I am absolutely not joking. I learned not to trust Windows through bitter experience long before I heard the mindless lindrones spewing nonsense here.
I use BSD (and Linux) because I like them and I like having the ability to make them secure and I like the (intelligent portion of) the respective communities.
I use Windows because I like to play games. Since I have no Online Games I play, I've even removed it from the Internet completely now. No reason to have a video game system on the 'net when you're only playing one-player games, now is there? Therefore... I trust Windows to be a video game system. Actually... if I cared enough, I'd back up all my save files and character data files because I don't even trust it to do that right, but I don't care enough to do that.
Good thing I'm not dumb enough to type anything important of my own on a Windows box. I guess if I'm infected at work, they'll get the company's code, and if I'm infected at home, they'll found out that I like to cast "Magic Missile" in conjunction with "Flamestrike" when facing strong magic users to disrupt their concentration then hit them with a heavy blast while my warriors move in for the kill.
I'm sure that latter piece is exceptionally valuable information...
I think you're confusing me with another poster. The most I ever said was, basically, that any syntax can be obfuscated by lazy or stupid people. However, that was said in response to your complaint that Perl lends itself to ugliness. Well, guess what? So does sendmail configuration. Now I'm calling bullshit on throwing Perl off the server becuase it's "too easy to write line noise" when you use a package that is notorious for having some of the most fucked up cf syntax in the history of SysV/BSD systems.
Why do you think the prevailing wisdom is to treat the configuration like a delicate deck of cards that should only be touched if it means staving off the cataclysmic end of the world? Hmmm.... because it's shit poor line noise? Just like the security is shit poor lip service?
Give it a rest. There's no "sendmail FUD". You should Fear sendmail and treat it with Uncertainty because there is no Doubt that it will totally screw you the second you turn your back.
It's just a lousy package, plain and simple. If you're one of the very, very, very, very, very few people who need some arcane feature that only sendmail includes, congratulations on being unlucky. Otherwise, I'd say it's not too much of a guess to say the only reason you don't pick a better package is because you're too lazy to jump on that learning curve.
I have to admit that I don't have much against BIND9, and I only have a vague preference for djbdns since I've never need ZTs. Plus, I don't use either in any particular capacity. The point about BIND still stands, however. It's not so much that it's chosen on merit (if that was the case it never would've made it to BIND9), just that it's chosen because it's the default.
The Windows statement references the mentality of choosing a tool that's familiar over the tool that's actually best for the job. It does not compare technologies used in Windows to those used in BSD, Unix, and Linux systems.
Nice try, but my real world experience proves you to be wrong.
Holy shit... you're a real gem...
MY experience is that people who use sendmail might as well just generate their configuration files using/dev/urandom. I guess MY real world experience proves YOU to be wrong, so now you're going to stop using sendmail, right?
I also like how the guy that you responded to got pinned as a troll. See, on Slashdot, the fact that sendmail is a total piece of security shit doesn't matter. All that matters is that MICROSOFT programs have lousy security.
I suspect this is because 95% of the people on Slashdot that actually talk don't know shit about computing, but they spit the same old idealogical mind dumps that appear in every Microsoft/Linux/SCO article and get excellent karma and mod points. Then, they run around and mod down anyone who doesn't say exactly what they were saying before. I mean, god forbid an intelligent post appear that doesn't exhort the many virtues of OSS! After all, with a license like GPL/BSD, it HAS to be good..... right?
Don't give me shit about Perl either. I can write totally unreadable code in C, Perl, Python, PHP, VBScript, Vb6, C++, Java, shell scripting, and QBASIC. I can also write clean code, readable code in all of them.
It's not FUD, most Slashdotters just have their heads so far up their own asses that it just looks like they sit on top of their necks. Morons around here bemoan Microsoft for its shitty security, then they run out every other day to patch BIND or sendmail. Even assuming you're the 1 in 20 person who actually has a need that only sendmail can meet (which I doubt you are given the odds), the fact that you would suggest that saying sendmail has shit poor security is just "FUD" just serves to prove the point that you're just another one of the idealogical nutjobs that frequent this place.
Give it a rest. It's not FUD because it's true. Sendmail blows a left donkey's swollen nut when it comes to security, usability, and reliability. Just deal with it. While you're at it, ask yourself if you even really need sendmail, or if you're just too lazy to make the switch to something that actually works.
