I will personally object to the creation of this TLD. IANA's rules state quite categorically that only country codes which are present in ISO 3166 will be considered for delegation.
The EU is not a country. EU is not in ISO 3166. Indeed, EU could never be put in ISO 3166 under the current rules.
If the EU was able to get a country code despite not being a country, it could potentially set a precedent which would allow the creation of a very large number of new TLDs "by the back door".
Leaving it is certainly an option. I am married to a Canadian and could fairly easily shift over therre. Canada has its problems (too much government for my liking, and rather high taxes) but Canadians generally seem optimistic, friendly, and positive. These are desirable qualities.
I'd like to have at least an attempt at changing things a little first though. We need a constitution. We need to figure out what is and isn't a legitimate task of Government. We need to have the Great Tax Debate. We need to have a political party that actually champions inherent freedoms as a policy.
We are an envious, unimaginative, reactive, bigotted, bitter society. We do not reward success; rather we punish it. We do not understand ideas of freedom and self-expression, but we attack their proponents bitterly.
Perhaps this goes some way to explaining how this situation has arisen. Very few people in Britain will be concerned about this; the idea that the free exchange of ideas will be curtailed doesn't disturb them. The notion that expressing a controversial opinion might be impossible carries no fear. After all, normal people don't have such ideas or opinions. And the greatest crime in Britain is to be other than the normal?
And what is normal? For a start, you should live in a small, pokey house. You should work for a large company, but you shouldn't care about your job too much. You should buy the Sun each day, and closely follow stories about the Queen Mother's health (Gawd bless'er!). You should have absolutely know understanding or interest in science. You should regard with suspicion anyone who does.
You should subscribe to Sky Sports. But definitely not Film Four.
You should have not-quite-enough money, but you should resent those who have more. You should distrust the Internet and believe "something must be done" about it - even though you've never used it.
In short, you are bitter, boring, suspicious, reactive, a sheep, and a hypocrite. You are also, sad to say, pretty stupid. Most importantly, you never let your lack of knowledge on a particular subject cloud your judgement.
In a country full of people like this, people who basically don't believe that other people deserve freedom, is it any suprise that our politicians and laws and judges show the same prejudices? Who could expect better than them?
Last thing (thanks for reading this long!):
Tony Blair, our esteemed leader, recently used the phrase "libertarian nonsense". Now, not everyone is a commited no-compromise libertarian, but I'm sure that everyone knows that the opposite of "libertarian" is "authoritarian". That word, "authoritarian", sums up exactly which way Britain is going. And I'm going elsewhere.. any suggestions?
1/40,000th of a mainframe might not be very much if each of those 40,000 machines is working flat out at 100% CPU all the time, but it'd be very practical for many purposes with a lower workload for each virtual machine.
For instance, many small business have web sites with a very small amount of traffic. Currently these are often hosted on shared servers with other sites - often very many other sites, since the loading for each site is very low. Out of 40,000 sites you would likely find that less than two hundred are actively being visited at any given time, and even then the server will be mainly IO bound rather than CPU bound.
So the suggestion that a virtual machine on a mainframe could be used for each site rather than just a HTTP1.1 virtual server is actually quite interesting, and certainly viable. It would solve some real-world problems too - security issues in particular.
This is just one example - there are plenty of things you could do with 40,000 virtual machines on one box. The author of this piece either hasn't thought it through or is guilty of the same "parlor trick" that he accuses Scott Courtney of.
And yes, you could do 40,000 on one mainframe - indeed, you can do 40,000 on one Linux box if you have the right setup. I've worked with a server farm running a half-million user homepages off six Compaqs.
The argument that potential virus writers are holding back because they're too busy making money off the web is just silly. It's a very superficial level of analysis. What's more, it's based on ignorance.
After all, if every potential Linux virus writer were only holding back because they're too busy making money off the web, wouldn't the same be true of Windows virus writers? So we'd expect a tailing off in the number of new viruses? In fact, there are more new viruses around now than there have ever been.
Furthermore, historically the worst (greatest?) virus writers have been from the deprived, poverty-stricken communist states of Eastern Europe. That was back in the bad old days of course - things have changed. Now, they're deprived, poverty-stricken capitalist states. But they still write really clever viruses. And Linux is incredibly popular there.
One notable thing about a 15-year-old computer geek from Romania with an inclination towards malicious coding; his opportunity to get rich from a.com IPO is very slim indeed.
So the talent is there; the circumstances are there; but the viruses are strangely absent. Why? Two reasons, I think:
Virus writers don't hate Linux they way many of them hate Windows. Maybe that will change, but I don't think it will.
Linux is more secure than Windows (certainly in its 9X incarnations). It *is* a challenge to get malicious code run as root - if only through age-old security practices such as not having the current directory in root's path, which every Linux distribution enforces as default. A lot of code *is* compiled from source on the box it is run from. We by and large *don't* share fourth- and fith-generation copies of pirated games (complete with "extra functionaity" picket up at some stage) on Linux.
