Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Spammer and the Penguin

By Eric Green in Internet
Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 02:53:45 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

Eric Green doesn't use Windows very much. A long-time Linux user and advocate since 1995, Windows software interests him about as much as, say, the price of pork bellies on the Chicago futures market. So why is the publisher of a much-spammed Windows software product trying to shut him down?


Welcome to the wild and wacky story of the strangest bunch of spammer scammers on the Internet: those wacky folks at Robin Hood Software whose overpriced "Evidence Eliminator" software is spammed on every Internet forum on a regular basis. This is a tale of spammers and spam, and an unlikely spam fighter who has learned that spammers suck even worse than most people think. And in the end, it's the story of how spam fighters around the globe support each other when the spammers decide to go after their critics and detractors.

It all started back in June 2000. At the time, I was researching encryption algorithms for use in a new software product. There was this product called 'Evidence Eliminator', produced by a company named 'Robin Hood Software', being hyped on the sci.crypt and alt.privacy newsgroups. Curious, I went to the web site of the publisher of the software. After being subjected to flash animation, popups threatening me with jail if I didn't buy Evidence Eliminator, and no way to contact the makers of the product other than a web form, I decided: "These people aren't credible."

And said so. From my work account. Big mistake.

I didn't realize I was dealing with spammers. I thought they'd be interested in seeing what an industry veteran thought. But there was no response to my message on the sci.crypt newsgroup. As far as I was concerned, that was the end of it. I went on with my life.

But Andy Churchill, one of the principals of Robin Hood Software, wasn't so eager to let go. Imagine my surprise when, in early 2001, I ran a Google search for my name and discovered that I was part of a vast conspiracy by some strange New World Order collection of villains to destroy the makers of "the best security product on the market"!

Naturally I wasn't happy. And as someone who isn't shy about expressing his opinion, I expressed it, sending EMAIL to Robin Hood Software demanding that they remove any mention of me from their site. Andy Churchill of Robin Hood Software admits to have received that EMAIL, but says, "we deleted it". There was no response from Robin Hood Software.

So I did what comes naturally to any Linux geek: I put up a web page. Which Robin Hood Software swiftly (and in violation of my copyright) duplicated on their own web site, with "False." (no explanation) beside each of my points as to why you shouldn't buy their software. And as time went by and, thanks to the readers of my site, I accumulated more and more evidence about Robin Hood Software's activities, including evidence that they were behind the "push ICQ" spamming of their product (an EMAIL to their affiliates urging them to do that kind of spamming), Robin Hood Software's web site became yet more lurid, even to the point of duplicating a copyrighted gag photo (cropping out Agent Binks) on their own web site. These people don't appear to be too stable -- definite candidates for the aluminum foil beanie award.

In early 2002 I purchased the domain name 'evidence-eliminator-sucks.com', and did a major overhaul of the web site to try to organize the by-then large amount of information that I'd accumulated about Robin Hood Software and its activities. By that time it was clear that these weren't nice people. Deceptive claims in their advertising, huge amounts of spam originating from their affiliates, a browser hijack virus that hijacks people's web browsers and redirects them to the Evidence Eliminator home page, and their continued attempts to disparage their critics and competitors on their aptly-named Dis-Information page pretty much are a Major Clue. I also launched the "Evidence Eliminator Sucks Conspiracy" -- both a statement on what I feels is Robin Hood Software's paranoia in their rantings about a "vast conspiracy" out to "get" them, and an attempt to get other security-oriented sites to link back to the new domain so that when people went to Google to look up Robin Hood Software, the evidence-eliminator-sucks.com site would come up near the top.

The effort appears to have paid off. The evidence-eliminator-sucks.com site is regularly 3rd or 4th from the top on Google's list of results for the term "evidence eliminator". The crew at Robin Hood Software is so concerned that they have put out a special warning that greets everyone who surfs in from Google. And, on July 17, 2003, at approximately 10:15am, I got a call from my upstream service provider: They had received a letter on lawyer's letterhead, demanding that this service provider quit publishing the site.

It didn't take long to establish what was going on. In a meeting at the ISP's offices, the ISP's operations manager viewed the evidence-eliminator-sucks.com site, viewed the www.evidence-eliminator.com site, and quickly realized that a) these were "not nice people", and b) these people had no case. Unlike in the given example case of Godfrey vs. Demon Internet LLC, the ISP wasn't publishing the site. The site never touched any of the ISP's computers. All the ISP was providing was the upstream for the DSL line, the site was published on a computer on my own home network. On the other hand, even though the threat was nonsense, just showing up in an English court to get a lawsuit dismissed would cost thousands of dollars. What to do?

The eventual decision was to take the site down, replace it with the legal notice, and start spreading the word. I started contacting the various members of the "conspiracy" (anybody who had ever linked to the site), looking for people who could host mirrors of the site so that it couldn't be shut down again via a single lawyer nastygram. Word quickly spread in the news.admin.net-abuse hierarchy, and numerous people stepped forward to host a mirror. I also made copies of the site to two free webhosting companies and posted links in various newsgroups. Finally, on July 19 2003, two days after the takedown notice, the site was back up, hosted on several mirrors scattered around the Internet.

So what have I learned from this experience? Well:

  1. Spammers suck. They really, really suck. They are lower than snakes' bellies. They are nutcases with no morals, who need to take their meds more often.
  2. Documenting spammers' antics does hurt them. After all, they wouldn't have come after me if my site had not been hurting them, right?
  3. The international nature of the Internet is both a boon and a curse. You'll notice that the spammers are careful to only defame Americans. There isn't a single Brit on their paranoid listing of the "vast conspiracy" out to get them. That's because they know it's too expensive to file a cross-Atlantic lawsuit against them. On the other hand, that also protects those of us on this side of the pond from their lawsuits too.
  4. Spammers are really, really, really stupid. I offered to take down evidence-eliminator-sucks.com for free. All they had to do was take all mention of me off their site. I mean, what do I care about what Windows losers get scammed out of? But no, they had to go off and hire a solicitor to spew out a cart00ney, and now it's too late for that: the site is now hosted on several servers scattered around the Internet, and I couldn't make the site go away now even if I wanted to.
  5. Nobody, and I mean nobody, loves spammers. I got so many offers of mirrors for the site that I could have added two more (but stopped at three because my update script started getting slow, between updating those three and updating the tripod.com off-site mirror). Their EMAIL'ed complaints to the ISP of one of the mirror sites resulted in a warning from the abuse department at that ISP: said their abuse manager, "you're too easy on those spammers, you need to hit them harder! Considered yourself warned about the content of your site."
What comes next? Well, I guess they sue me. I'm not looking forward to it. This whole situation is a distraction from my main chore right now -- looking for a new job (my employer laid off their entire U.S. workforce a few weeks ago). On the other hand, if they do so, you can bet I won't take it lying down. You mess with a Cajun boy from Louisiana, you better expect more of the same coming right back at you -- with interest. Considering that they've violated my copyright thousands of times by distributing my copyrighted photograph, somehow I think actually filing a lawsuit would be as stupid as anything else this particular bunch of spammer scammers has done.

But then, who ever said spammers were smart?

- Eric Lee Green, Phoenix, Arizona, July 20, 2003

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Spammers
o suck. 6%
o really suck. 1%
o really really suck. 6%
o are lower than protozoa on the evolutionary scale. 9%
o are all of the above. 65%
o are great people and you're too hard on them! 10%

Votes: 160
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Google
o trying to shut him down
o decide to go after their critics and detractors
o web site
o said so
o vast conspiracy
o admits to have received that EMAIL
o evidence
o EMAIL to their affiliates
o yet more lurid
o gag photo
o aluminum foil beanie
o Deceptive claims
o browser hijack virus
o Dis-Inform ation
o "Evidence Eliminator Sucks Conspiracy"
o rantings
o special warning
o quit publishing the site
o evidence-e liminator-sucks.com
o www.eviden ce-eliminator.com
o only defame Americans
o tripod.com
o looking for a new job
o Also by Eric Green


Display: Sort:
The Spammer and the Penguin | 242 comments (217 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)
you run linux ??? (1.13 / 52) (#1)
by rmg on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 07:32:32 PM EST

then maybe you can help me !!!

i have a friend who just switched to sco/linux from windows and now his usb cable modem doesn't work !! maybe you can help him. you see, he loves his cable modem very much and he is so sad without it. i don't like to see my friend sad. maye you can fix his cable modem !! that would be really nice! he loves his cable modem.

plz roight back k thx.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks

Oh geez (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by Eric Green on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 07:35:29 PM EST

1) Tell him to try Mandrake Linux. Drivers for several USB cable modems are contained therin.

2) C'mon, this isn't exactly The Computer Show or something!
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]

k thx!!!! (1.28 / 7) (#3)
by rmg on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 07:36:22 PM EST



_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

you forget [nt] - [nt] (1.00 / 2) (#9)
by latestringtones2003 on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:07:06 PM EST



[ Parent ]
[nt] (2.00 / 4) (#11)
by rmg on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:18:44 PM EST



_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

fuck [nt] (1.00 / 2) (#40)
by llimllib on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 11:24:43 PM EST

seriously.


Peace.
[ Parent ]
Congradulations! (3.57 / 7) (#7)
by Bartab on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:04:07 PM EST

You've been trolled! Be proud young one!

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Why do you think my subject was what it was? (3.00 / 1) (#15)
by Eric Green on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:24:08 PM EST

Unfortunately, I'm congenitally incapable of stopping myself from giving advice when asked :-).
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]
i know... it's brilliant... [nt] (1.60 / 5) (#23)
by rmg on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 09:05:16 PM EST



_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

progression... (1.50 / 2) (#20)
by GenerationY on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:50:32 PM EST

mouse wheel -> cable modem. I look forward to futher developments. Thats an understatement; I can hardly sleep for wondering where this one will go next! My guess is graphics cards, but I hear the smart money is beginning to back something to else to do with USB ports. Or perhaps something more left-field will appear: "i have a friend who just switched to FreeBSD and...". Crazy? Uncanny? Well you heard it here first!

[ Parent ]
No, but... (1.40 / 10) (#55)
by joto on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 04:40:36 AM EST

I'm sorry. I really don't know much about cable modems and SCO linux. But I have another question:

My friend have a girlfriend who is really into anal sex. But my friend fears that he can become a homosexual by getting used to entering "number two". I am quite sure that is untrue, as I've entered my friends girlfriends "number two" quite a lot of times, but I'm not sure how to tell this to him, without making him angry.

You look like someone who maybe know the answer. Do you think you can answer me?

[ Parent ]

tell him (none / 0) (#66)
by danni on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 08:20:10 AM EST

to just use ethernet, it saves all the fuss.

[ Parent ]
I have to say... (1.96 / 52) (#5)
by elenchos on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:03:58 PM EST

...well, I won't say it yet.

I want to preface my comment with a few remarks on a disturbing trend I've seen. Yes, a disturbing trend. I know that "disturbing trend" phrase is a little overused but I think this is one case where that is precisely the words the situation calls for. It describes a growing and intensifying movement among a small but disproportionately powerful group of individuals to enforce a new kind of censorship on Kuro5hin and the Internet as a whole. It flies in the face of everything that you and I and nearly everyone else here values so much about sites like Kuro5hin: the freedom to say what you think. While we all rightfully become quite militant when faced with text that is not written in sincerity, we universally (nearly universally) respect and even celebrate the text that expresses dissent. The opinion that goes against the prevailing opinions is a shiny gem of light and a speck of justice compacted. Justice and light are based on the free exchange of ideas; in particular conflicting ideas. This is why nearly all of us are even more civil than usual when faced with dissent. We are even more considerate and even protective of the dissenter. But not everyone shares our values. Some would use what little power they have to try to enforce conformity. This is an assault on all of us, and when even a handful of these censors go to work, they can do real harm to you and me, and to Kuro5hin and to the whole Internet. This is why I suggest that you take this opportunity to stand against those who would silence dissent, and defend the right of the minority to express itself.

That said, I think putting up any website that says anyone "sucks" is mean and I don't think it's nice. Why do such a thing? I also don't have any prejudice against spammers. I would never say "all spammers" are this or "all spammers" are that. They are nothing if not human beings, and so they are unique individuals. And spam? What is spam but a post or a courrier (or "email"), from one human being to another human being? It's just communication, in other words. What's wrong, at it's base, with communication? I think communication in all forms is a good thing (except if it lacks sincerity). But the open door, the line of communication, the medium of intercouse: these are the very stuff of civilization, and that must include spam. If you were to show me a spam that was not completely sincere, that is a spam that was written solely to provoke a response, any response, then I would be one with you in my criticism of that particular spam and the person behind it. But to hate all spam? To hate all spammers? I don't. I don't share your hate, and I hope I never do.

Adequacy.org

Agree more than disagree (4.00 / 4) (#12)
by Eric Green on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:21:10 PM EST

Frankly, my usual reaction to spam is to hit the delete button. While I disagree with the morality of them stealing people's resources in order to go about their business (most spam is sent via hijacked mail relays and stolen accounts), I'm generally an easy-going guy and not one to generally make a fuss about it. Frankly, I"m not by nature one of those crusading types who represent most of the anti-spam forces. There's definitely nastier people out there

Unfortunately, this particular bunch of spammers decided to be nasty to me, personally. Oh well. So be it.
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]

By the way (3.84 / 13) (#22)
by prower on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:58:43 PM EST

Just to let you know, he's another one of the trolls here..albeit more well-versed than many of them tend to be. It's ironic that someone linking to Adequacy.org is on a soapbox about "text that is not written in sincerity" :>

[ Parent ]
Your behavior speaks for itself, doesn't it? (2.04 / 21) (#25)
by elenchos on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 09:22:59 PM EST

I think anyone can compare the net content of your posts with mine and make their own judgment as to who is posting comments of value and who is wasting time. The use you have decided to put the comment rating system to certainly says it all.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

I have to wonder about the wisdom of a crusade. (2.81 / 16) (#27)
by elenchos on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 09:38:43 PM EST

It seems like you went pretty far out of your way to go after this particular group. I realize that they seem to have targeted you first, but do you think that your tactics may have more or less sunken to their level? Essentially, you responded to their smear campaign with a smear campaign of your own. Hopefully you are enjoying yourself, because I don't see how any real good can come of accusations and counter-accusations posted all over the web.

Personally it is my policy to ignore bad behavior whenever I can, rather than engage those who would pull you down into the muck with them. But others find it an amusing hobby.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

your preface (3.66 / 6) (#31)
by martingale on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 09:48:24 PM EST

I'm at a loss as to what exactly you're saying in your preface. I mean, it's full of general babble about internet censorship and blah blah, but doesn't appear to have an ounce of relevance to your actual comment below it: who is censoring k5 and the internet-at-large? Why can't you say what you say anyway, for fear of being misunderstood because the k5-censoring minority is also censoring the internet overall?

