and there are no "automatic" tools to sweep it clean
meh...not sure I entirely agree with you here, although I will concede that many Linux users don't know what tools are available and even less use those that are available on a regular basis.
Tools that I use regularly to keep tabs on my boxen:
1) http://www.chkrootkit.org/chkrootkit: can be run from cron to look for suspicious files and rootkit signatures;
2) netstat -ep: to show what processes are using network connections;
3) lsof: to show what files on your system are open, who opened them and with what process they were opened;
4) http://www.tripwire.com/Tripwire or http://www.gecko-ak.org/Sentinel/my own, open-source, much less functional, still really in development Tripwire-like file system auditor: to check for changes in binaries, config files or anything else on your file system that you would like to keep tabs on;
5) http://www.insecure.org/nmap: to remotely scan computers on your network for open ports, and to audit the services using these open ports;
6) http://www.nessus.org/nessus: like nmap, only different;
7) tcpdump/ethereal/wireshark: to monitor packets in or out of your computer;
8) http://www.snort.org/snort: okay, I haven't (yet) used this one, but it's the open-source standard for IDS;
9) http://www.bitdefender.com/bit defender: anti-virus for Linux--we had to use this once at work to remove a Windows virus that had infected our Samba shares (note: the Samba server wasn't infected, but the Windows machines that were mounting shares from the Samba server were--and they kept rewriting infected Windows executables to the server).
So, no most of these aren't automatic, and most of these won't clean your Linux PC's, but there are a host of tools that you can use to detect problems on your Linux computers. And, if you're really paranoid, there are several vendors that provide anti-virus software, just like what you find on your Windows machines.
I don't know where this insane notion came from that the U.S. is capable of governing the Internet any better than the world community at large.
Uhh.....because *we* built it?
In the manufacturing industries that you cite, those companies didn't start using our products, then demand that we release control of the manufacturing facilities to them--they built their own factories and went head-to-head with us. If they produced chips or cell phones or automobiles or videogames more efficiently than us, then they took market share and bought the U.S. companies...if they still wanted them:)
So, if other countries can manage large, interconnected networks better than us, then they should build their own networks and management infrastructure. If they are indeed better, then networks will migrate to their infrastructure, and the U.S. will lose control of management because someone else is proving that they can manage the Internet better.
Maybe they could even build the new, improved network based upon IPV6, and eliminate a lot of the problems and work-arounds that the U.S.-managed Internet has today......
So run DC instead of AC. Most telco equipment runs on -48VDC. So, if you build your data center like a telco builds its central office, then you have servers and network gear running DC with a large battery plant to handle sags and blips as a redundant generator drops on/off-line. Now, configure your generators to put -48VDC directly into your data center instead of 120VAC at 50/60Hz (don't know about availability of -48VDC generators, though...).
Poof! No more phase or frequency issues to worry about, and you have redundancy by having more generators than are required to handle the electical load.
This article is especially funny in light of the fact that I was wearing my O'Really "Snooping E-mail for Fun and Profit" t-shirt yesterday (yes, to work).
1) Use deep freeze. It will lock down the machines so that users cannot write anything to disk, which eliminates problems with changing settings, installing games/spyware/virii/whatever.
2) Remove the O/S from the hard drives and boot Knoppix from CD instead. Accomplishes the same thing as option 1, but in a different way, while still allowing users to write data to the hard drive.
However, swillden was also right to state that there *is* a sensible, non-homophobic reason why Boy Scouts shy away from homosexual scoutmasters. When was the last time you saw a *male* hetero scout master taking a group of Girl Scouts camping?
The next generation is *really* in trouble...
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 1
I once read that pain is the sign of stupidity leaving your body. If this is true, then considering the (stupid) laws being passed by my generation, and considering how my generation is coddling their children, I'm really afraid of how the next generation is going to turn out
I hate DRM as much as anyone else on/. -- the Sony rootkit fiasco is a great example why DRM is a (tm) BAD IDEA -- but, I think you are missing the point.
