I don't know about you, but I've had my PIN and bank account compromised via ATM access. It works something like this:
Thief photographs you using ATM card
Thief imprints blank cardd with appropriate information
Thief withdraws money from your account
You think this can't happen? It happened to me, and when I came back from a business trip, I found all of my funds gone and my account locked. I had to work with the bank and it took 10 days to recover.
Fortunately, I could prove that I was not in the city where the withdrawals happened. If I had been home at the time, I don't know how easy it would have been to recover the funds and unlock my account.
One time passwords, or challenge-respond passwords are certainly a good way to go. S/Key, OPIE
Short of that, using good passwords is not that difficult. A way to manage good passwords is to pick an algorithm to generate passwords in your head, and then use that algorithm.
For example, if you have an extensive library you might pick the first letters of every word in a book title (or two). Editions and volume numbers would help.
Basically, any mnemonic for remembering an encoded password will help you to create reasonable passwords without having to write them down.
I would really like my ISP (both of them) to use SSL/TLS for email.
Unfortunately, neither of them do. Shoot, one ISP doesn't even protect its web mail client via https. Needless to say I don't send or receive ANY important mail using that ISP.
What's even more irritating about this ISP is that your account information is protected by the same username/password as your default mail account. Who knows what fun could be had with this information.
I've talked to tier two support about this issue several times for months with no change or resolution. I won't do the questionable thing and publish the ISP's name on Slashdot (or anywhere else) just yet.
Howeever, the next step is to call their corporate office and see if I can't get some attention.
There are a lot of second and third tier ISPs that won't notice or won't care to do anything about it. Worm and virus writers will just have to aim their target systems a bit more carefully.
You can already see this happening in the way that spammers use Usenet news servers. The big players watch their queues closely and quickly boot spammers. Other Usenet server companies give lip service to controlling spam by just cancelling (or claiming to cancel) accounts. The next day the same people are in operation with a new account on the same server.
I don't see why this wouldn't happen as virus and spambot writers become more focused. Eventually, the ISPs that don't police their queues will get blacklisted, while those that do, won't.
This of course begs the question of what constitutes policing. One way to manage this is by logging queues against IP addresses. Queue lengths generated by an IP address that are outside a certain threshhold get closer examination.
If stupid people don't patch them just like they don't path winders, what good is the security?
Except that you cannot patch Windows/2000 any more. From a related article Microsoft will no longer be providing major security upgrades to Windows/2000.
How is this taking responsibility? How is this taking accountability?
Nowhere on the Microsoft web site (that I could find) is there an announcement that Windows/2000 has reached EOL.
In my opinion, Microsoft can make no valid claims concerning accountability or responsibility, except for those concerning their bottom line.
I guess you've not used usenet news very much. A large portion of the binary and alt group hierarchy is used for sending out copyrighted material.
I don't know the relative volumes of material, but I do know that there is more material out there than I can consume
As for the ratio, I've seen some newsgroups where there is no material that is not encumbered. Using this metric as an indication of what constitutes P2P software is specious.
In short, this bill is very much like laws attempting to criminalize the manufacture of handguns, knives, and other items. Only when a tool can solely be used for criminal or illegal activities should the manufacture and supply of such item be considered for criminalization.
Yes, the above opinion mught have some intersting consequences for our current drug laws. Including harmful in the above litmus test would get tobacco items tagged.
Very few items pass the above litmus test. The proper use of all other items requires a decision on the part of a user. I think that's how things should be.
I skimmed the article. Like most good news articles, the first sentence or two of each paragraph conveys the message, while the rest of the paragraph amplifies that message. Also, like most good news aticles, the important points get mentioned first.
The above paragraph describes what I call a cognitive filtering. It's how I handle multitasking. While it's not as efficient or effective as single-tasking, it does allow me to float in a sea of information.
From a programming perspective, you could probably think about it in terms of pointers or references. From a learning perspective, you can think of it as maybe not knowing the details of a subject, but knowing where to find those details.
I find that I don't need to know the latest death toll from the tsunami. I don't need to know that there was a train wreck in some other city/state/country. I do know where I can find this information. If I want to converse about it, I can reference the location, read the information, and come up to speed quickly.
Does this make me a little less agile? Probably. I find that sometimes I have to look up how to do tasks that others do without thinking. However, if I do those tasks often enough the knowledge becomes experiential as well as academic. I get to use a different part of the brain to remember the information. Once that happens, I can rely on the information to be readily available.
Learning to ride a bike is a good example of this. Using your favorite editor is another good example.
Another aspect of this cognitive filtering is that I'm comfortable with a bit of chaos. I don't feel that I have to control everything in my life. Nor do I feel that all the information in my life has to be consistent. Disorder and inconsistency provide opportunities for learning.
Will I reach reference overload someday? Probably. I'm already planning for that by organizing my references in structured lists. These lists should be (but aren't yet) self-documenting.
Then, all I have to do is the following:
Remember where I put the list
Remeber what I was looking for
Remember . . . oops
In short, managing information overload is all about turning down the volume. I find that anyone who uses histronics in order to be heard probably has very little of importance to say.
To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon: 90% of everything is crap.
My primary browser is firefox. It did not generate a form for me to download and fill out.
So I tried IE (latest patched version for Windows/2000 Professional). It did not generate a form for me to fill out.
Now I suppose I could change my system to use IE as the default browser, turn off Earthlink popup blocking, and try again. Then reset everything afterwards.
I don't think so. There are actually three pieces of Microsoft software that I wouldn't mind owning, just to keep in practice (I use non-Microsoft software instead). It would be nice to have Visio, Project, and Visual Studio for C#.
However, I'll just stick with SmartDraw and SharpDevelop. Maybe I'll spend some energy and really work on my planned cross-platform project management workbench.
In short, there's not much that Microsoft offers that I can easily (and happily) avoid.
I just read your blog, and I do not agree with your assumptions.
Your first point is that "it's all about the applications". Your conclusion is that once all the relevant applications are ported over (pick your closed OS of choice), there is no compelling reason to switch to a different OS or desktop. Let's remember that in the non-Windows world, these are two separate entities.
There are still compelling reasons to switch. While Microsoft has indoctrinated the public with the reboot mentality, this indoctrination can be countered. I have just finished reinstalling Norton's Systemworks on my Windows/2000 Professional machine because Liveupdate got hammered. Here's the sequence.
