As anybody who attended WWDC can tell you Apple has no interest in adopting an existing packaging system. Not fink, not darwinports, not even the excellent pkgsrc. They are determined to write their own packaging system.
If pkgsrc isn't good enough for them I doubt emerge will be.
OTOH they said that whatever they write will be open source and that's a good thing. I just wish they would have adopted something that already exists and improved it rather then writing yet another packaging system though.
I actually don't give a shit. I am just going by what the parent poster said.
I don't know if I could trust MS with a terminal server if they could not get more then 256 colors until the year 2003 though. It's not like it's rocket science or anything.
It's a joke but don't laugh. MS HAS to own the word "windows" at this point and they will spend lots of money to settle any lawsuit that threatens to take that word back into the public domain.
You could easily form a linux distribution with a word that rhymes with windows and challenge their trademark. The trademark is weak and MS is willing to spend money to defend it.
Put together a team and you too can get 20 million from MS. It's pocket change to them.
" Spam was not a problem in 1997? Where were you in 1997?"
No it was not a big problem for me. Today it's awful and getting worse every day. why don't the fucks at rfc-ignorant blacklist spammers instead of people trying to avoid spam?
"s for your other reply, well hell, I just don't know where to start."
Start with this. Have you ever produced a web site that was not rfc compliant? If so why?
sometimes the reality of the situation is that you have to ignore standards. Apparently the jihadist fucks at rfc-ignorant.com can't get that through their thick skulls.
Ah VMS. The most stable and secure operating system every written. It had clustering in early 80s, ran thousands of pieces of software, was easy to learn and use, was rock solid and has never been hacked.
Why this industry keeps discarding good technologies and adopting crappy ones I'll never know. I mean is advertising really that effective on management?
" Dell makes more money selling PCs, etc at a low cost than HP does doing everything it does. "
Actually not true. First a couple of links. http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/18/technology /hp/inde x.htm http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/13/technology/ dell/in dex.htm
Figured from may indicate that HP made 884 million and Dell made 731 million for the second quarter.
The analysts are worried because Dell's profit margins are shrinking while their revenue keeps growing.
"Oh, and IBM didn't transform itself by buying also-ran competitors."
Also not true. IBM bought lotus, informix, and a slew of other companies.
really? How big of a problem was it back then? Did you get three hundred spam messages a day? I didn't think so.
"Please submit your domains to RFC-I so we responsible administrators can easily distinguish your domains from those with responsible administrators."
No need to. I am now fully RFC compliant because I have enabled my postmaster account and forwarded to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.com and abuse@rfc-ignorant.com.
"Yes the RFCs do require a human to read the mail to abuse and postmaster."
Wow. Who is going to come over to my place and watch to make sure I read all that email? How does rfc-ignorant determine the violators of that requirement and blacklist them? Ooops maybe they are not that much of a stickler for standards. Maybe they just blacklist people who violate some parts of the standard and not others.
"You're asking people to DoS someone else."
No I am not. rfc-ignorant is blacklisting people for having that email address active. In that case it's their responsibility to stop spam from coming those addresses. I am simply forwarding the email to them so that they can contact the spammers and have them stop sending spam to my postmaster address.
"You're asking people to shoot at someone."
Wow. I didn't know forwarding email was the same thing as murder. Amazing.
"You're asking people to trespass on someone's property."
Wow. I didn't know forwarding email was the same as trespassing. Isn't forwarding in some RFC or something?
"You're asking people to cause physical harm to someone."
Wow. I didn't know forwarding email actually caused physical harm to anybody.
"See how it parallels?"
I guess I don't. You think forwarding email is the same as murdering somebody. I really don't think it is.
"I gaurantee you if Exodus, Spring, or MCI terminated their postmaster or abuse addresses they would find themselves at the brunt of a negative PR campaign the likes of which you only see elsewhere during presidential campaign years."
First of all BULLSHIT. Second of all they have the resouces to deal with billions of spam they get.
"They would also find themselves on blacklists for choosing to not play by community standards and established rules."
The rules are stupid. They rules were written before spam was invented. The rules need to be changed. This is not the bible, this is not the constitution. It's a stupid fucking RFC. Change the fucking thing to reflect the reality of what is going on in the ground.
