So you are trying to help your mother recover from a stroke but apparently using non-Windows software crosses the line from doing enough to going too far?
If I were you I would rethink my priorities. If software to help your mother is available on any platform but not another, perhaps you should change platforms or buy another computer. You may be limited by available software (assuming you don't code) but you are not limited to Windows software!
Based on your profile you don't seem to be a troll, so I'm going on the assumption that you're not overly familiar with networking and it's history.
EIGRP is a proprietary protocol created by Cisco to get around the limitations of IGRP. IGRP was another proprietary protocol (recently removed from newer Cisco software) that was created to overcome the scalability limitations of RIP. So RIP was first (also unique in that the RFC describing it came years after it was implemented by vendors). IGRP was created by Cisco to address the problems of frequent updates (IGRP is 90 sec, RIP is 30), better packet utilization (IGRP is up to 104 updates/packet, RIP is 25) and better path selection (IGRP was a weighted composite metric, RIP a hop count). IGRP was much better than RIP and widely deployed by campuses. I'd go so far as to say that it could have been considered a default routing protocol at one point -- not because other protocols weren't supported (RIP has always been supported) but because it was the "default" choice for administrators of large networks.
Note that at this time none of these protocols were suitable for handling the exchange of Internet routes. Not that there was an Internet at that time, but there was the Arpanet. The Arpanet eventually moved to IP and away from hop-count based metrics (well before RIP, IGRP or EIGRP was even thought of) to a protocol suitable for handling the exchange of routes between different administrations, EGP. As the Internet evolved EGP thru v2 and BGP thru v4 were used to share routing updates between autonomous systems.
The author, as you, seem to be confusing EIGRP (the features of which the author describes in the cited text) with EGP protocols (which handle Internet routing). The only EGPs that have ever existed on the Internet are EGP and BGP. References to ERP and EIRP you found on the Internet are probably typos or possibly mistakes by people who simply didn't remember the acronym. At no point are they, nor were they, synonymous with a real protocol.
With just a cursory glance at the Internet it may appear that the author could be grounded, but anyone that's been around long enough knows that there was never a point in time where the authors text would have been correct.
I *quickly* flipped through the contents and found the content to be way off. My favorite part is 42g (EGRP):
"EGRP was created to solve many of the problems with RIP and has become the default routing protocol across the Internet."
First of all, there is no protocol EGRP. If there were such a thing as a default Internet routing protocol I'd say it was BGP. Not to mention that there is no routing protocol called EGRP.
...it uses up to 5 metrics (conditions) to determine the best route:
* Bandwidth
* Hop Count (Delay) - maximum of 255
* Maximum Packet size
* Reliability
* Traffic (Load)
Oh he means EIGRP, the Cisco proprietary protocol. Not only is it not an exterior routing protocol (a requirement to handle Internet routing) it's not supported by anything other than Cisco routers! And most Cisco-only shops don't use it because it's distance vector (even if enhanced)!!!
And for what it's worth, EIGRP doesn't use hop count or max packet size in its metric calculation to determine the best route. Per Cisco, It uses bandwidth, load, delay and reliability in its calculation.
My advice, you're better off staying away from this book. You can learn accurate information elsewhere, even if you have to pay for it.
The parent asked which companies other than IBM contributes to Linux, not which companies contribute to Open Source. There is a difference!
Re:Feeling Old
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Not too many people remember v5. The IP version is a reference to the IP header "version" field, and 5 was reserved for ST2: See RFC 1819 Sesion 1.2, 2nd paragraph.
So what do you call the next IP version? Version 6, of course!
SCO contends that because IBM violated its contract that Linux is a derivative of System V, so the IP violation claims are still present. From section Nature of this action, bullet item 4:
... As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are replete with protected technology. As such, the Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x and 2.6.x kernels are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.
The spammers seem to be exploiting a flaw in your methodology. I'm not sure there is a good way around the problem -- at least how you're doing things now.
The core of your problem is the fact that your ISP is accepting SMTP traffic for you and does not support the same policies as your own mail server supports. If you want to get rid of the SPAM coming from your ISP, you need to be able to implement policies on the secondary MX server.