Please explain, thanks.

[ Parent ]

Well, I think it bears repeating. (2.31 / 16) (#32)
by elenchos on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 10:01:14 PM EST

One would think that there are certain things that we can take for granted, and the freedom to think differently ought to be one of those things, but it appears that the duty has fallen to me, and perhaps me alone, to speak up and point out that one of what we thought of as a foundational aspect of the Internet community is, if you are willing to be truthful about it, not something that you or I or anyone can ever take for granted at all. Not at all. I can't blame you for not realizing the peril our rights and freedoms have found themselves in. Who would have ever guessed that we would so soon have slid down a muddy slope from the pinnacle of intellectual exaltation that once reigned in our world of point and counterpoint into what I often feel is some kind of abyss where conformity to a rigid party line is the order of the day and those who cannot give up the old habit of frankness are driven down, down and finally driven out.

There's not much I can do except use my voice. I want everyone to see what is happening in front of their eyes, and I'm willing to make it explicit every single time. So here it is. Who will stand by and do nothing? And who will stand up?

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

repetition is the crux (4.14 / 7) (#36)
by martingale on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 10:53:38 PM EST

Repetition is the kind of intellectual tool that has the greatest potential to smooth over the nooks and crannies of independently organized minds into a clean, simple and standardized form. Unlike education, which takes years to effect changes, repetition has quasi-immediate results and can therefore be a finely tuned tool for the task at hand.

It goes without saying that your lonely crusade is noble and just, even though some will point out what must be eventually said about it, thereby lowering the effectiveness on pure listeners.

Luckily, you understand these issues as I am sure you understand the encouraging intent of this comment and the previous one.

I wish you luck in finding a interesting reward for your efforts, your actions deserve greater visibility.

[ Parent ]

Ahem. (none / 0) (#186)
by Aphexian on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 10:50:40 PM EST

The saddest thing of all - (in a quasi-metaphorical context) - is that the conglomerate comprised of a subtle bird and a flaming nacho has any inkling that such an angst-ridden intelligence-begotten catch phrase cult would give a a flying rhinoceros' carcass about anything that such purile minds had to contrive. Eh?

[I]f there were NO religions, there would be actual, true peace... Bunny Vomit
[ Parent ]
Must...chase...shiny...metal...thing...in...water! (3.11 / 9) (#38)
by buck on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 10:58:11 PM EST

Before anyone else chimes in on this particular thread, let me remind you that the OP, along with two others, ran a website called adequacy.org that perfomed the exact same thing as what the OP is so "worried" about. As it happens, it was their brand of strict censorship that made their website so successful. Therefore, quite frankly, the OP should be rather proud of the fact that K5, and the Internet in general, is following in his example. I'm sorry to have to break this to you children, but you see, the OP is not the kind of person to "toot his own horn" so to speak. In fact, he's rather modest.
-----
“You, on the other hand, just spew forth your mental phlegmwads all over the place and don't have the goddamned courtesy to throw us a tissue afterwards.” -- kitten
[ Parent ]
It's not all about me, me, me you know. (2.43 / 16) (#41)
by elenchos on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 11:38:45 PM EST

Elenchos, elenchos, elenchos! Give it a rest with the elenchos obsession, can't you? I have a diary you know, and I post to it quite frequently. If all you want to do is talk about me instead of the topic of the story, why not go to my diary and knock yourself out. Listen, my diary is ALL ELENCHOS ALL THE TIME! You'll love it, I'm telling you.

I really do not think the other readers of "The Spammer and the Penguin" came here to read about elenchos and nothing but elenchos. There is a correct section for every topic and there are still quite a few users here at Kuro5hin who would like to the posts in a section match the topic.

Really. Try to have a little more respect for others, okay?

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

this should have zero ratings (2.62 / 8) (#49)
by latestringtones2003 on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 01:37:24 AM EST

"Please use your "zero" rating with care! It is *only* for use on comments that are wholly content-free. If you think the poster is clueless, or an idiot, or you just don't agree with them, that is *not* grounds for a zero rating. Zero is for comments that are offensive, script-generated, or otherwise content-free and intended solely to annoy and/or abuse other readers."

bling bling!

[ Parent ]

should "NOT" - nt (3.00 / 4) (#50)
by latestringtones2003 on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 01:38:52 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Yes indeed. (4.20 / 5) (#51)
by NFW on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 02:06:10 AM EST

intended solely to annoy and/or abuse other readers

Did you notice the adequate signature? I have to admit, I busted a gut laughing at what the Adequacy people accomplished. I just wish they still had their own playground.


--
Got birds?


[ Parent ]

Let you me help a little bit. (2.44 / 9) (#85)
by elenchos on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:41:55 AM EST

If you investigate you'll notice that all of my comments have Adequcay.org in the signature, but you have not zero rated them all. Maybe you are short on time, but when you can get around to it, perhaps you could correct this. It shouldn't take too much of your time, since you won't need to actually read them, but merely check for the signature.

If you can't do it right, at least do it consistently.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

It may be a TROLL, all fat a green and hairy (2.33 / 3) (#65)
by Alhazred on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 08:19:13 AM EST

But you should learn to be kind to trolls. They have feelings too!
That is not dead which may eternal lie And with strange aeons death itself may die.
[ Parent ]
wow! an AST in action! (4.16 / 6) (#88)
by aderusha on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:54:44 AM EST

not being a reader of (the now-defunct) adequacy.org website, i was entertained by localroger's story on AST's, but i didn't really have the context to fully appreciate the material. now i've seen a real honest-to-god adequacy style troll in action! it's every bit as senseless as localroger promised it would be! thanks elenchos!

[ Parent ]
Read Strunk and White (4.00 / 1) (#117)
by fantods on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 02:37:38 PM EST

Cool AST, man!

However, my first reaction was:

"Omit needless words."
--Strunk and White, "Elements of Style"

[ Parent ]

If I were worried about a no-knock warrant . . . (4.00 / 12) (#16)
by acceleriter on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:27:05 PM EST

. . . you can bet your ass I wouldn't have a program called "Evidence Eliminator" in Windows' Add/Remove Programs. That alone would probably be enough to get a conviction, or at least a trip to Cuba, these days.

Better to overwrite the hard disk 35 times, smash it to bits, then melt it into slag!

Not really (5.00 / 5) (#58)
by squigly on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 05:38:40 AM EST

It's kind of hard to do that on a daily basis.

[ Parent ]
Better programs are available (4.00 / 4) (#79)
by acceleriter on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:02:54 AM EST

If one is indulging in sedition, industrial espionage, illegal pornography, or other questionable activities, the best choice is to avoid using a computer for them. The second best choice is to stay away from Windows--Bob knows what security holes, intentional and otherwise, are available for exploitation (should one bet one's freedom/life that the NSAKey was really just unfortunate naming)?

If one must use Windows, it'd probably best to stick with Windows 9x, FAT file system, no swap file, either no or only non TCP/IP networking (e.g. NetBEUI) on the internal network, and deniable encryption where sensitive material would be stored. This would be a system that would be relatively easy to keep clean with a utility like Eraser. Even then, there's the registry to worry over. Maybe Windows 3.1?

Even better might be an environment like the above, but all on a VMware non-persistent disk stored in an encrypted filesystem on the host. But then one has to worry about the security of VMware and whether there are ways of jumping out of the VM.

This all may sound tinfoil hat-ish, but if someone's doing something that would result in forensic analysis of his/her PC, he/she can't be too careful.

[ Parent ]

Thus... (3.00 / 3) (#92)
by Vesperto on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:14:48 AM EST

...use a linux-based system with an encryptated hard-drive :)

La blua plago!
[ Parent ]
Right! (4.50 / 2) (#94)
by acceleriter on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:24:47 AM EST

But maybe the programs needed to conduct all those illegal and nefarious activities only run on Windows :).

[ Parent ]
Beats me... (2.66 / 3) (#98)
by Vesperto on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:38:17 AM EST

...i don't conduct illegal and nefarious activities. :-) Still, i0m sure there are equivalents, i'll tell you when i get started in the business.

La blua plago!
[ Parent ]
someone sic Steve Gibson on these guys (3.90 / 10) (#17)
by jvcoleman on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:28:50 PM EST

That would be the true battle royal.

Speaking of sites about people who suck.. (3.00 / 2) (#18)
by prower on Sun Jul 20, 2003 at 08:37:52 PM EST

http://grcsucks.com Just happened to look that up after reading through the post :> I knew a lot of his claims were ridiculous (eg. "nanoprobe technology," which is basically advertiser-speak for what NMap has been doing for years now), but it was interesting to see that others had picked up on it. That being said, he has written some pretty good software in the past.

[ Parent ]
He already kicked them off his boards (4.66 / 3) (#141)
by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:35:30 PM EST

They were cluttering up his boards at grc.com with all sorts of ads, and attacking his regulars and friends there accusing them of being part of some vast conspiracy child molesters anti-privacy etc., and he finally had enough of it and kicked them off.

So yeah, Steve Gibson doesn't like'em, but attack'em? Not likely. Probably not a good idea anyhow, Steve Gibson attacking someone probably gives the other person credibility :-).
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]

Canonical quote (4.75 / 16) (#43)
by igny ignoble on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 12:00:08 AM EST

Now that the Internet has the full spectrum of humanity as users, the technology is showing its weakness: it was designed to be used by friendly, smart people. Spammers, as a class, are neither friendly nor smart.
-Paul Vixie


-1 Ya should have known better. (2.00 / 17) (#52)
by exile1974 on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 02:16:29 AM EST

So this was like a commercial troll and you bit
hook line and sinker.

exile1974

"A sucking chest wound is Nature's way of telling you to stay out of a firefight." --Mary Gentle

Good point (5.00 / 4) (#80)
by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:03:57 AM EST

I should have added another numbered item: "Never respond to spammers." If I'd just kept my mouth shut in the first place, there would not have been a problem. There's millions of scams out there, after all, why should I care about this one in particular?
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
[ Parent ]
Wow (3.39 / 23) (#53)
by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 03:52:33 AM EST

I read through this story thinking 'wow, this guy has got a good case here', until I got to

what do I care about what Windows losers get scammed out of

Ok - so spammers are the lowest of the low, apart from Windows users who deserve all they get. What utter crap. -1 from me until you change your outlook, you zealot twat.

Hmmmm (1.00 / 4) (#54)
by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 03:53:11 AM EST

a little late for that -1 to take effect ;) - I'm sending bad thought to you now Eric Green....

[ Parent ]
Windows (2.27 / 11) (#56)
by m0rph3us0 on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 05:04:16 AM EST

Windows users do deserve what they get, anyone who takes the time to do OS research would know the kind of product they are buying when purchasing Windows, and if you didn't purchase it what are you complaining about? Windows users do deserve what they get because they pay for Windows and therefore recieve the kind of computing experience that can only be delievered by Windows.

[ Parent ]
I don't think (2.66 / 6) (#59)
by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 05:46:09 AM EST

its any coincidence that both replies to my post don't seem to conform to standard English grammar rules.

[ Parent ]
Are you lacking arguments? <nt> (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Vesperto on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:18:12 AM EST



La blua plago!
[ Parent ]
black pots who live in glass houses... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
by jnana on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 04:21:02 PM EST

...

[ Parent ]
Um...duh! (4.00 / 4) (#87)
by djkitsch on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:52:12 AM EST

Hey, if someone wrote a crappy peice of software (oops, they already have!) for Linux, and allowed it to run as root, it could equally do a huge amount of damage.

I've been happily running XP Pro for the past 6 months after having used Red Hat as my main OS for a year or so before that. I like both, but I've found XP a hell of a lot more convenient when I have to work with others using the same platform. I'm not going to make my life more difficult simply on principle. This is how I deal with XP:

1) Use a program such as Startup Monitor and registry monitors to keep an eye on modifications made by software.

2) Run Kerio Firewall to keep tabs on network traffic and, by extension, "phone home" apps.

3) Use Firebird/Mozilla rather than IE, for all the obvious reasons.

I have done pretty much what most Linux users do to protect the integrity of thier OS - the only difference is that Linux users *expect* to have to do this - Windows users simply haven't been educated to do the sensible things they should. And I'm certainly not the only Windows user I know whose PC isn't 0wned by Microsoft.

-------------------------
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
[ Parent ]
Not exactly (2.00 / 1) (#211)
by Peaker on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 05:49:03 PM EST

Monitoring Windows and what's going on there is much more difficult than in Linux.

Trying to debug random arbitrary failures of applications in Windows is near impossible, where in Linux at the very least you can get the source code.

Too many things in Windows are also "implicit" and its too difficult to find them.

  • Unsecure defaults are hard to find.
  • Things like automatic detection of changing your hard drive and renaming its drive letter that don't let you move your installation to a new drive in any reasonable way.
  • Things like all Windows installations overwriting the MBR and Boot Loader without asking any questions.

    The Windows System is simply far too complicated to be understood simply, and there are too many concepts to grasp. The registry, complicated drivers' architecture, etc. Unix has processes and files. Files like /etc, files like /proc. These files require no research or extra understanding but immensely increase the transparency of the system.

    All startup stuff is in /etc/init.d.

    All package installations are .deb/.rpm/etc files (or just apt-managed).

    All configuration files are in /etc.

    In Windows, some startup options are in the Startup folder. Some are hidden way into the registry where few gurus can find them.

    In Windows, some packages are .msi, some are Wise, some are InstallShield, and have different ways to install/uninstall and especially understand/debug.

    In Windows, some configuration is hidden someplace in the registry (where again, only a few gurus can decipher), some are in .ini files, and all in very different formats.

    In a perfect world - where one doesn't care _how_ his system works, transparency isn't required and Windows and Linux are very similar to users.

    In this imperfect world of computing, where debugging is quite frequent, making it so difficult (as it is in Windows) is presumptious and even stupid. The extra *nix simplicity and transparency makes Linux the far better option.

    [ Parent ]

  • Yeah (none / 0) (#218)
    by starsky on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 05:00:45 AM EST

    Unix has a standard method for installing apps, thats right.

    [ Parent ]
    The great thing about standards... (none / 0) (#221)
    by squigly on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 09:24:43 AM EST

    Is that there are so many to choose from.

    Of course, the whole configure script thing works on most platforms and most software.  Dependencies seem to be a problem for installing binaries.

    [ Parent ]

    "Unix" doesn't, but many *nix'es do (none / 0) (#225)
    by Peaker on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 05:30:52 PM EST

    Debian GNU/Linux, which is a "unix" clone, has a very standard installation method (dpkg/apt).

    Redhat/Mandrake/etc have RPM, though since it sucks so bad many people install tgz's anyway :)

    Even tgz's though are very similar to one another (configure/make/make install), so you end up with one or two standard methods at most.