Becuase no matter what ridiculous flaws it has in it, it's the de facto standard by which all other (frequently superior) systems are measured. People figure "gee.... I wanna learn DNS servers", they think BIND. They think "gee.... I wanna learn SMTP servers". They think sendmail.
It's the same flawed system that supports Windows, but executed to a much greater extent. People are familiar with it, so despite the fact that BIND and sendmail are absolute abominations, they get used.
The geeks bitch about people using Windows even though "such far superior" systems exist as alternatives, but we keep using the horrendous abortion that is BIND even though there are superior alternatives that are free. I guess we can't stand the taste of our own medicine, hm?
No, not to stick with the altered subject. I'm not interested in debating the death penalty. I don't care. If you want to engage someone ELSE in that debate, fine, but it doesn't interest me and it doesn't relate to the original discussion at all. I'm also not interested in discussing theology. Believe whatever you want, just don't hurt any innocent bystanders doing it and we'll simply never cross swords (well, on that subject) or paths.
No, you SHOULDN'T be rewarded for stupidity. However, when typically benign injuries such as accidental coffee spills put you in the hospital, you're not stupid for getting hurt. Maybe for spilling the coffee, yes, but there should be a certain expectation that the water won't be so hot that it can cause serious injury. You would have to boil water, wait 2 or 3 seconds for it to stop boiling after removing it from the heat, then pour it DIRECTLY ONTO YOUR SKIN to receive the sort of potential damage she was exposed to. I'll lay all this out for you once, and once only. Simple googling can verify these three major points (as well as the temperature data and award I quoted above):
The woman in question spent a week in the hospital and recieved significant reconstructive surgery as a result of the injuries.
The jury had much the same reaction as you're displaying now until graphic images of her injuries were shown to them.
McDonald's had seen several serious injuries like this before she brought the suit. They ignored them all.
There are plenty of good examples of stupid lawsuit syndrome. This is not one of them, it's just one that makes the rounds because nobody ever bothers to look up what actually happened. Try looking up info on the idiot that put his Winebago on cruise control, walked in the back, and sued after it went off the road. That's a good example of what you're getting at.
Despite all this, however, your original point is still entirely wrong for the simple reason that civil and criminal cases are handled entirely differently from one another.
Not bad, two in a row. Want to go for a threepeat?
Sane courts and legal systems... hmmm. hmmm.. since civil cases are handled seperately from criminal cases.....
Can I get an APPLE?
APPLE!
Can I get an ORANGE?
ORANGE!
Hot coffee... hot coffee. You are aware, I assume, that at the time of the lawsuit the training manual for McDonald's coffee required the coffee be maintained at a temperature no less than 180 degrees farenheight which is a mere 32 degrees below the boiling point of water? You are aware, I assume, that on sensitive skin such as that of the elderly and on children (both age groups being members of society which frequent McDonald's, mind you - one of which is a regular customer of coffee), 180 degree water can cause intense damage? I spilled their coffee on myself as a preteen, years before the lawsuit - it left burn marks for several days. I had previously spilled instant coffee on myself and it NEVER left that sort of damage. And, of course, you're conveniently ommitting the fact that the judgement was eventually reduced to less than $700k.
Well, you've offered your ass up twice now, and twice I've handed it back to you on a silver platter. Want to go for three? I'd recommend against it. I don't really have anything against you, I'm just tired of people offering up irrelevant comparisons and BS statements to make a "point", when, in fact, they're not making any point at all as a result of thier meaningless posts.
I agree, but the story isn't about the lousy patent process, it's about this patent and the response is, typicaly, reactionary and baseless. I wish Slashdot submitters would at least maintain a modicum of decency with this sort of story and not go jumping into irrational hissy fits in their write ups.
Of course... if Slashdot's editors... you know... edited things, this might not be such a problem (but I wouldn't hold my breath).
Oh, yes. Brilliant parellel there. You know, comparing aggravated assault and terroristic threat to patenting things. Too bad that's probably the single stupidest parellel I've ever seen ANYONE draw on this site. Considering some of the whoppers people come up with, that's saying something.
