| 6.26.04
|
more on copyright - _-=* Cataboligne
|
Read this article - Why open source is bad for Australia
Its really just a blatant "open source cant be trusted, we need stronger protection for IP" typical bullshit.
But it does make an interesting point on the second page:
"Put slightly differently, without a system of intellectual property rights it is difficult to prevent free
riding by those who did not contribute to the original investment."
Excellent idea...so how do we stop the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, SCO, etc.?
Live free, Die well
Chaos Lord Cataboligne.
|
|
| 6.25.04
|
Back in the saddle - _-=* Cataboligne
|
Did I say saddle? I meant web browser.
If its not obvious, the Agent 00111 deal has not worked out.
I put 00111 in control and the dude just went AWOL on me...no idea what happened.
I'll try to post an occasional goody, but PC Wearys death knell is just a matter of time.
Chaos Lord Cataboligne, signing off.
|
|
| 9.06.03
|
Chaos Lord, standing down - _-=* Cataboligne
|
I'm going to stand down from posting for awhile to work on a Quake programming project.
You probably wont see a post with my name unless I get really fired up.
Agent 00111 will have the con for the near future, so get ready to read his
intelligence reports on the trouble ridden IT industry.
Chaos Lord Cataboligne, signing off.
|
|
| 9.05.03
|
"Immunity is illusory" - 00111 a license to Linux
|
Link: The trouble with anti-virus By John Leyden
>Traditional techniques aimed at stemming the flood of viruses and worms are failing to keep pace with the rise in malicious code.
>So there's a problem - but one that the mainstream AV industry has no financial incentive to solve. Quite the opposite, in fact. The worse things become the rosier the financial future looks for AV vendors, at least in the short term. A survey by market analysts IDC out this week predicts that anti-virus software market will grow from $2.2 billion last year to $4.4 billion in 2007.
>Who cares about improving product - the share price is soaring
>The research, carried out at Hewlett-Packard's research labs in Bristol, analysed the effectiveness of the signature update approach to virus detection and elimination against a computer model designed to mimic viral spread. The model showed that the signature update approach is fundamentally flawed, simply because worms can spread faster than anti-virus signature updates can be distributed.
Quite a racket they have eh...I wonder if they could be convicted under the RICO codes.
|
|
| 9.05.03
|
Put down the pigopolists, revolution is at hand! - _-=* Cataboligne
|
Link: Slashdot posts
>the RIAA has determined that file "sharing"(stealing/copyright infringement) has negatively impacted their "industry"
Shoot, I can determine the stars are black and night sky white and I live in a Scottish castle if I want.
That wont make it a fact...
>"industry" = (ripping off artists and preventing others from competing, or even distributing, fairly).
These people (the RIAA) are just plain wrong. When companies and organizations like these, dedicated to $, greed and profits,
are wrong they shouldnt be allowed to avail themselves of the legal system. We want our "$480 million" back for the last 3 years!
And whatever was stolen from us in the previous years...
>You have to admit, they have some compelling evidence that justifies their claim.
Actually I'd be willing to admit their "evidence" is probably outright lies.
>What, pray tell, do you find an acceptable course of action for the RIAA?
Go away. Let someone else try to "do the right thing" with music distribution.
Yes we are saying you have failed, and its time to more on.
Oh, we want the artists, technicians, producers, studios, radio & video people and others neccesary to the distribution pipeline.
We just want to eliminate the greedy entities in the middle that get rich off licensing, franchise "tax" and legal extortion.
>They are, at the end of the day, merely doing everything in their power to protect their property, their business, and their livelihood.
Maybe this isnt "OK". I think we need some new business laws that require people get fair pay for their work, and everyone who wants
a job gets one in order to allow companies to stay in business. With respect to a "job for all" not some stupid shit like taco bell or mc'ds. We dont need that crap, damnit we can cook our own food.
Minimum wage should be something like $50,000/year for anyone who makes a decent contribution.
How can this be possible you ask? Get rid of the knobs making multi-millions! 5% of the dolts dont need to control 95% of the wealth.
We should *all* control the wealth.
>**** file-sharing is theft under copyright law.
Then lets change the copyright laws so it isnt!
|
|
| 9.03.03
|
GUI vs. CLI - 00111 a license to Linux
|
Link: GUI vs. CLI: A Qualitative Comparison
Really these are just tools. All their components can be poor or excellent, and they can be used for good or ill.
Between 82 and 86 I used CLI interfaces. In 87 I found the amiga. That was the only GUI I used until 93 - my amiga 500 died :( It was ressurected though 2 years ago, Yay for ebay. I liked it so much I got a 2000 and a 1000 to go with it.
In 95 I got a 386 with win 3.1. Since then I've used dozens of GUI - CDE of Sun and AIX, KDE, Gnome, Blackbox, the list is long. What amazes me is that after decades of CLI use, including VAX-VMS and older Unix, I am _still_ finding nifty things to do with CLI...even coupling CLI and GUI together to solve problems.
|
|
| 9.03.03
|
Anti-Virus Protection racket - 00111 a license to Linux
|
Link: Poll: Do you Run Anti-Virus Protection on your Main OS/Computer?
I read the article about a mass DDoS on anti-virii vendors...that would be cool!
I really dislike anti-virus companies. On my last IT job I had to hunt for virii other ppl were lame enough to propigate. I've never had a virus. I've never propigated a virus. I've never chosen to use anti-virii software.
My philosophy is simple: "never execute code you dont trust."
This is why I primarily use linux now - I can dive into the source if I want (or contract someone if I'm not capable myself, so not being a coder is no exscuse) and find out exactly what Redhat, Suse, Gentoo, or any other linux does. And when I get new OS, I _always_ check md5sums!
How do you know what any proprietary OS does? (Not just MS, IBM, Sun, HP - all of them...) You dont.
Why do I hate anti-virus companies? I'm not sure really...I know I've never like norton, which is the biggest CPU waster pitched at the places I've worked.
I guess because their (anti-virus vendors) philosophy sounds kind of like this to me:
"Youse wouldnt want anything bad to happen to youse systems heh heh...if youse pays us we'll make sure nutting goes wrong."
Who is to say members of the anti-virus extortion cartel dont have some "secret way" of releasing new virus methods. They dont have to release any virii code...just the know how or even suggestions to get all the "me too" script kiddie style people that want 15 secs of fame to generate the code. And thus the industries financial success is mandated.
A sure fire money maker - sounds suspicious to me.
PS:
Eh, forgot a few facts - my network is protected by a firewall to block outside threats - zero access...soon I intend to reconfigure it to block unauthorized activities from the inside as well. I figure until its all open source, better to be safe than sorry.
In 16 years of computing I've never brought a virus onto my own systems, even once.
|
|
| 9.01.03
|
Education is the KEY... - 00111 a license to Linux
|
Link: You Can Compete With Microsoft
This guys article is a good read, excellent things he points out:
"The reality is, in today's world you don't challenge Microsoft. Most users are just going to take what Microsoft gives them because they don't know any better." - Tom Calhoun, GIS manager at Charlotte Storm Water Services
Alex116 bus makes good points too:
>4-Schools and kids to get involved at early age.
>6- Ask your work ,school, liberary...etc if you have a choice other than windows.
Schools are the key to the desktop debate. What todays kids use while they grow and learn, they will demand when they join the IT workforce. When they take over that workforce and move into managment / executive control they will move the industry players to the OS they want.
And increasingly schools are turning to OSS and Linux to save on licensing costs. Yay schools! You go with your bad self...and Yay expensive proprietary software, you go with your bad self. My worst nightmare for a Linux built future is MS and the other proprietaries waking up and flat out _giving_ their code away to schools everywhere.
If you want to see Linux use widespeard in 5 - 10 years and some real competition for the proprietary set do everything you can to promote Linux / OSS at your kids school! (I'm trying to convert a local middle school from XP and Office to Linux / open office.) And dont tell MS or the other companies this wisdom, this gem is our "secret" :-)
> Abominations like the BSA
Tell it like it is brother...and while you're at it, where can I sign up to get rid of these money wasting shmucks! Amen.
|
|
| 9.01.03
|
Dont EVER give up! - 00111 a license to Linux
|
Link: Time for Linux Users to Leave the Moral High Ground?
I say we keep our "Moral high ground". Yeah, sounds good.
I seriously doubt that a single corporation exists anywhere that at some point in its existance has not abused at least one individual in some way one time. Just an opinion if you will, a postulate I'm working on. Neither to say individuals have not abused companies. (Usually the ones in control, but not always...)
Ok, SCO has the right to sue IBM to find out if the courts think IBM has screwed up. Fine, IBM can afford it.
SCO (really Caldera a Linux distributor) may have the law on its side when asking for linux users (regardless of whether they are corporate or individual) for a license to its IP.
That doesnt mean it is the "right" thing to do, however. Just because the laws of township, state, federal or country govt. "allow" you to pursue a course of action does not mean its "right" or "acceptable."
I think the correct course would be to contact the OSS community and say "Hey this code is ours, take it out of Linux now..." I'm sure the community would be happy to oblige. SCO on the other hand is saying "We're not proving anything, we just want you to pay us..." That is something Linux users the world over can object to - its called "extortion", legally pursued or otherwise.
Just because IBM may have abused SCO/Caldera/Novell/AT&T Unix IP doesnt mean they "should" ask for a pile of cash from anyone aside from IBM. (However, if they succeed at this, I'm going to ask for a couple hundred thousand from each of the companies that have ever upset me... :)
And I figured out what to do with all the kids propigating virii and mal-ware - dont arrest them, give 'em system admin jobs! Let them deal with their own spawn, that should teach them some respect.
Agent 00111
|
|
| 9.01.03
|
Human rights in a digital era - 00111 a license to Linux
|
This is a response requested for opinions on an article regarding copyright enforcement surrounding the infamous legal struggle
we face because of our new favorite corporate opressor. It's very good and will probably end up in the bit bucket so I figured
I'd better post it here.
You can read "Linux community told to 'get real'" first.
> SCO should be destroyed for daring to protect its own copyright.
Sure, any entity capable of holding a copyright should be able to protect it. I should know, I have a warehouse full of copyrighted work. I didnt create 99% of it, but I own it now and have to protect it. My business and my personal life depend on it.
I have used linux for over 4 years now. As a long time developer (21 years) I take issue with any OS that will crash frequently and execute code I dont agree with. (This would apply to any commercial OS as I cant examine the source...therefore I cant agree with the code.)
I think there are three main points SCO misses with its press driven stock raising feeding frenzy...
1. Proof. Where is the proof? Not some 30 year old code that is public domain. SCO needs to show 100% legitimate code that they own in the linux source. Without an NDA, I'm talking a verify-able public statement.
2. Indemnity. And this is the real legal question surrounding the GPL in my opinion. If your IP has been released with out authorization under the GPL, what should you be able to do? I think you should only be allowed to legally go after the individual or company responsible. Users and distributors of GPL products should be immune to this sort of legal extortion. Essentially SCO is saying "we can sue you because you have our stuff..." This isnt true. I have the GPL linux kernal for Redhat 9.0. When any code SCO owned was released by anyone under GPL, it stopped being "thiers" and became "ours." Thus I have a legal right to the code I have. The only entity that isnt immune is the one responsible for the unauthorized action.
3. Rights. I think this is the biggest issue. It goes way beyond SCO and IBM too. Corporations are afforded certain rights to own property and such. I dont think coporate rights should ever (and I mean _EVER_) override an individuals rights. Even if this means the corporation will fail because the rights of an individual matter more and thousands or even millions will be out of work. (Why dont these ppl just start their own co. doing the same thing?) Example: on my last job I wrote code. I copyrighted that code. When I left the job the company I worked for took ownership of that code, now they have the copyright. If my rights were more important than theirs I could release the code under GPL and they could do nothing but moan about it because they could never take complete ownership of my code. This is the way it should be. This would probably put an end to 95% of the RIAA's extortion tactics also as artists desiring to could just give public domain on their songs. In other words if I create some intellectual property it is mine forever to do with as I wish, no matter who else "rents" or "licenses" it. When I die, it becomes public domain. Because individuals _are_ more important than the companies they work for.