Uninstall
Reboot
Clean out cruft
Reboot
Install
Reboot
Update each of seven updates
Reboot after each update
That took 2 hours of mine time. I've already written up what I had to do in order to get my antiquated ZIP drive to work.
This is the type of computing experience that make people completely frustrated with using a computer. This is an OS (not application) issue. Giving people the opportunity to get away from this is key
Your second argument centers around giving Microsoft time to improve their software (core OS and applications). There are problems with this as well.
Microsoft is a monopoly. One of the characteristics of a monopoly is that they no longer seek to improve their product. This is because improving a product is not cost-effective. In a closed environment, cost-cutting measures provide the quickest path to greater profit. Improvement costs money, while making your business processes more efficient costs less.
Your next argument states that Microsoft will continue to change the underlying OS in order to disadvantage the competition's applications. This is true. You cite Lotus 1-2-3 and DR-DOS. Word Perfect for Windows is another example.
This means that by following the rules Microsoft sets for development, open source software will never be as performant as Microsoft's native software. Running KDE on Cygwin under Windows/2000 Professional is a painful experience. Launching Firefox in Windows is slower than launching Internet Explorer. Occaisional lags in OpenOffice are irritating.
However, I think this is a good thing. In the end, a software program is a tool that allows me to complete a task. I want a tool that does the following.
Consistent user interface
Allows me to work the way I think
Allows me to create information I can share
Allows me to work reliably
These are characteristics that open source software can bring to the user community. After that, performance and features come into play.
So, I think porting applications cross-platform is a good thing. I like the ability to use the same tools at a job as I do at home. Using a computer is all about getting tasks accomplished. OSS allows me to do that better on any platform. Once the applications are equalized, then the underlying pain of the OS is exposed. As I wrote above, the underlying pain of Windows is great.
Your last argument concerns contributing back to the communitiy. I agree with you that developing software in a Microsoft environment is painful. I have Visual Studio C++.NET, and I stay away from it as much as possible. I also have SharpDevelop for C# and I tend not to use that as well.
The reason I stay away from these development environments is because it inhibits me from writing cross-platform code. If I want my programs to run cross-platform I will write in Java, Perl, Python, etc. Yes, there are other solutions, but all have various drawbacks.
However, writing code is not the only way that people can contribute back to the community. Documentation is sorely lacking. Documentation from a user's perspective is not as
Hmm, I just spent 2 1/2 hours getting an old parallel port zip drive to work with Windows/2000 Professional. It was not fun.
Briefly, I had to install the old software which messed up the shutdown sequence, get the updated version which fixed the shutdown sequence, and the get the patched backup and restore software.
Unfortunately for me, I also got the Win/2K patch for improving parallel port performance. That added a phantom zip drive on my machine. The backup software would think that my printer (added after the zip drive was installed) was the primary zip drive and hang the machine.
Merely uninstalling the software brought no relief. I had to go through the add/remove hardware control panel application and carefully get rid of anything talking about IOMEGA and drives. Then I had to use Norton's to clean up the registry. Then I had to reboot. Finally, I could install the software without using the performance patch.
Contrast that to Linux (currently running Fedora Core 3), where the parallel port driver and jaZip just works.
Yes, I know the zip drive is antiquated. However, when I had my laptop, it was the only tool to conveniently back up a bunch of information (that I have not transferred to CD or DVD). Therefore, like old tape drives, I need the zip drive on occaision.
Some of us don't install SP2 because we're not using Win/XP or Win/XP Professional. I am currently running Win/2000 Professional when I am on the Windows side of this machine.
Unfortunately, Windows/2000 Professional is vunerable to these exploits and there is no patch available. I have a fully patched system, run the latest version of Norton's, and sit behind a Linksys router/switch. If I use IE or Outlook I run the risk of getting spyware, viruses, and trojan horses. There are no patches.
Fortunately, I do not use IE on Windows/2000 except to check my web authoring. I do not use Outlook in any form. In fact, I do not read mail on my Windows/2000 side.
However, I have real problems with all of this. As far as I know, Windows/2000 Professional has not reached end of life. I didn't find any information on the Microsoft web site, but you never know. Until Windows/2000 Professional hits end of life, I expect to have at least the same level of security that the latest patched Windows/XP Professional has.
I am comfortable using alternate tools, and in fact I prefer them (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, etc.). However, I do not think that having my computer exposed to malware that I can do nothing about is reasonable, esepcially when the same fixes are available for Windows/XP Professional.
I know that one solution is to upgrade to Windows/XP Professional. There are really no advantages to me in upgrading to Windows/XP Professional. I can test ASP.NET, develop C#, run Tomcat/Apache, write Perl, and use MySQL or PostgreSQL quite nicely on Windows/2000 Professional. For my $200 retail price I get an OS with a bigger footprint, menus that purposely hide non-Microsoft software, and a host of other impediments to computer usage.
Ah . . . but I do get the latest security upgrades from Microsoft, many of which are not available for Windows/2000. This is true even though Windows/2000 Professional is a fully supported product.
An average user is not going to be aware of these considerations when using a computer. An average user will not be aware that while Windows/XP SP2 is patched properly, the same diligence will not suffice for Windows/2000.
A lot more can be said about Microsoft's marketing, planned obselence, and deceptive business practices, but that would probably be off-topic.
In the Los Angeles area I've been without a job for the past two years. I have 20 years of professional experience doing network engineering (R and D to 5 continent WANs), UNIX admin experience (6 machines to 200 plus machines), project management, systems integration, and programming / analysis.
My last job was as a high end computer consultant for a telecommunications firm. The entire division was shut down when the telecommunications firm decided to get out of the consulting business.
Like you, I use Perl, version control (RCS, CVS, Subversion), and various publicly available tools to manage systems and networks.
I have found that most companies in the Los Angeles area are looking for people with specific vendor-based skill sets. This probably the result of vendors selling systems to an organization rather than real solutions. There seems to be little or no interest in a generalist who can apply standards and industry best practices as opposed to vendor-specifc knowledge.
I am about to exhaust all available resources and fully expect to be out on the street within the next month (Merry Christmas everyone). The latest comments I have been getting run along the line of:
You've been out of work too long. Your experience is not recent enough. We are not interested in hiring you.
Wonderful. At this point I have no idea what my options are.
Pretty much everything worked out of the box for me on going from Fedora Core 2 to Fedora Core 3. The only breakage were things I expected to break.