    I install 99.9% of my packages via apt-get only, for example. The rest, I install via deb-make which configures/makes/make-installs for me.

    [ Parent ]

    Comparatively speaking, maybe... (none / 0) (#222)
    by djkitsch on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 11:32:34 AM EST

    You have pointed out that many Windows settings are stored in the registry AND .ini files. This was true maybe as little as 5 years ago, but these days good Win32 programmers use the registry - if they don't, they're falling back on legacy technology for no good reason. I've experienced many Linux apps which have put settings in odd places - the variability of directories on *nix systems has been the subject of many a /. rant.

    Also, taking into account "power" users (and let's face it, you won't find many Linux users who aren't), editing the Windows registry is certainly no harder than editing Linux config files. Windows has the disadvantage of legacy OS features to support wheras Linux is still pretty much the way it was designed, structurally speaking. Either way, if you're really a "guru", finding a few registry settings will not be a problem.

    In terms of installers: huh? RPMs are very common these days, but they're by no means the only widely used distribution format.

    Debugging: it's okay for those users who are fluent in C, Perl, Python etc, but some of us simply don't have the time! If my Linux system crashes, it's not going to make any difference to me if I can get to the source - I can't fix it, anyway. I'm a web developer, not a Linux hacker, and neither are a large proportion of *nix users. I've never had the inclination to debug an app I'm using - if it doesn't work, I'll find one that does.

    Call me lazy, but I have a family and social life (nothing implied about my fellow k5 readers there) and I don't have time to rewrite my OS in between working.


    -------------------------
    sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
    [ Parent ]
    What's good for the goose ... (none / 0) (#241)
    by kanin on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 03:24:22 PM EST

    I enjoy this:

    "Trying to debug random arbitrary failures of applications in Windows is near impossible, where in Linux at the very least you can get the source code."

    juxtaposed with this (or any of the windows rants):

    "In Windows, some configuration is hidden someplace in the registry (where again, only a few gurus can decipher), some are in .ini files, and all in very different formats."

    So are you advocating on behalf of the average user or the technologically savvy user?

    Ok - I'm not going to get into an OS war. I don't do those. I have years of experience on windows and unix in academic and commercial settings - though I've not specifically used Linux often (I'm more of a BSD guy - but I installed it an have it running somewhere in my house). My point is that saying one thing is too hard, obscure, or whatever and then defending it, in part, with something that is certainly much more difficult is not really a winning strategy.

    I don't disagree with much of what you're saying. MS has a lot of work to do in those areas and there is a lot of legacy junk binding their hands. Linux has the benefit of a "fresh" start and a community that is more receptive to breaking change (today, that is. As the mandatory technical bar to Linux usage lowers and if the masses start to use it then that mentality will have to end if Linux is to have lasting commercial success - and then Linux will be tied with the same ropes they scoff at today).

    Anyway - it just struck me as an interesting topic.

    [ Parent ]

    What for should he care? (3.62 / 8) (#57)
    by Julian Morrison on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 05:29:07 AM EST

    The man's not a charity. Solving the scam problems of the world is not his problem.

    [ Parent ]
    It's morally wrong... (1.14 / 7) (#64)
    by darthaggie on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 08:16:15 AM EST

    so spammers are the lowest of the low, apart from Windows users who deserve all they get

    Just remember that its morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money.

    Gill Bates

    [ Parent ]

    Someone has to say it... (2.84 / 13) (#67)
    by Lethyos on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:01:43 AM EST

    Yes, while it may seem a bit heavy-handed, I think Windows users deserve everything they get from the platform.  High-prices, draconian EULAs, viruses/worms, security nightmares, instability, etc.  They deserve it all.  Why?  Because there's been years of exposure to superior open alternatives.  Linux, *BSD, Apache, Mozilla, etc.  They cannot possibly be ignorant these days, where open source is spreading rapidly (especially in this economic climate).

    This includes getting scammed out for every nonsense "security" product that hits the Windows market.  These scams are only a product of the failure of Windows as a secure platform.  The emotional factor that leads Windows admins to products like these is their own damn fault.

    Maybe.

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (3.64 / 14) (#68)
    by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:06:10 AM EST

    that is crap. Linux isn't suited to the average user. Furthermore, how on earth has the general public been 'exposed to years of superior OSS alternatives'??? Is Linux on the shelves of my local store? Is Linux widely available ready-installed on PC's? Is Linux well-supported by the kind of PC stores the general public go to? Don't bother linking me the /. articles are poxy shops with poxy linux pc's, in general, they aren't available, and as previously stated, like it or, not, Windows, despite it's many faults, is substancially less shit for a non computer expert than any other OS you care to mention.

    [ Parent ]
    This is NOT crap. (2.54 / 11) (#73)
    by Lethyos on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:38:24 AM EST

    Linux isn't suited to the average user.

    Wrong. FUD. I can honestly say my mother runs RedHat Linux 9. She doesn't like OpenOffice however, but the solution is simple. Microsoft Office and all of her old Windows programs run just fine with software from these guys. She enjoys the fact it doesn't crash. She enjoys the fact she does not have to pay extra for useful spam filtering. She enjoys the fact that her browser doesn't crash when it's bombarded with dozens of popups (of course, they are blocked to her preference). She is no power user but with very little effort, I was able to set the machine up so it was usable and comfortable for her. She can type her letters, do spreadsheets, check her email, surf the web, etc. just fine.

    Furthermore, how on earth has the general public been 'exposed to years of superior OSS alternatives'???

    Maybe I am over stepping here. I think it's definitely a sure shot to say that any sysadmin on Windows with her salt has probably heard about open source alternatives and known about them for a while. Linux in particular is not obscure. It is very mainstream. At the very least, everyone who runs servers knows about Apache.

    Is Linux on the shelves of my local store?

    Yes.

    Is Linux widely available ready-installed on PC's?

    Yes.

    Is Linux well-supported by the kind of PC stores the general public go to?

    Well, no. How long, if ever, I cannot say. The focus of my original post was the situation in the server room. That's where Windows users get hit the hardest. Most desktop users don't have to be worried about being hacked and no desktop users are running anything mission critical.

    Windows, despite it's many faults, is substancially less shit for a non computer expert than any other OS you care to mention.

    You could not be more wrong.



    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]
    Sigh (4.00 / 8) (#75)
    by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:53:23 AM EST

    Fortunately for the future of the human race, not every mother has access to a Linux zealot to set up their PC for them.

    I take your point on the Mac, but since your original post did not mention it among the sucky Unix distributions, I was not thinking in terms of that. My bad.

    As I said, just cos some butty stores do it, doesn't mean normal ones do, as you accepted.

    The article was quite clearly *not* about the server room, but about end users. I suspect you twisted it that way as there are actually some solid arguments for using Unix in the server room. On the home PC, whilst I acknowledge the right of the individual to make their choice, Windows (or Mac, as you say) is the way to go.

    [ Parent ]

    It's only (2.75 / 8) (#95)
    by Vesperto on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:28:20 AM EST

    the way to go, as you say it, because despite all of the developers' efforts, Linux (or UNIX-based OSes) doesnt' support all the dandy mainstream stuff. What prevents a regular user from buying Linux? Is it because they haven't heard of it? Probablly, free software = no profit, pay for it and the company you buy it from can afford publicity. IS it because it's an ugly text-based monster? Gimme a break, KDE is so windows it makes me sick.

    Maybe if software companies would start developing their products to Linux as well, stores would start selling it on a more mainstream basis and people would in fact start buying it.  'Till then, the average Joe will rather spend some expensive bucks on faulty software 'cos so far he/she can't play the latest shoot'em-up available near you.

    It's not about being a zealot, it's pure fact: Windows does suck, although XP seems to be considerably better than its predecessors. Of course you still have al the privacy issues but most people don't care. I can't talk about Mac since i only used one for a year and my "it's a cute piece of crap" opinon is probably  not exactly right... i'll get a MAc someday and give it a try.

    La blua plago!
    [ Parent ]

    KDE (3.14 / 7) (#96)
    by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:29:49 AM EST

    is a slow, bloated windows, which kind of makes a mockery of Linux zealots going on about how Windows is slow and bloated.

    [ Parent ]
    The difference (2.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Cro Magnon on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:41:13 AM EST

    is that with Windows, you HAVE to run their big, fat, bloated GUI! With Linux, you DON'T have to run KDE/Gnome. There are several lightweight GUI's as an alternative.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    Could you tell me... (4.00 / 4) (#115)
    by UptownGuy on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 02:13:06 PM EST

    ...Could you tell me what those might be then?

    Honestly, I am curious. I'm a fairly literate computer user. I've been using Windows since 3.0. I owned a Commodore 64. (Heck, I owned a VIC-20.) I am comfortable using IRC, I post in Slashdot, I regularly newsgroups...

    But for some reason, I avoided installing Linux until YESTERDAY. Really, honestly July 20, 2003 at 10AM yesterday.

    I've got to tell you -- my first impression as a long time Windows user who really BELIEVES the competition is a good thing and is not a platform zealot, just an informed bystander -- my first impression was that it was BLOATY feeling. The fonts weren't as pretty as in Windows; the applications feel like buggy second-rate rip-offs of applications I already use and as for the install -- well -- let's just say YUCK. Windows is intuitive. Macs are intuitive. Linux -- from my WHOLE ONE DAY OF EXPERIENCE (take with a massive grain of salt!) -- Linux seems amazingly COUNTER INTUITIVE -- setting up, configuration ... Things are found in so many different places with so many different things to be tweaked. Some in GUIs. Some with "obscure" command line prompts that unless you KNOW, you are SOL. People want things to WORK. They don't want to work on THINGS. Some do but most don't. Period.

    (ahem)

    I'm getting away from my point. My POINT was that I've been using Gnome and it feels, as I said, bloated. What would be a good alternative for day 2?

    (ducks and prepares for the zealots to fire) (Remember, I really DON'T care either way, just sharing my impressions.)

    [ Parent ]
    One choice (3.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Cro Magnon on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 04:00:01 PM EST

    is Xfce (www.xfce.org). It seems MUCH faster than KDE or Gnome.

    BTW, I've never thought Windows was very intuitive. Much of what SEEMS intuitive only seems that way because most people have gotten used to it. While Linux DOES have a ways to go before it's ready for "Joe Sixpack", Windows isn't as easy as Microsoft tries to claim.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]

    congrats (2.75 / 8) (#121)
    by reklaw on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 04:15:10 PM EST

    You get to join the club of people who've realised the truth about Linux. The only people who can stand to look at it are the type of nerds who plain white-on-black websites with no design whatsoever -- you know the type I mean. Unless you love memorising command prompt rubbish and searching for the right setting to mess with in obscure configuration files, just give Linux a miss altogether.

    It is always impossible not to laugh at the zealots when they say things like "Windows is bloated", "Windows is slow", "Windows is unstable" -- perhaps Linux beat Windows 95 and 98, but Windows 2000 and XP are far superior to it. Stability pretty much isn't an argument any more, they're both as stable as each other unless you're using one to do something silly, and Windows is much faster and less bloated than Linux -- at least, if you're running KDE or Gnome on it. I know that lighter things are available, but then again there's nothing to stop me changing my Windows shell back to progman.exe. That is, apart from the fact that I actually want to run a modern graphical computer and do some work on it.

    I mean, fuck, I run XP, and my computer doesn't even meet the minimum sodding requirements for it -- but it still boots and runs much faster than any version of Linux I've ever used.

    OK, I'm done. I hate it when people get me started on that, but I can't help feeling conned into wasting by time with Linux (and you can waste a lot of time) by a bunch of stupid zealots who still persist today, and I want to warn people against making my mistake.
    -
    [ Parent ]

    Troll. (2.00 / 6) (#145)
    by Lethyos on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:54:17 PM EST

    This is a troll, plain and simple.

    Unless you love memorising command prompt rubbish and searching for the right setting to mess with in obscure configuration files, just give Linux a miss altogether.

    Where most distros like that?  Yes.  And is it that the way some distros are today?  No, definitely not.  As I have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread, there are distros, like SuSE and RedHat that are very graphical and automatic.  If you cannot figure out how to set them up you have no business trying to administer any computer.

    And no, Windows is still very unstable.  Machines running open source operating systems have uptimes of months and even years.  Windows cannot even begin to match that.

    sigh

    The reality is you simply do not know what you're talking about.  You say "Linux", but maybe you tried Slackware, which is a distro for people who like to hack.  Go get RedHat 9 and confront this issue again.

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]

    But... (4.00 / 1) (#165)
    by NoCashValue on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 08:56:03 AM EST

    ...even using modern distros like RH9 and the "uber newbie friendly" Mandrake 9.1 doesn't eliminate the need for some CLI tinkering... which is a Bad Thing™ when you're trying to convince people to trade in Windows for the utopia of desktop Linux.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry to ask this, but... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Lethyos on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 09:01:05 AM EST

    ...where?  Installation was graphical, set up is graphical, etc.  X was in a state where there was no need to use text-only mode to confirgure it.  RedHat provides a suite of tools to managing the system.  I do not see where CLI tools are required to perform a task.  I preferred CLI tools because I can work faster with Bash and vi than I can with some GUI tool, but after poking around the system for a while, I discovered that wasn't necessary.

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]
    I'm not disputing that... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by NoCashValue on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 09:07:58 AM EST

    I've just been having major issues trying to get Mdk9.1 up & running on my home PC (which is not that old) and in order to install the nVidia drivers for my Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 I needed to play about in a CLI. After they installed (nice job on the new installer BTW nVidia), I then needed to troll around on Google to find some kind soul who had posted a fix for the XFree86Config-4 settings to allow me to shift the LCD screen to it's proper settings (i.e. it was displaying with about an inch of blank screen on the right). That's not particularly graphical, but then, that's just my opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    I see... *sigh* (none / 0) (#169)
    by Lethyos on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 09:46:42 AM EST

    RedHat, and Debian especially, are very strict about what goes into their distributions.  If something is not open source, it doesn't go in.  This is good because it protects them from a lot of potentially litigation.  This is bad because it requires the user to go out and find solutions to problems like these themselves.  Hopefully more hardware manufacturers will release specifications or eventually the X11 project will figure out these drivers themselves and this nonsense will not be necessary.  My mother's computer does not have an nVidia video chipset in it.  It was natively supported by X11 and so, there was no hassle involved.  But as for my gaming system, I still have to go through the whole nVidia Linux driver nonsense (although I have no problems with the X11 configuration).

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]
    Your opinion, not necessarily that of others... (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by gordonjcp on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 12:05:35 PM EST

    I mean, I can't stand trying to sort out problems on Windows. It needs rebooted when you make any changes to any settings (even if it doesn't actually say it needs rebooted, the settings don't seem to "take"). And, in order to find anything, you have to guess where a little picture is hidden, then click on it, and guess what they've called the option in this version. I mean for fuck's sake, if I want to play "Where's Wally?" I'll buy the fucking book.