I would suggest one of the following:
Collocation: Put one of your own servers at your ISP to which you have full control over
In-house: Don't use your ISP as a secondary MX, set up a second server at your site instead (this still protects against primary server failure, but not against ISP connectivity problems)
Paranoid: Implement the filters on mail coming in from the ISP. Depending on your filtering software, this might be a little more tricky but it will work.
With regard to the Paranoid option above, it should just be a matter of checking ALL of the Received headers instead of just the last one. Usually spammers can (and do) forge all of the Received headers except for the last one -- which they can't because your server adds it. In the case of mail received by your ISP, the last two Received headers are guaranteed to be valid.
Checking all of the Received headers against the SPAM database would do the trick.
Want an example? Go type "linux" into the msn search engine. I'll wait. Now, compare those results with those garnered from google.
That's funny! What's great is the fourth option, which provides alternatives to Linux... even before the search engine has provided you results on Linux.
Now take it a step further and search on "black people ebay". Google results start off by providing links to items offered by black people and about racism. MSN results start off by advertising that it will sell you black people on E-bay (as well as their related items).
I wonder how long before they fix that little problem!
If SCO believes that the GPL isn't a valid license, then the Linux sources remain implicitly copyrighted by the authors. Wouldn't the posting the Linux source by SCO here be a violation of the DMCA and/or copyright infringement?
Linux isn't about copying 17-MB files in under 20 minutes. If you want that, run Windows. Duh! Netscape (and Mozilla) are both dogs. Intentionally. Get used to it. If you want speed, use IE. Thanks for saving the rest of your details, since it's probably by design anyway.
What you fail to understand is that the economy is in a crunch. The idle get let go. What's the best way to not get let go you ask? Not be idle. Take 20 minutes to copy a 17-MB file. If you have a TURBO button be sure to press it until the light turns off -- you might even be able to get the copy up to 30 minutes. Maybe you'll even have to work late. That's sure to get some brownie points with the boss!
And what about the people running Linux not worried about getting let go? One word my friend. Coffee. IT guys love coffee. It's the caffeine really, but coffee is the main source. It's like water, or maybe air. And what's the best excuse for getting coffee? Pretend to be working at the same time. That's right, the ol' I'm busy doing the file copy flim-flam. 20 minute coffee break. For the Starbucks run be sure to copy a 50 or 60-MB file, you don't want to seem like you're slacking off.
It's all in the Linux handbook, copied right out of the GPL. It's at the end -- R.S. knows no one reads copyrights anyway. That's how we hide it. So don't tell. There's also a section on the secret handshake, be sure to read that part carefully!
Okay, in all honesty you either have a network duplex problem (assuming copying to/from the network) or bad hard disk/controller. The throughput is too slow to likely be a DMA problem but you should probably use hdparm to check your settings anyway. I'm leaning towards a hard disk problem which would account for why Netscape won't work during the copy.
It's also possible that you are out of RAM. I've got Linux running on a Mac as well, and HD performance under load is quite poor, even with DMA enabled. Copying a 17-MB file should be cachable unless you are really low on RAM. Swapping is a peformance no-no, especially on a MAC.
Get a local Linux guru that knows the performance tweaking commands to look at your system. Or add RAM/replace your hard drive, they're cheap.
I suffered the same fate for a time, version 1.0.0 I think. Pulling from CVS addressed the stability problems, it's too bad they didn't release another version sooner since the major distributions tended to use the "stable" release.
Rdesktop has been very stable since 1.1.0, the latest is 1.2.0. Give it another try!
Actually it could very well be in compliance with Microsoft licensing. Consider the situation in which you dual-boot, the PC is licensed but there is no way of transferring that license to the Linux partition (or even to another Windows computer should you decommission the PC for that matter).
Considering that TS CAL licensing is based on user (but enforced per computer) if you have a license for a Windows computer you are licensed for Linux. There's just no way of telling the Terminal server that you are. With rdesktop there is. Can it be used to "pirate"? Sure. But since M$ doesn't provide a way of transferring the licenses (without calling their support and pleading your case anyway) and provides no way of indicating that you're licensed on multiple desktops even with recent service packs, I for one am quite glad that rdesktop includes the capability.
