The whole point of the previous poster is quite simply that there is a HUGE swath of bullshit that @Home would have to put up with to try to act as the guardians of morons (morons who are doing something that is prohibited in the TOS to begin with (the whole not allowed to run servers thing that has been hashed over on here countless times, each time with the standard "time for DSL!" crap). If you want to host servers get @Work or a business line): Imagine every half-whit, full-of-themselves wanker setting up a funny honeypot causing false-positives running to Slashdot to decry the horrors of @Home: Damnit didn't they notice that it's Apache running a false-positive script? Imagine the human requirements when Jimbo the Wanker's port 80 port gets blocked because he's vulnerable (and how, pray tell, does one check this with a script? Incite a buffer overflow? Technically @Home would be breaking the law. The existence of the.ada ISAPI extension in no way indicates the existence of the fault), so he installs the patch and calls up @Home begging to be put back on. That's one huge, thoroughly unnecessary, bunch of nonsense. Oh wait: Perhaps they should run their "script" every second flooding every box?
Previously I ran a little private webserver and enjoyed that I could, but honestly in this situation @Home is doing what they have to do: Watching my firewall I am seeing the infected count of morons who installed IIS (but still have the "Under Construction" page) increasing at a staggering pace, and knowing that everyone of those machines has a system account exploit is staggering.
Excellent troll and indeed I was quite impressed by the scope of your fiction. However in defense of the other poster you didn't open up the lie with an opening tag.
Hehe...the falacy of open source: Because it's open source of course some super duper expert has poured over it and deemed it viable, right? In reality for all we know it is XOR 255.
What a silly article. I think everyone in the computer business (the target of slashdot) already knows that increasing Mhz is for diminishing gains, so a 20% Mhz increase (for a given family of chips) naturally will be =20% price increase can be seen as a price gouge. However such is the cost of being on the bleeding edge: When looking at the cost of the CPU alone the differentials may seem outrageous, however when you're talking about a $2000 computer that 80% more expensive CPU that gives you 20% more performance might represent only 10% more for the cost of the computer.
How does sit "barely qualify"? NT 4 had a telnet server in the resource kit, and in the UNIX pack, as well as a good selection of third-party telnet servers.
Personally I use netmeeting desktop sharing though: Works beautifully, and it lets me use graphical administration tools as well.
This is one of the funniest posts I've ever seen on Slashdot. Slashdot is almost entirely inhabitated by "M$ Windoze" hating Linux zealots that will mod-up any rumor or half-truth that is negative about Microsoft or Windows, and will simultaneously mod down anything that questions or disagrees with anything regarding Linux, Stallman, ESR, the GNU, etc. Your proposterous notion that saying something that sympathizes with MS gets instant-karma is absolutely hilarious. Oh quite contrary.
As an added touch you'll constantly see the marginalizing of non-Linux loving/non-MS hating opinions by waving them all off as "MS Employees". Hey, wonder of wonders, your post is a perfect example!
Taken from an article strangely linked to by someone trying to criticize Microsoft's removal of Java:
In a news conference, Sun executives said they were able to use Microsoft as a distribution tool to get Java into the hands of users when the software was in its infancy. Then Sun's lawsuit froze Microsoft's plans to modify Java for its own benefit, and Java became established in the meantime.
"I don't think we gave away anything. They're writing a check for $20 million. They're continuing to distribute an outdated version of the technology, but they can't use it for.Net," Sueltz said. "All in all, it's a very good day for Sun."
Sounds like Sun got exactly what they wanted, and it looks like just another attack on Microsoft because they're successful. They shouldn't include IE and should force users to do a big download to get a browser, but at the same time they should include Java (despite being restricted to using an ancient version, a "right" which Sun can revoke at any time) to save the user from doing a download. Wahhh!
Sun simply told Microsoft that Java would NOT be "embraced and extended", that their Java tools had to be compatible with the standards Sun set.