Whether or not P2P affects profits, whether or not file sharing takes money from the people who created the content or invested in making the content available, the people who create a given work of art have the sole right to determine how, when, where and for how much $$$ the content will be distributed. Ripping a CD, DVD or whatever to a digital format and offering it for upload to others in violation of the licensing is not your prerogative. If you don't like the licensing agreement, if you think it is overpriced, if you think the corporations are greedy, slimy weasels, then DON'T BUY the product. But you don't have the right to file-share it, unless the producer of the content grants you the right.
Having said that, as an amateur musician, I would prefer that my content *was* shared--as was posted earlier in this thread, most of the money that goes to artists and the corporations that fund them doesn't come from record sales; it comes from concerts and merchandise sales. Furthermore, having someone with a lot of "friends" post my music or videos (okay, I haven't made any videos, but if I had...) on YouTube would probably be better advertising than anything I could ever pay for, anyway.
Human knowledge, as a whole, grows much more rapidly when our society encourages learning and exploration. Why did Robert Goddard need to launch his rockets? Why did Ben Franklin or Thomas Edison need to be playing with all that dangerous electricity? Why did Wilbur and Orville need to try to build something as silly and frivolous as a heavier-than-air, powered flying machine? But can you imaging living in a world where they hadn't? It is, to some degree, human nature to fear and disapprove of things we don't enjoy and don't understand, but the truth is that the quest for knowledge is a great and noble thing.
You are right, to a degree, that "if the hobbyist can do it, so can a terrorist" but name a single invention or scientific breakthrough that someone hasn't found a way to corrupt for evil purposes. Does that mean we should immediately cease all innovation? Should we put an end to the study of science because we might learn something that might one day end in the loss of someone's life? What if that same breakthrough could save hundreds of lives in a peaceful application?
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with your conclusion. I think following your logic to its conclusion is a dead-end solution.
To some extent, the freedoms that most Western countries (at least the U.S.--I have limited experience in other Western countries) have enjoyed for so long have become our own worst enemy, in a sense.
Because most of us in the U.S. have not had to fear our own government, we have adopted the mindset that our government *wouldn't* do the kinds of things that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Therefore, we don't care if Bush wiretaps in violation of the 4th amendment and FISA, if the Patriot Act eliminates many of the safeguards that prevent abuse of power, etc. After all, it's only going to be used to Protect Us Against the Terrorists (tm) or For The Children (tm), right?
Unfortunately, history proves otherwise...but most of us apparently slept through history class:/
Instead they demonstrated an admirable restraint and intelligence, in a situation where both the Judge and Spamhaus have failed to do the same.
The judge, I can see, but Spamhaus? How do you figure? Their position is that since they neither live nor operate in Illinois, or anywhere else in the U.S. for that matter, then spending money to fight this legal battle is pointless and stupid. Remember, Spamhaus is largely a volunteer effort. Who do you think has more money for lawyers--an alleged spam outfit or a volunteer organization trying to perform what is essentially a public service?
On the contrary, I think Spamhaus is showing a great deal of intelligence and restraint.
Nuts. I was agreeing with you until you finished quoting Ghostbusters
Now, Spamhaus might be violating rules
Whose rules is Spamhaus violating? The rules set by the State of Illinois? So freaking what? IIRC, spamhaus is based in England. If I were in Saudi Arabia, I could be sentenced to death because of my religious beliefs, but guess what--I'm not in Saudi Arabia, so I couldn't care less! Why is this any different? Spamhaus does not have a physical presence in Illinois, nor, for that matter, anywhere else in the United States, so why should they have to follow some stupid law that a non-technical, idiot politician in another country wrote?
I think that Spamhaus should have to present proof that e360insight is an illegitimate spamming business [spamhaus.org].
Again, I ask "why?"
