most people I talk to are willing to try Mozilla just for the popup suppression
Some of the people who have heard that "popup suppression" exists will go for the Google toolbar widget which does a similar job. SWMBO uses this, but I know she's refusing to use Mozilla Firebird^H^H^H^Hfox simply to spite all the advocacy I spew forth about it...:-)
Absolutely agree. http://www.bytemark-hosting.co.uk/ are great. The blokes running it really know their stuff. If you have domains to host, you can manage it easily through their system - DNS updates are totally under your own control. System performance seems to be good, they've got a fast connection outwards too.
And how many other ISPs or hosting providers will offer to help you configure qmail for virtual hosts, for no charge?
Don't forget to mention to them that if you are a 'free software developer', you can get a discount.
The article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3457823.stm, entitled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty' is full of supposition and has so many factual errors it's just not funny:
"It is... a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system." - SUPPOSITION. This comment has no factual basis whatsoever.
Use of 'geek'. This is usually used as a term for someone who has extremely good technical skills. The article refers to "run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user." - this is an unwarranted attack on many self-proclaimed law-abiding geeks. Someone who "wreaks damage on unsuspecting computer users" is a criminal, pure and simple.
"Patenting Linux" - MEANINGLESS. This heading half-way through the article has no meaning. No-one is suggesting that they wish to patent Linux, no-one is suggesting that Linux *should* be patented, the article does not discuss the patenting of Linux.
"It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website with a barrage of emails" - FALSE. The virus attacks SCO's webserver, it has nothing to do with email.
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted [...] because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system." - NO PROOF. Given the nature of the virus - it creates backdoors to facilitate the spread of spam email - the denial of service attack on SCO's webserver could simply be a 'distraction' programmed by the author of the virus, since there's no denying that SCO is Bad Guy Of The Moment in many Linux users' eyes. Given that this article has been written, it would seem to have been a *successful* distraction! The author effectively accuses Linux users of a criminal act without any proof.
"If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source)." FALSE - the author of the article has done no research. Linux users are generally proud to extol the merits of the GNU Public License. This software license does NOT mean that "all code should be free", rather that "all *free* code should *remain* free", a rather important distinction. And what on earth is "internet zealot" supposed to mean?
"Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users..." - FALSE. The court action is between SCO and IBM, as in fact the article states elsewhere.
"It is about malice not money." - SUPPOSITION. If the virus was written to help spammers and the spammers are out to make money, then that strongly suggests that it *is* about money, yes?
In summary, as even the article itself admits: "There's no proof, of course." - TRUE, for once in this article.
Fact-based news, then? Not a chance.
Be interesting to see if they reply - don't know whether they routinely do that or not.
[Only] 0.000000000001% [of the users can understand the Windows kernel]
That's one in 100,000,000,000,000. Population of the planet is only 6,000,000,000 or so... and, whether we like it or not, some of them are Microsoft developers.
I kind of wondered if they had someone in mind they wanted to promote who had worked there, and that was their way of eliminating outsiders.
Kind-of happened with my current job, actually. I already worked for the organisation as a statistician (I have a Medical Statistics M.Sc.) and was applying for the sysadmin job. The job posting indicated:
"Statistical analysis is a major part of the work of this Unit; we are seeking a candidate with statistical skills (preferably an M.Sc.)"
I bet all other potential sysadmins ran a mile from that...
Horrible support- on several occasions I've asked in-depth questions and not recieved so much as a peep from anyone; sometimes I've posted 2-3x. The authors are clearly busy consulting- not supporting.
Not true in my experience, but hey, it's FREE. I like their business model - ad-hoc support for free, community support for free, but specialised support or tailored solutions cost you.
I was talked into becoming our department's Data Protection officer. This means writing policy documents about how data (paper data as well as electronic data) should be stored, who should have access to it and who should decide who has access to it.
It's a bit of a nightmare, really, but I'm not sure I'd trust anyone else in our department to do it!
E-mail database storage formats should have been standardized years ago. This crap of 50 different formats is incredibly annoying.
Agreed, however there are some standards that are 'more standard' than others. The generic mailbox format used by pretty-much all Unix mailers and by Mozilla/Netscape under all platforms is, IMHO, the Right Way To Do It.
There was absolutely no excuse, other than monopolistic marketing, for Microsoft to introduce their own folder format for Outlook.
Inconsistent location of files./usr ,/usr/local ,/bin ,/sbin, and the like are not intuitive and not consistently used either. I shudder at the thought of trying to explain this structure to my wife or mother.
It may not be intuitive, but it isn't inconsistent. There is a well-defined rationale for binaries going into those locations.
Besides, with a good packaging system, the installed locations of your software are kept out of users' sight.
