Everybody was so busy with the stain on Lewinsky's dress that I think he signed it into law because he didn't want to create a stir. Also, he was ignorant of its true implications.
They're not including the BIOS in the OS, they're including the OS in the BIOS. The BIOS needs to be in a predefined place, so the motherboard can boot the system. So you can't have the BIOS on the hard drive.
I believe they'll follow the approach other proprietary computers use: embedding the kernel on a ROM chip. The BIOS and OS are one and the same. As a result, you can't simply change your OS, you'll have to flash your BIOS, which is dangerous and could permantly damage your motherboard. And Microsoft will likely remove the ability to flash the BIOS, so Windows will be the ONLY thing that can run.
The only reason you can install an alternate operating system on a PC now is because the BIOS is independant. The BIOS boots on its own, then scans the system for an operating system. Microsoft's BIOS won't do this, it will boot directly into Windows...
When IBM originally developed the PC, one of the basic concepts behind it was the separation of the BIOS (on a ROM chip) and the operating system (which should go on a writable drive). They won't be happy about this.
Hopefully, motherboard manufacturers will see the terror in this and use a different BIOS in their boards. But if not, then I will defect to Apple. I've always thought OS X was nice...
But let's look on the bright side. Linux users are always complaining about dependancy hell. Now Windows is worse, because the kernel depends on certain BIOS chips!
I'll admit that I am a Microsoft hater. However, unlike most slashdotters who have the "open source good, microsoft bad" slogan as their religion, I am not ignorant (or at least try not to be, heh).
So here's my opinion on this lawsuit. Microsoft creates bad software. It has done a severe amount of harm to the world. However, it only does that harm because people allow it to. Most people know how insecure Windows is, but they insist on using it anyway. I have no sympathy for them when they whine "wheh wheh wheh, i hate viruses".
However, they have committed no crimes. As much as I hate the company, they have all the right in the world to create shitty software. They only continue to do it, because there is demand for it. Supply-and-demand is no crime. As much as I'd love to see Microsoft get sued into the next millenium, let's have it be for an actual crime?
*cough* anti-trust *cough* (Wait, they were sued into the next millenium for anti-trust, literally!)
As a citizen of Mass. myself, I can't help but laugh at the stupidity of this! How is it a monopoly?
A monopoly is when a single company takes control of an industry and prevents competitors from doing business. What company is taking control? RedHat? MandrakeSoft? SuSE? None that I know of.
How is competition being blocked? They could switch to a propietary system. The IT guy decided to ban propietary software and use Linux. Well, he's the IT guy for a reason. He's paid to make these educated decisions. But he could always change his mind... The governor could fire him and use Windows. He's the Chief Information Officer, not the Pope! So let the guy do his job.
And I'm not going to comment on "Linux" being a monopoly and Microsoft not! That's another topic in itself.
"Your unauthorized website offers class members the opportunity to submit claims under the Microsoft settlement and obtain an "Instant Settlement" that they may use to purchase between $50 to $100 worth of Lindows software."
Hold up. How is a web site unauthorized? Are they trying to tell me that I need permission to create a web site? Microsoft doesn't completely control the web yet, come on now. Maybe I'm dreaming again, but I could have sworn the first ammendment mentioned something about free speech...
Perhaps the web site encourages fraud. Saying "drugs are cool, you should get high" encourages people to use illegal drugs, but where in the constitution does it forbid me from saying that?
You'd think they would have phrased their letter better. I mean they have a huge team of lawyers.
Too bad I already posted on this thread. I want to mod this one up.
I whole-heartedly agree. Many Linux-freaks bitch and moan 24x7 about how they hate Windows because all the games run on it and Microsoft monopolized it, yadda yadda.
Yes, Microsoft monopolized the software industry. But the only power they have is what you give them. Valve only writes for Windows because "everybody uses Windows" (or so they think). If everybody contacts Valve expressing interest in a Linux port, they'll realize there is actually a profit, and they will port. Microsoft will lose their monopoly when the people take it away from them by seeking other products.
