I wholeheartedly hope that NASA's private sector competition (in this country, at least) remains as minimal as possible.
NASA has to fight for funding for its projects at every turn. They often can't win those fights.
If another US organization starts duplicating many of NASA's efforts, but is privately funded, how obligated do you think Congress will feel to continue NASA's funding? Best case scenario, it will never see another raise, and will likely be cut with ever reevaluation.
And what happens if/when the funding for the private sector dries up? Sure, the satellite business has proven profitable. What about the low down R&D, though, what about the frontier exploring? Will they take that up? I highly doubt it. Opportunity for profit there likely won't exist for a *very* long time.
It was a pretty amusing piece of irony, though! =)
It's okay CmdrTaco, we understand. =)
And good luck tonight! I wish I could be there, but I'm stuck in picturesque Cleveland (proud polluters of Lake Erie, but at least our river isn't on fire anymore!)
Exactly! They've done it before. And yes, I do mean low level protocol stuff here, not just Kerberos, Java, or any upper level application stuff.
They've done it with DHCP. With the release of Win98se, they tried to make all network admins switch to NT and an MS DHCP server. How? By doing exactly what augustz said: adding a few flags.
Win98se machines refused all DHCP offers (following the RFC) from servers if it didn't have one non-functional, previously non-existent flag set. When asked why DHCP seemed broken on the 98se machines, they said "Oh, that's because you're not using a Microsoft certified DHCP server." But the problem was, of course, that there were no MS certified DHCP servers, save their own.
So in order to make a Win98se machine accept DHCP offers from DHCP servers, admins had to switch to MS for their server, rewrite part of their server to use the appropriate flag, or replace the sys file responsible for DHCP on each client machine!
But not everybody got 98se right away, so admins had a decent amount of time to come up with a fix before too many users ended up needing to use their 98se machines. I'm sure MS got a number of converts out of that, taking away some of the nix share of the server market.
But you don't think they'll do that for IPv6? I don't know what they'll do, but I think they could get away with it. Keep in mind how much upgrading it will take to phase out IPv4. Best case scenario, all core networking equipment could have IPv6 functionality added to it within a year and a half, probably more like two years, at least. And that's just the core of the internet, it'll take many years longer to filter down to every JoeBloe's ISP.
That gives MS plenty of time to woo over the admins in a jam, and though I'm sure it won't get MS everything they want, I know they could get a lot out of it.
#############
"Industry Standards are the hobgoblins of people we don't like." The Help Desk at Ubersoft.net.
So how do most of you guys deal with unwanted spam (aside from the delete key)? Any particularly useful techniques for dealing with it?
For example, I just got an email that supposedly originated from a free web mail account (yes.zzn.com) that was routed through an open relay smtp server in China (kmsti.net.cn) that wanted me to buy something off of their Tripod web page (gray875.tripod.com).
I reported it to abuse@tripod.com, quoting the parts of their TOS it violates. I then did an nslookup on the other hostnames, and looked up the IP's I got at ARIN.net and emailed the contact listed for each, informing them. In the case of the.cn hostname, the email address on ARIN returned a "User Unknown" error.
Is that my only option? Are there better techniques for dealing with it? What reasons can I give the people I email to take action if they don't have specific policies like Tripod does?
Interesting comments in this article, but it could've been written better. The author says early on:
There are several reasons for the non-issue of the Linux virus. Most of those reasons a Linux user would already be familiar with, but there is one, all important, reason that a student of evolution or zoology would also appreciate.
I know little about Linux security, and I was very curious what those "several reasons" that I'm not aware of are. On top of that, he discussed a few different reasons in his article, but doesn't specify which is the "one, all important, reason" he tried so hard to build up to.
Maybe I'm just being a picky little newbie who wants everything spelled out, but he seemed to be leading into things in his article but never made the necessary connections.
"So! Have you started blocking 1-800-Collect yet? Oh wait, I suppose that might actually be illegal..."
A friend of mine stayed at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, while doing an internship this past summer, and discovered that they have monopolized long distance on their campus, too. I don't know if they were blocking any selected web sites, but they were blocking usage of calling cards and any other external long distance (1-800-call ATT, 1800 Collect, 10-10-***, etc). She thought there must have been some special dialing instructions from the campus phones, but when she asked the campus operators they were apparently rather curt in explaining that she's not allowed to use any of those services from campus!
Does anybody know if there have been any law precedents relating to anything like this, on or offline?
