I highly doubt that home users would even consider using a linux server for this job
They will if someone sets it up for them, which as I mentioned in another post I am doing for my brother in law (not a "power user" by any standard. MS has essentially set it up for them, the equivalent is to have someone set it up or sell them a preconfigured box.
An important benefit is that if the backups are required as a result of malware infection, the backup server is not vulerable to the same malware as the client.
If it was anywhere near as simple as you put it, then why don't you start selling machines that do exactly this? There's definitely a market for it. The software won't cost you anything (free/open source) from what you seem to say. You make it sound like it's ridiculously simple (just playing catch up, no innovation, etc). On 500$ for a similar product you should be able to make a decent amount of profit (no software costs).
Actually, AC, I'm about to set this very thing up for my brother in law. His existing hardware, free software and a small amount of my time at no monetary charge. It's not a business for me, but he does provide me with his services as an arborist, for which most people get charged.
Hey, you could even sell beefier versions to enterprises of varying sizes for more $ (and also get support contracts: $$$!)
1) Single instance store automatic differential backups. none of this shitty "dd" stuff; this compares each 4 kb block with a database on the server and only uploads ones that have a different hash. Very efficient and very nice.
Sort of like rsync, bacula, amanda?
2) Automatic warnings if any Windows machine on your network has AV or AntiSpyware turned off.
With *nix, we have essential services started automatically at boot time. I'd be interested to know if it checks for Microsoft AV and antispyware software only, or any companies. If MS only, possible antitrust violation here.
3) Automatic warnings if any of your machines has not backed up in the last several days. (and the software will wake machines from sleep mode to do the backup and then have them go back to sleep).
Easily set up on Linux, I presume *BSD also.
4) Ability to serve as a remote control gateway to your computers (where you go to the website of the server and can initiate secured remote desktop sessions to your other machines from there with only 2 ports forwarded to the server and none to any other machines.
Remember the GP's request? "Please tell us what features Microsoft Home Server has that are not available for free and already in widespread use on the net under Linux." Why would you even bring up remote desktop sessions?
But then again, I have actually tried the beta instead of just making shit up about it.
Yes, but you didn't mention any useful features not available in linux/*BSD for free. 1,3 and 4 are available and included in mainstream linux disto's (again, I presume *BSD also, but easily obtainable if not). Without further info, 2 seems possibly aimed at increasing Microsoft marketshare of security products, despite (so I hear) being among the worst available, and even if it isn't, it doesn't seem very useful. Set up your AV etc to run as desired.
You joke about it, but this already happened (without the security warning) on my CentOS box.
My wife was browsing the net with several tabs open. She turned to me and told me that she had attempted to close one of the tabs, but suddenly the internet crashed! I clicked on the firefox icon to start it again. It was only a short time, but I knew I'd have to apologize.
This is the first time that the FSF has decided to use a change to the GPL as a means to attack an existing, legal agreement between two companies.
I would see it as: this is the first time a legal agreement between to companies has attacked the existing GPL. The GPL is being "patched" to remove the vulnerability.
The big problem, if you are someone who believes in fighting copyright infringement, is that you can't prove the bank account should have changed.
No, that's the big problem for people who want to convince everyone that copyright infringement is theft. For people who want to "fight" copyright infringement (perhaps you mean "enforce copyright law") the problem is to prove that there have been copies made illegally. You do not have to prove financial damage to prove copyright infringement. The real challenge is to prove copyright infringement without violating peoples rights, like the right to privacy.
Whether copyright should be called theft is a completely separate issue to whether it is wrong or how/if copyrights should be enforced.
In short, the work hasn't been stolen but the money that would be paid for copies of that work has, and that is theft.
No, the money hasn't been stolen. You can't show a change to your account as a result of copyright infringement. If you can't show a reduction of inventory or a change in account balances, how can there have been theft?
If something has been stolen from you, you can tell by looking at your stuff, counting it, and itemising the things missing. With copyright infringement you can't do this.