    I personally don't care if the mythical "average user" can't maintain an install of Linux. Why should they? The "average car owner" can't maintain their own car. Why should computers be any different? If my Mum wants something fixed on her computer, I have her connect to the Internet, shell into it remotely, then fix it. If it won't connect, I have to go round there. If her van won't start, I don't expect her to go and crawl about underneath looking for the battery connector - I go and do it, because I know how to.

    Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


    [ Parent ]
    Late post, i know... (none / 0) (#240)
    by Vesperto on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 10:51:03 AM EST

    ...and i doubt it'l be read, but it poses an interesting issue. If your car breaks down, you take it to a specialist, a.k.a. auto mechanic. But, if your computer breaks down, you call your neighbour, who's probably a Chemistry major but has a lot of spare time and likes to google. This leaves little room for computer technitians to work, 'cos everything's available online. Sure you can find some online document relating to auto parts and how to fix them, but the proportion when it comes to computer-related issues is huge... Just a thought.

    La blua plago!
    [ Parent ]
    Care to be specific? (1.50 / 2) (#146)
    by Lethyos on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:55:39 PM EST

    "Linux" is a kernel.  What distribution did you use?  Try RedHat 9 by chance?  Try anything modern and end-user oriented?  Did you try it on an old computer you had lying around?

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]
    I DID say (1.80 / 5) (#101)
    by Vesperto on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:44:32 AM EST

    KDE sucks, so we agree. And, like Cro Magnon says, you don't have to use it. I personaly prefer windowmaker, although it's not finished work yet.

    La blua plago!
    [ Parent ]
    Software companies (3.00 / 8) (#97)
    by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:31:06 AM EST

    will start developing for Linux when

    a) anyone uses it and b) anyone who does use it will actuall pay for software.

    Until then, keep using shitty unsupported command-line software.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow... (3.20 / 5) (#100)
    by Vesperto on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:41:52 AM EST

    ..you keep complaining about how people trash your dear Windows and do the same... i don't know what is your definition of shitty but it sure doesn't match mine. Unsupported? I would say a vast comunity of developers is enough support for me. Command-line? some of it, yeah; but have you ever heard of the X-server and it's offspring?

    At least i admit i've never really given Mac a try and trhus won't spend my time trashing it... oh well, guess i did waste my time replying to your post.

    La blua plago!
    [ Parent ]

    You are still making unsupported statements. Stop? (1.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Lethyos on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:48:31 PM EST

    a) anyone uses it

    Lots of people do.  Particularly in the server room where it matters.

    b) anyone who does use it will actuall pay for software.

    You fail to understand modern business models over antiquated ones.  A better model for software is selling a service.

    You see, form the buyer's perspective, buying software is stupid.  It makes absolutely no business sense.  You can sink tens of thousands of dollars in software, and you own nothing.  There is no value to it that you can resell to recover those costs, and worse still, it is no tailored to your needs.  People who buy software are wasting their money.

    Now, a better business model is to use free software and offer services in terms of support and extention.

    People may hire you to implement a free software solution at a tiny fraction of the cost of proprietary solutions.  If there is no cost for software, the only money that needs be charged is for consulting.  Say for example a proprietary solutions costs $100,000 and of that, $90,000 is for software and the consultant nabs the other $10,000.  If I offer a free software solution, I charge $50,000 and I keep every penny.  I am $40,000 richer than the guy using proprietary software.  It works and it's being done a lot.

    The other situation is creating features as a service.  Pay nothing for the software and hire someone to implement the features you need for your business.  You get exactly what you need without paying for 99% of functionality that you will never use.

    But you will likely not understand all this.

    Until then, keep using shitty unsupported command-line software.

    Well, you are pretty clueless.  Looks pretty graphical to me.  Besides, there are plenty of command line tools but there are GUI tools with most distros as well.  Basically, some tools are better suited for certain jobs.  If you learn that, you will find you'll be more successful.  As for unsupported, I don't understand where you get that.  You could, I suppose, pay Microsoft $500 for a question and never get an answer.  You can pay much less for RedHat to support you, or IBM, or Dell, or HP, or...

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]

    Actually (4.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Mathemagician on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:09:42 PM EST

    Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I paid for both Unreal Tournament and it's sequel, knowing that I would only be running them in linux.

    [ Parent ]
    You are an anomaly (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by duffbeer703 on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 12:38:02 PM EST

    Sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    More support... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Lethyos on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 11:18:47 AM EST

    http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

    That article presents evidence about continuing growth of open source and speaks about it's virtues.  A very, very good read.  Please take some time to check it out.

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]

    Super Mother ? (3.66 / 3) (#158)
    by dtcook on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 01:08:27 AM EST

    Fortunately for the future of the human race, not every mother has access to a Linux zealot to set up their PC for them.

    And how often has your mother installed Windows (successfully, with correct network settings, sufficient security to connect to the Internet safely, run applications, perhaps even share the machine between different users) ?
    The truth is, if she bought a Windows machine it probably came pre-installed, thanks to the monopoly situation in the operating system "market".
    If people could choose between pre-installed Linux and pre-installed Windows from a wide range of stores, then we might indeed see more "typical home users" choosing Linux.

    David.

    [ Parent ]
    Pfft. (4.00 / 7) (#112)
    by Zerotime on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 01:52:48 PM EST

    She enjoys the fact it doesn't crash.
    Neither does my year-old Windows 2000 installation. Whoop-de-doo.
    She enjoys the fact she does not have to pay extra for useful spam filtering.
    My ISP gives you the option to run SpamAssassin on your email accounts. That's optional as in "can choose", not "have to pay".
    She enjoys the fact that her browser doesn't crash when it's bombarded with dozens of popups (of course, they are blocked to her preference).
    Neither does mine. It's called "Mozilla". Maybe you've heard of it?
    She is no power user but with very little effort, I was able to set the machine up so it was usable and comfortable for her. She can type her letters, do spreadsheets, check her email, surf the web, etc. just fine.
    I've done the exact same thing for my parents using Windows. I'm not trying to get you to change sides or whatever - I even have a couple of Debian boxes doing firewall/file server/web development duties here. I just happen to like using Windows as my desktop. Your assertion that Windows users are dribbling morons only because they haven't converted to the apparent socialist paradise of OSS and Linux makes you look like a bit of an idiot.

    [ Parent ]
    "Pfft" yourself! (2.20 / 5) (#140)
    by Lethyos on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:33:17 PM EST

    My ISP gives you the option to run SpamAssassin on your email accounts. That's optional as in "can choose", not "have to pay".

    My mother does not use your ISP.

    Neither does mine. It's called "Mozilla". Maybe you've heard of it?

    Doesn't come with Windows.

    By the way, Windows 2000 isn't free.  It's sold with a hefty price-tag attached.  The copy of RedHat 9 I installed on my mother's system was downloaded from RedHat's FTP site, and I won't go to jail for doing that.  At the same time, I am not supporting a greedy corporation which, as a matter of fact, is a criminal organization.  I object morally and ethically to funding criminal organizations, so I don't give money to Microsoft nor will I support their platform.

    Your assertion that Windows users are dribbling morons only because they haven't converted

    I never made that assertion.  I only said they get what they deserve.  The drawbacks of Windows do not exist on other platforms.  Windows users just happen to pay for the luxury of these hassles and troubles.  You're trying to put words in my mouth.

    to the apparent socialist paradise of OSS and Linux makes you look like a bit of an idiot.

    Open source is about people working for the good everyone, not just yourself.  "By serving the world, you serve yourself best."  The nice thing about OSS, that can actually work.

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]

    (this is a subject) (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Zerotime on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 12:41:45 AM EST

    My mother does not use your ISP.
    I'm aware of that. However, it's not like there isn't any anti-spam software for Windows. Off the top of my head, both Opera 7's mail component and the latest Eudora 6 beta have spam catching features. They're no SpamAssassin or Vipul's Razor, but they do exist.
    Doesn't come with Windows.
    Nope, you're right there. I wasn't aware that RedHat shipped with a default browser, and that it was Mozilla. Hey, wait... isn't doing that supposed to be evil?
    By the way, Windows 2000 isn't free. It's sold with a hefty price-tag attached. The copy of RedHat 9 I installed on my mother's system was downloaded from RedHat's FTP site, and I won't go to jail for doing that. At the same time, I am not supporting a greedy corporation which, as a matter of fact, is a criminal organization. I object morally and ethically to funding criminal organizations, so I don't give money to Microsoft nor will I support their platform.
    I'm pretty sure that I won't be arrested for running a legitimate copy of Windows, unless there's been some new law passed in Australia against it. At the same time, I'm not pretending that my OS choice is like picking a religion. Yes, Microsoft is evil. No, I'm not a right-wing lunatic just because I don't run an OS that isn't Windows.
    I never made that assertion. I only said they get what they deserve. The drawbacks of Windows do not exist on other platforms. Windows users just happen to pay for the luxury of these hassles and troubles. You're trying to put words in my mouth.
    No other platform has anything even remotely like the problems with Windows. Nuh-uh. Nope. Should I be expecting a barrage of incoming bad karma because I don't want to use Linux as my desktop? No, I don't think so.
    Open source is about people working for the good everyone, not just yourself. "By serving the world, you serve yourself best." The nice thing about OSS, that can actually work.
    Didn't someone once say much the same thing about communism? I'm not shut off from OSS because I use Windows, y'know. Typing this on Mozilla, using Miranda IM, stuff like that.

    [ Parent ]
    (this is not a pipe) (4.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Lethyos on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 08:36:41 AM EST

    I'm aware of that. However, it's not like there isn't any anti-spam software for Windows. Off the top of my head, both Opera 7's mail component and the latest Eudora 6 beta have spam catching features. They're no SpamAssassin or Vipul's Razor, but they do exist.

    Opera 7 is not free.  Neither is Eudora.

    Nope, you're right there. I wasn't aware that RedHat shipped with a default browser, and that it was Mozilla. Hey, wait... isn't doing that supposed to be evil?

    It comes with every open source browser available (notably Mozilla and other Gecko based browsers and Konqueror).  It is entirely up to you which one you want to use.  So no, it's not evil.  Besides, even if they were shipping Mozilla only, they're not running anybody out of business by unfairly (illegally) leveraging their market presence.

    I'm pretty sure that I won't be arrested for running a legitimate copy of Windows, unless there's been some new law passed in Australia against it.

    I assume you meant "illegitimate"?  I cannot afford to pay hundreds of dollars for something I don't own, so I wouldn't buy Windows.  Nor do I want to do anything illegal.  Nor do I want to give the right to some company to invade my computer at their whim.

    At the same time, I'm not pretending that my OS choice is like picking a religion. Yes, Microsoft is evil. No, I'm not a right-wing lunatic just because I don't run an OS that isn't Windows.

    It's good to know that your mind may be open to the non-technical reasons for using OSS.  You should definitely understand why this is such an important issue.  Digital freedoms are largely important these days.  They include  the ability to exercise free speech, some day vote, and so forth.  You don't want to place all those digital freedoms under the control of an organization like Microsoft.  This is another reason to use open source technologies.  Proprietary software revokes you rights to do with your computer as you see fit (and gives rights to the owner of the software that may be used against you).  Open source software gives more rights.  Some people see that as the issue being taken too far.  I do not, especially with Palladium on the horizon...

    No other platform has anything even remotely like the problems with Windows. Nuh-uh. Nope. Should I be expecting a barrage of incoming bad karma because I don't want to use Linux as my desktop? No, I don't think so.

    Compare the security track records of Apache versus IIS.  Compare the stability and security track records of the *BSD family and Linux to Windows.  There's a reason all of the machines on this list run some flavor of BSD or Linux.  Do you keep your eyes on the security lists?  Windows is being beaten around from day to day by hackers.  Microsoft also has a huge turn-around time for patches.

    And before you give me the balogna argument that Windows is more widely used than *nix and therefore, more people are hammering on it... I present these statistics that indicate a higher usage of Apache (which most of the time implies Linux or *BSD) than IIS (which requires Windows) by a factor of about 2.5.

    Not to mention that Windows can be every bit as difficult to set up and get fine-tuned as a Linux box can be.  Often times it is more so.  Ever run into problems with video drivers not wanting to be replaced?  Ever get extreme registry corruption?  Ever have a web site exploit another common Windows vulnerability and delete the system's root certificates (this is a tough one to repair, happened to a few of us at work... our Windows guy just decided to format and reinstall our machines -- which is absurd)?  Windows is a nightmare.  You will fight with it to get it working, then you will fight with it to keep it working.  *nix boxen tend to take some time to get running and then they just keep running.

    Didn't someone once say much the same thing about communism?

    Communism, which shares a root word with community, has yet to be practiced by any world governments.  What Russia, China, et al. did/do for example isn't communism.

    I'm not shut off from OSS because I use Windows, y'know. Typing this on Mozilla, using Miranda IM, stuff like that.

    Well that's good.  :)  And as long as you use Windows, you may find this resource useful.

