Excerpts from a newsgroup posting by Tony Lawrence: The fallout from this lawsuit could destroy my business. It could
quite literally change my whole life, and not for the better. I have
a lot to lose, and the prospects are rather frightening. But that
doesn't change morality: if it IS theft, then whatever has to happen
has to happen, and if it destroys me, well, that's life, right?
It's not in force until the court cases are resolved,
How about RTFA? From the article:
"The legal status of the list is still not resolved as the appeals court must determine whether it unconstitutionally discriminates between commercial and charitable calls, which are not subject to the no-call rule.
But until then, the FTC will be able to fine [my emphasis] telemarketers up to $11,000 for each time they call one of the 51 million phone numbers on the list"
You have only got to look at how many DVDs are now created with less and less user control over how you watch it to realize that the entertainment industry will fight this idea tooth and nail!
I remember an art teacher explaining to us way back in the day what these brown spots were for.
Apparently, they're signals to the projectionist that it's time to change the reel soon.
Umm, well very rarely are they brown spots. Some 25 years ago, I ran a 35MM projector, showing 4 features per week at a university to several hundred viewers.
Very, very, rarely, did the prints have brown dots towards the end of the reel. Mostly, there were white dots where I, or another projectionist, had scratched the emulsion off the print.
The first set of dots was to indicate that the other projector should be started up (it takes time for the projector to come up to the correct speed) and the second set was the changover signal.
A reel lasted about 20 minutes, so the average film was 5-6 reels.
They have not shut down the wildcard dns replies:
$ host versign-are-gutless-wankers-lkjaflja.com
versign-are-gutless-wankers-lkjaflja.com has address 64.94.110.11
it's not too difficult to modify the source rpm to apply the patch
What I tried doing, and seemed to work, was re-building and installing the source rpm from RH 7.3 (along with a few other requirements). I had to do a little bit of forcing to get the openssl src rpms to install though.
I can (from a blank formatted hard drive) be up and running in less than 3 hours: fully patched
Really? It takes 3 hours for XP?. I can (and have) get a Linux box up and running and fully patched in about an hour, if I use RedHat 7.3. That is for a full install from a blank disk, using CDs, not a ghost. I haven't tried RH 8 or 9, so they may be equally as fast.
I've talked to a few different individuals at Comcast, and what I've heard is that the excessive bandwidth issue is directly linked to server usage.
I've read that they also don't want people using VPNs. About a month ago, I could not send any data via my vpn to work. I established that they were filtering UDP/500. I sent in a support request -- they denied that any filtering was taking place, but strangely, my VPN starting working again.
But then, I think my city actually regulates cable Internet. Unrelated?
Fundamentally, I think they would prefer that you pay more. Doesn't matter why, or what excuse they have. They would just rather have you paying more!
A T-1 line, at 1544 kbps will run you AT LEAST $400/month,
Entirely due to monopoly pricing, not the actual cost of the wires. After all, what is T1? Just 2 pairs of phone wires, with some not too expensive boxes at either end. OK, there may be some extra provisioning also, but $400/month's worth? I don't think so.
Actually, if you can get T1 for $400/month, you are on to a really good deal. My company is ~ 1 mile from one of XO's offices and the cheapest they would offer full T1 is ~$1k/month. The one mile T1 connection TO XO costs $400, then XO charges ~$600 for the actual Internet bandwidth.
It's also important to note that the primary concern on cable and certain ADSL networks is the upstream traffic. Cable in particular normally allocates 1/10th of their bandwidth to upstream and 90% to downstream. Too much going out and everyone loses.
I don't think that is the reason for the asymmetric bandwidth. I think that when the ISPs buy their bandwidth, they are buying symmetric up/down speeds.
I think the reason is simply to discourage and cap bandwidth of anyone running a server -- including P2P applications in order to:
1. reduce TOTAL bandwith usage and
2. encourage those running servers to buy a business package
Microsoft, of course, is no surprise. I'm slightly amazed they didn't give SCO more money.
I think Microsoft just wants to give them enough money to keep them interested in the lawsuit, but not enough for them to totally cash out. M$ has no interest in Darl and others getting rich, but they do have an interest in prolonging the pain for Linux as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Excerpts from a newsgroup posting by Tony Lawrence:
The fallout from this lawsuit could destroy my business. It could quite literally change my whole life, and not for the better. I have a lot to lose, and the prospects are rather frightening. But that doesn't change morality: if it IS theft, then whatever has to happen has to happen, and if it destroys me, well, that's life, right?
If you want to debate the issue with the consultant, he's a frequent poster in the newsgroup comp.unix.sco.misc
Then, "whois" never worked on the domain name, just kept timing out
And your problem with this is....? Unless you like receiving lots of spam sent to the contact addresses listed in the whois.
Since one of the site has a ".com" address, does this means that Verisign is providing "support"?
Well yeah, techincally you are right, but in practice, the calls are still coming thru and thus the law is not in effect.
So, using your logic, theft laws (for example) are not in effect, because thefts are still happening?
In short, this guy is a major prick.
