My previous company asked me for a quick firewall
solution for their intranet to access the
internet. So I dug up a 486 dx 33 w/340 meg
hard drive to serve the purpose. It was plenty
fast enough to saturate our T1 connection with
200-400 users on the internet at one time.
If you get a heavily hit website, that might be
a different story. But if all it does is route
and masquerade, it will be enough to do the job.
-- Twivel Microsoft Humor
The new games are fun, but I can still sit down and play galaga under xmame for hours. In fact, last night I beat my highest score in galaga. Anyone selling a full standup version of galaga? -- Twivel twivelslothmud.org
I doubt it would be so easy to strip the ads, I'm sure it wouldn't be an add that started, stopped, then the music began. It will probably be more like an ad that overlaps the early or ending parts of the song itself.
Not so easy to strip, also sort of "marks" the music as a "demo copy" legally distributed by the RIAA. This way if you want the full unedited version, you'd still have to buy the CD.
I looked at their website about four months before the event was to happen.
First of all, very little advertising went into this event.
Secondly, when I finally heard about it (only when searching for linux events on yahoo) I looked at the site and saw how badly prepared they were for the event.
Honestly, four months before the event, they were seemed to be still taking presenters. They didn't mention keynote presenters or anything.
I opted to save my training time and money for something that I thought would be better organized.
Even during the event, I heard of several technical problems - like during Eric Raymond's speech.
There is plenty of Linux support in Kansas City, we just need an event that is correctly managed.
Unfortunately, because of the showing of this event, it may be hard to organize another one and get vendor attention!
No matter what, if you connect to someone offering something for download, they must get your IP address.
The only way to ensure privacy on the internet is to use an open proxy, anonymous redirector, or some other mechanism to avoid detection.
Then, you must trust that the proxy or redirector is not logging connections. If there are logs, a court order can get to them!
That only protects downloaders, not distributors. Distributors are the ones the most at risk in any situation.
You cannot write anonymous software that uses protocols that are not anonymous - without some relaying, redirecting, or proxying in between the source and destination.
Even though I only use linux myself, There is no reason for apple to move to Linux. The BSD operating system is an excellent choice as an operating system. It also comes with a much more business friendly license.
Unfortunately, with the market share Windows has, we have no choice but try to be interoperable with the garbage they throw out.
The reason linux must be tweaked/twisted/etc is because of the protocol hoops microsoft makes us jump through in order to do exactly what you're talking about (make a Linux Directory Services that interoperate with other vendors).
Jon, While I agree with some of the posts placed on slashdot regarding the lawsuits over media distribution over the internet, I disagree with the idea that this is a "privacy" violation on the part of Metallica. If this is privacy related, it is a problem with the way Napster operates. Napster provides the link between "Login" and "Users". Napster also provides usernames to anyone who searches. If this is a privacy violation, you should talk to napster about it, not metallica. Secondly, each user *chooses* to place the mp3's on his hard drive "in the public view". Metallica is merely searching through *public* information, Metallica is not viewing *private* information on the computers hard disks. While you have had some decent points in the past, I don't think you've hit the nine inch nail on the head this time. -- Twivel
I can't stand SPAM myself. I'm the first to admit that spam is a problem, but I question the request for legislation to prevent it. Regulation of internet email is a first step off the deep end to serious problems, even if you just think you're focusing on spam. We are a group of individuals that are vehemently against regulation of the internet. Even though in this case, regulation might seem positive, it could have some serious side-affects as well just depending on how the law is written.
I am the first to say, I can't stand spam email. I'm the first to report them to their original source domain and try to get them shut down. But I must say, it ends at that. The more the government gets involved in what email can and can't be sent, the worse off we are. We are a group of individuals who typically opposes laws that threaten to take away rights. We need to decide if what we want is a regulated or non-regulated internet. We can't straddle the fence and have it both ways.
I think what excited everyone and got so much attention to NetPliance was initially the Something for Nothing deal. To an extent, it seems like that sentiment still exists and is driving posts by people here, who quote prices in the 300.00 range.
You're a company, you've got to make a profit. You can't waste resources at the company selling these products at hardware cost. Thats a losing venture and I don't think anyone here would argue with you on that.
I honestly have no idea what these things cost to produce, but at this point you almost have no choice but to go the route of normal ISP's. You probably can't afford to keep, organize and produce two models of your netpliance unit.