Another program that doesn't require WINE or Crossover Office (both of which I have experienced trouble with when using the M$ client) is Rdesktop.
It works very well on every platform I've ever used it on (although fonts can be a bit weird on PPC platforms).
Another benefit is that it can emulate a Windows 2000 client when connecting to a M$ server, keeping you from burning a license.
Re: Infringement and Dilution of SNIFFER Trademark
Dear Mr. Gibson,
As you may be aware, Network Associates, Inc. ("Network Associates") is a leading company in the field of computer network management and security. One of the company's best known brands is SNIFFER®. Through our business unit, Sniffer Technologies, Network Associates creates and markets widely recognized computer software and hardware for monitoring computer networks. The company also maintains a web site to promote these products worldwide. Network Associates owns approximately 45 trademark registrations for the SNIFFER® trademark around the world. Sniffer® brand products are made only by Network Associates.
It has come to the attention of Network Associates that you are using our trademark in association with several products such as SPYNET. We are also concerned about the generic use of SNIFFER throughout your company web site. As a result, your use of this name and other product names that you advertise on your company web site are likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among the public, who are likely to believe that these products are somehow associated with or approved by Network Associates. In addition, the generic use of our SNIFFER® trademark contributes to the dilution of our mark's distinctiveness. For future reference, please note that SNIFFER® is only to be used in association with our company's products.
You should know that Network Associates takes intellectual property matters seriously and considers the SNIFFER® brand to be one of its most valuable assets. While we seek an amicable resolution to this matter, we will not hesitate to assert our superior rights if necessary.
Accordingly, Network Associates requests that you promptly cease all use of the name "SNIFFER," or any other name related to or used for any products you and or your company(ies) are associated with that are identical or confusingly similar to our SNIFFER® trademark. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of "Sniffer" in any meta tags, source code, key words, domain names, glossaries, indexes and the like associated with your web site(s).
Please confirm your intentions as soon as possible, and in no event later than July 15, 2003. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
...(yes, I know as a parent domain they could do what they want - the illusion is enough)
You are right, by having control of the forest root the parent domain can override your security permissions in your domain and there's not really anything you can do about it. And although we can debate the design limitations of Active Directory, your problem boils down to the fact that you are looking to implement an "alternative" domain implementation that has been verified will not work with your SAP portal in the interests of gaining additional security which you know you won't get.
Perhaps I am missing something, but it sounds like a really bad idea. It's of course technically possible to bridge the LDAP between two domains (or forests for that matter), but without more knowledge of the portals LDAP requirements -- and with full knowledge that in a subdomain your additional security is a façade anyway, I wouldn't bother.
It doesn't really matter what coding standards you implement, as long as something consistent is used. And that doesn't really matter much either.
Microsoft will probably innovate a new language syntax soon, my guess would be C##. It will undoubtedly be more scalable, secure, robust and less prone to errors. And it'll automatically be included in the latest version of Windows, but not be compatible with previous versions due to architecture limitations.
Personally, I'm holding out for that version. I'm going to push my company to standardize on that version. Because it just makes good business sense.
I admit that I am a firm believer in publicizing software vulnerabilities and that it increases security. As such I believe that open systems are more secure than closed systems in the long run. In other words, I think that it's easier to hack into a closed-source system (via binary disassembly) than into an open-source system (by looking at source code).
But we're not just talking about software here. And there is no question that when an exploit is published that some individuals will take advantage of it. Publishing exploitable details could very well allow a single exploit, which IMHO is one too many.
No! Because his scientific beliefs are based on his religious beliefs. And if you don't believe in his religion... well, then you don't get gravity either.
I don't know about you, but I've become WAY too dependent on this gravity thing to stop believing now.
We should all just be lucky that he didn't patent gravity! (Which he would have easily been able to do had he lived in the US). Talk about cornering the market!!!
I've also got DirecTV, and last time I checked they broadcast right to my house. Why shouldn't I be able to decrypt these signals? If they don't want me to watch the material then stop sending it to me!
Perhaps the rationale could work for me. I am retaining copyright to this message. I'm encrypting it in ASCII. You may or may not know how to decode it, but if you do read it then you are in violation of the DMCA because I don't want you reading it. The fact that I sent this message right to you in a format you could interpret does not play into it. You used tools that you may or may not have developed yourself, and you read my copyrighted work.
