Too bad you're posting at the pinnacle of European manhood (anonymously).
alright, i have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I assume from the rest of the responses that it's a reference to me saying I drive a Dodge Durango.
Spamhouse describes it as the top 200 spammers, but when I did my own (admitedly quick, and possibly not accurate) count, I counted 160 on the list. Of those 160 on the list, 30 were based out of the US. The other 130 were US spammers.
ah
Even if they use offshore hosting, if the spammers are in the US, and the products/companies/scams that they advertise are in the US, then they are US spammers, IMO.In some cases, I'm sure it's a matter of offshore sites that are simply willing to host spammers, or who are willing to host them cheaper. But in many cases, I believe that the spam routed from overseas is sent via open relays and similar things.
I seem to be in the minority of thinking a global problem needs to be viewed in terms of global effort to stop. The proposed law is stupid. Any law proposed would be stupid. Even if it proved effective for U.S. operations, there will still be servers in the rest of the world sending spam, which is the point I was trying to make, apparently poorly. To make a poor analogy, there are probably 'businesses' in the U.S. which drive certain drug trades, but getting rid of those 'businesses' will just open the door for the next one. You ave to take away the infrastructure which is used by those 'businesses'. Remove the cause, not the symptom. I guess we just have different views on what the cause is in this case.
You're the fourth person to 'point that out', and I've responded twice already. I used quotes there because I even said that there are U.S. based spammers who use offshore servers in my original post. You're numbers don't add up to me, out of 200 spammers you found 160 listings of what? I would assume spammers based in the U.S.. So that leaves 40 not based in the U.S., but then you say 30 entries from other places, and 130 from the US. Since they add up to 160, I'd have to assume that is the division of the original 160 you mention. But that conflicts with my prior assumption. Is it 130 U.S. based spammers or 160? Either way, I don't think the law will change anything. Service providers here don't like spammers, someone else suggested offshore servers are just cheaper. I tend to think it's just that offshore servers are more numerous than domestic ones.
No, and I won't bother to, because I never said Microsoft did so.
You implied it by stating that a difference between RedHat and Microsoft was that Red Hat doesn't.
What I was pointing out was that if you are on a subscription-based service, i.e. a maintenance license, you have to remove the software if you let your license expire from not paying the license maintenance fees. This is how Microsoft maintenance licensing works now.
To be pedantic, if the license says you must remove the software at the end of the license then it isn't a maintenance license, it's a usage license. But fair enough.
That's certainly a point to consider, but don't forget that copyright infringement damages aren't repaired by the unwitting consumers. SCO would have to prove that the people being billed knew that SCO was the legitimate copyright holder prior to their deployment. If a newspaper publishes copyrighted content in an infringing fahsion, the readers are not liable for damages caused to the copyright holder, only the newspaper is. I think in this case, "hey we didn't know, but since bringing it to our attention, we've gotten rid of it" would be a perfectly sound legal defense. Either that or "this vendor sold it to us without telling us, please see them for damages," which would most likely in turn become "IBM/SUSE/Red Hat/whomever didn't tell us, sue them."
I guess I misread the statement, but I think my question still stands with minor editing. I at first thought of opt-ing out of upgrading to the latest release, which would be facilitated by a subscription model. The activation service doesn't fall into a subscription model service, so I'd still like an example of Microsoft disabling a computer for opting out of subscription updates.
Come to think of it, Microsoft doesn't even offer subscription updates. They're free. And what a shock, so are Red Hat's. So both offer free updates for their OS products, one happens to offer an advanced system to monitor and deploy those updates for an extra fee. The difference is that Microsoft wanted to move entirely to fee-based updates. Red Hat has consistently delivered free updates, albeit in source form. The original comparison would be valid if you could not get those free sources for the updates, which would violate the GPL.
I know you're just being fecitious, but unless they can prove that they have rights to bill for it, then sending a bill is fraud. Doing so would open them up to criminal prosecution.
I could retire on that license fee. Google has over 10,000 boxes in their cluster, for whopping $7 M license bill, assuming the early-bid discount for single CPU servers.
I use RH9 which installs postfix as a bizarre confusion of sendmail and postfix.