Try again, please. I'm not even going to grace that horrible attempt with an actual response, but I'll give you another try (here's a hint: you're already a criminal once you point the gun, and you're also endangering someone's life - things that on their own are WAY beyond ANYTHING illegal involving crooked patents).
They can have so many patents that they have to start holding them in their asscracks. Exhibit 1: IBM, the Little Linux guy's friend on Slashdot.
They problem is not that they GET them. The problem only occurs if they can actually ENFORCE them. Which, in any sane court (yes, I know those are in dwindling numbers these days) won't happen.
By all means, let them run amok and waste money on BS patents. Just make sure that the first time they get challenged they actually go down. If the challenge fails, THEN there's a problem.
... on how long it takes Baystar to come out and say that SCO is talking shit and something much, much worse is happening from SCO's end than they're letting on to. Like Baystar starting a lawsuit or something.
I'm tired of people like you coming along and saying "oh noes! LOL!!!!1! I'm an idiot and I don't believe in fighting back against people who have already proven they're not going to stay within the bounds of civilized society!! Please rape me anally and steal my wallet because I'm a limp-wristed pansy!!"
There's a difference between a "civilized" society and the victim society people like you want to live in. I don't know where you nutters come from, but why don't you keep your yap shut about how to respond to a criminal of ANY kind until you've actually faced one. If you keep yipping like that you're caviar might fall out of your big, fat mouth and ruin those dainty silk sheets.
Oh, and here's a clue Edward P. Dwinklebottom the 3rd: legal systems can't protect you if you let the crook kill you in the first place.
You do realise that assault with a deadly weapon is frowned upon in civilised society, don't you?
Fine then. I think I probably speak for a lot of people when I say: Fuck "Civilized" society.
I don't give a half a shit who the fuck you are. Try to take my shit I'll rip your fucking throat out because, frankly, I have niether the time nor the patience to deal with people fucking around with my hard earned items of interest and my laptop's worth more than the life of any crook that would take it. And, don't give me any of that "civilized society" bullshit, either. I'm not the one that dragged the two of us out of it, so don't give me a hard time for adapting to the new surroundings.
I think a +5, Informative on a joke about posting a root password to the world is as funny as the joke itself. It's like the mods adding to the original joke: "Here everyone, r00t this guy."
How the hell did both the responses to my post wind up with unclosed italics tags on them?
Anyway, the point above is irrelevant because, again, I'm not interested in what Java can or can't do. The point was, is, and always will be that, originally, the grandparent poster I referred to was modded to flamebait for presenting a personal opinion, and his/her respondent was modded Interesting despite posting a flame. The grandparent, whether he had a valid point or not, was not "taken to task", he was merely flamed. That's the crux of the point.
I don't understand what the big deal is regardless. I mean, if you're sending plain text e-mails, they're going through multiple third parties anyway. If any of them wanted to keep and read your e-mail, nothing is stopping them now except encryption. What's different about Google other than they explicitly tell you they're going to do it.
I'm all for privacy, but all this hoopla just sounds like a bunch of techno-losers who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, but think it's a good "issue" to start screaming at the top of their lungs on.
The parent to your post may have been a little harsh, but calling him a zealot just because he has experience you lack is unfair.
Which would be an issue if it weren't for the fact that I called him a zealot for attacking his parent as "clueless", not because he likes Java.
I don't care about who uses Java - I don't like it for myriad reasons, so I don't use it. The fact that I choose different languages, however, doesn't make my parent clueless in the realm of programming anymore than his parent's post was clueless for presenting a gripe he has about Java. The point was the he made a personal attack on the parent poster and (originally) got modded to Interesting, but the person he attacked was just saying he didn't like Java - his opinion - in a non-confrontational way and got modded down (originally) as Flamebait.
The fact of the matter is, much to the chagrin of Java fanboys, is that some of us just don't like Java and don't want to use it. Too bad. People shouldn't be at risk for being modded down just on that merit and you shouldn't be able to get modded up just for a diatribe about how superior Java is without actually discussing any of its strong points or responding to a particuarly criticism of it.
Slashdot Mirror
It does if Bozo was a marauding psychopath and Krusty is a just an ineffective turd... it's better to be nothing than dangerous and destructive.
I am absolutely not joking. I learned not to trust Windows through bitter experience long before I heard the mindless lindrones spewing nonsense here.
