Under Windows, you can use the WinGate IP masquerading/SOCKS software. I assume there is similar stuff for Linux and FreeBSD. Once you have that set up, any decently written IRC client will be able to use DCC transfers (for example, mIRC on Windows works flawlessly).
Windows 98 SE does indeed have IP masquerading built in. I'm not sure if it's the NAT1000 stuff, but I'd assume it is, since it would be fairly pointless for them to write their own parallel version.
Yes, telnet really is a protocol. The telnet client does some negotiation with the server, mostly about the terminal type of the client. If you try connecting with a raw socket to a telnet server, it (most of the time) won't work. That's why netcat has a -t option to do telnet negotiation.
Yes, HTTP is a fairly simple human-readable protocol, but it's still a protocol. HTTP/1.1 is somewhat more complicated, though still not really very complex.
It's possible, but it certainly wouldn't have been how it is today, and I would estimate it wouldn't become as accessible as it is today until sometime well into the 21st century. The only areas other than the U.S. with enough technology to create an internet-like "supernetwork" would be Japan and the EU. Japan has nowhere to network itself to (unless it wanted a self-contained national network), and the EU has a bad track record of cooperation on large projects (Aerobus is *still* run pretty badly). We'd probably have ended up with something worse than InterNIC.
The USA is indeed the most important country in the development of the internet, considering that it created the damn thing. The Bill of Rights is important, because if it did not exist, the internet would have become a highly censored place before any other countries were even allowed to join.
I would definitely not put "the cathedral and the bazaar" as a significant document of the internet. My list would probably consist almost exclusively of RFCs. How can anything be more important to the development of the internet than the RFCs establishing TCP/IP, FTP, IRC, HTTP, telnet, and a variety of other protocols?
You contradict yourself. First you say that if it was any company other than Microsoft, you'd oppose AOL's tactics, and then you go on to defend AOL's tactics. Either these "security claims" are valid, and AOL's tactics would be ok against any company, or else they are not valid, and AOL's tactics should not be tolerated against any company, including Microsoft.
That doesn't make it okay. AOL is using the same tactics Microsoft likes to use, so we should oppose AOL using them as much as we oppose Microsoft using them, or else we just look hypocritical.
"Well it's okay when people do it against Microsoft, but not okay when they do it to other companies."
BO, even since the original release, has included the ability to change the port it operates on and to use a password to weakly encrypt all communcations. The only reason many BO and BO2K systems are open to anybody over the internet is because they use the default port (31337) and aren't configured to use a password.
In my experience, a LOT of the BO infected machines (I haven't done any work with BO2K) are machines which have a c:\bo or c:\cdc directory, leading me to the conclusion that these are script kiddies who downloaded Back Orifice and then proceeded to run the executables that come with it before reading the textfile, installing the server on their own system in the process. They get what they deserve.
InterNic lists all the one-letter domain names, including i.com, as being "Reserved Domain," reserved to the USC Information Sciences Institute since December 1, 1993. Any ideas why?
Well, they also sell what they call "DAM" CDs, which are CDs that have both the audio tracks (to play in a normal CD player) an the mp3s (so you can transfer to your computer without having to do the ripping/encoding yourself). They keep 50% of the profits from these sales, and give 50% to the artist.
There is not "one Linux." Apart from the obvious issue of incompatible Linux distributions, the kernels themselves are different. RedHat ships with RedHat-specific patches in its kernels, not the stuff you find on ftp.kernel.org.
I found that humorous as well. Macro virus authors didn't "choose" an open source development model. Their source is available because it's in a macro, so the source has to be available. It's like saying that DOS.bat script writers have switched to open source, or that bash shell script writers have switched to open source, as if they had a choice.
Well, I'd have to mostly agree with the other AC reply to this thread, but I do agree that it's hard to tell everybody apart. Through 8.5 kbps realaudio, Rob, Jeff, and Nate's voices don't sound different enough for me to be able to tell them apart. It'd be easier of one of them was female:P
Well, perhaps concentrate on making Perl better rather than worrying about what Microsoft does.
As for the porting to Windows, that shows the weakness of the "free" operating systems. If they are weakened by a program being ported to Windows, it means they aren't very strong on their own merits, just by having some software Windows doesn't have. If that's their only strength, they are doomed to failure, as it will all eventually be ported to Windows.
