Open Source Windows would simply expose a million-line rat's nest of bad code to hacking;
But if the hypothetical open source settlement only allows Microsoft to enforce copyright on their Microsoft-branded distribution of Windows, then other parties are free to fix the bugs and release their own distribution. Can you imagine what the software market would be like with, e.g. GRC® Windows or eEye® XP on the shelf alongside Microsoft® Windows? The various distributions would get to compete on performance, reliability, compatibility with existing apps, etc. One can even imagine native, robust Windows ABI support on Linux or *BSD.
And to all those who are just going to say "you should carry her stuff for her" or "get a wheelchair", you can save it -- it's the principle of the thing that counts here. --
Um, no - actually the principle doesn't count anymore. Everybody says we're at war. That means the principle doesn't count, only action counts. Especially action that just sends a message, without actually doing anything that counts. Haven't you figured out how this all works yet? Come on, get with the program. There's an economy at stake here.
I got news for you: lack of Quicktime is very nearly last on the list of reasons why Windows users aren't switching to a Linux desktop.
That a lot of Linux people think it's near the top is, ironically, one of the things that is holding it back.
Here's some more news: no one will abandon Windows for Linux because of any Windows features Linux mimics, emulates or fudges. No matter how well Linux imitates it, Windows always does a better job of being Windows. Windows features on Linux are one of the few desparate strategies that might keep Linux from fading into useful BSD-like obscurity.
Being able to watch the Fellowship of the Ring trailer on Linux is great!
Why? Does it look any better than watching it on Windows? Was it easier?
Buying Crossover is a great way to support the development of Wine and get Quicktime support on Linux right now.
Why not just get Windows? Why support a software vendor that refuses to support your favorite platform? Or do you consider "it doesn't break under Wine" to be good enough?
Actually, that is not a direct link. It's a link to binary file of some kind containing a pointer to the actual movie file out on Akamai's network. If you do not have QT5Pro, it still prompts you to upgrade before downloading the file from Akamai.
I may be in violation of the DMCA for having used the notorious hacker program strings(1), but here is the Akamai link I found in the pointer file downloaded from the link above. Hope Apple doesn't sue.
$ uname -srmpi
SunOS 5.8 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-1
$ cd/usr/include
$ find . -type f -print | xargs grep -i microsoft
< lameness filter prevents posting the output of this command >
Damn lameness filter, prevents posting CODE on a GEEK SITE for gawds' sakes. What-EVER. If Slashdot allowed me to post the output, you'd be seeing a lot of files that contain Microsoft copyright notices.
The point is, Microsoft once offered Unix variant called Xenix, from which much was borrowed to create what we know today as System V Unix, or AT&T Unix. They may have borrowed BSD networking code, but then they may not have needed to. They could have borrowed AT&T's borrowed BSD code.:)
I wrote them a derisive (but not profane) note, which is as follows:
From: Me
To: safesurf@safesurf.com
Subject: Boo hoo
So, SafeSurf gets a taste of their own medicine from MAPS, and cries foul. How ironic.
SafeSurf's basically saying that it's their liberty to participate in denying liberty to others. And you're upset that MAPS seems to be denying you the liberty to do this. To me, this just seems like sauce, for the goose. You sow what you reap.
I don't like censors. I especially don't like broad censors that cause a lot of collateral damage pursuing their crusade. SafeSurf and MAPS deserve each other - they are both the same. I hope one of you sues, because the trial would be an endless source of amusement.
To my surprise, they responded later the same day:
From: safesurf@safesurf.com
To: me
Subject: Re: Boo hoo
Thank you for your comments. What MAPS did to SafeSurf is what governments can do to you without SafeSurf.
SafeSurf stands for openness and truth. We want both you, your family, and the Web site to participate in the open filtering process.
Censors and MAPS stand for secret back room decisions where neither you or the affected Web site has any say or knowledge.
SafeSurf wants you and the Web Site to know the reason for every filtering decision. MAPS and censors don't even tell you that the site is block. The only message you get is that the site is non-existent.
SafeSurf advocates instant access with a password. MAPS and censors won't let you in until they are good and ready, maybe never.
It is your right to oppose us, but we urge you to think over the alternatives. In the end you may find that you killed the "goose" that laid the golden eggs.
