One of the greatest features of GNU/Hurd is the idea of translators. By getting rid of the traditional file system model, you can make many interfaces to systems that "look" like filesystems, and such keyword based indexing/browsing/searching could be impelemented at the user level *as a filesystem*, rather than as a set of calls on top of a traditional filesystem requiring the application to "know" how to use it.
The Hurd documents talk about everything from an "ftp filesystem" to ways to rewrite X. I can imagine an IM program where you could echo and cat to friends like:
When you think of the filesystem as a set of interfaces rather than a set of files, the possibilities are endless, including the one presented in the project.
It's sad that Hurd hasn't done better in making a working system, and it's also sad that Linux hasn't taken this "Best of Breed" idea.
I've been using the Happy acker Lite 2 for about three or four years.
I'd used lots of keybords before it and went through about one a year. They'd be difficult on my hands (no feedback) and they'd be hard to clean.
I even bought one of those old IBM keyboards upon Roblimo's recommendation, but it died in a week after I spilled a drink on it.
The Happy Hacker is small, but is a full size keyboard. It has a very pleasant feel (good click, but not too hard), light, and very rugged. It's also very easy to clean. Though it's expensive at about $70-$80, other specialty keyboards are more, and I've found the HH keyboards to be so rugged that they've paid for themselves.
I consider a keyboard in the same way that a waiteress might consider a good pair of shoes- it's something I'm spending my day on, I want it to be comfortable.
It seems to me that the best way to support Free codecs would be to throw support at an existing project such as Ogg Theora. Does anyone know why they're not throwing support behind it?
Besides the obvious fact that Apple is selling products to make money (rather than as a humanitarian act) I can say that for people like me, this will make it more likely for me to buy their product.
I buy products that suit my needs. The Apple products, due to their locked-in status.
The Linksys WRT54T (?) is the best example I can think of. I would never have bought one except that they run Linux and I can modify them to make them useful.
Those haven't been the myths for a long time that most GNU/Linux users talk about.
The barriers to entry are:
* Hardware (auto)detection/configuration * Integration with other systems (Word Docs, MS Exchance, etc.) * Configuration for More Complicated Tasks, like installing software that's not provided by your distribution * An easy configuration program (right now we have a half dozen)
I've been using GNU/Linux since 1997, but these are still real issues for the person in between the complete notice and the power user.
We have most of the power users, many of the complete novices won't notice, but I think a large segement of people fall somewhere in the middle and we may not do as well there.
Internet Explorer, by Microsoft, is based on open standards like TCP/IP and HTTP, as is Microsoft Outlook partially based on the open SMTP standard, so that argument is spurious at best.
As for being "based on" an open source project. What's it based on? Which license does the original program use? Something BSD-like, since the Rendevous program itself does not appear to be Free Software from what I found on the web site.
Right, but the original poster was asking about the possibility of a group trademarking "Open", I would guess in regards to software.
As you pointed out, this would be too vague to be an effective trademark, and so I'm concluding that the term is not immune to abuse or misunderstanding, which were the stated reasons for its coinage and use.
There was a time the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) tried to make Open Source a trademark, but it didn't work out. "Open Source" as a term pre-dates the "Open Source" as a replacement term for Free Software by a long time.
In addition, various groups used the "Open" word before Open Source, such as HP's "OpenView" desktop environment.
Yes, it looks like Apple is trying to purposefully confuse people by prepending "Open" to this product, but maybe this will prove once and for all that any term like this can be hijacked, just like the Open Source people believe that the term Free Software is easily misunderstood.
I don't know why I have to cite examples, but ESR has always been clever- he claims that Open Source is different than Free Software, less ideological, etc. Then he says all Free Software users should change the words they use:
We suggest that everywhere we as a culture have previously talked about "free software", the label should be changed to "open source". Open-source software. The open-source model. The open source culture. The Debian Open Source Guidelines. (In pitching this to the corporate world I'm also going to be invoking the idea of "peer review" a lot.)
http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
This was a long, long time ago.
Since then, his attacks have always been subtle. He attacks RMS openly, and in his Unix Philosophy book, he attacks Free Software as a bad way to get people involved.
But that's not all there is to it! You see- Open Source is born out of the idea of being apolitical.
This isn't about popularity alone. Popularity is nice, but rights are why those of us who use the term Free Software are so ferverent about it.
