The problem with the CPU cycle stamp and the to-field idea is that now you can't have mailing lists. I'm sure there are other problems, but this is the first one that occurred to me.
Making the from-field actually identify the sender is impossible because mail is relayed (i.e. handed from one server to another). How does the receiving server verify that the sending server has properly verified the recipient? For example what stops me from setting up a mail server for spamming that tells the receiving server whatever it wants to hear?
Integrating signatures into the protocol is a problem because something has to verify the signatures. How do you propose to do this without having an incompetant central authority in charge of the signatures? Think verisign and ssl signatures.
How does your last solution stop spam from clogging up the network? Notifications still have to be sent, and the original mail still has to be stored somewhere. Wouldn't this cause even more congestion because every single email would require additional steps on behalf of the recipient and the network in order to retrieve?
Finally, it is generally agreed that a new protocol is needed for mail. However even if a totally bullet proof and perfect solution is designed (no easy feat), how do you plan to coordinate the migration? You can't exactly have a worldwide we're switching to "smtp improved" day. For example think IPv6. It has been in the making and around the corner for eons now, yet we are no where near deploying it.
His challenges also contribute to the problem of bandwidth utilization and storage costs.
Problems with spam are not just limited to reducing the annoyance to end users. There are real costs associated with spam which are only increased by having a challenge system.
Furthermore because everyone doesn't use this system, spammers have more of an insentive to send additional messages to try to reach the same number of people as they did before. More spams means more challenge messages...thus you have a significant increase in the amount of bandwidth and storage taken up by spam.
Finally this doesn't address the fact that while automated challenges are fine for you they are pretty annoying for people trying to reach you. If I were a potential customer I may chose to just ignore the person who forced me to respond to a challenge and go with a competitor who didn't require more work on my part.
Uptime typically refers to how long the machine can stay on without rebooting, not how long you keep the operating system on there without reinstalling.
Granted keeping 98 on there for weeks without a reinstall is an admirable feat.
I agree with you for the most part, but you're wrong on one thing. Providers typically have some sort of unlimited plan for data. Currently AT&T charges $79.99 a month for unlimited data. Granted this is still a ridiculous price, but it isn't $100s a week.
I agree with you to some extent, but lynx? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the user to have a graphical browser that is reasonably up to date.
Having to have a million plugins sucks, and those pages that have a flash intro screen with no way to bypass suck too...but I'm certainly not going to be upset because a site doesn't load in lynx or netscape 2.0.
How is it that a programmer is greedy and ignorant or without ethics if they wish to get paid for their work? Programming is a service just like any other.
While free software is idealistic, even free software programmers have to have some sort of for profit job. In many cases I suspect that their for profit job also involves programming.
I applaud people who do write software for free, but I don't look down on people who don't.
I don't consider programmers who expect pay for their work to be thieves.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here.
Finally, a response that isn't a slogan. Believe it or not I actually do recomend MS for some people. That being said, in general you don't know what a program is actually doing unless you can audit the code. The easiest way to do this is to get a hold of the source code. Microsoft would rather chew off their own head than let me do that.
Yep looking at the source is the only way to be sure you aren't being screwed. However for the vast majority, having the source won't make a bit of difference. There are many ways to get screwed in this world...software is just one of'm.
This leads to a certain lack of trust on my part. Combined with their "Trusted Computing Initiative", which means they trust my computer to do what they want, I'm getting really nervous about their software in general. Office 2003 doesn't help.
Also true. I personally wouldn't run my company on Windows...the only time a person would have a Windows machine is if they needed to interface with other people who sent them documents in word or excel since often Open Office has issues opening them. Even in these cases I might have them on Cross Over Office.
The main problem I have with Microsoft is the same problem I had with IBM in 1988, it's choking off innovation. If you don't believe me just take a drive to your nearest computer store. Take a look at the number of titles. CompUSA has started selling stereo equipment for crying out loud.