NTFS broke (and hung boot) until I upgraded the NTFS rpm
Used the old NV driver until I built the NVidia driver
Yamaha daughterboard doesn't work - a known ALSA issue
From an install point of view, some other software broke that in retrospect should have. I had to recompile my version of PHP since libcurl was upgraded. I had to recompile mod_perl-1.99.17 for my version of Apache. I had to move all of the GNU Java out of the way so that my Java applications would run. The GUI parts of mono broke since Gnome has been upgraded. And finally, mysql broke because Fedora Core 3 reinstalled the last version of mysql supplied by Redhat.
There are a lot of good things about the new release. Probably the most important from my viewpoint is that switching between KDE and Gnome no longer borks the menus. I think Gnome has fimally moved over to the free desktop specifications. While not perfect, I can now switch between desktops without too much menu breakage. I haven't tried editing the Gnome menu yet.
Most of the issues involved have to do with third party packages and not the Fedora Core 3 core. I build my own Apache. I install a lot of my own Perl packages. I install Java directly from Sun. The NVidia mess (not using udev) has been noted, and is pretty easy to fix.
Evolution 2.0.x is a mess. It's ugly, offers no summary view, no RSS, and no weather. In short, there's no reason to use it over any other mail client unless you have to go against an Exchange server. The lack of a summary view is particularly annoying in that I no longer can see at a glance what tasks I have, what the temperature is, how many mail messages I have not read, and of course what new stuff has been posted on Slashdot.
Fortuneately there are Firefox extentions that give me the RSS feeds and weather. Habari Xenu does the RSS feeds, and WeatherFox does the weather. Check out both from Firefox Extensions
One last nit. I've noticed that running Gnome applications under KDE carries my old Gnome wallpaper along with it. It's not visible in KDE, but when I log out the old wallpaper flashes on the screen. I wonder how much memory that costs me.
In short, a nice release, pretty painless upgrade, and a comfortable distribution of linux.
I don't think this has much to do about fair use, right to copy, or the assumption that all technically adept people are guilty until proven innocent.
I think this is all about an end run around the weak DOJ ruling concerning Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
This coupled with their patent attack provides a two-fold prong to create a Microsoft monopoly without violating the terms of the DOJ ruling.
Agressively patent everything - and let the courts sort it out
Provide a patented, licensed mechanism for copy protection and refuse to make it available for non-Microsoft based products
The result of these two business practices is as follows.
Open source software which emulates, mimics, or makes compatible Microsoft products will be sued
Open source software that is seen as a threat to Microsoft is sued. They've already talked about Apache and sendmail.
Hardware manufacturers that support Linux and Apple will not be granted licenses for the copy protection software
Or - hardware manufacturers that support Linux and Apple will have to sign agreements preventing them from using this technology in non-Microsoft applications
While I am not a lawyer, this all seems to be a perfectly legitimate business direction to take. This is based on the following business model.
True innovation is to be avoided
Business success is predicated on an exclusive market, not a competetive market
Market share is built on a populace resistant to change
Make change as difficult as possible
This market strategy ignores revolutionary changes. However, with enough stress and marketing revolutionary changes can be thwarted by discouraging people to think.
Of course, this is bad for the economy, bad for the consumer, and bad for advancement in any field.
IBM tried this when it pre-announced products in the 1970's. This basically froze the entire third party market for IBM mainframe hardware and software. DOJ found this to be a predatory practice and prevented IBM from doing this.
Microsoft's tactic while similar (keep everyone guessing when Longhorn will be out and what it will contain) is also more draconian. By trying to create licensed industry-wide standards, they hope to control various key technologies which will allow them to control the markets. By patenting commonly used software techniques Microsoft can then persue courtroom remedies against selected targets.
It appears that the IETF and Marid are a bit smarter than that. I doubt that RIAA and MPAA are. Look for Microsoft to actively prevent multimedia applications from running on non-Microsoft products.
Of course, this begs the question: Why doesn't Microsoft truly innovate? Other successful technical companies have.
Sigh, there are several ways to approach setting up an Apache server. All of them are easy.
First one is to start with an empty configuration file and then cut and past in portions of the standard file until you get a minimally working server.
The good part about this approach is that you get the least amount of bells and whistles added. Security via a small footprint is a good thing. The bad part about this approach is that you end up with a minimal server that may need more tweaking to get everything working as you need it.
The second approach is to take the original configuration file and start chopping things out of it. Test each deletion to make sure that everything you need still works. Use something as simple as RCS to keep track of your changes.
The good part about this approach is that you'll have a server until you break it. You will also have a nice record of every configuration change you've made. The bad part about this approach is that you may end up with a fatter server than you need. This violates a security maxim of making the least footprint on the net necessary to accomplish the task.
The third way to configure Apache is from scratch. This is somewhat more complex than the other two, and can lead to unmaintainable configuration files.
The bonuses for creating your own configuration file include understanding what goes on in the Apache configuration, and making a nice, modular configuration file. The bad part about this is that if you don't comment your file, you'll get an unmaintainable mess. Unfortunately some consultants think this is a good thing.
I too was hoping for a great article on tracking down defects in complex software. What I read was a comedy of errors that managed to survive for ten years before being addressed.
It's really difficult to know where to start with this mess. And it's even sadder to think that Distinguished Engineers at software companies think this way. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind after reading this article why software fails so miserably and so often.
Some points that need to be considered are as follows.
Housekeeping
Unit Testing
Meaningful error messages
Well-understood test environment
Housekeeping is important. Free your memory, close your files, initialize your variables, eat your spinich. Do not depend on the compiler to do this for you, even if the documentation says it will. Clean up your own room.
With modern development environments and languages this may be less of an issue. However if you program in Java (pick your favorite garbage-colletion language), then you had best understand what is going on beneath the hood when you depend on it to build complex programs.
Unit testing is important. I need to have faith that my code snippet will not break under proper, improper, and abusive usage. If it does (or is supposed to break), I should be able to generate a meaningful error message.
Meaningful error messages are important. If you're going to generate an error message, at least have the error message point to the proper problem. If you've run out of file handles, say too many file handles open. If you've run out of disk space, then say you've run out of disk space. If you can compile and run the program in a debug mode, then either generate a stack trace or print the line number and file where the error occurred. This is not rocket science.
Understand your test environment. How in the world does a dedicated tester forget that the debugger presents a different environment than the running environment. Why would a tester verify or attempt to understand the defect in an environment that does not present the same conditions?
