Tivo is a service. The service is tied to a
hardware platform, but
it's still a service.
It occurs to me that trying to use one of these
alternatives will work great until the automated
TV listing parser stops working due to a moved
web page or some other problem.
I would be willing to update a system every couple
of months if necessary, but my Mother sure
wouldn't...
more importantly, Dave Letterman wouldn't.
I think the "institute" exists - it's juat a matter of them publishing the data on a "news" site, and maybe also on a blog site where the masses can be whipped into a Pro F/OSS frenzy.
--
Just pointing out the obvious that some readers may not have noticed.
Bromine Mmmm - the tangy taste of Mountain Dew - the Smell of computers. Bromine (a fuel additive) has been showing up on my radar consistantly. Strange that geeks like both computers and Mt. Dew, I wonder if Bromine is addictive?
--
P.S. I sell tin-foil hats as a side job. If you're not a government agent, then you already know how to get ahold of me to order one.
Read the article. Download is over 6 parts. I tried watching the first part, gave up after 5 minutes....Too difficult to understand the computer generated voices. But, judge for yourself.
Personally, I've come to think of the MS/Sun deal as mostly a P.R. move. It sounds good to potential Sun investors. It sounds good to Microsoft haters and Java writers - (finally, they've worked out something about this damned Java thing).
Sun is responsible for purchasing and open-sourcing Star (Open) Office. They've actually had success with this, and are probably thinking that open-source will really help sell more hardware.
I would agree with you, when speaking only about X86 systems, but the SPARC line has long been a place where Sun excels
Well, when I say excel, I should really say it in the past tense. Being, really, since the SPARC platform went PCI the whole thing went downhill. But, sun still has some good offerings on the hardware side, and are (supposedly) working on new ones. I think building your own CPU is orders of magnitude harder than writing a "Yet Another Unix Clone" (especially now).
I, for one, have been disappointed by "early pirate" downloads that were camcorder screened. I've never actually watched the whole thing that way. Just find another download. The first copy that I found of "Van Helsing", for instance.
Damned in-theater pirates... they give piracy a bad name.
OTOH, I should also point out, that this type of copy is often made from the projection booth. Good luck scanning the audience for that piracy problem.
Great idea... except I'm using Linux servers only. Worse... because I have road-warriors with laptops to support - they need Administrator access to their own machines.. a fact of life. I could set them up with Domains and ActiveDirectory through Linux tools, yet - these machnies would be in my network less than 15% of the time (on average).
So, yes, I could break down and pay 10 times the price for the same server power, but - really, the price doesn't justify the functionality.
The problem here, is that the license is for use of the XML Schema definition for the purpose of filtering Email.
Schemas are licensable on their own.
Historically, this is because of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) database products like SAP, Daly.Commerce, Oracle Financials, etc. In the case of an ERP, if a schema can be used and replicated without license, then the data benefits of the product could be culled across and enterprise with only 1 user license (or enough licenses for the uses that enter the data through the product).
In the case of Microsoft's license, the use of such a schema by entering it into DNS is (technically) non-portable. Thus does not need to be protected by distribution licenses. My ability to give you my Email-Caller-ID object is useless to you, because it will have my data in it, not yours.
However, the ability to use this XML schema to filter out Emails (the filter implimentation) is subject to, and likely to be, distributed and re-distributed. MS doesn't want this to occur without your 'checking in' directly with Microsoft. In this way, if they choose to stop distribution of new implimenations, they have the ability to do so. That, makes a strong statement about the openness of this license.
Technically, use of the Email-Caller-ID technology does not require submitting to the license either. However, developing an Email server that will implement the functionality of Email-Caller-ID will require submitting to the license agreement.
For Sendmail, someone will come up with an external "milter" that complies to the MS license. For Exim and PostFix, similar external filters will be developed. However, these filters will not be able to ship WITH these mail servers, because of the incompatability of the implimentation license.
This will, of course, only make it harder to set up your Mail server. My current checklist includes - latest patches, ClamAV hooks, SpamAssassin hooks (all from separate projects). In the scheme of things, this would become just one more thing to track down. But, it would be so much better if it was merely a built-in. (Advantage, MS Exchange).
Regardless, the MS agreement is still different from the GPL. See my reply to the grandparent post.
The GPL explicitly allows distribution and redistribution, based on the GPL alone. You do not have to directly inquire to the FSF to re-distribute GCC, or any other GPL application.
However, the Microsoft redistribution does require a 'check-in' directly with Microsoft (a single entity), and not just an agreement to a portable license.
