Don't for get open standards. Directly, it's open standards that's threatened by patents. If it ever becomes possible to shield open standards from patent encumbrance, then open source will enjoy a lot more free reign; at least open source implementations of open standards.
TCP/IP was created in a deregulated environment. Why don't you like it? TCP is just one communications layer, and IP is just a numeric addressing and routing scheme. You can add plenty on top of it, such as QoS and security. With enough bandwidth, there's virtually nothing you can't accomplish that you can accomplish with consumer targetted analog.
TCP/IP is here to stay because it's the foundation of everything else, although it is possible to upgrade it over time. As for IPv6, it's coming, slowly but sure. There are things we can do to speed it up. Internet 2 is built on it, and new services such as the CB example I described can be built on IPv6.
Internet is not a bubble. It was built completly without Wallstreet's help, and it will continue to prosper no matter what the latest investment trend is.
The reliability issue is overblown and very misunderstood. You can, for the most part, have your IP communications be nearly as reliable as you want them to be. But obviously, reliability, like RF broadcast stations, cost money. Redundancy is an option, and some sites spend money on it. When was the last time IBM's website was down?
The Internet is designed to be reliable, but it's an option, not an automatic benefit. You can build all the redundancy you need, but you aren't going to build more redunancy than makes sense for your needs and budget.
I can tell you that my Internet connection has been continuously on and uninterupted for over 6 months, 24/7. But I pay for that 99.9% reliability. A local FM station I listen when I'm in my car has been down more than that. At home, I listen to commercial free digital music, continously. I love it.
I agree with both you and Mr Hankey. I believe this is happening, but could happen a lot faster if we made it a major national infrastructure issue the way the highway system became essential in the 60s.
I can also see how privatization coupled with subsidies to fill the gaps can enable it, if done the right way and guided by good laws fostering high competition. Despite people's concerns about companies self-regulating, they already do to a large extent though open standards bodies. 802.11 and most protocols are open standards, not creations of the FCC. It's in their self-interest to produce equipment that complies with standards, and it's in their interest to create standards that do not interfere with each other.
It's unrealistic to abolish the FCC, but I believe their role can change, and often reduced. Technology and open standards, when given the chance, can work out a lot of issues.
Further the writer's theory of owning spectrum is even sillier than the current system. As an amateur radio operater some times I'm a primary and other times a secondary user of spectrum. Primary means that I must not be interfered with a nd secondary means I better not interfer. The lack of spectrum would only be in crease if sharing was halted.
I personally don't care how bandwidth, migration to IPv6, and accessibility issues are addressed, so long as they are resolved. Do you really care if the FCC or a highly competitive ISP infrastructure guided by open standards bodies which only partly covered wireless data communications was responsible for giving you 1.5 MB/s bandwidth everywhere you went for $30/month?
We need to start with a clean slate and open mind, and objectively consider all options. Nevertheless, I'm willing to bet the economists will support a highly competitive market with limitted subsidies for rural communications.
I believe the only focus should be on increasing bandwidth, migrating to IPv6, and ensuring that anyone anywhere in the US can connect cheaply or for free.
If you read this post, you'll see where I use the CB as an example.
Of course, we still won't want people blocking Internet communications. But we already have laws against DoS attacks. In your example, however, the CB'er would no longer have the incentive to use higher power transmissions, as geographic limits, if used, would be purely virtual.
The only incentive someone would still have to do that would be DoS and perhaps signal boosting to connect to the Internet until it is accessible everywhere. However, I in the data world, I haven't heard of real problems of signal interference in the unlicensed spectrum due to larger antennas on other digital devices, although there are occassional rumors of analog TVs picking up some bleeding. That will also be a moot issue, though, as the Internet is used to transmit video channels.
The only bleeding we'll need to worry about is in emergency analog frequencies, which will always be protected by law. IP wireless devices are great at interoperating in the same frequencies in contrast to analog devices. You can have quite a few WAP devices in the same area. Spectrum often used by analog, on the other hand, such as 2.4Ghz, drives me nuts, personally. Ever broadcast analog audio over 2.4 Ghz only to hear your microwave pop on your stereo? Digital handles this, and digital standards such as 802.11b/g handle multiple broadcasters (SSIDs) very well.
I don't see all the hoopla over traditional airwaves. Except for data communications, airwave broadcasting is a dying breed. I believe we can dedicate nearly all our spectrum to one thing: LAN and Internet bandwidth.
I think the important thing is to prevent the FCC from applying its traditional regulations to the Internet. The Internet is the future of communications, both wired and wireless. The great thing about Internet is it integrates all physical means of communication. Once you put something in IP, there's no telling what physical medium it will travel over... copper, coaxial, fiber or wireless.