Quite true. By being a monopoly and leveraging that power to stifle competition, Microsoft has hindered innovation. However, at the same Microsoft has done some things for the computer industry. By being a monopoly, Microsoft created a common platform instead of having 10 - 20 different competing OSs. Now there's only 2-3 (major players). This means that consumers get access to most products available. I look at this like the current gaming console situation. You've got XBOX, Playstation, Nintendo, etc...there are games I'd like to play for each, but I simply can't afford all three systems. Computer users don't really suffer from this problem because Microsoft Software runs over 90% of the world's desktops.
Stocks that pay no dividends are a gamble. More so than other stocks. I've been watching the stock market since 1976.
Risk vs. reward. All investing is a gamble...even you dividend stocks (if the company tanks). However you can mitigate that risk with time and diversity. Index funds are great if you've got a ton of time (i.e. 30 - 40 years). Park your money in an S&P 500 index fund and leave it for a long time and unless something historically unprecidented happens you will have more than you started with. The index fund also provides you stability through diversity...even if a whole sector craps out (like the tech sector) your money doesn't completely disappear.
How am I getting shafted? Nothing is stopping people from choosing OSS...they don't use it because they either don't know it exists or it doesn't suit their needs. Forcing it on them is only going to make them resentful of the fact that their old software no longer works. They have to want to switch, otherwise they'll just stick a pirated copy of Windows on there when they get the machine home.
I oppose the death penalty...two wrongs don't make a right. Revenge tactics are not the way to deal with problems. You don't screw over the consumers with OSS just because Microsoft did with Windows. You instead educate and pour energy into building a superior product. OSS is making strides in the server market...in many cases (i.e. apache and bind) it dominates it.
It shouldn't be difficult to compell people to use OSS since it's free. The main problem is that OSS is not quite ready for the desktop yet. Give it some more time...let media players get good (xine and mplayer just don't cut it compared to media player 9), let a good office suite emerge (Open Office isn't quite there yet). There needs to be a good font management system, and centralized program settings (i.e. one defined default browser that all programs recognize as such). Also get rid of the little quirks like KDE's inability to properly line up icons on the desktop. Finally there needs to be a graphical install/uninstall tool that works right and is comprehensible to the average user. In a sense once OSS does well all the things Windows does well, people will be compelled to switch. First businesses will switch because it's cheaper...vendors will start writing apps for OSS OS's...then people will start switching at home.
Actually, Microsoft only recently started paying dividends and I believe quite a few people made some money off of it. In fact many stocks don't pay dividends because the companies reinvest all the income into growth and thus make the stock more valuable. Also why are there index funds if the only useful stocks (investments) are ones that pay dividends? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?
The best stocks depend on your investment strategy...dividends are good for a stable reliable income (particularly if you're retired). Long term growth stocks are good if you're young...Over valued stocks are good if you're risky and like to short. Index funds comprising 100s of different stocks are good if you like relatively low risk medium returns (i.e. S&P 500 vangard fund).
Likewise the right OS for you depends on how you like to use your computer. An OS that won't allow you to run the software that you wish to run is useless. In your case if you want unix based editors, compilers, and the ability to rebuild the system software, then yes Windows is useless. If you want to run games, and/or the vast majority of the latest business software, then BSD, Linux, et al is useless. I happen to run both...I run linux because it's stable and has many useful utilities for it, however I couldn't care less about having the source. I install binary packages whenever possible. I run Windows when I want to play a game.
You may not be able to comprehend this, but some people don't like to spend their home computing time writing all the software they want to use. Furthermore, some people don't like developing software. Finally writing your own version of Rise of Nations is not a very practical proposition.
That's the great thing about being able to choose the right vendor for you. You like flashiness and clear plastic cases, get a mac. You like getting something cheap, that will work as a good family PC allowing kids to play the latest games and the parents to run the latest money management software get a dell. Like to build you own...do that. Want a prebuilt machine configured with linux, get one from penguin computing.