There is nothing in Office 2003 which FORCES DRM signing on documents.
There is nothing in Office 2003 & Windows Server 2003 that is particularly malicious (unless you think signing all your documents with DES or your PGP key or so is malicious)
There is nothing to stop OpenOffice from reading ANY unencrypted documents, apart from just not interpreting features right (which means it will open Word docs just as well or badly as it did always..)
I, and probably most people, don't care about the encryption itself. Encryption can be a good thing. A very good thing. It's how they implement and authorize the encryption.
This is another one of those whines a lot of Geeks have that they think that somehow their rights are being infringed just because someone has the ability to stop them reading a document - or at least encourage them not to.
The same way they whine that "cctv cameras infringe on my civil liberties!" when what they really mean is "cctv cameras mean I can't get away with mugging old ladies!" and the classic "public non-smoking laws discriminate against smokers!" when really they mean "It's my God-given American right to cause lung cancer in my fellow human beings!"
I don't mug old ladies, but I don't like the idea of having cameras watch me. I understand why they do that, and I accept it. But I don't like it. When my company installed a CCTV camera at work, I wanted to protest. I have a right to privacy. (Fortunately, it was a temporary thing while they tested their DVR.) Non-smoking areas are different, because second-hand smoke is hazardous to one's health. Letting people have their privacy, however, is not.
Give it up. Most businesses would literally give the right wing of their office block to be able to stop people from reading other peoples' performance reviews, or to stop their secret info leaking into the hands of competitors, or negotiation meeting minutes being published on Slashdot.
I'm sure they would. You don't need to lockout OpenOffice, KOffice, etc. to accomplish that. If you don't want confidential information getting out, THEN DON'T GIVE IT OUT!
.. since it's bound to be integrated into the Active Directory, too, (why else would you need 2K3 server?) which means when people quit your company and you delete their account, they lose all access to those documents too. Sounds like a great idea.
No, not a good idea. Then people who don't run Active Directory can't view documents. And why do you need DRM and encryption to delete files. Last I checked, if you delete an account, you can't access it. I mean, how do you access something that's not there?
"wah wah Microsoft are stopping me from building my retirement fund by selling company secrets to someone else!!!"
There are nefarious purposes you could use it for though.. like, making sure your equivalent to the "Halloween Document" is unreadable, or auto-destruct capability for those spreadsheets that show much it'll cost to drive a rival browser company into the ground. But that stuff happens even without DRM, and they manage to prove it happens and win in court by other means than bringing up petty emails and Word documents.
If OpenOffice had gotten this first, nobody would be complaining.
I'd be complaining. Please don't use terms like nobody or everybody if you don't have statistics. You don't represent me.
And of course.. what's the betting that OpenOffice can actually use a standard Windows DRM/IRM API at some point to unencrypt documents based on their Windows 2003 Server authentication and signature key?
Developing a License Provider Service for Windows Media Encoder
Getting Started with Windows Media Rights Manager SDK
Looks relatively public to me. No less public than the new PKZIP encryption extensions:)
Hell, why doesn't someone talk to Microsoft and ask if they can use the API for interoperability purposes? It's not breaking the DMCA if they let y
Microsoft has done it again! A fabulous new feature! A word processor that creates documents that other people can't read. It's ingenious!!! I wish I thought of it first =( I guess it's back to my little corner...
General Electric has announced that they will begin producing bread. This bread will have special ingrediants so that it only works in GE toasters.
If you use non-GE bread, your toast will come out over-cooked, so it is highly recommended that you buy the new bread from GE, which costs $30 a loaf.
If you attempt to mix a slice of their bread with a slice of Wonder bread (such as you only have 1 slice of GE bread left), you will be in violation of the Gormet Millenium Copyright Act of 2010, and could be fined up to $30,000.