As if the "web commerce" theory wasn't silly enough, Garfinkel then suggests Linux needs anti-virus software before it can be taken seriously by business.
Excuse me?
Even although there are no Linux viruses, he thinks there is a business need for software to remove them?
How can it possibly be better to have viruses and anti virus software than to have no viruses in the first place? Which makes better business sense?
It's a symptom of the Microsoft-inspired brain softening that so many journalists seem to suffer from. Anti-virus software is not a good thing for an environment to need. Not needing it, and therefore not having it, is a good thing.
The poor design of certain Microsoft products allows malicious code to spread easily. That's a fault. Software exists which, at great expense, time and effort can keep your systems pretty much free of it. That's a kludge, albeit a necessary one. This is not a model we in the Linux community should seek to emulate!
So will there never be a real Linux virus? Well, I think there probably will be. Probably a good few. But will be as dangerous as windows ones? I don't think so. Will they spread as easily? Certainly not. Simply employing good security practice on your Linux box should be enough to keep it clean forever.
Last summer I worked for a while at Planet Online in the UK. (They're big Linux supporters and host linux.org.uk). The focus of their activities is Freeserve, the largest ISP in Europe with two million users. It's specified for ten million.
The entire system runs on Linux, with NetApp filers doing the actual disk storage.
The user database runs in mySQL. Every mail sent or received, every user homepage hit, every DNS hit, involves a query against the back-end database. That's for two-million users - almost a hundred thousand of whom are logged in at any one time.
The amazing fact is that it isn't slow, it isn't unreliable, and it isn't reaching its limits. Why? Engineering.
The people at Planet simply have an in-depth understanding of the hardware and software that makes up their platform. They've put in fast kit and lots of memory, and they've tuned the code (long live open source) to make use of it. It flies.
Go on, GPL your work, stick it on sunsite and let the whole Internet be your backup. Now we know what RMS really had in mind all those years ago...
"Self-appointed administrators"?
on
@Home UDP Lifted
·
· Score: 2
I don't like the way they used this term to describe the people who work against spam on Usenet. The fact is that most of them do administer news servers. It's their job. They're "boss-appointed!"
Desribing them this way makes it sound like they're just a group of busybodies with nothing better to do than play vigilante. In fact, these are the people who keep Usenet working. They represent the people who own the servers and pay for the bandwidth. In a real sense, they're "in charge". And they rule by consensus.
The only way I can think of that you could be using the Internet without an agreement (and that's basically all a contract is) being in place would be if you owned the entire shabang.
Assuming that you don't, in fact, own the entire Internet, you must be getting your connectivity from someone, probably an ISP though possibly your employer or educational establishment.
If you get your access from an ISP, it's by agreement with them. In exchange for your money, they allow you to pass traffic across their network, subject to certain conditions. This is a contract. Even if it's not written down, it still exists, although not being written down makes it a lot harder for either party to enforce.
If it's through your school or employer, it's buy agreement with them. You have an agreement with them covering your relationship - written or otherwise. It is almost certainly a term of that contract that you use their computer equipment, and their network, subject to their rules.
The vast majority of Internet users will be connecting under an agreement which disallows them from sending spam.
Of course, your ISP (or school; or employer; I'll simplify and just say ISP from now on) doesn't own the Internet either. They do, however, have connections into at least one other part of the Internet. And that connection is governed by an agreement; whether written or verbal, or even just implicit. Peering forms a contract. Almost all of the major "backbone" ISPs nowadays expect you to impose anti-spam conditions on *your* customers, and to have an efficient and effective abuse contact.
You really should try to learn a little more about the technical and political structure of the Internet before you post. All it is, is lots independent networks who have agreed to a) use a common adressing plan and b) exchange traffic. The key word is "agreed". Where people have agreed to do something together, there's usually a contract formed.
Certainly Internet access has got cheaper for pretty much everyone. I wouldn't argue with that.
The fact is, though, that every ISP I have worked at (and as a contractor, that's been several) over the last few years has had a large "abuse" department, staffed of necessity by people with a fair degree of experience, and sometimes manned 24-hrs a day.
This costs money. I can tell you, in this country at least ISPs don't operate at sufficient profit margins to absorb that cost. And the spammers sure aren't paying for it. You are. I believe that ISP fees are higher today than they would have been without the coming of the spammers. I don't know how much we're talking about, probably a rather small amount, but all the same, non-zero.
I'm entirely happy to see lawsuits of this type succeed. If you get spammed, track 'em down. And if you can track 'em down, sue 'em.
Spammers abuse other people's private property, raise the costs of everyone's Internet access, have basically no interest in anyone's desire for privacy, and generally piss off 99% of the people who receive their crap. And it is crap. From obscenely detailed come-ons to porn sites (sent with disregard for the recipients age and sex) to illegal and fraudulant "business opportunities" they are so far from being legitimate and valid businesses it's beyond belief. In six years as an Internet user I have never received a spam that was of any interest or relevance to me.