That says to me you installed it wrong. I have postfix installed on a handful of machines, and there are no sendmail packages installed on any of them. There is a utility, name is something like redhat-config-smtp or redhat-config-mail or switchmail, that can switch all the important config files between sendmail and postfix. Perhaps you should look into it.
It's totally permissible to run their Enterprise products on as many machines as you like without any RHN subscription or support contract. Just buy one copy, and install it everywhere. You can then setup a cron job to grab the errata SRPMs from ftp.redhat.com (which have been available for free since the first release of RHEL) to a local server, build them for your arch, put them in an apt repo, and rebuild the apt repo headers. Then have allyour local machines check against that in-house repo. You don't get the centralized, stateful admin interface that is the RHN website, but you could even build that yourself with a php/mysql solution.
You could run AS or ES on the commercial server app, and WS or PW on desktops. That would give you the same distribution everywhere, but give you wider flexibility with the price scale.
Red Hat dissed Linux for the home desktop. As a corporation, Red Hat has always tried to market their distribution as primarily server, and slowly setting into a corporate desktop role. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Red Hat thinks Linux is currently great for corporate desktop usage, but not up to par for home desktop usage. Maybe Mandrake is ready for home desktop usage, I've never had a Mandrake installation. But I do know that Red Hat is not ready for a lowest-common-user home desktop scenario. And that doesn't bother me, it does bother me that other people get so ruffled over it though. My Durango 4x4 would be fun to drive on a race track but it would be really shitty at it, and that's not Dodge's fault. There is no fault, it's not what it was designed for.
If the company is sending is IN THE US, it doesn't matter where the sending MTA is - the spam is coming FROM the US.
It sure matters to me. If service providers don't allow customers to send 500 million bulk emails a day then the spam problem will be greatly reduced. Do you seriously think that U.S. spammers use offshore servers because it might not be legal here? They do it because service provides here won't tolerate it. Over here if you are suspected of using your service to send spam, you will be dropped faster than you can puke hormel. A legal solution to the problem would require an effective global enforcement agency. I believe the only way to overcome the problem is for the community to do it, and that means don't give bandwidth to the people who do it.
That's what I said, at least that what I was thinking when I typed it. I honestly believe that the offshoredness of the servers used has nothing to do with skirting the law, it has to do with service providers here disconnecting you at the drop of a hat if they think you're using that service to send spam. Perhaps if offshore service providers would take the same stance as U.S. service providers then the U.S. companies wouldn't have access to enough bandwidth to send the crap.
maybe the spam you get does, but most of the spam I get comes from Asia and South America. I sincerely hope you don't just see the masses of email that say they are from aol.com, hotmail.com, msn.com, and yahoo.com and believe them without tracing the headers (have a look at spamcop.net if you're not at all familiar with it). Basically Spam only comes 'from' the U.S. en masse in that there are people in the U.S. who offer the service of sending it. But they actually use offshore PCs, mostly in Asia and South America, because they would be perpetually signing up for new service providers if the used domestic servers, as the ISPs drop customers very quickly for such actions.
Why not just get a machine hooked up on a network that will allow it and have it do nothing but send properly labeled emails to the retards who wrote this, on the order of thousands a day. If we can just squat and flood their inboxes, and their servers, within the bounds of the law, we can show them that the law sucks. And then we'll probably be sent off to Cuba as terrorists for depriving Congressmen access to their IT infrastructure.
we had a face to face meeting with everyone involved in requirements gathering, and bam! - in three days we jumped from 30% to 80% of the requirements getting "done
So you're saying discussing the issues in person kicked it up a notch?
That's not a fair comparison. You don't bring people into the country to pay them less. That's just asking for low employee moral. You outsource to pay less because the cost of living is lower, so they can bear the lower salary (lower in abosulte $ amount). If I moved somewhere and found out I was paid %50 of what the domestic workers made, even though I was doing the same job with equivalent qualifications, I would check out the local labor laws to see if I could sue them.
Well, Mac OS has had an Application Menu on the Menu bar for over a decade. Clicking the top-right corner of the screen gives you a list with both an icon and the app name. The gnome panel has one too, haven't used a task bar, or multiple desktops, since finding it.