I use BSD (and Linux) because I like them and I like having the ability to make them secure and I like the (intelligent portion of) the respective communities.
I use Windows because I like to play games. Since I have no Online Games I play, I've even removed it from the Internet completely now. No reason to have a video game system on the 'net when you're only playing one-player games, now is there? Therefore... I trust Windows to be a video game system. Actually... if I cared enough, I'd back up all my save files and character data files because I don't even trust it to do that right, but I don't care enough to do that.
Good thing I'm not dumb enough to type anything important of my own on a Windows box. I guess if I'm infected at work, they'll get the company's code, and if I'm infected at home, they'll found out that I like to cast "Magic Missile" in conjunction with "Flamestrike" when facing strong magic users to disrupt their concentration then hit them with a heavy blast while my warriors move in for the kill.
I'm sure that latter piece is exceptionally valuable information...
I think you're confusing me with another poster. The most I ever said was, basically, that any syntax can be obfuscated by lazy or stupid people. However, that was said in response to your complaint that Perl lends itself to ugliness. Well, guess what? So does sendmail configuration. Now I'm calling bullshit on throwing Perl off the server becuase it's "too easy to write line noise" when you use a package that is notorious for having some of the most fucked up cf syntax in the history of SysV/BSD systems.
Why do you think the prevailing wisdom is to treat the configuration like a delicate deck of cards that should only be touched if it means staving off the cataclysmic end of the world? Hmmm.... because it's shit poor line noise? Just like the security is shit poor lip service?
Give it a rest. There's no "sendmail FUD". You should Fear sendmail and treat it with Uncertainty because there is no Doubt that it will totally screw you the second you turn your back.
It's just a lousy package, plain and simple. If you're one of the very, very, very, very, very few people who need some arcane feature that only sendmail includes, congratulations on being unlucky. Otherwise, I'd say it's not too much of a guess to say the only reason you don't pick a better package is because you're too lazy to jump on that learning curve.
I have to admit that I don't have much against BIND9, and I only have a vague preference for djbdns since I've never need ZTs. Plus, I don't use either in any particular capacity. The point about BIND still stands, however. It's not so much that it's chosen on merit (if that was the case it never would've made it to BIND9), just that it's chosen because it's the default.
sendmail's the package I really hate...
The Windows statement references the mentality of choosing a tool that's familiar over the tool that's actually best for the job. It does not compare technologies used in Windows to those used in BSD, Unix, and Linux systems.
Superior.
Nice try, but my real world experience proves you to be wrong.
Holy shit... you're a real gem...
MY experience is that people who use sendmail might as well just generate their configuration files using /dev/urandom. I guess MY real world experience proves YOU to be wrong, so now you're going to stop using sendmail, right?
I also like how the guy that you responded to got pinned as a troll. See, on Slashdot, the fact that sendmail is a total piece of security shit doesn't matter. All that matters is that MICROSOFT programs have lousy security.
I suspect this is because 95% of the people on Slashdot that actually talk don't know shit about computing, but they spit the same old idealogical mind dumps that appear in every Microsoft/Linux/SCO article and get excellent karma and mod points. Then, they run around and mod down anyone who doesn't say exactly what they were saying before. I mean, god forbid an intelligent post appear that doesn't exhort the many virtues of OSS! After all, with a license like GPL/BSD, it HAS to be good..... right?
Yea, ok Tet. I'm a troll and that's FUD. It's not like sendmail really is a total piece of shit.
Don't give me shit about Perl either. I can write totally unreadable code in C, Perl, Python, PHP, VBScript, Vb6, C++, Java, shell scripting, and QBASIC. I can also write clean code, readable code in all of them.
It's not FUD, most Slashdotters just have their heads so far up their own asses that it just looks like they sit on top of their necks. Morons around here bemoan Microsoft for its shitty security, then they run out every other day to patch BIND or sendmail. Even assuming you're the 1 in 20 person who actually has a need that only sendmail can meet (which I doubt you are given the odds), the fact that you would suggest that saying sendmail has shit poor security is just "FUD" just serves to prove the point that you're just another one of the idealogical nutjobs that frequent this place.
Give it a rest. It's not FUD because it's true. Sendmail blows a left donkey's swollen nut when it comes to security, usability, and reliability. Just deal with it. While you're at it, ask yourself if you even really need sendmail, or if you're just too lazy to make the switch to something that actually works.