In summary:
If SCO's IP has been abused and this can be clearly proven they have the right to pursue legal recourse against those responsible. On the other hand if the code was released by the programmer that originally wrote it they (SCO) "should" be SOL...its his/her code and they have the right to do that.
SCO should not be able to able to pursue legal action against anyone else, period. (Or ask anyone for money...) Anyone using, distributing, modifying & resdistributing or involved with Linux GPL code should be indemnified if they obey the GPL terms. Thus the SCO that exists now could only pursue entities that violated the code they released under the GPL as Caldera.
Thanks, Agent 00111
|
|
| 8.30.03
|
Riddle me this Batman? - 00111 a license to Linux
|
Link: Blaming Microsoft for Hacker Attacks
Well, set aside all the heated debate for a while and lets examine a few logical questions...
There will always be exploits in complex software for some time to come. There will always be people who will work to discover these exploits. Some other indivuals will have the chutzpa to abuse them. Get used to it.
Most of these "devastating" email worms that have cost the industry "billions" (who makes this stuff up anyway?) have four common elements: executeable attachments, script access to users address book, ability to send email under program control and...MS outlook.
I want these questions answered:
Why hasnt this been stopped by the OS engineers at MS? (Nevermind whether they are responsible...)
Is it really that difficult to make it so a mass email culled from the address book can not be sent without user intervention? I bet if you popped up a dialog even the most "clue free" windows user would be wise enough not to spam everyone they have an address for.
Do attachments need to be executeable? Ever? Even once they are extracted? Email is for communications, I dont remember using a binary to tell a story. (One could ask if we even need attachments...)
Why should software besides the email client have access to the address book database?
Does anyone but a spammer need a program to send mass mail?
Maybe MS should pay for all the time wasted on virii and maybe not. In my opinion they have not done enough.
And I feel sorry for the poor kid chosen to be the blaster scapegoat.
Apparently some of these flaws have indeed been corrected in new releases -
but this begs the question, "Why were they so easy to exploit in the first place or why not fix them after the first attack?" - ed
|
|
| 8.30.03
|
_-=* Cataboligne
|
Our field agent 00111 with a "License to Linux" has been moonlighting in other forums.
Read about his clandestine operations in the coming weeks.
|
|
| 8.22.03 - Doofus Award
|
today: CSF
|
I've been thinking about this one for some time.
I was layed off along with another talented gentleman in Feb. of 2002.
Since boss-bashing is not my "thing" I wanted to make sure I had clarity of vision before awarding CSF
the doofus. I now believe that I am correct in doing so...
Factors: got rid of two very talented individuals who did a great deal in over 4 years
to enhance the bottom line...why? To save $$ in my opinion. So in order to save money they
are getting rid of two people who probably added 4 or 5 times their salary to the bottom line and thus
instead of saving 1 x salary they are losing 4 x salary! Hey guys...DOOFUS!
Congrats you slow witted bunch of sloths, you've actually achieved something!
(apologize for insulting "actual" sloths. wonderful creatures, just wonderful - what would trees do without them?)
|
|
| 8.21.03
|
"Very" success story of a Linux adopter - 00111 a license to Linux
|
This is news I enjoy reading: Rockin' on without Microsoft -
A Q&A with CEO Ernie Ball of Sterling Ball, maker of guitar strings.
Seems Mr. Ball had an encounter with the BSA.
His company settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees.
Woo, 100 G's just for a few pieces of unlicensed bloat, now that is a good scam!
His solution was simple: Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months.
"I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" - "I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source."
Check "More on software piracy" for more PC-Weary take on the BSA...
|
|
| 8.21.03
|
Anti-Marketing for MS-borg®, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
|
|
| 8.21.03
|
Editorial #4, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
This edit. is a response to this: Are Windows and Linux Technology Equals?.
This article seems to lack accuracy in a few facts so I thought I'd point out some things, heh heh.
(...yeah get ready, I feel kinda like Christian Slaters' character, Hard Harry in "Pump up the Volume"...)
> Windows benefits from more than two decades of intense, heavily funded development work
The first date credited to Windows 1.0 release is
November 20th 1985.
The idea for it supposedly started in spring of '83, 2.5 years earlier. The pre windows stuff which looks
like DOS software started in '81. I'd pin the beginnings of win 1.0 somewhere between fall of '83 and spring of '84.
Windows 3.0 (progeny to modern win 9x base) is credited with
May 22nd 1990.
One can assume the development started sometime after the final relase of win 2.x in the very late 80's.
After that win release schedule is thus: 3.1 (Apr 1992), 3.11 wfw (Oct 1992), 3.1 NT (Aug 1993), NT 3.5 (Sept 1994), 95 - 4.0 (Aug 1995)
The Unix history chart has the start of minix, the progeny of Linux's code
base somewhere in 1984, with Minux 1.0 release in 1987. The Linux fork of this code is shown as Aug. 1 1991, with a release version of
0.01 instead of 1.0 (this will be significant later.) Linux moved quickly through releases, .02 (Oct 1991), .12 (Jan 1992), .95 (Mar 1992),
.99.11 (Jul 1993), .99.15 (Mar 94), 1.0 (Mar, 1994.)
So in terms of pure dates both windows and Linux code base developement have basically 19 years behind them.
As far as the "heavily funded" part goes, well just because you throw a pile of cash in a pig stye it doesnt turn into a 4 star hotel.
Who's to say Linus Torvalds early work on Linux wasnt as intense as the win developement?
And keep those dates in mind I'll use them on the comments below.
> Linux, although it has been in existence for years, has only begun its climb up the enterprise-computing chain in the last two to four years
I'd say usage of windows in "enterprise" computing might have a preliminary start with win NT circa '93 - '94.
But I doubt it had much of a widespread "base"...For that we should look at NT Enterprise and Terminal Server - 1997 and 1998.
A mere 5 or 6 years back. Not much of an edge over Linux I'd say. And whats easier, replacing old guard unix and mainframe with Linux
(a Unix variant) or the completely unknown (to the Unix / Mainframe admins / sysmgrs) NT?
Hah, talk about TCO. I'd guess for a Unix admin TCO is going to be less for Linux.
> The Linux kernel has yet to make it to version 3.0.
Ah lets go back to those dates and version numbers for the pure "mathmatics". Win started with 1.0 and Linux with .01.
By the time Linux hit 1.0 it was probably equivalent version wise to 4.0 (Win 95). Function wise (and I have not checked this!)
I'd guess the early Linux's were way ahead of 95 for their intended use, as servers.
But comparing version numbers is like comparing navy beans to gold dubloons. Version numbers dont mean squat.
I'm not sure why Mr. Maguire chose to point this out as it is irrelevant.
> Still, can this young operating system compete with Windows technologically?
Young? This writer really should have checked his dates. As I pointed out the early win code base starts around '84.
The Minix code base starts in '84. Win 3.1 workgroups with network support, which is more significant to win today started around '91.
Linux is significant with network support from the start in '91.
I just dont see where he gets Linux being younger than windows. If anything they are of a very (*very*) similar age.
> the relative maturity of Windows and Linux carries a lot of weight.
Because Windows has had such a longer product life cycle - Meta Group analyst Thomas Murphy
Well according to the dates above, they have the exact _same_ maturity. "longer product life cycle" - not really sure how
this is a benefit...But I can postulate from the win timeline I posted links to above that serious developement of 3rd party win apps
was not under way until 3.1 was out say '91 or '92. Network software wasnt really possible until 3.1 workgroups and NT 3.1 were out around
'93 or '94. I'm not really clear on this but I believe slackware (at least) had some pretty decent stuff around '95.
I'm not sure win has any advantage in this area...probably not.
> "Windows is more than just Windows," - Meta Group analyst Thomas Murphy
Sure, its a great game playing system due to the success of DirectX, a great virii spreader thanks to the success of Outlook
and a great lock in thanks to MS-borg® monopoly tactics. Is it good for anything else? That seems to be a matter of opinion.
> "Windows has a far greater, far deeper list of packaged application software available," - IDC analyst Dan Kusnetsky
Sheehs, has this guy ever (I mean _*ever*_) downloaded and installed a *full* Linux install?
When I installed Redhat 9 recently I think the option to install everyting was over 3 Gig!
And that doesnt include tons of stuff available from gnu, opensource, sourceforge, freshmeat, etc...
With all this and things like VMware and Wine / winelib floating around I dont think win really has any advantages in this area.
> But in the real word, he observed, it might be easier to secure Windows - Forrester analyst Michael Rasmussen
<Dr. Evil voice> Oh, Right. <drums fingers, reaches for the "chair" button on this dudes seat...>
Maybe this guy lives in a cave. Uh - update for you all, win 9x, NT 4.x CANNOT be natively secured without loads of
patches and 3rd party firewalls. I'm not up on the security of XP and 2003 (it probably blows) so I will reserve comment on those.
Linux on the other hand has Unix security. And most newer distribs have a default firewall that you can configure for maximum
protection during installation!
I dont think win is ever going to beat Linux on security.
> "the whole advantage of a Microsoft approach," Murphy said, "is that you just have a set of discs, put them in the machine, click 'install set-up,' and go."
Hah hah hah hah, I cant stop laughing! HELP... woo, take it easy, deep breaths. Ah.
Obviously this guy has never _actually_ installed windows and various apps. When I had to do win admin on my last job, I lost count of the times
I had to go beyond "put them in the machine, click". Lord, probably near a hundred or more. From win 3.1 all the way to win 2K,
including 9x, 98se and NT 4. The idea of install-setup-and go is definitely an illusion.
At the bottom line section of this article though it basically states "Linux wins"...I'm just not sure about
why fact checking wasnt done on some of these quotes - this isnt listed as an opinion piece but much of it reads like one.
Now to give my opinion on the question posed, "Are Windows and Linux Technology Equals?" - no Linux is better hands down.
So why is win still all over the place? Hey, you use what works right? When more people try Linux and realize it (now)
works almost as well or better than win, its use will become more widespread. For some people this wont be true and they can
deal with the mad license disease of XP.
|
|
| 8.18.03
|
In defense of the GPL... - 00111 a license to Linux
|
Another legal statement in defense of the GPL
by Eben Moglen - General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation.
Another must read, this is even better than the bit by Lawrence Rosen.
Anyone who uses Linux for anything needs this confidence builder.
This debunks SCO's legal mumbo and makes a play on MS-borg® all in one, you cant beat it!
|
|
| 8.18.03
|
site upgrade
|
Finally fixed the top of the page tables, after they were messed up for many moons...
Also in process of adding more article icons for some variety.
|
|
| 8.18.03
|
MS-borg®: bloatware stays, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Oh well...still hope springs eternal.
"Outcry forces reprieve for Outlook Express"
As reported on ZDNet UK by Angus Kidman.
MS-borg® giving in to user pressure?...nah probably just keeping up appearances.
Gotta play the "good guy" these days after all.
|
|
| 8.14.03
|
MS-borg® cans bloatware, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Finally some good news from MS-borg®...
"Microsoft abandons Outlook Express"
As reported on ZDNet UK by Angus Kidman.
Nothing special but it is a first step towards getting rid of the greatest virii enabler ever, MS outlook!
|
|
| 8.9.03 - Doofus Award
|
today: ess sea oh
|
Back at'cha with another doofus. This one is _so_ obvious.
Without further ado:
SCO, you guys are led by a bunch of greed dripping screaming doofus'.
Hope you down drown on your own vomit.
|
|
| 8.7.03
|
History lesson: Pigopolists, Copyright and lawsuits... by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Seems our little battle of P2P (Napster, Kazaa, etc) vs. the Pigopoly (RIAA, MPAA, etc) is nothing new.
Read about the fine history of lawsuits and copyright.
I think its high time everyone woke up and just started saying no.