General Electic will also be shipping all new toasters with titanium alloys. This innovative feature ensures safety by preventing people from trying to open their toaster when it stops working. To improve user friendliness, the toasters will lock onto the power cords and secure them, so users will be unable to accidently unplug their toasters and become confused about why it isn't toasting.
If I hear one more company complain about how the GPL is "un-American" or "destroys software value" I am going to lose my mind. I'm sick of it.
The GPL is not a life-altering commitment for all man-kind. It's A FUCKING SOFTWARE LICENSE! The developer and/or maintainer of a project decides how they want to license it. If SCO doesn't like the GPL, well, nobody every said they had to use it.
I understand why SCO, Microsoft, and even Sun don't like the GPL. I respect their opinion, but the people who use the GPL are also entitled to their own opinion. If they want to use the GPL, good for them, it's their god given right.
I mean, I personally don't like the way Microsoft licenses their software. But I don't make outrageous claims like it destroys the value of sofware and intellectual property. So it sucks, I deal. If you're developing the software for the purpose of making money, and you feel the GPL is inappropriate for it, well, then by all means, use a better license.
But stop trying to bash Linux users because you don't like the way the programmers license their code. Tough shit. It's good ol' fashioned freedom. Now deal with it.
Sadly, it's not just broadband connections. I've gotten Messenger spam on dialup. ISP's really should block the netbios port internally. Not only would that stop people from sending messenger spam, it would stop people from exploiting flaws in Windows and sending nude pics to somebody else's printer.
One word: RPM. The only single thing that bothers me about RedHat. If they'd move to a better system, I'd fall in love all over again. But it's not just dependancies, I can deal with that. Has anybody else had RPM totally lock up on you while installing/upgrading packages? Not only does it lock up, but if you re-run it again, it doesn't work unless you delete some lock files in/var. GRRRRRRR!
Also, I'd REALLY like to see some *runtime* autodetection in XFree86. Example: I unplug my monitor and plug in a new one. X will automatically detect the new one and change the internal configuration. Example: I have a PS/2 mouse, but I plug in a USB mouse temporarily. X should enable the USB mouse so I can use both if I want to.
I mean, video cards are internal controllers that rarely change. So I understand having to specify or scan for those. But monitors and peripherals should be picked up at runtime.
I agree. Fortunately, we're in the day where all distros are implementing (or already have done so) graphical boot screens.
If you need to see those messages again after bootup, you can check the file/var/log/bootlog. Just a little tip I picked up somewhere that I find very useful.
Re:Embrace and Extend (sorta)
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
I agree. Designing a whole new protocol is a waste of time. I happen to like the SMTP protocol. Why fix it if it ain't broke?
When a new feature is needed, like you said, add an extension to the protocol like ESMTP.
I think the reason people are supporting the idea of a new protocol is because they want to fight spam. But spam isn't caused by a flaw in SMTP. Spam is nothing more than a message somebody doesn't want. How does the server know if the human being is going to enjoy reading the message? It doesn't! Nor should it. The job of SMTP is to deliver (or relay) the message, nothing more. Spam fighting tools belong at the delivery level, not the network level.
Don't get me wrong. I hate spam as much as the next person. I just don't think a new protocol would change anything. I prefer SpamAssassin.
It's so nice to see an intelligent comment like this. Most people have succumbed to the Microsoft monopoly so much that they have become hypocrites.
"Linux needs to be more compatible with Windows networks". "Linux needs to support Word documents" "Linux can't even run.EXE files"
The fact is, Windows has crappy support for Linux networks, it doesn't support OpenOffice documents, nor can it run ELF files. Yet nobody complains about that.
I think if Microsoft converted their file sharing system to using NFS or FTP, we'd be in good shape.