Thing is; they only have to get a tiny response rate to be successful. If you mail a million people, and 0.01% respond, that's still one hundred responses. The cost (to the sender) of spamming those million people is very small, and the prospect of one hundred responses can certainly justify it. Who cares if the other 99.99% want you hung? There's always another ISP to buy a throw-away account from for next week's spam.
But someone pays. The ISPs do, in terms of bandwidth, storage space, and full-time staff to deal with the abuse (read: "mainly spam") problems. And you pay, in terms of your own bandwidth and your own time.
"But surely," the spammers squeal, "anyone can send any emails they want. The Internet is open to anyone!". In fact, this isn't true. The Internet is a collection of interconnected private networks. Those servers and routers are private property. Anything you do across them, you do because of private, voluntary agreements.
And the connection between your computer and that network? That's a private, voluntary agreement too. And one of the conditions of that agreement, like as not, is that you may not send unsolicited commercial bulk email. And if you ignore that rule, and incur costs and annoyance for other people? Well then, you're liable to be sued. And so it should be.
This is the way forward; not unworkable anti-spam legislation, but the simple and straightforward enforcement of voluntary private contracts. Way to go AOL. Let's see more of this.
In the Uk, up 'til now there have been significant tax advantages to operating through your own incorporated company - i.e. you only end up paying about 40% of your income in tax as opposed to 50%. Lots of computer people in a high income bracket have been operating this way for several years.
The government (bless 'em) have decided that that's quite unfair and have introduced this new IR35 thing that basically makes the whole system unaffordable.
(Naturally, computer contractors have very portable skills, and can easily work in Europe or the States for a few months at a time and pay very little tax anywhere. And now lots more will have an incentive to do so - so overall, the UK government could lose tax income because of this. But who ever accused politicans of thinking things out?)
Anyway, there are no longer any advantages to having your own company, and lots of disadvantages (paperwork, hassle, tax inspections), so lots of contractors are "going permie" - especially those on long-term contracts.
I wonder if that's one of the factors behind Alan making this move? He wouldn't be alone.
The use of antiseptics, often referred to on this site, may be the most inspiring and disturbing use of technology in contemporary science. It embodies the essential tragedy of contemporary technology; well-meaning people trying in the nobles way to improve the world; setting in motion forces few ordinary people understand, agree upon or are prepared for. Inspiring and disturbing - the use of antiseptics in surgery. Well meaning people are approaching what must surely be seen as a tragedy; the willing tragedy of modern science; running headlong into moral questions they are unprepared to deal with. Never before have we decided to alter the nature of life in such an inspiring and disturbing way. The project is a metaphor for everything that is right and inspiring about technology; and at one everything that is wrong and disturbing. Well meaning scientists have not considered the consequences. The project began in 1850, part of a country-wide effort led by inspired and disturbed maverick physician Joseph Lister. Working in obscurity in Scotland, he has uncovered an inspiring and disturbing truth about the essential nature of life; a new tragic revelation for out time. One with immense possiblities but yet tragicly disturbing consequences for the generation to come - that of the 1900s. Aided by microscopes tens and hundreds of times more powerful than those of even a few years ago, surgeons believe they have already identified the bacteria responsible for infecting surgical wounds. The enormous pace of technological development has led us to an inspiring yet tragic moment. We know which bacteria cause some of the dreadful post-surgery diseases of our time. And we know how to combat them. But has our society had sufficient time to decide if it indeed is something that we should be doing? Such is the technological tragedy of our time. There is no scientific consensus as to how far this project can go, or how quickly. Some geneticists have argued that the antiseptic project is a pipedream, that the dream of unraveling the strands of human disease are much more complex than than any scientific project can really grasp. But the history of medicine, optics, and chemistry all suggest that humanity is entering a new, tragic and nevitable era in the use of technology to alter human life. And there is a darker side to this radical, yet inspired, yet disturbing project, even though few people are considering it much. We have set out on a project whose goal is to alter the nature of human existence, without the interest of a single national political leader or a single parliamentry debate. In effect, people may begin to survive surgery in greater numbers. But is this what out postmodern society wants? Are we prepared to deal with a reduction in deaths following minor operations? Is this a GOOD THING, in our tragic yet disturbed society? "There is no such thing," writes Bishop John Milne, "as an entirely accidental co-incidence." And he's right. Which is why we must carefuly consider our response as a society to this inspiring and disturbing medical tragedy. In a world where people want to survive minor surgery, what might they pay for a clean operating theatre? And who will control and own the patents? And who will sell the technology? It is disturbing. It is tragic. It is inspired. But what can we do about it?
What libc setup do you have to get such good results? (Although I think you've essentially conceded my point by disabling java because "it does tend to crash Netscape").
