Although it sounds good on the surface, I don't think it follows the tenets of open source development. I for one like to also hear about the security holes so they can be fixed as soon as they are found.
That's why spam will never stop. It's unbelievable that there are that many idiots out there that respond to these messages. As long as they do though, the spammers will have a huge incentive to keep doing it.
I don't think it will matter how many TLDs they come out with. Everyone will just register their name in all of them (corporations will anyway). If there are 16 available TLDs, does anyone here NOT think Coca-Cola will register coke.xxxx in all of them (plus coca-cola.xxxx, diet-coke.xxxx, etc.)? The.pro sounds like a step in the right direction, but I seriously doubt they will care too much if you have the cash. How many companies that aren't ISPs are network providers have.net for example?
This is the best news on Slashdot in several days. Hopefully the DVD and MP3 cases will follow along. This is the way the 'net should work against issues like this. Instead of sending hateful e-mail, let the company and their investors know that you will not buy products from a company that operates this way. If enough people do it, they will eventually have to back down.
Actually, I would say that is low end for an enterprise server. Compaq would consider that configuration a departmental/workgroup server. If you want to compete in the big league with NT, Novell, SCO, Sun, etc., you have to take advantage of the big iron.
We just purchased back in the Summer almost that exact same setup.. Dual-450s, 640MB RAM, 5 9.1GB SCSI-3 10K RPM drives and put RedHat 5.2 with Kernet 2.2 on it. It runs web proxy/filtering and e-mail for about 8000 users. That server was less than $10,000 and would be considered low to mid range. Check something like Compaq's Proliant 7000 or 8000 for a true high end system.
This is one thing I don't understand. If the Windows companies licensed the technology for their players, why can't one of the Linux distros license it for their own player? It seems to be a simple problem to me. They may not be able to provide their source under the license agreement, but a player would be available then. Am I missing something? Did they refuse to license it?
How could they create a new algorithm that would be compatible with all the existing DVD players? I just bought a new one and would be pissed if new movies wouldn't play on it. They would lose much more business over that than they stand to lose from defendants in this case.
I don't see how C&C2 would hurt WC3 sales since it is out now while WC3 won't be released until late-2000. Everyone who wants C&C2 will have it by then and need something new to play.
Where does Sprint fit in to all of this? We've been buying several T1s and ISDN lines from them for a couple of years and have had almost no downtime. Even when we do, a quick call to their TAC either gets it fixed or gets me an explanation (talking to the actual techs who work on things.. not some brain dead support rep). In fact, I have a full DS3 feed on order from them right now. I don't know everyone else's experience, but we've been very happy with their service.
We use both Linux and NT to run all of our Internet services for a large school system. We have four NT 4.0 with SP3 machines (2 Compaq Deskpros run Cisco management software and Compaq Insight Manager, one Compaq Proliant 3000 runs our main webserver and mailserver (both Netscape products), and one Compaq Prosignia 200 runs a specialty online database server and private FTP services. Those machines never crash. I really believe that NT itself is fairly stable, it's some of the services people run that aren't. I don't like IIS and Exchange, so we run Netscape Enterprise and Messenger servers. I also believe the hardware has something to do with it. Compaq servers have been rock solid for us.. no matter what the OS (we have about 25 of them).
We have three Linux servers. Two are Compaq Prosignia 300s with RedHat 5.2. One runs our primary DNS and a few other services. The other runs secondary DNS, mailing list software, and some special CGI scripts. Our newest server is another Compaq Proliant 3000 with 640MB and dual PII-450s. It will become our primary proxy and mail server for about 7000 users. These are also very stable with no crashes.
Overall, I think you should choose the right OS for the job. NT has its advantages and so does Linux. One is not necessarily the best for everything. And really, both servers in the test would keep up with a really busy website and hundreds of file sharing users. They are both fast enough for what we use them for and both rock solid stable.
I hate that everyone's recommendation for securing Linux is to turn off everything. Yeah, that gives me a server that does absolutely nothing useful. How useful is an OS where you can't have mail services running?