"Is it unreasonable to ask you to as well? "
I submit that it is indeed unreasonable. Unless you want to take responsiblity of eliminating spam from my postmaster account and making sure only legitemate emails arrive there don't make me turn it on. If you force me to turn it on then I will be happy to forward them to you so that you can deal with it.
" Unbelievable. What the hell does that RFC being 5 years old have to do with it? "
Can't you read? Spam was not a problem then it's a problem now. Some RFC are still valid no matter how old they are, other ones are no longer viable. This is one of them. Until rfc-ignorant can stop spam from coming into my postmaster account I am forwarding my postmaster email to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.com.
Got it? It's simple.
"Do you let this disregard for stands contaminate your other work?"
Fuck yea. I have designed dozens of web sites that are not standard compliant. My boss told me to. It was the only way to get the web site to look good and work in IE.
"If you as an admin worked for me you wouldn't last very long."
You apparently have a two bit operation and I would not want to work for a jihadist narrow minded bigot like you anyway.
You know what, you are right. Mozilla is not for everybody. It's for the power user. Let the IE people pay the stupidity tax. Let them see all the ads we are missing so the web can remain free.
Honestly we ought to let the masses use IE and subject themselves to ads, popups, misdirections, and hijacking so that corporations continue to buy ads and keep our favorite web sites free. Let us simply configure mozilla so we can avoid all that and still get the content.
Set yourself up a different profile or a user just for browsing pr0n. Encrypt your home directory just be safe:).
I have also heard of people running mozilla from a USB key!. I am going to try that one myself, sounds like a perfect way to carry your settings and bookmarks along too.
"The run clusters of small machines, that's what it sells today and that's where Microsoft is putting their eyes."
yes because it's well known that linux does not cluster very well and neither does the Mac. It's smart of MS to go after a market where the competition hasn't demonstrated that it can outscale MS without even trying.
Oooh you told him! Way to stick up for MS! They need help from you. They can't counteract FUD by themselves with the billions they spend on advertising, astroturfing, financing lawsuits by SCO, and paying for ADTI studies. Thank god MS has people like to you run to their aid whenever somebody says something bad about windows.
Still though the fact that linux can scale to 1024 processors while windows can only scale to 64 is enough reason to bash windows isn't it? I mean wasn't bill gates recently bashing linux because it was a "toy" and wouldn't scale?
"So as someone who claims to be a mail admin you're saying you don't want to use the estalbished method of contacting mail admins to be used on your server?"
That's exactly what I am saying you moron. When I had them turned on I never read them anyway. All I ever got was hundreds of spam and neve once did I get a legitemate email.
"How else do you expect mail admins to contact you?"
I figure if somebody wants to contact me they can do a whois and give me call. every hear of a telephone? I hear they are pretty fucking handy these days.
"All postmasters get spam."
Right. that's why the RFC requirement is bullshit. Nobody reads those emails. The RFC should be changed. Until it is then I am forwarding my emails to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.com. Since I know that address will always be there and since I know they themselves don't ever read the email what difference does it make right?
"Cry us a river and deal with it like every other responsible mail admin out there. "
I am dealing with it. I think I have a very nice and elegant way to comply the RFCs while avoiding spending money, CPU cycles and time on spam filtering.
"There are reasons we have RFC-I. Your attitude and those that share it are the main reason."
The RFC needs to be changed. It's five years old and that's an eternity in internet years. Dogmatic adherence to antiquated ideology is a BadThing (TM). Remember Osama Bin Laden? He too advocated a dogmatic adherence to antiquated ideology.
I am none of those people. I am not a spammer. I am all for blacklisting spammers. I subscribe to more then one spam blacklists.
There is nothing wrong morally or legally with blacklisting spammers.
There is something dreadfully wrong with blacklisting people who are victims of spam. I am a victim of massive amount of spam coming to my postmaster@ and abuse@ email addresses so I shut them off. If the bastards decide to blacklist me then I will simply forward the email postmaster@rfc-ignorant.org and abuse@rfc-ignorant.org. At that point I will be fully rfc compliant right? They should love that!. What's the difference if I dump the email to/dev/null or forward it to them? I am not going to read it either way right? Ooops maybe the RFC states that I have to actually read the email that comes to those addresses.