If you're thinking "But what about documents? MS Office doesn't support OO files!". Well, there's a Windows version of OpenOffice. If a company wants full interopability with OpenOffice (it supports word documents anyway, so this isn't a big issue IMO, but others will disagree with me), then they can use Open Office instead of Microsoft Office. Then everything is guaranteed to be 100% compatible. If they insist on using Microsof Office only, then they have no right to complain! It's their decision to make. Don't blame Linux because you made the wrong decision, just accept it.
There's an even better solution that is guaranteed to terminate a TCP/IP connection. I unplug the NIC from my switch. I mean, how can data flow from one computer to another, if they aren't connected?
It depends on how you look at it. A linux firewall is essentially the same as say, a Cisco router, except with Linux you have a full-fledged PC with a full OS, Cisco, Linksys, and the others use small hardware with a shrinked-down OS to route.
In fact, I believe Linksys routers use Linux (and presumably iptables, but who knows...). So, in effect, there is no difference. I use an old IBM Aptiva as my home router, it just costs me some more space.
How can a kernel be bankrupt? It manages processes and devices, not money! If he doesn't know that then its no wonder Windows is where it is today.
Oh, maybe he meant the Linux distributors like RedHat, MandrakeSoft, etc. Now how are they bankrupt if they have money? I fail to understand this logic... MandrakeSoft may be having some financial problems, but they are improving, and they are not bankrupt.
And Microsoft doesn't have a community. They have a legion of idiot users who they continually rip off who don't realize who they are giving their money too. As sad as it is, stupid people are the ones who run the market. By being ignorant people give in to the evil they so hate.
There's my 2 cents. This is probably my last post for a while, as I am getting frustrated with Slashdot posting articles every time Ballmer opens his mouth. The guy can't piss without slashdot being there.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, sueing our friends would just be morally wrong. Let's sue our customers instead.
Everybody was so busy with the stain on Lewinsky's dress that I think he signed it into law because he didn't want to create a stir. Also, he was ignorant of its true implications.
See? Ignorance really is bliss!
They're not including the BIOS in the OS, they're including the OS in the BIOS. The BIOS needs to be in a predefined place, so the motherboard can boot the system. So you can't have the BIOS on the hard drive.
I believe they'll follow the approach other proprietary computers use: embedding the kernel on a ROM chip. The BIOS and OS are one and the same. As a result, you can't simply change your OS, you'll have to flash your BIOS, which is dangerous and could permantly damage your motherboard. And Microsoft will likely remove the ability to flash the BIOS, so Windows will be the ONLY thing that can run.
The only reason you can install an alternate operating system on a PC now is because the BIOS is independant. The BIOS boots on its own, then scans the system for an operating system. Microsoft's BIOS won't do this, it will boot directly into Windows...
When IBM originally developed the PC, one of the basic concepts behind it was the separation of the BIOS (on a ROM chip) and the operating system (which should go on a writable drive). They won't be happy about this.
Hopefully, motherboard manufacturers will see the terror in this and use a different BIOS in their boards. But if not, then I will defect to Apple. I've always thought OS X was nice...
But let's look on the bright side. Linux users are always complaining about dependancy hell. Now Windows is worse, because the kernel depends on certain BIOS chips!
rpm -ivh win32_6.0
error: motherboard "XX-YYY" >= xx.yy required
I'll admit that I am a Microsoft hater. However, unlike most slashdotters who have the "open source good, microsoft bad" slogan as their religion, I am not ignorant (or at least try not to be, heh).
So here's my opinion on this lawsuit. Microsoft creates bad software. It has done a severe amount of harm to the world. However, it only does that harm because people allow it to. Most people know how insecure Windows is, but they insist on using it anyway. I have no sympathy for them when they whine "wheh wheh wheh, i hate viruses".
However, they have committed no crimes. As much as I hate the company, they have all the right in the world to create shitty software. They only continue to do it, because there is demand for it. Supply-and-demand is no crime. As much as I'd love to see Microsoft get sued into the next millenium, let's have it be for an actual crime?