What can you do on traditional airwaves that you cannot conceivably do over IP? Talk on the phone? Watch TV? Broadcast live events? Listen to the radio? If you look at the current IP solutions to these options, the only limitation today is bandwidth, IP allocation (IPv4) and accessibility (price/location). These problems can be resolved if we focus on them instead of trying to keep traditional communication pipes alive.
This is not to say that there will not be traditional niche uses of analog airwaves, such as emergency police, fire and military as well as civilian emergency channels like HAM radio. The law can protect these channels, and the FCC can continue to help the electronic components industry to ensure the devices do what they were created to do without interfering. But regulate airwaves the way it does today?
The only issues we have today are not enough bandwidth and low or free Internet accessible to everyone everywhere in the US. These are the problems we should be solving; while also preventing unnecessary regulation of the Internet.
Cable companies already have digital TV. They are doing this to preempt the inevitable. Video and audio will be available by, for and from the masses soon, including large companies, small organizations and individuals, as soon as bandwidth enables it. You'll soon be able to use the Internet to watch THOUSANDS of TV stations from anywhere in the world with the bandwidth to broadcast, just as you were able to use it to listen to THOUSANDS of radio stations, although I'm not sure how much of an impact recent regulations on web broadcasting has had to-date.
The regulations on Internet radio favoring large traditional media companies over free home-based broadcasting stations are a perfect example of how regulations of the Internet are our only concern today. To learn about this problem, google for "save Internet radio". You'll discover a lot of concern over the issues by a lot of.
Build a bigger pipe (Internet II?). Prevent unnecessary expansion of regulation on the Internet. Ensure that everyone can access it anywhere, including rural residents.
If you do this, what will you lack on the Internet that traditional analog airwave-broadcasting spectrum can offer? Imagine any use today, and imagine how IP can enable it.
Look at CBs, for instance. With IPv6, even CBs can have their own IP addresses, and use any frequency that allows them to connect to the Internet. You can create "virtual" ranges to simulate physical proximity, while also permitting the CBs to talk to anyone on the world at any time using VoIP or whatever.
The FCC's lack of relevance isn't because of where they are today. It's because of where tomorrow's Internet will take us. Traditional spectrum is becoming digital quickly, and traditional communication mediums are converging as they become nodes on the Internet. The physical spectrum the device uses only becomes relevant to connect them to the Internet. It will have very little to do with the actual communication (voice, web, video) that then commences.
Thank you very much! That was very interesting and informative. I learned a lot about the distros from your post, and gained better perspective of source versus binary package builds.
I never thought of FreeBSD as bandwidth efficient, but that certainly makes a lot of sense. Your right about bandwidth considerations. Companies, such as where SUSE is primarily built, usually have broadband. In America, I think 1/3 of homes now have it.
Once you have it, you tend to forget about the rest of the world, although I've tried for years to get all my friends to upgrade to it. If they didn't let their kids and wives get addicted to AOL, they'd all have it today. They do, however, hate AOL enough to be determined not to use it when they do get broadband. So, it's a chicken and an egg for them.
Broadband is pretty cheap here if you live in a large metropolitan area, barely more than dial-up. If you live in a rural area, the you could be SOL. I'd like to move to a rural area, but this is by far my number one concern.
You certainly have reassured me that FreeBSD was the best way to go for my needs, primarily hard-core server usage. For desktop, I'm still weighing in on RH/Fedora, although I haven't tried SUSE or any of the other distros, with the exception of playing with an occasional boot CD such as Knoppix.
The primary benefit of the mainstream desktop Linux distros is they seem to require less text editing and learning, things I can't expect from those that want it as a desktop, and things I personally would rather not have to learn if I'm busy doing things on my desktop. Unfortunately, RH and FreeBSD have had enough differeences with the way they were configured that you are forced to relearn new ways of doing old things when you go from one to another and want to do advanced things, such as configure a Firewall. It's a bit understandable, as FreeBSD appears to be slower to depend on new things, which could be a good thing. But, it's a difference that has to weigh in one the equations when picking one over another for a particular use.
Thanks again for the post! Good luck on your nVidia problems and I hope God blesses you with a broadband connection someday! Until then, I hope you resolve all your updating issues, and perhaps can help others in your position understand and cope with it, as well as remind those with broadband that you do exist, and are still the majority!
If it is just a magazine, then that reduces plenty of the pro-Linux arguements against the boycott. The best most credible argument I've heard so far, although it can be countered, is that boycotting the site could hurt the Linux cause.