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]

    (Ceci n'est pas un pipe.) (3.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Zerotime on Fri Jul 25, 2003 at 03:10:24 AM EST

    Opera 7 is not free. Neither is Eudora.
    Not exactly. They're both free-beer, but not free-speech. Or, more correctly, "hey, if you liked our beer, you can pay us money for it... if you want to".
    It comes with every open source browser available (notably Mozilla and other Gecko based browsers and Konqueror). It is entirely up to you which one you want to use. So no, it's not evil. Besides, even if they were shipping Mozilla only, they're not running anybody out of business by unfairly (illegally) leveraging their market presence.
    IE comes with Windows by default, but it doesn't mean you're forced to use it. It's entirely up to you if you want to use Netscape/Mozilla/Firebird, Opera, Galeon, whatever. Yes, you're probably going to have to download and install it - but you'll be doing that no matter what software you use.
    Do you consider Apple shipping Safari with OS X to be "market levering"? It's based on an open, GPL licensed rendering engine, and was released to remove dependency on IE in the OS. Again, it's not the only browser choice for the platform.
    I assume you meant "illegitimate"? I cannot afford to pay hundreds of dollars for something I don't own, so I wouldn't buy Windows. Nor do I want to do anything illegal. Nor do I want to give the right to some company to invade my computer at their whim.
    No, legitimate. I find software that's useful worth buying, which might seem a tad strange to you. Some people will actually pay money for products that do what they need. How can you be sure that the software you're installing on Linux won't take over your system, apart from building everything from source and reading all the code beforehand?
    It's good to know that your mind may be open to the non-technical reasons for using OSS. You should definitely understand why this is such an important issue. Digital freedoms are largely important these days. They include the ability to exercise free speech, some day vote, and so forth. You don't want to place all those digital freedoms under the control of an organization like Microsoft. This is another reason to use open source technologies. Proprietary software revokes you rights to do with your computer as you see fit (and gives rights to the owner of the software that may be used against you). Open source software gives more rights. Some people see that as the issue being taken too far. I do not, especially with Palladium on the horizon...
    "Would you like some pamphlets about Jesus?" And no, I don't think the future is going to be a Gibson-esque dystopia where everything will be ruled by the corporations. I don't think that it's going to lie with the grass-roots movements, either.
    Compare the security track records of Apache versus IIS. Compare the stability and security track records of the *BSD family and Linux to Windows. There's a reason all of the machines on this list run some flavor of BSD or Linux. Do you keep your eyes on the security lists? Windows is being beaten around from day to day by hackers. Microsoft also has a huge turn-around time for patches.
    And before you give me the balogna argument that Windows is more widely used than *nix and therefore, more people are hammering on it... I present these statistics that indicate a higher usage of Apache (which most of the time implies Linux or *BSD) than IIS (which requires Windows) by a factor of about 2.5.
    Whoa, whoa... you're attacking a straw man. I thought we were talking about desktops here. I use Debian on my servers, and Windows on the desktop. Server issues are irrelevant for this discussion.
    Not to mention that Windows can be every bit as difficult to set up and get fine-tuned as a Linux box can be. Often times it is more so. Ever run into problems with video drivers not wanting to be replaced? Ever get extreme registry corruption? Ever have a web site exploit another common Windows vulnerability and delete the system's root certificates (this is a tough one to repair, happened to a few of us at work... our Windows guy just decided to format and reinstall our machines -- which is absurd)? Windows is a nightmare. You will fight with it to get it working, then you will fight with it to keep it working. *nix boxen tend to take some time to get running and then they just keep running.
    1. Admittedly, I don't change the drivers for my video card as often as I used to, now that they're slanted towards the GF4 series and not the GF2, but... no. Telling the system that the card is now a default VGA adapter and then giving it the new set of drivers seems to work pretty well.
    2. Nope.
    3. Nope. Maybe I'm visiting the wrong sort of sites, or keeping my browser security settings on the safe options. "Formatting and reinstalling" is also somewhat depreciated now that programs like Ghost are widespread and effective. If one of your Linux systems was exploited, would you be blaming the software or the administrator? It seems like you're blaming Windows for the incompetence of your "Windows guy".
    4. Heh. I had to fight with my first (few) installations of Redhat, and then the first few of Debian when I switched, but yes, it's pretty smooth going now. I've never had to fight to keep my installation of Windows running, either, but maybe that's because my installation doesn't have as much rubbish installed on it as a lot of systems, and so hasn't lapsed into leaky-steam-boiler-mode yet.
    Communism, which shares a root word with community, has yet to be practiced by any world governments. What Russia, China, et al. did/do for example isn't communism.
    Yes it is. They were/are communist dictatorships, though. Perhaps you mean there's yet to be a communist democracy?

    [ Parent ]
    Linux . . . (4.20 / 5) (#131)
    by ZorbaTHut on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 07:00:17 PM EST

    . . . does not do what I need it to. End of story.

    What do I need it to do?

    Well, I'm a gamer. Professionally. I don't get paid for playing them, but I do get paid for writing them, and if I wrote them for Linux, I wouldn't get paid for writing them either. (See <a href="http://www.lokigames.com/">Loki Games</a>.)

    I also really enjoy playing them. Linux doesn't do that either. (This is usually the point where someone points out that several major games have been ported to Linux. Woo. Several. Find me a Planetside port, a DScaler port, and an Oni port. Those are the main games I've been playing recently (well, in the case of DScaler, the main utility I've been using for playing games.)

    Summary: I know a lot about both Windows and Linux, and for my home use, Linux doesn't cut it. Stop pretending I'm wrong - tell me how to solve these problems and I'll switch to Linux. Until then, I'll use Windows for my main computer.

    [ Parent ]

    You are full of Crap (1.57 / 7) (#111)
    by tonedevil05 on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 01:40:08 PM EST

    Take a look right here boy, Walmart is about as available as it gets. Linux has been gaining market share at a good clip for the last three years, there are packaged distros available on the shelf at Fry's and CompUSA. Just because you are a thumb sucking moron doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (2.88 / 9) (#123)
    by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 04:41:24 PM EST

    you are right. what is linuxs share of the desktop? Will all the zero's even fit on your screen, or will you need to recompile the kernel to change up to 640*480?

    [ Parent ]
    No, wrong. (2.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Lethyos on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:22:17 PM EST

    or will you need to recompile the kernel to change up to 640*480?

    I am correct, you are full of FUD.  You don't understand Linux, you only understand Windows.  Some of us understand both, and so we are able to draw reasoned conclusions.

    If you are just exagerating to make a point, I have to ask, when is the last time you used an open source operating system?  Try a modern end-user oriented distribution like RedHat 9.  Everything is done with GUI tools.  Most stuff is done for you automatically.  And yes, X11 supports whatever resolutions your video card supports.

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]

    In 2002 (1.00 / 6) (#143)
    by tonedevil05 on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:46:17 PM EST

    Linux was at 2% desktop market share and is rumored to be able to surpass Apple by the end of 2004

    [ Parent ]
    According to Slashdot (1.00 / 1) (#207)
    by duffbeer703 on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 12:39:19 PM EST

    That's like reading RJ Reynolds reports about the healthfulness of cigarettes.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not about the friggin OS! (2.33 / 3) (#149)
    by Eater on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:12:03 PM EST

    You people are so narrow minded, it's not even funny. Just about every non-technical computer user (that is, someone who uses a computer for anything other than a technical computer job) really doesn't give a rat's ass about what OS they use. Even Linux isn't that much harder to learn than Windows in the end, provided you have a handful of brain cells and are capable of reading. The real reason people use Windows is because when they get a new computer, it has Windows on it. When they go to the computer store, they see Windows on the shelves. Even if Linux was hundreds of times better than Windows and did your laundry, people still wouldn't care enough to switch over.

    Eater.

    [ Parent ]
    Dammit (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Eater on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:12:40 PM EST

    I really should read the other replies before posting... sorry for repeating the post below.

    [ Parent ]
    Windows Zealots (2.66 / 9) (#71)
    by needless on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:23:05 AM EST

    I get annoyed by OS zealots in general, but the most annoying are the people that think by becoming a zealot of a different color they are somehow clever and even handed.  You're no different than the guy who gets all huffy if ___ software isn't ported to Linux, GPL'ed, or whatever.  You're just defending something that honestly needs no defense.

    Anyway, the most bitter MS zealots started out as wannabe linux zealots who determined that it was "too hard". ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Bollocks (4.00 / 3) (#81)
    by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:11:33 AM EST

    You're getting confused. I'm not nagging on at anyone to use Windows, I'm just saying this guy is a cunt for saying Windows users deserve to get fucked by unscrupulous companies. I don't mind what OS anyone uses, so long as they shut the fuck up about it.

    [ Parent ]
    You're right (4.60 / 5) (#77)
    by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:02:16 AM EST

    I shouldn't have put the "Windows losers" bit in there. But in general, I'm not too sympathetic with most folks who fall for scams, because with a little common sense they could easily have realized that it was a scam. I guess I'm rather Darwinian that way. And I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to protect others from scams -- unless someone makes it worth my while to do so (by, e.g., posting my personal information and photo on a derogatory web page).
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]
    hmm (2.71 / 7) (#102)
    by reklaw on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 12:05:08 PM EST

    I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to protect others from scams -- unless someone makes it worth my while to do so (by, e.g., posting my personal information and photo on a derogatory web page

    So what you're saying is that you don't give a shit about anything except the fact that they did that. Here's a tip:

    Get the fuck over it.
    -
    [ Parent ]

    Uh, no. (2.50 / 2) (#164)
    by Lethyos on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 08:52:12 AM EST

    Get the fuck over it.

    He should not just "get the fuck over it".  Posting complete contact information for someone can raise serious hell for them.  It makes you more vulnerable to identity theft and (almost just as bad) a barrage of spam and junk.  It's his own personal information and he has the right to tell someone they cannot use it.  End of story.

    earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
    [ Parent ]

    We don't all have experience with this medium (none / 0) (#168)
    by nebbish on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 09:44:04 AM EST

    My Great Uncle, who is in his nineties, is expressing an interest in the internet and I plan to introduce him to it. This will be no easy task - when I told him a few years back that I was working in web design I had to explain that no, you don't just paint straight onto the monitor screen.

    He's come some way since then, reading up on it in print media, but given his age and the fact that this technology is completely new and alien to him, Im looking forward to a very frustrating time when it comes to actually sitting him down for his first computer experience. Im going to have to be very patient.

    Its quite likely that once Ive shown him the ropes and he learns the basics he will want to go it alone. He is very independent, and now he cannot travel about by himself like he used to, will no doubt relish the freedoms of the world wide web.

    It upsets me to think that threatening pop-ups, cleverly worded spam or bogus bargains may ruin the whole experience for him. Realising what is a scam and what isn't on the web doesn't mean having sense, it means having experience of using it. I remember a relative being very upset at receiving a pornographic spam in her Yahoo! inbox a couple of years back, thinking that she had somehow done something wrong and people might be after her. She'd just delete it now, but it took a lot of explaining and reassurance. These things can be quite worrying to the inexperienced.

    Not everyone has grown up with this technology, and the issues around spamming can actually be frightening to some using the technology for the first time.


    ---------
    Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
    [ Parent ]

    USA (2.72 / 11) (#60)
    by SanSeveroPrince on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 05:58:59 AM EST

    You live in the USA, right?

    You seem sure of your arguments, and of your claims.

    Sue them first. Lament how the diatribe they subjected you to made you lose your job. Complain about how they dragged your name in the mud.

    Demand a billion dollars as compensation. Lie and say that this ordeal has rendered you sexually impotent and suicidal, and you may get 2 billions.

    Sheeesh.

    ----

    Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


    Stereotyping anyone? (4.75 / 4) (#152)
    by falloutboy on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:02:37 PM EST

    You live outside the US, right?

    You seem pretty sure that, as an American, he must be a complete jerk.

    Post an angry, presumptuous, self-righteous note that assumes that he perfectly fits the image of an American you've carefully cultivated that allows you to assume we're all litigious and insane. Create a scenario where he does something that in no way affects your life but still somehow pisses you off, then take it to an extreme and assume that the American legal system will be all too happy to give hime some ridiculous amount of money.

    Sheesh indeed.

    Dear rest of the planet:

    I am an American, but that doesn't make me an asshole.

    Thanks,
    Ben

    [ Parent ]

    Ahem, overreacting anyone? (2.00 / 1) (#191)
    by SanSeveroPrince on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 04:55:10 AM EST

    Dear American,

    it is true that some Americans, after trying very had to convince the world that they ARE assholes, have recently switched trends. These days they lament that America's power automatically makes them a target for disgruntlement.

    It is true that when abroad, you'd be able to tell an American tourist by the sounds of the commotions they cause only. They will be the ones listening to a walkman in the middle of a Buddhist temple, or trying to assert their God-given right to enter the Sistine Chapel in their smelly shorts. Remember that Stereotypes are ALWAYS born out of fact.

    It is true that you have a right to be paranoid when it comes to what the rest of the world thinks of you. As a nation, you'd have a hard time proving that you don't deserve it. You should not, however, have applied that paranoia to my comment.

    It is not true that I was in any way attacking the author of the article. It was meant as a somewhat sarcastic jab at the American legal system. You will now try and summon some more righteous new-age crap about how the world hates American culture not because you prove daily to be on average a nation of fucking morons (look at your leaders), but because we really are envious of your mighty lives. Before you do that, please consider that you live in a country where I only have to lament that you're doing something illegal in order to completely demolish any right to privacy you really didn't have in the first place.

    I have no beef with 'Americans'. Anyone who does should have their heads examined. It would be fairly stupid to assume that 200.000.000 of people are all brain damaged. For the record, my fiance is American (well, half Canadian.

    Suing people and making money off of it is a well-known American past time. That was what my comment was aimed at. If you somewhat felt that this slighted you as a person, then perhaps you should really analyze why that is, instead of trying to score cheap nationalist points with your fellow disgruntled connationals.

    ----

    Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


    [ Parent ]
    Holy crap, man. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by falloutboy on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 08:55:50 AM EST

    SanSeveroPrince,

    In my last post, I was trying to make a point that many people no longer differentiate between individuals and the percieved prototype. You've done a nice job proving that you can't. Lets have a look, shall we?

    "It is true that when abroad, you'd be able to tell an American tourist by the sounds of the commotions they cause only. They will be the ones listening to a walkman in the middle of a Buddhist temple, or trying to assert their God-given right to enter the Sistine Chapel in their smelly shorts. Remember that Stereotypes are ALWAYS born out of fact."

    No, it isn't true that Americans are identifyable by obnoxious behavior. Nor is it true that stereotypes are always borne from fact. I'm also a Jew. Am I greedy? Do I drink the blood of Christian babies? Did I cause the plague? No, no, and no.

    "It is not true that I was in any way attacking the author of the article. It was meant as a somewhat sarcastic jab at the American legal system. You will now try and summon some more righteous new-age crap about how the world hates American culture not because you prove daily to be on average a nation of fucking morons (look at your leaders), but because we really are envious of your mighty lives. Before you do that, please consider that you live in a country where I only have to lament that you're doing something illegal in order to completely demolish any right to privacy you really didn't have in the first place."

    I'm not sure the new age movement is what you think it is. I don't have a persecution complex. I think the American justice system works pretty well most of the time, but my parents are lawyers, so I may be a little biased there.

    You're overstating the situation with your comment about demolished privacy rights, but if that was meant to be a shot at the USA PATRIOT Act, then I agree. That thing sucks.

    I voted for Al Gore. Don't lump me in with Bush.

    "Suing people and making money off of it is a well-known American past time. That was what my comment was aimed at. If you somewhat felt that this slighted you as a person, then perhaps you should really analyze why that is, instead of trying to score cheap nationalist points with your fellow disgruntled connationals."

    If you were genuinely trying to write a scathing commentary on the American legal system and associated barratry, you need to work on your writing skills. No, I didn't feel slighted by your ridiculous, racist overgeneralization. I felt annoyed that someone who obviously considers himself intelligent and rational could propagate such an ignorant attitude aimed at making me and my countrymen look like total assholes.

    Let me clue you in on something that all Americans know. The great thing about this country is abundance. Theres a lot of everything, and its everywhere. Go visit Las Vegas if you don't believe me, and get yourself some fresh shrimp at the buffet. Do you understand? THERE'S A SHRIMP BUFFET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT.