Also consider that social skills are learned skills. All the time spent becoming expert at [insert field of expertise here] was not spent becoming expert at social skills. I've also noticed that many people who have adequate social skills to socialize don't have adequate skills to work with people well in organising projects/work.
For the third time, no - that is not his assertion. He is saying that the DMCA is not valid in the UK since it is an american law (that it is about copyright doesn't make it valid)
Youtube is in the US. It's not me that's having trouble getting it. I notice that jd hasn't said my reply wasn't relevant. You might need to consider that you haven't understood either his or my posts.
Have the last say if you want, I'm not even going to read it.
No idea what you mean by "jd", but nobody in this thread that I've seen has asserted that.
jd's post which I replied to. As for nobody asserting that (what I put in my post), I know. I said it was contrary to his assertion. His assertion was the opposite. For your reference, I quote from jd's post:
London is outside US jurisdiction, unless Tony Blair is off his medicines again, which raises all kinds of jurisdiction issues. The copying (not storing, copying) would have occurred in England. This is an English company. English law is the only law that can be applied to an alleged civil offense in England. Unless someone was planning on applying for an extradition order against YouTube's servers, I don't see how anything that might have transpired along the banks of ye olde Thames could possibly have anything to do with an American law.
So his assertion is that if the original copying took place in England, the copies on youtubes servers do not violate US copyright law. This (as I stated) is incorrect because of the Berne Convention making US copyright apply to a work being copied in the US, even if the work was copyright in the UK and originally copied there.
> His idea that if it was originally copied in the UK then distributing copies via youtube would not be infringement was rather nonsensical, but if you ignore that,
And it certainly should be ignored since he didn't say that, you just made it up.
See the above quote from jd's post. He did indeed say it, or at least that it doesn't violate US copyright law, which it does (because of the Berne Convention), and that it violates UK copyright law, which it doesn't (the UK courts not having juristiction in the US).
The topic was about The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and wether or not an american law should be (ab)used by a british company when brittish law would have sufficed.
And indeed, because of the Berne Convention, it is entirely appropriate for a British company to use US copyright law when sueing people violating their copyrights on US soil. Of course, since it seems that this company didn't own the copyrights in the first place, then they shouldn't have abused the law. They should now be extradited to the US to face perjury charges.
Better question: why run a compositing window manager? What's the point? My kids LOVE the wobbling windows, but I'm a grown up and wobbly burning windows are nothing but a waste of RAM and cycles that could be better spent making the system more responsive
For the most part, I agree, but I do like the "scale" feature, which can help shift between multiple windows faster and easier, particularly with several windows of the same app open. The workspace on a cube helps people understand what workspaces are. With the ordinary workspace switcher I've shown people who had difficulty grasping the concept. Also my kids love the wobbling windows, which makes it a feature to me. Anything that will prevent requests to buy windows is a feature.
Really, for me, except for scale, compositing is only about making it look good to others, but that's still a useful feature to me.
Errr... I'm really not reading that the same way you are.
Even if you don't think he favoured it, he predicted it and provided the rationale. It has been partially implemented in the past in my country (Australia) against the aborigines. You don't need to visit a single creationist website to find out about it. A search for "stolen generation" or "aboriginal skull" would likely turn up some interesting results.
Why vocally support the freedom of slaves you'd rather have exterminated?
Interesting you brought up Jefferson. Presumably you know he was both an opponent of slavery and a slave owner. His actions say a lot more about his real views on slavery than his words do.
I don't think that we lend any of their ideas any less credence...
It is quite common, when considering an idea, to also consider the source. I think that Darwin's racist views would have influenced his thinking about his observations. I think the generally racist views of the time influenced the acceptance of his theory. I think that if the idea of evolution was presented to a society not rife with racism, it would not likely be accepted. Somehow as we have rejected racism, we have failed to oust evolution with it, not recognising it for what it is. As far as I have seen, the evidence in favour of it is not nearly so convincing as the true believers would like to think.