He dances around the issue by talking in third person here:
There was one exception: Richard Stallman and the Free Software Movement. "Open source" was explicitly intended to replace Stallman's preferred "free software" with a public label that was ideologically neutral, acceptable both to historically opposed groups like the BSD hackers and those who did not wish to take a position in the GPL/anti-GPL debate. Stallman flirted with adopting the term, then rejected it on the grounds that it failed to represent the moral position that was central to his thinking. The Free Software Movement has since insisted on its separateness from "open source", creating perhaps the most significant political fissure in the hacker culture of 2003.
This would be true if he hadn't already made all that fuss in the past.
Now anything he says against Free Software as a term is considered, by me at least, to be a thinly veiled attempt at attacking the ideals, or at the very least, promoting his own.
Linux isn't free. Hello? If there is actually anyone still left on the planet who thinks the term free software was a good idea, I hope they're paying attention.
Can't go one whole article without attacking the ideals of Free Software, can you?
No one thinks the term "Free Software" is a good one, the issue has always been that there's nothing better. I can't use Open Source since the term doesn't mean the same thing.
The only other term I can use is Digital Commons, but Digitial Commons is a larger movement than Free Software.
Anyway, ESR, you can't go one whole article without going on the attack against Free Software, can you? You can't accept that many of the ideals of Open Source haven't panned out, and that with the recent legal attacks, the commitement and idealism of Free Software is what's driving so many to resist so strongly.
You're using such similar tactics to MS that it's startling. At first you ignored Free Software- refused to talk about it in many articles. Then you attacked it. Now you make subtle arguments aginst it in each thing you put out.
If you really wanted a unified movement- you'd stop with the blatant attacks.
Any evidence that they reject mail for various reasons? I'm sure there is. You can go ahead and see which RFCs they're in compliance with and which they aren't.
If you don't have a PTR record associated with your host, try to send mail to them, or malform your EHLO or something else.
You don't need to be "really sure" mail is spam- I'm talking about doing things like standards complaince checking, which will result in mail being rejected at delivery time.
Is this just random theorizing, or does GMail really fail to deliver some emails it thinks is spam?
There's no reason to get insulting. RFC 2821 has a number of requirements for delivery of mail that many services ignore.
I love all this do-it-yourself PVR stuff and I tried to build my own two years ago. The hardware just wasn't available in the price and formfactor I wanted.
Now I'd be interested in buying a pre-made Free PVR that I could just plug in and start hacking on myself. Basically I want a box that comes in a small form factor, low noise, low heat and already has MythTV or Freevo pre-loaded and configured for the hardware.
Well I *directly* addressed you notebook scenario in my pargraph about SASL users, but you didn't quote me there...
If you need to send mail through a server offsite that you maintain, make an SSH tunnel to the remote site.
Comcast's mail server doesn't have many problems. The tech support people are idiots, but I think that somewhere down the line there's someone with at least half a clue.
I'm all about freedom being able to have "real" internet service, but Comcast residential isn't for that anyway. With a 30kps upstream limit- you can't run a decent service anyway.
The only reason I use Comcast is that the only DSL provider available to me is Verizon Avenue, who, when I called to ask for thier EULA, told me it was an internal document and they refused to share such a document with someone who hasn't already signed up.
I should have taken my complaint to the Office of the Attorney General but I didn't think of it at the time.
Incoming mail servers are arguable, though not allowed in Comcast's EULA, but outgoing- I can't think of a single good reason why a user needs to run their own outgoing mail server and not relay through the Comcast server.
Yes, the Comcast tech support people are complete morons, I'm a Comcast subscriber myself. I hate them too, but I can't think of a good reason to allow outbound port 25 mail. One could possibly make an argument about authenticated SMTP relays with silliness like POP before relay, but IMHO such systems are broken (and I've used them- I should know). It's better to use SASL and encrypt the whole thing.
When Comcast starts monitoring indivudal users though- I do get more than a little concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
Your topic is a bit misleading. Hurd has the possibility to make similar features, but it doesn't as of now..
One of the greatest features of GNU/Hurd is the idea of translators. By getting rid of the traditional file system model, you can make many interfaces to systems that "look" like filesystems, and such keyword based indexing/browsing/searching could be impelemented at the user level *as a filesystem*, rather than as a set of calls on top of a traditional filesystem requiring the application to "know" how to use it.
The Hurd documents talk about everything from an "ftp filesystem" to ways to rewrite X. I can imagine an IM program where you could echo and cat to friends like:
echo "Hi there" >> ~/IM/jabber/friend@jabberserver.org
When you think of the filesystem as a set of interfaces rather than a set of files, the possibilities are endless, including the one presented in the project.