I've run Netscape 2+ across at least a dozen machines with various slackware, debian, and SuSe distros. Netscape has been pretty much awful over all of them.
The only thing that playing with your libraries seems to offer is a choice of which particular set of bugs you would like to encounter. "How would you like to crash today?".
At the end of the day, the current distribution of SuSe runs everthing - everything perfectly, except for the latest version of Netscape, which crashes constantly. That's not my problem. It's not even SuSe's problem. It's a Netscape problem. And Mozilla doesn't seem to be making any headway towards fixing this.
> Have you ever tried Opera btw? In that case, for how long? Did you give it more than an hour > chance? When you just start using it, you.. ohwell, you get hooked.:) it's.. *great*.:)
Yes, I have tried Opera. It looked really good, but unfortunately is completely useless for this office environment since it doesn't support NTLM proxy authentication. Like it or not, this is a requirement for many businesses.
On the other hand, I don't use any kind of proxy at home, so when the Linux version emerges I will certainly be buying a copy (it can't be worse than Netscape, right?)
First let me say that I love Linux and use it exclusively at home and have started to introduce it at work too. It's a great, well engineered, solid software platform. But when it comes to web browsing, it frankly sucks.
Netscape is just so full of bugs it's unreal. It crashes a lot. Every time a page contains a java applet or attempts to use a plugin you're sitting there with fingers crossed wondering if Netscape's going to crash.. again.
rm ~/.netscape/lock seem a familar command to anyone? And why does Even when it works, it's dog slow. It's table rendering takes forever. The java VM is so slow as to be unusable. And it really would be nice if the entire Netscape program (i.e. all the windows it might have open) didn't freeze up while it's waiting for a DNS lookup.
The fact is that Netscape is an embarassment to the Linux world. We tell people about this solid, reliable, crash-free computing environment, which it is, and then we sit them down in front of Netscape. And it crashes. And they give us strange looks, and decide to stick with Windows.
I would like to see Internet Explorer for Linux. IE is a fine web browser. It's not perfect, but it's vastly more stable than Netscape, and very much faster. And there are already Solaris and HP versions, so porting it to Linux would be the work of a few days.
Just think of the good publicity Microsoft would get if they released it. All us die-hard geeks would have to pause for a second and reconsider our feelings towards them. It would help in the ongoing anti-trust case. And people would use it.
Of course, there isn't much chance of Microsoft ever doing such a thing... which is exactly why they should. They should do it to prove that attitude wrong. If it is wrong of course...
Having worked for some years both on a salaried basis and for the last year or so as an independent contractor paid by the hour, I have to say hourly pay, with a guaranteed minumum number hours, suits me best.
In every salaried job I have had, my contract of employment said I was to work 40hrs/week, with occasional unpaid overtime. Now, you people who work in IT (i.e. pretty much every slashdotter?). When was the last time you worked a 40 hour week?
Just to remind you, that would mean, say, coming into work at 9am and leaving at 5:30pm (allowing a half hour for lunch), five days a week. Have you *ever* done that? Isn't something like 10am - 8 or 9pm a more familiar pattern?
Of course, you could insist on just working the hours stated in your contract. But you might like to keep your job instead. So you just go with the flow, and live with the situation. You abandon your social life and turn in 50hr+ weeks - for nothing extra. Is your time really worth nothing?.
I like being paid by the hour. If I work a 12-hour day (common enough) then I get paid for 12 hours. If I have to come in on the weekend, that goes down on my timesheet too - so I welcome overtime rather than resenting it.
The question is not so much "who should be allowed to carry guns" as "who should be allowed to decide who gets to carry guns?".
The authors of the US contitution were proto-libertarians (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong in that). To a libertarian, "the government" is just another bunch of people. Sure, they're people with guns. But they shouldn't be allowed to impose their will unopposed; if they can have guns, everyone should have guns.
So why should the government be able to tell you you can't have a gun? For that matter, why should *anyone*?
You are wrong to say the US legal system is based on the UKs (well, OK it's true that the judiciary operates in a similar way but that's only a small part of Government).
In the US government is by the consent of the people; in the UK it's by the will of the monarch. Your government is bottom-up, ours is top down. And that flaw extends into every area of the law and politics.
YOur country is established on good principles (maybe not perfect, but certainly good) whereas our country is established on no principles at all. Yours was designed as a "land of the free" - ours just happened and has never been revised.
OK, your good principles are not always followed - but at least they are there.
None of this should come as a suprise to anyone. The sad fact is that Britain is not a "free country" in any meaningful sense. The more you look into the historical muddle that is our constitution the more depressed you get.
This sort of bad legislation doesn't infringe on our rights because we don't, in principle, have any. We are not merely subjects of a monarch, but are in fact her property - as are all our posessions. The monarch does not currently excercise her power, but instead lets it vest in a bloated civil service and an unprepresentative parliament. Any connection between what is decided at Westminster and the "will of the people" is purely tangential.
