Re:ORBS isn't about spam entirely.
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
>>BTW -- there is NO WAY to opt-out of ORBS and being probed and threatened. Even if your servers are 100% fine, and you tell ORBS not to scan, they'll block you >Just for the record, they don't block you. They mark you as untestable.
ORBS may not block you. But ORBS *DOES* take a host that is listed OK in the test result database and in the static list and publishes it to others as a "Selectively open relay"
Given this listing is incorrect, either ORBS is run by incompentent fools, or did this out of spite.
Correct, its not about relays...its about terror
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
>If ORBS were only about open relays,
Then they would not have database entries that give "Selectively open relay" messages for hosts that have checked out OK in the past.
ORBS is about net.terrorism. And if you beleive otherwise, you have been duped.
ORBS is a net.terrorist!
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
>It's not an attack. It's a probe.
You seem to believe that a probe looking for a hole is ok.
If I wander thru your neighborhood with a crow-bar and check for open doors/windows, you'd support that action, so long as I said I'm "doing this to improve the security of the neighborhood"
If ORBS 1) Had proof 2) Provided the proof 3) Contacted me with the proof and ASKED if I wished to be probed then ORBS would not be a net.terrorist.
The three steps however would require ORBS to be resonable, and being reasonable is not the goal of a terrorist orginization.
>I understood your message entirely. You didn't want them to contact you at all so you made sure they couldn't.
Really? Gee, I'm subjected to a UNWANTED attack from ORBS and I should just say "sure, come on back", or should I block future attacks? I chose to BLOCK the future attacks, and I let them know how to get back to me with the information I had requested.
Now, what did ORBS do? They list my host as 'Selectively open relay', which is a lie. And they KNOW it, because the host is listed as 'checked OK'.
But that is why ORBS never got back to me with the proof that my host was a relay...becasue there WAS no proof.
Re:ORBS is a net.terrorist! NOT
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
>They made a reasonable effort to contact you,
No, they made *NO* effort to contact me, save attacking my host. In fact, the only reason I found out about them was the attack.
My sendmail works fine w/o RBL, because I parse the logs dynamically and re-route spam runs to a seperate server. I therefore have no need for RBL or their ilk.
*I* contacted them when I saw the log entries, and asked them to justify themselves. In under 8 hours. (I am allowed time to sleep, right)
*THEY* made the choice not to respond.
What am I to do when I have an un-provoked attack? Just let them keep it up? Or block the sites where the attacks were comming from. A *RESPONSIBLE* sysadmin blocks the source of the attacks.
I could have asked for information, and just blocked their access and not mention that there were blocked due to their actions. An action like that would have been: >do the equivelent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting while they talked.
>conclusion that you are deliberately lying is a reasonable one that many readers can be expected to make. No, I drew a conclusion. And, it is quite possible ORBS is a front for spammers. The open relay list is not only a resource, but serves the function of over-salted food in a bar. They create demand for their list. The US government had a policy of not using census data for anything but the census. Tell that to the Japaneese moved to the desert in WWII. *YOU* have lied in this. *YOU* stated "They made a reasonable effort to contact you" They made *NO* effort at all, they just attacked.
>When you block their traffic, refusing to allow them to inform you of the problems they find in your network, what option do you leave them?
They can't even provide PROOF of spam when asked, so why should they be probing my network?
In Australia they may not have a concept of due process. But here in the US, there is a concept that one has to have proof before the cops can come in and check your home out. If ORBS wants to play net.spam.cop, then they should: 1) have proof. 2) contact the admin with the proof. 3) ask to do a probe. Instead, they attack a host with probes.
Net.terrorists they are.
Re:ORBS is a net.terrorist!
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
>I think your use of the word "attack" is a bit of an overstatement.
Not at all.
Their probe attack is as intrusive as EVERY OTHER UNWANTED probe attack.
Spammers do these blind probes to find open relays. ORBS do these blind probes to find open relays. Spammers use the open relays to pass spam. ORBS publish these open relays so spammers can use them to pass spam.
Looks like ORBS is just a front for spammers, doesn't it?
>However, demanding that they mail you information over snailmail is not exactly showing an open mind from your side.