Becuase no matter what ridiculous flaws it has in it, it's the de facto standard by which all other (frequently superior) systems are measured. People figure "gee.... I wanna learn DNS servers", they think BIND. They think "gee.... I wanna learn SMTP servers". They think sendmail.
It's the same flawed system that supports Windows, but executed to a much greater extent. People are familiar with it, so despite the fact that BIND and sendmail are absolute abominations, they get used.
The geeks bitch about people using Windows even though "such far superior" systems exist as alternatives, but we keep using the horrendous abortion that is BIND even though there are superior alternatives that are free. I guess we can't stand the taste of our own medicine, hm?
No, not to stick with the altered subject. I'm not interested in debating the death penalty. I don't care. If you want to engage someone ELSE in that debate, fine, but it doesn't interest me and it doesn't relate to the original discussion at all. I'm also not interested in discussing theology. Believe whatever you want, just don't hurt any innocent bystanders doing it and we'll simply never cross swords (well, on that subject) or paths.
No, you SHOULDN'T be rewarded for stupidity. However, when typically benign injuries such as accidental coffee spills put you in the hospital, you're not stupid for getting hurt. Maybe for spilling the coffee, yes, but there should be a certain expectation that the water won't be so hot that it can cause serious injury. You would have to boil water, wait 2 or 3 seconds for it to stop boiling after removing it from the heat, then pour it DIRECTLY ONTO YOUR SKIN to receive the sort of potential damage she was exposed to. I'll lay all this out for you once, and once only. Simple googling can verify these three major points (as well as the temperature data and award I quoted above):
There are plenty of good examples of stupid lawsuit syndrome. This is not one of them, it's just one that makes the rounds because nobody ever bothers to look up what actually happened. Try looking up info on the idiot that put his Winebago on cruise control, walked in the back, and sued after it went off the road. That's a good example of what you're getting at.
Despite all this, however, your original point is still entirely wrong for the simple reason that civil and criminal cases are handled entirely differently from one another.
jane doe vs mc donalds over hot coffee
Not bad, two in a row. Want to go for a threepeat?
Sane courts and legal systems... hmmm. hmmm.. since civil cases are handled seperately from criminal cases.....
Can I get an APPLE?
APPLE!
Can I get an ORANGE?
ORANGE!
Hot coffee... hot coffee. You are aware, I assume, that at the time of the lawsuit the training manual for McDonald's coffee required the coffee be maintained at a temperature no less than 180 degrees farenheight which is a mere 32 degrees below the boiling point of water? You are aware, I assume, that on sensitive skin such as that of the elderly and on children (both age groups being members of society which frequent McDonald's, mind you - one of which is a regular customer of coffee), 180 degree water can cause intense damage? I spilled their coffee on myself as a preteen, years before the lawsuit - it left burn marks for several days. I had previously spilled instant coffee on myself and it NEVER left that sort of damage. And, of course, you're conveniently ommitting the fact that the judgement was eventually reduced to less than $700k.
Well, you've offered your ass up twice now, and twice I've handed it back to you on a silver platter. Want to go for three? I'd recommend against it. I don't really have anything against you, I'm just tired of people offering up irrelevant comparisons and BS statements to make a "point", when, in fact, they're not making any point at all as a result of thier meaningless posts.
Quick! Prove you're not a complete dipshit! What's the difference between a civil case and a criminal case?
Holy shit! I just drank half a bottle of Whiskey and a bottle of Ale and STILL managed to hand you your ass on a plate!
Well... unless civil lawsuits can now result in death penalties... but I don't think that's the case.
I agree, but the story isn't about the lousy patent process, it's about this patent and the response is, typicaly, reactionary and baseless. I wish Slashdot submitters would at least maintain a modicum of decency with this sort of story and not go jumping into irrational hissy fits in their write ups.
Of course... if Slashdot's editors... you know... edited things, this might not be such a problem (but I wouldn't hold my breath).
Oh, yes. Brilliant parellel there. You know, comparing aggravated assault and terroristic threat to patenting things. Too bad that's probably the single stupidest parellel I've ever seen ANYONE draw on this site. Considering some of the whoppers people come up with, that's saying something.