The "standards" that Sun wouldn't submit to a standard board because they wanted to retain the right to change things behind the scenes and simultaneously come out with the new Sun version and the new version of the "standard" (which of course meant that Sun was guaranteed to be in the lead...at least hypothetically. Of course in reality the Microsoft JVM was superior).
...Suprised that all the Java programmers did not instantly flock to C#...they decided to take all Java support out of XP and force a large download for users that want Java..
Cutting analysis, especially given that C# is not available in a released product yet and is only available for those willing to beta test Visual Studio.Net. In any case most Java programmers can easily program in C# (and vice versa): It's just another tool for programmers to use. It's especially funny in that Sun has been pushing users to do a "large download" and download the "superior" Sun JVM for ages.
Java is hardly a standard and instead it's Sun's way of strangeholding the marketplace to try to sell more Solaris boxes. Of course in reality it has hardly turned out in their favour (I recently got a copy of JumpStart: What a POS! Does Sun not spend any money on R&D? Seriously this hodge-podge of poorly performing, quirky, completely non-integrated tools is an absolute travesty and is laughable compared to something like Visual Studio.net). The only guilty party for Java's removal is Sun and their injunction which had the specific intention of crippling Microsoft in the Java arena to allow Sun to become the "standard".
Let me quote from the header in case you fail to understand: everyone is permitted to copy and distribute copies of this license document: It isn't the application of a specific instance of the license that we're talking about, it's the use of the license. In essence it's saying "Take this license and use it to promote freedom, but damnit keep it the way we authored it. We know all and see all. Our way or the highway..
Freedom is freedom so long as it achieves the "free" (ergo government sponsored) communist agenda.
I just looked over Wikipedia (hey kudos and everything for trying [it's way more than I've done in that area], but come on)...ughh. Anyone else have flashbacks of Andreeson many moons back, in the era of early beta-TABLE-era Navigator, claiming that Netscape would be your new OS (this precipitated MS to kick into high gear and destroy Netscape): Pretty classic vapourware trait of putting the cart before the horse and making claims that can't be backed-up except through fantasy and ridiculous extrapolations: "If we get all the world's smartest people to expend countless hours typing in information thanklessly, contributing to our cause...We're gonna be the best reference anywhere!" The idea of public content creation is one that seems great in theory, and it works great when the community is very small, but it doesn't work as scaling occurs. Soon enough there'll be some pathos played out with a big public message ostracizing all those evil trolls who ruined what was supposed to be a grand exhibition of human co-operation.
And what's with using the GNU documentation license? Talk about pandering to the crowd. How about just saying "This is public domain information"? You don't need to make a big crusade about it with the FSF/Stallman verbal diarrhea (18,000+ characters to say "this is free") spouting out . Seeing that instantly told me that this is just someone/some people making a big statement rather than actually trying for some selfless goal. My favorite part of that license is:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
What a farce. All hail the new leader Stallman! The communist revolution has begun!
Oh man...you realize you just made that trolls (and many like him/her(s)) day, don't you? One must never acknowledge being caught out by comp-u-geek or its friend goatse.cx.
The whole "steaming pile of it"? I don't work for Microsoft and never have, but from people who have (or are source partners) what I've heard their code is absolutely beautiful. I find it funny that those in the Linux community (which is known to have some of the nastiest source around) throw mud MS' way.
Using probably the same box I get digital cable through Cogeco (in Ontario). While the picture is fairly good generally on the movie networks (while they hype digital TV, in reality only the movie network and a couple of other token channels are actually digital...I was quite surprized discovering that when all the ads simply talk about "Digital TV", yet 90+% of the channels are still analog), there is some wicked posterization in scenes of gentle color gradients (obviously they are overcompressing) and the picture in general most certainly is not "DVD quality" that they love to spout.
One funny thing about the digital cable box: Because it changes channels so slowly (even for analog stations) I never, ever "channel surf" anymore, and always check the online guide to see what's playing. This has been a revolution in television watching because now I'm much more selective and don't just watch what has the naked boobs (yes I had to say it...) visible when I flick by.