Spamhaus doesn't block spam--they provide a database of IP addresses that mail server administrators can use at their own discretion to block suspected spam sources. So, if Spamhaus isn't blocking e360insight's mail servers (they aren't), then why should they have to "prove" that e360insight is a spammer? As I understand, Spamhaus essentially has a network of honeypot e-mail addresses. Anything hitting these addresses is, by definition, unsolicited, and therefore spam.
As far as accountability...well, if you are a mail server administrator, you decide to start using Spamhaus' database to make decisions about from whom you will accept e-mails, and you find that the amount of spam hitting your inbox has dropped by a factor of four, how much more accountability do you need? You always have the option of hard-coding an Allow rule into your mail server config files, if you find that you are missing e-mails from what you perceive to be legitimate sources.
The State of Illinois needs a reality check. They wrote a "Super DMCA" law a few years ago that essentially hamstrings IT security professionals (see http://www.hackbusters.net/ for more details), and this is just another example of poor legislation victimizing the innocent.
Point taken--when you set up a new Windows machine, take the security steps necessary to protect it before you put it on-line.
Now, for the average Joe User who doesn't know what a hardware firewall is or why he needs one, how do take these steps before your shiny, new PC is compromised?
From the summary:
The machine was attacked within seconds of being connected to the Internet...
How long does it take to go to Windows Update, download and install patches? IME, a lot longer than it does to get attacked, which creates a chicken-and-egg problem: you can't put your Windows computer on-line until it's secured, but you can't secure it until you put it on-line.
More than likely, you are right--even if you get a little guy who represents your interests in office, not much will change because there is to much inertia with the status quo.
But note that I said "And if enough people are upset enough to vote for the little guy..." If enough people in your state, and in my state and in the states of all the people who are reading this thread vote for the little guy, then all bets are off.
You don't even have to have enough little guys in office to get their way--just enough to shake the confidence and arrogance of the big players and get their attention.
One thing is for certain though: if we keep voting the way we have been lately, things will surely get worse before they get better.
Vote for the little guy in the next election. I intend to, anyway. And if enough people are upset enough to vote for the little guy instead of the Dem/Rep candidate, then yes, there is something that can be done.
As I work for a company that deals with Volume licensing exclusively, as #1 said, this is not going to go over well.
I can see it now, you purchase the license, have to go here, have to activate it here, then install and activate it. But the vendor hasn't updated MS yet, so it doesn't show your agreement, then the install reports your install isn't legit and knocks you out.. GREAT.. Nice especially if you have to reinstall to get a critical server back up, etc.
I stand by my original assertion: Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot in its attempt to curtail piracy, and will only annoy its legitimate users--not, generally speaking, a good business tactic.
Say you are a home user with maybe two or three computers that you want to upgrade to Vista. Okay, you either do an Internet registration or you spend a few minutes on the phone with Microsoft activating your new O/S. No problem. Even if you have to reactivate a few times when you swap out components due to upgrades, failures, what-have-you, it's still not *that* much of a PITA.
Now, you are working desktop support for a small corporation with ~100 desktops. You are upgrading to Vista, you have a volume license for the O/S and you basically build an image for each type of desktop you have, then load the image on each individual desktop. Now, you have to walk through the activation process *100 times* to roll out the new O/S. And, every time someone in that company has a hard drive fail, or someone on the network picks up a virus that corrupts executables on their computer, or <insert reason to re-image here> you have to call M$ and reactivate again. THAT is a PITA.
Now, you work for a very large company with 5,000 desktops. How many man-hours is that company going to waste on product activation now???
IMHO, if Microsoft wants to drive their legitimate business to alternative operating systems, they are going about it the right way. I decided not to *ever* buy another MS operating system after Win2K when they launched the consumer product activation requirement in XP (and I've been quite happy with Slackware or Gentoo since). I expect more corporations will make the same choice now that Vista will be doing the same thing to volume customers.
Granted, "fix memory leak" still contains the spirit of "fix me", however:)
Re:QoS not needed or wanted on the Internet
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
Your proposal would work in an ideal world, but unfortunately, the real world != the ideal world.