IIRC, burning would've reduced the pressure inside the capsule as it used up the oxygen. Remember that old high school chemistry trick where you get an egg to be sucked into a narrow-mouthed vase by dropping something burning inside the vase?
If we used those rules, then everybody could justify their spam as being ok. "Sure, it's spam, but I'm giving him a REALLY good deal on this porn site subscription." "Sure, it's spam, but if he puts our ad banners on his site he could make a ton of easy money." I don't see how Red Hat's spam is any different. Some of the people who receive it may like it, and may make money from it. The same goes for some of the people who receive spam from a banner ad company. Both are spam, and both display poor judgement on the part of the spamming company.
How is this any different? If you really think you have a good chance of making tons of easy money through Red Hat's IPO, you need to learn more about the stock market.
Yes, spam is any unsolicited mass commercial emailing. This fits that definition. Whether you happen to see it as a positive spam does not make any difference to the hundreds of people who received it and did not wish to receive it. To them it's just another piece of spam, and you'll see that at least some of them are not very happy about it if you read the rest of the comments here.
Yeah, but you can't buy fewer than 100 shares of stock anyway. If you buy 100 shares of stock at $8, you can break even by selling them at $8.30, only a 3.75% increase in value.
Perhaps, but I'd consider it unlikely. Red Hat knows it will be receiving more media attention, so their IPO price is likely to be around $12, double that of BE's IPO price. This leaves less room for it to go up (which is what's supposed to happen - it should IPO at what's expected to be the market value, not at a ridiculously low price)
Your argument is irrelevant. Whether a mailing is spam or not is not affected by whether the advertisement is a "good" one or not. Red Hat sent out thousands of unsolicited commercial emails inviting people to buy their stock. That fits perfectly with the definition of spam. Whether these people may or may not make money (it's doubtful that any stock gains will hold up for more than a day or two) is not relevant to the fact that they were spammed. Unless these people signed up at Red Hat's website to receive mailings from them about their IPO (which does not appear to be the case) this mail was unsolicited. Since it is asking people to buy their stock, it is commercial.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux kernel 2.2.0 is out!!! Go get it from ftp.kernel.org!
Under Windows, you can use the WinGate IP masquerading/SOCKS software. I assume there is similar stuff for Linux and FreeBSD. Once you have that set up, any decently written IRC client will be able to use DCC transfers (for example, mIRC on Windows works flawlessly).
Windows 98 SE does indeed have IP masquerading built in. I'm not sure if it's the NAT1000 stuff, but I'd assume it is, since it would be fairly pointless for them to write their own parallel version.
Yes, telnet really is a protocol. The telnet client does some negotiation with the server, mostly about the terminal type of the client. If you try connecting with a raw socket to a telnet server, it (most of the time) won't work. That's why netcat has a -t option to do telnet negotiation.
Yes, HTTP is a fairly simple human-readable protocol, but it's still a protocol. HTTP/1.1 is somewhat more complicated, though still not really very complex.
It's possible, but it certainly wouldn't have been how it is today, and I would estimate it wouldn't become as accessible as it is today until sometime well into the 21st century. The only areas other than the U.S. with enough technology to create an internet-like "supernetwork" would be Japan and the EU. Japan has nowhere to network itself to (unless it wanted a self-contained national network), and the EU has a bad track record of cooperation on large projects (Aerobus is *still* run pretty badly). We'd probably have ended up with something worse than InterNIC.
The USA is indeed the most important country in the development of the internet, considering that it created the damn thing. The Bill of Rights is important, because if it did not exist, the internet would have become a highly censored place before any other countries were even allowed to join.
I would definitely not put "the cathedral and the bazaar" as a significant document of the internet. My list would probably consist almost exclusively of RFCs. How can anything be more important to the development of the internet than the RFCs establishing TCP/IP, FTP, IRC, HTTP, telnet, and a variety of other protocols?
You contradict yourself. First you say that if it was any company other than Microsoft, you'd oppose AOL's tactics, and then you go on to defend AOL's tactics. Either these "security claims" are valid, and AOL's tactics would be ok against any company, or else they are not valid, and AOL's tactics should not be tolerated against any company, including Microsoft.
That doesn't make it okay. AOL is using the same tactics Microsoft likes to use, so we should oppose AOL using them as much as we oppose Microsoft using them, or else we just look hypocritical.