I realize testing and debugging quickly is an art as much as a science. However, changing more than one condition at a time is a certain recipe for madness
As far as complexity goes, that's really not any excuse. If software is designed to be a confusing mass of interacting specialty parts, it's going to break in strange and wonderful ways. If software is designed with simple, easily understood, unit-tested parts, then when it does break the breakage has a better chance of being understood.
One of the evil things that I've found about about Word (and to a lesser extent Excel) is that it does not degrade gracefully when faced with resource challenges.
If you're running low on memory, low on disk space, or low on computer cycles (for a frickin' word processor????), then you had best save every five minutes at least.
Word/98 was so bad on Windows/95 that I could not finish a 20 page proposal without several blue screens of death.
Office/2000 Professional is reasonable if bloated in this regard. I occaisionally run it on Windows/2000 Professional or CrossOver Office under Fedora Core 2. However it is by far my least favorite tool for writing. I only use it so that I can provide others with "Word" documents.
If your Word users are editing 100+ page documents, only have 512 MB memory, and have less than 50% disk space available, be prepared for crashes.
Get more memory
Get more disk space
Break up large documents into sections
Please note that large documents for Word equals about 50 pages with reasonably complex formatting. Adding diagrams, spreadsheets, or other interesting items shortens the acceptable length.
Come on, you really think that these Congress Critters listen at all to what the average person writes about, calls about, or eamils about?
I've written my senators (both) and my representative. I've put factual information in the letter and added online references to support those facts.
All it has ever done is get me on their mailing lists (both paper and electronic) so they can trumpet their successes.
I used to get the typical "thank you, but" letter, but now I don't even get that.
Face it. Unless you're rich, connected with a powerful lobbying group, or threaten the Congress Critters with a powerful lobbying group, they could care less about you or your concerns.
Strike that - they probably can't care less about you or your concerns. It doesn't matter what party affiliation the Congress Criter is, either. Doing the right thing and attempting to solve difficult problems is not in their makeup.
Ambrose Bierce has a good definition.
POLITICIAN, n.
An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
And no, I don't have a good solution to either the politicians (probably not possible) or the No Fly List. However, I think the latter (if desired) has a solution.
This is a rather long rebuttal to the recent posting about open source "myths". While I feel there are kernels of truth in the posting, I think the author has missed several vital points.
1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it"
The author seems to focus on equating fix to program. I realize that if you're a programmer then fix can quickly become program, especially when talking about open source software.
However, I think "fix" should be used in a much broader way. Clarifying requirements, writing a detailed explanation of a problem, writing documentation, and contributing ideas are all "fixes" that open source software can benefit from. You don't have to be a programmer to do many of these.
When you're complaining about how software doesn't work, how about writing up a detailed view of how you would like it to work (requirements). When you have a problem with some software, how about writing up a detailed, repeatable scenario (bug report). Once you've finally figured out how to install, upgrade, or manage something with open source software, how about writing it up (documentation). If a piece of software doesn't do something you would like it to do, write up a short explanation of what it is and how you envision it should go about performing the task (enhancement).
You don't need to be a programmer in order to do these things. The comment should probably read: "Instead of using your energy to throw rocks, use your energy to build houses".
2. "Open software allows you to get under the hood and fix things"
I like the car analogy. There are some things that I can fix on my car, and there are other things that I pay a mechanic for. Paying a mechanic doesn't preclude me from learning about the car and doing it myself. I have a choice.
An advantage of open source software is that potentially more people have looked at (are willing to look at) the source code. With more eyes, there is a bigger chance that the issue will be fixed (in the absolute sense).
However, I think the problem is with the narrow definition of fix. Sometimes fixing includes writing better documentation, coming up with better requirements, or understanding how an implementation solves a particular problem.
3. "All software should be free"
I am a systems architect, systems administrator, program designer, and sometimes programmer. I don't have a lot of trouble with freely available software. I don't have a lot of trouble with low cost software.
I also don't have a problem with high priced commercial software, provided it does the job intended, and does it well. I use both since I feel that software is a tool that lets me get my job done.
However, I think the cost of software should be based on ideas, fitness for purpose, and craftmanship rather than some commodity metric.
Exploring the carpenter example a little more fully might reveal this. If I purchase a table, why would I pay more for one table than another? Here are some reasons.
a) Materials are better b) Form is better - it's more esthetically pleasing c) Works better for my application d) Constructed better
All of the above reasons reflect my appreciation of the carpenter's knowledge, rather than the intrinsic value of a table. I am paying for the carpenter's knowledge and skill.
Applying this to computing is fairly straightforward. As a consumer, I am paying for better code, code that fits my requirements, and code that is constructed well. I am paying for a programmer's, designer's, architect's thoughts and capabilities. I am paying them for their ability to solve problems. The model becomes not so much can you build tools, but what can you do with the tools. The model for the toolbuilder becomes can you craft a tool uniquely fitted for a particular purpose. The consumer pays for capability, not capacity.
4. "Open software is always better than closed, proprietary software"
you've never driven in southern california, have you? 7" between cars in Orange County, and another driver will try to slip in front of you to save a few seconds of travel time . . .
KDE 3.2.x does this. I don't know if prior versions of KDE had this. I expect they did, but I'll not bounce my system back to KDE 3.0 or 3.1 to find out.
And since my Windows system is currently virused, I cannot bring up KDE 3.1 under Cygwin under Windows/2000 to check it either.
Well, while the base phone number is a fake, a little further digging . . . .
whois refestltd.com
Registration Service Provider: AplusNet(APRO)
apro-n4e-racc@abac.com
http://www.aplus.net
Information on abac.com follows below:
Domain name: abac.com
Registrant: A+ Net (AD384-ORG) support@aplus.net A+Net Internet Services 10350 Barnes Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92121 United States Phone: (858) 410-6900
Administrative Contact: A+ Net (AD384-ORG) support@aplus.net A+Net Internet Services 10350 Barnes Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92121 United States Phone: (858) 410-6900
Technical Contact: A+ Net (AD384-ORG) support@aplus.net A+Net Internet Services 10350 Barnes Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92121 United States Phone: (858) 410-6900
Which seems to be listed in the yellow pages as:
A-Plus Net Address: 10350 Barnes Canyon Rd, San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 410-6929
I guess that A-Plus Net would be interested to know that they've given harbor to malware writers. I wonder if even they know the true location of their customer.