Your claim (which contradicts the entire point of the article, which is that a little obscurity on top of a secure-as-possible system can't hurt) doesn't circumvent his argument whatsoever, and I really don't see why there is such an aversion to the idea of obscurity on here.
His point, which is very correct, is that (using the website as the example) someone has to be very "noisy" to actively seek out non-standard ports/services: If there is a hacker targeting your system (s)he will leave a lot more fingerprints and evidence of their actions doing a cascade scan through your servers/ports than if they simple waltzed in and connected to private.company.com. The point is that each additional piece of hidden information is one more hurdle for the prospective hacker to have to jump over: It's a shitload harder to hack an unknown webserver on an unknown machine through an unknown firewall than it is to hack IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000 SP 1 pre-HOTFIX XYZ running on port 80 at intranet.company.com (hint: In the first case there will be a swath of evidence attempting various tactics to determine what the OS/webserver/firewall restraints are. In the second Jimmy pulls up black hat exploit #1027-D [the one that the public doesn't know about yet] and applies it against the server. Instantly the server is ownzed and there are zero tracks because to the other systems everything looks fine. Jimmy puts in his keystroke grabber, cleans up his tracks, and disappears into the night).
The concept of enhanced security through obscurity is absolutely as clear as day. Pretend that I encrypt a piece of information to send to you: Now of course I'm going to pick a very secure algorithm so let's say that I go with Twofish. Now to the best of my knowledge it is a super secure algorithm and I'm safe and there is zero chance that it could ever be broken, but pretend that somewhere someone out there knows how to break Twofish with just a month of computer time: Do you think that they'd waste the month if they were unsure what algorithm you used? Pretend that they see an encrypted file called stuff.enc, versus bank_numbers.twofish: Which one gives them a headstart and motivates them? The standard (moronic) reply to this is "Well use a secure algorithm/software/OS/etc.!" however that is a foolish statement: Many algorithms/software/OS' have fallen in the past after years of people super-duper-assuring you that there is absolutely nothing wrong. So in other words unless you are absolutely sure yourself about every piece of software and algorithm that you use, a little obscurity can't hurt.
Several posts have indicated that the term was "invented" for the 98 Microsoft situation, and while the article does indicate that it came into popularity (at least among the tech crowd) in 98, rather than was coined, I think this is worth mentioning that this term was not invented for Microsoft.
The term astroturfing has been around for a long time and as mentioned refers to bogus grassroots support. In 5 seconds I found this Deja posting using the term for the same reason from 1995. Unfortunately that is the earliest that Deja's archive goes (uh...Google's).
Just wanted to clarify that. One other point worth mentioning is that it's foolish to say that because there is some astroturfing, therefore it's all astroturfing (that's the big thing here on Slashdot...everyone who isn't pro-Linux is paid by Bill).
I just actually read the article and sure enough they mentioned having ICQ on the "controller", and that's a great idea. In fact carry that over to Winamp controls, etc: All those little apps that we run in concert with an app that functionally takes over the PC.
I've often had the desire for something like this as an instant messenger helper: I'm in the middle of a full-screen game and I'm expecting a IM from a friend when they get online, so I'm Alt-Entering between full-screen and windowed mode. It would be nice to see IMs pop-up on the helper.
I've had this exact same debate: Strangely people feel it is worthy of clever observations if you spend several hours on the computer, but the same time spent watching television is perfectly okay. It is very odd the way the computer is perceived in our society.
This is the attitude that kills Linux in the mainstream: users are still dumb. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The simple reality is that most "dumb users" use the computer as a tool rather than a hobby or a religion: They want to get on, do what they need to do, and get off. Calling someone who does that "dumb" is, well, dumb, and secondly it totally misses the point of mainstream users and what their motivations are (and it's why Linux isn't a blip on the radar for home users apart from the "computers define my manhood" type). Are you dumb if you don't pull and fix your own transmission? Do you make your own electricity or are you one of the dumb ones that just hooks into the city's grid? Did you make your own engine control system, or are you a dumb person with just a stock car that gets you from point A to point B?