If ISP's didn't oversell bandwidth, you and I couldn't afford broadband connections. At the ISP where I currently work, we have maybe 5000 customers (we provide service to rural Alaska). 5000*500Kb/sec (a small pipe, by current standards) = 2,500,000,000 bits/sec = 2.5Gb/sec. Okay, that doesn't seem that bad, until you understand that we have to pipe that traffic across some of the most unpopulated, rugged landscape in the country. It costs us tens of thousands of dollars for a *T1* to our hub in our service area--there's absolutely no way we could provide a 2.5Gb pipe there at anything approaching a reasonable cost.
Okay, rural Alaska is a special case, so let's consider the ISP where I used to work. We had somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 customers, depending upon how you wanted to count, so let's use an average number of 45,000 customers. Using that same 500Kb broadband connection, now you are looking at 22,500,000,000 b/sec of throughput. That's a 22.5Gb pipe to the Internet. And don't forget--your core needs to handle 22.5Gb, too, otherwise you are shuffling the bottleneck from your Internet feed to your core network. Last time I checked, that ISP had five OC-3's to our peering site. That's a far cry from 22.5Gb. But, that was the point where most of our customers were reasonably happy, and the cost of our Internet feed wasn't breaking the bank.
Now, let's step it up another notch. How many customers do AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. have? My old employer, at 45,000 customers was a relatively small ISP, so the cost for the big boys would be even higher. How much do you think it would cost to build a nationwide network that isn't oversubscribed? Now consider that most telcos--or at least the ones that I have any experience with--consider broadband Internet to be a loss-leader for bundled services. They don't make money off Internet; they use it to draw customers in to Cable TV, Local, LD and cell phone services and such. There's no way they are going to take an even bigger loss so your torrents download in 5.75 hours rather than 5.85 hours:/
Thank you, no. I will keep my $60/month 760K oversubscribed line. It may not be as fast as I'd like, but most of the time, it is sufficient, and it's at a price I can afford.
Slashdot Mirror
meh...not sure I entirely agree with you here, although I will concede that many Linux users don't know what tools are available and even less use those that are available on a regular basis.
Tools that I use regularly to keep tabs on my boxen:
1) http://www.chkrootkit.org/chkrootkit: can be run from cron to look for suspicious files and rootkit signatures;
2) netstat -ep: to show what processes are using network connections;
3) lsof: to show what files on your system are open, who opened them and with what process they were opened;
4) http://www.tripwire.com/Tripwire or http://www.gecko-ak.org/Sentinel/my own, open-source, much less functional, still really in development Tripwire-like file system auditor: to check for changes in binaries, config files or anything else on your file system that you would like to keep tabs on;
5) http://www.insecure.org/nmap: to remotely scan computers on your network for open ports, and to audit the services using these open ports;
6) http://www.nessus.org/nessus: like nmap, only different;
7) tcpdump/ethereal/wireshark: to monitor packets in or out of your computer;
8) http://www.snort.org/snort: okay, I haven't (yet) used this one, but it's the open-source standard for IDS;
9) http://www.bitdefender.com/bit defender: anti-virus for Linux--we had to use this once at work to remove a Windows virus that had infected our Samba shares (note: the Samba server wasn't infected, but the Windows machines that were mounting shares from the Samba server were--and they kept rewriting infected Windows executables to the server).
So, no most of these aren't automatic, and most of these won't clean your Linux PC's, but there are a host of tools that you can use to detect problems on your Linux computers. And, if you're really paranoid, there are several vendors that provide anti-virus software, just like what you find on your Windows machines.
Uhh.....because *we* built it?
In the manufacturing industries that you cite, those companies didn't start using our products, then demand that we release control of the manufacturing facilities to them--they built their own factories and went head-to-head with us. If they produced chips or cell phones or automobiles or videogames more efficiently than us, then they took market share and bought the U.S. companies...if they still wanted them
So, if other countries can manage large, interconnected networks better than us, then they should build their own networks and management infrastructure. If they are indeed better, then networks will migrate to their infrastructure, and the U.S. will lose control of management because someone else is proving that they can manage the Internet better.