There is no assumption in Britain that government is "by the consent of the governed". Instead there is a political class which regards the common people as peasants, there to be taxed to death (approx 48% of GNP goes to tax), but not really good for much else. There is no mechanism in the British constitution for balancing power between different parts of government. There is no mechanism for ensuring that basic rights are upheld. There is no meangful local government. There is basically no way for the average, reasonable person to make a difference to the world of government - unless of course they're prepared to become a part of the machine themselves.
And yet, we are smug. We are intolerably smug. We look with disdain across the Atlantic to the USA, and we sneer at your drive-through churches and yourlow-brow TV. We deride what must be the most free society on Earth, and all the while we don't have the right to go pee except by the consent of the Queen.
Americans reading this - you know you have problems in your government and society. And you rightly complain about them, and work to change things. But you know what? Your politicians have to listen, eventually. And you have a strong judiciary who aren't afraid to say "This law is against the constitution - so I'm striking it out".
Sure, laws are made which go against the constitution every year. But at least you have a written statement of rights and principles - so you know when it is being infringed. And eventually, it is put right.
We have no rights. But hey, who needs rights when you've got that nice Mr Blair and a shedload of apathy?
Slashdot Mirror
What about .mil, .edu, .gov and .com? They are not ccTLDs. Go read the IANA pages and come back when you have a clue.
The EU is not a country. EU is not in ISO 3166. Indeed, EU could never be put in ISO 3166 under the current rules.
If the EU was able to get a country code despite not being a country, it could potentially set a precedent which would allow the creation of a very large number of new TLDs "by the back door".
I'd like to have at least an attempt at changing things a little first though. We need a constitution. We need to figure out what is and isn't a legitimate task of Government. We need to have the Great Tax Debate. We need to have a political party that actually champions inherent freedoms as a policy.
"It is time to move beyond the social indifference of right and left, libertarian nonsense masquerading as freedom."
We are an envious, unimaginative, reactive, bigotted, bitter society. We do not reward success; rather we punish it. We do not understand ideas of freedom and self-expression, but we attack their proponents bitterly.
Perhaps this goes some way to explaining how this situation has arisen. Very few people in Britain will be concerned about this; the idea that the free exchange of ideas will be curtailed doesn't disturb them. The notion that expressing a controversial opinion might be impossible carries no fear. After all, normal people don't have such ideas or opinions. And the greatest crime in Britain is to be other than the normal?
And what is normal? For a start, you should live in a small, pokey house. You should work for a large company, but you shouldn't care about your job too much. You should buy the Sun each day, and closely follow stories about the Queen Mother's health (Gawd bless'er!). You should have absolutely know understanding or interest in science. You should regard with suspicion anyone who does.
You should subscribe to Sky Sports. But definitely not Film Four.
You should have not-quite-enough money, but you should resent those who have more. You should distrust the Internet and believe "something must be done" about it - even though you've never used it.
In short, you are bitter, boring, suspicious, reactive, a sheep, and a hypocrite. You are also, sad to say, pretty stupid. Most importantly, you never let your lack of knowledge on a particular subject cloud your judgement.
In a country full of people like this, people who basically don't believe that other people deserve freedom, is it any suprise that our politicians and laws and judges show the same prejudices? Who could expect better than them?
Last thing (thanks for reading this long!):
Tony Blair, our esteemed leader, recently used the phrase "libertarian nonsense". Now, not everyone is a commited no-compromise libertarian, but I'm sure that everyone knows that the opposite of "libertarian" is "authoritarian". That word, "authoritarian", sums up exactly which way Britain is going. And I'm going elsewhere.. any suggestions?
Hmm, I make it 0.864 seconds/day, which is rather more impressive. Go check your sums.
For instance, many small business have web sites with a very small amount of traffic. Currently these are often hosted on shared servers with other sites - often very many other sites, since the loading for each site is very low. Out of 40,000 sites you would likely find that less than two hundred are actively being visited at any given time, and even then the server will be mainly IO bound rather than CPU bound.
So the suggestion that a virtual machine on a mainframe could be used for each site rather than just a HTTP1.1 virtual server is actually quite interesting, and certainly viable. It would solve some real-world problems too - security issues in particular.
This is just one example - there are plenty of things you could do with 40,000 virtual machines on one box. The author of this piece either hasn't thought it through or is guilty of the same "parlor trick" that he accuses Scott Courtney of.
And yes, you could do 40,000 on one mainframe - indeed, you can do 40,000 on one Linux box if you have the right setup. I've worked with a server farm running a half-million user homepages off six Compaqs.
After all, if every potential Linux virus writer were only holding back because they're too busy making money off the web, wouldn't the same be true of Windows virus writers? So we'd expect a tailing off in the number of new viruses? In fact, there are more new viruses around now than there have ever been.