*cough* anti-trust *cough* (Wait, they were sued into the next millenium for anti-trust, literally!)
As a citizen of Mass. myself, I can't help but laugh at the stupidity of this! How is it a monopoly?
A monopoly is when a single company takes control of an industry and prevents competitors from doing business. What company is taking control? RedHat? MandrakeSoft? SuSE? None that I know of.
How is competition being blocked? They could switch to a propietary system. The IT guy decided to ban propietary software and use Linux. Well, he's the IT guy for a reason. He's paid to make these educated decisions. But he could always change his mind... The governor could fire him and use Windows. He's the Chief Information Officer, not the Pope! So let the guy do his job.
And I'm not going to comment on "Linux" being a monopoly and Microsoft not! That's another topic in itself.
"I'm very curious if other Slashdot readers have become dependent on the Internet to that level, and what their thoughts are on the subject."
That's like asking a zookeeper if he likes animals. Or like asking a prostitute if they like money and sex.
"Your unauthorized website offers class members the opportunity to submit claims under the Microsoft settlement and obtain an "Instant Settlement" that they may use to purchase between $50 to $100 worth of Lindows software."
Hold up. How is a web site unauthorized? Are they trying to tell me that I need permission to create a web site? Microsoft doesn't completely control the web yet, come on now. Maybe I'm dreaming again, but I could have sworn the first ammendment mentioned something about free speech...
Perhaps the web site encourages fraud. Saying "drugs are cool, you should get high" encourages people to use illegal drugs, but where in the constitution does it forbid me from saying that?
You'd think they would have phrased their letter better. I mean they have a huge team of lawyers.
Too bad I already posted on this thread. I want to mod this one up.
I whole-heartedly agree. Many Linux-freaks bitch and moan 24x7 about how they hate Windows because all the games run on it and Microsoft monopolized it, yadda yadda.
Yes, Microsoft monopolized the software industry. But the only power they have is what you give them. Valve only writes for Windows because "everybody uses Windows" (or so they think). If everybody contacts Valve expressing interest in a Linux port, they'll realize there is actually a profit, and they will port. Microsoft will lose their monopoly when the people take it away from them by seeking other products.
Because some of us like Linux. Heh, stupid questions yield stupid answers.
Personally, I don't like having to close all my windows and reboot my entire system to play a game. I'd prefer to run it natively in Linux.
There is nothing in Office 2003 which FORCES DRM signing on documents. There is nothing in Office 2003 & Windows Server 2003 that is particularly malicious (unless you think signing all your documents with DES or your PGP key or so is malicious) There is nothing to stop OpenOffice from reading ANY unencrypted documents, apart from just not interpreting features right (which means it will open Word docs just as well or badly as it did always..)
I, and probably most people, don't care about the encryption itself. Encryption can be a good thing. A very good thing. It's how they implement and authorize the encryption.
This is another one of those whines a lot of Geeks have that they think that somehow their rights are being infringed just because someone has the ability to stop them reading a document - or at least encourage them not to. The same way they whine that "cctv cameras infringe on my civil liberties!" when what they really mean is "cctv cameras mean I can't get away with mugging old ladies!" and the classic "public non-smoking laws discriminate against smokers!" when really they mean "It's my God-given American right to cause lung cancer in my fellow human beings!"
I don't mug old ladies, but I don't like the idea of having cameras watch me. I understand why they do that, and I accept it. But I don't like it. When my company installed a CCTV camera at work, I wanted to protest. I have a right to privacy. (Fortunately, it was a temporary thing while they tested their DVR.) Non-smoking areas are different, because second-hand smoke is hazardous to one's health. Letting people have their privacy, however, is not.
Give it up. Most businesses would literally give the right wing of their office block to be able to stop people from reading other peoples' performance reviews, or to stop their secret info leaking into the hands of competitors, or negotiation meeting minutes being published on Slashdot.