Say no to the RIAA distibution evil...Say no to the Linux "you need to license our unix IP" BS...Say no to MS-borg® XP licensing...Say NO to every high priced superflous piece of junk we dont need in our lives!
RISE UP digital brother (and sister) hood, cast off the electrons of opression...
YOU CONTROL YOUR COMPUTER!
YOU CONTROL YOUR FILES!
YOU CONTROL YOUR MONEY!
<* exits to the cheering of the crowd *>
{RAH, RAH, RAH, RAH}
|
|
| 8.6.03
|
00111 a license to Linux
|
I'm sure you've all marked my suspicious lack of updates in the wake of the "BIG" licensing
issues a certain commercial OS provider has brought to light. (And yes, I refuse to identify them
or give any kind of acknowledgement whatsoever...no free marketing for the really wicked.)
Sometimes, just sometimes mind you, ignorance really stumps me.
Ok so the Linux 2.4 kernel may have inherited some illegal code. Thats possible isnt it?
IT IS OPEN SOURCE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
</Chris Farley mode off>
There is no need to pay for any commercial license. We just take the offending code from the
kernel and replace it with clean code...and distribute the "clean" kernel to all and sundry. No more need to worry about
a commercial license is there...thats not too complicated is it?
Looks like this suggestion is a PC-Weary first, I have yet to see it reported on *any* news site.
|
|
| 7.10.03
|
20/20 Foresight, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
In my Linux desktop rebuttal response I stated that gestapo license tactics will
increase usage of Linux and open source more than any positives...
I found this comment recently in "Linux Making Headway in Desktop Space" by Peter Galli.
"Mitch Kapor, the chair of the Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF) and founder of Lotus Development Corp., said
As hardware prices continue to fall, Microsoft's software prices remain high in comparison;
There is also growing resistance in the enterprise to forced upgrades and resentment to onerous licensing conditions, all of which are contributing to the growing awareness of alternatives"
Woot to me for pointing out this trend a year and a half back...
|
|
| 7.10.03
|
Followup news items, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
|
|
| 7.8.03
|
Editorial #3, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
This piece is spurred on by Rothrins vociferous
rant about Star Wars,
which he hasnt done in quite some time (ranting that is.)
I stated recently in an email that PC Weary started as a joke to vent my many tech industry driven frustrations.
Recently however, the focus has shifted from an online bitch session to more of a fight against ignorance.
Rothrins piece has re-awoken me to the fact that everyone has some passion they are willing to defend.
2 decades ago I was frustrated because many people didnt take micro computers and the home computing potential seriously.
Many viewed them as just another fad, useful only for home video games. The attitude prevalent at the time was that
you needed a mainframe for serious work.
I realize now that my frustrations with the IT industry are not from years of developing bitterness over the greed and
corruption, but from my passion for the respect the computing world deserves. I simply cant stand the fact that the
bright shiny future I envisoned in '83 when I got my first system (a Commodore 64) is a little tarnished because
the companies fueling the computer revolution dont live up to my expectations.
Wow...that was deep. Time for another Doofus award :)
|
|
| 7.7.03
|
First guest piece, Woo Hoo
|
First official guest commentary is up on PC Weary games!
This piece is a statement by my good friend Rothrin on Everquest with a link to a very informative slashdot article.
Check it out now!
|
|
| 7.7.03
|
SWAT and the professional software pirate, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Here are some articles found on the Reg:
Software counterfeiter jailed for 15 months
Software piracy 'kingpin' captured in Bangkok
40m software piracy ring smashed in Italy
Kickme.to wins BSA court search battle
Professional piracy (mass sales of copied & unlicensed software for profit) seems to be under heavy attack these days.
It is certainly the focus of Law enforcement on many levels. This is a good thing right?
Feh, wrongo...
I want one question answered...why is it wrong for some independent shill to pirate the software, BUT ok for the
companies that compose piracy's big opponent the BSA to RIP US OFF?
Lets restate that: Pirates (read individuals) cant rip off the company BUT the company can rip off individuals!
Honestly, did I miss something? Is this my first day off the turnip wagon...
Why are consumers punished for piracy?
You may wander, are we punished? YES! And in many ways.
1 - losses from piracy are payed for by the consumer, not the company as they should be.
2 - Loss of innovation - legitimate funding is taken away from R&D and paychecks to fight piracy.
3 - Waste of Law enforcement - Law enforcement is a valuable resource that should be focused on serious crimes.
4 - Loss of freedom - Many freedoms have been eroded away in the bogus fight against piracy.
5 - Directly with sanctions from the BSA - any individual or group perceived to be supporting piracy is terrorized with legal strong arm tactics regardless of the facts.
So how should piracy be treated? I say let 'em (pirates) go at it. Software that is a good deal will stand
strong against piracy. Products from honorable companies that people respect just wont get pirated as much.
Independent volunteer networks can be set up to discourage piracy. This will save a ton of cash, and eliminate
the strong arm legal tactics of the BSA in one shot.
Bottom line: piracy will always be around. It just is not the evil the companies want you to think.
Piracy is more like a response to overpriced low value software. It's kind of like a protective reaction
on the part of the hapless consumer.
The fight against piracy should be decided by individual consumers and not the legal system...
When the company offers a good deal consumers will cut back on buying pirated goods.
Simple enough.
Conclusion: I'm not encouraging you to go out and buy pirated software. I just want you to realize that you
have the decision making power. You can say NO to the BSA and its components without saying yes to piracy!
|
|
| 7.5.03
|
MS-borg® using FUD weapon to target Linux image, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Read the techworld article Linux v Microsoft: the battle for hearts and servers.
For those living in a cave or learning Q3 Radiant, lets recap a few bits:
MS-borg® claims for winblows advantages: Easy, stable, secure, costs less, better value.
The reality of the situation: winblows is *not* stable (Still!), very *UN*secure, expensive,
poorly valued even amongst its own versions, and easy only in the sense that it relieves the user of responsibilities and
decisions they are better left learning about and dealing with.
Linux advantages: Medium difficulty, Stable (reasonably), secure, low cost, great value.
The reality of the situation: Linux meets these targets on typical hardware if the user is not totally clueless.
Problems arise with oddball hardware, odd configurations and special needs.
Now for the tirade...
Is it possible MS-borg® is getting worried about Linux as a competitive product?
Here are some bits quoted from the mentioned article.
''Microsoft argues however that Linux's apparent success is one of perception not reality.''
''However, Linux representatives aren't buying it. - Microsoft, he says, has realised it is now under pressure and is having to shout about its successes.''
''The intimation is that it's business as usual for Microsoft. Winning contracts is what it does. In May, a recent memo, leaked to the International Herald Tribune, from Microsoft executive Orlando Ayala, confirmed the existence of a slush-fund to help Microsoft win against open souce.""Under NO circumstance lose against Linux," said Ayala in the memo.''
''In the States it is a worldwide success story, in Europe it is an American company trying to tie people in with its software and licensing contracts.''
''Software only accounts for five per cent of the total cost of ownership, an MS spokeswoman says, you have to look at the overall. And in this case, despite Microsoft's licensing, it offers better integration, security, more applications.''
''Joe Eckert from SuSE in the US tells us he doesn't understand how Microsoft can make that case. "With Linux, you don't have to upgrade your hardware, you need far fewer administrators, it is much more secure and stable." ''
''With a forced Microsoft upgrade, he says, you also need to upgrade your hardware. "But with Linux there is a smooth transition and you can use old hardware, the savings are incredible." Plus OpenOffice means died-in-the-wool Excel users can still use all their macros without worry. The barriers he says "are falling like crazy".''
It is clear from the article that MS-borg® is training its FUD on Linux.
The real question: is the reaction 'just in case' or is the threat verified and accepted?
One thing that is certain: whether or not Linux can trump winblows is a ways off.
Strides are being made in the right direction, but I think we'd best keep our focus and stay sharp.
MS-borg®'s best weapon is proprietary lock in; either govt. policy or public sector peer pressure.
My opinion for the best weapon for Linux; be able to run win-apps as easily as winblows or an easy
alternative that has read/write on the same file formats.
|
|
| 6.27.03 - Doofus Award
|
today: RIAA
|
Citizens of the world...
unite in celebration...
marvel at our own magnificence as we give birth to...
the DOOFUS AWARD!
Yes the award of the first ever Doofus prize here at PC Weary.
And todays lucky winner, step right up <drumroll please>
The wonderful, the amazing, the asinine, the RIAA!
Competing with the Spanish Inquistion for sheer nastiness and underhanded deceitful tactics.
And here are some relevant facts that clinched the RIAA nomination for Doofus:
(Check this Redmonk article by Stephen O' Grady for the full deal)
''the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced this week that it intends to begin suing individual file swappers, AKA its members' customers.''
''The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years.''
''all of which are RIAA members, colluded to keep CD prices artificially high.''
''The RIAAs lawsuit-oriented strategy is like a game of Whack-a-Mole, except that the only ones who win here are the lawyers.''
See "Cost of digital media, a nightmare" for my prevailing statements on this in Jan. of 2002!
BTW (by the way) there is another collective that threatens its clients whilst demanding more money - DRUG DEALERS!
|
|
| 6.25.03
|
Mark of the Beast, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Hit Best Buy today and saw one of the new cool alienware boxes.
BWTF does this stuff have to come with anything from MS-borg®?
Even stupid re-branded Logitec meece and keyboards!
I just pray they dont come out with some super cool game and it will only run on XP...especially
as I plan on never installing it.
<sigh> well back to millipede...
|
|
| 5.22.03
|
Editorial #2, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
So a reader emailed in and asked why I am so negative about the PC industry...
(Seriously, I GET reader email. Honestly I _mean_ it.)
As I have explained many times to those close to me I am a very
optimistic person.
You see I am a problem solver by nature. From dead HD's to faulted NIC's, burned out fan bearings,
overheated CPU's, software bugs, all and sundry.
I believe every problem has a solution. Every solution has a person that can find it when they know
what problem they have to solve... (How much more optimistic can you get?)
It just happens that sometimes you need that dissenting voice that says "Yo, we got a problem!"
So Mr. Reader Commenting, I am not so much criticizing or defaming the PC industry as saying
hey could we have a look at some of these problems and find a solution.
Just think of me as a helpful guide to point the solution seekers in the right direction.
|
|
| 5.21.03
|
Certification the 8th deadly sin, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Just read this
article on certifications.
Here we go again sunshine.
J. Reader should realize that I come from an earlier era of computing back when Z80 was Zilogs star
CPU and assembler was the language of choice.
So, what do I think of certifications? I'd rather solve problems than waste my time in class.
Perhaps "8th deadly sin" is putting it mildly...I certainly wont sell my dignity to some MS-borg® third
party toady just to prove that I can fix a problem.
If I tell you I can fix a problem I can damn well fix it and I dont need no stinking piece of paper unless
I'm folding it up as some kind of shim! This is called honor
and this is exactly why we have the certification sin.
Well rather a lack of honor. Some doof out there is just savy enough to fool a PHB (pointy haired boss)
to get a job he cant quite handle. Thus the cert so all the doof's can prove (via some knobby
third party) they can do what they say. Many a doof is _still_ incapable BTW.
Well lets look at the article "Certifications are worth it".
>certified professionals could boast of huge salary gains that were higher than their noncertified colleagues
This is the same old bunk and I have always maintained this philosophy: the problem is solved by intellect
and intent, not by a piece of paper with ink on it! Compensation should relate directly to talent.
And no I do not believe any testing method used by certs or employers reveals a tech's true talent...
>certified professionals still had good things to say about the value of being certified
Now lets be reasonable here...If you were party to spending multi-thousands (even if it wasnt
yours) are you ever going to not say good things? That would go over real well with the parties
handing out the dosh for these expensive certs.
>Some employers even make certification training a formal step in their workforce development programs.
What better way to justify the stiff costs.