Further, because the license is tied directly to Microsoft's control (as opposed to the "change, and re-distribute" permissiveness of the GPL), the technology and specification can not be extended and manipulated except by Microsoft.
IANAL, and I immediately found those two differences that makes this different (and incompatbile) from the GPL.
Do you have a better alternative? Preferably something that is standardized, or at least based
on something that most developers would already
have some familiarity with.
Troll me if you like, but please, contribute an alternative idea along with your troll.
Actually - nevermind. I found a reason why I can't impliment this technology, ever.
Use of this technology requires submitting to a Microsoft license. This license allows distribution (but not re-distribution), and is not compatible with the GPL. That is to say, no GPL mail server will ever be able to directly impliment checks for this.
From the license (forgive typos, I typed this from the PDF):
2.2.
Source Code Distribution You also have a nontransferable, non-sublicenseable, personal, license to distribute or otherwise disclose source code copies of such Licensed Implementation licensed in Section 2.1 only if You (i) prominently display the following notice in all copies of such source code, and (ii) distribute or disclose the source code only under a license agreement that includes the following notice as a term of such license agreement and does not include any other terms that are inconsistent with, or would prohibit, the following notice:
"This source code may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. Our porvision of this source code does not include any licenses or any other rights to you under any Microsoft intellectual property. If you would like a license from Microsoft (e.h. rebrand, redistribute), you need to contact Microsoft directly."
That, my friend, is embrace, extend and assimilate. Nothing under strict GPL can impliment this natively. IIRC, SPF (Sender Permitted From) did not have source restrictive terms.
Because the SMTP protocol requires two-way communications, the packet has to have a valid IP address, so that the TCP/IP traffic can go between the two mail servers (sender, reciever). Because of this, you are guaranteed that the IP address is correct to within a given sub-net. Within that sub-net, yes, spoofing is possible (convince the router that you are the real 131.107.3.124). This is definately "close enough" to usually be accurate.
That's a good point, but I see the eXtensability of XML as the power here. It would be relatively simple to extend the Email-Caller-ID XML specification to include an <spf:details/> tag. Which, would naturally allow for other extensions as well.
Remember, too, that XML is not a Microsoft technology. It's a W3C technology that Microsoft also uses. That's a big difference. If this proposal included a.NET extension to my Mail server, then I'd be suspicious.
My question is: How will SPF or Email-Caller-ID
take into account mailing lists?
Will this block Emails from my
address sent through sourceforge.net's
many fine list servers?
Yes, there should be only 1 such car. Further, and to the part where you're trying to be a pain... I'm puposely assuming private address space because these are not INTERNET connected, but do use Wireless networking (work-group).
I see this as a wonderful new way
to create lawsuits.
The car at IP address 10.10.10.432
requested that you take control, by accepting his ECLA (End Controller License Agreement), you agreed to be responsible... so
when you cut off that semi, he was
smashed into a pancake inside his
egg car. The family is suing you
for (pinky extended) one billion
dollars!
It's also a great way to fulfill
those pesky mafia contracts!
Slashdot Mirror
It occurs to me that trying to use one of these alternatives will work great until the automated TV listing parser stops working due to a moved web page or some other problem.
I would be willing to update a system every couple of months if necessary, but my Mother sure wouldn't...
more importantly, Dave Letterman wouldn't.
--
Just pointing out the obvious that some readers may not have noticed.
Bromine Mmmm - the tangy taste of Mountain Dew - the Smell of computers. Bromine (a fuel additive) has been showing up on my radar consistantly. Strange that geeks like both computers and Mt. Dew, I wonder if Bromine is addictive?
--
P.S. I sell tin-foil hats as a side job. If you're not a government agent, then you already know how to get ahold of me to order one.
Read the article. Download is over 6 parts. I tried watching the first part, gave up after 5 minutes. ...Too difficult to understand the computer generated voices. But, judge for yourself.
This is a neat idea, but my - too hard to listen to. Until these voices get easier to understand, I think I'd rather listen to actors voices.
Sorry folks.
Hey cool, maybe us Linux people can finally fix the infamous Solaris memory leaks!
Sun is responsible for purchasing and open-sourcing Star (Open) Office. They've actually had success with this, and are probably thinking that open-source will really help sell more hardware.
Well, when I say excel, I should really say it in the past tense. Being, really, since the SPARC platform went PCI the whole thing went downhill. But, sun still has some good offerings on the hardware side, and are (supposedly) working on new ones. I think building your own CPU is orders of magnitude harder than writing a "Yet Another Unix Clone" (especially now).