Maybe they could even build the new, improved network based upon IPV6, and eliminate a lot of the problems and work-arounds that the U.S.-managed Internet has today......
You guys tried that once before...in 1812. It didn't work then, either :)
Nuts...I'm out of mod points!
The first paragraph of the parent post is, IMHO, both +5 Funny and +5 Insightful.
Disclaimer: IANAEE (electrical engineer).
So run DC instead of AC. Most telco equipment runs on -48VDC. So, if you build your data center like a telco builds its central office, then you have servers and network gear running DC with a large battery plant to handle sags and blips as a redundant generator drops on/off-line. Now, configure your generators to put -48VDC directly into your data center instead of 120VAC at 50/60Hz (don't know about availability of -48VDC generators, though...).
Poof! No more phase or frequency issues to worry about, and you have redundancy by having more generators than are required to handle the electical load.
This article is especially funny in light of the fact that I was wearing my O'Really "Snooping E-mail for Fun and Profit" t-shirt yesterday (yes, to work).
1) Use deep freeze. It will lock down the machines so that users cannot write anything to disk, which eliminates problems with changing settings, installing games/spyware/virii/whatever.
2) Remove the O/S from the hard drives and boot Knoppix from CD instead. Accomplishes the same thing as option 1, but in a different way, while still allowing users to write data to the hard drive.
I'd rather not wait until it is that bad...
You are right--homosexual != pedophile.
However, swillden was also right to state that there *is* a sensible, non-homophobic reason why Boy Scouts shy away from homosexual scoutmasters. When was the last time you saw a *male* hetero scout master taking a group of Girl Scouts camping?
No, we're not--we're only the third most intelligent species on earth. The dolphins, of course, are the second most intelligent species on earth (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitch_hiker's_guide_
I once read that pain is the sign of stupidity leaving your body. If this is true, then considering the (stupid) laws being passed by my generation, and considering how my generation is coddling their children, I'm really afraid of how the next generation is going to turn out
Thank you. You answered the question asked in the parent post better than I could have.
I hate DRM as much as anyone else on /. -- the Sony rootkit fiasco is a great example why DRM is a (tm) BAD IDEA -- but, I think you are missing the point.
Whether or not P2P affects profits, whether or not file sharing takes money from the people who created the content or invested in making the content available, the people who create a given work of art have the sole right to determine how, when, where and for how much $$$ the content will be distributed. Ripping a CD, DVD or whatever to a digital format and offering it for upload to others in violation of the licensing is not your prerogative. If you don't like the licensing agreement, if you think it is overpriced, if you think the corporations are greedy, slimy weasels, then DON'T BUY the product. But you don't have the right to file-share it, unless the producer of the content grants you the right.
Having said that, as an amateur musician, I would prefer that my content *was* shared--as was posted earlier in this thread, most of the money that goes to artists and the corporations that fund them doesn't come from record sales; it comes from concerts and merchandise sales. Furthermore, having someone with a lot of "friends" post my music or videos (okay, I haven't made any videos, but if I had...) on YouTube would probably be better advertising than anything I could ever pay for, anyway.
No.
Human knowledge, as a whole, grows much more rapidly when our society encourages learning and exploration. Why did Robert Goddard need to launch his rockets? Why did Ben Franklin or Thomas Edison need to be playing with all that dangerous electricity? Why did Wilbur and Orville need to try to build something as silly and frivolous as a heavier-than-air, powered flying machine? But can you imaging living in a world where they hadn't? It is, to some degree, human nature to fear and disapprove of things we don't enjoy and don't understand, but the truth is that the quest for knowledge is a great and noble thing.