And no, I'm not suggesting a war-dialing campaign to find out information from A-Plus Net . . .
Slashdot Mirror
There is one reason that people haven't stormed Microsoft or filed a huge class action lawsuit (EULA be hanged).
The average user doesn't expect a computer to work any better
You have at least three generations of computer users, including many people who profess to be professionals who believe the following.
Add the average person's resistance to change, and you have Microsoft's recipe for monopoly.
I don't know about you, but I've had my PIN and bank account compromised via ATM access. It works something like this:
You think this can't happen? It happened to me, and when I came back from a business trip, I found all of my funds gone and my account locked. I had to work with the bank and it took 10 days to recover.
Fortunately, I could prove that I was not in the city where the withdrawals happened. If I had been home at the time, I don't know how easy it would have been to recover the funds and unlock my account.
One time passwords, or challenge-respond passwords are certainly a good way to go. S/Key, OPIE
Short of that, using good passwords is not that difficult. A way to manage good passwords is to pick an algorithm to generate passwords in your head, and then use that algorithm.
For example, if you have an extensive library you might pick the first letters of every word in a book title (or two). Editions and volume numbers would help.
Basically, any mnemonic for remembering an encoded password will help you to create reasonable passwords without having to write them down.
I would really like my ISP (both of them) to use SSL/TLS for email.
Unfortunately, neither of them do. Shoot, one ISP doesn't even protect its web mail client via https. Needless to say I don't send or receive ANY important mail using that ISP.
What's even more irritating about this ISP is that your account information is protected by the same username/password as your default mail account. Who knows what fun could be had with this information.
I've talked to tier two support about this issue several times for months with no change or resolution. I won't do the questionable thing and publish the ISP's name on Slashdot (or anywhere else) just yet.
Howeever, the next step is to call their corporate office and see if I can't get some attention.
There are a lot of second and third tier ISPs that won't notice or won't care to do anything about it. Worm and virus writers will just have to aim their target systems a bit more carefully.
You can already see this happening in the way that spammers use Usenet news servers. The big players watch their queues closely and quickly boot spammers. Other Usenet server companies give lip service to controlling spam by just cancelling (or claiming to cancel) accounts. The next day the same people are in operation with a new account on the same server.
I don't see why this wouldn't happen as virus and spambot writers become more focused. Eventually, the ISPs that don't police their queues will get blacklisted, while those that do, won't.
This of course begs the question of what constitutes policing. One way to manage this is by logging queues against IP addresses. Queue lengths generated by an IP address that are outside a certain threshhold get closer examination.
If stupid people don't patch them just like they don't path winders, what good is the security?
Except that you cannot patch Windows/2000 any more. From a related article Microsoft will no longer be providing major security upgrades to Windows/2000.
How is this taking responsibility? How is this taking accountability?
Nowhere on the Microsoft web site (that I could find) is there an announcement that Windows/2000 has reached EOL.
In my opinion, Microsoft can make no valid claims concerning accountability or responsibility, except for those concerning their bottom line.
I guess you've not used usenet news very much. A large portion of the binary and alt group hierarchy is used for sending out copyrighted material.
I don't know the relative volumes of material, but I do know that there is more material out there than I can consume
As for the ratio, I've seen some newsgroups where there is no material that is not encumbered. Using this metric as an indication of what constitutes P2P software is specious.
In short, this bill is very much like laws attempting to criminalize the manufacture of handguns, knives, and other items. Only when a tool can solely be used for criminal or illegal activities should the manufacture and supply of such item be considered for criminalization.
Yes, the above opinion mught have some intersting consequences for our current drug laws. Including harmful in the above litmus test would get tobacco items tagged.
Very few items pass the above litmus test. The proper use of all other items requires a decision on the part of a user. I think that's how things should be.
I skimmed the article. Like most good news articles, the first sentence or two of each paragraph conveys the message, while the rest of the paragraph amplifies that message. Also, like most good news aticles, the important points get mentioned first.
The above paragraph describes what I call a cognitive filtering. It's how I handle multitasking. While it's not as efficient or effective as single-tasking, it does allow me to float in a sea of information.
From a programming perspective, you could probably think about it in terms of pointers or references. From a learning perspective, you can think of it as maybe not knowing the details of a subject, but knowing where to find those details.
I find that I don't need to know the latest death toll from the tsunami. I don't need to know that there was a train wreck in some other city/state/country. I do know where I can find this information. If I want to converse about it, I can reference the location, read the information, and come up to speed quickly.
Does this make me a little less agile? Probably. I find that sometimes I have to look up how to do tasks that others do without thinking. However, if I do those tasks often enough the knowledge becomes experiential as well as academic. I get to use a different part of the brain to remember the information. Once that happens, I can rely on the information to be readily available.
Learning to ride a bike is a good example of this. Using your favorite editor is another good example.
Another aspect of this cognitive filtering is that I'm comfortable with a bit of chaos. I don't feel that I have to control everything in my life. Nor do I feel that all the information in my life has to be consistent. Disorder and inconsistency provide opportunities for learning.
Will I reach reference overload someday? Probably. I'm already planning for that by organizing my references in structured lists. These lists should be (but aren't yet) self-documenting.
Then, all I have to do is the following:
In short, managing information overload is all about turning down the volume. I find that anyone who uses histronics in order to be heard probably has very little of importance to say.
To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon: 90% of everything is crap.
My primary browser is firefox. It did not generate a form for me to download and fill out.
So I tried IE (latest patched version for Windows/2000 Professional). It did not generate a form for me to fill out.
Now I suppose I could change my system to use IE as the default browser, turn off Earthlink popup blocking, and try again. Then reset everything afterwards.
I don't think so. There are actually three pieces of Microsoft software that I wouldn't mind owning, just to keep in practice (I use non-Microsoft software instead). It would be nice to have Visio, Project, and Visual Studio for C#.
However, I'll just stick with SmartDraw and SharpDevelop. Maybe I'll spend some energy and really work on my planned cross-platform project management workbench.
In short, there's not much that Microsoft offers that I can easily (and happily) avoid.
I just read your blog, and I do not agree with your assumptions.
Your first point is that "it's all about the applications". Your conclusion is that once all the relevant applications are ported over (pick your closed OS of choice), there is no compelling reason to switch to a different OS or desktop. Let's remember that in the non-Windows world, these are two separate entities.