Pick a price, sell the unit for retail with a rebate if you sign up for service and leave the IDE slot on the mainboard. Sell upgrade parts, at decent markup as well, to turn them into linux computers. Even sell pre-installed Linux Devices. Have them pre-configured to use your ISP, or include notes on how to make them do that. The linux community is thrilled with choices, give us the option to use your ISP and we might actually take it. Either way, you made a profit on the selling of the computer anyway.
And I'm sure your thinking... "What If I had just never put that IDE slot on the original I-Opener." Well, for one, you sure wouldn't have got the publicity you've got so far, albeit some is negative. Now, you stand to gain something from all of the publicity if you handle the situation correctly, even the negative publicity.
Hey, look. He's calling for another Boston Tea Party. Unfortunately, we need to deal with this in a legal fashion.
While back in the time of the Boston Tea party, it was their only way to get attention. They had absolutely no voice(vote) or legal method to resist. Fortunately there are plenty of legal methods for us to respond to them.
First of all, if their violations of fair use laws are really considered illegal, not just "you could argue they are illegal", than they should be taken to court over it.
Secondly, we need to enlighten the people. The internet is a powerful medium for informing people of issues. We should make use of it to do so.
I've read a few replies, many say that vmware is now dead because they have signed a contract with microsoft. Or that 'Microsoft' was controlling factor of this decision. Come on, folks. Microsoft is just selling a few more copies of windows to another OEM.
Microsoft had nothing to do with infiltrating our linux desktops. Microsoft is not "pushing" vmware to license their product.
Vmware wants to provide yet another service to their customers. Thats all. Just like DELL, GW2k, Micron, etc.
Just as DELL recently decided to sell multiple operating systems with their physical computers, VMware wants to do the same with their "virtual" computers. They already provide us with a free "ready to run" linux OS. They wanted to be able to sell windows as well.
I am very concerned that not only will the net be changed, but most of electronics and media will be as well. The DVD case is not the heart of the issue here, the issue is our freedom. Think about it from another perspective. If the MPAA had provided a *good* encryption algorithm, would we today even be worried about fair use? No! The problem is not necessarily with the reaction, it is with the public blindly accepting new technology without first considering the impact it has on their fair use rights. DVD's were on the path to domination, Their superior quality, features, multimedia and clarity was enticing enough for the MPAA to get us to forget about our fiar use rights. As consumers, we need to think more about the way we spend our money up front. We need to understand what we gain from purchasing products, as well as what we are losing. If we had known about our loss of fair use before this incident happened, then voted with our money, the DVD format would have been a bust and we would not be where we are today. We screwed ourselves, long before we were screwed by the MPAA lawsuits. -- Twivel
The GPL is stricter than the BSD License. The BSD License lets you do anything you want. The GPL is almost anti-commercial and definitely makes it hard on proprietary software coexisting with non-proprietary software. The GPL forces your product to remain open and restricts what you can do with it, reducing a companies flexibility in the future. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about any of this... just stating the facts. They aren't "bad" or "good", but they come into play when a company deciedes whether they should use one or the other.
I've seen at least 5 examples of E-Commerce sites running Windows NT/IIS that were hacked and had their credit card databases stolen. These were just the published examples too. Thats enough to deter me from using anything "E" running on a Microsoft server. It's not hypocrisy, it's paranoia. Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but I like my information and credit cards to be secure.
Say I write a program called widgets.c and release it under the GPL.
Someone else can release a widgets.c.patch and distribute it under the BSD licenses.
BUT! They must be distributed seperately. A user can download both widgets.c and widgets.c.patch, then combine them for his/her uses. But no-one can combine them and then REDISTRIBUTE them.
The GPL mostly covers distributing code, not using it.
This is important to note, because a "company" is considered by law to be the same as an indivitual (or end user). Microsoft could take Linux, modify it to their hearts desire, and use it internally without releasing their code changes. Richard Stallman has affirmed this and said it is not a concern.
Read it carefully, you do not have to give the FSF those rights. If you release a program, you can release it under any license. All you have to do is say: "I release this code under GPL v2" and you are not giving the FSF any rights to change your program.
Yes, patches are covered by copyrights. It is "software" and all software, no matter how small, is automatically copyrighted by it's author per the US Copyright Act.
This post was off-topic. He was asking about contributions to something released under a particular license (the GPL). Not what the original auther can do with the program.
If someone contributs to your product, it creates a derivative work including both yours and his code. Now he is a co-author. If your program was released under the GPL, his contribution back to you (unless otherwise stated) is also under the GPL. This means that you, the original author, cannot release the derivative work under a different license without all contributors permission. (e.g. the contributor must give you the right to release his code under a different license).