    America is a country of fantastic diversity, and that means that there isn't any way to put everyone here into the same category, except that we are all American. Most of the other countries in the world have a homogeneity that has been bred in for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years, and thus there are prevalent attitudes, behaviors, and cultural phenomena that are readily recognizable. Americans are too different to peg us into a little hole like that.

    Do you understand, now, why we find it offensive and downright scary when it seems like the rest of the world hates us? Attitudes like that, left unchecked, occasionally lead to planes flying into buildings.

    [ Parent ]

    You know, (1.00 / 1) (#209)
    by SanSeveroPrince on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 01:15:36 PM EST

    I was actually going to try and take you seriously, and try and have a conversation about this, even though you apparently judged this exchange unworthy of continued existence.

    Then I read your last sentence. Do you really think that attitudes like mine led to September 11th? That must have been the cheapest nationalist shot I have seen since 11/9.

    You are right. There is a great abundance in your country. The thing that's most common is truckloads of shit into people like you.

    ----

    Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


    [ Parent ]
    sterotypical american (none / 0) (#198)
    by Bill Godfrey on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 08:34:38 AM EST

    You seem pretty sure that, as an American, he must be a complete jerk.

    "Mr Dank island nation" isn't exactly going out of his way to show he doesn't fit that stereotype.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, you have such big balls! (2.41 / 29) (#61)
    by edo on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 06:32:50 AM EST

    > what do I care about what Windows losers get
    > scammed out of?

    > You mess with a Cajun boy from Louisiana, you
    > better expect more of the same coming right
    > back at you -- with interest.

    Dude, you are so cool! I wish I was more like you! Linux users are so hard!
    -- 
    Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
     - Oscar Wilde

    And clearly... (2.66 / 12) (#78)
    by edo on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:02:22 AM EST

    And clearly all you 1337 d00dz zeroing the comment above are just as macho! Give it to me, big boys! I ph34r your skillz!
    -- 
    Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
     - Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]
    Missing Poll Option (2.57 / 26) (#62)
    by starsky on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 06:55:36 AM EST

    * Spammers really suck, but they still suck less than Linux Zealots

    OT: Eric Green (2.40 / 5) (#63)
    by gr00vey on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 07:31:07 AM EST

    Eric Green speaks in the thrird person about himself, which reminds me of the David Cross "Rickey Henderson" bit.... ;) http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/c/crossdavid-shut.shtml

    I looked at both sites (4.92 / 14) (#69)
    by squigly on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:12:16 AM EST

    Their use of your site could be considered fair use.  They have a right to respond.  They did respond to virtually every point posted (even if it was usually just to say false).

    On the subject of your site - do you have any supporting evidence to back up your assertions?  

    You need to update your evidence eliminator sucks main page to clarify some of the points.  You really need to add the lies page to it.  

    Are they spammers?  Sure, the people who actually sell the software are certainly spammers, but are RHS responsible for the actions of their partners?  If they are, then you should justify this.  

    Part of their claims that they do nopt "spam" is based on the Briedbart index.  Do they spam according to this?  Are you using another definition?  If so, make it clear what the definition is.  

    You say their advertising is false.  They say it is true.  Which specific aspects of their advertising in untrue?  

    Why do you believe it is impossible to determine whether it works without the source code?  Surely it is a simple matter of installing the application under windows, and seeing exactly what it writes to the hard disk.  

    If you hate them so much, why are you giving them free advertising?

    Why not complain to the advertising standards authority?

    Why worry about legal threats?  You're not publishing in the UK.  

    My photo is not "fair use" (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:58:32 AM EST

    There is no fair use reason to have my copyrighted photo on their site. I mean, c'mon, get real!

    Spam: Unsolicited commercial email or usenet postings. No "index" involved.

    Affiliates and spam: I post a leaked affiliate EMAIL urging their affiliates to spam (at least via "push ICQ"), you didn't read that? Yes, if they encourage their affiliates to spam, they are as guilty of spamming as if they did it directly.

    Supporting evidence: uhm, yes, plenty of supporting evidence, ranging from common sense (how the hell is a disk eraser going to erase stuff out of the firewall's proxy cache logs?!), to a copy of the actual virus that was sent by one of the affiliates. Virtually everything was sent to me by other people, but I personally verified as much as possible (some of it, like the affiliate EMAIL, obviously wasn't easily verifiable -- few affiliates are going to mess with their gravy train!).

    False advertising: Their advertising says you'll go to jail if you don't buy their product. If that's true, why aren't we both in jail?

    Free advertising: that's why I did not publicize the site over the past two years. I wanted it on Google so people who Googled (actually went looking for info about Evidence Eliminator) could find it, but otherwise did not want to give these guys free advertising. On the other hand, get real, do you *really* think getting slammed on public web sites as spammers is the kind of advertising they want?!

    Regarding legal threats, anything visible in the UK is viewed as being published in the UK under UK law. So yes, I *am* publishing in the UK, under UK law. Not that I care. I don't intend to ever go anywhere near that dank island nation, and any UK judgement would be worth about as much as Monopoly money inside the United States. However, I think you need to read. They did not threaten *me* with a lawsuit. They threatened my upstream ISP with a lawsuit. And even an unwarranted lawsuit takes money to defend.

    We've complained to the advertising standards authority. Apparently Andy Churchill is a close friend of Richard Drage, who is a bigwig on the local Advertising Standards board down in Nottingham (as well as having hosted the evidence-eliminator.com site at his ISP for at least three years that we know of). Nothing has happened.

    Regarding security software and source code, I refer you to the sci.crypt FAQ. Go Google it yourself.
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]

    Your photo has little or no commercial value. (3.66 / 3) (#82)
    by SPYvSPY on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:17:38 AM EST

    What are the damages? What exactly have you lost by their publication of your image that a court would be able/willing to restore? These are questions that need answers. You may have a case for a technical infringement, but if there are no meaningful damages, so what?

    On the other hand, if you are able to build a case that they have damaged your reputation, including your earning power, then you have something to hang your hat on. If that is the case, you may as well go after the defamation claims, too.
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    You had me with you... (3.53 / 13) (#84)
    by djkitsch on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:40:20 AM EST

    right up until:
    I don't intend to ever go anywhere near that dank island nation

    Hey, way to alienate all 50 million of us UK residents. Thanks a bunch. You want me to start on about all the evils coming out of the US (a somewhat larger but arguably equally dank island nation)? Didn't think so.

    I hate these scumbags as much as anyone else who uses the net through their daily life, but:

    1) Wouldn't your energies be better spent on something a little more worthwhile, such as going after the paedophiles they're using as marketing material, or at least trying to cut down spam generally?

    2) Never a good idea to insult your readers, however small a minority.

    -------------------------
    sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
    [ Parent ]
    Uhm (4.00 / 1) (#136)
    by CFK on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 08:31:00 PM EST

    Maybe he was just commenting on the climate? Relative to the Southwest US, it is very dank.

    [ Parent ]
    Or to look at it another way, (none / 0) (#171)
    by synaesthesia on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 10:07:53 AM EST


    "Lush".

    See the difference?


    Sausages or cheese?
    [ Parent ]

    Nice work fuckwit ... (1.57 / 14) (#89)
    by vrai on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:01:22 AM EST

    Not that I care. I don't intend to ever go anywhere near that dank island nation, ...

    Any sympathy I had for you evaporated with that little burst of xenophobia. In fact I'm tempted to send a link to Evidence Eliminator so they can add "racist" to your "profile". Combine that with your little stab at Windows users, most likely the majority of your audience, I can only assume that you either:

    1. Want to take them on alone and so feel the need to alienate chunks of your potential support.
    2. Have the social skills of chronic Tourettes sufferer.
    Either way, I'd seek professional help if I were you.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Nice work fuckwit ... (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by elemental on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 12:12:41 PM EST

    One entry found for dank.

    Main Entry: dank
    Pronunciation: 'da[ng]k
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle English danke
    Date: 1573
    : unpleasantly moist or wet
    synonym see WET


    Please explain how this makes him a xenophobe, thx. Also, re: "racist", are the English a race or ethnic group now?

    --
    I love my country but I fear my government.
    --> Contact info on my web site --


    [ Parent ]
    Please note I live in Phoenix, Arizona (3.50 / 2) (#126)
    by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 05:52:19 PM EST

    Quite hot and dry. And I like it that way!
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]
    What's so offensive about dank? (4.50 / 4) (#108)
    by carlos on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 12:18:35 PM EST

    dict defines dank as unpleasantly cool and humid, which England sort of is (especially if you live in the tropics like me). It's just a matter of climate and not xenophobic at all. Am I xenophobic for stating that the area around northern Kashmir's K2 is a really cold place?
    --
    Vique's Law:
    A man without a religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
    [ Parent ]
    Not xenophobic (none / 0) (#173)
    by squigly on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 10:37:51 AM EST

    Accusations of Xenophobia is obviously a case of overreacting.  However, it could easily be taken as an mild insult against the country, and it seems it was intended as such.  Saying the area around K2 is cold is not insulting.  Saying the area is an unpleasantly cold place is less complimentary.  Saying it's unpleasant and cold is more insulting.  There are various ways of saying the same thing, often using the same words which will suggest a different attitude.  

    [ Parent ]
    hmm... (4.00 / 2) (#91)
    by squigly on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:07:12 AM EST

    There is no fair use reason to have my copyrighted photo on their site. I mean, c'mon, get real!

    Fair enough.  I thought you were just objecting to the copying from your web site.  You are quite right here.

    Spam: Unsolicited commercial email or usenet postings. No "index" involved.

    Yes, I know this, but since they are taking your page, and denying allegations, perhaps you need to spell it out for them.  

    Regarding legal threats, anything visible in the UK is viewed as being published in the UK under UK law. So yes, I am publishing in the UK, under UK law. Not that I care. I don't intend to ever go anywhere near that dank island nation, and any UK judgement would be worth about as much as Monopoly money inside the United States. However, I think you need to read. They did not threaten me with a lawsuit. They threatened my upstream ISP with a lawsuit. And even an unwarranted lawsuit takes money to defend

    It would be rather a stretch of the law to suggest that you are responsible, even with the UK's bizarre rules about this.  You don't advertise or sell your website in the UK.  You are not based there.  Your server is not based there.  Any time it is viewed, it is being viewed in the US.  Furthermore, I think its up to your upstream provider to deal with baseless threats made against them.

    Regarding security software and source code, I refer you to the sci.crypt FAQ. Go Google it yourself.

    But that's for cryptography software, not file erasers.  You should be able to tell precicely what the software does to your disk with a registry monitor and a few tools to analyse the hard disk.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not a stretch since there are precedents (none / 0) (#147)
    by sholden on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:08:49 PM EST

    It would be rather a stretch of the law to suggest that you are responsible, even with the UK's bizarre rules about this.

    It very likely wouldn't. Australia's system is very much based upon the UKs.

    A "very honest man" (I'm in Australia, so you may have to read meaning into that statement about someone renowned for sueing for defamation) won his case in the High Court (our highest court) against Dow Jones for defamation online on a US hosted site by a US company. See http://finance.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5650094%255E462,00.html for more information and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html for excrutiating detail.

    Of course "every cloud has a silver lining" and all that and the journalist involved is actually taking it all the way to the UN: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/18/1050172745955.html

    So maybe in a few years this crap will stop.

    But back on point, if Australian law holds this view, it's probable that UK law does as well. Of course such cases can be ignored as long as you never visit such countries.

    --
    The world's dullest web page


    [ Parent ]
    Eric Green gets done to him what he does to others (3.00 / 1) (#110)
    by spectecjr on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 01:36:49 PM EST

    There is no fair use reason to have my copyrighted photo on their site. I mean, c'mon, get real!
    There's no reason for you to mention me on your site, particuarly as your information is 4 years out of date, but you do. You'll get sympathy when you stop fucking with other people yourself.

    [ Parent ]
    How's lostcommunity.org replacement coming? [nt] (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Edward Carter on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 02:08:39 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Where on his site are you mentioned? (4.33 / 3) (#124)
    by Richey on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 05:31:40 PM EST

    Couldn't find it on a google site: search.

    [ Parent ]
    Gone now... (none / 0) (#181)
    by spectecjr on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 04:03:32 PM EST

    He took it down. Finally. It was in his FUD section; he couldn't grasp the fact that a person writing a post doesn't speak for the company they work for, doesn't necessarily hold the same views as them, and is not paid to hold those views. That, and I stopped working for said company in 1999, but he still maintained that I was a "[former?]" employee of said company. I like Eric. We've had some good discussions in the past. But the fact that he never got that my opinions are mine and mine alone, and are not influenced by the people I work for really really freakin' annoyed me.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for this (none / 0) (#151)
    by calimehtar on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:32:38 PM EST

    I voted the parent comment a 5 not because I think you're wrong but because your own website seems to mainly consist of "they say I lie but I don't" without a lot of supporting evidence. Sure, it's pretty obvious they're assholes but last I checked that's not a crime. On the other hand, false advertising and defamation are crimes. I'm behind you and your fight against these guys, but you should post hard evidence on your website and not in rebuttals on K5.

    [ Parent ]
    Total loss of sympathy... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Bill Godfrey on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 08:29:22 AM EST

    I don't intend to ever go anywhere near that dank island nation,

    Whatever.

    [ Parent ]

    Counter sue (4.00 / 2) (#70)
    by DodgyGeezer on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:15:06 AM EST

    So I guess if they come after you with a law suit, you will have one already lined up to counter sue them with, which is the best way to fight back.  With all this RIAA and MPAA and Adobe crap going on at the moment, it's good to see that copyright law can sometimes also be used by the good guys too!

    Don't bother with maggots (4.00 / 6) (#72)
    by RyoCokey on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:25:43 AM EST

    Just as it isn't your job to keep every vagrant off the streets, I wouldn't really suggest messing with Spammers. Why launch a campaign against a product which seems obviously dubious?

    People stupid enough to buy it probably aren't going to be intelligent enough to read your objections or do research about it, anyway.



    The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
    Obviously the site worked (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:45:55 AM EST

    I mean, c'mon, you think they'd pay a lawyer to nastygram my ISP if the site was *NOT* hurting their sales?!

    I did not launch a campaign against them. They launched a campaign against me. All I did was respond in kind. You're saying I should allow myself to get slugged in the face and not kick them in the balls in return? Sorry, Libertarians don't work that way.
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]

    Not if you believe the stories conclusion. (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by wumpus on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:51:08 AM EST

    Axiom: Overestimating your enemy's intelligence can be nearly as bad as underestimation.
    From the story: Don't expect intelligent action from spammers.

    Wumpus

    [ Parent ]

    Why not just ignore them? (4.33 / 3) (#83)
    by Stereo on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 10:29:34 AM EST

    You live in the US, they are in the UK. Unless you have plans to visit Scotland before they go bust at the end of the summer, why not just ignore them? It's not like their letter is more than big words.

    kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


    Something you might have wanted to consider... (5.00 / 13) (#103)
    by dasunt on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 12:06:03 PM EST

    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."