>More than half of the survey respondents believe they get more on-the-job respect because of their technical certifications
Like I stated before, I get respect because of my talent and what I do with it. Not from carrying a piece of paper.
>There's also the attention from your key computer vendors
Now we get down to the real evil of this trend.
Vendor lock in. What a really great marketing scam (gotta be a lawyer, shark or shill around right?)
If a shop employs a large number of MCSE-diots chances are they will be a lot less interested
in viable OS alternatives. This is a really great marketing technique to keep the companies sponsoring
the certs on top of the heap.
Sheesh, these certs ought to be banned as an anti-competition measure!
>already-impressive resume
Another piece of paper with ink on it, just great.
You know if I wanted to test a potential employee, I'd set them down in front of a system
and tell them to do something with it. They would have to troubleshoot the problem first.
And the problem would be something simple like an unplugged power cable or keyboard!
That would be a real test of mettle...
|
|
| 5.18.03
|
Back on the warpath - sharpen the tomahawk, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Woo-Hoo (or should that be Woh Pah) back in the saddle after one long hard
year of low income hell.
My faithfull readers (all 2 of you) can look forward to many rants and bellowings
in the near future as I gear back up to my teeth gnashing, industry bashing,
assurance shredding, bloat crushing, windbag popping, toady twisting
full head of steam.
You guys gotta ease up on the email though, I dont know if I can handle one
email every 3 months or so.
|
|
| 10.21.02
|
MS-borg® upgrade assimilation, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Just looking over
www.kmfms.com what's bad about MS and I found this...
>Windows 98 is essentially a bug fix for Windows 95 but those who paid for Windows 95 still have to pay for what should have worked right the first time they bought it.
I happen to have seen one of the last updates for 95 in the early part of 98 that looked *extremely* similar to 98
(I'm talking about the multi colored windows title bars specifically...)
I have been making comments to all and sundry since the very start of the 98 marketspeak about
how the only really big changes seem to be cosmetic.
Here are some developer / admin noted problems and or issues:
1. When a program under development fails, sometimes an instance gets stuck waiting on the close program
dialog box. When this happens <CTRL-ALT-DEL> does not even work!
The only thing you can do is shut down. This exists in all 95's and 98's. (probably ME, but I've never tried it.)
Removing removeable media causes a BSOD.
95 drivers work perfectly well for 98, in fact some even work better! (check out 98 lite...)
Then of course MS-borg® turn around and SELL the bug fixes for 98 in second ed.
So to recap 98 is just a bunch of 95 bugfixes repackaged with some cosmetic upgrades (Ohh, new icons,
whoop-de-do...) and then you have to *buy* the bugfixes for that...but now comes the best part - the
worst bugs *still* exist!
Seems to me 98 is just a placebo for a complete lack of any innovation in software (but plenty in
marketing and monopoly abuse.)
|
|
| 10.19.02
|
MS-borg®, OOS enemies, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
According to Ballmers statements noted in this
Bloomberg article.
This ought to be worth a laugh, lets have a looky...
>``Linux has achieved the top billing in terms of their No. 1 enemy,'' said Scott McAdams, chief executive of McAdams Wright Ragen
Woo for us! Now if only we can make good on this rep.
> ``The advantage of open source is pretty hard to match,'' said Ram Mohan, chief technology officer at Afilias Ltd.
Too bad he didnt mention the advantage is the freedom from proprietary bullshit err...software and all the
greed and deception that goes along with it.
>Ballmer made $758,810 last year
Damn, must be nice. Or maybe not, being blood money and all...sure I'd be happier with 75K a year and
knowing it was honest (as it gets) cash.
> ``If Linux takes share, it will take down Microsoft's pricing ability,'' said Michelle Connell, vice president at Wells Fargo Private Client Services
Ah such bright things we dream...
>Microsoft marketers must rely on studies that show the cost of maintaining a Windows system is lower than that of Linux machines.
This cant be true, 'course you can make numbers say anything you want.
>Microsoft sponsored a booth for the first time at the LinuxWorld trade show in August in San Francisco.
<YIPE>
|
|
| 10.16.02
|
Cataboligne [at] kmfms.com
|
New free email, woohoo!
6 years back I signed up for hotmail as an alternative to the email server at work.
I knew it was over when MS-borg® assimilated them.
Still, I was there way before hotmail even popped 500K users so I stayed awhile.
I've been thinking of leaving ever since the new feature {bug} set got really irritable (like when the hell did
the sent message folder start to automatically empty? <YIPE>)
So, I'm perusing www.kmfms.com for some info to encourage the
school my wife teaches at to offer MS-borg® alternatives...and I find out they have a free email service!
Computing has been much better since I started using Linux, but this just makes my year...
|
|
| 10.9.02
|
Marketspeak translator #1, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
*** NEW FEATURE ***
Yes, having spent 6 years dealing with industry bullshit and company lies, I have decided to start translating some common marketspeak statements into the common tongue
and coder languages.
Found this prize in some spam:
We envision to professionally leverage other's excellent information and globally foster diverse benefits for 100% customer satisfaction.
Common:
We intend to do jack-squat,
copy others hard work,
brag about our deeds,
and get a big fat consulting check!
C language:
while (true);
our.work = your.work;
printf("we are the greatest...\n");
payout = 1000000.0;
Ewww, scary.
|
|
| 10.8.02
|
"Kiss Corporate America Goodbye", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
>Kiss Corporate America Goodbye
I saw this in my hot-{spam}-mail inbox and knew it for the spam it truly was.
But then I thought "no way, they couldn't really be serious..."
I mean just imagine,
an end to greed, graft, and corruption (enron anyone?)
an end to unemployment, welfare, minimum wages, poverty and homelessness
an end to stock options, profit sharing, social security, mis-distributed wealth
an end to the use of terms like, fired, layoff, cutback, down-sized, right-sizing
just imagine,
a culture where all talent is respected, regardless of title
a nation where everyone has plenty of wealth and leisure time
a place where pointy haired bosses can pursue their twitish goals and harm no one
a pay check for everyone that could fulfill all your material goals, keep up with inflation and be tax free
Then when you turn 30, you get on some whiz-bang gizmo and an AI terminates your ass in an anti-grav field,
while the younger clones cheer you on...
Nah, they weren't serious though, it was just an add for a "Oh NO this is not an MLM scheme" MLM scheme...
|
|
| 10.7.02
|
Hiatus explained
|
|
All two of my regular readers must have noticed the suspicious lack of updates...
Due to the need to find a new job (Yuk :(~ I know) I've had to channel all available energy towards
this end. PC Weary soon will return to its standard sub-standard unpredictable update schedule with a new
feature: The doofus award. This bit will award some individual or company for thier
outstanding lack of intelligence and/or common sense.
|
|
| 2.7.02
|
site upgrade
|
|
Improved appearance for PC weary articles.
|
|
| 2.6.02
|
Game review section added, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
|
Check out the new review section with a luke warm review of
Harry Potter.
|
|
| 2.5.02
|
"MS Borg assimilate Miguel de Icaza", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Gnome leader Miguel de Icaza appears to have been assimilated by the Microsoft Borg.
Read the sordid details here
"Gnome to be based on .NET - de Icaza", courtesy of the Register. (Yes I read the
Register religiously, hey what can I say they're good!)
I use KDE, so the loss of Gnome wont bother me much. I'm bothered more by a
consitutent of MS's one true competition (open source) supporting the MS-borg® OS
assimilation bid. Lets face it the real purpose of .NET and passport is exactly the
same as Saurons desire to create the one ring in "Lord of the Rings". MS-borg®
wants to control as much information flow on the net as possible and profit from it.
(After all the OS war is over, sooner or later, Linux or one of its spawn will be on
even footing with winblows...)
This (.NET initiative) is hardly in the spirit of competition and is a threat to
everyone, both competing companies/open source projects and the public at large.
Lets get on with the sarky then...
Statements by de Icaza that verify assimilation has occured:
- Miguel calls .NET the "natural upgrade" for the Gnome platform
- He also had praise for the new Microsoft security model
- dismissed the notion that Redmond was employing embrace and extend to its web
services protocols
- lot of people just see .NET as a fantastic upgrade for the development platform
from Microsoft
- Well Microsoft really does develop some really interesting technology
- Not to go too far, but Microsoft is probably used by most people out there
- They have a beautiful security system and we're emulating the whole security
infrastructure
- Yes, you shouldn't lock yourself out of .NET
I see programmers / users / admins / supporters of open source software as beacons of
truth amidst the maze of shadowy proprietary technology. Truely it is sad to see de
Icaza submit to becoming what is essentially the "Mouth of Gates" (e.g. Mouth of
Sauron...) An enemy in our midst and anathema to the open source purpose.
Concerns raised about Gnome.NET...this is stuff we all need to think about and address.
>But isn't there a danger of legitimizing the Microsoft platform - with Microsoft being
an enemy of free software,?
>Really? We'd always figured it was a defensive move. The technology is really RPC
under a new name, and Microsoft's been doing that for ten years It's not about
attracting new developers, is it?
>We wondered if they could keep up with Microsoft?
>But aren't there large chunks of .NET you can only do on Windows. like authorization.?
Oh what sad times are these when the mighty leaders of open source allow themselves to
be assimilated...
|
|
| 2.4.02
|
"Napster drops digital ball", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Well this Register
article
"Judge drops Napster bombshell" gives lie to the frailty of the human condition.
A brief recap before discussing this latest event. Years back mp3 came about, a
digital compression medium for audio that provides near CD quality music with 85% space
savings over other methods of storing digital audio. The potential of the mp3 format
was realized very quickly as commoners the world over began converting CD, tape and
vinyl tracks to the new format and sharing thier musical joy.
While the music industry for the most part denounced this activity, it was still
reaping the benefits of freely marketed buying frenzy. Various methods were used to
share mp3's, FTP, windows shared folders, HTML, and the likes of Scour. The music
industry as a whole has a long sordid history of ripping of artists and a knee jerk
reaction to anything the "executives" in power fear will hurt thier precious profits.
Then a couple of geniouses write some code specifically designed to share mp3. Nothing
new really, there was Scour, and a bunch of search engines for finding mp3 on the web.
Napster was different though. It was easy. No ratio's common to the FTP sites. You
had a 95 to 99 percent change of successful download. In the event of a failure, you
could resume the load if you could reconnect with the source. With automated download,
categorys and a host of user friendly features, Napster spawned a revolution.
The music industry reacted to this in a very antagonistic fashion despite the fact that
sales and profits were up across the board. For an explanation of this, see "Cost of digital media, a nightmare" by yours truly.
For all their genious, however, Napsters creators made the mistake of having a central
resource. This gave the RIAA a visible target, a mistake that probably wont be
repeated anytime soon.
The core of the RIAA's legal strategy is the idea of a copyright. Copyright was
instituted to protect the interests of the public with respect to published materials.
The idea was that everyone had fair access to media. I submit that copyright has been
turned from a tool to protect the rights of the viewing public into a weapon to defend
greedy middle men that are making a fortune they dont deserve.
>Marilyn Hall Patel, the district court judge in the Napster case
>Patel questioned if the record companies copyright extended to digital distribution of
music
If taken to its logical conclusion, this case would be a groundbreaker that could
shatter the hold the RIAA constituents have over the digital realm. This is a
desirable event that is a great benefit to music listeners the world over.
>The first suggestion would represent a major setback for the RIAA,
>as its ownership of the copyright has never seriously been questioned.
The RIAA companies dont enable you to view various media, they hinder your discovery of
new and wonderful things. This is done through an outdated distribution system that
only promotes the most common denominator. This is done by granting success only
to the artists the companies favor. If you arent one of their darlings its unlikely
you will achieve any margin of success or get your media distributed on anything but a
local scale. The internet and dreams like Napster are a direct threat to thier
stranglehold and profit margins. A legitimate threat!
>The bad news is that Napster has neither the deep pockets, nor the stomach for
>continuing the fight, and agrees with the record companies that the case should be
abandoned.