I assume you meant you hope their suit against IBM is throw out. We want the IBM suit against SCO to proceed all the way to trial and to reach judgement. This will give legal precedent in support of the GPL. Precendent is a big deal. Many companies settle out of court even when they're right just to avoid the possibility of setting a precedent.
Slashdot Mirror
alright, i have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I assume from the rest of the responses that it's a reference to me saying I drive a Dodge Durango.
ah
Even if they use offshore hosting, if the spammers are in the US, and the products/companies/scams that they advertise are in the US, then they are US spammers, IMO.In some cases, I'm sure it's a matter of offshore sites that are simply willing to host spammers, or who are willing to host them cheaper. But in many cases, I believe that the spam routed from overseas is sent via open relays and similar things.
I seem to be in the minority of thinking a global problem needs to be viewed in terms of global effort to stop. The proposed law is stupid. Any law proposed would be stupid. Even if it proved effective for U.S. operations, there will still be servers in the rest of the world sending spam, which is the point I was trying to make, apparently poorly. To make a poor analogy, there are probably 'businesses' in the U.S. which drive certain drug trades, but getting rid of those 'businesses' will just open the door for the next one. You ave to take away the infrastructure which is used by those 'businesses'. Remove the cause, not the symptom. I guess we just have different views on what the cause is in this case.
Good point. I believe that was the impetus behind Pink Tie Linux from cheapbytes.com, that and the trademarked artwork and logos.
You're the fourth person to 'point that out', and I've responded twice already. I used quotes there because I even said that there are U.S. based spammers who use offshore servers in my original post. You're numbers don't add up to me, out of 200 spammers you found 160 listings of what? I would assume spammers based in the U.S.. So that leaves 40 not based in the U.S., but then you say 30 entries from other places, and 130 from the US. Since they add up to 160, I'd have to assume that is the division of the original 160 you mention. But that conflicts with my prior assumption. Is it 130 U.S. based spammers or 160? Either way, I don't think the law will change anything. Service providers here don't like spammers, someone else suggested offshore servers are just cheaper. I tend to think it's just that offshore servers are more numerous than domestic ones.
You implied it by stating that a difference between RedHat and Microsoft was that Red Hat doesn't.
What I was pointing out was that if you are on a subscription-based service, i.e. a maintenance license, you have to remove the software if you let your license expire from not paying the license maintenance fees. This is how Microsoft maintenance licensing works now.
To be pedantic, if the license says you must remove the software at the end of the license then it isn't a maintenance license, it's a usage license. But fair enough.
That's certainly a point to consider, but don't forget that copyright infringement damages aren't repaired by the unwitting consumers. SCO would have to prove that the people being billed knew that SCO was the legitimate copyright holder prior to their deployment. If a newspaper publishes copyrighted content in an infringing fahsion, the readers are not liable for damages caused to the copyright holder, only the newspaper is. I think in this case, "hey we didn't know, but since bringing it to our attention, we've gotten rid of it" would be a perfectly sound legal defense. Either that or "this vendor sold it to us without telling us, please see them for damages," which would most likely in turn become "IBM/SUSE/Red Hat/whomever didn't tell us, sue them."
Come to think of it, Microsoft doesn't even offer subscription updates. They're free. And what a shock, so are Red Hat's. So both offer free updates for their OS products, one happens to offer an advanced system to monitor and deploy those updates for an extra fee. The difference is that Microsoft wanted to move entirely to fee-based updates. Red Hat has consistently delivered free updates, albeit in source form. The original comparison would be valid if you could not get those free sources for the updates, which would violate the GPL.
I know you're just being fecitious, but unless they can prove that they have rights to bill for it, then sending a bill is fraud. Doing so would open them up to criminal prosecution.
I could retire on that license fee. Google has over 10,000 boxes in their cluster, for whopping $7 M license bill, assuming the early-bid discount for single CPU servers.
Can you show me evidence that Microsoft has ever disabled someone's computer for failure to upgrade?
That says to me you installed it wrong. I have postfix installed on a handful of machines, and there are no sendmail packages installed on any of them. There is a utility, name is something like redhat-config-smtp or redhat-config-mail or switchmail, that can switch all the important config files between sendmail and postfix. Perhaps you should look into it.