There are still compelling reasons to switch. While Microsoft has indoctrinated the public with the reboot mentality, this indoctrination can be countered. I have just finished reinstalling Norton's Systemworks on my Windows/2000 Professional machine because Liveupdate got hammered. Here's the sequence.
That took 2 hours of mine time. I've already written up what I had to do in order to get my antiquated ZIP drive to work.
This is the type of computing experience that make people completely frustrated with using a computer. This is an OS (not application) issue. Giving people the opportunity to get away from this is key
Your second argument centers around giving Microsoft time to improve their software (core OS and applications). There are problems with this as well.
Microsoft is a monopoly. One of the characteristics of a monopoly is that they no longer seek to improve their product. This is because improving a product is not cost-effective. In a closed environment, cost-cutting measures provide the quickest path to greater profit. Improvement costs money, while making your business processes more efficient costs less.
Your next argument states that Microsoft will continue to change the underlying OS in order to disadvantage the competition's applications. This is true. You cite Lotus 1-2-3 and DR-DOS. Word Perfect for Windows is another example.
This means that by following the rules Microsoft sets for development, open source software will never be as performant as Microsoft's native software. Running KDE on Cygwin under Windows/2000 Professional is a painful experience. Launching Firefox in Windows is slower than launching Internet Explorer. Occaisional lags in OpenOffice are irritating.
However, I think this is a good thing. In the end, a software program is a tool that allows me to complete a task. I want a tool that does the following.
These are characteristics that open source software can bring to the user community. After that, performance and features come into play.
So, I think porting applications cross-platform is a good thing. I like the ability to use the same tools at a job as I do at home. Using a computer is all about getting tasks accomplished. OSS allows me to do that better on any platform. Once the applications are equalized, then the underlying pain of the OS is exposed. As I wrote above, the underlying pain of Windows is great.
Your last argument concerns contributing back to the communitiy. I agree with you that developing software in a Microsoft environment is painful. I have Visual Studio C++ .NET, and I stay away from it as much as possible. I also have SharpDevelop for C# and I tend not to use that as well.
The reason I stay away from these development environments is because it inhibits me from writing cross-platform code. If I want my programs to run cross-platform I will write in Java, Perl, Python, etc. Yes, there are other solutions, but all have various drawbacks.
However, writing code is not the only way that people can contribute back to the community. Documentation is sorely lacking. Documentation from a user's perspective is not as
Hmm, I just spent 2 1/2 hours getting an old parallel port zip drive to work with Windows/2000 Professional. It was not fun.
Briefly, I had to install the old software which messed up the shutdown sequence, get the updated version which fixed the shutdown sequence, and the get the patched backup and restore software.
Unfortunately for me, I also got the Win/2K patch for improving parallel port performance. That added a phantom zip drive on my machine. The backup software would think that my printer (added after the zip drive was installed) was the primary zip drive and hang the machine.
Merely uninstalling the software brought no relief. I had to go through the add/remove hardware control panel application and carefully get rid of anything talking about IOMEGA and drives. Then I had to use Norton's to clean up the registry. Then I had to reboot. Finally, I could install the software without using the performance patch.
Contrast that to Linux (currently running Fedora Core 3), where the parallel port driver and jaZip just works.
Yes, I know the zip drive is antiquated. However, when I had my laptop, it was the only tool to conveniently back up a bunch of information (that I have not transferred to CD or DVD). Therefore, like old tape drives, I need the zip drive on occaision.
Some of us don't install SP2 because we're not using Win/XP or Win/XP Professional. I am currently running Win/2000 Professional when I am on the Windows side of this machine.
Unfortunately, Windows/2000 Professional is vunerable to these exploits and there is no patch available. I have a fully patched system, run the latest version of Norton's, and sit behind a Linksys router/switch. If I use IE or Outlook I run the risk of getting spyware, viruses, and trojan horses. There are no patches.
Fortunately, I do not use IE on Windows/2000 except to check my web authoring. I do not use Outlook in any form. In fact, I do not read mail on my Windows/2000 side.
However, I have real problems with all of this. As far as I know, Windows/2000 Professional has not reached end of life. I didn't find any information on the Microsoft web site, but you never know. Until Windows/2000 Professional hits end of life, I expect to have at least the same level of security that the latest patched Windows/XP Professional has.
I am comfortable using alternate tools, and in fact I prefer them (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, etc.). However, I do not think that having my computer exposed to malware that I can do nothing about is reasonable, esepcially when the same fixes are available for Windows/XP Professional.
I know that one solution is to upgrade to Windows/XP Professional. There are really no advantages to me in upgrading to Windows/XP Professional. I can test ASP.NET, develop C#, run Tomcat/Apache, write Perl, and use MySQL or PostgreSQL quite nicely on Windows/2000 Professional. For my $200 retail price I get an OS with a bigger footprint, menus that purposely hide non-Microsoft software, and a host of other impediments to computer usage.
Ah . . . but I do get the latest security upgrades from Microsoft, many of which are not available for Windows/2000. This is true even though Windows/2000 Professional is a fully supported product.
An average user is not going to be aware of these considerations when using a computer. An average user will not be aware that while Windows/XP SP2 is patched properly, the same diligence will not suffice for Windows/2000.
A lot more can be said about Microsoft's marketing, planned obselence, and deceptive business practices, but that would probably be off-topic.
In the Los Angeles area I've been without a job for the past two years. I have 20 years of professional experience doing network engineering (R and D to 5 continent WANs), UNIX admin experience (6 machines to 200 plus machines), project management, systems integration, and programming / analysis.
My last job was as a high end computer consultant for a telecommunications firm. The entire division was shut down when the telecommunications firm decided to get out of the consulting business.
Like you, I use Perl, version control (RCS, CVS, Subversion), and various publicly available tools to manage systems and networks.
I have found that most companies in the Los Angeles area are looking for people with specific vendor-based skill sets. This probably the result of vendors selling systems to an organization rather than real solutions. There seems to be little or no interest in a generalist who can apply standards and industry best practices as opposed to vendor-specifc knowledge.
I am about to exhaust all available resources and fully expect to be out on the street within the next month (Merry Christmas everyone). The latest comments I have been getting run along the line of:
Wonderful. At this point I have no idea what my options are.
I have pretty much the same system as you.
Pretty much everything worked out of the box for me on going from Fedora Core 2 to Fedora Core 3. The only breakage were things I expected to break.