What part of "I am blocking your site, so please use snail-mail" were you not understanding?
They *COULD* have set up a hotmail, yahoo, or some other address. No lack of an open mind, just letting them know that, given I was blocking their attacks in the future, snail-mail would work.
Re:ORBS is a useful tool
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
>Anyway, saying that ORBS is evil because they "attack your systems" (which they don't, they only probe them, much like port scanning) is a lame and invalid excuse for clueless sysadmins to not secure their mail servers.
And *I* maintain that they *DO* attack.
Without provication, ORBS attacked my host 'looking for an open relay'. ORBS could not provide any proof that my host was involved in spam. I chose to add them to the REJECT list in sendmail.
For adding them to my REJCT list, my host is listed as a 'selectivly open relay'.
Given most people in NANOG feel ORBS attacks systems, are you calling NANOG members 'clueless admins'? Myself, who e-mailed ORBS asking them to provide proof that my host was used in spamming 8 hours after the attack...I'm a 'clueless admin' because I wasn't reading my log files at 2 AM?
Get educated about ORBS...and when you do, you will find that they *ARE* net.terrorists with thier blind attacks.
>it would be rather hard to collect and even more difficult to bring a court case,
*smile* that is why you create the bill, then sell it to someone who is local for a %age on the dollar. You may not see a dime, but the satisfaction of seeing a spammer in court is its own reward.
The static list is NOT a static list.
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
It gets you listed with a warning like this one: X-RBL-Warning: (relays.orbs.org) Selectively open relay
ORBS is a net.terrorist!
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 2
Seebs is 100% correct.
ORBS attacked my site with their probe attacks.
I sent them a e-mail: 1) Asking why they attacked my site. 2) Asking them to provide proof that my site was used for spam. 3) Asked for this information to be sent via snail-mail, as I would be adding thier hosts to my access list as REJECT.
They attacked it, and within 8 hours I wrote my letter....why was I able to write in 8 hours? I watch my logs (like any good sysadmin) That is why I wanted to see PROOF of the 'spam'...if I didn't see it in my logs, I wanted to know how a spammer would have done it. In fact they had me in their 'cartoonie threats' catagory BEFORE their automated system listed my site as OK.
And now, I hear my site is listed as "selectivly open relay", when the reality is that my host is not, nor has it ever been a 'open relay', selective or not.
If ORBS was reasonable, then I'm sure they would have the good will that MAPS has. But, given ORBS bullying tactics and placing hosts in their lists because they object to blind probe attacks, ORBS should be listed in MAPS!
>I make a point of running up the toll-free long distance time on the phone numbers they advertise
Be sure to do this at pay phones. Extra $0.35 or so charge to the bill.
And, how many of you have sent bills to the spammers and then taken them to small claims court when they didn't pay?
(think: A nation-wide network of people who bill spammers, and the supporting laywers/people who buy the debt from the spammed in, say Ohio and sue the minnesota based spammer.)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software or derivatives of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software or its derivatives is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The code works between Unix boxen and between unix and windows. And, it has been rumored to work with IPsec, but given I do not have a windows box doing ipsec, I can neither confirm nor deny it.
So: 1) Sun DOES release code. 2) The world does not revolve about the GPL.
>many people avoid signing up to ORBS because they find their policy too cavalier
Yes, Orbs is a net.terrorist Go look on the NANOG list and see other sysadmins who agree.
When I got attacked by ORBS, they were unable to provide any reason for the attack, and slapped a 'carttonie threats' to my host. All because they are unable to provide proof to why they attacked my host with probes.
YesMail placed me 'on their opt-in' and I *KNOW* I didn't opt-in. To date, YesMail has provided no proof of my opt-in.
>his lead to making certain programs virtually unadvertisable because you would need to dedicate half the page to these annoying clauses. Anyway Microsoft and Apple used the code under the new license.
Really?
Directory of C:\WINNT\system32
04/29/99 01:04p 41,232 FTP.EXE
BSD code.
NO "ADVERTISING" DONE WHATSOEVER.
Yet THIS date
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source code files require that further distributions of products containing all or portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the University of * California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials.