I suppose that I like reading Slashdot interviews as much as the next person, but I must ask myself "Why?" Wouldn't it be simpler to just post corrections to what was he considers misleading and/or post AMI's offical stance on Palladium?
Assuming you don't want to go through the trouble of dedicating a computer to receiving the stream and re-encoding the audio to another format, it would probably just be easiest to use Media Player. Use CodeWeavers CrossOver Office to run Media Player on Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are trying to help your mother recover from a stroke but apparently using non-Windows software crosses the line from doing enough to going too far?
If I were you I would rethink my priorities. If software to help your mother is available on any platform but not another, perhaps you should change platforms or buy another computer. You may be limited by available software (assuming you don't code) but you are not limited to Windows software!
Based on your profile you don't seem to be a troll, so I'm going on the assumption that you're not overly familiar with networking and it's history.
EIGRP is a proprietary protocol created by Cisco to get around the limitations of IGRP. IGRP was another proprietary protocol (recently removed from newer Cisco software) that was created to overcome the scalability limitations of RIP. So RIP was first (also unique in that the RFC describing it came years after it was implemented by vendors). IGRP was created by Cisco to address the problems of frequent updates (IGRP is 90 sec, RIP is 30), better packet utilization (IGRP is up to 104 updates/packet, RIP is 25) and better path selection (IGRP was a weighted composite metric, RIP a hop count). IGRP was much better than RIP and widely deployed by campuses. I'd go so far as to say that it could have been considered a default routing protocol at one point -- not because other protocols weren't supported (RIP has always been supported) but because it was the "default" choice for administrators of large networks.
Note that at this time none of these protocols were suitable for handling the exchange of Internet routes. Not that there was an Internet at that time, but there was the Arpanet. The Arpanet eventually moved to IP and away from hop-count based metrics (well before RIP, IGRP or EIGRP was even thought of) to a protocol suitable for handling the exchange of routes between different administrations, EGP. As the Internet evolved EGP thru v2 and BGP thru v4 were used to share routing updates between autonomous systems.
The author, as you, seem to be confusing EIGRP (the features of which the author describes in the cited text) with EGP protocols (which handle Internet routing). The only EGPs that have ever existed on the Internet are EGP and BGP. References to ERP and EIRP you found on the Internet are probably typos or possibly mistakes by people who simply didn't remember the acronym. At no point are they, nor were they, synonymous with a real protocol.
With just a cursory glance at the Internet it may appear that the author could be grounded, but anyone that's been around long enough knows that there was never a point in time where the authors text would have been correct.
And for what it's worth, EIGRP doesn't use hop count or max packet size in its metric calculation to determine the best route. Per Cisco, It uses bandwidth, load, delay and reliability in its calculation.
My advice, you're better off staying away from this book. You can learn accurate information elsewhere, even if you have to pay for it.
The parent asked which companies other than IBM contributes to Linux, not which companies contribute to Open Source. There is a difference!
Not too many people remember v5. The IP version is a reference to the IP header "version" field, and 5 was reserved for ST2: See RFC 1819 Sesion 1.2, 2nd paragraph.
So what do you call the next IP version? Version 6, of course!
The core of your problem is the fact that your ISP is accepting SMTP traffic for you and does not support the same policies as your own mail server supports. If you want to get rid of the SPAM coming from your ISP, you need to be able to implement policies on the secondary MX server.
I would suggest one of the following:
- Collocation: Put one of your own servers at your ISP to which you have full control over
- In-house: Don't use your ISP as a secondary MX, set up a second server at your site instead (this still protects against primary server failure, but not against ISP connectivity problems)
- Paranoid: Implement the filters on mail coming in from the ISP. Depending on your filtering software, this might be a little more tricky but it will work.
With regard to the Paranoid option above, it should just be a matter of checking ALL of the Received headers instead of just the last one. Usually spammers can (and do) forge all of the Received headers except for the last one -- which they can't because your server adds it. In the case of mail received by your ISP, the last two Received headers are guaranteed to be valid.Checking all of the Received headers against the SPAM database would do the trick.