    --Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon



    Heh! Except they're not anonymous (3.33 / 3) (#105)
    by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 12:09:32 PM EST

    They have (had?) papers on file with Corporations House listing the principals of the company with ages and home addresses.
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]
    special olympics (3.25 / 8) (#113)
    by Suppafly on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 01:58:45 PM EST

    arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics.. even if you win, you're still retarded.
    ---
    Playstation Sucks.
    [ Parent ]
    so k5 == sucker's game (nt) (none / 0) (#184)
    by mmsmatt on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 07:40:46 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Just after you said you also put up a site... (1.25 / 4) (#104)
    by cbraga on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 12:08:26 PM EST

    I stopped reading. You should've got a lawyer.

    ESC[78;89;13p ESC[110;121;13p
    Will you pay for him? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 12:10:07 PM EST

    Just curious. Trans-atlantic lawsuits are *NOT* cheap.
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]
    Thats not how it's done (none / 0) (#109)
    by coryking on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 01:32:09 PM EST

    You go after the guys with the biggest pockets. In other words, dont sue the spammer, sue the product manufacturer, who just might be US based.

    [ Parent ]
    RTFA, RTFL, HTH< HAND (nt) (none / 0) (#116)
    by randyk on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 02:30:09 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Based in UK (none / 0) (#118)
    by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 02:42:54 PM EST

    The product manufacturer is based in Nottingham, England. Not very cheap to go after them there :-(.
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]
    It's *Nottingham*, they're called *Robin Hood*.... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by TheOnlyCoolTim on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 06:24:12 PM EST

    Sic the Sheriff on them.

    Tim
    "We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
    [ Parent ]

    People suck, news at eleven (3.40 / 15) (#120)
    by Ann Thrope on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 04:12:06 PM EST

    So let me get this straight: you encountered people who were stupid litigious fucks, so you put up a webpage attacking them. I suppose you also go around kicking beehives for fun?

    Err, no (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 05:50:50 PM EST

    Read the chronology again:
    1. I write a brief USENET article giving suggestions for how they can improve their credibility.
    2. They put up a web page attacking me.
    3. I ask them to please take said web page down.
    4. They refuse.

    Then, and *ONLY* then, did I put up a web page attacking them.

    What, actually reading the article before spewing about it has gone out of style?!
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]

    I hope you face bankruptcy. (1.41 / 24) (#127)
    by BinaryTree on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 06:02:47 PM EST

    Just because you're an annoying stupid linux zealot twat fuckcock shithead.

    No, this isn't from a Robin Hood software employee, as much as your paranoia may suggest.

    [ Parent ]

    I hope you learn kindness and humility (none / 0) (#139)
    by Eric Green on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:32:03 PM EST

    You seem to have anger problems. Need someone to talk to?
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]
    Gosh. (1.43 / 16) (#128)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 06:14:07 PM EST

    Having a hard time with the puberty thing?


    --
    His men will follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiousity.


    [ Parent ]
    Damn. sorry Eric. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:15:48 PM EST

    That zero rated comment of mine was supposed to be a reply to BinaryTree, not you.


    --
    His men will follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiousity.


    [ Parent ]
    fuck off retard (1.16 / 6) (#133)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 07:43:07 PM EST

    eric is doing you and i a service: all internet users at large

    because of him, you benefit: spammers know there are people out there who don't like what they do and are willing to DEFEND themselves from their bullshit

    so take your teenage-mentality-level dime-a-dozen cynicism and go fuck yourself

    bravo eric! we thank you! ;-)

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I think she was making a joke (none / 0) (#185)
    by mcgrew on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 08:43:06 PM EST

    K5ARP used to do the same thing, only in ascii art.

    yhbt

    "The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    She, yeah right. (none / 0) (#193)
    by hulver on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 06:13:54 AM EST

    So she'd be Miss Ann Thrope then? :)

    --
    HuSi!
    [ Parent ]
    No idea who "she" really is /nt (none / 0) (#208)
    by mcgrew on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 01:08:59 PM EST


    "The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    Fight on! (1.50 / 16) (#130)
    by Lenny on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 06:38:13 PM EST

    If I couldn't get laid, I'd probably do the same thing.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    yes... (3.80 / 5) (#135)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 07:51:01 PM EST

    if you could lose your smarmy teenage sense of humor, then maybe we all could believe that you actually do get laid

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    smarmy? way to keep the word alive! (2.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Lenny on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 01:39:32 PM EST

    I guess you didn't understand my post. I DO get laid because I DON'T spend the time or energy it takes to engage in a senseless war with spammers.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    good for you, who cares (4.66 / 3) (#183)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 05:46:38 PM EST

    why do you have to make fun of this guy whose war, that you don't have time to fight, is something you benefit from, something we all benefit from?

    learn some gratitude

    apologize for your teenager-level joke, and thank this guy who wrote the story

    or you're just another word i'm keeping alive today: you're an asshole

    if you have to brag about getting laid, it's something you must not get much of

    for those of us get laid all the fucking time, it's just normal life, no need to draw attention to it

    we don't have these insecurities about how much we're getting laid... as you clearly do, since you had to bring the subject up without any prodding

    worried about your love life my friend?

    don't worry, you clearly have a charming personality, based on what you have demonstrated here... you should try your back biting asshole jokes on a few chicks, i'm sure you'll impress them... women throw even assholes a bone now and then

    LOL ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm (none / 0) (#189)
    by Mizuno Ami on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 12:59:23 AM EST

    I'm guessing by that reaction of yours that you probably can't get laid. I'm telling you, you gotta stop going after females. They're finicky as all hell and they make you do all the work for the realtionship. Men and shemales are the way to go.

    [ Parent ]
    me? i put my dick in beehives can't you tell? (nt (none / 0) (#200)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 08:58:04 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    benefit? you must be joking?! (2.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Lenny on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 10:41:43 AM EST

    this fucknut is going to have precedence set (in court) against any action against spammers. He has no idea what he is doing or how he is doing it. He is going to help the spammers more than you can imagine.

    As far as getting laid...well you seem to be making a real big deal about it. Makes me wonder...


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    *sigh* (3.50 / 2) (#217)
    by valar on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 12:08:29 AM EST

    I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't either. Why?
    Your tone suggests that you base the value of a person on how often they 'get laid'. This is common among those who get sex less often than they want.

    Your post is a thinly veiled attempt to brag about your own sex life. We don't know you, the only way we would care about this is if you annoy us by posting about it in an internet forum. Oh wait.
    You said 'laid'. People who 'get laid', in your parlance, usually learn to avoid that terminology. Why? Women don't like it.

    [ Parent ]
    so profound...yet so granola (none / 0) (#223)
    by Lenny on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 12:57:57 PM EST

    Think about the kind of person that engages in a multiple year flame war with spammers (hell he even paid for a domain name to go after them). O.K. Got that picture in your head? Good

    Now think of the kind of person that has no problem scoring, getting laid, making love, pulling wool, or whatever politically correct term you want to use...because we all know that women only sleep with guys that use politically correct terms for sex...now, are the two people in your head the same?

    Didn't think so.

    As far as my sex life goes...I'm married. I get laid often. And my wife isn't as caught up about words as you are. She is more concerned with intentions and actions than words. An example of what I'm talking about: black people (oops, sorry, african americans) sometimes call each other and niggers. Now if I call them a nigger, its fighting time. Why? Its not the word...

    You're too smug. Relax.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    You must have very low self esteem (none / 0) (#229)
    by squigly on Fri Jul 25, 2003 at 05:44:30 AM EST

    Do you only judge people on their ability to get laid?  I feel sorry for you.

    [ Parent ]
    why? (none / 0) (#230)
    by Lenny on Sat Jul 26, 2003 at 12:42:57 AM EST

    You feel sorry for me? Don't feel sorry for me; he's the one who can't get laid!


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#231)
    by squigly on Sun Jul 27, 2003 at 05:02:04 AM EST

    But you're the one who appears to have no other interests in life other than conquest of the opposite sex.  You don't even seem to understand that there is a world beyond that.

    [ Parent ]
    with that logic... (none / 0) (#234)
    by Lenny on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 12:48:57 PM EST

    you have no other interests in life than to tell me that there is a world beyond the conquest of the opposite sex...


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    That's very poor logic (none / 0) (#235)
    by squigly on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 01:11:22 PM EST

    What makes you think I have no other interests in life?  Just curious.  It's not like it takes that long to harrass a teenager.

    I have good reason to believe that your only interest in life is conquest.  Your first comment in this thread was "If I couldn't get laid, I'd probably do the same thing.", suggesting that your entire life is spent trying to get laid.  You seem very defensive when people suggest that you can't get laid either.  Overly so.  You appear to be overcompensating.

    And as for Ta bu shi da yu's comment above - Only you know whether your just making it up, but everyone else has already made their own opinion.  Not a lot you can do to prove them wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    one statement... (1.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Lenny on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 02:47:17 PM EST

    is all it takes for you to know about my entire life? Wow, you're amazing.

    It's not like it takes that long to harrass a teenager.
    You brits need more hobbies...

    Only you know whether your just making it up, but everyone else has already made their own opinion. Not a lot you can do to prove them wrong.
    Actually there's quite e few people that know I'm not making it up. As far as the k5 community thinking that I'm a teenager thats "overcompensating", maybe I'll start putting <sacrasm> tags in because asshats like you don't seem to get it...even when I hit you over the head with it.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    I think you need to get laid. (none / 0) (#237)
    by squigly on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 03:48:08 PM EST

    one statement...is all it takes for you to know about my entire life? Wow, you're amazing.

    One statement just tells me one of the things you believe.  Your obsessive need to justify your ability to get laid helps confirm this.  You haven't said anything that would even suggest that you value anything above this.  The rest is speculation.  

    Actually there's quite e few people that know I'm not making it up. As far as the k5 community thinking that I'm a teenager thats "overcompensating", maybe I'll start putting <sacrasm> tags in because asshats like you don't seem to get it...even when I hit you over the head with it.

    Perhaps you should learn to use sarcasm (unless sacrasm is something else entirely).  Or were you being sarcastic when you said that you could get laid?

    [ Parent ]

    this is dumb (none / 0) (#238)
    by Lenny on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 04:28:18 PM EST

    You haven't said anything that would even suggest that you value anything above this
    Neither have you, except maybe for the value of going after people who get laid...

    Or were you being sarcastic when you said that you could get laid?
    see, you're good. you keep questioning my need to make others believe that I have no problem getting laid, and that makes me respond by saying that I can. And according to your logic, because I "obsess" about it - the truth is actually the opposite. O.K. I could really care less what you, or anyone else, thinks about my sex life. Really. If it makes you feel like you're really cool to think that I'm a teenage poser - go on ahead.


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    Dumb? (none / 0) (#239)
    by squigly on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 07:00:33 PM EST

    Neither have you, except maybe for the value of going after people who get laid...

    Quite true.  But totally irrelevant.

    see, you're good. you keep questioning my need to make others believe that I have no problem getting laid, and that makes me respond by saying that I can.

    Yes.  So, why do you need to convince other people you get laid?  

    And according to your logic, because I "obsess" about it - the truth is actually the opposite. O.K. I could really care less what you, or anyone else, thinks about my sex life. Really. If it makes you feel like you're really cool to think that I'm a teenage poser - go on ahead.

    Yes, but now you're just overcompensating.  You believe that I'm of the opinion that people who go on about it never get laid.  Your reaction is to stop going on about it, and make out you don't care.  The obvious reason for this is to convince me that you do get laid.  Simple game theory - bluff and double Bluff.  The thing is, you do care about what I think.  You still seem to be trying to convince me by making out that you don't care.  

    [ Parent ]

    But we all DO feel sorry for you! (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Ta bu shi da yu on Sun Jul 27, 2003 at 09:32:08 AM EST

    We all feel sorry for you because you talk about getting laid on an Internet forum.

    I don't know about you, but when I hear about someone boasting about how often they get laid on an Internet messageboard a little "loser-alert" goes off in my mind.

    Let me illustrate:

    Think about the kind of person that talks freely on Kuro5hin about how often they get "laid" and who makes comment on how such and such a person can't get sex because he is too much of an obsessive geek.

    Now think of the kind of person that has no problem scoring, getting laid, making love, pulling wool, or whatever politically correct term you want to use...because we all know that women only sleep with guys that use politically correct terms for sex...now, are the two people in your head the same?

    Didn't think so.

    Yours humbly,
    Ta bù shì dà yú

    ---
    AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
    ה
    [ Parent ]

    Oops, My bad (none / 0) (#233)
    by Lenny on Mon Jul 28, 2003 at 12:47:13 PM EST

    Is it opposite day? How's come no one told me?!

    That being the case...I have a small penis and never get laid.

    I must have forgotten to read the "Unrwitten Rules of the Internet" before posting about my sex life.

    Its so nice and proper that you follow the proper Netiquitte...

    And it is so witty to repost someone elses post and change just a few words to really turn the screws to them...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what a weenie...


    "Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
    -Me
    [ Parent ]
    Opposite day??? (none / 0) (#242)
    by Ta bu shi da yu on Sat Aug 02, 2003 at 11:46:26 AM EST

    The last time I heard this phrase was in primary school!

    I think this says it all.

    Yours humbly,
    Ta bù shì dà yú

    ---
    AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
    ה
    [ Parent ]

    F1RR5T P055ZZZTTT333333ZZZZZZZZ!!!1111!!1!! (1.60 / 28) (#132)
    by rmg on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 07:09:01 PM EST

    oh sorry, thought this was slashdot.

    _____ intellectual tiddlywinks

    Slashdot is empty, and all the trolls are here.-nt (4.66 / 3) (#142)
    by Repton on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 09:37:01 PM EST


    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle..
    [ Parent ]

    bravo eric! (3.28 / 7) (#134)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 07:48:05 PM EST

    we thank you! it is the efforts of people like you that makes the internet a saner place.

    your efforts represent the nascent seeds of an internet taskforce that must exist in the future to fight this scourge.

    ignore the fuckhead snickering teenagers in this thread.

    there are people out there who appreciate your efforts wholeheartedly- and the vast silent majority of internet users would thank you were they able to connect in their minds the effect of what you do and how it effects their internet experience positively.

    and i have been spammed by these motherfuckers form evidence elimination for a long time.

    we HATE THEM.

    again, THANK YOU ERIC!

    ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    Your headline has an extraneous fact (4.83 / 6) (#153)
    by Mohammed Niyal Sayeed on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:43:19 PM EST

    I've read, and re-read your article, yet cannot find the relationship between you being a Linux geek and the rest of the story; or rather, the meat of the story. Is it simply that this is a fundamental part of how you define yourself, because it seems like a total non-sequitur. Albeit, a non-sequitur which has spawned a very large amount of slashdottian pedantry in the comments, but a non-sequitur, nonetheless. What does what intel-architecture operating system you use have to do with your run-ins with these folk?