Is when the "advertising clause" was removed.
Now, what exactly were you saying about >because you would need to dedicate half the page to these annoying clauses.
Given you now have no advertising objection to the BSD licence, do you not agree that for maximizing code re-use, public domain or a BSD licence does a better job?
>>Where was the copywrite notices that SHOULD have been displayed with ftp.exe on windows NT? >The code in question is the TCP/IP stacks. Real low level stuff.
Ok. And you claim there is an 'annoying advertising clause'.
Show where Microsoft actually FOLLOWED the licence and 'advertised'.
Feel free to deny that the quality of TCP/IP networking in both M$ and Apple products improved when they started using the BSD code.
(oh and grep for berkely in ftp.exe. Looks like that program has some of the code.)
>And I quote from Freshmeat: What, the actually BSD licence isn't worthy of quoting? I look in the FreeBSD/usr/src and see the copywrite it is under has no such clause inforced.
>deal with such harsh realities as not all code getting recycled. And a Public Domain or the BSD licence promotes code recycling more than the GPL does.
>I don't know when did I say that? Well than what DO you say? You HAVE said: >Your theory is flawed. Yet, I'm not seeing a rebuttal with correct information. So far a claim that Microsoft used BSD code with an 'annoying advertising clause', yet no evidence of 'adds'. And the copywrite licence for FreeBSD 3.4/4.0 show no such clause.
So far, the flaw is in your arguments. Please feel free to show where Microsoft followed the BSD licence, or where FreeBSD 3.4/4.0 has an 'advertising' clause.
Are you sure about this? Lets look at your example.
> With BSD license a closed source software company could take software, modify it, release it with a restrictive license plus annoying advertising clause, and the open source developers gotta clone software. Microsoft did it with TCP/IP.
Really? Wow. Where was the copywrite notices that SHOULD have been displayed with ftp.exe on windows NT? What 'annoying' advertising clause was this?
The original argument was: >If the license was free, then there would be no need to write a clone. Coders could instead work on othe, new projects instead of duplicating effort.
Why is the effort of CLOSED SOURCE programmers to clone the functionality of GPLed code not worthy of consideration?
If you BSD or public domain your code, EVERYONE can benefit as they see fit.
GPLed code takes time to write. Closed source versions of the SAME code take time to write.
Public domain/BSD code takes time to write. Closed source can take this code and add features. LESS TOTAL time is spent writing code.
The original claim was: If the license was free, then there would be no need to write a clone. Coders could instead work on othe, new projects instead of duplicating effort.
If the goal is to stop duplication of efforts, the BSD or public domain licence does a better job than a GPL licence.
>f the license was free, then there would be no need to write a clone. Coders could instead work on othe, new projects instead of duplicating effort.
So you then advocate a BSD or a public domain licence, as these would allow the code written to be used EVERYWHERE, thus reducing the efforts of humanity on code.
>Unix" is a registered trademark of (I think) the XOpen Group. That's why companies like Sun and HP call their operating systems Solaris and HP/UX, rather than "Unix"
(This point was made over on technocrat by someone else....and I had the same thought. I guess I need a beard and have it long and grey)
In the press release, it states: Progeny bases its development on the Debian version of Linux, the operating system that is the major rival to UNIX and Windows NT in the server market.
This implies that Linux isn't unix, because who puts into a press release that we are a major rival to ourselfs.
If taking the API of UNIX and copying the API, using the same set of commands, using the same compilers and other userspace applications that unix uses doesn't make you unix, then WHAT EXACTLY are you? Ashamed of your proud UNIX roots?
Slashdot Mirror
>>BTW -- there is NO WAY to opt-out of ORBS and being probed and threatened. Even if your servers are 100% fine, and you tell ORBS not to scan, they'll block you
>Just for the record, they don't block you. They mark you as untestable.
ORBS may not block you. But ORBS *DOES* take a host that is listed OK in the test result database and in the static list and publishes it to others as a "Selectively open relay"
Given this listing is incorrect, either ORBS is run by incompentent fools, or did this out of spite.
>If ORBS were only about open relays,
Then they would not have database entries that give "Selectively open relay" messages for hosts that have checked out OK in the past.