The US is party to the Berne Convention. That makes works copyright in Britain also copyright in the US, but it is US copyright that applies in the US. It's quite relevant to what he said. His idea that if it was originally copied in the UK then distributing copies via youtube would not be infringement was rather nonsensical, but if you ignore that, the essence is that UK copyrights (the rights, not UK laws) apply in the US (enforced according to US law), contrary to the jd's assertion.
Whether Darwin was detached or passionate about it is irrelevant. His words explicitly state that he hoped for it to happen: The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a
more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla.
He predicted it, favoured it and provided the rationale. That's advocating it. The only thing that's contaversial about it is that if this idea were first proposed today, Darwin wouldn't be able to get an audience in any reputable educational institution, so people feel the need to cover it up.
I've had this sig for months and never been modded troll. It's unpopular but factually correct.
All I did was explain the particular way the bible defines the word "faith", and the relationship of this term to a presupposition common to Christianity?
Moderate on the quality of discussion, not whether you agree or not. The GP's statement regarding faith is not circular reasoning when the terms are understood in their context, even if the presuppositions are illogical.
Or perhaps it's my sig you don't like? For the benefit of those without wget, it pulls a few lines from Darwin's "The Descent of Man"
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p.
236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his
nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a
more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla.
Darwin's own work proclaims him to be in favour of racial genocide. He was guite clear. You ought have no need to suppress this information.
The mechanics of evolution is just DNA and genetic inheretence, so I'd say it's pretty well proved!;-)
Inherited features by definition existed in previous generations. This by no means proves that new features arise, a requirement of evolution.
Natural selection is sound, observable and demonstrable in theory and practice. However it is the mechanism by which certain traits within a population become predominant, not how new features form. New features require the addition of genetic code, which although there is evidence consistent with this, is far from being proven to the standard of natural selection. Not even close to gravity etc.
Well, sure, but I don't think it takes a lot of brains to say, "Well this guy's got hair like a used car salesman, and acts like a bit of a freak, and he says evolution's wrong, and I'm going to hell if I don't give him all my savings...And this guy's a doctor that came up with a cancer drug that saved my momma's life, and he's says evolution's right, I guess I'm going to go with the guy who actually DOES things."
The problem with that being that I know people for example that have been told by a doctor that they can't have children, the preacher prays for them, and later they have children. (Also also know people who skipped the preacher praying step). Yes, yes, I know there could be jokes about what else that praying the preacher might have done, but seriously, there are plenty of people who have experienced benefits from listening to preaching, even if they are not benefits exclusively available to Christians. One obvious example is in drug rehab, which very often has a strong religious theme. People who have gone from being addicts to having an enjoyable life through faith, or who have close relatives/freinds who have done so, are unlikely to regard a preacher as not "doing things" or producing results.
Uh, too bad evolution is about how life is changing, and completely unrelated to how life started
Without life starting there is nothing to evolve. Surely refusing to consider how life started when discussing evolution is not good. People who agree with evolution think it's a good point (+5 informative?), people who believe creationism can laugh (hey look, he's avoiding the issues he can't answer, ha ha, silly evolutionists) and people who aren't sure are left with vocal creationists and people who refuse to talk.
Avoiding the issue is not a way to make a convincing point.
one problem here being that like in law, the bible sometimes has particular ways of using words that are not the common use. In the context of the bible, faith is not "the thing you believe" it's "the thing spoken by God that you believe". Misinterpretations, errors and other religions are not described as "faith".
So "... faith... is the evidence of things which are not seen", when translated into common use of language, becomes "God saying something is evidence that it is so". Which, if you presuppose an omnipotent, omniscient God who creates everything by speaking, it follows that if God says something, if it's not true yet, it's about to be and can therefore be believed in spite of contrary evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
I highly doubt that home users would even consider using a linux server for this job
They will if someone sets it up for them, which as I mentioned in another post I am doing for my brother in law (not a "power user" by any standard. MS has essentially set it up for them, the equivalent is to have someone set it up or sell them a preconfigured box.