If being a prick were illegal:
1. Jails would be overflowing.
2. We would not be discussing lawsuits from SCO!
It's not in force until the court cases are resolved,
How about RTFA? From the article:
"The legal status of the list is still not resolved as the appeals court must determine whether it unconstitutionally discriminates between commercial and charitable calls, which are not subject to the no-call rule.
But until then, the FTC will be able to fine [my emphasis] telemarketers up to $11,000 for each time they call one of the 51 million phone numbers on the list"
You have only got to look at how many DVDs are now created with less and less user control over how you watch it to realize that the entertainment industry will fight this idea tooth and nail!
for offering advice on how to circumvent this copyright protection scheme.
"sgi" Changelog information from the 2.4.22 kernel.
Just how many IA64 machines are there running Linux?
The Register has published several articles putting Itanium shipments in the thousands. Not all will be running Linux.
I remember an art teacher explaining to us way back in the day what these brown spots were for. Apparently, they're signals to the projectionist that it's time to change the reel soon.
Umm, well very rarely are they brown spots. Some 25 years ago, I ran a 35MM projector, showing 4 features per week at a university to several hundred viewers.
Very, very, rarely, did the prints have brown dots towards the end of the reel. Mostly, there were white dots where I, or another projectionist, had scratched the emulsion off the print.
The first set of dots was to indicate that the other projector should be started up (it takes time for the projector to come up to the correct speed) and the second set was the changover signal.
A reel lasted about 20 minutes, so the average film was 5-6 reels.
It seems that some of the DMA and ATA execs don't want to receive calls
They have not shut down the wildcard dns replies:
$ host versign-are-gutless-wankers-lkjaflja.com versign-are-gutless-wankers-lkjaflja.com has address 64.94.110.11
it's not too difficult to modify the source rpm to apply the patch
What I tried doing, and seemed to work, was re-building and installing the source rpm from RH 7.3 (along with a few other requirements). I had to do a little bit of forcing to get the openssl src rpms to install though.
Anyone got any suggestions where I can find updated rpms for a RH6.2 machine?
Other than compiling from source, that is. Or upgrading to a supported distro! I'm hoping to put off that day!
I can (from a blank formatted hard drive) be up and running in less than 3 hours: fully patched
Really? It takes 3 hours for XP?. I can (and have) get a Linux box up and running and fully patched in about an hour, if I use RedHat 7.3. That is for a full install from a blank disk, using CDs, not a ghost. I haven't tried RH 8 or 9, so they may be equally as fast.
I've talked to a few different individuals at Comcast, and what I've heard is that the excessive bandwidth issue is directly linked to server usage.
I've read that they also don't want people using VPNs. About a month ago, I could not send any data via my vpn to work. I established that they were filtering UDP/500. I sent in a support request -- they denied that any filtering was taking place, but strangely, my VPN starting working again.
But then, I think my city actually regulates cable Internet. Unrelated?
Fundamentally, I think they would prefer that you pay more. Doesn't matter why, or what excuse they have. They would just rather have you paying more!
FreeS/WAN
Hint: IF you want something as slow as a T1 don't bother.
We don't. We went with a wireless solution instead. Apart from the time some trees grew into the path between the antennas, it's been very reliable.
We got fractional T1 as a backup, but since the wireless has been so reliable, we dropped it.
I also have another wireless option should the present ISP go away.
I did try contacting Yipes (before they went BK), but they never replied.
The providers aren't interested in laying copper.
Yes, but the copper already exists. Nothing to lay. That's why T1 is a ripoff.
A T-1 line, at 1544 kbps will run you AT LEAST $400/month,
Entirely due to monopoly pricing, not the actual cost of the wires. After all, what is T1? Just 2 pairs of phone wires, with some not too expensive boxes at either end. OK, there may be some extra provisioning also, but $400/month's worth? I don't think so.
Actually, if you can get T1 for $400/month, you are on to a really good deal. My company is ~ 1 mile from one of XO's offices and the cheapest they would offer full T1 is ~$1k/month. The one mile T1 connection TO XO costs $400, then XO charges ~$600 for the actual Internet bandwidth.
It's also important to note that the primary concern on cable and certain ADSL networks is the upstream traffic. Cable in particular normally allocates 1/10th of their bandwidth to upstream and 90% to downstream. Too much going out and everyone loses.
I don't think that is the reason for the asymmetric bandwidth. I think that when the ISPs buy their bandwidth, they are buying symmetric up/down speeds.
I think the reason is simply to discourage and cap bandwidth of anyone running a server -- including P2P applications in order to: 1. reduce TOTAL bandwith usage and
2. encourage those running servers to buy a business package
Microsoft, of course, is no surprise. I'm slightly amazed they didn't give SCO more money.
I think Microsoft just wants to give them enough money to keep them interested in the lawsuit, but not enough for them to totally cash out. M$ has no interest in Darl and others getting rich, but they do have an interest in prolonging the pain for Linux as much as possible.
Wow, so scosource.com made $15M. That's not bad for a website that claims to be non-commercial!
Ah, but the RIP bill makes it an offence not to decrypt a message when requested.
Wouldn't that be self-incrimination? And hence contrary to european laws?
Remember the Guiness trials -- eventually, they won their appeals on the basis of european laws forbidding self-incrimination.
If you have control over your own DNS, mail server, etc, now is the time to set up opportunistic encryption on your server.