From an install point of view, some other software broke that in retrospect should have. I had to recompile my version of PHP since libcurl was upgraded. I had to recompile mod_perl-1.99.17 for my version of Apache. I had to move all of the GNU Java out of the way so that my Java applications would run. The GUI parts of mono broke since Gnome has been upgraded. And finally, mysql broke because Fedora Core 3 reinstalled the last version of mysql supplied by Redhat.
There are a lot of good things about the new release. Probably the most important from my viewpoint is that switching between KDE and Gnome no longer borks the menus. I think Gnome has fimally moved over to the free desktop specifications. While not perfect, I can now switch between desktops without too much menu breakage. I haven't tried editing the Gnome menu yet.
Most of the issues involved have to do with third party packages and not the Fedora Core 3 core. I build my own Apache. I install a lot of my own Perl packages. I install Java directly from Sun. The NVidia mess (not using udev) has been noted, and is pretty easy to fix.
Evolution 2.0.x is a mess. It's ugly, offers no summary view, no RSS, and no weather. In short, there's no reason to use it over any other mail client unless you have to go against an Exchange server. The lack of a summary view is particularly annoying in that I no longer can see at a glance what tasks I have, what the temperature is, how many mail messages I have not read, and of course what new stuff has been posted on Slashdot.
Fortuneately there are Firefox extentions that give me the RSS feeds and weather. Habari Xenu does the RSS feeds, and WeatherFox does the weather. Check out both from Firefox Extensions
One last nit. I've noticed that running Gnome applications under KDE carries my old Gnome wallpaper along with it. It's not visible in KDE, but when I log out the old wallpaper flashes on the screen. I wonder how much memory that costs me.
In short, a nice release, pretty painless upgrade, and a comfortable distribution of linux.
I don't think this has much to do about fair use, right to copy, or the assumption that all technically adept people are guilty until proven innocent.
I think this is all about an end run around the weak DOJ ruling concerning Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
This coupled with their patent attack provides a two-fold prong to create a Microsoft monopoly without violating the terms of the DOJ ruling.
The result of these two business practices is as follows.
While I am not a lawyer, this all seems to be a perfectly legitimate business direction to take. This is based on the following business model.
This market strategy ignores revolutionary changes. However, with enough stress and marketing revolutionary changes can be thwarted by discouraging people to think.
Of course, this is bad for the economy, bad for the consumer, and bad for advancement in any field.
IBM tried this when it pre-announced products in the 1970's. This basically froze the entire third party market for IBM mainframe hardware and software. DOJ found this to be a predatory practice and prevented IBM from doing this.
Microsoft's tactic while similar (keep everyone guessing when Longhorn will be out and what it will contain) is also more draconian. By trying to create licensed industry-wide standards, they hope to control various key technologies which will allow them to control the markets. By patenting commonly used software techniques Microsoft can then persue courtroom remedies against selected targets.
It appears that the IETF and Marid are a bit smarter than that. I doubt that RIAA and MPAA are. Look for Microsoft to actively prevent multimedia applications from running on non-Microsoft products.
Of course, this begs the question: Why doesn't Microsoft truly innovate? Other successful technical companies have.
Sigh, there are several ways to approach setting up an Apache server. All of them are easy.
First one is to start with an empty configuration file and then cut and past in portions of the standard file until you get a minimally working server.
The good part about this approach is that you get the least amount of bells and whistles added. Security via a small footprint is a good thing. The bad part about this approach is that you end up with a minimal server that may need more tweaking to get everything working as you need it.
The second approach is to take the original configuration file and start chopping things out of it. Test each deletion to make sure that everything you need still works. Use something as simple as RCS to keep track of your changes.
The good part about this approach is that you'll have a server until you break it. You will also have a nice record of every configuration change you've made. The bad part about this approach is that you may end up with a fatter server than you need. This violates a security maxim of making the least footprint on the net necessary to accomplish the task.
The third way to configure Apache is from scratch. This is somewhat more complex than the other two, and can lead to unmaintainable configuration files.
The bonuses for creating your own configuration file include understanding what goes on in the Apache configuration, and making a nice, modular configuration file. The bad part about this is that if you don't comment your file, you'll get an unmaintainable mess. Unfortunately some consultants think this is a good thing.
As for chrooting Apache, it took me less than 15 seconds via Google to find a step by step procedure http://www.faqs.org/docs/securing/chap29sec254.htm l to chroot Apache on a Redhat Linux.
I too was hoping for a great article on tracking down defects in complex software. What I read was a comedy of errors that managed to survive for ten years before being addressed.
It's really difficult to know where to start with this mess. And it's even sadder to think that Distinguished Engineers at software companies think this way. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind after reading this article why software fails so miserably and so often.
Some points that need to be considered are as follows.
Housekeeping is important. Free your memory, close your files, initialize your variables, eat your spinich. Do not depend on the compiler to do this for you, even if the documentation says it will. Clean up your own room.
With modern development environments and languages this may be less of an issue. However if you program in Java (pick your favorite garbage-colletion language), then you had best understand what is going on beneath the hood when you depend on it to build complex programs.
Unit testing is important. I need to have faith that my code snippet will not break under proper, improper, and abusive usage. If it does (or is supposed to break), I should be able to generate a meaningful error message.
Meaningful error messages are important. If you're going to generate an error message, at least have the error message point to the proper problem. If you've run out of file handles, say too many file handles open. If you've run out of disk space, then say you've run out of disk space. If you can compile and run the program in a debug mode, then either generate a stack trace or print the line number and file where the error occurred. This is not rocket science.
Understand your test environment. How in the world does a dedicated tester forget that the debugger presents a different environment than the running environment. Why would a tester verify or attempt to understand the defect in an environment that does not present the same conditions?
I realize testing and debugging quickly is an art as much as a science. However, changing more than one condition at a time is a certain recipe for madness
As far as complexity goes, that's really not any excuse. If software is designed to be a confusing mass of interacting specialty parts, it's going to break in strange and wonderful ways. If software is designed with simple, easily understood, unit-tested parts, then when it does break the breakage has a better chance of being understood.
Wow - people have 20-30 friends?
Shoot, I don't even have 20-30 aquiantences.
One of the evil things that I've found about about Word (and to a lesser extent Excel) is that it does not degrade gracefully when faced with resource challenges.
If you're running low on memory, low on disk space, or low on computer cycles (for a frickin' word processor????), then you had best save every five minutes at least.