A number of times somebody has posted to a mailing list asking for help. I've answered them privately, only to get a "please jump through the following hoops" message.
Assuming the poster asking for help has a degree of clue, TMDA copes with that. Clearly, in your experience, the poster did not.
You can configure the return address of the posted message to accept unhindered replies from _all_ senders to that particular address for a limitied period of time. Therefore, the window of opportunity for spammers to use that address is small.
This vulnerability occurs when messages are downloaded via POP3 (or IMAP) and a buffer overflow in the Date header occurs. Every email client capable of downloading mail in this way is potentially at risk... Well-coded clients will perform correct bounds-checking and not be affected, but surely MS Outlook is not the only one that fails to check?
Of course, exploiting the vulnerability may not be very easy, but the vulnerability could still be there...
BTW: My friends who did SAS always took pains to remind me that you don't pronounce it 'Sass', but rather 'Ess Ay Ess'. It really chapped their balls to hear it the wrong way...
Erm, I think your friends might have been having a laugh... It is definitely pronounced "Sass", certainly that's the way everyone I know who uses it pronounces it. I have also been using it myself for about 10 years. Those at the SAS Institute (sales droids) call it "Sass" too.
It is fairly well known (in the UK, at least) that the "Ess-Ay-Ess" is an elite regiment of the British Army...
All the links so far seem to be US based - one of them even allowed you to choose "United Kingdom" from a drop-down list as part of your address and then, when checking-out said that "UK is not a supported destination for shipping..."
Anyone know of a place in the UK that sells these?
As the article says, having an email "self-destruct" is not much good if someone has a plaintext copy of it - I would have thought the applications for this technique would be fairly limited.
Also, if the message is "timed" to self-destruct at a particular time, could you "turn back the clock" on it?
How does this work? I've got pretty good eyesight but I can't focus on something that's only 1 inch from my eye. Would it work for people who need glasses, or would they have to use contact lenses? Would reading something this close to your eye cause damage to your eyesight?
You can get the illusion of a screen being further away by having TWO screens (one in front of each eye) - the picture from the story looked like it only had ONE screen though...
Slashdot Mirror
most people I talk to are willing to try Mozilla just for the popup suppression
... :-)
Some of the people who have heard that "popup suppression" exists will go for the Google toolbar widget which does a similar job. SWMBO uses this, but I know she's refusing to use Mozilla Firebird^H^H^H^Hfox simply to spite all the advocacy I spew forth about it
Absolutely agree. http://www.bytemark-hosting.co.uk/ are great. The blokes running it really know their stuff. If you have domains to host, you can manage it easily through their system - DNS updates are totally under your own control. System performance seems to be good, they've got a fast connection outwards too.
And how many other ISPs or hosting providers will offer to help you configure qmail for virtual hosts, for no charge?
Don't forget to mention to them that if you are a 'free software developer', you can get a discount.
This is what I've sent:
... a new front in a war waged by those who want to preserve the open-source Linux operating system." - SUPPOSITION. This comment has no factual basis whatsoever.
..." - FALSE. The court action is between SCO and IBM, as in fact the article states elsewhere.
The article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3457823.stm, entitled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty' is full of supposition and has so many factual errors it's just not funny:
"It is
Use of 'geek'. This is usually used as a term for someone who has extremely good technical skills. The article refers to "run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user." - this is an unwarranted attack on many self-proclaimed law-abiding geeks. Someone who "wreaks damage on unsuspecting computer users" is a criminal, pure and simple.
"Patenting Linux" - MEANINGLESS. This heading half-way through the article has no meaning. No-one is suggesting that they wish to patent Linux, no-one is suggesting that Linux *should* be patented, the article does not discuss the patenting of Linux.
"It has attacked a company based in Utah called SCO, bringing down its website with a barrage of emails" - FALSE. The virus attacks SCO's webserver, it has nothing to do with email.
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted [...] because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system." - NO PROOF. Given the nature of the virus - it creates backdoors to facilitate the spread of spam email - the denial of service attack on SCO's webserver could simply be a 'distraction' programmed by the author of the virus, since there's no denying
that SCO is Bad Guy Of The Moment in many Linux users' eyes. Given that this article has been written, it would seem to have been a *successful* distraction! The author effectively accuses Linux users of a criminal act without any proof.
"If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source)." FALSE - the author of the article has done no research. Linux users are generally proud to extol the merits of the GNU Public License. This software license does NOT mean that "all code should be free", rather that "all *free* code should *remain* free", a
rather important distinction. And what on earth is "internet zealot" supposed
to mean?
"Meanwhile the court dispute between SCO and Linux users
"It is about malice not money." - SUPPOSITION. If the virus was written to help spammers and the spammers are out to make money, then that strongly suggests that it *is* about money, yes?