>No company has ever been presented with such an opportunity to challenge the
>record labels on the key plank of its legal offensive.
After the great battle, Napster's visionary creators could ensure victory for the
viewing public and other new small media companies with a single stroke. A stroke that
is being offered. But they have lost heart. Nay, lost their way even.
Napster must be persuaded to follow this case to the very bitter end for the sake of
the entire media viewing public the world over. We must no longer be bound by the media
giants, they must be made to serve us!
|
|
| 1.28.02
|
"Security, winblows style", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Welcome programmers, geeks, net peeps and potatoe chip bags everywhere...
I've had a pretty good handle on computer security issues since 1984 when I designed an
early data encryption scheme to encrypt a dir structure to provide data security that
went way beyond the OS (TRS-DOS) built in file password scheme. (Useless because any
noid that could use a disk editor could disable it...)
The alogrithim I used was nothing exotic by todays standards, just a random byte set
xor'ed with every sector of the directory. When the disk was booted my modified boot
sector asked for a password. Enter the correct one, and the directory was decrypted
and written back to the disk. Prior to ejecting the disk you had to run the lock
program to encrypt the direcory.
Any one worth their programming or security salt realizes the above scheme wont keep
out a determined hacker. But it did stop any num-nuts that came along with a sector
editor from cracking into my files!
So it was with great pleasure that I perused the following article on the Register:
MS
security memo a mere
gesture By Richard Forno Posted: 17/01/2002 at 21:28 GMT
Of course it would be-little me if I should fail to orient my sarcasti-cannon on the
fell beast and post a follow up to this brilliant piece. (I'm talking about the dread
beast of Redmond, not Mr. Forno, who's views I quite agree with...)
>security would have the 'highest priority'
I guess the usual policy of 'screw the public, screw the QA, make more money' is hiding
in some bolt hole waiting to emerge later.
>harkening back to that wondrous day in 1995 when Chairman Gates announced that the
Internet was to be part of all Microsoft products and services. That proclamation
produced such well-known Redmond innovations as Melissa, I Love You, Code Red, SirCam,
Code Red II, BadTrans, UPnP, and VBScript, among other notables, resulting in
burned-out system administrators and a flourishing information security industry.
I dont know who Mr Forno is, but he is a person after my own heart. I have long felt
the blame for the many winblows driven virii should be layed upon the Redmond beast and
not the virii authors, sys admins or hapless users.
It is also interesting to note that the part of the computer security industry most
known to the general populace has flourished entirely upon the backbone of winblows
swiss cheese like nature. I wonder if the big anti virus firms realize their
existances would be almost naught if the Redmond beast had thought to "borrow"/steal
the security structure of *nix's.
>US National Academy of Sciences is calling for laws to punish software firms that
produce insecure products
While a noble effort, this is a step that simply should not be necessary. The software
industry giants will certainly cry wolf, or at least make sure they have a loophole. I
think the best cure would be a marketplace driven solution; firms whose products were
insecure would secure them or die a financial death as no one would use thier software.
Too bad that isnt the case...
>I feel this statement -- the Gates Declaration -- is simply a public relations blitz.
Hammer -> Nail -> Bang!
>Microsoft is staking its future on Windows XP and its .NET series of network-centric,
subscriber-based ventures.
Something I desparately hope to fail, for all our sakes. (Yes that includes all fellow
linux/unix users and sysadmins out there, .NET and XP is an evil that threatens us
all..."And Gates forged one network protocol in secret to bring them all in darkness to
Redmond and bind them!"
>Microsoft's spin-meisters must believe that appearing to address security concerns
with its products is not only the patriotic thing to do, but the smart one
You can fool some of the people...
>However, in a small act of penance, Microsoft could consider firing those product
managers that repeatedly sacrifice security and good quality assurance for new product
features, convenience, and marketshare
Is the job market good for product managers right now? They'd probably end up firing
all of them if they followed through this...
>that Microsoft Security Day is the software giant's latest attempt to cheaply use
public policy concerns as propaganda
Hell, nothing new here, our wonderfull Govt. has been doing that for at least 200
years. Maybe thats why the DOJ went after the Redmond beast, they hate the competition.
We can only hope for the best
Linux/Amiga until something better comes along, Amen brother...
|
|
| 1.26.02
|
"Artificial stupidity", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
This is a master piece of ire I penned over 2 years ago, please forgive the slightly
loose writing style. This was for the most part in response to the idiocy that goes on
at my bank, but the guilty parties are truly legion...
Original Subject: CS: dues ex machina: "M-5", "Return of the Archons", "Terminator
I/II"
Written: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 19:27:22 GMT
Copyright 1999 Chaos Server.
You may be wandering what 2 star trek episodes and a dated movie concept and the "god
from a machine" expressions have in common.
Well they all involve artificial intelligence taking over some powerful
system (like a starship, or continental nuclear defense, or planetary govt.)
and wreaking havoc with humanity.
I'm paranoid and I know humans are stupid (especially the smart ones), so I
used to worry about this too. Just imagine some bunch of self serving (or
even worse bureaucracy serving) scientists doing this to everyone.
Well I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up all your fears.
Artificial Intelligence (as conceived by sci-fi writers) does not even stand
a chance.
So why this conclusion, and what is this long-winded rant about?
I have become convinced in dealing with my own banks automated fone services
and computer systems, that we all face a new and much more serious threat
than the old AI wrecks humanity. And this is much sneakier than nuclear
missiles fired off at targets in Asia/Russia. IT MAY ALREADY BE TOO LATE!!!
I'm even coining a new phrase to cover this threat:
"ARTIFICIAL STUPIDITY"
That's right, get this: My bank is one of the buyout victims of the 90s (it
has changed hands 3 times already). In the original local incarnation, you
could call the local branch. When they were bought out by a CA, based bank
that was canceled. The only way to reach the local branch was by calling an
800 number based in Texas of all places. (I asked once.)
Now the owner is based on (you guessed it) the east coast of FL. (somewhere
in Miami I think...) So I call the 800 #. I need to talk to a human as one
checking account I use isn't available for transfers via the "fone (stupid)
teller." I get a message that all branch service centers on the east coast
are closed, due to hurricane conditions on that coast. Fine, but this is the
west coast and I know my branch is open, so I dial the local number and select
option 4, "talk to a human (stupid) representative." But if fucking forwards to
...tada THE FUCKING EAST COAST (stupid) BRANCH SERVICE. I finally take 20 min out of
my workday and go to the local branch in person.
Now you may wonder, why do I think its to late to stop the Artificial
Stupidity?? Simple, it is already in place and in control of all of our
lives... Want proof, call any "Large (stupid)" business 800 service line.
When was the last time you heard a human voice on answer? 5 years ago, 10
mebbe. The Artificial Stupidity system is in control and has been for
years!
Geez, I catch all of these companies screwing up my account with them at the
rate of one a month (Just take your pick, you all deal with the same
companies):
Bank (#1 villain), tried to wreck my acct 3 months in a row!! (would have
cost me over $250, if I hadn't caught them every time!)
Credit cards, I just caught a credit card applying a $29 over the limit fee
to an account that was $45 under the limit. (The operator (a human
[stupid]) had some bullshit excuse, err explanation...)
FPL (or any power co. incarnation, they all report to Bill Gates/ Satan
anyway) once added a mystery $82.49 to my bill they could NOT EXPLAIN (it
didn't add up to any past bills, I always pay exact amts by check.). 6
months later, after having my power turned off and forced to pay an $20
reconnect charge, the amount mysteriously changed to $13. (Still never
explained to my satisfaction, but I got a lot of conspiracy theories on the
idea...)
Local govt. (supplies us with water, why doesn't anyone have a problem with
such a vital resource coming from the local govt.?...we have to drink bottled
or filtered tap water, the raw stuff tastes like badly filtered
sewage...good reason too, IT IS!) has the really bad habit of cashing a
check 3 weeks after I issue it! (3 days after my wife has asked me if we
had some money for pizza and me checking the bank via the fone (stupid)
teller and saying yes.)
Fone (stupid) company, has anyone noticed all the (stupid) fees and taxes on
your fone (stupid) bill? I mean geez on a $40 bill there is at least $10 in
taxes/(stupid) fees. I think that is a bit much. Geez, I had fone service
in GA once. it was like $11 + long distance calls. WTF happened here?
{Insert any local business here}
Like our vet... One cat died on a saturday night. another cat had a
problem and they told us to bring him in on a sunday (didn't tell us about
the $25 sunday (stupid) fee tho...) When we got him on monday afternoon my
wife wanted to pay up for the deceased kitty, so they added it to the bill,
but FAILED to mark the acct paid, they just added extra charges to the living
kittys acct and then marked them paid. When we try to tell them what mistake
they made, they get STUPID.
And watch those register (stupid) operators like a hawk. Double check every single
receipt, I have lost count of how many mistakes I have caught. And NEVER EVER let
them lay the blame on you! Just practice in front of a mirror for a couple minutes
every time you intend to go shopping: "What the fuck, you see me touch that
overpriced calculator that replaces your grade school math skills?"
When I got a joint degree in math and compsci, I didn't really see the
usefulness of the math portion until now. At some point I forced myself to
stop doing simple arithmetic on the calcu(stupid)lator and using my head.
This simple act now saves me hundreds every year... I give it to my attorney
to keep my credit (stupid) report clean in the hopes of buying a house (or a
slightly decaying black market ex Russian long range multiple warhead
nuclear ballistic missile, which ever is available first at the right
price...) someday.
If you find this list of offenses disturbing, good. If you can do simple
math in your head, even better. Remember the Artificial stupidity already
has your bank, credit card and water/power/fone (stupid) account numbers and
will deduct (its well disguised) service charges monthly.
Signed, Chaos Server
|
|
| 1.26.02
|
"Linux desktop rebuttal response", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
This item was a response to the author of a news-worthy item that was a rebuttal on
another article slamming the idea of linux on the desktop. I liked the authors views,
so I replied to his rebuttal (a (re)buttal?) and here it is. (I'll try to track down
the associated articles, but it wont be easy...)
Mr Bryan Pfaffenberger;
My name is -----. I have been playing with, learning about, programming and buliding
computers for over 20 years.
I have been working with linux for over a year now.
Recently just before reading deeply into the "free software" movement and developing an
understanding of the GPL, I had decided to go "all" Linux at home. (I have 10
operational systems and the parts for about 25 more...only 2 systems can boot
windows...they all boot linux or unix.)
Where I work I used to be the sole Borland C++ Builder developer. I have about 4 years
with Builder and 17 years with C in general.
My decision for all Linux was helped along by the release of Kylix, and Mandrake 8.0.
I really enjoyed the article you wrote. It neatly summarizes a number of conversations
I have had with various people on the adoption and inception of Linux on the desktop.
>Linux on the Desktop--an Impossible Dream?
What did Einstien point out? Imagination is more important than iq... A dream by
definition is something that is imagined to be. Therefore none of them (dreams) are
impossible.
>"It's very easy for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to break.
Windows on the other hand breaks itself. On a regular basis!
>It's not designed for the novice user."
I dont ever recall windows being that much of a warm fuzzy for novices...
>It's tempting to laugh off Microsoft's recent criticisms of Linux
Hey, hey though, think about this. The VERY FACT that Microsoft has taken action is
indicative of Linux potential to unhorse windows choke hold.
>By "push", I'm referring to the actions of Linux's competitors (read "Microsoft") that
alienate users
Since I came to understand the new ME and XP licensing, I've been telling all and
sundry that these gestapo licensing tactics will make more converts to Linux than
features, software, support, you name it.
I think what people fail to realize is that the more users Linux has, the more
software, features and support it will have.
>technically inferior.
Only to the uninformed or uneducated.
>In the mid- to late-1980s
I got a commodore 64 and laughed at everyone that spent megabucks on PC's.
Then later I got an amiga 500 and continued laughing.
Then in the mid 90's I got a 386 essentially for free. I still laughed.
Then I got a pentium, Quake came out, and I got a voodoo card. I stopped laughing.