Don't get me wrong, we use Linux at work on a couple of servers and on our laptops, but I don't buy into turning off every service to secure a system. How come my Solaris, Netware, and FreeBSD boxes have never been hacked even though they run all the services? Barely a day goes by now that someone doesn't try getting into one or both of our Linux servers using the Rootkit tools. Hosts.deny keeps them out, but also will keep us out if we are ever at a remote site that we didn't account for in the tcp_wrapper config files.
We have found that installing the newest versions of all the services does make for a fairly secure system. However, we're still afraid to run NFS on them.
Microsoft used to (and presumable still do) the same thing with Novell Netware. All these press releases come out showing that NT does something better than Netware in an "independent" test, but you see that Microsoft commissioned the test when you read the fine print. Novell came out with their "Reality Check" series of documents to rebutt these studies. Some of these Reality Check documents are really interesting. See the new one on their site documenting BorderManager vs MS Proxy.. pretty hilarious.
In my opinion, I think it depends on whether the server/voice mail crashed under the load or if someone deliberately crashed it. If it crashed under the load, that's their problem. It just proves how many people are behind Theo's cause. I think it would be wrong to crash it deliberately as that will associate something negative with slashdot readers.
I registered a new domain last Sunday and it still hasn't been added. This is very frustrating when you expect the 24-48 hours that they tell you on their website and in e-mails. I've registered several domains in the past, but they haven't taken this long. Something definitely needs to be done about them.
I think even *I* could write a system to check new domains and add them every night. Just delete them later on if you don't receive payment, but don't stop everyone from adding new ones. Maybe make everyone register their handle before they can add domains. Then, if I've been verified and always made payment in the past, they automatically register mine immediately.
I registered a new domain last week, received a tracking number and all, but it still hasn't been added. Their website and e-mails from hostmaster advertise a 24-48 hour turnaround on new domains, but mine has been waiting a week now. This is ridiculous for something that even I could automate without too much trouble. Something definitely needs to be done about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it sounds good on the surface, I don't think it follows the tenets of open source development. I for one like to also hear about the security holes so they can be fixed as soon as they are found.
That's why spam will never stop. It's unbelievable that there are that many idiots out there that respond to these messages. As long as they do though, the spammers will have a huge incentive to keep doing it.
Jason
Don't tell my new one that is has been recalled. It's perking along just fine and hasn't been rebooted since I got it (except for OS updates).
Jason
I don't think it will matter how many TLDs they come out with. Everyone will just register their name in all of them (corporations will anyway). If there are 16 available TLDs, does anyone here NOT think Coca-Cola will register coke.xxxx in all of them (plus coca-cola.xxxx, diet-coke.xxxx, etc.)? The .pro sounds like a step in the right direction, but I seriously doubt they will care too much if you have the cash. How many companies that aren't ISPs are network providers have .net for example?
Jason
This is the best news on Slashdot in several days. Hopefully the DVD and MP3 cases will follow along. This is the way the 'net should work against issues like this. Instead of sending hateful e-mail, let the company and their investors know that you will not buy products from a company that operates this way. If enough people do it, they will eventually have to back down.
Actually, I would say that is low end for an enterprise server. Compaq would consider that configuration a departmental/workgroup server. If you want to compete in the big league with NT, Novell, SCO, Sun, etc., you have to take advantage of the big iron.
We just purchased back in the Summer almost that exact same setup.. Dual-450s, 640MB RAM, 5 9.1GB SCSI-3 10K RPM drives and put RedHat 5.2 with Kernet 2.2 on it. It runs web proxy/filtering and e-mail for about 8000 users. That server was less than $10,000 and would be considered low to mid range. Check something like Compaq's Proliant 7000 or 8000 for a true high end system.
Jason
This is one thing I don't understand. If the Windows companies licensed the technology for their players, why can't one of the Linux distros license it for their own player? It seems to be a simple problem to me. They may not be able to provide their source under the license agreement, but a player would be available then. Am I missing something? Did they refuse to license it?
Jason
How could they create a new algorithm that would be compatible with all the existing DVD players? I just bought a new one and would be pissed if new movies wouldn't play on it. They would lose much more business over that than they stand to lose from defendants in this case.