Damned in-theater pirates... they give piracy a bad name.
OTOH, I should also point out, that this type of copy is often made from the projection booth. Good luck scanning the audience for that piracy problem.
I have initial set-up automated, but not after-the-fact. (too small a user population for price to functionality to make it fiscally plausible).
So, yes, I could break down and pay 10 times the price for the same server power, but - really, the price doesn't justify the functionality.
Second, two more points.
Schemas are licensable on their own.
Historically, this is because of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) database products like SAP, Daly.Commerce, Oracle Financials, etc. In the case of an ERP, if a schema can be used and replicated without license, then the data benefits of the product could be culled across and enterprise with only 1 user license (or enough licenses for the uses that enter the data through the product).
In the case of Microsoft's license, the use of such a schema by entering it into DNS is (technically) non-portable. Thus does not need to be protected by distribution licenses. My ability to give you my Email-Caller-ID object is useless to you, because it will have my data in it, not yours.
However, the ability to use this XML schema to filter out Emails (the filter implimentation) is subject to, and likely to be, distributed and re-distributed. MS doesn't want this to occur without your 'checking in' directly with Microsoft. In this way, if they choose to stop distribution of new implimenations, they have the ability to do so. That, makes a strong statement about the openness of this license.
For Sendmail, someone will come up with an external "milter" that complies to the MS license. For Exim and PostFix, similar external filters will be developed. However, these filters will not be able to ship WITH these mail servers, because of the incompatability of the implimentation license.
This will, of course, only make it harder to set up your Mail server. My current checklist includes - latest patches, ClamAV hooks, SpamAssassin hooks (all from separate projects). In the scheme of things, this would become just one more thing to track down. But, it would be so much better if it was merely a built-in. (Advantage, MS Exchange).
Regardless, the MS agreement is still different from the GPL. See my reply to the grandparent post.
However, the Microsoft redistribution does require a 'check-in' directly with Microsoft (a single entity), and not just an agreement to a portable license.
Further, because the license is tied directly to Microsoft's control (as opposed to the "change, and re-distribute" permissiveness of the GPL), the technology and specification can not be extended and manipulated except by Microsoft.
IANAL, and I immediately found those two differences that makes this different (and incompatbile) from the GPL.
Do you have a better alternative? Preferably something that is standardized, or at least based on something that most developers would already have some familiarity with.
Troll me if you like, but please, contribute an alternative idea along with your troll.
Use of this technology requires submitting to a Microsoft license. This license allows distribution (but not re-distribution), and is not compatible with the GPL. That is to say, no GPL mail server will ever be able to directly impliment checks for this.
From the license (forgive typos, I typed this from the PDF):
That, my friend, is embrace, extend and assimilate. Nothing under strict GPL can impliment this natively. IIRC, SPF (Sender Permitted From) did not have source restrictive terms.Because the SMTP protocol requires two-way communications, the packet has to have a valid IP address, so that the TCP/IP traffic can go between the two mail servers (sender, reciever). Because of this, you are guaranteed that the IP address is correct to within a given sub-net. Within that sub-net, yes, spoofing is possible (convince the router that you are the real 131.107.3.124). This is definately "close enough" to usually be accurate.
That's a good point, but I see the eXtensability of XML as the power here. It would be relatively simple to extend the Email-Caller-ID XML specification to include an <spf:details/> tag. Which, would naturally allow for other extensions as well.
Remember, too, that XML is not a Microsoft technology. It's a W3C technology that Microsoft also uses. That's a big difference. If this proposal included a .NET extension to my Mail server, then I'd be suspicious.
My question is: How will SPF or Email-Caller-ID take into account mailing lists? Will this block Emails from my address sent through sourceforge.net's many fine list servers?
I appreciate your support.
Reply to this (very long) in my Journal.
"The drive-by-wire system allows the passengers to reposition the steering wheel and pedals in front of any one of them. "
Oh, I see, dyslexic on the 432...234 (whatever). Hell, let's just assume IPv6 with creative numbering.
Yes, there should be only 1 such car. Further, and to the part where you're trying to be a pain... I'm puposely assuming private address space because these are not INTERNET connected, but do use Wireless networking (work-group).
The car at IP address 10.10.10.432 requested that you take control, by accepting his ECLA (End Controller License Agreement), you agreed to be responsible... so when you cut off that semi, he was smashed into a pancake inside his egg car. The family is suing you for (pinky extended) one billion dollars!
It's also a great way to fulfill those pesky mafia contracts!