"BTW, you're intentionally inciting a DoS attack on the RFCI folks. Don't you know that's illegal?"
Really? Illegal? Please point out the law to me so I can educate myself on the matter. In the mean time I still suggest people forward their postmaster@ and abuse@ email addresses to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.org and abuse@rfc-ignorant.org. They apparently love spam. As you said they are providing a handy list of servers to spammers.
If it turns out that what I am advocating is illegal then I will gladly retract my call and ask people not to forward my emails over there. In fact I will change my signature to ask people not to forward their email to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.org and abuse@rfc-ignorant.org and make sure I post in a thousand newsgroups to get the word out. I just hope the harvesters don't harvest those email addresses that's all.
Instead of shutting off your postmaster and abuse email addresses simply forward them postmaster@rfc-ignorant.org and abuse@rfc-ignorant.org.
I think this a great way to protest the blacklisting of people for not following some stupid subsection of a 5 year old RFC.
Maybe then the fuckwads would decide that it's not such a good idea to blacklist people who are not causing any harm to anybody.
please pass this message along to everybody you know. If you know anybody who is blacklisted there then pass this suggestion on to them. If just a few million people take this advice I bet we can crush their server.
What do you do? Email postmaster and see if bounces before you accept the mail? Since your link is not actually a blacklist how do you determine if the domain is RFC compliant or not?
Slashdot Mirror
I am pretty sure mac os X stays out of /usr/local.
If I were you I'd make that another partition just to make sure.
As anybody who attended WWDC can tell you Apple has no interest in adopting an existing packaging system. Not fink, not darwinports, not even the excellent pkgsrc. They are determined to write their own packaging system.
If pkgsrc isn't good enough for them I doubt emerge will be.
OTOH they said that whatever they write will be open source and that's a good thing. I just wish they would have adopted something that already exists and improved it rather then writing yet another packaging system though.
I actually don't give a shit. I am just going by what the parent poster said.
I don't know if I could trust MS with a terminal server if they could not get more then 256 colors until the year 2003 though. It's not like it's rocket science or anything.
Try this.
My boss made me do it because he did not want to alienate 90% of his customers.
RFC compliance is fine and dandy if you are running a hobby site but when it comes to making money you do what you need to.
Also consider this.
Neither the product nor the company was named windows. MS is not only claiming the word windows but also all words that rhyme with windows.
It's a joke but don't laugh. MS HAS to own the word "windows" at this point and they will spend lots of money to settle any lawsuit that threatens to take that word back into the public domain.
You could easily form a linux distribution with a word that rhymes with windows and challenge their trademark. The trademark is weak and MS is willing to spend money to defend it.
Put together a team and you too can get 20 million from MS. It's pocket change to them.
" Spam was not a problem in 1997? Where were you in 1997?"
No it was not a big problem for me. Today it's awful and getting worse every day. why don't the fucks at rfc-ignorant blacklist spammers instead of people trying to avoid spam?
"s for your other reply, well hell, I just don't know where to start."
Start with this. Have you ever produced a web site that was not rfc compliant? If so why?
sometimes the reality of the situation is that you have to ignore standards. Apparently the jihadist fucks at rfc-ignorant.com can't get that through their thick skulls.
So the parent was full of shit then. That explains why he could not get firefox to work with terminal server.
Bah. You had it coming and you know it.
Ah VMS. The most stable and secure operating system every written. It had clustering in early 80s, ran thousands of pieces of software, was easy to learn and use, was rock solid and has never been hacked.
Why this industry keeps discarding good technologies and adopting crappy ones I'll never know. I mean is advertising really that effective on management?
" Dell makes more money selling PCs, etc at a low cost than HP does doing everything it does. "
y /hp/inde x.htm/ dell/in dex.htm
Actually not true. First a couple of links.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/18/technolog
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/13/technology
Figured from may indicate that HP made 884 million and Dell made 731 million for the second quarter.