Furthermore, historically the worst (greatest?) virus writers have been from the deprived, poverty-stricken communist states of Eastern Europe. That was back in the bad old days of course - things have changed. Now, they're deprived, poverty-stricken capitalist states. But they still write really clever viruses. And Linux is incredibly popular there.
One notable thing about a 15-year-old computer geek from Romania with an inclination towards malicious coding; his opportunity to get rich from a .com IPO is very slim indeed.
So the talent is there; the circumstances are there; but the viruses are strangely absent. Why? Two reasons, I think:
As if the "web commerce" theory wasn't silly enough, Garfinkel then suggests Linux needs anti-virus software before it can be taken seriously by business.
Excuse me?
Even although there are no Linux viruses, he thinks there is a business need for software to remove them?
How can it possibly be better to have viruses and anti virus software than to have no viruses in the first place? Which makes better business sense?
It's a symptom of the Microsoft-inspired brain softening that so many journalists seem to suffer from. Anti-virus software is not a good thing for an environment to need. Not needing it, and therefore not having it, is a good thing.
The poor design of certain Microsoft products allows malicious code to spread easily. That's a fault. Software exists which, at great expense, time and effort can keep your systems pretty much free of it. That's a kludge, albeit a necessary one. This is not a model we in the Linux community should seek to emulate!
So will there never be a real Linux virus? Well, I think there probably will be. Probably a good few. But will be as dangerous as windows ones? I don't think so. Will they spread as easily? Certainly not. Simply employing good security practice on your Linux box should be enough to keep it clean forever.
Last summer I worked for a while at Planet Online in the UK. (They're big Linux supporters and host linux.org.uk). The focus of their activities is Freeserve, the largest ISP in Europe with two million users. It's specified for ten million.
The entire system runs on Linux, with NetApp filers doing the actual disk storage.
The user database runs in mySQL. Every mail sent or received, every user homepage hit, every DNS hit, involves a query against the back-end database. That's for two-million users - almost a hundred thousand of whom are logged in at any one time.
The amazing fact is that it isn't slow, it isn't unreliable, and it isn't reaching its limits. Why? Engineering.
The people at Planet simply have an in-depth understanding of the hardware and software that makes up their platform. They've put in fast kit and lots of memory, and they've tuned the code (long live open source) to make use of it. It flies.
Just what the heck is Groundhog Day?
(I really do want to know; even my Canadian wife doesn't have an answer)
Go on, GPL your work, stick it on sunsite and let the whole Internet be your backup. Now we know what RMS really had in mind all those years ago...
Desribing them this way makes it sound like they're just a group of busybodies with nothing better to do than play vigilante. In fact, these are the people who keep Usenet working. They represent the people who own the servers and pay for the bandwidth. In a real sense, they're "in charge". And they rule by consensus.
The only way I can think of that you could be using the Internet without an agreement (and that's basically all a contract is) being in place would be if you owned the entire shabang.
Assuming that you don't, in fact, own the entire Internet, you must be getting your connectivity from someone, probably an ISP though possibly your employer or educational establishment.
If you get your access from an ISP, it's by agreement with them. In exchange for your money, they allow you to pass traffic across their network, subject to certain conditions. This is a contract. Even if it's not written down, it still exists, although not being written down makes it a lot harder for either party to enforce.
If it's through your school or employer, it's buy agreement with them. You have an agreement with them covering your relationship - written or otherwise. It is almost certainly a term of that contract that you use their computer equipment, and their network, subject to their rules.
The vast majority of Internet users will be connecting under an agreement which disallows them from sending spam.
Of course, your ISP (or school; or employer; I'll simplify and just say ISP from now on) doesn't own the Internet either. They do, however, have connections into at least one other part of the Internet. And that connection is governed by an agreement; whether written or verbal, or even just implicit. Peering forms a contract. Almost all of the major "backbone" ISPs nowadays expect you to impose anti-spam conditions on *your* customers, and to have an efficient and effective abuse contact.
You really should try to learn a little more about the technical and political structure of the Internet before you post. All it is, is lots independent networks who have agreed to a) use a common adressing plan and b) exchange traffic. The key word is "agreed". Where people have agreed to do something together, there's usually a contract formed.
The fact is, though, that every ISP I have worked at (and as a contractor, that's been several) over the last few years has had a large "abuse" department, staffed of necessity by people with a fair degree of experience, and sometimes manned 24-hrs a day.
This costs money. I can tell you, in this country at least ISPs don't operate at sufficient profit margins to absorb that cost. And the spammers sure aren't paying for it. You are. I believe that ISP fees are higher today than they would have been without the coming of the spammers. I don't know how much we're talking about, probably a rather small amount, but all the same, non-zero.
Spammers abuse other people's private property, raise the costs of everyone's Internet access, have basically no interest in anyone's desire for privacy, and generally piss off 99% of the people who receive their crap. And it is crap. From obscenely detailed come-ons to porn sites (sent with disregard for the recipients age and sex) to illegal and fraudulant "business opportunities" they are so far from being legitimate and valid businesses it's beyond belief. In six years as an Internet user I have never received a spam that was of any interest or relevance to me.