Linux is many things to many people; and to many people it's a technical and philosophical change, because it embodies many philosophical concepts, such as open source and international Internet non-profit geographically barrier free collaboration. It is also one of the first times this philosophical change is coming to head with traditional barriers. Because it is the underdog, and is taking on what many to be considered a monopoly creating economic inefficiency and stifling innovation (e.g., IE), it has become the quarterback in an epic battle between monopolistic proprietary control versus open standards, between overpriced slow innovation for the benefit of few and the progress of science for the benefit of many.
Of course, the philosophies and ideals don't appeal to everyone, and don't even appear real. Some have a hard time understanding how technology and philosophy or ideals can intersect, as well. Yet, to many, Linux is part of a cause, not just a piece of software.
How would you compare FreeBSD with OpenBSD? I haven't tried OpenBSD, so I'm curious. Do you use Java on OpenBSD?
I've come to really like FreeBSD. I'd like to try it on a non-production PC so I can appreciate being able to update everything at once. I was a bit bold to start FreeBSD on a production PC, but it was replacing a very old NT system, so it wasn't that insane. The NT system was a major magnet for worms and viruses, and Microsoft refused to fix many of the patches because Windows Update refused to support NT. It didn't just get Nimda, it got Nimda II a year later, and was the number one offending IP on my Linux box's snort logs.
I'm happy with RedHat for development. But, I'm not sure RedHat's update methodology is realistic on production long-term. It's good that they don't force updates to new functional versions on you. It's a general concensus that that's a good thing for a production server.
The problem is that if you manually upgrade to a version not on the distro, then you no longer get errata updates. I'm not sure this is a realistic long-term production methodology. RedHat 9, for instance comes with Postfix 1.x. But, you need 2.x to be able to filter on MIME attachments. Having to choose between 1.x with automatic errata updates and 2.x without automatic errata updates, but with MIME filtering, is not an ideal production choice. Sure, you don't want any additional functionality if it is working. But, as the Internet changes, you need to be able to update server components for reasons other than errata.
What's your opinion about the different distros? Have you come to conclusions regarding errata updates of server PCs? How about desktop use?
Hope you don't mind the questions, its just that you have 2 BSDs and Linux experience, so I'm guessing you can compare them objectively.
The question is, do you know what it is? Can you recognize it when you see it?
Trying to debase someone by convincing yourself they are less edudated or intelligent is not an intelligent response to an opinion. Trying to see things from your opponents point of view is.
Although no one is rehashing it today, many slashdotters concluded in previous discussions that the "get the facts" campaign is FUD, and I believe that is driving their opposition for it contaminating Linux sites more than it simply being anti-Linux. You can hear it summarized in a good percentage of the posts that use words like "truth" and "FUD". Slashdot had several news posts of analysis done debunking Microsoft's "get the facts" campaigns.
Their self-funded research results have been meticulously scrutinized to demonstrate that they are distorting the facts, picking only those scenarios that appear to favor Windows such as length of term used for TCO. One research group that the saving tipped in favor of Linux if the term was lengthened to 5 years from 3 years on some of the conclusions Microsoft was touting.
One of my favorites because I hear Microsoft using it the most today in its PR is that Microsoft has lower TCO because there are more human resources available for administering it. This is a bit of a chicken and egg thing, where the pendulum is swinging, and Microsoft is trying to stop it. Couldn't we also say that if we permit the current trend to continue (server market share growth), Linux will have a lower TCO because the market will create more Linux administrators than Windows?
Plus, you can't even compare these on constant supply numbers. Supply isn't the only contributor to price theory.
Most of those aren't Linux holes. They are application holes. The difference is that most of the applications you run on Windows are not from Microsoft, and therefore are never included in Microsoft security advisories. When was the last time Microsoft put out a fix for an Adobe vulnerability?
I run RH 9 and FreeBSD 4.9. I looked at the list on the front page, and none of the issues put me at risk.
There are two reasons a person can be unaffected by the vulnerability if they don't patch. One is they don't have or run the affected software. Gnome users that never use KDE aren't impacted by KDE runtime vulnerabilities. The other is that their network is protected enough to render the vulnerability useless (firewall, local IP security, chroot, NAT, etc.)
The only vulnerability I've seen announced this year that I've had any concern about was the CVS one. Fortunately, though, I have yet to open up my firewall for outside access to CVS. When I do, I plan to use SSH, in which case the vulnerability wouldn't have impacted me. Thus, so far in 2004 between the two operating systems I have had no true vulnerabilities.
Sure, you could say the version of MySQL I'm running has the symlink vulnerability. But, if an attacker can't get local non-chroot'd shell access, then what relevance is a symlink vulnerability?
Contrast it to Korgo and Sasser, which hit Windows ports that are opened by default. I can't tell you how many times I see ports 135 and 445 in my daily logs of packet rejections. Plus, the infecting the processess using those ports gives the attack complete control of the sytem.