Slashdot Mirror
The world will now be a better place... I bet
this will have a direct impact on the number
of mass murderers produced by our culture.
~
Twivel
My previous company asked me for a quick firewall solution for their intranet to access the internet. So I dug up a 486 dx 33 w/340 meg hard drive to serve the purpose. It was plenty fast enough to saturate our T1 connection with 200-400 users on the internet at one time. If you get a heavily hit website, that might be a different story. But if all it does is route and masquerade, it will be enough to do the job.
--
Twivel
Microsoft Humor
The new games are fun, but I can still sit down and play galaga under xmame for hours. In fact, last night I beat my highest score in galaga. Anyone selling a full standup version of galaga? -- Twivel twivelslothmud.org
Not so easy to strip, also sort of "marks" the music as a "demo copy" legally distributed by the RIAA. This way if you want the full unedited version, you'd still have to buy the CD.
--
Twivel
Seriously though, we've already done it once with
divx, why can't we do it again with this new crap.
Come on, folks. Do you honestly think the RIAA
can make money if you don't buy their crap?
The same reason Divx died is the same reason we
can make any new copyright protection mechanism
fail. Continue to buy unencrypted compact disc's.
Refuse to buy anything else.
Power to the people, vote with your money.
~
Twivel
I looked at their website about four months
before the event was to happen.
First of all, very little advertising went
into this event.
Secondly, when I finally heard about it (only
when searching for linux events on yahoo) I
looked at the site and saw how badly prepared
they were for the event.
Honestly, four months before the event, they were
seemed to be still taking presenters. They didn't
mention keynote presenters or anything.
I opted to save my training time and money for
something that I thought would be better organized.
Even during the event, I heard of several technical problems - like during Eric Raymond's
speech.
There is plenty of Linux support in Kansas City,
we just need an event that is correctly managed.
Unfortunately, because of the showing of this
event, it may be hard to organize another one and
get vendor attention!
Ahh, such is life,
-Twivel
No matter what, if you connect to someone offering
something for download, they must get your IP
address.
The only way to ensure privacy on the internet
is to use an open proxy, anonymous redirector, or
some other mechanism to avoid detection.
Then, you must trust that the proxy or redirector
is not logging connections. If there are logs,
a court order can get to them!
That only protects downloaders, not distributors.
Distributors are the ones the most at risk in
any situation.
You cannot write anonymous software that uses
protocols that are not anonymous - without some
relaying, redirecting, or proxying in between the
source and destination.
--
Twivel
Even though I only use linux myself, There
is no reason for apple to move to Linux. The BSD
operating system is an excellent choice as an
operating system. It also comes with a much more
business friendly license.
--Twivel
Unfortunately, with the market share Windows has,
we have no choice but try to be interoperable
with the garbage they throw out.
The reason linux must be tweaked/twisted/etc is
because of the protocol hoops microsoft makes
us jump through in order to do exactly what you're
talking about (make a Linux Directory Services
that interoperate with other vendors).
--Twivel
Jon, While I agree with some of the posts placed on slashdot regarding the lawsuits over media distribution over the internet, I disagree with the idea that this is a "privacy" violation on the part of Metallica. If this is privacy related, it is a problem with the way Napster operates. Napster provides the link between "Login" and "Users". Napster also provides usernames to anyone who searches. If this is a privacy violation, you should talk to napster about it, not metallica. Secondly, each user *chooses* to place the mp3's on his hard drive "in the public view". Metallica is merely searching through *public* information, Metallica is not viewing *private* information on the computers hard disks. While you have had some decent points in the past, I don't think you've hit the nine inch nail on the head this time. -- Twivel
So when is someone going to bring out the good ole hex editor and extract the PDF without running the program?
I can't stand SPAM myself. I'm the first to admit that spam is a problem, but I question the request for legislation to prevent it. Regulation of internet email is a first step off the deep end to serious problems, even if you just think you're focusing on spam. We are a group of individuals that are vehemently against regulation of the internet. Even though in this case, regulation might seem positive, it could have some serious side-affects as well just depending on how the law is written.
I am the first to say, I can't stand spam email. I'm the first to report them to their original source domain and try to get them shut down. But I must say, it ends at that. The more the government gets involved in what email can and can't be sent, the worse off we are. We are a group of individuals who typically opposes laws that threaten to take away rights. We need to decide if what we want is a regulated or non-regulated internet. We can't straddle the fence and have it both ways.
You're a company, you've got to make a profit. You can't waste resources at the company selling these products at hardware cost. Thats a losing venture and I don't think anyone here would argue with you on that.