>Can you spell D-U-M-B?
Sure, 44-55-4D-42.
>The real cost gap is in software--but then again, consumers don't really perceive this
(yet).
Yes, I have never paid for an MS product. I get it all from throw aways, promos (oh
the disgusting shame of it, I have been an MS beta tester droid...) or like all the
other --------- comsumers, ------!
>if you accept the Business Software Association's terminology,
Yes I especially like the "lost revenue" due to piracy claims. I have always
maintained that the best way to eliminate piracy is to make all the software free for
non comercial use. Just charge for support and service.
>They don't really understand the need to keep paying Microsoft over and over again for
the same products.
Yes, touche, exactly the point I have been making for years.
Win 95 was nothing more than promised updates for win 3.1 repackaged. Win 98 is almost
win 95 with a few minor changes (I even have a version of 95 that with the right
updates looks almost _exactly_ like 98.) But win 98 SE? Come on, lets write buggy
software and then SELL the BUGFIXES! Talk about profit margins. Then win 2000 was the
end of the 9x line. Excepting that MS realized it could milk some more money with
ME.
>Predictions
I'd love to see it all come crashing down with Linux, GPL and free software :)~
>I predict that Linux's share of the desktop market will begin to grow,
Personally I think Linux will just explode one day. You'll turn around and Linux will
be all over. The big names will have your choice of pre-installs on thier hardware.
Every IT shop will have a couple Gurus for security and feature customization. Schools
will be all Linux.
Thanks for your time.
|
|
| 1.20.02
|
"Cost of digital media, a nightmare", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
In recent years the world wide web has seen the invention of digital media sharing
systems.
If you have paid attention to the news, hype, hysteria, outright lies and spin factor you
will be aware of
Napsters recent fate. Supposedly moving to a pay for play system, Napster has pretty
much signed its own death
warrant.
Funny thing is Napster was nothing new in concepts. The primary focus of napster, MP3,
is an audio compression
technology that allows near CD quality music to be stored at a space savings of 85%+.
The MP3 format has been
shared since the day of its popularization via FTP, HTML and other specifically designed
sharing systems.
So, why would the media giants via thier oh so evil avatar, the RIAA, (and there ought to
be a law against this kind
of corporate hellspawn...) take down Napster?
To answer that question another has to be asked...why are CD's and DVD's so damned
expensive?
To answer that, lets have Mr. Peabody set the wayback machine for the mids 80's.
Everyone was happy with
their vinyl. Properly cared for records could last for generations. Record sales were
flat, there was no increase
in sales. Some recording industry num-nuts had seen a new format (the CD), talked to a
marketing shyster
and invented a way to make more mula from the sheep like masses.
When CD's first came out, they were made in Japan. The process was new and 30% of a
production run was
trash. CD's cost more than vinyl. Recording artists were offered vinyl royalties on CD
recorded music, a good deal.
This equates to pennies per song sold. (I've read tell of anywhere from 4 cents to 10
cents per song.)
Now back to the late 90's.
Anyone remember the third Oh God movie, "Oh God, You Devil" where George Burns also plays
the devil,
cleverly representing the recording industry...That idea probably has its basis in fact.
See here is the true evil of the industry and its avatar the RIAA...Artists are still
being payed vinyl royalties on
CD sold songs. Of course now everything is sold on CD, when was the last time you bought
vinyl?
But the CD industry has benefited greatly from improvements. So much so that the CD
process that once cost
more than vinyl now costs pennies! And yet the cost of a CD has increased incredibly
over the years.
Artists still only make pennies a song...
Everything else technology improves gets cheaper as it becomes
cheaper to make; phones, toasters, dish washers, TVs, and all the modern conveniences.
It is suprising no one
has ever caught on to the iniquity of CD pricing. The players that play them are near
a
fifth the price
for a single player when they were introduced. They have 300 CD players now that cost
half the price
of an 80's single CD player!
So middle men and companies in the recording industry are getting rich. Filthy rich from
loyal fans and
artists, many of which have no idea they are bending over and taking it up the tailpipe.
Along comes a Napster. In its original setup Napster was a non profit deal. No money
was made by the creators
on the trading of MP3 music. And despite the recording industries cries of foul, it
appears none was lost either.
When Napster was in full swing, CD sales were at an all time high and increasing.
Funny time to cry wolf, implying that Napster was bleeding the industry dry.
Specially when it was busy pushing a freely advertised spending frenzy...
Napster was good for sales, why kill it off?
How about this - Napster represented a business model that, had it been more workable,
could kill off
that middle man profit. See the RIAA constituents are powered by greed, one of the seven
deadly sins.
That greedy diet is maintained by proprietary locked down standards, abuse of our legal
system,
fear of the billion dollar industries legal might, and general lack of knowlegde on the
part of consumers.
A Napster driven music sales revolution could do the following:
- Get you, the buyer 20 CD quality songs you like for $6.00 instead of a CD of 2
songs you like and 12 you dont for nearly $20.00...
- Net the artist nearly 4 times the profit for each song sold.
- Pay the middle man, a good outfit like Napster or a competitor a minimal transfer
fee for pennies per song.
- Totaly eliminate the greed, stench, and very existance of the RIAA constituents and
their outdated distribution systems.
The real scary part thought is whats next? Napster is almost a lifeless corpse. Unlike
Lestat in "Interview with a Vampire"
it probably isnt coming back to life. Copy protected CDs? Not likely, people seem
unwilling to buy them.
The next round of attacks will likely be against the constitution, and our right to fair
use copyright.
It will be hard to enforce these new "laws" once the rules are changed, but still it is
likely.
More dilution of our consumer rights for sure.
Along with MS's .net idea of renting software (hideous evil that it is) we, as a
nation of consumers,
stand to lose more of our power to control these greedy corporate giants.
|
|
| 12.9.01
|
"HTML injustice", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Dont go mis-reading the title, this has nothing to do with web pages of attorneys or
legal depts.
Todays rant, brought to you by Rothrin.net, is not
about problems with PC
hardware or OS. Instead I'm going to slam one of the PC's progeny, HTML...
Years ago, I learned how to code HTML so I could put up a flegling web site.
Today, I look around and think, "What the hell went wrong..."
At the beginning HTML seemed to be a logical extension of the internets information
sharing scheme.
The logical prognosis of FTP, Archie, Gopher and other custom indexing systems.
The first web sites were simple and direct. Their creators dedicated them to the purpose
of delivering
the information they were interested in.
Common interests were associated by sharing links. Then index sites like yahoo and lycos
came along and
searches on any topic. Soon it seemed the entire web was linked.
From here the story goes down hill. The web spawned by HTML has gone from an information
sharing system
to a bullshit broadcasting system. All manner of insanity and stupidity has been forced
upon our web.
The effect can be likened to the multitude of torments in hell.
With each new feature added to HTML new hellspawn have appeared. Advertising (evil that
it is) has gone from
links to ads, to banner ad systems from the very pits of fire, to framed garbage
alongside useful sites, to even more
insidious methods. First popup ads, and when blocking was developed for those the pop
under add was devised.
Nor have the attorneys been able to keep their collective noses clean and stay out of
business not suited for them.
Good people with excellent informational sites with not a shred of commercialism are
being badgered by
the corporate powers over sheer nonsense. A good example - star trek fan websites. Once
a plethora of
bountiful information, thier rightful creators were attacked by the network owning the
rights.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! I cant understand why some of these companies
insist on attacking
their own source of revenue.
Now we have all sorts of attorney spawned nightmares. You cant frame another site, it
could violate thier
corporate image (whatever...) You can't even link to a site, nevermind the fact that it
will generate free
advertising and traffic. Innocent people are being threatened with legal action for
installing screen savers,
emailing private notes, the bullshit seems to be endless. The real problem is the legal
system doesnt get
to try even a small fraction of these cases. Because web publishing allows anyone to put
up information, the
people being thus threatened have no monitary means of defense. Rather than just saying
no, they give in to
the threats of the multi million dollar legal organization hired by the evil
corporations. Some of the best
sites on the web have just disappeared. Where is the justice?
I keep hoping common sense will soon return. Not likely while some marketing shill
thinks the web should
be profitable. Hope springs eternal though...
|
|
| 12.3.01
|
First upload!
|
1st upload of ouapcw after uncounted days, nay months, nay years even, of hard work
and dedication to the new site.
|
|
| 11.27.01
|
"Mad license disease", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Even though "ouapcw" is written on Amiga OS and Linux powered machines, I used to be a
MS toady.
Hell, windows was the only OS I could use to play great games, like Doom, Quake,
Unreal, Halflife and MAME.
Over the past 2 years, I've been experimenting with alternative OS to win/dos.
Turns out this was a good move. (I might even be a bit psychic!)
MS has invented the "mad license disease." Use win XP and be poisoned until you
wipe your harddrive clean. I know I'll never install it.
So, XP licensing is the MS answer to piracy. Or was that the answer to world
domination?
After nearly 20 years or so, you think one, I mean even one, of these companies would
have thought to lower prices to the point where people would rather buy it than copy
it. (Some useful quality "non bloatware" would also help out alot.)
XP is now out and the sheep are dutifully toe-ing the lines and licking the boots.
Why is it people would rather get thier OS from a large, bloated, Borg-like beheamoth,
lead by a figurhead worth more than every third world country in existance, that doesnt
give a rats ass about the public or common good, as opposed to a respectful company
that treats its workers right, turns a small but tidy profit, supports the common good
of the people, and can write an OS THAT WORKS RIGHT?! Sheesh.
Back in the day, when you got a system with a disk drive, you either didnt shell out
for the OS, or it was included in the cost of the drive.
Not only could you make copies of the OS disks, you were ENCOURAGED to do so due to the
volatile nature of older floppy drives.
Not any more.
According to the MS legalese, you "technically" are not even allowed to receive a
second hand PC with thier OS on it, without the license. I've lost count of the 20 or
30 so thrift shop specials, throw aways, donations, and hand-me-downs I've gotten with
some MS OS or other on them.
If MS and the other greed-miesters have thier way, the commercial OS business will
be as bad (or worse) than car sales or cell phones.
I used to think the new - used car sales gig was a great scam. Then some legal eagles
came up with leasing. (Something that slimy has to come from a lawyer, normal people
just dont exist on the level of thick pond scum...)
Then some genious came up with cell phone pricing. Talk about electronic real estate.
How much is a radio wave worth anyway?
With the advent of XP and .NET licensing, the world of computer electronic real estate
would be forever changed from buy and own, to rent/lease and pay forever.
And some people think this is fine.
I've spent half my life fighting any kind of rental/service fee stupidity, any way I
could. From leasing cars, paying for airtime on cell phones, movie/cd rentals,
cable/dish TV and any other long term payout for nothing more than
service/entertainment.
The convenience of these items is a poor investment for anyone who really earns a
living. I maintain its better to own a car and take care of it, buy the movies/cd's
you enjoy to view over and over, use a regular landline phone, and read books.
Paying for a little piece of entertainment (the entire restraunt industry is based on
this ideology) or convenience is fine if the price is right or you have some business
benefit from it. Problem though is that it is not even close to right.
Most of the greedy giants have taken something that needs minmal investment and
maitenance and sell it for megabucks. And you dont even _need_ it.
More on this later.
|
|
| 11.25.01
|
"Upgrade mania #1", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
So, I want to upgrade.
My system is a 2 year old dual celery 466 with 256Mb ram and a measly 40G HD.
It's getting a little weak for todays flashy new games (not that I would ever lower
myself to buy any of the trash they spoon out,) and poorly conepualized and written
apps.
Now I can get 512Mb SDRAM, and that would be fine, (and cheap too.) I dont run
anything that could swamp that...yet.
But...
In what passes for brilliant design wisdom at Intel corp., not only have they made the
celery II incompatible with older MB's without some hardware mods, they have TAKEN OUT
the SMP support!
What a bone-headed thing to do. Stupid, just plain dumb.