Windows is plauged by REMOTE vulnerabilities to MICROSOFT software. Linux distrubutions mostly have LOCAL vulnerabilities with the independent APPLICATIONS that are packaged with them, not the operating system itself. Most of these vulnerabilities require LOCAL access and most of this software runs on Windows as well (e.g., Apache), so the vulnerability usually applies to both operating systems, but appears on the linux security alerts simply because they are one of the thousands of optional programs being included on the FOSS CDs. You have to download Apache if you have Windows because Microsoft is not going to include it, and Microsoft isn't going to send you a patch for it, or even post an Errata, just because you are running it on Windows.
I've also administered Windows servers for many years, using Windows 3.1, Workgroups, NT 3.5/4.0, 2000 and XP, and used just about all their software, including Visual Studio, InterDev, IIS, and COM/DCOM. I still run 2000 and XP in addition to RH 9 and FreeBSD. I've developed my opinion from experience securing production servers in both Windows and Linux, as have other people posting on/.
It is a tough decision. I haven't necessarily decided one way or the other, but can't help but oppose some of the ridiculous claims I've seen opposing the article, such as he's "dangerous".
Your second paragraph makes sense, and certainly weighs in on my decision.
Regarding your first paragraph and "collective economic might", I'd have to say that we're already using it by visiting the site. The reality is, our collective economic might is always in action, feeding organizations while starving others. Our attention just isn't big enough to feed them all. Thus, I don't view it as bullying, but simply coording our collective economic might to try to increase its power, furthering the interests of the collective. If boycotting does this, then our collective economic might is simply becoming more economically efficient at rewarding those that produce the most value.
On the other hand, your second paragraph points out the complication involved in the decision, and that it does not come with guaranteed results. While I wouldn't want to "kill ourselves off", I also wouldn't worry about MSN, Hotmail and other Microsoft property. We're talking about advertising, not free individual speech. Microsoft already prohibits anti-Microsoft advertising, and floods their own sites with their own advertising, so we don't have anything to lose there. I seriously doubt that they'll try censoring individual technology opinions in MSN or Hotmail, let alone be successful at it.
I don't know whether or not to be flattered (I can hold a company ransom) or insulted (no gun, no kidnapping, just my ability to fulfill my only purpose in life... to view their advertisements.)
Wow, we need to pass law against such ransoms!!!
SB 371: "The inalienable right of advertisers to have their opinions viewed unobstructed by the opinions of others shall not be held randsom by violent threats to close one's eyes."
I would agree with you, if the issue was government cencorship.
But, this is democracy in it's purest, not centralized government control.
He's asking individuals to make an individual choice. You are free to choose who you patronage, and you are free to not be influenced by his article or his request that you consider offering your patronage elsewhere, presumably Linux sites that don't host anti-linux slogans.
He's not asking a central dictator to pass a law forbidding free speech.
You think open source is a product? Linux was here long before RedHat arrived on the scene.
Open source, to many people, is a philosophy, not a product.
In the early days of the Internet, before 99% of corporate managers heard of it, and most of the public didn't know what it was either, we discussed how to share code and its potential impact on society, now that we could transmit it anywhere in the world for free instantly, without any geographic barriers.
The debate ended up being over the impact corporations would have, and how their motives of secrecy would run counter, and try to consume open source out of existence. This is why the GPL was created. To protect the ideology... the ability to share code without some commercial enterprise taking ownership.
RedHat is considered a friend of open source by most today. But, I've seen plenty of comments by people concerned about the potential for RedHat to loose sight of its roots. I've also seen plenty of decisions by open source advocates to try to ensure that Linux' future is not one of RedHat and Suse and memories of everything else. Core open source advocates are watching RedHat and Suse very carefully, and are making sure they do not put all their eggs into the corporate basket.
RedHat, by the way, claims to be a service company, not a product company.
He can ask the community anything he wants. That's free speech. If the community chooses to do it, that's democracy.
If free speech that can promote democracy is dangerous, then I want to live on the edge.
I loved the book Fahrenheit 451, but I've been boycotting Disney for years, so would never buy the documentary. ROFL!! If you think Moore's documentary is so critical it MUST get out, then you obviously didn't read the 451 book he titles it after, or it didn't sink in.
If a documentary is really that important, then Moore can put it on Bittorent and watch the web links build up. If he wants to make money, though, then that's another story.
And what are they paying for? Our patronage, right? The ads are paying for the attention of the so called hippies. Don't the eyes have a say in this economic equation?
The problem though isn't when geeks come to Linux sites, but when curious corporate IT managers visit.
