Now, since i couldnt find a top-level to reply to, im found replying to the top post.
My lack of skillz may have to do with inebriateion, but I swear, its none the responsibility of my username or its implications.
Regardless, I am a student of the currently famous VT owns the trademarks to a number of its own nicknames, including Virginia Tech. since VT is a big research school, it makes sense to me for them to actively protect their trademarks (as a number of coorperate entities have failed to do, e.g., q-tips/bandaids/etc).. This is a required move by law, if they expect to protect it in the future...
it's not so far different from MS protecthing their trademarks (please dont sue me, I used to work for you:-D).
In all honesty, while i might not like the outcome, they have a right to protect what is indeeed theres..
(while its contradictory to my point), VT has been acknowledged as an acceptable acronym for general publication (ratevtteachers.com) most of the other acronyms (vpi&su, vpi, virginia tech, etc) are vigerously protected..
I admit im an oddball when it comes to ethics, but is it so wrong to force/require sites to move to non-specific sites (thatbookplace.com) as opposed to their original names (vatext, virginiatext.com, others...)...
(im not affiliated, just friends with the developer)..
im gonna stop now since i dont think i can eyeball spelling problems, but just a consideration..
anyhow, cheers all & love always to the girl i'll never have
(sure mod me down for that pseudo-sig, but i have no sig, so i gotta do somethin somewhere:-P)
Not that I'm a huge user of IRC, but essentially the argument here is equivalant [to the users of IRC] as a tax on Email proper.
Certainly it would be effective at reducing spam, but at what cost?
It is the choice of a server operator (not IRC op, but _root_) to start the ircd of their choice.
If they want to charge, perhaps that should be their right, but the idea of IRC has always been the free (and independant) exchange of ideas over a public network.
Most sysadmins for IRC servers do it not for the immense profit and glory of controlling/motd, but instead for the proliferation of the technology.
Imposing micropayments on people would (assuming it goes to the s/ops) offset their bandwidth costs, but so would simply disabling ircd.
People would just as quickly shift to aim/chats and use Aim+, bittorrent, direct connect, or one of 1000 other protocols as yet unwritten to exchange ideas.
IRC is the de-facto for exactly the opposite reason you propose: people are free to use it, run it, propogate it, or ignore it.
If an ISP chooses to not accept a server (of whatever variant type) it is because they believe (however wrongfully we may decry) it is unprofitable to do so.
IF on the other hand an OP believes it to be/so/ important to the fabric of their being or fiber of society that they run ircd linked to an irc network, they will buy the bloody T1/OC3/OC12.
Sure it aint cheap, but its a matter of values placed by the people who run the network.
When I was 12, I ran a bbs from home.
I did it because it was free (+/- 20$ for the phone line) for me, and because I could meet new people.
I didnt do it to profit, or glean great deals from my callers. No, indeed, there was little to be had.
It was simply because it amused me.
IRC networks join and leave for the same reasons: because it amuses them to do so, or no longer does so.
Thats why we become dependant on the networks, instead of upon a single irc.com. Were we bound to a single source of our connectivity, perhaps a monitary value could be placed on it.
But if it were, would we still use it?
AIM, for example: if they charged per IM, would we continue to use it? ICQ? Email?
No, were it not free, but [fairly] unmetered bandwidth still readily available, we would simply sit down, write a new RFC, and use it.
If you want to foster quality chatting, run your own server. Or have a private channel. Or all else failing, write your own protocol and client.
While it may be flame bait, as far as _security_ goes, a linux machine acting as a bridge/router with no services enabled (or allow ssh from inside), is going to be just as secure...
To my knowledge there havn't been a whole lot of exploits on linux TCP/IP stack directly...
Whether its a good idea is a completely seperate thread, and you're probably right, Cisco is a better choice... But a hardened linux system not running services is going to be just as secure, and it at least gives you the joy of being able to use the already available iptables/route/etc. tools.
Eh. Tell ya what, I'll set up the *nix box for you, if you just shunt off part of that DS3 to me:-D
Slashdot Mirror
Now, since i couldnt find a top-level to reply to, im found replying to the top post.