It's totally permissible to run their Enterprise products on as many machines as you like without any RHN subscription or support contract. Just buy one copy, and install it everywhere. You can then setup a cron job to grab the errata SRPMs from ftp.redhat.com (which have been available for free since the first release of RHEL) to a local server, build them for your arch, put them in an apt repo, and rebuild the apt repo headers. Then have allyour local machines check against that in-house repo. You don't get the centralized, stateful admin interface that is the RHN website, but you could even build that yourself with a php/mysql solution.
like install it on another machine if i choose? use it without that subscription service?You can, that just means you loose the support license.
You could run AS or ES on the commercial server app, and WS or PW on desktops. That would give you the same distribution everywhere, but give you wider flexibility with the price scale.
Red Hat dissed Linux for the home desktop. As a corporation, Red Hat has always tried to market their distribution as primarily server, and slowly setting into a corporate desktop role. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Red Hat thinks Linux is currently great for corporate desktop usage, but not up to par for home desktop usage. Maybe Mandrake is ready for home desktop usage, I've never had a Mandrake installation. But I do know that Red Hat is not ready for a lowest-common-user home desktop scenario. And that doesn't bother me, it does bother me that other people get so ruffled over it though. My Durango 4x4 would be fun to drive on a race track but it would be really shitty at it, and that's not Dodge's fault. There is no fault, it's not what it was designed for.
It sure matters to me. If service providers don't allow customers to send 500 million bulk emails a day then the spam problem will be greatly reduced. Do you seriously think that U.S. spammers use offshore servers because it might not be legal here? They do it because service provides here won't tolerate it. Over here if you are suspected of using your service to send spam, you will be dropped faster than you can puke hormel. A legal solution to the problem would require an effective global enforcement agency. I believe the only way to overcome the problem is for the community to do it, and that means don't give bandwidth to the people who do it.
That's what I said, at least that what I was thinking when I typed it. I honestly believe that the offshoredness of the servers used has nothing to do with skirting the law, it has to do with service providers here disconnecting you at the drop of a hat if they think you're using that service to send spam. Perhaps if offshore service providers would take the same stance as U.S. service providers then the U.S. companies wouldn't have access to enough bandwidth to send the crap.
maybe the spam you get does, but most of the spam I get comes from Asia and South America. I sincerely hope you don't just see the masses of email that say they are from aol.com, hotmail.com, msn.com, and yahoo.com and believe them without tracing the headers (have a look at spamcop.net if you're not at all familiar with it). Basically Spam only comes 'from' the U.S. en masse in that there are people in the U.S. who offer the service of sending it. But they actually use offshore PCs, mostly in Asia and South America, because they would be perpetually signing up for new service providers if the used domestic servers, as the ISPs drop customers very quickly for such actions.
Why not just get a machine hooked up on a network that will allow it and have it do nothing but send properly labeled emails to the retards who wrote this, on the order of thousands a day. If we can just squat and flood their inboxes, and their servers, within the bounds of the law, we can show them that the law sucks. And then we'll probably be sent off to Cuba as terrorists for depriving Congressmen access to their IT infrastructure.
So you're saying discussing the issues in person kicked it up a notch?
That's not a fair comparison. You don't bring people into the country to pay them less. That's just asking for low employee moral. You outsource to pay less because the cost of living is lower, so they can bear the lower salary (lower in abosulte $ amount). If I moved somewhere and found out I was paid %50 of what the domestic workers made, even though I was doing the same job with equivalent qualifications, I would check out the local labor laws to see if I could sue them.
you forgot In Soviet Russia, BIOS secures YOU! Oh, wait, ...
Well, Mac OS has had an Application Menu on the Menu bar for over a decade. Clicking the top-right corner of the screen gives you a list with both an icon and the app name. The gnome panel has one too, haven't used a task bar, or multiple desktops, since finding it.
that's what I said/meant. ;)
I assume you meant you hope their suit against IBM is throw out. We want the IBM suit against SCO to proceed all the way to trial and to reach judgement. This will give legal precedent in support of the GPL. Precendent is a big deal. Many companies settle out of court even when they're right just to avoid the possibility of setting a precedent.