Managers used to say, "no one ever got fired by choosing IBM." Today they say, "no one ever got fired by choosing Microsoft."
They don't need truth as much as they need to be able to justify choosing Microsoft or Linux, and the ads give them the justification to continue to take a "safe" position that will be hard to blame problems on.
Both Microsoft and Linux based corporate projects will fail, for causes that have nothing to do with the choice between either. Yet, today, a manager has a much higher likelihood of losing his job or a promotion because he didn't choose Microsoft. The ads reinforce this.
That's why the ridiculous nature of the FUD is a non-issue with Microsoft. It's not how educated the readers are. It's how paranoid the reader is of looking like any failure was caused by a bad decision they made. They won't think about how truthful the ads are, but how the assertions will make them look if they choose Linux and things don't work out as planned. It's how paranoid the reader is, not how intelligent or educated. The more financial responsibility you have, the more you have to spend on software, and the more you have to lose if you make a choice that someone can blame on you.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't for get open standards. Directly, it's open standards that's threatened by patents. If it ever becomes possible to shield open standards from patent encumbrance, then open source will enjoy a lot more free reign; at least open source implementations of open standards.
TCP/IP is here to stay because it's the foundation of everything else, although it is possible to upgrade it over time. As for IPv6, it's coming, slowly but sure. There are things we can do to speed it up. Internet 2 is built on it, and new services such as the CB example I described can be built on IPv6.
Internet is not a bubble. It was built completly without Wallstreet's help, and it will continue to prosper no matter what the latest investment trend is.
The reliability issue is overblown and very misunderstood. You can, for the most part, have your IP communications be nearly as reliable as you want them to be. But obviously, reliability, like RF broadcast stations, cost money. Redundancy is an option, and some sites spend money on it. When was the last time IBM's website was down?
The Internet is designed to be reliable, but it's an option, not an automatic benefit. You can build all the redundancy you need, but you aren't going to build more redunancy than makes sense for your needs and budget.
I can tell you that my Internet connection has been continuously on and uninterupted for over 6 months, 24/7. But I pay for that 99.9% reliability. A local FM station I listen when I'm in my car has been down more than that. At home, I listen to commercial free digital music, continously. I love it.
I can also see how privatization coupled with subsidies to fill the gaps can enable it, if done the right way and guided by good laws fostering high competition. Despite people's concerns about companies self-regulating, they already do to a large extent though open standards bodies. 802.11 and most protocols are open standards, not creations of the FCC. It's in their self-interest to produce equipment that complies with standards, and it's in their interest to create standards that do not interfere with each other.
It's unrealistic to abolish the FCC, but I believe their role can change, and often reduced. Technology and open standards, when given the chance, can work out a lot of issues.
How about moving your broadcasting to the Internet?
I personally don't care how bandwidth, migration to IPv6, and accessibility issues are addressed, so long as they are resolved. Do you really care if the FCC or a highly competitive ISP infrastructure guided by open standards bodies which only partly covered wireless data communications was responsible for giving you 1.5 MB/s bandwidth everywhere you went for $30/month?
We need to start with a clean slate and open mind, and objectively consider all options. Nevertheless, I'm willing to bet the economists will support a highly competitive market with limitted subsidies for rural communications.
I completely agree that ham radio should be protected.
The try the unlicense "Internet spectrum".
If you read this post, you'll see where I use the CB as an example.
Of course, we still won't want people blocking Internet communications. But we already have laws against DoS attacks. In your example, however, the CB'er would no longer have the incentive to use higher power transmissions, as geographic limits, if used, would be purely virtual.
The only incentive someone would still have to do that would be DoS and perhaps signal boosting to connect to the Internet until it is accessible everywhere. However, I in the data world, I haven't heard of real problems of signal interference in the unlicensed spectrum due to larger antennas on other digital devices, although there are occassional rumors of analog TVs picking up some bleeding. That will also be a moot issue, though, as the Internet is used to transmit video channels.
The only bleeding we'll need to worry about is in emergency analog frequencies, which will always be protected by law. IP wireless devices are great at interoperating in the same frequencies in contrast to analog devices. You can have quite a few WAP devices in the same area. Spectrum often used by analog, on the other hand, such as 2.4Ghz, drives me nuts, personally. Ever broadcast analog audio over 2.4 Ghz only to hear your microwave pop on your stereo? Digital handles this, and digital standards such as 802.11b/g handle multiple broadcasters (SSIDs) very well.
I think the important thing is to prevent the FCC from applying its traditional regulations to the Internet. The Internet is the future of communications, both wired and wireless. The great thing about Internet is it integrates all physical means of communication. Once you put something in IP, there's no telling what physical medium it will travel over... copper, coaxial, fiber or wireless.