You are right, to a degree, that "if the hobbyist can do it, so can a terrorist" but name a single invention or scientific breakthrough that someone hasn't found a way to corrupt for evil purposes. Does that mean we should immediately cease all innovation? Should we put an end to the study of science because we might learn something that might one day end in the loss of someone's life? What if that same breakthrough could save hundreds of lives in a peaceful application?
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with your conclusion. I think following your logic to its conclusion is a dead-end solution.
Exactly!
:/
To some extent, the freedoms that most Western countries (at least the U.S.--I have limited experience in other Western countries) have enjoyed for so long have become our own worst enemy, in a sense.
Because most of us in the U.S. have not had to fear our own government, we have adopted the mindset that our government *wouldn't* do the kinds of things that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Therefore, we don't care if Bush wiretaps in violation of the 4th amendment and FISA, if the Patriot Act eliminates many of the safeguards that prevent abuse of power, etc. After all, it's only going to be used to Protect Us Against the Terrorists (tm) or For The Children (tm), right?
Unfortunately, history proves otherwise...but most of us apparently slept through history class
First I've heard of this, although I'll admit I could have simply missed it. Do you have a source for that? If so, I'd really like to read it (tks!).
--Mike
The judge, I can see, but Spamhaus? How do you figure? Their position is that since they neither live nor operate in Illinois, or anywhere else in the U.S. for that matter, then spending money to fight this legal battle is pointless and stupid. Remember, Spamhaus is largely a volunteer effort. Who do you think has more money for lawyers--an alleged spam outfit or a volunteer organization trying to perform what is essentially a public service?
On the contrary, I think Spamhaus is showing a great deal of intelligence and restraint.
Whose rules is Spamhaus violating? The rules set by the State of Illinois? So freaking what? IIRC, spamhaus is based in England. If I were in Saudi Arabia, I could be sentenced to death because of my religious beliefs, but guess what--I'm not in Saudi Arabia, so I couldn't care less! Why is this any different? Spamhaus does not have a physical presence in Illinois, nor, for that matter, anywhere else in the United States, so why should they have to follow some stupid law that a non-technical, idiot politician in another country wrote?
Again, I ask "why?"
Spamhaus doesn't block spam--they provide a database of IP addresses that mail server administrators can use at their own discretion to block suspected spam sources. So, if Spamhaus isn't blocking e360insight's mail servers (they aren't), then why should they have to "prove" that e360insight is a spammer? As I understand, Spamhaus essentially has a network of honeypot e-mail addresses. Anything hitting these addresses is, by definition, unsolicited, and therefore spam.
As far as accountability...well, if you are a mail server administrator, you decide to start using Spamhaus' database to make decisions about from whom you will accept e-mails, and you find that the amount of spam hitting your inbox has dropped by a factor of four, how much more accountability do you need? You always have the option of hard-coding an Allow rule into your mail server config files, if you find that you are missing e-mails from what you perceive to be legitimate sources.
The State of Illinois needs a reality check. They wrote a "Super DMCA" law a few years ago that essentially hamstrings IT security professionals (see http://www.hackbusters.net/ for more details), and this is just another example of poor legislation victimizing the innocent.
Now, for the average Joe User who doesn't know what a hardware firewall is or why he needs one, how do take these steps before your shiny, new PC is compromised?
From the summary: How long does it take to go to Windows Update, download and install patches? IME, a lot longer than it does to get attacked, which creates a chicken-and-egg problem: you can't put your Windows computer on-line until it's secured, but you can't secure it until you put it on-line.
Hrmmm.....
More than likely, you are right--even if you get a little guy who represents your interests in office, not much will change because there is to much inertia with the status quo.
But note that I said "And if enough people are upset enough to vote for the little guy..." If enough people in your state, and in my state and in the states of all the people who are reading this thread vote for the little guy, then all bets are off.
You don't even have to have enough little guys in office to get their way--just enough to shake the confidence and arrogance of the big players and get their attention.
One thing is for certain though: if we keep voting the way we have been lately, things will surely get worse before they get better.