The analysts are worried because Dell's profit margins are shrinking while their revenue keeps growing.
"Oh, and IBM didn't transform itself by buying also-ran competitors."
Also not true. IBM bought lotus, informix, and a slew of other companies.
"Spam far pre-dated that 1997 RFC. "
really? How big of a problem was it back then? Did you get three hundred spam messages a day? I didn't think so.
"Please submit your domains to RFC-I so we responsible administrators can easily distinguish your domains from those with responsible administrators."
No need to. I am now fully RFC compliant because I have enabled my postmaster account and forwarded to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.com and abuse@rfc-ignorant.com.
See ya.
" 1984 : Amiga vs Atari"
They both lost. windows won.
"2004 : linux vs windows"
they both lose? Apple wins?
"Yes the RFCs do require a human to read the mail to abuse and postmaster."
Wow. Who is going to come over to my place and watch to make sure I read all that email? How does rfc-ignorant determine the violators of that requirement and blacklist them? Ooops maybe they are not that much of a stickler for standards. Maybe they just blacklist people who violate some parts of the standard and not others.
"You're asking people to DoS someone else."
No I am not. rfc-ignorant is blacklisting people for having that email address active. In that case it's their responsibility to stop spam from coming those addresses. I am simply forwarding the email to them so that they can contact the spammers and have them stop sending spam to my postmaster address.
"You're asking people to shoot at someone."
Wow. I didn't know forwarding email was the same thing as murder. Amazing.
"You're asking people to trespass on someone's property."
Wow. I didn't know forwarding email was the same as trespassing. Isn't forwarding in some RFC or something?
"You're asking people to cause physical harm to someone."
Wow. I didn't know forwarding email actually caused physical harm to anybody.
"See how it parallels?"
I guess I don't. You think forwarding email is the same as murdering somebody. I really don't think it is.
"I gaurantee you if Exodus, Spring, or MCI terminated their postmaster or abuse addresses they would find themselves at the brunt of a negative PR campaign the likes of which you only see elsewhere during presidential campaign years."
First of all BULLSHIT. Second of all they have the resouces to deal with billions of spam they get.
"They would also find themselves on blacklists for choosing to not play by community standards and established rules."
The rules are stupid. They rules were written before spam was invented. The rules need to be changed. This is not the bible, this is not the constitution. It's a stupid fucking RFC. Change the fucking thing to reflect the reality of what is going on in the ground.
"Is it unreasonable to ask you to as well? "
I submit that it is indeed unreasonable. Unless you want to take responsiblity of eliminating spam from my postmaster account and making sure only legitemate emails arrive there don't make me turn it on. If you force me to turn it on then I will be happy to forward them to you so that you can deal with it.
It isn't that complex of an issue.
" Unbelievable. What the hell does that RFC being 5 years old have to do with it? "
Can't you read? Spam was not a problem then it's a problem now. Some RFC are still valid no matter how old they are, other ones are no longer viable. This is one of them. Until rfc-ignorant can stop spam from coming into my postmaster account I am forwarding my postmaster email to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.com.
Got it? It's simple.
"Do you let this disregard for stands contaminate your other work?"
Fuck yea. I have designed dozens of web sites that are not standard compliant. My boss told me to. It was the only way to get the web site to look good and work in IE.
"If you as an admin worked for me you wouldn't last very long."
You apparently have a two bit operation and I would not want to work for a jihadist narrow minded bigot like you anyway.
You know what, you are right. Mozilla is not for everybody. It's for the power user. Let the IE people pay the stupidity tax. Let them see all the ads we are missing so the web can remain free.
Honestly we ought to let the masses use IE and subject themselves to ads, popups, misdirections, and hijacking so that corporations continue to buy ads and keep our favorite web sites free. Let us simply configure mozilla so we can avoid all that and still get the content.
WOW terminal server has a 256 color limitation? It's even a bigger piece of crap then I thought.
Give the man a break, he is probably a MCSE. What the hell does he know about login scripting.
Set yourself up a different profile or a user just for browsing pr0n. Encrypt your home directory just be safe :).