But, will your ethernet stop working if you use it?
That explains the lack of comments!
Now take it a step further and search on "black people ebay". Google results start off by providing links to items offered by black people and about racism. MSN results start off by advertising that it will sell you black people on E-bay (as well as their related items).
I wonder how long before they fix that little problem!
If SCO believes that the GPL isn't a valid license, then the Linux sources remain implicitly copyrighted by the authors. Wouldn't the posting the Linux source by SCO here be a violation of the DMCA and/or copyright infringement?
I'd love to see SCO get nailed for that!
You just don't get it, do you?
Linux isn't about copying 17-MB files in under 20 minutes. If you want that, run Windows. Duh! Netscape (and Mozilla) are both dogs. Intentionally. Get used to it. If you want speed, use IE. Thanks for saving the rest of your details, since it's probably by design anyway.
What you fail to understand is that the economy is in a crunch. The idle get let go. What's the best way to not get let go you ask? Not be idle. Take 20 minutes to copy a 17-MB file. If you have a TURBO button be sure to press it until the light turns off -- you might even be able to get the copy up to 30 minutes. Maybe you'll even have to work late. That's sure to get some brownie points with the boss!
And what about the people running Linux not worried about getting let go? One word my friend. Coffee. IT guys love coffee. It's the caffeine really, but coffee is the main source. It's like water, or maybe air. And what's the best excuse for getting coffee? Pretend to be working at the same time. That's right, the ol' I'm busy doing the file copy flim-flam. 20 minute coffee break. For the Starbucks run be sure to copy a 50 or 60-MB file, you don't want to seem like you're slacking off.
It's all in the Linux handbook, copied right out of the GPL. It's at the end -- R.S. knows no one reads copyrights anyway. That's how we hide it. So don't tell. There's also a section on the secret handshake, be sure to read that part carefully!
Okay, in all honesty you either have a network duplex problem (assuming copying to/from the network) or bad hard disk/controller. The throughput is too slow to likely be a DMA problem but you should probably use hdparm to check your settings anyway. I'm leaning towards a hard disk problem which would account for why Netscape won't work during the copy.
It's also possible that you are out of RAM. I've got Linux running on a Mac as well, and HD performance under load is quite poor, even with DMA enabled. Copying a 17-MB file should be cachable unless you are really low on RAM. Swapping is a peformance no-no, especially on a MAC.
Get a local Linux guru that knows the performance tweaking commands to look at your system. Or add RAM/replace your hard drive, they're cheap.
I suffered the same fate for a time, version 1.0.0 I think. Pulling from CVS addressed the stability problems, it's too bad they didn't release another version sooner since the major distributions tended to use the "stable" release.
Rdesktop has been very stable since 1.1.0, the latest is 1.2.0. Give it another try!
Actually it could very well be in compliance with Microsoft licensing. Consider the situation in which you dual-boot, the PC is licensed but there is no way of transferring that license to the Linux partition (or even to another Windows computer should you decommission the PC for that matter).
Considering that TS CAL licensing is based on user (but enforced per computer) if you have a license for a Windows computer you are licensed for Linux. There's just no way of telling the Terminal server that you are. With rdesktop there is. Can it be used to "pirate"? Sure. But since M$ doesn't provide a way of transferring the licenses (without calling their support and pleading your case anyway) and provides no way of indicating that you're licensed on multiple desktops even with recent service packs, I for one am quite glad that rdesktop includes the capability.
Another program that doesn't require WINE or Crossover Office (both of which I have experienced trouble with when using the M$ client) is Rdesktop. It works very well on every platform I've ever used it on (although fonts can be a bit weird on PPC platforms).
Another benefit is that it can emulate a Windows 2000 client when connecting to a M$ server, keeping you from burning a license.
June 30, 2003
Re: Infringement and Dilution of SNIFFER Trademark
Dear Mr. Gibson,
As you may be aware, Network Associates, Inc. ("Network
Associates") is a leading company in the field of computer
network management and security. One of the company's best known
brands is SNIFFER®. Through our business unit, Sniffer
Technologies, Network Associates creates and markets widely
recognized computer software and hardware for monitoring
computer networks. The company also maintains a web site to
promote these products worldwide. Network Associates owns
approximately 45 trademark registrations for the SNIFFER®
trademark around the world. Sniffer® brand products are made
only by Network Associates.