Word/98 was so bad on Windows/95 that I could not finish a 20 page proposal without several blue screens of death.
Office/2000 Professional is reasonable if bloated in this regard. I occaisionally run it on Windows/2000 Professional or CrossOver Office under Fedora Core 2. However it is by far my least favorite tool for writing. I only use it so that I can provide others with "Word" documents.
If your Word users are editing 100+ page documents, only have 512 MB memory, and have less than 50% disk space available, be prepared for crashes.
Please note that large documents for Word equals about 50 pages with reasonably complex formatting. Adding diagrams, spreadsheets, or other interesting items shortens the acceptable length.
Anything else and you're asking for trouble.
Come on, you really think that these Congress Critters listen at all to what the average person writes about, calls about, or eamils about?
I've written my senators (both) and my representative. I've put factual information in the letter and added online references to support those facts.
All it has ever done is get me on their mailing lists (both paper and electronic) so they can trumpet their successes.
I used to get the typical "thank you, but" letter, but now I don't even get that.
Face it. Unless you're rich, connected with a powerful lobbying group, or threaten the Congress Critters with a powerful lobbying group, they could care less about you or your concerns.
Strike that - they probably can't care less about you or your concerns. It doesn't matter what party affiliation the Congress Criter is, either. Doing the right thing and attempting to solve difficult problems is not in their makeup.
Ambrose Bierce has a good definition.
POLITICIAN, n.
An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
And no, I don't have a good solution to either the politicians (probably not possible) or the No Fly List. However, I think the latter (if desired) has a solution.
This is a rather long rebuttal to the recent posting about open source "myths". While I feel there are kernels of truth in the posting, I
think the author has missed several vital points.
1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it"
The author seems to focus on equating fix to program. I realize that if you're a programmer then fix can quickly become program, especially when talking about open source software.
However, I think "fix" should be used in a much broader way. Clarifying requirements, writing a detailed explanation of a problem, writing documentation, and contributing ideas are all "fixes" that open source software can benefit from. You don't have to be a programmer to do many of these.
When you're complaining about how software doesn't work, how about writing up a detailed view of how you would like it to work (requirements). When you have a problem with some software, how about writing up a detailed, repeatable scenario (bug report). Once you've finally figured out how to install, upgrade, or manage something with open source software, how about writing it up (documentation). If a piece of software doesn't do something you would like it to do, write up a short explanation of what it is and how you envision it should go about performing the task (enhancement).
You don't need to be a programmer in order to do these things. The comment should probably read: "Instead of using your energy to throw rocks, use your energy to build houses".
2. "Open software allows you to get under the hood and fix things"
I like the car analogy. There are some things that I can fix on my car, and there are other things that I pay a mechanic for. Paying a mechanic doesn't preclude me from learning about the car and doing it myself. I have a choice.
An advantage of open source software is that potentially more people have looked at (are willing to look at) the source code. With more eyes, there is a bigger chance that the issue will be fixed (in the absolute sense).
However, I think the problem is with the narrow definition of fix. Sometimes fixing includes writing better documentation, coming up with better requirements, or understanding how an implementation solves a particular problem.
3. "All software should be free"
I am a systems architect, systems administrator, program designer, and sometimes programmer. I don't have a lot of trouble with freely available software. I don't have a lot of trouble with low cost software.
I also don't have a problem with high priced commercial software, provided it does the job intended, and does it well. I use both since I feel that software is a tool that lets me get my job done.
However, I think the cost of software should be based on ideas, fitness for purpose, and craftmanship rather than some commodity metric.
Exploring the carpenter example a little more fully might reveal this. If I purchase a table, why would I pay more for one table than another? Here are some reasons.
a) Materials are better
b) Form is better - it's more esthetically pleasing
c) Works better for my application
d) Constructed better
All of the above reasons reflect my appreciation of the carpenter's knowledge, rather than the intrinsic value of a table. I am paying for the carpenter's knowledge and skill.
Applying this to computing is fairly straightforward. As a consumer, I am paying for better code, code that fits my requirements, and code that is constructed well. I am paying for a programmer's, designer's, architect's thoughts and capabilities. I am paying them for their ability to solve problems. The model becomes not so much can you build tools, but what can you do with the tools. The model for the toolbuilder becomes can you craft a tool uniquely fitted for a particular purpose. The consumer pays for capability, not capacity.
4. "Open software is always better than closed, proprietary software"
you've never driven in southern california, have you? 7" between cars in Orange County, and another driver will try to slip in front of you to save a few seconds of travel time . . .
Puts on my Jonathan Swift costume . . .
.
I know . . . . let's do this . .
Outlaw high speed Internet connections!!
Can you imagine trying to download the latest pr0n, err . . . RIAA product . . . at 56 Kb???
And since I only get 24.4 Kb via dialup where I live, ouch!
Hmmm - Brittney Smears in slow motion . . . Speedoman 2 in slow motion . . . . (btw - I liked Spiderman 2).
Then we could have roving bands of cops frisking random folk for R/W CDs and DVDs . . . preventing them from being shared the 'old fashioned' way.
There are reasons for piracy, and there are reasons for declining sales of RIAA garbage, TV garbage, and MPAA garbage.
Wow - repetition is a nice tool.
Yes folks, it's because 90% of the stuff being sold, marketed, and stuffed down our throats today is garbage.
There's another rant or two buried in here, but since this is just a "Modest Proposal", I'll leave that to another time.
Prior art:
KDE 3.2.x does this. I don't know if prior versions of KDE had this. I expect they did, but I'll not bounce my system back to KDE 3.0 or 3.1 to find out.
And since my Windows system is currently virused, I cannot bring up KDE 3.1 under Cygwin under Windows/2000 to check it either.
urp - would I even want to????
It looks like A-Plus Net actually hosts these people. Time to forward a copy of the article to their tech support and see what happens.
Of course to ensure response, a mail message to alter.net is also probably in order.
Well, while the base phone number is a fake, a little further digging . . . .
whois refestltd.com
Registration Service Provider: AplusNet(APRO)
apro-n4e-racc@abac.com
http://www.aplus.net
Information on abac.com follows below:
Which seems to be listed in the yellow pages as:
I guess that A-Plus Net would be interested to know that they've given harbor to malware writers. I wonder if even they know the true location of their customer.
And no, I'm not suggesting a war-dialing campaign to find out information from A-Plus Net . . .