Sincerely,
Ray Soular
SafeSurf
OK, sounds good. I responded to Ray as follows (two days ago), but have not yet received a reply:
From: me
To: safesurf@safesurf.com
Subject: Re: Boo hoo
> Thank you for your comments. What MAPS did to SafeSurf is what
> governments can do to you without SafeSurf.
Or with SafeSurf. Many school boards (a part of government) mandate the use
SafeSurf, am I right?
>
> SafeSurf stands for openness and truth.
Excellent! May I get a copy of the list websites blocked by your currently
shipping product, so as to evaluate its effectiveness?
> We want both you, your
> family, and the Web site to participate in the open filtering process.
>
> Censors and MAPS stand for secret back room decisions where
> neither you or the affected Web site has any say or knowledge.
I agree. I will no longer include you in the same category if you will
forward to me a list of websites blocked by your product.
> SafeSurf wants you and the Web Site to know the reason for every
> filtering decision.
I am sure that once I see the list of blocked websites, I will have some
questions about the reasons some of them are listed. If this first response
of yours is any indication of what is to come, I expect that I will be
pleased with the answers.
> MAPS and censors don't even tell you that
> the site is block. The only message you get is that the site is
> non-existent.
This is not entirely true, but the technical details are unimportant to the
current discussion. I'll not argue with you about this just yet. But I
agree with you 100% that MAPS has conspired with certain ISPs to prevent some
people from reaching your website, just as your product prevents some people
from reaching still other websites.
> SafeSurf advocates instant access with a password. MAPS and
> censors won't let you in until they are good and ready, maybe never.
>
> It is your right to oppose us, but we urge you to think over the
> alternatives. In the end you may find that you killed the
> "goose" that laid the golden eggs.
I doubt it. But I expect that how you respond to my request for the list of
blocked websites will prove me right or wrong.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ray Soular
> SafeSurf
And you, thanks for responding.
Make of this what you will. I still have not seen the "open and truthful" list of websites that Safesurf's software blocks.
From the Yale document on DDNS:
Active Directory DNS entries are made in four special "zones" that go along with each active directory domain. These zones have the names _msdcs, _tcp, _udp and _sites. If you have fully dynamic name service, these zones are created for you. For example, if you have an Active Directory domain named "mydomain.com", there are zones created with the names "_msdcs.mydomain.com", "_tcp.mydomain.com", "_udp.mydomain.com", and "_sties.mydomain.com" as part of the Active Directory installation process to hold your domain's information.
You mean to tell me, that all this time, I could have been sending all those stupid Win2K machines that hammer my nameserver with SRV requests, over to Microsoft's DNS servers for some quality hammer time?
The thing that academic-style organizations that typically set standards on the Internet haven't yet learnt is that commercial organizations don't have time to wait for their deliberations. It is unreasonable to expect everyone in the industry to wait until a standards body can agree - Netscape didn't wait, did they? Remember ?
Yes, I do. <BLINK> is the perfect counter example. Because Netscape "couldn't wait", the standard began to become fractured, creating exactly the circumstance you're describing, where a web page that is written to the parts of the standard that works on all browsers is thought of as somehow "broken" or "incomplete" or "unprofessional". Even though it works perefectly.
So long as there is a common subset that works in all browsers - and there is, HTML 3.2 - then vendors should be free to add extensions. If you don't want to use them, that is fine by me, but if I want to use them on content I author, that too is my right.
It certainly is your right. It's also your right to have unprotected sex with your partner, and not inform them of the STD you're carrying. Just because you have the right to do something, does not make that something praiseworthy.
TBL:It's fair to note that no browser implements all W3C standards perfectly.
That's because the W3C standards today are nothing more than an attempt to document the stupid proprietary browser tricks invented by Netscape and Microsoft during the "browser wars". No wonder no one browser complies with the whole standard. The W3C rubber stamp means nothing anymore.
Microsoft has only themselves to blame for not being able to "guarantee a good experience".
Well fine, if they meant Good open source programs are category killers, why didn't they just say it? And why did they pick you to explain what they really meant to the rest of us? What is your connection?
Once in awhile a story comes along that warrants mention just so that people know to be careful.
I will be careful. Please keep posting more stories about chronic problem programmers, so we can avoid hiring them. I used to only be able to get this kind of info at MyCIO.com, but now Slashdot is doing it for free. Even us PHB types sneak into Slashdot every now and then, it's just like checking the weather. Everyone wants to know when the snow is coming.
