help.
That doesn't justify an open relay. You should authenticate yourself to the server somehow, or restrict it to your system only. I really like SMTP-AUTH.
What exactly is wrong with SMTP exactly? It's a simple protocol.
Server: Hello, this is smtp.somesystem.com.
Client: Hello, this is johndoe.myisp.com.
Client: Deliver message to: janedoe@myisp.com.
BEGIN MESSAGE
Hey. I'm having fun in Florida. Hope to see ya soon!
END MESSAGE
Server: Ok, I'll give her the message.
That's pretty much how SMTP works. What could you change? How else could it work? It gives the server the information it needs to deliver... any other solution would have to do the same...
SMTP is also easy to extend without causing incompatibilies like the switch to IPv6. It's all command-based like FTP. By adding a new command, you can add a new feature. SMTP Auth, for example, works that way.
SMTP servers can add hooks as well. For example, it can be programmed to run spamassassin after receiving the message, or compare to blacklists/whitelists, or even authenticate the server through DNS or some directory scheme. The possibilities are endless.
If that happens then the person who put the code into the project should be prosecuted. Why would the accusation hurt open source?
Open source is less likely to have that problem in the first place. I mean, the code is open, so the programmer would get caught. Closed source software, on the other hand, is more likely to contain illegal code, because nobody can easily prove it, being closed and all.
(maybe i'm just not as fast as ya'll)
Hmmm... yea, guess you are kind of slow. I configured my linux box in about 10 minutes.
After having 48 days uptime on my own desktop (until a damn power failure killed it), I can honestly say that the ONLY problem I ever have on my network is with Windows networking. Especially when it comes to printing to SMB printers using Samba. Windows likes to randomly lock people out (my dad insists on using Windows, while my mom and I both run strictly Linux.)
I've never had to troubleshoot any connectivity problems or software problems, because I build everything right the first time. My router (also running Linux) has almost 5 months uptime. I never touch it. Why should I? I NEVER have problems with it.
But I'm always wasting time fixing Windows and Windows-related services.
Yea, the company I work for still runs Win95, 98, and NT4. We only have 1 Windows 2000 system.
Since they all work just fine (although they are slowwww sometimes), there is no reason to upgrade. We're on a secure network, so security patches are of very little concern (yea, I know inside users can be a threat, but hey, it's not my network!)
I blame Bill Gates for it. He and Microsoft designed the "Zero Administration" thing so Windows never has to be administered. Now companies can lay off their entire IT department and just hire 1 guy at minimum wage to sit in a wooden chair and click "Re-image System" every 2 hours. Then their systems fail due to Microsoft bug exploits and they lose all their customers. They then go out of business and even that mimimum-wage guy is now out of a job.
Until congress bans radios because they violate some stupid new law that everybody will hate, but allow it to pass anyway.
So you mean those who produce and distribute good music will become successful and those who produce and distribute crap will have to find another hobby? What kind of a country do you think we live in?!
Because they don't want a whole CD. Perhaps they want songs from various CD's.
Doesn't SCO ship GNU software (Samba is what I'm thinking of) with their UNIX system? They use a license that they are claiming to be unconstitutional?
First of all, I'd like them to explain which part of the constitution it violates. Secondly, if they could prove it does... I'd like to see them get sued for breaking the law!
*evil stare* Excellent!
Putting laws and restrictions on their business practices puts them on fair ground with the rest of the industry. They can still win. But if they win then, it's fair (or so we can hope). But not letting them have a certain market share is Unamerican. As long as they play on fair grounds (either willfully or by force), they should be given a chance to succeed.
If we restrict their market share, then what is the point of staying in business? The government won't let you be successful, so why try?
You cannot force market share. That defeats the point of business. Don't get me wrong. I hate Microsoft as much as the next person, but you can't tell them not to succeed. The government should ban their licensing restrictions and OEM dealerships and all their abuses of the monopoly. That way Microsoft will be on fair grounds.
Then, if Windows wins in the market place... it's because people WANT Windows, not because they NEED Windows.
What you've proposed is like catching somebody cheating in a race. Then you allow that person to continue racing, under the condition that they don't win. What's the point then? As long as they win *FAIRLY*, they can do what they want...
Here's my independant study, which is not biased in anyway towards either system.
Here are my test systems and benchmark results:
System 1 - Windows 2003 Server 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM and a RAID array of SCSI drives 100Mbit Ethernet connection.
System 2 - Windows XP Professional 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 with 512 MB of RAM and a 7200 RPM Serial-ATA drive 100Mbit Ethernet connection.
Here are my results of downloading a 500 MB file from the server using CIFS:
Time it took to recognize the system: 30 seconds
Time it took to transfer the file: 3 minutes
Now, with Samba:
System 1 - Redhat Linux 9 with a Pentium Pro and 32 MB of RAM 10Mbit ethernet connection
System 2 - Redhat Linux 9 with an AMD K6-2 200 MHz, 48 MB of RAM, and a 10 Mbit ethernet connection
Here are my results of downloading a 500 MB file from the server using CIFS:
Time it took to recognize the system: 3 minutes
Time it took to transfer the file: 2 and a half hours
Now there's proof that Windows Sever 2003 is significantly faster than Redhat Linux w/ Samba.
I think, that simply, they're waiting to see what happens. The RIAA is doing exactly what the MPAA probably wants to do as well. So they're letting them go first, to see how it works. If the RIAA gets shot down in court and loses lots of money when the judge decides to grant people rights, the MPAA won't be enthustiastic about doing the same.
On the other hand, if the RIAA succeeds and dominates the world, then the MPAA can step in and do the same. So they're watching us and studying us.
They're not thieves, they're copyright infringers.
A thief is someone who takes something away from its rightful owner without their permission. When you download on Kazaa, the file is offered to you, and the originator retains a copy of it. Get it right.
And besides, most people who download music also buy music. Therefore, they are customers.