An important benefit is that if the backups are required as a result of malware infection, the backup server is not vulerable to the same malware as the client.
If it was anywhere near as simple as you put it, then why don't you start selling machines that do exactly this? There's definitely a market for it. The software won't cost you anything (free/open source) from what you seem to say. You make it sound like it's ridiculously simple (just playing catch up, no innovation, etc). On 500$ for a similar product you should be able to make a decent amount of profit (no software costs).
Actually, AC, I'm about to set this very thing up for my brother in law. His existing hardware, free software and a small amount of my time at no monetary charge. It's not a business for me, but he does provide me with his services as an arborist, for which most people get charged.
Hey, you could even sell beefier versions to enterprises of varying sizes for more $ (and also get support contracts: $$$!)
I got beaten to the market by IBM and Sun.
1) Single instance store automatic differential backups. none of this shitty "dd" stuff; this compares each 4 kb block with a database on the server and only uploads ones that have a different hash. Very efficient and very nice.
Sort of like rsync, bacula, amanda?
2) Automatic warnings if any Windows machine on your network has AV or AntiSpyware turned off.
With *nix, we have essential services started automatically at boot time. I'd be interested to know if it checks for Microsoft AV and antispyware software only, or any companies. If MS only, possible antitrust violation here.
3) Automatic warnings if any of your machines has not backed up in the last several days. (and the software will wake machines from sleep mode to do the backup and then have them go back to sleep).
Easily set up on Linux, I presume *BSD also.
4) Ability to serve as a remote control gateway to your computers (where you go to the website of the server and can initiate secured remote desktop sessions to your other machines from there with only 2 ports forwarded to the server and none to any other machines.
Remember the GP's request? "Please tell us what features Microsoft Home Server has that are not available for free and already in widespread use on the net under Linux." Why would you even bring up remote desktop sessions?
But then again, I have actually tried the beta instead of just making shit up about it.
Yes, but you didn't mention any useful features not available in linux/*BSD for free. 1,3 and 4 are available and included in mainstream linux disto's (again, I presume *BSD also, but easily obtainable if not). Without further info, 2 seems possibly aimed at increasing Microsoft marketshare of security products, despite (so I hear) being among the worst available, and even if it isn't, it doesn't seem very useful. Set up your AV etc to run as desired.
You joke about it, but this already happened (without the security warning) on my CentOS box.
My wife was browsing the net with several tabs open. She turned to me and told me that she had attempted to close one of the tabs, but suddenly the internet crashed! I clicked on the firefox icon to start it again. It was only a short time, but I knew I'd have to apologize.
About the internet rebooting: sorry guys, my bad.
Yeah, then they'd be making some cold, hard cash.
This is the first time that the FSF has decided to use a change to the GPL as a means to attack an existing, legal agreement between two companies.
I would see it as: this is the first time a legal agreement between to companies has attacked the existing GPL. The GPL is being "patched" to remove the vulnerability.
The big problem, if you are someone who believes in fighting copyright infringement, is that you can't prove the bank account should have changed.
No, that's the big problem for people who want to convince everyone that copyright infringement is theft. For people who want to "fight" copyright infringement (perhaps you mean "enforce copyright law") the problem is to prove that there have been copies made illegally. You do not have to prove financial damage to prove copyright infringement. The real challenge is to prove copyright infringement without violating peoples rights, like the right to privacy.
Whether copyright should be called theft is a completely separate issue to whether it is wrong or how/if copyrights should be enforced.
No, it is information. That it has a certain value to certain people or organisations doesn't change that at all.
good answer
In short, the work hasn't been stolen but the money that would be paid for copies of that work has, and that is theft.
No, the money hasn't been stolen. You can't show a change to your account as a result of copyright infringement. If you can't show a reduction of inventory or a change in account balances, how can there have been theft?