Try again, please. I'm not even going to grace that horrible attempt with an actual response, but I'll give you another try (here's a hint: you're already a criminal once you point the gun, and you're also endangering someone's life - things that on their own are WAY beyond ANYTHING illegal involving crooked patents).
WHO CARES?
They can have so many patents that they have to start holding them in their asscracks. Exhibit 1: IBM, the Little Linux guy's friend on Slashdot.
They problem is not that they GET them. The problem only occurs if they can actually ENFORCE them. Which, in any sane court (yes, I know those are in dwindling numbers these days) won't happen.
By all means, let them run amok and waste money on BS patents. Just make sure that the first time they get challenged they actually go down. If the challenge fails, THEN there's a problem.
... on how long it takes Baystar to come out and say that SCO is talking shit and something much, much worse is happening from SCO's end than they're letting on to. Like Baystar starting a lawsuit or something.
Seriously... I wouldn't put it past them.
You mean as opposed to the dizzying comeback you used to set me straight?
Let me clarify what I'm saying:
I'm tired of people like you coming along and saying "oh noes! LOL!!!!1! I'm an idiot and I don't believe in fighting back against people who have already proven they're not going to stay within the bounds of civilized society!! Please rape me anally and steal my wallet because I'm a limp-wristed pansy!!"
There's a difference between a "civilized" society and the victim society people like you want to live in. I don't know where you nutters come from, but why don't you keep your yap shut about how to respond to a criminal of ANY kind until you've actually faced one. If you keep yipping like that you're caviar might fall out of your big, fat mouth and ruin those dainty silk sheets.
Oh, and here's a clue Edward P. Dwinklebottom the 3rd: legal systems can't protect you if you let the crook kill you in the first place.
You do realise that assault with a deadly weapon is frowned upon in civilised society, don't you?
Fine then. I think I probably speak for a lot of people when I say: Fuck "Civilized" society.
I don't give a half a shit who the fuck you are. Try to take my shit I'll rip your fucking throat out because, frankly, I have niether the time nor the patience to deal with people fucking around with my hard earned items of interest and my laptop's worth more than the life of any crook that would take it. And, don't give me any of that "civilized society" bullshit, either. I'm not the one that dragged the two of us out of it, so don't give me a hard time for adapting to the new surroundings.
I think a +5, Informative on a joke about posting a root password to the world is as funny as the joke itself. It's like the mods adding to the original joke: "Here everyone, r00t this guy."
How the hell did both the responses to my post wind up with unclosed italics tags on them?
Anyway, the point above is irrelevant because, again, I'm not interested in what Java can or can't do. The point was, is, and always will be that, originally, the grandparent poster I referred to was modded to flamebait for presenting a personal opinion, and his/her respondent was modded Interesting despite posting a flame. The grandparent, whether he had a valid point or not, was not "taken to task", he was merely flamed. That's the crux of the point.
Heh.. umm... so, what... he shoots her every morning before he goes to work, then follows the previous day's signal the next day?
I don't understand what the big deal is regardless. I mean, if you're sending plain text e-mails, they're going through multiple third parties anyway. If any of them wanted to keep and read your e-mail, nothing is stopping them now except encryption. What's different about Google other than they explicitly tell you they're going to do it.
I'm all for privacy, but all this hoopla just sounds like a bunch of techno-losers who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, but think it's a good "issue" to start screaming at the top of their lungs on.
The parent to your post may have been a little harsh, but calling him a zealot just because he has experience you lack is unfair.
Which would be an issue if it weren't for the fact that I called him a zealot for attacking his parent as "clueless", not because he likes Java.
I don't care about who uses Java - I don't like it for myriad reasons, so I don't use it. The fact that I choose different languages, however, doesn't make my parent clueless in the realm of programming anymore than his parent's post was clueless for presenting a gripe he has about Java. The point was the he made a personal attack on the parent poster and (originally) got modded to Interesting, but the person he attacked was just saying he didn't like Java - his opinion - in a non-confrontational way and got modded down (originally) as Flamebait.
The fact of the matter is, much to the chagrin of Java fanboys, is that some of us just don't like Java and don't want to use it. Too bad. People shouldn't be at risk for being modded down just on that merit and you shouldn't be able to get modded up just for a diatribe about how superior Java is without actually discussing any of its strong points or responding to a particuarly criticism of it.