Actually, you're correct, in that Newton did say that, but Einstein also has a famous quote relating to that same idea: "A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of others."
I have to disagree. Releasing a fast, stable, and/or feature laden browser for th *nix's is very important, of course. But for many, who have become used to browsers that just don't meet their hopes & expectations, browsers in Linux may not be the deciding factor. There are plenty of othe areas in our beloved OS that still need massive improvements before the general public will be rushing to update their kernels on a regular basis. Anyone on a LAN can tell you that M$'s Network Neighborhood (or that wretched "My Network Places" from W2K) makes accessing shares on a network a breeze, especially by comparison to samba.
And this is especially an issue if we're talking about the "non-hardcore types". They don't want to have to worry about updating libraries everytime they install something, and they certainly don't want to have to refer to man pages and how-to's any more than they want to refer to the M$ help pages (which are toned down more to people with entry level computer experience). They want to install once by clicking a few "Okay" "Continue" and "Finish" buttons, and then have everything work the way they want.
It's just not that simple. Personally, I love the OSS that has made so many wonderful OS's & utils & apps available to me, but I'm not sure Linux will ever become " viable desktop contender and alternative to Microsoft hegemony". I'm not sure for the simple reason that the users developing all of this are developing it for themselves, and the users that would be needed to become a viable competitor are the ones that simply won't know what to do with that many options that can be configured.
Re:By the same account Microsoft has lost the OS w
on
Whither Netscape 5.0?
·
· Score: 1
On the contrary, the closed source model of software development, very clearly, does work. I hate to admit it, but it does. The fact of the matter is that they both work. The debate should be over which has more potential
Right or wrong, reporters have at least some ground to base an argument such as this. Saying that NS has lost the browser battle can be justified (regardless of accuracy) not because of the further delay of its release, but because of the combination of that with the fact that NS is economically suffering, and that MS now (sad to say) has far more users of IE than NS does of Navigator/Communicator.
Why are they saying that `enterprise businesses would not want to apply 21 individual fixes'?
Putting aside the age old MS v. *nix debate, it has been proven time & again that MS security holes are found on a far more regular basis than Linux security holes.
That's not to say that Linux is better or worse. I'm not even going to start that old discussion, most/.ers feel the same about that anyway. It's the fact that historically speaking, NT has had so many more security issues than Linux that ZDNet can't even hope to reasonably defend an argument like that.
First off, I'm wondering how a flaimbait comment like that got a "interesting" remark in it's score? (I apologize, I realize I just opened myself to the flaimbait scoring also, but please hear me out.)
I'd like to say Kudos to Jon! Linux can have a very large learning curve. And I commend anybody who learns it purely for the sake of learning it.
As for the/. crowd, tea-leaves had it perfectly right when he said that, like it or not, Jon is the customer of the future for the Linux community.
Josh, I don't understand why you're coming off so hard on Jon for being proud of himself for making progress. But I feel that the/. community as a whole owes Jon a big apology, not for the few uncalled for comments that always pop up, but for scoring them as interesting and whatnot else. The sarcasm at the beginning was bad enough, but you're allowed to have opinions like that. It was the blatantly unrelated bashing of his choice of profession and his writing skills that was even more uncalled for, not to mention juvenile.
Jon, congratulations again! And, although I can't speak for everybody, I apologize for any mistreatment you may have received in the comments of some/.ers.
>> Get with it, Microsoft. You'll never win by going this route.
That's just the problem. They *will* win by going that route (or at least they can, it depends on competitor's response). The problem is that they cut so many corners, and throw their weight around the market so much that they can muscle out the competition, and have a "newer, better" [read: embraced, extended] product.
MS has been so successful because they're practicing business, whereas most others are just trying to improve on current technologies. Only MS "improves" their own technologies because they cut so many corners in creating it that nobody else (at least nobody else knowledgable enough to be improving on current technologies) would want to work with what MS has created.
I see no reason to believe this. SysAdmins may wish that nobody will implement it until it's standardized, but that's never happened in the past. MS is always throwing about its weight to try to muscle out competitors, and they almost always get what they want.
MS can change standards so easily because there is such a large percentage of computer using population (yes, even SysAdmins) who are dependent, in one way or another, on MS OSes. DDNS will be implemented as soon as people start to upgrade to the newest MS OS, regardless of Unix compatibility.
Slashdot Mirror
I wholeheartedly hope that NASA's private sector competition (in this country, at least) remains as minimal as possible.