It has come to the attention of Network Associates that you are
using our trademark in association with several products such as
SPYNET. We are also concerned about the generic use of SNIFFER
throughout your company web site. As a result, your use of this
name and other product names that you advertise on your company
web site are likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception
among the public, who are likely to believe that these products
are somehow associated with or approved by Network Associates.
In addition, the generic use of our SNIFFER® trademark
contributes to the dilution of our mark's distinctiveness. For
future reference, please note that SNIFFER® is only to be used
in association with our company's products.
You should know that Network Associates takes intellectual
property matters seriously and considers the SNIFFER® brand to
be one of its most valuable assets. While we seek an amicable
resolution to this matter, we will not hesitate to assert our
superior rights if necessary.
Accordingly, Network Associates requests that you promptly cease
all use of the name "SNIFFER," or any other name related to or
used for any products you and or your company(ies) are
associated with that are identical or confusingly similar to our
SNIFFER® trademark. This includes, but is not limited to, the
use of "Sniffer" in any meta tags, source code, key words,
domain names, glossaries, indexes and the like associated with
your web site(s).
Please confirm your intentions as soon as possible, and in no
event later than July 15, 2003. Thank you for your anticipated
cooperation.
Sincerely,
NETWORK ASSOCIATES, INC.
<<signature>>
Beverly Garrard
Worldwide Trademark Manager
Legal Affairs
Exactly how many leap years did you spend in college???
Perhaps I am missing something, but it sounds like a really bad idea. It's of course technically possible to bridge the LDAP between two domains (or forests for that matter), but without more knowledge of the portals LDAP requirements -- and with full knowledge that in a subdomain your additional security is a façade anyway, I wouldn't bother.
Just my 2 cents.
It doesn't really matter what coding standards you implement, as long as something consistent is used. And that doesn't really matter much either.
Microsoft will probably innovate a new language syntax soon, my guess would be C##. It will undoubtedly be more scalable, secure, robust and less prone to errors. And it'll automatically be included in the latest version of Windows, but not be compatible with previous versions due to architecture limitations.
Personally, I'm holding out for that version. I'm going to push my company to standardize on that version. Because it just makes good business sense.
We need a moderation for Sarcastic!
I admit that I am a firm believer in publicizing software vulnerabilities and that it increases security. As such I believe that open systems are more secure than closed systems in the long run. In other words, I think that it's easier to hack into a closed-source system (via binary disassembly) than into an open-source system (by looking at source code).
But we're not just talking about software here. And there is no question that when an exploit is published that some individuals will take advantage of it. Publishing exploitable details could very well allow a single exploit, which IMHO is one too many.
No! Because his scientific beliefs are based on his religious beliefs. And if you don't believe in his religion... well, then you don't get gravity either.
I don't know about you, but I've become WAY too dependent on this gravity thing to stop believing now.
We should all just be lucky that he didn't patent gravity! (Which he would have easily been able to do had he lived in the US). Talk about cornering the market!!!
I disagree.
I've also got DirecTV, and last time I checked they broadcast right to my house. Why shouldn't I be able to decrypt these signals? If they don't want me to watch the material then stop sending it to me!
Perhaps the rationale could work for me. I am retaining copyright to this message. I'm encrypting it in ASCII. You may or may not know how to decode it, but if you do read it then you are in violation of the DMCA because I don't want you reading it. The fact that I sent this message right to you in a format you could interpret does not play into it. You used tools that you may or may not have developed yourself, and you read my copyrighted work.
Go to jail.
I suppose that I like reading Slashdot interviews as much as the next person, but I must ask myself "Why?" Wouldn't it be simpler to just post corrections to what was he considers misleading and/or post AMI's offical stance on Palladium?
Assuming you don't want to go through the trouble of dedicating a computer to receiving the stream and re-encoding the audio to another format, it would probably just be easiest to use Media Player. Use CodeWeavers CrossOver Office to run Media Player on Linux.