The law firm I work for represents an ISP, and we had to advise our client that, yes when someone requests that you shut down a site under the provisions of the DMCA, you have to do it, otherwise the ISP will be held responsible.
That is simply incorrect, and I know this even though IANAL. Under the DMCA, the ISP customer who is alleged to be posting infringing content, gets to write a response to the charge, before any action is taken. If the ISP customer does not respond, then the ISP can take down the site to avoid contributory liability. But if the customer responds to the charge, the ISP is off the hook, and if they then take the site down, the are open to a suit from the customer for breach of contract.
I'd say the vast, vast majority of people (90 percent or more) have no idea what MAPS is, how it works, or that it does work.
I'd put you in that 90%, because in fact, MAPS RBL does not work. Perhaps 2-3 messages per week were blocked by the RBL at our site (before the ransom on the info WE GAVE TO MAPS was demanded), while thousands were blocked by the RSS (another list built on the efforts of the people who are now being asked to pay for access to the information they supplied to MAPS).
Ignoring the collateral damage for a moment, RBL is clearly the inferior BL, of all the BL that MAPS offers. Why then, is it the most expensive to subscribe to?
Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought. It may regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content.
This is on it's face, a pair of completely contradictory statements. The two goals cannot be reconciled.
The labelling is based on the content, and the regulation is based on the labelling. Therefore, the regulation IS based on the content, contrary to what is asserted in the first statement. One degree of indirection cannot hide the fact that this is censorship, if the government is mandating the labelling.
Any dictionary or thesaurus can do nothing more than describe how launguage IS used. They do not dictate how it OUGHT to be used. Mirosoft's product, therefore, is not a dictionary or a thesaurus. It is a religious or political work, and ought to be advertised as such.
If the thesaurus says that a synonym for "Western" is "aryan" or "white", and that a synonym for "Indian" is "man-eater" or "savage", that is because people actually use these words synonymously. To report a fact is not the same as to advocate any circumstances that make it factual. To criticize the publishers of dictionaries and thesauri for being politically incorrect, or for offending people, is just the same as saying that because the NYT published a photo of the WTC collapsing, they support terrorism. Clearly absurd.
Language is what we make of it, but we seem not to want to be told about the ugly parts we have made.
The problem with your argument is that there is, in fact, a monolithic "they" (Microsoft). There is no monolithic "we" to chastise for this practice. Slashdot is not responsible for looney behavior of other webmasters, even if the looneys are using Slash code. Nor am I. Nor are you. So there is no "we" that is "playing the same game".
Furthermore, MSN never looked better! Few graphics, no CSS-font-enlargment, not even a white background. It looks positively old-school, if you ask me. Unfortunately, the rest of the site is just as bloated as usual.
This does not work:
lynx http://www.msn.com/
This gets me the upgrade-your-browser page. After some more investigation, I find that the minimal User-Agent string needed to get the minimal MSN home page, is: "Mozilla/4.7". "Mozilla" alone does not work, nor does "Mozilla/4" or "Mozilla/4.1". But any string like "Mozilla/4.$x" where $x -gt 4, works fine. You can include the additional User-Agent components if you like, but they do not seem to matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Windows would simply expose a million-line rat's nest of bad code to hacking;
But if the hypothetical open source settlement only allows Microsoft to enforce copyright on their Microsoft-branded distribution of Windows, then other parties are free to fix the bugs and release their own distribution. Can you imagine what the software market would be like with, e.g. GRC® Windows or eEye® XP on the shelf alongside Microsoft® Windows? The various distributions would get to compete on performance, reliability, compatibility with existing apps, etc. One can even imagine native, robust Windows ABI support on Linux or *BSD.
That doesn't sound too bad to me.
And to all those who are just going to say "you should carry her stuff for her" or "get a wheelchair", you can save it -- it's the principle of the thing that counts here. --
Um, no - actually the principle doesn't count anymore. Everybody says we're at war. That means the principle doesn't count, only action counts. Especially action that just sends a message, without actually doing anything that counts. Haven't you figured out how this all works yet? Come on, get with the program. There's an economy at stake here.
I got news for you: lack of Quicktime is very nearly last on the list of reasons why Windows users aren't switching to a Linux desktop.