NASA has to fight for funding for its projects at every turn. They often can't win those fights.
If another US organization starts duplicating many of NASA's efforts, but is privately funded, how obligated do you think Congress will feel to continue NASA's funding? Best case scenario, it will never see another raise, and will likely be cut with ever reevaluation.
And what happens if/when the funding for the private sector dries up? Sure, the satellite business has proven profitable. What about the low down R&D, though, what about the frontier exploring? Will they take that up? I highly doubt it. Opportunity for profit there likely won't exist for a *very* long time.
Damn! You beat me to it!
It was a pretty amusing piece of irony, though! =)
It's okay CmdrTaco, we understand. =)
And good luck tonight! I wish I could be there, but I'm stuck in picturesque Cleveland (proud polluters of Lake Erie, but at least our river isn't on fire anymore!)
Exactly! They've done it before. And yes, I do mean low level protocol stuff here, not just Kerberos, Java, or any upper level application stuff.
They've done it with DHCP. With the release of Win98se, they tried to make all network admins switch to NT and an MS DHCP server. How? By doing exactly what augustz said: adding a few flags.
Win98se machines refused all DHCP offers (following the RFC) from servers if it didn't have one non-functional, previously non-existent flag set. When asked why DHCP seemed broken on the 98se machines, they said "Oh, that's because you're not using a Microsoft certified DHCP server." But the problem was, of course, that there were no MS certified DHCP servers, save their own.
So in order to make a Win98se machine accept DHCP offers from DHCP servers, admins had to switch to MS for their server, rewrite part of their server to use the appropriate flag, or replace the sys file responsible for DHCP on each client machine!
But not everybody got 98se right away, so admins had a decent amount of time to come up with a fix before too many users ended up needing to use their 98se machines. I'm sure MS got a number of converts out of that, taking away some of the nix share of the server market.
But you don't think they'll do that for IPv6? I don't know what they'll do, but I think they could get away with it. Keep in mind how much upgrading it will take to phase out IPv4. Best case scenario, all core networking equipment could have IPv6 functionality added to it within a year and a half, probably more like two years, at least. And that's just the core of the internet, it'll take many years longer to filter down to every JoeBloe's ISP.
That gives MS plenty of time to woo over the admins in a jam, and though I'm sure it won't get MS everything they want, I know they could get a lot out of it.
#############
"Industry Standards are the hobgoblins of people we don't like."
The Help Desk at Ubersoft.net.
So how do most of you guys deal with unwanted spam (aside from the delete key)? Any particularly useful techniques for dealing with it?
.cn hostname, the email address on ARIN returned a "User Unknown" error.
For example, I just got an email that supposedly originated from a free web mail account (yes.zzn.com) that was routed through an open relay smtp server in China (kmsti.net.cn) that wanted me to buy something off of their Tripod web page (gray875.tripod.com).
I reported it to abuse@tripod.com, quoting the parts of their TOS it violates. I then did an nslookup on the other hostnames, and looked up the IP's I got at ARIN.net and emailed the contact listed for each, informing them. In the case of the
Is that my only option? Are there better techniques for dealing with it? What reasons can I give the people I email to take action if they don't have specific policies like Tripod does?
Any suggestions?
Interesting comments in this article, but it could've been written better. The author says early on:
There are several reasons for the non-issue of the Linux virus. Most of those reasons a Linux user would already be familiar with, but there is one, all important, reason that a student of evolution or zoology would also appreciate.
I know little about Linux security, and I was very curious what those "several reasons" that I'm not aware of are. On top of that, he discussed a few different reasons in his article, but doesn't specify which is the "one, all important, reason" he tried so hard to build up to.
Maybe I'm just being a picky little newbie who wants everything spelled out, but he seemed to be leading into things in his article but never made the necessary connections.
A friend of mine stayed at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, while doing an internship this past summer, and discovered that they have monopolized long distance on their campus, too. I don't know if they were blocking any selected web sites, but they were blocking usage of calling cards and any other external long distance (1-800-call ATT, 1800 Collect, 10-10-***, etc). She thought there must have been some special dialing instructions from the campus phones, but when she asked the campus operators they were apparently rather curt in explaining that she's not allowed to use any of those services from campus!
Does anybody know if there have been any law precedents relating to anything like this, on or offline?
Actually, you're correct, in that Newton did say that, but Einstein also has a famous quote relating to that same idea: "A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of others."