ORBS is about net.terrorism. And if you beleive otherwise, you have been duped.
>It's not an attack. It's a probe.
You seem to believe that a probe looking for a hole is ok.
If I wander thru your neighborhood with a crow-bar and check for open doors/windows, you'd support that action, so long as I said I'm "doing this to improve the security of the neighborhood"
If ORBS
1) Had proof
2) Provided the proof
3) Contacted me with the proof and ASKED if I wished to be probed
then ORBS would not be a net.terrorist.
The three steps however would require ORBS to be resonable, and being reasonable is not the goal of a terrorist orginization.
>I understood your message entirely. You didn't want them to contact you at all so you made sure they couldn't.
Really? Gee, I'm subjected to a UNWANTED attack from ORBS and I should just say "sure, come on back", or should I block future attacks? I chose to BLOCK the future attacks, and I let them know how to get back to me with the information I had requested.
Now, what did ORBS do? They list my host as 'Selectively open relay', which is a lie. And they KNOW it, because the host is listed as 'checked OK'.
But that is why ORBS never got back to me with the proof that my host was a relay...becasue there WAS no proof.
>They made a reasonable effort to contact you,
No, they made *NO* effort to contact me, save attacking my host. In fact, the only reason I found out about them was the attack.
My sendmail works fine w/o RBL, because I parse the logs dynamically and re-route spam runs to a seperate server. I therefore have no need for RBL or their ilk.
*I* contacted them when I saw the log entries, and asked them to justify themselves. In under 8 hours. (I am allowed time to sleep, right)
*THEY* made the choice not to respond.
What am I to do when I have an un-provoked attack? Just let them keep it up? Or block the sites where the attacks were comming from. A *RESPONSIBLE* sysadmin blocks the source of the attacks.
I could have asked for information, and just blocked their access and not mention that there were blocked due to their actions.
An action like that would have been:
>do the equivelent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting while they talked.
>conclusion that you are deliberately lying is a reasonable one that many readers can be expected to make.
No, I drew a conclusion. And, it is quite possible ORBS is a front for spammers. The open relay list is not only a resource, but serves the function of over-salted food in a bar. They create demand for their list. The US government had a policy of not using census data for anything but the census. Tell that to the Japaneese moved to the desert in WWII. *YOU* have lied in this. *YOU* stated "They made a reasonable effort to contact you" They made *NO* effort at all, they just attacked.
>When you block their traffic, refusing to allow them to inform you of the problems they find in your network, what option do you leave them?
They can't even provide PROOF of spam when asked, so why should they be probing my network?
In Australia they may not have a concept of due process. But here in the US, there is a concept that one has to have proof before the cops can come in and check your home out. If ORBS wants to play net.spam.cop, then they should:
1) have proof.
2) contact the admin with the proof.
3) ask to do a probe.
Instead, they attack a host with probes.
Net.terrorists they are.
>I think your use of the word "attack" is a bit of an overstatement.
Not at all.
Their probe attack is as intrusive as EVERY OTHER UNWANTED probe attack.
Spammers do these blind probes to find open relays.
ORBS do these blind probes to find open relays.
Spammers use the open relays to pass spam.
ORBS publish these open relays so spammers can use them to pass spam.
Looks like ORBS is just a front for spammers, doesn't it?
>However, demanding that they mail you information over snailmail is not exactly showing an open mind from your side.
What part of "I am blocking your site, so please use snail-mail" were you not understanding?
They *COULD* have set up a hotmail, yahoo, or some other address. No lack of an open mind, just letting them know that, given I was blocking their attacks in the future, snail-mail would work.
>Anyway, saying that ORBS is evil because they "attack your systems" (which they don't, they only probe them, much like port scanning) is a lame and invalid excuse for clueless sysadmins to not secure their mail servers.
And *I* maintain that they *DO* attack.
Without provication, ORBS attacked my host 'looking for an open relay'. ORBS could not provide any proof that my host was involved in spam.
I chose to add them to the REJECT list in sendmail.
For adding them to my REJCT list, my host is listed as a 'selectivly open relay'.