That a lot of Linux people think it's near the top is, ironically, one of the things that is holding it back.
Here's some more news: no one will abandon Windows for Linux because of any Windows features Linux mimics, emulates or fudges. No matter how well Linux imitates it, Windows always does a better job of being Windows. Windows features on Linux are one of the few desparate strategies that might keep Linux from fading into useful BSD-like obscurity.
Being able to watch the Fellowship of the Ring trailer on Linux is great!
Why? Does it look any better than watching it on Windows? Was it easier?
Buying Crossover is a great way to support the development of Wine and get Quicktime support on Linux right now.
Why not just get Windows? Why support a software vendor that refuses to support your favorite platform? Or do you consider "it doesn't break under Wine" to be good enough?
Actually, that is not a direct link. It's a link to binary file of some kind containing a pointer to the actual movie file out on Akamai's network. If you do not have QT5Pro, it still prompts you to upgrade before downloading the file from Akamai.
I may be in violation of the DMCA for having used the notorious hacker program strings(1), but here is the Akamai link I found in the pointer file downloaded from the link above. Hope Apple doesn't sue.
$ uname -srmpi
SunOS 5.8 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-1
$ cd
$ find . -type f -print | xargs grep -i microsoft
< lameness filter prevents posting the output of this command >
Damn lameness filter, prevents posting CODE on a GEEK SITE for gawds' sakes. What-EVER. If Slashdot allowed me to post the output, you'd be seeing a lot of files that contain Microsoft copyright notices.
The point is, Microsoft once offered Unix variant called Xenix, from which much was borrowed to create what we know today as System V Unix, or AT&T Unix. They may have borrowed BSD networking code, but then they may not have needed to. They could have borrowed AT&T's borrowed BSD code.
Surely you are not so lazy that you can't use an ordinary Fast-forward button, and let-go at the end of the adverts (TIVO style) ???
A few presses of buttons in an undocumented sequence, and TiVo does the same thing - one button commercial skip.
Replay just made the feature public. There is otherwise, no difference.
Second, the violation, in this case, is not harming a child, it's not rating information that could harm a child.
Could you give me one example where information has harmed anyone at all, child or not? Just one...
To my surprise, they responded later the same day:
OK, sounds good. I responded to Ray as follows (two days ago), but have not yet received a reply:
Make of this what you will. I still have not seen the "open and truthful" list of websites that Safesurf's software blocks.
From the Yale document on DDNS:
Active Directory DNS entries are made in four special "zones" that go along with each active directory domain. These zones have the names _msdcs, _tcp, _udp and _sites. If you have fully dynamic name service, these zones are created for you. For example, if you have an Active Directory domain named "mydomain.com", there are zones created with the names "_msdcs.mydomain.com", "_tcp.mydomain.com", "_udp.mydomain.com", and "_sties.mydomain.com" as part of the Active Directory installation process to hold your domain's information.
You mean to tell me, that all this time, I could have been sending all those stupid Win2K machines that hammer my nameserver with SRV requests, over to Microsoft's DNS servers for some quality hammer time?
OH JOY!
The tech needs to get the call over as quickly as possible, and preferably in one call.
Of course. Tech support has nothing to do with solving customer problems, it's all about racking up entries in the call log.
That's incredibly difficult with *nix.
Bullshit. You're just a lame tech support know-nothing.
We gave the country away to John Ashcroft, might as well give the TLD away to NeuLevel.
WTF?! Parent was supposed to go to another story....
We gave the country away to John Ashcroft, might as well give the TLD away to NeuLevel.
The thing that academic-style organizations that typically set standards on the Internet haven't yet learnt is that commercial organizations don't have time to wait for their deliberations. It is unreasonable to expect everyone in the industry to wait until a standards body can agree - Netscape didn't wait, did they? Remember ?
Yes, I do. <BLINK> is the perfect counter example. Because Netscape "couldn't wait", the standard began to become fractured, creating exactly the circumstance you're describing, where a web page that is written to the parts of the standard that works on all browsers is thought of as somehow "broken" or "incomplete" or "unprofessional". Even though it works perefectly.
So long as there is a common subset that works in all browsers - and there is, HTML 3.2 - then vendors should be free to add extensions. If you don't want to use them, that is fine by me, but if I want to use them on content I author, that too is my right.