I have also heard of people running mozilla from a USB key!. I am going to try that one myself, sounds like a perfect way to carry your settings and bookmarks along too.
"The run clusters of small machines, that's what it sells today and that's where Microsoft is putting their eyes."
yes because it's well known that linux does not cluster very well and neither does the Mac. It's smart of MS to go after a market where the competition hasn't demonstrated that it can outscale MS without even trying.
Yea right.
Oooh you told him! Way to stick up for MS! They need help from you. They can't counteract FUD by themselves with the billions they spend on advertising, astroturfing, financing lawsuits by SCO, and paying for ADTI studies. Thank god MS has people like to you run to their aid whenever somebody says something bad about windows.
Still though the fact that linux can scale to 1024 processors while windows can only scale to 64 is enough reason to bash windows isn't it? I mean wasn't bill gates recently bashing linux because it was a "toy" and wouldn't scale?
"So as someone who claims to be a mail admin you're saying you don't want to use the estalbished method of contacting mail admins to be used on your server?"
That's exactly what I am saying you moron. When I had them turned on I never read them anyway. All I ever got was hundreds of spam and neve once did I get a legitemate email.
"How else do you expect mail admins to contact you?"
I figure if somebody wants to contact me they can do a whois and give me call. every hear of a telephone? I hear they are pretty fucking handy these days.
"All postmasters get spam."
Right. that's why the RFC requirement is bullshit. Nobody reads those emails. The RFC should be changed. Until it is then I am forwarding my emails to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.com. Since I know that address will always be there and since I know they themselves don't ever read the email what difference does it make right?
"Cry us a river and deal with it like every other responsible mail admin out there. "
I am dealing with it. I think I have a very nice and elegant way to comply the RFCs while avoiding spending money, CPU cycles and time on spam filtering.
"There are reasons we have RFC-I. Your attitude and those that share it are the main reason."
The RFC needs to be changed. It's five years old and that's an eternity in internet years. Dogmatic adherence to antiquated ideology is a BadThing (TM). Remember Osama Bin Laden? He too advocated a dogmatic adherence to antiquated ideology.
I am none of those people.
/dev/null or forward it to them? I am not going to read it either way right? Ooops maybe the RFC states that I have to actually read the email that comes to those addresses.
I am not a spammer.
I am all for blacklisting spammers.
I subscribe to more then one spam blacklists.
There is nothing wrong morally or legally with blacklisting spammers.
There is something dreadfully wrong with blacklisting people who are victims of spam. I am a victim of massive amount of spam coming to my postmaster@ and abuse@ email addresses so I shut them off. If the bastards decide to blacklist me then I will simply forward the email postmaster@rfc-ignorant.org and abuse@rfc-ignorant.org. At that point I will be fully rfc compliant right? They should love that!. What's the difference if I dump the email to
"BTW, you're intentionally inciting a DoS attack on the RFCI folks. Don't you know that's illegal?"
Really? Illegal? Please point out the law to me so I can educate myself on the matter. In the mean time I still suggest people forward their postmaster@ and abuse@ email addresses to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.org and abuse@rfc-ignorant.org. They apparently love spam. As you said they are providing a handy list of servers to spammers.
If it turns out that what I am advocating is illegal then I will gladly retract my call and ask people not to forward my emails over there. In fact I will change my signature to ask people not to forward their email to postmaster@rfc-ignorant.org and abuse@rfc-ignorant.org and make sure I post in a thousand newsgroups to get the word out. I just hope the harvesters don't harvest those email addresses that's all.
Here is a suggestion.
Instead of shutting off your postmaster and abuse email addresses simply forward them postmaster@rfc-ignorant.org and abuse@rfc-ignorant.org.
I think this a great way to protest the blacklisting of people for not following some stupid subsection of a 5 year old RFC.
Maybe then the fuckwads would decide that it's not such a good idea to blacklist people who are not causing any harm to anybody.
please pass this message along to everybody you know. If you know anybody who is blacklisted there then pass this suggestion on to them. If just a few million people take this advice I bet we can crush their server.
What do you do? Email postmaster and see if bounces before you accept the mail? Since your link is not actually a blacklist how do you determine if the domain is RFC compliant or not?