Given most people in NANOG feel ORBS attacks systems, are you calling NANOG members 'clueless admins'? Myself, who e-mailed ORBS asking them to provide proof that my host was used in spamming 8 hours after the attack...I'm a 'clueless admin' because I wasn't reading my log files at 2 AM?
Get educated about ORBS...and when you do, you will find that they *ARE* net.terrorists with thier blind attacks.
>it would be rather hard to collect and even more difficult to bring a court case,
*smile* that is why you create the bill, then sell it to someone who is local for a %age on the dollar. You may not see a dime, but the satisfaction of seeing a spammer in court is its own reward.
It gets you listed with a warning like this one:
X-RBL-Warning: (relays.orbs.org) Selectively open relay
Seebs is 100% correct.
ORBS attacked my site with their probe attacks.
I sent them a e-mail:
1) Asking why they attacked my site.
2) Asking them to provide proof that my site was used for spam.
3) Asked for this information to be sent via snail-mail, as I would be adding thier hosts to my access list as REJECT.
They attacked it, and within 8 hours I wrote my letter....why was I able to write in 8 hours? I watch my logs (like any good sysadmin) That is why I wanted to see PROOF of the 'spam'...if I didn't see it in my logs, I wanted to know how a spammer would have done it.
In fact they had me in their 'cartoonie threats' catagory BEFORE their automated system listed my site as OK.
And now, I hear my site is listed as "selectivly open relay", when the reality is that my host is not, nor has it ever been a 'open relay', selective or not.
If ORBS was reasonable, then I'm sure they would have the good will that MAPS has. But, given ORBS bullying tactics and placing hosts in their lists because they object to blind probe attacks, ORBS should be listed in MAPS!
>I make a point of running up the toll-free long distance time on the phone numbers they advertise
Be sure to do this at pay phones. Extra $0.35 or so charge to the bill.
And, how many of you have sent bills to the spammers and then taken them to small claims court when they didn't pay?
(think: A nation-wide network of people who bill spammers, and the supporting laywers/people who buy the debt from the spammed in, say Ohio and sue the minnesota based spammer.)
>And I think that's what Apple has never really understood. They make quality products, but people pay an unreasonable premium for that;
Micheal Spindler said "We are committed to maximize shareholder value." when he took over.
That ment that Apple would charge the most they could get for thier machines. (put the screws to the customer)
So, yes....Apple users HAVE paid a premium.
>You want VPN software? Go write it and GPL it.
k ip/ is the link to the code in case you don't have this laying about.
Why should I?
Sun has already done this. It is called SKIP.
And it is under a BSD-esque license.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software or derivatives of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software or its derivatives is furnished
to do so, subject to the following conditions:
http://skip.incog.com/src-form.html is the link in my old code version.
http://www.mirr or.ac.uk/sites/ftp.zedz.com/pub/crypto/programs/s
The code works between Unix boxen and between unix and windows. And, it has been rumored to work with IPsec, but given I do not have a windows box doing ipsec, I can neither confirm nor deny it.
So:
1) Sun DOES release code.
2) The world does not revolve about the GPL.
Bah, you don't need a 'random' program.
Just kick a IRC kiddie off your box and get over 174,000 fake names added to the e-mail address CDROMS.
>many people avoid signing up to ORBS because they find their policy too cavalier
Yes, Orbs is a net.terrorist Go look on the NANOG list and see other sysadmins who agree.
When I got attacked by ORBS, they were unable to provide any reason for the attack, and slapped a 'carttonie threats' to my host. All because they are unable to provide proof to why they attacked my host with probes.
YesMail placed me 'on their opt-in' and I *KNOW* I didn't opt-in. To date, YesMail has provided no proof of my opt-in.
Does anyone have a list of sites to add to the access list besides yesmail and thier ilk?
>his lead to making certain programs virtually unadvertisable because you would need to dedicate half the page to these annoying clauses. Anyway Microsoft and Apple used the code under the new license.
Really?
Directory of C:\WINNT\system32
04/29/99 01:04p 41,232 FTP.EXE
BSD code.
NO "ADVERTISING" DONE WHATSOEVER.