I don't quite understand your reply: ASP allows you to include inc files from outside of the wwwroot structure, but if someone wants to be able to simply copy/paste the directory (without external dependencies), and the inc file contains nothing that's proprietary or "secret", then why not leave it in there? What's the big deal?
No it isn't forced on you. Obviously they really don't give a sheeit if people see it, which is why they put it there. Even if they did though they could easily have null-sinked.inc types, but again they really couldn't care less.
I concur that the major reason why people push for hyper-framerates in Quake is because of the low-end: I don't want a GeForce3 to get 200fps, but rather so it doesn't bog down during a big firefight. Having said that, simply running around an empty level (with the frame rate indicator on showing a steady FPS: It isn't jumping up and down. Indeed using detours [the MS Research tool] once before I tested this theory by logging every page flip [by putting a detour in the OpenGL library] so I could see what the low and median framerate was) betrays a very perceivable difference between even the high framerates (60, 100, 120).
Having reasonable framerates in demanding situations is a necessity for surviving in the game. Having higher framerates in normal situations makes the game more immersive and "smoother" feeling.
Another example of this fallacious research was previously (when nicer monitors first started being made) the claim that the eye couldn't see the difference between anything above a 72Hz refresh rate (the idea being that the eye simply doesn't grab images that frequently anyways), and this "magic number" was heralded by PC magazines everywhere as the magic number where the image on a monitor will be "perfect" and any further increase was mere waste: Is there anyone who believes that now? The target number on most monitors now to make an image that most people can tolerate is >100Hz (and this is coupled with a phosphor that has a persistence long enough that the fade is extremely limited at 100Hz...in other words with a quicker-fade phosphor the desired rate would be even higher). I guess humans are just evolving really quickly...
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of the previous poster is quite simply that there is a HUGE swath of bullshit that @Home would have to put up with to try to act as the guardians of morons (morons who are doing something that is prohibited in the TOS to begin with (the whole not allowed to run servers thing that has been hashed over on here countless times, each time with the standard "time for DSL!" crap). If you want to host servers get @Work or a business line): Imagine every half-whit, full-of-themselves wanker setting up a funny honeypot causing false-positives running to Slashdot to decry the horrors of @Home: Damnit didn't they notice that it's Apache running a false-positive script? Imagine the human requirements when Jimbo the Wanker's port 80 port gets blocked because he's vulnerable (and how, pray tell, does one check this with a script? Incite a buffer overflow? Technically @Home would be breaking the law. The existence of the .ada ISAPI extension in no way indicates the existence of the fault), so he installs the patch and calls up @Home begging to be put back on. That's one huge, thoroughly unnecessary, bunch of nonsense. Oh wait: Perhaps they should run their "script" every second flooding every box?
Previously I ran a little private webserver and enjoyed that I could, but honestly in this situation @Home is doing what they have to do: Watching my firewall I am seeing the infected count of morons who installed IIS (but still have the "Under Construction" page) increasing at a staggering pace, and knowing that everyone of those machines has a system account exploit is staggering.
Excellent troll and indeed I was quite impressed by the scope of your fiction. However in defense of the other poster you didn't open up the lie with an opening tag.
Hehe...the falacy of open source: Because it's open source of course some super duper expert has poured over it and deemed it viable, right? In reality for all we know it is XOR 255.
What a silly article. I think everyone in the computer business (the target of slashdot) already knows that increasing Mhz is for diminishing gains, so a 20% Mhz increase (for a given family of chips) naturally will be =20% price increase can be seen as a price gouge. However such is the cost of being on the bleeding edge: When looking at the cost of the CPU alone the differentials may seem outrageous, however when you're talking about a $2000 computer that 80% more expensive CPU that gives you 20% more performance might represent only 10% more for the cost of the computer.
Bleeble.