If something has been stolen from you, you can tell by looking at your stuff, counting it, and itemising the things missing. With copyright infringement you can't do this.
Yes but you might be surprised that if you call a product "turd on a stick" you might not find it sells too well.
To reflect the up to date, contemporary nature of my product, I am appending the word "Today" to the name.
TOAST anyone?
If personal information gets sold, does that not make it property?
Also consider that social skills are learned skills. All the time spent becoming expert at [insert field of expertise here] was not spent becoming expert at social skills. I've also noticed that many people who have adequate social skills to socialize don't have adequate skills to work with people well in organising projects/work.
For the third time, no - that is not his assertion. He is saying that the DMCA is not valid in the UK since it is an american law (that it is about copyright doesn't make it valid)
Youtube is in the US. It's not me that's having trouble getting it. I notice that jd hasn't said my reply wasn't relevant. You might need to consider that you haven't understood either his or my posts.
Have the last say if you want, I'm not even going to read it.
And then, where would those rights begin and end?
At the point of invasion by a country that wasn't using it's resources on mindless trivialities like whether to give animals human rights.
jd's post which I replied to. As for nobody asserting that (what I put in my post), I know. I said it was contrary to his assertion. His assertion was the opposite. For your reference, I quote from jd's post:
So his assertion is that if the original copying took place in England, the copies on youtubes servers do not violate US copyright law. This (as I stated) is incorrect because of the Berne Convention making US copyright apply to a work being copied in the US, even if the work was copyright in the UK and originally copied there.
> His idea that if it was originally copied in the UK then distributing copies via youtube would not be infringement was rather nonsensical, but if you ignore that,
And it certainly should be ignored since he didn't say that, you just made it up.
See the above quote from jd's post. He did indeed say it, or at least that it doesn't violate US copyright law, which it does (because of the Berne Convention), and that it violates UK copyright law, which it doesn't (the UK courts not having juristiction in the US).
The topic was about The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and wether or not an american law should be (ab)used by a british company when brittish law would have sufficed.
And indeed, because of the Berne Convention, it is entirely appropriate for a British company to use US copyright law when sueing people violating their copyrights on US soil. Of course, since it seems that this company didn't own the copyrights in the first place, then they shouldn't have abused the law. They should now be extradited to the US to face perjury charges.
So in the future, we're going to exterminate all the ignorant savages who don't have computers with wget?
:-)
and sed. I forgot sed.
If they were really curious, they could use the link. Less convenient, but still possible.
Better question: why run a compositing window manager? What's the point? My kids LOVE the wobbling windows, but I'm a grown up and wobbly burning windows are nothing but a waste of RAM and cycles that could be better spent making the system more responsive
For the most part, I agree, but I do like the "scale" feature, which can help shift between multiple windows faster and easier, particularly with several windows of the same app open. The workspace on a cube helps people understand what workspaces are. With the ordinary workspace switcher I've shown people who had difficulty grasping the concept. Also my kids love the wobbling windows, which makes it a feature to me. Anything that will prevent requests to buy windows is a feature.
Really, for me, except for scale, compositing is only about making it look good to others, but that's still a useful feature to me.
Errr... I'm really not reading that the same way you are.
...
Even if you don't think he favoured it, he predicted it and provided the rationale. It has been partially implemented in the past in my country (Australia) against the aborigines. You don't need to visit a single creationist website to find out about it. A search for "stolen generation" or "aboriginal skull" would likely turn up some interesting results.
Why vocally support the freedom of slaves you'd rather have exterminated?
Interesting you brought up Jefferson. Presumably you know he was both an opponent of slavery and a slave owner. His actions say a lot more about his real views on slavery than his words do.
I don't think that we lend any of their ideas any less credence
It is quite common, when considering an idea, to also consider the source. I think that Darwin's racist views would have influenced his thinking about his observations. I think the generally racist views of the time influenced the acceptance of his theory. I think that if the idea of evolution was presented to a society not rife with racism, it would not likely be accepted. Somehow as we have rejected racism, we have failed to oust evolution with it, not recognising it for what it is. As far as I have seen, the evidence in favour of it is not nearly so convincing as the true believers would like to think.