"Well it's okay when people do it against Microsoft, but not okay when they do it to other companies."
BO, even since the original release, has included the ability to change the port it operates on and to use a password to weakly encrypt all communcations. The only reason many BO and BO2K systems are open to anybody over the internet is because they use the default port (31337) and aren't configured to use a password.
In my experience, a LOT of the BO infected machines (I haven't done any work with BO2K) are machines which have a c:\bo or c:\cdc directory, leading me to the conclusion that these are script kiddies who downloaded Back Orifice and then proceeded to run the executables that come with it before reading the textfile, installing the server on their own system in the process. They get what they deserve.
InterNic lists all the one-letter domain names, including i.com, as being "Reserved Domain," reserved to the USC Information Sciences Institute since December 1, 1993. Any ideas why?
Well, they also sell what they call "DAM" CDs, which are CDs that have both the audio tracks (to play in a normal CD player) an the mp3s (so you can transfer to your computer without having to do the ripping/encoding yourself). They keep 50% of the profits from these sales, and give 50% to the artist.
However, they haven't made a profit yet.
There is not "one Linux." Apart from the obvious issue of incompatible Linux distributions, the kernels themselves are different. RedHat ships with RedHat-specific patches in its kernels, not the stuff you find on ftp.kernel.org.
I found that humorous as well. Macro virus authors didn't "choose" an open source development model. Their source is available because it's in a macro, so the source has to be available. It's like saying that DOS .bat script writers have switched to open source, or that bash shell script writers have switched to open source, as if they had a choice.
Well, I'd have to mostly agree with the other AC reply to this thread, but I do agree that it's hard to tell everybody apart. Through 8.5 kbps realaudio, Rob, Jeff, and Nate's voices don't sound different enough for me to be able to tell them apart. It'd be easier of one of them was female :P
Well, perhaps concentrate on making Perl better rather than worrying about what Microsoft does.
As for the porting to Windows, that shows the weakness of the "free" operating systems. If they are weakened by a program being ported to Windows, it means they aren't very strong on their own merits, just by having some software Windows doesn't have. If that's their only strength, they are doomed to failure, as it will all eventually be ported to Windows.
How is porting perl an attempt to "take it over"? An increase in the platform support for Perl is definitely a Good Thing (tm).
IIRC, burning would've reduced the pressure inside the capsule as it used up the oxygen. Remember that old high school chemistry trick where you get an egg to be sucked into a narrow-mouthed vase by dropping something burning inside the vase?
Take a look at the QPL 1.0, there's still a patch clause.
If we used those rules, then everybody could justify their spam as being ok. "Sure, it's spam, but I'm giving him a REALLY good deal on this porn site subscription." "Sure, it's spam, but if he puts our ad banners on his site he could make a ton of easy money." I don't see how Red Hat's spam is any different. Some of the people who receive it may like it, and may make money from it. The same goes for some of the people who receive spam from a banner ad company. Both are spam, and both display poor judgement on the part of the spamming company.
How is this any different? If you really think you have a good chance of making tons of easy money through Red Hat's IPO, you need to learn more about the stock market.
Yes, spam is any unsolicited mass commercial emailing. This fits that definition. Whether you happen to see it as a positive spam does not make any difference to the hundreds of people who received it and did not wish to receive it. To them it's just another piece of spam, and you'll see that at least some of them are not very happy about it if you read the rest of the comments here.
Yeah, but you can't buy fewer than 100 shares of stock anyway. If you buy 100 shares of stock at $8, you can break even by selling them at $8.30, only a 3.75% increase in value.
Perhaps, but I'd consider it unlikely. Red Hat knows it will be receiving more media attention, so their IPO price is likely to be around $12, double that of BE's IPO price. This leaves less room for it to go up (which is what's supposed to happen - it should IPO at what's expected to be the market value, not at a ridiculously low price)
Your argument is irrelevant. Whether a mailing is spam or not is not affected by whether the advertisement is a "good" one or not. Red Hat sent out thousands of unsolicited commercial emails inviting people to buy their stock. That fits perfectly with the definition of spam. Whether these people may or may not make money (it's doubtful that any stock gains will hold up for more than a day or two) is not relevant to the fact that they were spammed. Unless these people signed up at Red Hat's website to receive mailings from them about their IPO (which does not appear to be the case) this mail was unsolicited. Since it is asking people to buy their stock, it is commercial.