I'm sure they would. You don't need to lockout OpenOffice, KOffice, etc. to accomplish that. If you don't want confidential information getting out, THEN DON'T GIVE IT OUT!
No, not a good idea. Then people who don't run Active Directory can't view documents. And why do you need DRM and encryption to delete files. Last I checked, if you delete an account, you can't access it. I mean, how do you access something that's not there?
"wah wah Microsoft are stopping me from building my retirement fund by selling company secrets to someone else!!!" There are nefarious purposes you could use it for though.. like, making sure your equivalent to the "Halloween Document" is unreadable, or auto-destruct capability for those spreadsheets that show much it'll cost to drive a rival browser company into the ground. But that stuff happens even without DRM, and they manage to prove it happens and win in court by other means than bringing up petty emails and Word documents. If OpenOffice had gotten this first, nobody would be complaining.
I'd be complaining. Please don't use terms like nobody or everybody if you don't have statistics. You don't represent me.
And of course.. what's the betting that OpenOffice can actually use a standard Windows DRM/IRM API at some point to unencrypt documents based on their Windows 2003 Server authentication and signature key? Developing a License Provider Service for Windows Media Encoder Getting Started with Windows Media Rights Manager SDK Looks relatively public to me. No less public than the new PKZIP encryption extensions :)
Hell, why doesn't someone talk to Microsoft and ask if they can use the API for interoperability purposes? It's not breaking the DMCA if they let y
Microsoft has done it again! A fabulous new feature! A word processor that creates documents that other people can't read. It's ingenious!!! I wish I thought of it first =( I guess it's back to my little corner...
General Electric has announced that they will begin producing bread. This bread will have special ingrediants so that it only works in GE toasters.
If you use non-GE bread, your toast will come out over-cooked, so it is highly recommended that you buy the new bread from GE, which costs $30 a loaf.
If you attempt to mix a slice of their bread with a slice of Wonder bread (such as you only have 1 slice of GE bread left), you will be in violation of the Gormet Millenium Copyright Act of 2010, and could be fined up to $30,000.
General Electic will also be shipping all new toasters with titanium alloys. This innovative feature ensures safety by preventing people from trying to open their toaster when it stops working. To improve user friendliness, the toasters will lock onto the power cords and secure them, so users will be unable to accidently unplug their toasters and become confused about why it isn't toasting.
If I hear one more company complain about how the GPL is "un-American" or "destroys software value" I am going to lose my mind. I'm sick of it.
The GPL is not a life-altering commitment for all man-kind. It's A FUCKING SOFTWARE LICENSE! The developer and/or maintainer of a project decides how they want to license it. If SCO doesn't like the GPL, well, nobody every said they had to use it.
I understand why SCO, Microsoft, and even Sun don't like the GPL. I respect their opinion, but the people who use the GPL are also entitled to their own opinion. If they want to use the GPL, good for them, it's their god given right.
I mean, I personally don't like the way Microsoft licenses their software. But I don't make outrageous claims like it destroys the value of sofware and intellectual property. So it sucks, I deal. If you're developing the software for the purpose of making money, and you feel the GPL is inappropriate for it, well, then by all means, use a better license.
But stop trying to bash Linux users because you don't like the way the programmers license their code. Tough shit. It's good ol' fashioned freedom. Now deal with it.
Sadly, it's not just broadband connections. I've gotten Messenger spam on dialup. ISP's really should block the netbios port internally. Not only would that stop people from sending messenger spam, it would stop people from exploiting flaws in Windows and sending nude pics to somebody else's printer.
One word: RPM. The only single thing that bothers me about RedHat. If they'd move to a better system, I'd fall in love all over again. But it's not just dependancies, I can deal with that. Has anybody else had RPM totally lock up on you while installing/upgrading packages? Not only does it lock up, but if you re-run it again, it doesn't work unless you delete some lock files in /var. GRRRRRRR!