It's sad that Hurd hasn't done better in making a working system, and it's also sad that Linux hasn't taken this "Best of Breed" idea.
I've been using the Happy acker Lite 2 for about three or four years.
I'd used lots of keybords before it and went through about one a year. They'd be difficult on my hands (no feedback) and they'd be hard to clean.
I even bought one of those old IBM keyboards upon Roblimo's recommendation, but it died in a week after I spilled a drink on it.
The Happy Hacker is small, but is a full size keyboard. It has a very pleasant feel (good click, but not too hard), light, and very rugged. It's also very easy to clean. Though it's expensive at about $70-$80, other specialty keyboards are more, and I've found the HH keyboards to be so rugged that they've paid for themselves.
I consider a keyboard in the same way that a waiteress might consider a good pair of shoes- it's something I'm spending my day on, I want it to be comfortable.
It seems to me that the best way to support Free codecs would be to throw support at an existing project such as Ogg Theora. Does anyone know why they're not throwing support behind it?
This is a poor argument.
Besides the obvious fact that Apple is selling products to make money (rather than as a humanitarian act) I can say that for people like me, this will make it more likely for me to buy their product.
I buy products that suit my needs. The Apple products, due to their locked-in status.
The Linksys WRT54T (?) is the best example I can think of. I would never have bought one except that they run Linux and I can modify them to make them useful.
Those haven't been the myths for a long time that most GNU/Linux users talk about.
The barriers to entry are:
* Hardware (auto)detection/configuration
* Integration with other systems (Word Docs, MS Exchance, etc.)
* Configuration for More Complicated Tasks, like installing software that's not provided by your distribution
* An easy configuration program (right now we have a half dozen)
I've been using GNU/Linux since 1997, but these are still real issues for the person in between the complete notice and the power user.
We have most of the power users, many of the complete novices won't notice, but I think a large segement of people fall somewhere in the middle and we may not do as well there.
Nope, you're wrong.
SPF doesn't care about the From: header, only the Sender as part of the envelope.
From is part of the message (RFC2822) and Sender is part of the envelope (RFC2821).
Lots of programs are build on open standards.
Internet Explorer, by Microsoft, is based on open standards like TCP/IP and HTTP, as is Microsoft Outlook partially based on the open SMTP standard, so that argument is spurious at best.
As for being "based on" an open source project. What's it based on? Which license does the original program use? Something BSD-like, since the Rendevous program itself does not appear to be Free Software from what I found on the web site.
Right, but the original poster was asking about the possibility of a group trademarking "Open", I would guess in regards to software.
As you pointed out, this would be too vague to be an effective trademark, and so I'm concluding that the term is not immune to abuse or misunderstanding, which were the stated reasons for its coinage and use.
There was a time the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) tried to make Open Source a trademark, but it didn't work out. "Open Source" as a term pre-dates the "Open Source" as a replacement term for Free Software by a long time.
In addition, various groups used the "Open" word before Open Source, such as HP's "OpenView" desktop environment.
Yes, it looks like Apple is trying to purposefully confuse people by prepending "Open" to this product, but maybe this will prove once and for all that any term like this can be hijacked, just like the Open Source people believe that the term Free Software is easily misunderstood.
We suggest that everywhere we as a culture have previously talked about "free software", the label should be changed to "open source". Open-source software. The open-source model. The open source culture. The Debian Open Source Guidelines. (In pitching this to the corporate world I'm also going to be invoking the idea of "peer review" a lot.)
http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
This was a long, long time ago.
Since then, his attacks have always been subtle. He attacks RMS openly, and in his Unix Philosophy book, he attacks Free Software as a bad way to get people involved.
But that's not all there is to it! You see- Open Source is born out of the idea of being apolitical.
This isn't about popularity alone. Popularity is nice, but rights are why those of us who use the term Free Software are so ferverent about it.
He dances around the issue by talking in third person here:
There was one exception: Richard Stallman and the Free Software Movement. "Open source" was explicitly intended to replace Stallman's preferred "free software" with a public label that was ideologically neutral, acceptable both to historically opposed groups like the BSD hackers and those who did not wish to take a position in the GPL/anti-GPL debate. Stallman flirted with adopting the term, then rejected it on the grounds that it failed to represent the moral position that was central to his thinking. The Free Software Movement has since insisted on its separateness from "open source", creating perhaps the most significant political fissure in the hacker culture of 2003.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch02s03.html
This would be true if he hadn't already made all that fuss in the past.
Now anything he says against Free Software as a term is considered, by me at least, to be a thinly veiled attempt at attacking the ideals, or at the very least, promoting his own.