I honestly have no idea what these things cost to produce, but at this point you almost have no choice but to go the route of normal ISP's. You probably can't afford to keep, organize and produce two models of your netpliance unit.
Pick a price, sell the unit for retail with a rebate if you sign up for service and leave the IDE slot on the mainboard. Sell upgrade parts, at decent markup as well, to turn them into linux computers. Even sell pre-installed Linux Devices. Have them pre-configured to use your ISP, or include notes on how to make them do that. The linux community is thrilled with choices, give us the option to use your ISP and we might actually take it. Either way, you made a profit on the selling of the computer anyway.
And I'm sure your thinking... "What If I had just never put that IDE slot on the original I-Opener." Well, for one, you sure wouldn't have got the publicity you've got so far, albeit some is negative. Now, you stand to gain something from all of the publicity if you handle the situation correctly, even the negative publicity.
--
Twivel
While back in the time of the Boston Tea party, it was their only way to get attention. They had absolutely no voice(vote) or legal method to resist. Fortunately there are plenty of legal methods for us to respond to them.
First of all, if their violations of fair use laws are really considered illegal, not just "you could argue they are illegal", than they should be taken to court over it.
Secondly, we need to enlighten the people. The internet is a powerful medium for informing people of issues. We should make use of it to do so.
--
Twivel
Microsoft had nothing to do with infiltrating our linux desktops. Microsoft is not "pushing" vmware to license their product.
Vmware wants to provide yet another service to their customers. Thats all. Just like DELL, GW2k, Micron, etc.
Just as DELL recently decided to sell multiple operating systems with their physical computers, VMware wants to do the same with their "virtual" computers. They already provide us with a free "ready to run" linux OS. They wanted to be able to sell windows as well.
--
Twivel
We need a legal method to get the word out. Sites like this, create .signatures that spread the word to your non-technical friends, etc.
We will lose if we buy things that are designed to take away our fair use rights. Encrypted DVD's should have never got off the ground.
See my other post titled "The Lawsuits are NOT the issue".
Here it is
I am very concerned that not only will the net be changed, but most of electronics and media will be as well. The DVD case is not the heart of the issue here, the issue is our freedom. Think about it from another perspective. If the MPAA had provided a *good* encryption algorithm, would we today even be worried about fair use? No! The problem is not necessarily with the reaction, it is with the public blindly accepting new technology without first considering the impact it has on their fair use rights. DVD's were on the path to domination, Their superior quality, features, multimedia and clarity was enticing enough for the MPAA to get us to forget about our fiar use rights. As consumers, we need to think more about the way we spend our money up front. We need to understand what we gain from purchasing products, as well as what we are losing. If we had known about our loss of fair use before this incident happened, then voted with our money, the DVD format would have been a bust and we would not be where we are today. We screwed ourselves, long before we were screwed by the MPAA lawsuits. -- Twivel
The GPL is stricter than the BSD License. The BSD License lets you do anything you want. The GPL is almost anti-commercial and definitely makes it hard on proprietary software coexisting with non-proprietary software. The GPL forces your product to remain open and restricts what you can do with it, reducing a companies flexibility in the future. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about any of this... just stating the facts. They aren't "bad" or "good", but they come into play when a company deciedes whether they should use one or the other.
I've seen at least 5 examples of E-Commerce sites running Windows NT/IIS that were hacked and had their credit card databases stolen. These were just the published examples too. Thats enough to deter me from using anything "E" running on a Microsoft server. It's not hypocrisy, it's paranoia. Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but I like my information and credit cards to be secure.
Say I write a program called widgets.c and release it under the GPL.
Someone else can release a widgets.c.patch and distribute it under the BSD licenses.
BUT! They must be distributed seperately. A user can download both widgets.c and widgets.c.patch, then combine them for his/her uses. But no-one can combine them and then REDISTRIBUTE them.
The GPL mostly covers distributing code, not using it.
This is important to note, because a "company" is considered by law to be the same as an indivitual (or end user). Microsoft could take Linux, modify it to their hearts desire, and use it internally without releasing their code changes. Richard Stallman has affirmed this and said it is not a concern.
-- Twivel
-- Twivel
-- Twivel
If someone contributs to your product, it creates a derivative work including both yours and his code. Now he is a co-author. If your program was released under the GPL, his contribution back to you (unless otherwise stated) is also under the GPL. This means that you, the original author, cannot release the derivative work under a different license without all contributors permission. (e.g. the contributor must give you the right to release his code under a different license).
--twivel