Also, I'd REALLY like to see some *runtime* autodetection in XFree86.
Example: I unplug my monitor and plug in a new one. X will automatically detect the new one and change the internal configuration.
Example: I have a PS/2 mouse, but I plug in a USB mouse temporarily. X should enable the USB mouse so I can use both if I want to.
I mean, video cards are internal controllers that rarely change. So I understand having to specify or scan for those. But monitors and peripherals should be picked up at runtime.
I agree. Fortunately, we're in the day where all distros are implementing (or already have done so) graphical boot screens.
/var/log/bootlog. Just a little tip I picked up somewhere that I find very useful.
If you need to see those messages again after bootup, you can check the file
It was replaced with -j.
At least in GNU tar.
I agree. Designing a whole new protocol is a waste of time. I happen to like the SMTP protocol. Why fix it if it ain't broke?
When a new feature is needed, like you said, add an extension to the protocol like ESMTP.
I think the reason people are supporting the idea of a new protocol is because they want to fight spam. But spam isn't caused by a flaw in SMTP. Spam is nothing more than a message somebody doesn't want. How does the server know if the human being is going to enjoy reading the message? It doesn't! Nor should it. The job of SMTP is to deliver (or relay) the message, nothing more. Spam fighting tools belong at the delivery level, not the network level.
Don't get me wrong. I hate spam as much as the next person. I just don't think a new protocol would change anything. I prefer SpamAssassin.
And for the kids:
How To Hide Computer Files and Delete Browser History
And for the older kids:
How To Change Security Settings on Folders
It's so nice to see an intelligent comment like this. Most people have succumbed to the Microsoft monopoly so much that they have become hypocrites.
.EXE files"
"Linux needs to be more compatible with Windows networks".
"Linux needs to support Word documents"
"Linux can't even run
The fact is, Windows has crappy support for Linux networks, it doesn't support OpenOffice documents, nor can it run ELF files. Yet nobody complains about that.
I think if Microsoft converted their file sharing system to using NFS or FTP, we'd be in good shape.
If you're thinking "But what about documents? MS Office doesn't support OO files!". Well, there's a Windows version of OpenOffice. If a company wants full interopability with OpenOffice (it supports word documents anyway, so this isn't a big issue IMO, but others will disagree with me), then they can use Open Office instead of Microsoft Office. Then everything is guaranteed to be 100% compatible. If they insist on using Microsof Office only, then they have no right to complain! It's their decision to make. Don't blame Linux because you made the wrong decision, just accept it.
There's an even better solution that is guaranteed to terminate a TCP/IP connection. I unplug the NIC from my switch. I mean, how can data flow from one computer to another, if they aren't connected?
It depends on how you look at it. A linux firewall is essentially the same as say, a Cisco router, except with Linux you have a full-fledged PC with a full OS, Cisco, Linksys, and the others use small hardware with a shrinked-down OS to route.
In fact, I believe Linksys routers use Linux (and presumably iptables, but who knows...). So, in effect, there is no difference. I use an old IBM Aptiva as my home router, it just costs me some more space.
Until it gets hit by a bomb in nuclear war.
How can a kernel be bankrupt? It manages processes and devices, not money! If he doesn't know that then its no wonder Windows is where it is today.
Oh, maybe he meant the Linux distributors like RedHat, MandrakeSoft, etc. Now how are they bankrupt if they have money? I fail to understand this logic... MandrakeSoft may be having some financial problems, but they are improving, and they are not bankrupt.
And Microsoft doesn't have a community. They have a legion of idiot users who they continually rip off who don't realize who they are giving their money too. As sad as it is, stupid people are the ones who run the market. By being ignorant people give in to the evil they so hate.
There's my 2 cents. This is probably my last post for a while, as I am getting frustrated with Slashdot posting articles every time Ballmer opens his mouth. The guy can't piss without slashdot being there.