I believe the point was that in order to reduce piracy rates the government wanted to use free software. Therefore if Microsoft gave them the source and continued charging the same amount for it, they still would not be in the running.
Again it doesn't differ...that's the point. It doesn't matter whether it's Microsoft with Windows or the Vietnamese government with open source. Both are cases where it is wrong.
Open Source is about those things - however, Vietnam is NOT about those things. This issue is not about the ideals of Open vs. Closed Source. It is about stopping piracy. If you require that computers are shipped with software that cannot be pirated (by definition), your piracy problems will be vastly reduced if not eliminated. Maybe they are tired of getting hammered because of their high rates of piracy, when the software costs about 1/3 of someone's yearly annual income.
Why do you think the software is pirated? Open source alternatives are widely available. How does this choice benefit the consumer? Consumers will continue to pirate closed source products.
You are assuming that Open Source advocates have anything to do with this decision.
No I'm not.
Applauding the decision and making that decision are two entirely different things.
Yep. I find it sad from a philisophical standpoint that open source advocates who are so ready to bash Microsoft for its practice of forcing vendors and users to use their software would be so accepting when others do it with open source.
My workplace has this sand paper like stuff...I might use it if I needed to refinish some furnature, but I'm certainly not going to steal it instead of buying the soft stuff.
This is true...Linux does narrow it a bit. When I think open source I tend to think Linux even though this view is not correct...also Linux is easier to type than open source;-).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the CPU cycle stamp and the to-field idea is that now you can't have mailing lists. I'm sure there are other problems, but this is the first one that occurred to me.
Making the from-field actually identify the sender is impossible because mail is relayed (i.e. handed from one server to another). How does the receiving server verify that the sending server has properly verified the recipient? For example what stops me from setting up a mail server for spamming that tells the receiving server whatever it wants to hear?
Integrating signatures into the protocol is a problem because something has to verify the signatures. How do you propose to do this without having an incompetant central authority in charge of the signatures? Think verisign and ssl signatures.
How does your last solution stop spam from clogging up the network? Notifications still have to be sent, and the original mail still has to be stored somewhere. Wouldn't this cause even more congestion because every single email would require additional steps on behalf of the recipient and the network in order to retrieve?
Finally, it is generally agreed that a new protocol is needed for mail. However even if a totally bullet proof and perfect solution is designed (no easy feat), how do you plan to coordinate the migration? You can't exactly have a worldwide we're switching to "smtp improved" day. For example think IPv6. It has been in the making and around the corner for eons now, yet we are no where near deploying it.
His challenges also contribute to the problem of bandwidth utilization and storage costs.
Problems with spam are not just limited to reducing the annoyance to end users. There are real costs associated with spam which are only increased by having a challenge system.
Furthermore because everyone doesn't use this system, spammers have more of an insentive to send additional messages to try to reach the same number of people as they did before. More spams means more challenge messages...thus you have a significant increase in the amount of bandwidth and storage taken up by spam.
Finally this doesn't address the fact that while automated challenges are fine for you they are pretty annoying for people trying to reach you. If I were a potential customer I may chose to just ignore the person who forced me to respond to a challenge and go with a competitor who didn't require more work on my part.
Uptime typically refers to how long the machine can stay on without rebooting, not how long you keep the operating system on there without reinstalling.
Granted keeping 98 on there for weeks without a reinstall is an admirable feat.
I agree with you for the most part, but you're wrong on one thing. Providers typically have some sort of unlimited plan for data. Currently AT&T charges $79.99 a month for unlimited data. Granted this is still a ridiculous price, but it isn't $100s a week.
No one is debating whether or not it's Unix. I think the question is whether or not it's UNIX (tm).
It can look like UNIX and act like UNIX, but it's Unix unless it's derived from the UNIX (tm) codebase.
So close...you forgot the Anti-US remark. Just needed to stick an "Oh yeah, the US sucks." in your post to qualify.