What can you do on traditional airwaves that you cannot conceivably do over IP? Talk on the phone? Watch TV? Broadcast live events? Listen to the radio? If you look at the current IP solutions to these options, the only limitation today is bandwidth, IP allocation (IPv4) and accessibility (price/location). These problems can be resolved if we focus on them instead of trying to keep traditional communication pipes alive.
This is not to say that there will not be traditional niche uses of analog airwaves, such as emergency police, fire and military as well as civilian emergency channels like HAM radio. The law can protect these channels, and the FCC can continue to help the electronic components industry to ensure the devices do what they were created to do without interfering. But regulate airwaves the way it does today?
The only issues we have today are not enough bandwidth and low or free Internet accessible to everyone everywhere in the US. These are the problems we should be solving; while also preventing unnecessary regulation of the Internet.
Cable companies already have digital TV. They are doing this to preempt the inevitable. Video and audio will be available by, for and from the masses soon, including large companies, small organizations and individuals, as soon as bandwidth enables it. You'll soon be able to use the Internet to watch THOUSANDS of TV stations from anywhere in the world with the bandwidth to broadcast, just as you were able to use it to listen to THOUSANDS of radio stations, although I'm not sure how much of an impact recent regulations on web broadcasting has had to-date.
The regulations on Internet radio favoring large traditional media companies over free home-based broadcasting stations are a perfect example of how regulations of the Internet are our only concern today. To learn about this problem, google for "save Internet radio". You'll discover a lot of concern over the issues by a lot of.
Build a bigger pipe (Internet II?). Prevent unnecessary expansion of regulation on the Internet. Ensure that everyone can access it anywhere, including rural residents.
If you do this, what will you lack on the Internet that traditional analog airwave-broadcasting spectrum can offer? Imagine any use today, and imagine how IP can enable it.
Look at CBs, for instance. With IPv6, even CBs can have their own IP addresses, and use any frequency that allows them to connect to the Internet. You can create "virtual" ranges to simulate physical proximity, while also permitting the CBs to talk to anyone on the world at any time using VoIP or whatever.
The FCC's lack of relevance isn't because of where they are today. It's because of where tomorrow's Internet will take us. Traditional spectrum is becoming digital quickly, and traditional communication mediums are converging as they become nodes on the Internet. The physical spectrum the device uses only becomes relevant to connect them to the Internet. It will have very little to do with the actual communication (voice, web, video) that then commences.
I never thought of FreeBSD as bandwidth efficient, but that certainly makes a lot of sense. Your right about bandwidth considerations. Companies, such as where SUSE is primarily built, usually have broadband. In America, I think 1/3 of homes now have it.
Once you have it, you tend to forget about the rest of the world, although I've tried for years to get all my friends to upgrade to it. If they didn't let their kids and wives get addicted to AOL, they'd all have it today. They do, however, hate AOL enough to be determined not to use it when they do get broadband. So, it's a chicken and an egg for them.
Broadband is pretty cheap here if you live in a large metropolitan area, barely more than dial-up. If you live in a rural area, the you could be SOL. I'd like to move to a rural area, but this is by far my number one concern.
You certainly have reassured me that FreeBSD was the best way to go for my needs, primarily hard-core server usage. For desktop, I'm still weighing in on RH/Fedora, although I haven't tried SUSE or any of the other distros, with the exception of playing with an occasional boot CD such as Knoppix.
The primary benefit of the mainstream desktop Linux distros is they seem to require less text editing and learning, things I can't expect from those that want it as a desktop, and things I personally would rather not have to learn if I'm busy doing things on my desktop. Unfortunately, RH and FreeBSD have had enough differeences with the way they were configured that you are forced to relearn new ways of doing old things when you go from one to another and want to do advanced things, such as configure a Firewall. It's a bit understandable, as FreeBSD appears to be slower to depend on new things, which could be a good thing. But, it's a difference that has to weigh in one the equations when picking one over another for a particular use.
Thanks again for the post! Good luck on your nVidia problems and I hope God blesses you with a broadband connection someday! Until then, I hope you resolve all your updating issues, and perhaps can help others in your position understand and cope with it, as well as remind those with broadband that you do exist, and are still the majority!
Peace out!
Erik
It's not going to happen, as Microsoft is an investor in Apple.
Headless chickens can peck?
Linux is many things to many people; and to many people it's a technical and philosophical change, because it embodies many philosophical concepts, such as open source and international Internet non-profit geographically barrier free collaboration. It is also one of the first times this philosophical change is coming to head with traditional barriers. Because it is the underdog, and is taking on what many to be considered a monopoly creating economic inefficiency and stifling innovation (e.g., IE), it has become the quarterback in an epic battle between monopolistic proprietary control versus open standards, between overpriced slow innovation for the benefit of few and the progress of science for the benefit of many.