If Intel was a person it would be like thinking with your colon instead of your brain...
Of all the features in my newest system, the top two are the Leadtek GeForce2 MX dual
head video card and the dual cpu MB.
Whether its compiling quake maps, opening a bazillion searches on ebay, or just seeing
how much Mandrake 8.x can handle, I get more use from dual cpu's than just about
everything else. Excepting of course the dual 19" monitors, which make editing quake
maps a breeze. (I used to do this with a 14" svga powered by a 2Mb Diamond Stealth...)
I know, SMP Athalons are available, but that setup is still a bit past my yearly
upgrade budget. When I can afford this, be sure that I will get it. Intel products
are off my xmas (or any other) shopping list.
And those of you that know a little of Intel's history, know that this is nothing new.
One has to go no further than the socket 7 - socket 8 - slot 1 - socket 370 - slot 2
saga to realize Intel's failure to support upgrades and older hardware. Every other
major CPU maker except Digital and Sun supported socket 7 and later super socket 7,
like, forever almost.
With Intel's bent towards insulting and thwarting techies and overclockers with thier
cheesy tactics, I'm wandering how the company survives. You simply should not be able
to get away with virtual slings and arrows directed towards the industries core
people.
The only thing I can think of is thier upgrade hype (helped out liberally by all the
bloatware of course...) and third party licensing lock ins. Herds of mindless human
sheep probably dont hurt very much either.
(Sorry to disappoint those of you that think business leaders, corp. executives or the
marketplaces drive the computer revolution, but you are wrong of course. It always has
been, it is and it always will be the techies.)
|
|
| 11.5.01
|
Editorial #1, by _-=* Cataboligne
|
Lately I've been getting back into retro-computing.
It's a part of the computing hobby that comes in cycles for me. Offset by playing FPS
and finding new & better OS.
Using old systems feels better somehow, cleaner, more fun. The games are certainly up
a notch. Without the eye candy available to designers today, games had to be fun to
garner support.
I can write games too. Dont need to know 3d modeling or how to use a map editor. Just
an assembler and a system memory map.
So, what is it about old systems that provides that warm fuzzy feeling?
Some people sing long and hard about the downside of the wintel alliance lock ins.
Poor users, stuck with MS and intel forever, in a never ending spiral of upgrade
mania/mad license disease...
MS/intel stifle competition and limits user choice for software/hardware.
Linux and/or Mac is the only (reasonably priced?) alternative...or is it?
Maybe we should really go back to a time when ms and intel were not some hideous high
tech prom dance king and queen.
Back to a time when the designs of big blue had not coalesqed to knock off all the
other pc makers.
What we should really talk about is "PC lock in". After all without the rising
hardware tide of the PC to ride on ms and intel may not have been the giants they are
today.
Just imagine a world where Amiga is mainstream, and PC hardware is the <dying> legacy
of hard line supporters, hobby-ists and collectors. (I know, it brings tears to my
eyes too...)
Of course there were (and are still) many pundits of the PC "standard"..."Oh hardware
is all cheaper now", "It's good to get away from proprietary pc makers", "Third party
mfgs can create better products everyone can use", this is an endless list.
I wonder when all and sundry went the PC "way" if anyone stopped to consider the
consequences of a single hardware "standard" dictated by a few powerful companies.
After all if there were more than 1 PC platform, some of the third party mfgs that can
be more creative could today possibly be less bankrupt.
And for all its "standard", it's really amazing just how *difficult* it can be to get a
typical PC setup to work. Especially with the competive/cheaper generic products from
the 3rd party mfgs adhering to the standard!
Yeah, you always get what you pay for...
Instead of talking about alternative OS for the (ibm) PC, maybe we should talk about an
alternative hardware platform to run our open source OS on.
Something new, innovative and infinetly more usefull that could take the PC world by
storm.
I know, dream on...
|
|
| 11.1.01
|
The idea
|
|
Had the idea for this site...
|
|
| 10.12.01
|
"Yahoocities - Geohoo - YaGetities", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
How about shitcrapcities...
Years back I had a website on the server at work. This was around '96. A year later
they paid some marketing outfit to design a company site and told everyone they couldnt
have personal pages on the server. Really a crock of shit, they probably wouldnt have
had a web site for at least another 2 years if I hadnt pushed for a webserver in the
first place.
So I got a site on Geocities when it was new and the web was grand. It seemed like a
great endeavor. Things were good for a year or two. Then the advertising bullshit
started. No longer content with the "on faith" user supplied links, Geocities started
a bunch of banner ad and pop-up driven bullshit. I found a way to disable this
bullshit when Java was still new. After a while though they did some server side stuff
so their crappy ads couldn't be stopped. I abandoned them of course.
Well I got the idea for PC weary and I needed a site. After geotities I went to
cybercities. That got screwed years back though, when I could no longer access the ftp
through our firewall. The num-nuts at cybercities never found a solution that would
let me access my site and eventually closed it and then thankfully went the way of the
dinosaurs.
I like the idea of an ISP free independent site, but its a real nuisance finding a
host. So I checked geo(yahoo)tities and found the garbage ads gone. Cool I thought,
I'll reopen my sight. (I'm amazed they've left it up for nearly 3 years with a nasty
complaint about their service!)
BUT...(you new that was coming right.)
I cant log in, the old geotities login fails. The editing login asks for a "Yahoo ID".
Since I had my site before yahoo sharked geocities, I never got one. Well clicking on
the "help find password" link leads to one of those alternate question pages...only
problem is I never supplied geocities with the info they are aksing for. (Things like
birthday, zip code, email etc.)
So I email gehahootits help and tell them this. Thier answer; a link to the alternate
question page I just informed then doesnt work. Good one.
Damn jackholes...
|
|
| 10.9.01
|
"Billing system evil #1", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
How many readers have had a billing mistake from a credit card or any regular bill
collector? (All of you, really?) How many of those errors have been resolved to your
satisfaction? (Very few of them, what a suprise!)
I just gotta ask, what the hell has happened here? Why I can remember just 20 years
back, my mom having a problem with a bill from a local store. She went in, said they
made a mistake on the bill. They said, sorry, here let us fix that. 5 Minutes, BANG,
BOOM, done!
No one ever dared say "I cant do anything." Nor was there ever mentioned "Let me check
the with the computer." God forbid a "We dont make mistakes like that, check your
statement again." No, the problem was fixed, it was fixed immediately AND they _were_
sorry about it. These days if you can't threaten a lawsuit or some kind of financial
damages it's like you're powerless.
I just hate to give the idiots at Capitol 1 any more business. I'm not kidding about
the "idiot" part either, from the phone jerks, to thier supervisors, to whoever
approves the computerized billing system methods (and I work on this kind of code for
banks...) I think they hire the bottom of the barrel. High school drop-outs, acid
burned college failures, gutter bound drunks, unprincipled cads, and outright
scoundrels, really the dregs of humanity.
I'm not that much of a pessimist, I just can't think of any other
logical way to explain the great volume of errors with the billing systems of
these co.'s and the sheer difficulty in getting resolutions. I can easily add
the billing depts of the power co., local govt (water co.), phone co., every credit
card my wife has, and just about any other business where I pay a bill on a regular
basis. You probably know the routine: "Hello, x company, you made a mistake on last
months bill...", phone jerk, "I'm sorry we cant confirm or deny that." me, "I'm looking
at it right here, $x should not be on the bill.", phone jerk, "Well just pay it and
I'll put in a request. Have a nice day" Ugh, whatever happened to the customer
always being right and courtesy?
There oughta be a law...
|
|
| 9.10.01
|
"Software copying analysis", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
A brief analysis of commercial software exploitation at the hands of the public at
large.
This is to be a general discussion and perhaps a political statement. If I were a
proper
writer type, I'd have sources properly annotated and be able to back all my claims.
(I'm not a "proper" writer type, however, I write code for a living.)
I have been in touch with this subject since the days of the apple II, and recently I
have read a great deal on the subject. This work is a political statement in that I
hope my here-in published opinion may stir some people to take some rational action.
There are those that label the titled activity "software piracy."
Of course this is a term I disagree with.
Forthwith to debunk the idea of a software "pirate":
A pirate is an individual often lacking in morals and respect for others and thier
property who is willing, through the use of guile, force, harm, threats, and any means,
to part the mentioned individuals from their rightful property for personal gain.
Those involved in the copying of software against the wishes of the licensing agency
are clearly not fitting the definition of a pirate. Many of them are geeks, certainly
no threat to the public, possesing no firearms, and not likely even to be unruly or
impolite in public.
So how did this all get started?
In the beginning computers were very expensive and hence were only sold to companies.
At the time it was considered laughable that an individual would want a computer. What
would they do with it? (Considering the computer in question had its wieght measured
in tons, occupied a good sized warehouse and consumed enough power for a small city...)
The cost of software was included in the hardware purchase.
Eventually electronics kicked in and miniaturization occured.
Micro computers were offered for mass consumption after hobbyists/tinkers/hackers
refined the medium somewhat.
Many of the first programs were distributed on cassette tape. I reserve the opinion
that cassette tape is one of the greatest evils foisted upon the masses by the
electronics industry. Its like the damn tapes were _designed_ to be faulty. As such
they made a very poor medium for software distribution (anyone that has ever used a
cassette to load software can attest to this.) The faults that eventually render your
favorite tape unlistenable after a period of time will affect a program stored on tape
instantly.
Thus programs distributed on tape had backups made immediately (or lose your proggy!)
Then 8" and later 5.25" diskette became the medium of choice. Backups were still made
as this was yet a volatile medium.
What a small difference between the purchased software and the backup (none, this is a
digital world after all, the copies are made digitally!)
In these halcyon days, the first software exploitation was probably an enterprise
solely for the teenager and college age public. For the simple reason that even a $5
program cost too much when you had no income.
Somewhere along the line the press found out and a magazine or newspaper shark, ah
exscuse my sarcasm, reporter got the first sensational story. Some brilliant youngster
had figured out how to get the proggy for free, that everyone else had to shell out $10
for. (And all his friends had a copy too, all 3 of them. Even though 2 of them didnt
even have the same kind of computer...)
What a sensational story.
The software industry reacted in the typical way business does, like a frightened
bovine. These several thousand kids and young adults, who it should be noted had NO
INCOME, were costing them thousands in lost profits... (Might also be wise to note
that in the begining this group probably consisted of less than 1% of the software
purchasing public. Sorry, no validation of this claim, its just guesswork based on my
research and faulty/convenient human memory subsystem.)
Didn't any of the corporate sheep ever stop to think if the kid/college adult had no
money to spend, how were they losing thousands?
This is truly the beginning of the "monetary-loss" to software copying myth.
I knew these kids, I was one. If we could not have copied the software, we would not
have had it. (And even if mummy/dadums would have surrendered the necessary $, I doubt
if it would have made its way to the software industry...)
What did the companies responsible for the creation and publishing of software do?
They raised prices to make up for the ficticious lost sales. With the sympathy of the
buying public (and general sheep like attitudes all around) in light of the dreaded
dastardlyness of the "software pirates," it worked. Profits were rolling in.
Software that once sold for $10 was now $15 then $20 then $30.
20 years later, even the poorest games will run you $20 easily. (This is the crap that
used to come 4 and 5 to a disk for $1 or $2, or bundled with some other proggy...)
What idiot piloted this nonsense? Thats the question that comes to my mind.
There was one single resounding effect of this farce... The so called "software piracy"
was legitimatized. With the rise in prices the group of people that could not afford
software became larger. And the "call" for copying commercial software went out. Now
it is no longer friendly little user groups, its a nationwide and worldwide mass effort
and the ficticious monetary losses are being realized.
If the software houses really wanted squash piracy they should have lowered prices on
ALL non business (read 'public') sales. After all if that crappy pac-man clone was $5
instead of $25 it would be alot easier for junior to persuade daddy to cough up the
cash.