I don't see how C&C2 would hurt WC3 sales since it is out now while WC3 won't be released until late-2000. Everyone who wants C&C2 will have it by then and need something new to play.
Where does Sprint fit in to all of this? We've been buying several T1s and ISDN lines from them for a couple of years and have had almost no downtime. Even when we do, a quick call to their TAC either gets it fixed or gets me an explanation (talking to the actual techs who work on things .. not some brain dead support rep). In fact, I have a full DS3 feed on order from them right now. I don't know everyone else's experience, but we've been very happy with their service.
We use both Linux and NT to run all of our Internet services for a large school system. We have four NT 4.0 with SP3 machines (2 Compaq Deskpros run Cisco management software and Compaq Insight Manager, one Compaq Proliant 3000 runs our main webserver and mailserver (both Netscape products), and one Compaq Prosignia 200 runs a specialty online database server and private FTP services. Those machines never crash. I really believe that NT itself is fairly stable, it's some of the services people run that aren't. I don't like IIS and Exchange, so we run Netscape Enterprise and Messenger servers. I also believe the hardware has something to do with it. Compaq servers have been rock solid for us .. no matter what the OS (we have about 25 of them).
We have three Linux servers. Two are Compaq Prosignia 300s with RedHat 5.2. One runs our primary DNS and a few other services. The other runs secondary DNS, mailing list software, and some special CGI scripts. Our newest server is another Compaq Proliant 3000 with 640MB and dual PII-450s. It will become our primary proxy and mail server for about 7000 users. These are also very stable with no crashes.
Overall, I think you should choose the right OS for the job. NT has its advantages and so does Linux. One is not necessarily the best for everything. And really, both servers in the test would keep up with a really busy website and hundreds of file sharing users. They are both fast enough for what we use them for and both rock solid stable.
Jason
XBase didn't die any more than Cobol did. Many, many applications still run on top of it.
I think he has ISDN at his house. The server is on a much faster connection.
I hate that everyone's recommendation for securing Linux is to turn off everything. Yeah, that gives me a server that does absolutely nothing useful. How useful is an OS where you can't have mail services running?
Don't get me wrong, we use Linux at work on a couple of servers and on our laptops, but I don't buy into turning off every service to secure a system. How come my Solaris, Netware, and FreeBSD boxes have never been hacked even though they run all the services? Barely a day goes by now that someone doesn't try getting into one or both of our Linux servers using the Rootkit tools. Hosts.deny keeps them out, but also will keep us out if we are ever at a remote site that we didn't account for in the tcp_wrapper config files.
We have found that installing the newest versions of all the services does make for a fairly secure system. However, we're still afraid to run NFS on them.
Jason
Microsoft used to (and presumable still do) the same thing with Novell Netware. All these press releases come out showing that NT does something better than Netware in an "independent" test, but you see that Microsoft commissioned the test when you read the fine print. Novell came out with their "Reality Check" series of documents to rebutt these studies. Some of these Reality Check documents are really interesting. See the new one on their site documenting BorderManager vs MS Proxy .. pretty hilarious.
Jason
In my opinion, I think it depends on whether the server/voice mail crashed under the load or if someone deliberately crashed it. If it crashed under the load, that's their problem. It just proves how many people are behind Theo's cause. I think it would be wrong to crash it deliberately as that will associate something negative with slashdot readers.
I registered a new domain last Sunday and it still hasn't been added. This is very frustrating when you expect the 24-48 hours that they tell you on their website and in e-mails. I've registered several domains in the past, but they haven't taken this long. Something definitely needs to be done about them.
I think even *I* could write a system to check new domains and add them every night. Just delete them later on if you don't receive payment, but don't stop everyone from adding new ones. Maybe make everyone register their handle before they can add domains. Then, if I've been verified and always made payment in the past, they automatically register mine immediately.
Jason
I registered a new domain last week, received a
tracking number and all, but it still hasn't been added. Their website and e-mails from hostmaster advertise a 24-48 hour turnaround on new domains, but mine has been waiting a week now. This is ridiculous for something that even I could automate without too much trouble. Something definitely needs to be done about it.