Of course, the philosophies and ideals don't appeal to everyone, and don't even appear real. Some have a hard time understanding how technology and philosophy or ideals can intersect, as well. Yet, to many, Linux is part of a cause, not just a piece of software.
I've come to really like FreeBSD. I'd like to try it on a non-production PC so I can appreciate being able to update everything at once. I was a bit bold to start FreeBSD on a production PC, but it was replacing a very old NT system, so it wasn't that insane. The NT system was a major magnet for worms and viruses, and Microsoft refused to fix many of the patches because Windows Update refused to support NT. It didn't just get Nimda, it got Nimda II a year later, and was the number one offending IP on my Linux box's snort logs.
I'm happy with RedHat for development. But, I'm not sure RedHat's update methodology is realistic on production long-term. It's good that they don't force updates to new functional versions on you. It's a general concensus that that's a good thing for a production server.
The problem is that if you manually upgrade to a version not on the distro, then you no longer get errata updates. I'm not sure this is a realistic long-term production methodology. RedHat 9, for instance comes with Postfix 1.x. But, you need 2.x to be able to filter on MIME attachments. Having to choose between 1.x with automatic errata updates and 2.x without automatic errata updates, but with MIME filtering, is not an ideal production choice. Sure, you don't want any additional functionality if it is working. But, as the Internet changes, you need to be able to update server components for reasons other than errata.
What's your opinion about the different distros? Have you come to conclusions regarding errata updates of server PCs? How about desktop use?
Hope you don't mind the questions, its just that you have 2 BSDs and Linux experience, so I'm guessing you can compare them objectively.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=110030&cid=93
The question is, do you know what it is? Can you recognize it when you see it?
Trying to debase someone by convincing yourself they are less edudated or intelligent is not an intelligent response to an opinion. Trying to see things from your opponents point of view is.
Although no one is rehashing it today, many slashdotters concluded in previous discussions that the "get the facts" campaign is FUD, and I believe that is driving their opposition for it contaminating Linux sites more than it simply being anti-Linux. You can hear it summarized in a good percentage of the posts that use words like "truth" and "FUD". Slashdot had several news posts of analysis done debunking Microsoft's "get the facts" campaigns.
Their self-funded research results have been meticulously scrutinized to demonstrate that they are distorting the facts, picking only those scenarios that appear to favor Windows such as length of term used for TCO. One research group that the saving tipped in favor of Linux if the term was lengthened to 5 years from 3 years on some of the conclusions Microsoft was touting.
One of my favorites because I hear Microsoft using it the most today in its PR is that Microsoft has lower TCO because there are more human resources available for administering it. This is a bit of a chicken and egg thing, where the pendulum is swinging, and Microsoft is trying to stop it. Couldn't we also say that if we permit the current trend to continue (server market share growth), Linux will have a lower TCO because the market will create more Linux administrators than Windows?
Plus, you can't even compare these on constant supply numbers. Supply isn't the only contributor to price theory.
This is all about FUD. Get the facts.
I run RH 9 and FreeBSD 4.9. I looked at the list on the front page, and none of the issues put me at risk.
There are two reasons a person can be unaffected by the vulnerability if they don't patch. One is they don't have or run the affected software. Gnome users that never use KDE aren't impacted by KDE runtime vulnerabilities. The other is that their network is protected enough to render the vulnerability useless (firewall, local IP security, chroot, NAT, etc.)
The only vulnerability I've seen announced this year that I've had any concern about was the CVS one. Fortunately, though, I have yet to open up my firewall for outside access to CVS. When I do, I plan to use SSH, in which case the vulnerability wouldn't have impacted me. Thus, so far in 2004 between the two operating systems I have had no true vulnerabilities.
Sure, you could say the version of MySQL I'm running has the symlink vulnerability. But, if an attacker can't get local non-chroot'd shell access, then what relevance is a symlink vulnerability?
Contrast it to Korgo and Sasser, which hit Windows ports that are opened by default. I can't tell you how many times I see ports 135 and 445 in my daily logs of packet rejections. Plus, the infecting the processess using those ports gives the attack complete control of the sytem.
Windows is plauged by REMOTE vulnerabilities to MICROSOFT software. Linux distrubutions mostly have LOCAL vulnerabilities with the independent APPLICATIONS that are packaged with them, not the operating system itself. Most of these vulnerabilities require LOCAL access and most of this software runs on Windows as well (e.g., Apache), so the vulnerability usually applies to both operating systems, but appears on the linux security alerts simply because they are one of the thousands of optional programs being included on the FOSS CDs. You have to download Apache if you have Windows because Microsoft is not going to include it, and Microsoft isn't going to send you a patch for it, or even post an Errata, just because you are running it on Windows.