How does sit "barely qualify"? NT 4 had a telnet server in the resource kit, and in the UNIX pack, as well as a good selection of third-party telnet servers.
Personally I use netmeeting desktop sharing though: Works beautifully, and it lets me use graphical administration tools as well.
This is one of the funniest posts I've ever seen on Slashdot. Slashdot is almost entirely inhabitated by "M$ Windoze" hating Linux zealots that will mod-up any rumor or half-truth that is negative about Microsoft or Windows, and will simultaneously mod down anything that questions or disagrees with anything regarding Linux, Stallman, ESR, the GNU, etc. Your proposterous notion that saying something that sympathizes with MS gets instant-karma is absolutely hilarious. Oh quite contrary.
As an added touch you'll constantly see the marginalizing of non-Linux loving/non-MS hating opinions by waving them all off as "MS Employees". Hey, wonder of wonders, your post is a perfect example!
Taken from an article strangely linked to by someone trying to criticize Microsoft's removal of Java:
In a news conference, Sun executives said they were able to use Microsoft as a distribution tool to get Java into the hands of users when the software was in its infancy. Then Sun's lawsuit froze Microsoft's plans to modify Java for its own benefit, and Java became established in the meantime.
.Net," Sueltz said. "All in all, it's a very good day for Sun."
"I don't think we gave away anything. They're writing a check for $20 million. They're continuing to distribute an outdated version of the technology, but they can't use it for
Sounds like Sun got exactly what they wanted, and it looks like just another attack on Microsoft because they're successful. They shouldn't include IE and should force users to do a big download to get a browser, but at the same time they should include Java (despite being restricted to using an ancient version, a "right" which Sun can revoke at any time) to save the user from doing a download. Wahhh!
Sun simply told Microsoft that Java would NOT be "embraced and extended", that their Java tools had to be compatible with the standards Sun set.
The "standards" that Sun wouldn't submit to a standard board because they wanted to retain the right to change things behind the scenes and simultaneously come out with the new Sun version and the new version of the "standard" (which of course meant that Sun was guaranteed to be in the lead...at least hypothetically. Of course in reality the Microsoft JVM was superior).
...Suprised that all the Java programmers did not instantly flock to C#...they decided to take all Java support out of XP and force a large download for users that want Java..
Cutting analysis, especially given that C# is not available in a released product yet and is only available for those willing to beta test Visual Studio.Net. In any case most Java programmers can easily program in C# (and vice versa): It's just another tool for programmers to use. It's especially funny in that Sun has been pushing users to do a "large download" and download the "superior" Sun JVM for ages.
Java is hardly a standard and instead it's Sun's way of strangeholding the marketplace to try to sell more Solaris boxes. Of course in reality it has hardly turned out in their favour (I recently got a copy of JumpStart: What a POS! Does Sun not spend any money on R&D? Seriously this hodge-podge of poorly performing, quirky, completely non-integrated tools is an absolute travesty and is laughable compared to something like Visual Studio.net). The only guilty party for Java's removal is Sun and their injunction which had the specific intention of crippling Microsoft in the Java arena to allow Sun to become the "standard".
Let me quote from the header in case you fail to understand: everyone is permitted to copy and distribute copies of this license document : It isn't the application of a specific instance of the license that we're talking about, it's the use of the license. In essence it's saying "Take this license and use it to promote freedom, but damnit keep it the way we authored it. We know all and see all. Our way or the highway..
Freedom is freedom so long as it achieves the "free" (ergo government sponsored) communist agenda.
I just looked over Wikipedia (hey kudos and everything for trying [it's way more than I've done in that area], but come on)...ughh. Anyone else have flashbacks of Andreeson many moons back, in the era of early beta-TABLE-era Navigator, claiming that Netscape would be your new OS (this precipitated MS to kick into high gear and destroy Netscape): Pretty classic vapourware trait of putting the cart before the horse and making claims that can't be backed-up except through fantasy and ridiculous extrapolations: "If we get all the world's smartest people to expend countless hours typing in information thanklessly, contributing to our cause...We're gonna be the best reference anywhere!" The idea of public content creation is one that seems great in theory, and it works great when the community is very small, but it doesn't work as scaling occurs. Soon enough there'll be some pathos played out with a big public message ostracizing all those evil trolls who ruined what was supposed to be a grand exhibition of human co-operation.