I agree with you to some extent, but lynx? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the user to have a graphical browser that is reasonably up to date.
Having to have a million plugins sucks, and those pages that have a flash intro screen with no way to bypass suck too...but I'm certainly not going to be upset because a site doesn't load in lynx or netscape 2.0.
Instead of continuing to use it, you should've returned it.
According to the article they are:
Navtech is the service behind MapQuest, Yahoo! Maps, and OnStar, to name a few.
Veggie jello maybe...but meat jello...I dunno if I could handle a diet that had you eating meat jello. I suppose one could get used to it though. ;-)
How is it that a programmer is greedy and ignorant or without ethics if they wish to get paid for their work? Programming is a service just like any other.
While free software is idealistic, even free software programmers have to have some sort of for profit job. In many cases I suspect that their for profit job also involves programming.
I applaud people who do write software for free, but I don't look down on people who don't.
I don't consider programmers who expect pay for their work to be thieves.
Free software also makes very little money.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here.
Finally, a response that isn't a slogan. Believe it or not I actually do recomend MS for some people. That being said, in general you don't know what a program is actually doing unless you can audit the code. The easiest way to do this is to get a hold of the source code. Microsoft would rather chew off their own head than let me do that.
Yep looking at the source is the only way to be sure you aren't being screwed. However for the vast majority, having the source won't make a bit of difference. There are many ways to get screwed in this world...software is just one of'm.
This leads to a certain lack of trust on my part. Combined with their "Trusted Computing Initiative", which means they trust my computer to do what they want, I'm getting really nervous about their software in general. Office 2003 doesn't help.
Also true. I personally wouldn't run my company on Windows...the only time a person would have a Windows machine is if they needed to interface with other people who sent them documents in word or excel since often Open Office has issues opening them. Even in these cases I might have them on Cross Over Office.
The main problem I have with Microsoft is the same problem I had with IBM in 1988, it's choking off innovation. If you don't believe me just take a drive to your nearest computer store. Take a look at the number of titles. CompUSA has started selling stereo equipment for crying out loud.
Quite true. By being a monopoly and leveraging that power to stifle competition, Microsoft has hindered innovation. However, at the same Microsoft has done some things for the computer industry. By being a monopoly, Microsoft created a common platform instead of having 10 - 20 different competing OSs. Now there's only 2-3 (major players). This means that consumers get access to most products available. I look at this like the current gaming console situation. You've got XBOX, Playstation, Nintendo, etc...there are games I'd like to play for each, but I simply can't afford all three systems. Computer users don't really suffer from this problem because Microsoft Software runs over 90% of the world's desktops.
Stocks that pay no dividends are a gamble. More so than other stocks. I've been watching the stock market since 1976.
Risk vs. reward. All investing is a gamble...even you dividend stocks (if the company tanks). However you can mitigate that risk with time and diversity. Index funds are great if you've got a ton of time (i.e. 30 - 40 years). Park your money in an S&P 500 index fund and leave it for a long time and unless something historically unprecidented happens you will have more than you started with. The index fund also provides you stability through diversity...even if a whole sector craps out (like the tech sector) your money doesn't completely disappear.
How am I getting shafted? Nothing is stopping people from choosing OSS...they don't use it because they either don't know it exists or it doesn't suit their needs. Forcing it on them is only going to make them resentful of the fact that their old software no longer works. They have to want to switch, otherwise they'll just stick a pirated copy of Windows on there when they get the machine home.
I oppose the death penalty...two wrongs don't make a right. Revenge tactics are not the way to deal with problems. You don't screw over the consumers with OSS just because Microsoft did with Windows. You instead educate and pour energy into building a superior product. OSS is making strides in the server market...in many cases (i.e. apache and bind) it dominates it.