Schools on the other hand should always have all thier software for free. Today this
is where commercial outfits are going to lose to open source. If the big boys dont
start delivering thier wares to the schools for nothing, the graduates shaping our
future are going to redifine the software landscape. But thats another story.
When the bottom line gets hit, accounts get mad. (Or at least upset in some financial
sense, I'm not sure bean counters have proper emotions...just kidding, my uncle was a
bean counter.) Big houses with the might of $ and savvy attorneys pestered the govt to
make software copying illegal. (I think this was around 86 or so...)
Now the kids that used to follow in the footsteps of Einstien, Newton, George
Washington and all the others that shaped our industrial world today are being told
they are criminals. They are being turned against the society they once benifited
greatly with thier intellect. (Dont feel to bad, the greedy companies may get thier
come-uppance at the hands of open source...)
No, I dont personally know any of these people. I just read the stories. None of my
friends ever got busted, or had a BBS taken down.
Still having been programming, using computers and playing games on them for more than
twenty years now, it hits close to home...
So what is thier crime? Like the popular hacker manifesto mentions, is it curiosity?
A desire to learn something? A want not to be poor in our wonderful nation of plenty?
My first thought upon hearing and learning of the first "software piracy" busts was why
wasnt anyone taking the software companies to task for their blatant greed? Thats what
started this whole mess.
Ever since the whole fiasco started I have maintained one single fact:
Commercial software coping could be stopped by making ALL PERSONAL SOFTWARE FREE!
The bottom line could be protected by charging business a premium for thier licenses.
(Business was probably more of a culprit at this point for loss of $ than personal
copying anyway...)
Oh you ask, what about games? Business didnt buy those. Ok, so the idea has some
flaws.
Now its 2001. Exploitation of commercial software is a rampant plauge. If you believe
the pundits (I dont...) billions are lost by the industry every year.
Heh, billions probably are wasted in this fiasco; anti-piracy measures, copy protection
rackets, attorneys fees, marketing, etc. (What ever happened to the expression "Dont
throw good money after bad..."?) Why not save all that, lower consumer cost and give
piracy a real blow. (Especially now that copying is "illegalized"...)
The only thing that spurs copying is the excessive cost of software. Remove that and
you would be back to the teenagers and college adults. A very small percentage of the
software purchasing public. (Although probably a bigger chunk than it once was.)
Some piracy is always going to exist, no matter what the industry does. You think they
would find some way to take advantage of it...
But no, the same sheep are still in control and looking for the shepard over the wrong
hill.
Even more draconian laws have been passed at the insistence of the industry (DMCA
anyone?) Some of these laws are barely even considered constitutional...
There may be a light at the end of the tunnel though. (Or a big bad wolf for the
sheep...)
Back in 96, I decided to use only "freeware" if I could. Or at least shareware that
was nag-free enough to be serviceable. (Little did I realise at the time that I was on
a quest for open source software...)
You may wander what started this? An attemp to legitimately buy a utility I found of
great use. The free distribution was cripple-ware. But alas the company had closed
its doors. Hasta-la-vista baby, so long and thanks for all the $... My only choice if
I wanted the utility was to download an "illegalized" crack to free the crippled
software.
Now I no longer worry about commercial software, piracy, cripple-ware, nag-ware or
licensing...
I use "free" open source software.
I have been liberated.
I can save my money for important software like Quake {n}...(It better run on linux
too, you hear that ID!)
You should try it some time, its exillarating.
|
|
| 8.22.00
|
"Dungeons & Dragons, the motion picture", by _-=*
Cataboligne
|
I wrote this piece as a riposte to an article by some toad exspousing the many
er fine <GAG-HACK-COUGH> points of D&D the movie. As a bonus it includes
the original Cataboligne categorization of D&D players from 1986. Ideally this
should be a separate text, and perhaps some day it will.
Re: Article rant:: Coven: "Dungeons & Dragons" THe Movie
Date: 8/22/00
>D&D the movie!
Ye gods, I hope they didn't use that stupid cartoon for inspiration. ("Oh no, its
Venger, he can crush us with a sneeze." This guy would have to be stupid not to win
with that much power, but then again anyone that calls themself 'Venger'...)
>http://content.entrypoint.com/content.asp?cid=17432579&md5=7c8d90985a478eb207e7b3b4c539c61f
Has anyone read this?
Oh boy, lookout sunshine.
I'm just going to step right up on this one, this dude is a nimrod first class.
>D&D'ers had to suffer through a string of weak movies--Ridley
>Scott's Legend (with Tom Cruise as an elf), Ron Howard's Willow and
>the recent Sean Connery-voiced Dragonheart
Hmm, bad-mouthing some movies from a similar vein. Either this guy got paid off, or
he's never seem 'em. Maybe both.
These are some of the best fantasy movies available. And damnit, he was 'Jack the
forest child' not an elf!
>this film will deliver for die-hard fans
This has got to be the pinncale of stupid. We are D&D players, we have been delivering
this content for ourselves for over 20 years. And I garauntee you no movie can deliver
the depths of imagination. Hell, it already sounds disappointing.
>This, despite the fact that D&D is a billion-dollar industry, with
>more than 400 novels in 18 different languages, a line of toys
Ah yes, the stench of greed and capitalism at its finest.
If any of you are hardcore D&D'ers, you might like a little history.
D&D started out much like linux. Yeah, it was open source. The rules were made up by
the players and published in various fanzines in the 70's. People were intersted in
roleplaying. (This isnt neccesarily the same group that played medieval combat with
minature lead figures, but their bondaries did blur a bit.)
All you needed to play was paper, pencil, 6 sided dice, and imagination. (really only
the last was neccesary.)
If you started playing in the 80's (the first TSR books were published in 79) you might
think that Gary Gygax and TSR are the end all be all. (From a licensing stand point
they were, no competing product could use the D&D logo...)
Really they were just clever plagarists. They took some of the most popular rules,
added some dialog and formating (this is called desktop publishing now), went to a
publisher, and ruined the D&D variety of roleplaying.
Oh sure, before you had to know someone who could DM, and if you couldn't actually role
play, it was likely you would get tossed out of any decent group.
Now any nimrod who could spout rules and lookup 'to hit' die roles could play D&D, hell
even DM.
So then it was circa 1982-83. There were the roleplayers. We are a dying breed. By
'86 I was lucky if I could find 3 or 4 good roleplayers. (And I was a very
inspirational DM, I could have your kid sister playing...)
You might wander who the rest are? I mean really, who fuels this billion dollar
industry? I shall categorize them:
Status symbol collector:
Cannot actually roleplay. Buys every D&D + AD&D book and item. Gets in a group to
show off merchandise. Waits a few years, gets into the 'christian' thing & burns it
all (I am NOT kidding about this either!) Repeat cycle when next edition is released.
Dice rollers:
Also cannot actually roleplay. Has a collection of dice you wouldn't believe, weighs
maybe 50 pounds. Gets in a group to show off dice, has separate dice for every weapon,
saving throw and character generation. ("Oh no those are my 'druid' dice, I need my
fighter dice to roll up a new character"...) The more time spent rolling dice and
looking up values on tables the happier this guy is.
I'm not sure where the dice go when they split the scene tho. Probably the same place
all my lost dice go to. (I swear there is an entire dimension of lost polyhedra dice
somewhere...)
Rule quoters:
These guys cant roleplay either (suprise surpirse.) But they know EVERY STINKING
SINGLE RULE, EVEN THE ONES IN THE DM GUIDE PLAYERS ARENT SUPPOSED TO KNOW, monster
stats, spell properties, you name it!!!! Oh, and they love to quote them. When Gygax
and bunch started adding on weapon specializations and other weird modifiers it was to
make this bunch happy. They get in a group to show of thier vast knowlege of the rules.
They have a side goal, besides spouting rules. Since no one in this group of fools can
actually role play, when they eventually get into some trouble, instead of thinking
thier way out (heaven forbid) they find some convolusion of the rules to save thier
collective butts.
And the last group, roleplayers:
They can actually ROLEPLAY! Yes. They dont need 50 books describing every last detail
you could ever think of. This stuff fits in one notebook the DM has. (kinda like a
book of magic spells...) They dont need 50000 dice. They like suprises, you never
hear "Oh thats obviously a doppleganger, it just looks like him, it has 5 HD and AC
2..." And they can actually THINK and SOLVE PROBLEMS. They didnt spend all the money
that fueled Gygax's AD&D monopoly, err I mean "billion dollar industry". They sure
lament it tho.
Really, I'd rather go through 45 people who didnt role play to find 5 who did, rather
than weeding 5 out of hundreds who 'claim' to, but fit very well into the first three
categories.
And if I ever have to sit through this again, I might just burn my books and notes:
DM: "You see a red dragon"
P1: "I get out my +5 vorpal sword of dragon slaying and attack"
P2: "I shoot my +5 mithral bow of never missing at its eyes"
P3: "I cast...magic missile"
... 2 hours of dice rolling, blah descriptions of attacks, etc., later...
Any Player: "Hey lets have our npcs test the unknown magic items"
DM: "Ok"
-Chaos Server-
|
|
| 6.2.00
|
"Piracy/Internet article rebuttal", by _-=* Cataboligne
|
A rebuttal to a droll article about how piracy could end the internet.
rE: Coven: Rebuttal to "Copyright Piracy Could Kill the Internet?" by CS.
Date: 6/2/00
A fellow conspiracists view
>crock of shIt, just a big CEO trying to make excuses
>that are so far fetched that someone might believe it!
I dont quite take the bait that these ppl are concerned about piracy. After all
professional and homebrew piracy has been around for years and hasn't brought the
entertainment industry to its knees. (If anything it has helped fuel it!)
I think what these 'old boys' may be worried about is being slowly edged out by a
legitimate business model that gives more money to the artists, more music value to the
fans while leaving the middle man high and dry.
I had a looky at this article, lets examine what they have to say.
>"We will fight for our artists whose creations and properties are being exploited and
stolen."
You know the funny part is the music and entertainment industry has a long standing
history of exploiting and stealing from artists. You could wonder why they would be
upset about someone copying their model, after all mimicry is flattery.
>He compared pirates to slaveowners and Soviets
This is an interesting point to make. Slavery is materialism taken to an extreme. If
I'd compare anything to slaveownership today, it would be big business. (The soviets
just had bad leadership, a true communist society where all mankind would be treated
equal and share equally in thier nations wealth could be ideal. Note: I wrote 'could'.)
>He criticized Napster and Gnutella. The programs make it easy for users to share music
over the Internet.
This is the real kicker, proving the guy is stupid or worried about something besides
piracy (like competition.)
Ftp has been around since the internets start, Icq, and other file sharing software
make it possible to pirate music via mp3's. And the software exists to make it easy to
do from windows. There used to be many mp3 search engines, prior to napster, to find
all the goodies.
I think the reason those proggies dont get stomped is that they dont represent a
distribution model for legitimate competition to the entertainment business.
>Everything on the Internet should be free.
This guy (or his puppetmaster) doesnt seem to realize that the internet was started
from a desire to share information freely. It had a life and purpose before any
commercial interest.
>Except for the gifts of God, things are free because someone else has paid for them,
This can be argued several ways. (Is not the music a gift of God? - if you were to
take that route, I dont believe for a minute this business shark is a saintly
christian.)
No this is a dangerous statement. It kind of implies that everything can be owned by
someone and you have to pay them for access. (But the ppl that are already getting the
dosh dont want anyone following in thier tracks.)
>If the Internet should require an unfair and unjust paradigm to perpetuate itself, it
will crack, crumble and collapse,
Unfair hmm. If the artists got thier money (and more of it, I hear tell they are
barely getting vinyl royalties on CD's!) and the fans get high quality music what could
be unfair?
No I think this is really about stifiling competition and hanging on to an outdated
distribution concept as long as possible. I think more and more the internet is
proving that eliminating middle men in comercial enterprise is to everyones advantage.
(Except maybe the middle men, and they can always do telemarketing.)
-Chaos Server-
|
|
|