Linux isn't free. Hello? If there is actually anyone still left on the planet who thinks the term free software was a good idea, I hope they're paying attention.
Can't go one whole article without attacking the ideals of Free Software, can you?
No one thinks the term "Free Software" is a good one, the issue has always been that there's nothing better. I can't use Open Source since the term doesn't mean the same thing.
The only other term I can use is Digital Commons, but Digitial Commons is a larger movement than Free Software.
Anyway, ESR, you can't go one whole article without going on the attack against Free Software, can you? You can't accept that many of the ideals of Open Source haven't panned out, and that with the recent legal attacks, the commitement and idealism of Free Software is what's driving so many to resist so strongly.
You're using such similar tactics to MS that it's startling. At first you ignored Free Software- refused to talk about it in many articles. Then you attacked it. Now you make subtle arguments aginst it in each thing you put out.
If you really wanted a unified movement- you'd stop with the blatant attacks.
Any evidence that they reject mail for various reasons? I'm sure there is. You can go ahead and see which RFCs they're in compliance with and which they aren't.
If you don't have a PTR record associated with your host, try to send mail to them, or malform your EHLO or something else.
You don't need to be "really sure" mail is spam- I'm talking about doing things like standards complaince checking, which will result in mail being rejected at delivery time.
Is this just random theorizing, or does GMail really fail to deliver some emails it thinks is spam?
There's no reason to get insulting. RFC 2821 has a number of requirements for delivery of mail that many services ignore.
He's not counting all the mail that Google is rejecting and not even being allowed in for further classification.
What about Google traffic that's just google spider index tool? Does it show spiders crawling around your city?
How about other robots, such as spam harvesting tools? Do we get to see little cans of spam running around?
And with all these robots on the site, will a Blade Running scenario emerge?
I love all this do-it-yourself PVR stuff and I tried to build my own two years ago. The hardware just wasn't available in the price and formfactor I wanted.
Now I'd be interested in buying a pre-made Free PVR that I could just plug in and start hacking on myself. Basically I want a box that comes in a small form factor, low noise, low heat and already has MythTV or Freevo pre-loaded and configured for the hardware.
Does anyone know if such a thing exists?
Please tell me something Sendmail does that Postfix doesn't.
I'd argue Postfix is more modular, more simple to configure, more respectful of system resources, more secure and more flexible than Sendmail.
How is this redundant? No one else noticed it was down until I did. There wasn't even a mirror available yet!
The site appears slashdotted already (and there weren't even any comments on the Read More when I found the article).
I wonder if the Slashdot effect has anything to do with infinity plus one.
Well I *directly* addressed you notebook scenario in my pargraph about SASL users, but you didn't quote me there...
If you need to send mail through a server offsite that you maintain, make an SSH tunnel to the remote site.
Comcast's mail server doesn't have many problems. The tech support people are idiots, but I think that somewhere down the line there's someone with at least half a clue.
I'm all about freedom being able to have "real" internet service, but Comcast residential isn't for that anyway. With a 30kps upstream limit- you can't run a decent service anyway.
The only reason I use Comcast is that the only DSL provider available to me is Verizon Avenue, who, when I called to ask for thier EULA, told me it was an internal document and they refused to share such a document with someone who hasn't already signed up.
I should have taken my complaint to the Office of the Attorney General but I didn't think of it at the time.
No...
A mail lient" would need a mail server. The mail server should always be the one on your local network- ie Comcast's.
Incoming mail servers are arguable, though not allowed in Comcast's EULA, but outgoing- I can't think of a single good reason why a user needs to run their own outgoing mail server and not relay through the Comcast server.
Yes, the Comcast tech support people are complete morons, I'm a Comcast subscriber myself. I hate them too, but I can't think of a good reason to allow outbound port 25 mail. One could possibly make an argument about authenticated SMTP relays with silliness like POP before relay, but IMHO such systems are broken (and I've used them- I should know). It's better to use SASL and encrypt the whole thing.
When Comcast starts monitoring indivudal users though- I do get more than a little concerned.
Duh.
Thanks.
'course there's the issue of numbers of phonetics nonethless a great place to start off.
Mod parent up please.
That's the point of the original article.
So here's a question for you...
Which is more secure, "Peter Piper Picked a Pack of Pickled Peppers on his Holiday in Greece" or "r7x,8!p"?
I'm sure the Peter phrase will be easier to remember, but how secure is it?
And I *don't* expect people to remember 72 characacter length random passwords.
So yes, it's a question of length vs randomness.