And what's with using the GNU documentation license? Talk about pandering to the crowd. How about just saying "This is public domain information"? You don't need to make a big crusade about it with the FSF/Stallman verbal diarrhea (18,000+ characters to say "this is free") spouting out . Seeing that instantly told me that this is just someone/some people making a big statement rather than actually trying for some selfless goal. My favorite part of that license is:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
What a farce. All hail the new leader Stallman! The communist revolution has begun!
Oh man...you realize you just made that trolls (and many like him/her(s)) day, don't you? One must never acknowledge being caught out by comp-u-geek or its friend goatse.cx.
The whole "steaming pile of it"? I don't work for Microsoft and never have, but from people who have (or are source partners) what I've heard their code is absolutely beautiful. I find it funny that those in the Linux community (which is known to have some of the nastiest source around) throw mud MS' way.
Because it's a Microsoft supported technology, hence you will see "support whatever is the competitor...regardless" (see CORBA).
Using probably the same box I get digital cable through Cogeco (in Ontario). While the picture is fairly good generally on the movie networks (while they hype digital TV, in reality only the movie network and a couple of other token channels are actually digital...I was quite surprized discovering that when all the ads simply talk about "Digital TV", yet 90+% of the channels are still analog), there is some wicked posterization in scenes of gentle color gradients (obviously they are overcompressing) and the picture in general most certainly is not "DVD quality" that they love to spout.
One funny thing about the digital cable box: Because it changes channels so slowly (even for analog stations) I never, ever "channel surf" anymore, and always check the online guide to see what's playing. This has been a revolution in television watching because now I'm much more selective and don't just watch what has the naked boobs (yes I had to say it...) visible when I flick by.
Your claim (which contradicts the entire point of the article, which is that a little obscurity on top of a secure-as-possible system can't hurt) doesn't circumvent his argument whatsoever, and I really don't see why there is such an aversion to the idea of obscurity on here.
His point, which is very correct, is that (using the website as the example) someone has to be very "noisy" to actively seek out non-standard ports/services: If there is a hacker targeting your system (s)he will leave a lot more fingerprints and evidence of their actions doing a cascade scan through your servers/ports than if they simple waltzed in and connected to private.company.com. The point is that each additional piece of hidden information is one more hurdle for the prospective hacker to have to jump over: It's a shitload harder to hack an unknown webserver on an unknown machine through an unknown firewall than it is to hack IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000 SP 1 pre-HOTFIX XYZ running on port 80 at intranet.company.com (hint: In the first case there will be a swath of evidence attempting various tactics to determine what the OS/webserver/firewall restraints are. In the second Jimmy pulls up black hat exploit #1027-D [the one that the public doesn't know about yet] and applies it against the server. Instantly the server is ownzed and there are zero tracks because to the other systems everything looks fine. Jimmy puts in his keystroke grabber, cleans up his tracks, and disappears into the night).
The concept of enhanced security through obscurity is absolutely as clear as day. Pretend that I encrypt a piece of information to send to you: Now of course I'm going to pick a very secure algorithm so let's say that I go with Twofish. Now to the best of my knowledge it is a super secure algorithm and I'm safe and there is zero chance that it could ever be broken, but pretend that somewhere someone out there knows how to break Twofish with just a month of computer time: Do you think that they'd waste the month if they were unsure what algorithm you used? Pretend that they see an encrypted file called stuff.enc, versus bank_numbers.twofish: Which one gives them a headstart and motivates them? The standard (moronic) reply to this is "Well use a secure algorithm/software/OS/etc.!" however that is a foolish statement: Many algorithms/software/OS' have fallen in the past after years of people super-duper-assuring you that there is absolutely nothing wrong. So in other words unless you are absolutely sure yourself about every piece of software and algorithm that you use, a little obscurity can't hurt.