:-D).
:-P)
My lack of skillz may have to do with inebriateion, but I swear, its none the responsibility of my username or its implications.
Regardless, I am a student of the currently famous VT owns the trademarks to a number of its own nicknames, including Virginia Tech. since VT is a big research school, it makes sense to me for them to actively protect their trademarks (as a number of coorperate entities have failed to do, e.g., q-tips/bandaids/etc).. This is a required move by law, if they expect to protect it in the future...
it's not so far different from MS protecthing their trademarks (please dont sue me, I used to work for you
In all honesty, while i might not like the outcome, they have a right to protect what is indeeed theres..
(while its contradictory to my point), VT has been acknowledged as an acceptable acronym for general publication (ratevtteachers.com) most of the other acronyms (vpi&su, vpi, virginia tech, etc) are vigerously protected..
I admit im an oddball when it comes to ethics, but is it so wrong to force/require sites to move to non-specific sites (thatbookplace.com) as opposed to their original names (vatext, virginiatext.com, others...)...
(im not affiliated, just friends with the developer)..
im gonna stop now since i dont think i can eyeball spelling problems, but just a consideration..
anyhow, cheers all
& love always to the girl i'll never have
(sure mod me down for that pseudo-sig, but i have no sig, so i gotta do somethin somewhere
Not that I'm a huge user of IRC, but essentially the argument here is equivalant [to the users of IRC] as a tax on Email proper.
/motd, but instead for the proliferation of the technology.
/so/ important to the fabric of their being or fiber of society that they run ircd linked to an irc network, they will buy the bloody T1/OC3/OC12.
Certainly it would be effective at reducing spam, but at what cost?
It is the choice of a server operator (not IRC op, but _root_) to start the ircd of their choice.
If they want to charge, perhaps that should be their right, but the idea of IRC has always been the free (and independant) exchange of ideas over a public network.
Most sysadmins for IRC servers do it not for the immense profit and glory of controlling
Imposing micropayments on people would (assuming it goes to the s/ops) offset their bandwidth costs, but so would simply disabling ircd.
People would just as quickly shift to aim/chats and use Aim+, bittorrent, direct connect, or one of 1000 other protocols as yet unwritten to exchange ideas.
IRC is the de-facto for exactly the opposite reason you propose: people are free to use it, run it, propogate it, or ignore it.
If an ISP chooses to not accept a server (of whatever variant type) it is because they believe (however wrongfully we may decry) it is unprofitable to do so.
IF on the other hand an OP believes it to be
Sure it aint cheap, but its a matter of values placed by the people who run the network.
When I was 12, I ran a bbs from home.
I did it because it was free (+/- 20$ for the phone line) for me, and because I could meet new people.
I didnt do it to profit, or glean great deals from my callers. No, indeed, there was little to be had.
It was simply because it amused me.
IRC networks join and leave for the same reasons: because it amuses them to do so, or no longer does so.
Thats why we become dependant on the networks, instead of upon a single irc.com. Were we bound to a single source of our connectivity, perhaps a monitary value could be placed on it.
But if it were, would we still use it?
AIM, for example: if they charged per IM, would we continue to use it? ICQ? Email?
No, were it not free, but [fairly] unmetered bandwidth still readily available, we would simply sit down, write a new RFC, and use it.
If you want to foster quality chatting, run your own server. Or have a private channel. Or all else failing, write your own protocol and client.
While it may be flame bait, as far as _security_ goes, a linux machine acting as a bridge/router with no services enabled (or allow ssh from inside), is going to be just as secure... To my knowledge there havn't been a whole lot of exploits on linux TCP/IP stack directly... Whether its a good idea is a completely seperate thread, and you're probably right, Cisco is a better choice... But a hardened linux system not running services is going to be just as secure, and it at least gives you the joy of being able to use the already available iptables/route/etc. tools. Eh. Tell ya what, I'll set up the *nix box for you, if you just shunt off part of that DS3 to me :-D
That works, but dibs on Monday Sept 29th? :-)