I have to disagree. Releasing a fast, stable, and/or feature laden browser for th *nix's is very important, of course. But for many, who have become used to browsers that just don't meet their hopes & expectations, browsers in Linux may not be the deciding factor. There are plenty of othe areas in our beloved OS that still need massive improvements before the general public will be rushing to update their kernels on a regular basis. Anyone on a LAN can tell you that M$'s Network Neighborhood (or that wretched "My Network Places" from W2K) makes accessing shares on a network a breeze, especially by comparison to samba.
And this is especially an issue if we're talking about the "non-hardcore types". They don't want to have to worry about updating libraries everytime they install something, and they certainly don't want to have to refer to man pages and how-to's any more than they want to refer to the M$ help pages (which are toned down more to people with entry level computer experience). They want to install once by clicking a few "Okay" "Continue" and "Finish" buttons, and then have everything work the way they want.
It's just not that simple. Personally, I love the OSS that has made so many wonderful OS's & utils & apps available to me, but I'm not sure Linux will ever become " viable desktop contender and alternative to Microsoft hegemony". I'm not sure for the simple reason that the users developing all of this are developing it for themselves, and the users that would be needed to become a viable competitor are the ones that simply won't know what to do with that many options that can be configured.
On the contrary, the closed source model of software development, very clearly, does work. I hate to admit it, but it does. The fact of the matter is that they both work. The debate should be over which has more potential
Right or wrong, reporters have at least some ground to base an argument such as this. Saying that NS has lost the browser battle can be justified (regardless of accuracy) not because of the further delay of its release, but because of the combination of that with the fact that NS is economically suffering, and that MS now (sad to say) has far more users of IE than NS does of Navigator/Communicator.
Why are they saying that `enterprise businesses would not want to apply 21 individual fixes'?
/.ers feel the same about that anyway. It's the fact that historically speaking, NT has had so many more security issues than Linux that ZDNet can't even hope to reasonably defend an argument like that.
Putting aside the age old MS v. *nix debate, it has been proven time & again that MS security holes are found on a far more regular basis than Linux security holes.
That's not to say that Linux is better or worse. I'm not even going to start that old discussion, most
First off, I'm wondering how a flaimbait comment like that got a "interesting" remark in it's score? (I apologize, I realize I just opened myself to the flaimbait scoring also, but please hear me out.)
I'd like to say Kudos to Jon! Linux can have a very large learning curve. And I commend anybody who learns it purely for the sake of learning it.
As for the /. crowd, tea-leaves had it perfectly right when he said that, like it or not, Jon is the customer of the future for the Linux community.
Josh, I don't understand why you're coming off so hard on Jon for being proud of himself for making progress. But I feel that the /. community as a whole owes Jon a big apology, not for the few uncalled for comments that always pop up, but for scoring them as interesting and whatnot else. The sarcasm at the beginning was bad enough, but you're allowed to have opinions like that. It was the blatantly unrelated bashing of his choice of profession and his writing skills that was even more uncalled for, not to mention juvenile.
Jon, congratulations again! And, although I can't speak for everybody, I apologize for any mistreatment you may have received in the comments of some /.ers.
Good luck to you!
>> Get with it, Microsoft. You'll never win by going this route.
That's just the problem. They *will* win by going that route (or at least they can, it depends on competitor's response). The problem is that they cut so many corners, and throw their weight around the market so much that they can muscle out the competition, and have a "newer, better" [read: embraced, extended] product.
MS has been so successful because they're practicing business, whereas most others are just trying to improve on current technologies. Only MS "improves" their own technologies because they cut so many corners in creating it that nobody else (at least nobody else knowledgable enough to be improving on current technologies) would want to work with what MS has created.
I see no reason to believe this. SysAdmins may wish that nobody will implement it until it's standardized, but that's never happened in the past. MS is always throwing about its weight to try to muscle out competitors, and they almost always get what they want.
MS can change standards so easily because there is such a large percentage of computer using population (yes, even SysAdmins) who are dependent, in one way or another, on MS OSes. DDNS will be implemented as soon as people start to upgrade to the newest MS OS, regardless of Unix compatibility.
It wouldn't do you much good at the moment, seeing as how Ebay reps had to admit that their site has been down again since 5:02am this morning.
With any luck people will just realize it isn't worth $hit & stop using it anyway.
kind of reminds me of the xmas tree lots of win users have around the edge of their desktop. kinda cool
I don't know anything about this trend, but it's pretty spiffy if you ask me! The handle was a really nice touch too, though.