Several posts have indicated that the term was "invented" for the 98 Microsoft situation, and while the article does indicate that it came into popularity (at least among the tech crowd) in 98, rather than was coined, I think this is worth mentioning that this term was not invented for Microsoft.
The term astroturfing has been around for a long time and as mentioned refers to bogus grassroots support. In 5 seconds I found this Deja posting using the term for the same reason from 1995. Unfortunately that is the earliest that Deja's archive goes (uh...Google's).
Just wanted to clarify that. One other point worth mentioning is that it's foolish to say that because there is some astroturfing, therefore it's all astroturfing (that's the big thing here on Slashdot...everyone who isn't pro-Linux is paid by Bill).
The term astroturfing was around long before that, 'moron'.
I just actually read the article and sure enough they mentioned having ICQ on the "controller", and that's a great idea. In fact carry that over to Winamp controls, etc: All those little apps that we run in concert with an app that functionally takes over the PC.
I've often had the desire for something like this as an instant messenger helper: I'm in the middle of a full-screen game and I'm expecting a IM from a friend when they get online, so I'm Alt-Entering between full-screen and windowed mode. It would be nice to see IMs pop-up on the helper.
I've had this exact same debate: Strangely people feel it is worthy of clever observations if you spend several hours on the computer, but the same time spent watching television is perfectly okay. It is very odd the way the computer is perceived in our society.
This is the attitude that kills Linux in the mainstream: users are still dumb . Nothing could be further from the truth.
The simple reality is that most "dumb users" use the computer as a tool rather than a hobby or a religion: They want to get on, do what they need to do, and get off. Calling someone who does that "dumb" is, well, dumb, and secondly it totally misses the point of mainstream users and what their motivations are (and it's why Linux isn't a blip on the radar for home users apart from the "computers define my manhood" type). Are you dumb if you don't pull and fix your own transmission? Do you make your own electricity or are you one of the dumb ones that just hooks into the city's grid? Did you make your own engine control system, or are you a dumb person with just a stock car that gets you from point A to point B?
I don't quite understand your reply: ASP allows you to include inc files from outside of the wwwroot structure, but if someone wants to be able to simply copy/paste the directory (without external dependencies), and the inc file contains nothing that's proprietary or "secret", then why not leave it in there? What's the big deal?
No it isn't forced on you. Obviously they really don't give a sheeit if people see it, which is why they put it there. Even if they did though they could easily have null-sinked .inc types, but again they really couldn't care less.
I concur that the major reason why people push for hyper-framerates in Quake is because of the low-end: I don't want a GeForce3 to get 200fps, but rather so it doesn't bog down during a big firefight. Having said that, simply running around an empty level (with the frame rate indicator on showing a steady FPS: It isn't jumping up and down. Indeed using detours [the MS Research tool] once before I tested this theory by logging every page flip [by putting a detour in the OpenGL library] so I could see what the low and median framerate was) betrays a very perceivable difference between even the high framerates (60, 100, 120).
Having reasonable framerates in demanding situations is a necessity for surviving in the game. Having higher framerates in normal situations makes the game more immersive and "smoother" feeling.
Another example of this fallacious research was previously (when nicer monitors first started being made) the claim that the eye couldn't see the difference between anything above a 72Hz refresh rate (the idea being that the eye simply doesn't grab images that frequently anyways), and this "magic number" was heralded by PC magazines everywhere as the magic number where the image on a monitor will be "perfect" and any further increase was mere waste: Is there anyone who believes that now? The target number on most monitors now to make an image that most people can tolerate is >100Hz (and this is coupled with a phosphor that has a persistence long enough that the fade is extremely limited at 100Hz...in other words with a quicker-fade phosphor the desired rate would be even higher). I guess humans are just evolving really quickly...