Thing is; they only have to get a tiny response rate to be successful. If you mail a million people, and 0.01% respond, that's still one hundred responses. The cost (to the sender) of spamming those million people is very small, and the prospect of one hundred responses can certainly justify it. Who cares if the other 99.99% want you hung? There's always another ISP to buy a throw-away account from for next week's spam.
But someone pays. The ISPs do, in terms of bandwidth, storage space, and full-time staff to deal with the abuse (read: "mainly spam") problems. And you pay, in terms of your own bandwidth and your own time.
"But surely," the spammers squeal, "anyone can send any emails they want. The Internet is open to anyone!". In fact, this isn't true. The Internet is a collection of interconnected private networks. Those servers and routers are private property. Anything you do across them, you do because of private, voluntary agreements.
And the connection between your computer and that network? That's a private, voluntary agreement too. And one of the conditions of that agreement, like as not, is that you may not send unsolicited commercial bulk email. And if you ignore that rule, and incur costs and annoyance for other people? Well then, you're liable to be sued. And so it should be.
This is the way forward; not unworkable anti-spam legislation, but the simple and straightforward enforcement of voluntary private contracts. Way to go AOL. Let's see more of this.
The government (bless 'em) have decided that that's quite unfair and have introduced this new IR35 thing that basically makes the whole system unaffordable.
(Naturally, computer contractors have very portable skills, and can easily work in Europe or the States for a few months at a time and pay very little tax anywhere. And now lots more will have an incentive to do so - so overall, the UK government could lose tax income because of this. But who ever accused politicans of thinking things out?)
Anyway, there are no longer any advantages to having your own company, and lots of disadvantages (paperwork, hassle, tax inspections), so lots of contractors are "going permie" - especially those on long-term contracts.
I wonder if that's one of the factors behind Alan making this move? He wouldn't be alone.
The use of antiseptics, often referred to on this site, may be the most inspiring and disturbing use of technology in contemporary science. It embodies the essential tragedy of contemporary technology; well-meaning people trying in the nobles way to improve the world; setting in motion forces few ordinary people understand, agree upon or are prepared for. Inspiring and disturbing - the use of antiseptics in surgery. Well meaning people are approaching what must surely be seen as a tragedy; the willing tragedy of modern science; running headlong into moral questions they are unprepared to deal with. Never before have we decided to alter the nature of life in such an inspiring and disturbing way. The project is a metaphor for everything that is right and inspiring about technology; and at one everything that is wrong and disturbing. Well meaning scientists have not considered the consequences. The project began in 1850, part of a country-wide effort led by inspired and disturbed maverick physician Joseph Lister. Working in obscurity in Scotland, he has uncovered an inspiring and disturbing truth about the essential nature of life; a new tragic revelation for out time. One with immense possiblities but yet tragicly disturbing consequences for the generation to come - that of the 1900s. Aided by microscopes tens and hundreds of times more powerful than those of even a few years ago, surgeons believe they have already identified the bacteria responsible for infecting surgical wounds. The enormous pace of technological development has led us to an inspiring yet tragic moment. We know which bacteria cause some of the dreadful post-surgery diseases of our time. And we know how to combat them. But has our society had sufficient time to decide if it indeed is something that we should be doing? Such is the technological tragedy of our time. There is no scientific consensus as to how far this project can go, or how quickly. Some geneticists have argued that the antiseptic project is a pipedream, that the dream of unraveling the strands of human disease are much more complex than than any scientific project can really grasp. But the history of medicine, optics, and chemistry all suggest that humanity is entering a new, tragic and nevitable era in the use of technology to alter human life. And there is a darker side to this radical, yet inspired, yet disturbing project, even though few people are considering it much. We have set out on a project whose goal is to alter the nature of human existence, without the interest of a single national political leader or a single parliamentry debate. In effect, people may begin to survive surgery in greater numbers. But is this what out postmodern society wants? Are we prepared to deal with a reduction in deaths following minor operations? Is this a GOOD THING, in our tragic yet disturbed society? "There is no such thing," writes Bishop John Milne, "as an entirely accidental co-incidence." And he's right. Which is why we must carefuly consider our response as a society to this inspiring and disturbing medical tragedy. In a world where people want to survive minor surgery, what might they pay for a clean operating theatre? And who will control and own the patents? And who will sell the technology? It is disturbing. It is tragic. It is inspired. But what can we do about it?
I've run Netscape 2+ across at least a dozen machines with various slackware, debian, and SuSe distros. Netscape has been pretty much awful over all of them.
The only thing that playing with your libraries seems to offer is a choice of which particular set of bugs you would like to encounter. "How would you like to crash today?".