It shouldn't be difficult to compell people to use OSS since it's free. The main problem is that OSS is not quite ready for the desktop yet. Give it some more time...let media players get good (xine and mplayer just don't cut it compared to media player 9), let a good office suite emerge (Open Office isn't quite there yet). There needs to be a good font management system, and centralized program settings (i.e. one defined default browser that all programs recognize as such). Also get rid of the little quirks like KDE's inability to properly line up icons on the desktop. Finally there needs to be a graphical install/uninstall tool that works right and is comprehensible to the average user. In a sense once OSS does well all the things Windows does well, people will be compelled to switch. First businesses will switch because it's cheaper...vendors will start writing apps for OSS OS's...then people will start switching at home.
Actually, Microsoft only recently started paying dividends and I believe quite a few people made some money off of it. In fact many stocks don't pay dividends because the companies reinvest all the income into growth and thus make the stock more valuable. Also why are there index funds if the only useful stocks (investments) are ones that pay dividends? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?
The best stocks depend on your investment strategy...dividends are good for a stable reliable income (particularly if you're retired). Long term growth stocks are good if you're young...Over valued stocks are good if you're risky and like to short. Index funds comprising 100s of different stocks are good if you like relatively low risk medium returns (i.e. S&P 500 vangard fund).
Likewise the right OS for you depends on how you like to use your computer. An OS that won't allow you to run the software that you wish to run is useless. In your case if you want unix based editors, compilers, and the ability to rebuild the system software, then yes Windows is useless. If you want to run games, and/or the vast majority of the latest business software, then BSD, Linux, et al is useless. I happen to run both...I run linux because it's stable and has many useful utilities for it, however I couldn't care less about having the source. I install binary packages whenever possible. I run Windows when I want to play a game.
You may not be able to comprehend this, but some people don't like to spend their home computing time writing all the software they want to use. Furthermore, some people don't like developing software. Finally writing your own version of Rise of Nations is not a very practical proposition.
That's the great thing about being able to choose the right vendor for you. You like flashiness and clear plastic cases, get a mac. You like getting something cheap, that will work as a good family PC allowing kids to play the latest games and the parents to run the latest money management software get a dell. Like to build you own...do that. Want a prebuilt machine configured with linux, get one from penguin computing.
I believe the point was that in order to reduce piracy rates the government wanted to use free software. Therefore if Microsoft gave them the source and continued charging the same amount for it, they still would not be in the running.
Again it doesn't differ...that's the point. It doesn't matter whether it's Microsoft with Windows or the Vietnamese government with open source. Both are cases where it is wrong.
You're right it's absolutely no different then what MS did...and it is widely acknowledged that what Microsoft did was -wrong-.
Proponents of open source are supposed to be better than that.
Open Source is about those things - however, Vietnam is NOT about those things. This issue is not about the ideals of Open vs. Closed Source. It is about stopping piracy. If you require that computers are shipped with software that cannot be pirated (by definition), your piracy problems will be vastly reduced if not eliminated. Maybe they are tired of getting hammered because of their high rates of piracy, when the software costs about 1/3 of someone's yearly annual income.
Why do you think the software is pirated? Open source alternatives are widely available. How does this choice benefit the consumer? Consumers will continue to pirate closed source products.
You are assuming that Open Source advocates have anything to do with this decision.
No I'm not.
Applauding the decision and making that decision are two entirely different things.
Yep. I find it sad from a philisophical standpoint that open source advocates who are so ready to bash Microsoft for its practice of forcing vendors and users to use their software would be so accepting when others do it with open source.
Yes.
I've got one word for you..."Television".
My workplace has this sand paper like stuff...I might use it if I needed to refinish some furnature, but I'm certainly not going to steal it instead of buying the soft stuff.
Perhaps you should mod the parent comment a troll and not mine because you are echoing the point of my post.
How did you get that from my post? I was saying the exact opposite in response to the parent comment...
This is true...Linux does narrow it a bit. When I think open source I tend to think Linux even though this view is not correct...also Linux is easier to type than open source ;-).
My original point still stands though.