It certainly is your right. It's also your right to have unprotected sex with your partner, and not inform them of the STD you're carrying. Just because you have the right to do something, does not make that something praiseworthy.
TBL: It's fair to note that no browser implements all W3C standards perfectly.
That's because the W3C standards today are nothing more than an attempt to document the stupid proprietary browser tricks invented by Netscape and Microsoft during the "browser wars". No wonder no one browser complies with the whole standard. The W3C rubber stamp means nothing anymore.
Microsoft has only themselves to blame for not being able to "guarantee a good experience".
Well fine, if they meant Good open source programs are category killers , why didn't they just say it? And why did they pick you to explain what they really meant to the rest of us? What is your connection?
But can you quantify the amount you saved, even approximately?
Once in awhile a story comes along that warrants mention just so that people know to be careful.
I will be careful. Please keep posting more stories about chronic problem programmers, so we can avoid hiring them. I used to only be able to get this kind of info at MyCIO.com, but now Slashdot is doing it for free. Even us PHB types sneak into Slashdot every now and then, it's just like checking the weather. Everyone wants to know when the snow is coming.
The law firm I work for represents an ISP, and we had to advise our client that, yes when someone requests that you shut down a site under the provisions of the DMCA, you have to do it, otherwise the ISP will be held responsible.
That is simply incorrect, and I know this even though IANAL. Under the DMCA, the ISP customer who is alleged to be posting infringing content, gets to write a response to the charge, before any action is taken. If the ISP customer does not respond, then the ISP can take down the site to avoid contributory liability. But if the customer responds to the charge, the ISP is off the hook, and if they then take the site down, the are open to a suit from the customer for breach of contract.
I'd say the vast, vast majority of people (90 percent or more) have no idea what MAPS is, how it works, or that it does work.
I'd put you in that 90%, because in fact, MAPS RBL does not work. Perhaps 2-3 messages per week were blocked by the RBL at our site (before the ransom on the info WE GAVE TO MAPS was demanded), while thousands were blocked by the RSS (another list built on the efforts of the people who are now being asked to pay for access to the information they supplied to MAPS).
Ignoring the collateral damage for a moment, RBL is clearly the inferior BL, of all the BL that MAPS offers. Why then, is it the most expensive to subscribe to?
Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought. It may regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content.
This is on it's face, a pair of completely contradictory statements. The two goals cannot be reconciled.
The labelling is based on the content, and the regulation is based on the labelling. Therefore, the regulation IS based on the content, contrary to what is asserted in the first statement. One degree of indirection cannot hide the fact that this is censorship, if the government is mandating the labelling.
Any dictionary or thesaurus can do nothing more than describe how launguage IS used. They do not dictate how it OUGHT to be used. Mirosoft's product, therefore, is not a dictionary or a thesaurus. It is a religious or political work, and ought to be advertised as such.
If the thesaurus says that a synonym for "Western" is "aryan" or "white", and that a synonym for "Indian" is "man-eater" or "savage", that is because people actually use these words synonymously. To report a fact is not the same as to advocate any circumstances that make it factual. To criticize the publishers of dictionaries and thesauri for being politically incorrect, or for offending people, is just the same as saying that because the NYT published a photo of the WTC collapsing, they support terrorism. Clearly absurd.
Language is what we make of it, but we seem not to want to be told about the ugly parts we have made.
The problem with your argument is that there is, in fact, a monolithic "they" (Microsoft). There is no monolithic "we" to chastise for this practice. Slashdot is not responsible for looney behavior of other webmasters, even if the looneys are using Slash code. Nor am I. Nor are you. So there is no "we" that is "playing the same game".
lynx -useragent="Mozilla/4.7 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.8 sun4u)" http://www.msn.com/
Furthermore, MSN never looked better! Few graphics, no CSS-font-enlargment, not even a white background. It looks positively old-school, if you ask me. Unfortunately, the rest of the site is just as bloated as usual.
This does not work:
lynx http://www.msn.com/
This gets me the upgrade-your-browser page. After some more investigation, I find that the minimal User-Agent string needed to get the minimal MSN home page, is: "Mozilla/4.7". "Mozilla" alone does not work, nor does "Mozilla/4" or "Mozilla/4.1". But any string like "Mozilla/4.$x" where $x -gt 4, works fine. You can include the additional User-Agent components if you like, but they do not seem to matter.