I've also administered Windows servers for many years, using Windows 3.1, Workgroups, NT 3.5/4.0, 2000 and XP, and used just about all their software, including Visual Studio, InterDev, IIS, and COM/DCOM. I still run 2000 and XP in addition to RH 9 and FreeBSD. I've developed my opinion from experience securing production servers in both Windows and Linux, as have other people posting on /.
Your second paragraph makes sense, and certainly weighs in on my decision.
Regarding your first paragraph and "collective economic might", I'd have to say that we're already using it by visiting the site. The reality is, our collective economic might is always in action, feeding organizations while starving others. Our attention just isn't big enough to feed them all. Thus, I don't view it as bullying, but simply coording our collective economic might to try to increase its power, furthering the interests of the collective. If boycotting does this, then our collective economic might is simply becoming more economically efficient at rewarding those that produce the most value.
On the other hand, your second paragraph points out the complication involved in the decision, and that it does not come with guaranteed results. While I wouldn't want to "kill ourselves off", I also wouldn't worry about MSN, Hotmail and other Microsoft property. We're talking about advertising, not free individual speech. Microsoft already prohibits anti-Microsoft advertising, and floods their own sites with their own advertising, so we don't have anything to lose there. I seriously doubt that they'll try censoring individual technology opinions in MSN or Hotmail, let alone be successful at it.
Technology Road Shows have 960% more bull?hit than Linux Expos. Get the facts.
Wow, we need to pass law against such ransoms!!! SB 371: "The inalienable right of advertisers to have their opinions viewed unobstructed by the opinions of others shall not be held randsom by violent threats to close one's eyes."
But, this is democracy in it's purest, not centralized government control.
He's asking individuals to make an individual choice. You are free to choose who you patronage, and you are free to not be influenced by his article or his request that you consider offering your patronage elsewhere, presumably Linux sites that don't host anti-linux slogans.
He's not asking a central dictator to pass a law forbidding free speech.
Open source, to many people, is a philosophy, not a product.
In the early days of the Internet, before 99% of corporate managers heard of it, and most of the public didn't know what it was either, we discussed how to share code and its potential impact on society, now that we could transmit it anywhere in the world for free instantly, without any geographic barriers.
The debate ended up being over the impact corporations would have, and how their motives of secrecy would run counter, and try to consume open source out of existence. This is why the GPL was created. To protect the ideology... the ability to share code without some commercial enterprise taking ownership.
RedHat is considered a friend of open source by most today. But, I've seen plenty of comments by people concerned about the potential for RedHat to loose sight of its roots. I've also seen plenty of decisions by open source advocates to try to ensure that Linux' future is not one of RedHat and Suse and memories of everything else. Core open source advocates are watching RedHat and Suse very carefully, and are making sure they do not put all their eggs into the corporate basket.
RedHat, by the way, claims to be a service company, not a product company.
He can ask the community anything he wants. That's free speech. If the community chooses to do it, that's democracy.
If free speech that can promote democracy is dangerous, then I want to live on the edge.
I loved the book Fahrenheit 451, but I've been boycotting Disney for years, so would never buy the documentary. ROFL!! If you think Moore's documentary is so critical it MUST get out, then you obviously didn't read the 451 book he titles it after, or it didn't sink in.
If a documentary is really that important, then Moore can put it on Bittorent and watch the web links build up. If he wants to make money, though, then that's another story.
And what are they paying for? Our patronage, right? The ads are paying for the attention of the so called hippies. Don't the eyes have a say in this economic equation?
Managers used to say, "no one ever got fired by choosing IBM." Today they say, "no one ever got fired by choosing Microsoft."
They don't need truth as much as they need to be able to justify choosing Microsoft or Linux, and the ads give them the justification to continue to take a "safe" position that will be hard to blame problems on.
Both Microsoft and Linux based corporate projects will fail, for causes that have nothing to do with the choice between either. Yet, today, a manager has a much higher likelihood of losing his job or a promotion because he didn't choose Microsoft. The ads reinforce this.
That's why the ridiculous nature of the FUD is a non-issue with Microsoft. It's not how educated the readers are. It's how paranoid the reader is of looking like any failure was caused by a bad decision they made. They won't think about how truthful the ads are, but how the assertions will make them look if they choose Linux and things don't work out as planned. It's how paranoid the reader is, not how intelligent or educated. The more financial responsibility you have, the more you have to spend on software, and the more you have to lose if you make a choice that someone can blame on you.
No, just subversive inside influences. :)