At the end of the day, the current distribution of SuSe runs everthing - everything perfectly, except for the latest version of Netscape, which crashes constantly. That's not my problem. It's not even SuSe's problem. It's a Netscape problem. And Mozilla doesn't seem to be making any headway towards fixing this.
> chance? When you just start using it, you
Yes, I have tried Opera. It looked really good, but unfortunately is completely useless for this office environment since it doesn't support NTLM proxy authentication. Like it or not, this is a requirement for many businesses.
On the other hand, I don't use any kind of proxy at home, so when the Linux version emerges I will certainly be buying a copy (it can't be worse than Netscape, right?)
Netscape is just so full of bugs it's unreal. It crashes a lot. Every time a page contains a java applet or attempts to use a plugin you're sitting there with fingers crossed wondering if Netscape's going to crash.. again.
rm ~/.netscape/lock seem a familar command to anyone? And why does Even when it works, it's dog slow. It's table rendering takes forever. The java VM is so slow as to be unusable. And it really would be nice if the entire Netscape program (i.e. all the windows it might have open) didn't freeze up while it's waiting for a DNS lookup.
The fact is that Netscape is an embarassment to the Linux world. We tell people about this solid, reliable, crash-free computing environment, which it is, and then we sit them down in front of Netscape. And it crashes. And they give us strange looks, and decide to stick with Windows.
I would like to see Internet Explorer for Linux. IE is a fine web browser. It's not perfect, but it's vastly more stable than Netscape, and very much faster. And there are already Solaris and HP versions, so porting it to Linux would be the work of a few days.
Just think of the good publicity Microsoft would get if they released it. All us die-hard geeks would have to pause for a second and reconsider our feelings towards them. It would help in the ongoing anti-trust case. And people would use it.
Of course, there isn't much chance of Microsoft ever doing such a thing... which is exactly why they should. They should do it to prove that attitude wrong. If it is wrong of course...
http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/
In every salaried job I have had, my contract of employment said I was to work 40hrs/week, with occasional unpaid overtime. Now, you people who work in IT (i.e. pretty much every slashdotter?). When was the last time you worked a 40 hour week?
Just to remind you, that would mean, say, coming into work at 9am and leaving at 5:30pm (allowing a half hour for lunch), five days a week. Have you *ever* done that? Isn't something like 10am - 8 or 9pm a more familiar pattern?
Of course, you could insist on just working the hours stated in your contract. But you might like to keep your job instead. So you just go with the flow, and live with the situation. You abandon your social life and turn in 50hr+ weeks - for nothing extra. Is your time really worth nothing?.
I like being paid by the hour. If I work a 12-hour day (common enough) then I get paid for 12 hours. If I have to come in on the weekend, that goes down on my timesheet too - so I welcome overtime rather than resenting it.
The authors of the US contitution were proto-libertarians (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong in that). To a libertarian, "the government" is just another bunch of people. Sure, they're people with guns. But they shouldn't be allowed to impose their will unopposed; if they can have guns, everyone should have guns.
So why should the government be able to tell you you can't have a gun? For that matter, why should *anyone*?
In the US government is by the consent of the people; in the UK it's by the will of the monarch. Your government is bottom-up, ours is top down. And that flaw extends into every area of the law and politics.
YOur country is established on good principles (maybe not perfect, but certainly good) whereas our country is established on no principles at all. Yours was designed as a "land of the free" - ours just happened and has never been revised.
OK, your good principles are not always followed - but at least they are there.
This sort of bad legislation doesn't infringe on our rights because we don't, in principle, have any. We are not merely subjects of a monarch, but are in fact her property - as are all our posessions. The monarch does not currently excercise her power, but instead lets it vest in a bloated civil service and an unprepresentative parliament. Any connection between what is decided at Westminster and the "will of the people" is purely tangential.
There is no assumption in Britain that government is "by the consent of the governed". Instead there is a political class which regards the common people as peasants, there to be taxed to death (approx 48% of GNP goes to tax), but not really good for much else. There is no mechanism in the British constitution for balancing power between different parts of government. There is no mechanism for ensuring that basic rights are upheld. There is no meangful local government. There is basically no way for the average, reasonable person to make a difference to the world of government - unless of course they're prepared to become a part of the machine themselves.
And yet, we are smug. We are intolerably smug. We look with disdain across the Atlantic to the USA, and we sneer at your drive-through churches and yourlow-brow TV. We deride what must be the most free society on Earth, and all the while we don't have the right to go pee except by the consent of the Queen.
Americans reading this - you know you have problems in your government and society. And you rightly complain about them, and work to change things. But you know what? Your politicians have to listen, eventually. And you have a strong judiciary who aren't afraid to say "This law is against the constitution - so I'm striking it out".
Sure, laws are made which go against the constitution every year. But at least you have a written statement of rights and principles - so you know when it is being infringed. And eventually, it is put right.
We have no rights. But hey, who needs rights when you've got that nice Mr Blair and a shedload of apathy?