Vote for the little guy in the next election. I intend to, anyway. And if enough people are upset enough to vote for the little guy instead of the Dem/Rep candidate, then yes, there is something that can be done.
Or at least, I hope so....
According to what I've read here http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=26, that's not necessarily going to be the case. Even if http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?Headli
I stand by my original assertion: Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot in its attempt to curtail piracy, and will only annoy its legitimate users--not, generally speaking, a good business tactic.
Yes, you did.
Say you are a home user with maybe two or three computers that you want to upgrade to Vista. Okay, you either do an Internet registration or you spend a few minutes on the phone with Microsoft activating your new O/S. No problem. Even if you have to reactivate a few times when you swap out components due to upgrades, failures, what-have-you, it's still not *that* much of a PITA.
Now, you are working desktop support for a small corporation with ~100 desktops. You are upgrading to Vista, you have a volume license for the O/S and you basically build an image for each type of desktop you have, then load the image on each individual desktop. Now, you have to walk through the activation process *100 times* to roll out the new O/S. And, every time someone in that company has a hard drive fail, or someone on the network picks up a virus that corrupts executables on their computer, or <insert reason to re-image here> you have to call M$ and reactivate again. THAT is a PITA.
Now, you work for a very large company with 5,000 desktops. How many man-hours is that company going to waste on product activation now???
IMHO, if Microsoft wants to drive their legitimate business to alternative operating systems, they are going about it the right way. I decided not to *ever* buy another MS operating system after Win2K when they launched the consumer product activation requirement in XP (and I've been quite happy with Slackware or Gentoo since). I expect more corporations will make the same choice now that Vista will be doing the same thing to volume customers.
Yeah, but some of those hits were for strings containing the substring "fix me", such as "prefix meta" or "fix memory leak". There are only seven thousand hits for " fix me ": http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22+f ix+me+%22&btnG=Search
:)
Granted, "fix memory leak" still contains the spirit of "fix me", however
Your proposal would work in an ideal world, but unfortunately, the real world != the ideal world.
:/
If ISP's didn't oversell bandwidth, you and I couldn't afford broadband connections. At the ISP where I currently work, we have maybe 5000 customers (we provide service to rural Alaska). 5000*500Kb/sec (a small pipe, by current standards) = 2,500,000,000 bits/sec = 2.5Gb/sec. Okay, that doesn't seem that bad, until you understand that we have to pipe that traffic across some of the most unpopulated, rugged landscape in the country. It costs us tens of thousands of dollars for a *T1* to our hub in our service area--there's absolutely no way we could provide a 2.5Gb pipe there at anything approaching a reasonable cost.
Okay, rural Alaska is a special case, so let's consider the ISP where I used to work. We had somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 customers, depending upon how you wanted to count, so let's use an average number of 45,000 customers. Using that same 500Kb broadband connection, now you are looking at 22,500,000,000 b/sec of throughput. That's a 22.5Gb pipe to the Internet. And don't forget--your core needs to handle 22.5Gb, too, otherwise you are shuffling the bottleneck from your Internet feed to your core network. Last time I checked, that ISP had five OC-3's to our peering site. That's a far cry from 22.5Gb. But, that was the point where most of our customers were reasonably happy, and the cost of our Internet feed wasn't breaking the bank.
Now, let's step it up another notch. How many customers do AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. have? My old employer, at 45,000 customers was a relatively small ISP, so the cost for the big boys would be even higher. How much do you think it would cost to build a nationwide network that isn't oversubscribed? Now consider that most telcos--or at least the ones that I have any experience with--consider broadband Internet to be a loss-leader for bundled services. They don't make money off Internet; they use it to draw customers in to Cable TV, Local, LD and cell phone services and such. There's no way they are going to take an even bigger loss so your torrents download in 5.75 hours rather than 5.85 hours
Thank you, no. I will keep my $60/month 760K oversubscribed line. It may not be as fast as I'd like, but most of the time, it is sufficient, and it's at a price I can afford.