Yet THIS date
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source
code files require that further distributions of products containing all or
portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials
that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its
contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials.
Is when the "advertising clause" was removed.
Now, what exactly were you saying about
>because you would need to dedicate half the page to these annoying clauses.
Given you now have no advertising objection to the BSD licence, do you not agree that for maximizing code re-use, public domain or a BSD licence does a better job?
The european greens have managed to get passed laws effecting the use and disposal of lead in 2004.
So, there is an economic incentive to push LCD's.
So the prices WILL drop. You just have to wait.
No, it is NOT Dan.
John Draper (Captain Crunch)
http://www.woz.com/letters/general/91.html
>>Where was the copywrite notices that SHOULD have been displayed with ftp.exe on windows NT?
/usr/src and see the copywrite it is under has no such clause inforced.
>The code in question is the TCP/IP stacks. Real low level stuff.
Ok. And you claim there is an 'annoying advertising clause'.
Show where Microsoft actually FOLLOWED the licence and 'advertised'.
Feel free to deny that the quality of TCP/IP networking in both M$ and Apple products improved when they started using the BSD code.
(oh and grep for berkely in ftp.exe. Looks like that program has some of the code.)
>And I quote from Freshmeat:
What, the actually BSD licence isn't worthy of quoting?
I look in the FreeBSD
>deal with such harsh realities as not all code getting recycled.
And a Public Domain or the BSD licence promotes code recycling more than the GPL does.
>I don't know when did I say that?
Well than what DO you say?
You HAVE said:
>Your theory is flawed.
Yet, I'm not seeing a rebuttal with correct information. So far a claim that Microsoft used BSD code with an 'annoying advertising clause', yet no evidence of 'adds'. And the copywrite licence for FreeBSD 3.4/4.0 show no such clause.
So far, the flaw is in your arguments. Please feel free to show where Microsoft followed the BSD licence, or where FreeBSD 3.4/4.0 has an 'advertising' clause.
>Your theory is flawed.
Are you sure about this? Lets look at your example.
> With BSD license a closed source software company could take software, modify it, release it with a restrictive license plus annoying advertising clause, and the open source developers gotta clone software. Microsoft did it with TCP/IP.
Really? Wow. Where was the copywrite notices that SHOULD have been displayed with ftp.exe on windows NT? What 'annoying' advertising clause was this?
The original argument was:
>If the license was free, then there would be no need to write a clone. Coders could instead work on othe, new projects instead of duplicating effort.
Why is the effort of CLOSED SOURCE programmers to clone the functionality of GPLed code not worthy of consideration?
If you BSD or public domain your code, EVERYONE can benefit as they see fit.
Hrmmmm.
GPLed code takes time to write. Closed source versions of the SAME code take time to write.
Public domain/BSD code takes time to write. Closed source can take this code and add features.
LESS TOTAL time is spent writing code.
The original claim was:
If the license was free, then there would be no need to write a clone. Coders could instead work on othe, new projects instead of duplicating effort.
If the goal is to stop duplication of efforts, the BSD or public domain licence does a better job than a GPL licence.
>f the license was free, then there would be no need to write a clone. Coders could instead work on othe, new projects instead of duplicating effort.
So you then advocate a BSD or a public domain licence, as these would allow the code written to be used EVERYWHERE, thus reducing the efforts of humanity on code.
Ok, do you then agree that Linux is so close to unix that it might as just be called unix?
(As opposed to UNIX(TM))
And, if Linux =~ unix, isn't declaring that the competition is Unix and Windows NT like saying our competition is ourselves?
>Unix" is a registered trademark of (I think) the XOpen Group. That's why companies like Sun and HP call their operating systems Solaris and HP/UX, rather than "Unix"
So then there is no UNIX product?
In the press release, it states:
Progeny bases its development on the Debian version of Linux, the operating system that is the major rival to UNIX and Windows NT in the server market.
This implies that Linux isn't unix, because who puts into a press release that we are a major rival to ourselfs.
If taking the API of UNIX and copying the API, using the same set of commands, using the same compilers and other userspace applications that unix uses doesn't make you unix, then WHAT EXACTLY are you? Ashamed of your proud UNIX roots?