In summary, as even the article itself admits: "There's no proof, of course." - TRUE, for once in this article.
Fact-based news, then? Not a chance.
Be interesting to see if they reply - don't know whether they routinely do that or not.
an Imperial pint is 18 fl. oz.
Pretty sure it's 20 fl. oz., no?
If your browser won't play embedded WAVs, try going to the sounds sub-directory of that server ...
[Only] 0.000000000001% [of the users can understand the Windows kernel]
... and, whether we like it or not, some of them are Microsoft developers.
That's one in 100,000,000,000,000. Population of the planet is only 6,000,000,000 or so
Kind-of happened with my current job, actually. I already worked for the organisation as a statistician (I have a Medical Statistics M.Sc.) and was applying for the sysadmin job. The job posting indicated:
I bet all other potential sysadmins ran a mile from that
Not true in my experience, but hey, it's FREE. I like their business model - ad-hoc support for free, community support for free, but specialised support or tailored solutions cost you.
I was talked into becoming our department's Data Protection officer. This means writing policy documents about how data (paper data as well as electronic data) should be stored, who should have access to it and who should decide who has access to it.
It's a bit of a nightmare, really, but I'm not sure I'd trust anyone else in our department to do it!
E-mail database storage formats should have been standardized years ago. This crap of 50 different formats is incredibly annoying.
Agreed, however there are some standards that are 'more standard' than others. The generic mailbox format used by pretty-much all Unix mailers and by Mozilla/Netscape under all platforms is, IMHO, the Right Way To Do It.
There was absolutely no excuse, other than monopolistic marketing, for Microsoft to introduce their own folder format for Outlook.
Inconsistent location of files. /usr , /usr/local , /bin , /sbin, and the like are not intuitive and not consistently used either. I shudder at the thought of trying to explain this structure to my wife or mother.
It may not be intuitive, but it isn't inconsistent. There is a well-defined rationale for binaries going into those locations.
Besides, with a good packaging system, the installed locations of your software are kept out of users' sight.
Remember to pay your license fee that you MUST do if you own & watch the tele.
Erm, in the UK, that's not funny - that's what we have to do.
Don't hate it just because its from Microsoft.
You're new here, aren't you?
Seen adverts in the UK recently for 'AOL 8' which, amongst other spurious features, boasts 'popup blocking'.
Seems like something Mozilla-based, then?
I use it as my primary browser mostly because of Tab browsing. It's a real time saver when you get use to it.
I think you misunderstood the question. The parent poster meant, I believe, does anyone use Netscape as their primary browser, rather than Mozilla?
What benefit does Netscape offer over Mozilla?
Assuming the poster asking for help has a degree of clue, TMDA copes with that. Clearly, in your experience, the poster did not.
You can configure the return address of the posted message to accept unhindered replies from _all_ senders to that particular address for a limitied period of time. Therefore, the window of opportunity for spammers to use that address is small.
This is discussed in 'Dated Addresses' under TMDA client configuration.
That's the reason TM failed - when Phillipa Forrester stopped presenting it, together with Peter Snow, the entire personality of the show died.
This vulnerability occurs when messages are downloaded via POP3 (or IMAP) and a buffer overflow in the Date header occurs. Every email client capable of downloading mail in this way is potentially at risk ... Well-coded clients will perform correct bounds-checking and not be affected, but surely MS Outlook is not the only one that fails to check?
...
Of course, exploiting the vulnerability may not be very easy, but the vulnerability could still be there
BTW: My friends who did SAS always took pains to remind me that you don't pronounce it 'Sass', but rather 'Ess Ay Ess'. It really
... It is definitely pronounced "Sass", certainly that's the way everyone I know who uses it pronounces it. I have also been using it myself for about 10 years. Those at the SAS Institute (sales droids) call it "Sass" too.
...
chapped their balls to hear it the wrong way...
Erm, I think your friends might have been having a laugh
It is fairly well known (in the UK, at least) that the "Ess-Ay-Ess" is an elite regiment of the British Army
All the links so far seem to be US based - one of them even allowed you to choose "United Kingdom" from a drop-down list as part of your address and then, when checking-out said that "UK is not a supported destination for shipping ..."
Anyone know of a place in the UK that sells these?
As the article says, having an email "self-destruct" is not much good if someone has a plaintext copy of it - I would have thought the applications for this technique would be fairly limited.
Also, if the message is "timed" to self-destruct at a particular time, could you "turn back the clock" on it?
How does this work? I've got pretty good eyesight but I can't focus on something that's only 1 inch from my eye. Would it work for people who need glasses, or would they have to use contact lenses? Would reading something this close to your eye cause damage to your eyesight?
You can get the illusion of a screen being further away by having TWO screens (one in front of each eye) - the picture from the story looked like it only had ONE screen though