The US is party to the Berne Convention. That makes works copyright in Britain also copyright in the US, but it is US copyright that applies in the US. It's quite relevant to what he said. His idea that if it was originally copied in the UK then distributing copies via youtube would not be infringement was rather nonsensical, but if you ignore that, the essence is that UK copyrights (the rights, not UK laws) apply in the US (enforced according to US law), contrary to the jd's assertion.
Whether Darwin was detached or passionate about it is irrelevant. His words explicitly state that he hoped for it to happen: The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
He predicted it, favoured it and provided the rationale. That's advocating it. The only thing that's contaversial about it is that if this idea were first proposed today, Darwin wouldn't be able to get an audience in any reputable educational institution, so people feel the need to cover it up.
I've had this sig for months and never been modded troll. It's unpopular but factually correct.
All I did was explain the particular way the bible defines the word "faith", and the relationship of this term to a presupposition common to Christianity?
Moderate on the quality of discussion, not whether you agree or not. The GP's statement regarding faith is not circular reasoning when the terms are understood in their context, even if the presuppositions are illogical.
Or perhaps it's my sig you don't like? For the benefit of those without wget, it pulls a few lines from Darwin's "The Descent of Man"
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Darwin's own work proclaims him to be in favour of racial genocide. He was guite clear. You ought have no need to suppress this information.
The mechanics of evolution is just DNA and genetic inheretence, so I'd say it's pretty well proved! ;-)
Inherited features by definition existed in previous generations. This by no means proves that new features arise, a requirement of evolution.
Natural selection is sound, observable and demonstrable in theory and practice. However it is the mechanism by which certain traits within a population become predominant, not how new features form. New features require the addition of genetic code, which although there is evidence consistent with this, is far from being proven to the standard of natural selection. Not even close to gravity etc.
Well, sure, but I don't think it takes a lot of brains to say, "Well this guy's got hair like a used car salesman, and acts like a bit of a freak, and he says evolution's wrong, and I'm going to hell if I don't give him all my savings...And this guy's a doctor that came up with a cancer drug that saved my momma's life, and he's says evolution's right, I guess I'm going to go with the guy who actually DOES things."
The problem with that being that I know people for example that have been told by a doctor that they can't have children, the preacher prays for them, and later they have children. (Also also know people who skipped the preacher praying step). Yes, yes, I know there could be jokes about what else that praying the preacher might have done, but seriously, there are plenty of people who have experienced benefits from listening to preaching, even if they are not benefits exclusively available to Christians. One obvious example is in drug rehab, which very often has a strong religious theme. People who have gone from being addicts to having an enjoyable life through faith, or who have close relatives/freinds who have done so, are unlikely to regard a preacher as not "doing things" or producing results.
Uh, too bad evolution is about how life is changing, and completely unrelated to how life started
Without life starting there is nothing to evolve. Surely refusing to consider how life started when discussing evolution is not good. People who agree with evolution think it's a good point (+5 informative?), people who believe creationism can laugh (hey look, he's avoiding the issues he can't answer, ha ha, silly evolutionists) and people who aren't sure are left with vocal creationists and people who refuse to talk.
Avoiding the issue is not a way to make a convincing point.
Hebrews 11:1 ... faith ...
... is the evidence of things which are not seen", when translated into common use of language, becomes "God saying something is evidence that it is so". Which, if you presuppose an omnipotent, omniscient God who creates everything by speaking, it follows that if God says something, if it's not true yet, it's about to be and can therefore be believed in spite of contrary evidence.
one problem here being that like in law, the bible sometimes has particular ways of using words that are not the common use. In the context of the bible, faith is not "the thing you believe" it's "the thing spoken by God that you believe". Misinterpretations, errors and other religions are not described as "faith".
So "... faith