    Also, I am curious as to how you feel about anti-spam legislation, in general, or per specific bills.

    And good luck with the not getting sued. Basically, if they're that profit-motivated, they aren't going to do it if they think they can't win anything. It'd only result in lost court fees and wasting of time. More than likely, this is a toothless nastygram.


    --
    "You need to get your own point, then we can have an elaborate dance fight." - jmzero

    Means I have no inherent interest (4.33 / 3) (#159)
    by Eric Green on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 01:10:25 AM EST

    I don't regularly use Windows, so I have no inherent interest in Windows software, or the vendors thereof. That's not a slam on Windows, I've used Windows XP and it works quite well (it even handles program crashes well, unlike some earlier versions of Windows), I just don't choose to go out and buy a bunch of software and worry about viruses and etc. when LInux is free and most software for Linux is free and virus-free too (something I worry about when I download free Windows software -- am I downloading a virus?).

    In other words, I really have no reason to think about this vendor of Windows software, criticize them, or whatever -- other than the fact that they decided for whatever reason to use me as part of their advertising campaign to convince all those black helicopter conspiracy nuts out there that hey, the EE guys are on their side, they're being persecuted by the conspiracy too. Except I think it's gone further than that. It's not rational, turning down an offer to take down the site and instead hiring an attorney. Makes me wonder what the heck is going on over there in Nottingham, and while I jokingly plant tin foil beanies on Andy Churchill's head, that doesn't mean it's not true.
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]

    Has anyone ever told you... (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by duffbeer703 on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 12:32:49 PM EST

    ...to mind your business?

    If you have no interest in Windows or Windows software, then STFU.

    Using Linux doesn't make you an angelic figure. You choose to publish a site declaring that a product (a product that you claim not to care about) sucks. The maker of this product chose to put up a site claiming that you suck.

    Freedom of speech goes both ways -- if you choose to open your mouth and speak about something in public, others have to right to publicly defend themselves.

    [ Parent ]

    Skepticism (3.40 / 10) (#154)
    by Frank Anderson on Mon Jul 21, 2003 at 11:44:03 PM EST

    What we have here are a few purported facts and a whole lot of spin. Let's separate them. Purported facts:
    1. Eric Green doesn't use Windows™ very often.
    2. Eric Green offers advice on editing the Windows™ registry.
    3. Eric Green feels qualified to evaluate the efficiency of a Windows application.
    4. Eric Green put up a website defaming Robin Hood software.
    5. Robin Hood's attorney notified the ISP, and the defamatory site was removed.
    6. Eric Green is actively working with other members of the "conspiracy" to mirror the defamatory site.
    7. Robin Hood sent email to affiliates requesting them to drive traffic to RH's site.
    8. Eric Green has evidence of wrongdoing on RH's part.
    9. Eric Green does not seem to have contacted the authorities. Maybe I missed that part.
    Spin:
    1. Eric Green is a Geek, a Libertarian, and a Cajun boy from Louisiana. He is plucky, intelligent and nice.
    2. Robin Hood are spammers, scammers, wacky, unstable, candidates for the aluminum foil beanie award. They are paranoid, ranting, not nice, lower than snakes bellies, nutcases with no morals, stupid and unloved. They live in a dank island nation.
    I invite the reader to ponder the implications of the purported facts. Mr. Green has seized the high ground by labelling himself a Geek and Libertarian, and branding his adversaries spammers. And he may be 100% right. But I'd advise a detached and reasonable perspective on this controversy.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Eric Green on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 12:58:49 AM EST

    1. So you know how often I use Windows?

    2. The advice on editing the Windows registry was not from me, but from web sites referenced by the page in question.

    3. I have not evaluated the efficiency of the Windows application in question. As far as I know, it is a quite adequate little $39.95 file wiper -- being sold for $150 via deceptive advertising tactics. On the web site, there's a URL to a Wired report where an FTC lawyer even says the EE advertising is deceptive. Of course, now you'll say Wired is part of some vast conspiracy yada yada.

    4. Truth is not defamation.

    5. An EMAIL from the ISP to someone who at least purported to be a Robin Hood Software employee, regarding the removal of the web site and why it was removed, is at http://evidence-eliminator-sucks.com/legal2.html. You may contact said person if you wish and validate that this is indeed his EMAIL. (note, if you don't know how to use 'whois', that's your problem).

    6. The "conspiracy" is anybody who doesn't like spammers. "defamatory" is something you better prove in court, because claiming something is defamatory when it really isn't is, well, defamatory :-).

    7. You forgot "with push ICQ". I.e., spam.

    8. Sorry. The Federal Trade Commission has evidence of wrongdoing on RH's part. See the Wired News report that I link to on the site.

    9. "The authorities" have been contacted. In some cases, such as with the FTC, they are not proceeding because they do not have enough victims to justify it (few people will willingly admit that they bought a piece of software because, e.g., they were viewing porn!). I have no idea why the Advertising Standards Board in Britain is not moving on the fraudulent advertising, but they have most certainly been notified.

    Now: You're right that there's definitely some spinning going on here on my part. Let's face it, it'd take a novel to fully document everything dispassionately, without any biases. Thus I have condensed things greatly -- which necessarily means spin. I encourage people to look up the facts for themselves. Especially visit the evidence-eliminator.com site for yourself (well, when they get it back up! Seems my own site survived Slashdotting better than their site did, huh, who would have thunk it). Go to Google and look things up for yourself. Believe nothing you see on any given web page unless you can verify it yourself. To do otherwise is the action of a sheep -- and a victim.
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]

    The UK Authorities (none / 0) (#180)
    by BringBackATV on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 02:24:55 PM EST

    Trading standards are regionalised in UKia. Robin Hood Software is based in Nottingham, so the people to send your evidence file to would be Nottinghamshire Trading Standards.


    --People aren't property
    [ Parent ]
    Whoa man... (none / 0) (#160)
    by explodingheadboy on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 01:39:20 AM EST

    Way to skim the article and get everything all, wrong bucko.

    ---
    Q: If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many pancakes fit in a doghouse?
    A: None! Ice cream doesn't have bones!!!

    [*rmg is dying]
    [ Parent ]

    also featured in Slashdot... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Cruel Elevator on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 12:51:50 AM EST

    I wish you good luck man... I hope that those scumbags die an ugly death. You have the support of a gazillion mail server admins.

    In other news, this got FP in that other site also. Except for sympathies and moral support, did you get any *real* help so far?

    Just curious.

    OT: Hmm unusual (4.57 / 7) (#161)
    by GenerationY on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 01:46:11 AM EST

    Eric Green doesn't use Windows very much. A long-time Linux user and advocate since 1995, Windows software interests him about as much as, say, the price of pork bellies on the Chicago futures market.

    When I read this sentence, it struck me that this is kind of unusual; the average Linux "advocate" is normally utterly obsessed with Windows...just not in a good way. Usual self-reported levels of knowledge include an encyclopedic knowledge of Win32 security issues, exhaustive stress testing and widespread blue screen of death statistic gathering and insider knowledge of boardroom discussions in Redmond. One wonders how they ever find the time to actually do anything with their Linux systems... Meanwhile, the average Windows user just gets on with reading his email. (I mean this only as an observation; I've got Mandrake as a dual-boot option and am glad to have it there when I do something that requires it).

    Kinda like Chevy vs. Ford trucks (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Eric Green on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 10:10:32 AM EST

    Louisiana boys love their trucks. Chevrolet and Ford advocates can get into heated arguments over which is better, Ford or Chevy. The Chevy advocates say that Ford stands for "Found On Road Dead". The Ford advocates respond by talking about "Shittylays" and joking about the stream of parts that they leave behind them as they rattle down the road.

    But for me, my pickup truck is just a tool, something I use to haul occasional sticks of lumber and occasional sheets of plywood or drywall from Home Depot. I like my Chevrolet, but I'm not interested in dissing Ford folks, except to occasionally point out that when Ford jacked their trucks up to make them look "macho", they made their trucks top-heavy and harder to load firewood or hay bales into.

    On the other hand, given that most folks with pickup trucks never haul firewood or hay bales in them, I'm not going to call someone an idiot for buying a Ford truck. He just owns his truck for a different reason than I own my, that's all. I want something I can haul firewood and hay bales with, he wants something for stylin' around town. And that's fine. It's not what I want from my pickup truck, but (shrug). Big freakin' deal.

    The main reason I'm a Linux fan is because I'm a programmer, and when I was starting out, I was starting out on a teacher's salary and the cost of the Windows development tools was most of a month's salary to me. If, on the other hand, I was primarily someone who wanted to do word processing and PowerPoint, I probably wouldn't be interested in Linux. I think the comparison to the price of pork bellies on the Chicago futures market is apt. For the hard-core traders, the price of pork bellies on the Chicago futures market is of supreme importance. For me, it's a matter of supreme disinterest. So it is with me and Windows. Just as I don't decry those people who find the price of pork bellies to be of supreme interest, I don't decry those people who find that Windows fulfills their needs. It's just irrelevant to me -- it has nothing to do with me. Kind of a Libertarian point of view, I know -- i.e., MYOB, what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (or the privacy of their own hard drive) is their own business and none of mine, etc. -- but so it goes.
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]

    gas guzzlers (none / 0) (#174)
    by gr00vey on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 10:42:00 AM EST

    You should consider fuel-efficiency! ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I did (4.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Eric Green on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 02:22:09 PM EST

    I also considered how the hell was I going to get a sheet of drywall home in a Ford Aspire or Geo Metro :-).

    I did, however, get a relatively fuel-efficient pickup truck (a Chevy S-10). So far I'm averaging about 20mpg, which isn't great (being about half of what I could get in my old Aspire under ideal conditions), but isn't utterly horrendous either.
    --
    You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...
    [ Parent ]

    Glad to hear it! (none / 0) (#194)
    by gr00vey on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 06:17:35 AM EST

    ;)

    [ Parent ]
    You know what Ford really stands for? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Rahaan on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 08:09:37 AM EST

    Fix it again, Tony!

    oh, wait, that's Fiat.


    you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
    [ Parent ]

    I heard it was (none / 0) (#201)
    by Cro Magnon on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 09:18:14 AM EST

    Found On Road Dead!
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    Fixed Or Repaired Daily (none / 0) (#203)
    by Mohammed Niyal Sayeed on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 11:43:44 AM EST

    But what the fuck do I know, I don't even drive.


    --
    "You need to get your own point, then we can have an elaborate dance fight." - jmzero

    [ Parent ]
    Eric (3.00 / 1) (#162)
    by explodingheadboy on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 01:46:40 AM EST

    I found your article an interesting read. And I think it's a shame that it seems to be getting so many ignorant and stupid responses from those of us who are too lazy to actually read the article before we open our mouths.

    Oh well. Who cares about them, good job. Also, it's kind of funny that this "Andy" is going to such lengths to contest your claims, threatening you with legal action, while he/his company is under investigation himeself.

    ---
    Q: If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many pancakes fit in a doghouse?
    A: None! Ice cream doesn't have bones!!!

    [*rmg is dying]

    UK Libel and Defamation laws. (none / 0) (#170)
    by gordonjcp on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 09:59:19 AM EST

    Unlike in the US, where you appear to be able to sue anyone for anything, in the UK it's *really really hard* to sue for defamation of character, slander, or libel, unless you've got a really strong case. Unfortunately, this works both ways - if you slander someone, and it *is* slanderous - ie. derogatory *and* untrue - then you will almost certainly lose your case, regardless of how good your defence is.

    Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


    Umm (none / 0) (#176)
    by drsmithy on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 11:35:39 AM EST

    Unfortunately, this works both ways - if you slander someone, and it *is* slanderous - ie. derogatory *and* untrue - then you will almost certainly lose your case, regardless of how good your defence is.

    Why does this sentence start with the word "unfortunately" ?

    [ Parent ]

    Because... (none / 0) (#177)
    by gordonjcp on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 11:46:46 AM EST

    ... if there's the least hole in your case - ie. you are accused of slander, say, and you cannot prove beyond all else that your allegations are true - you might as well just pull down your trousers now.

    So, if Robin Hood Software can make any kind of legitimate case againt Eric Green, then he's in big trouble. UK law amounts to "prove it or get fucked".

    Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


    [ Parent ]
    The flip side of the coin (none / 0) (#182)
    by epepke on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 04:59:39 PM EST

    In the U.K., the fact that a statement is true is not a defense against an accusation of libel or slander.


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    [ Parent ]
    Curious... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Krazor on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 06:10:49 AM EST

    the fact that a statement is true is not a defense against an accusation of libel or slander

    Now I'm curious, exactly what is a suitable defense then? If I'm running a newspaper and say that Mr X uses spam lies, and coercion to promote his business, and he sues me for libel or slander, what can my defense be?

    [ Parent ]
    Actually it is... (none / 0) (#196)
    by gordonjcp on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 08:26:42 AM EST

    It falls under "Fair Comment".

    Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


    [ Parent ]
    Why stop them? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by John Milton on Tue Jul 22, 2003 at 11:26:56 PM EST

    You should be trumpeting the superiority of this software. By exposing the softwares obvious weakness, your helping paedophiles - and I don't know of anyone else who would be afraid of going to prison because of computer files - both monetarily and legally. You should not only encourage perverts to buy this software, but you should create your own even weaker version. The more perverts who fall for this scam, the better.


    "When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


    That could explain a lot. (none / 0) (#215)
    by elenchos on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 09:47:12 PM EST

    I've been trying to figure out the source of all this animus. What made this guy become so obsessed with his little battle with this one dumb company? How could a few flames turn into a years-long crusade? It isn't as if he's one of the perverts who fell for this lame scam.

    Or is he...?

    Adequacy.org
    [ Parent ]

    Of course (none / 0) (#226)
    by John Milton on Fri Jul 25, 2003 at 12:11:32 AM EST

    The Lunixist love of hairless young boys is well known to law enforcement agencies. Why do you think they listen to Wil Wheaton so much.


    "When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


    [ Parent ]
    EE vs EG ... (4.50 / 2) (#188)
    by jefu on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 12:07:20 AM EST

    My experience with evidence eliminator has been generally similar to Eric's. I've been spammed by them repeatedly and when I posted a critique of their software to a membership website pointing out the evidence-eliminator-sucks page I was promptly booted off the membership with no explanation. I do, somehow, seem to still be on their mailing list though and continue to get evidence eliminator spam through that site. Requests to be removed have been ignored.

    I got interested in them when I saw one of their ads in my browser citing sexual search terms that they claimed I had used. Oddly, one of the terms I had used showed up. That was "granny" ("granny" as a sexual term, that was interesting) - though it was as part of a non-sexual search so I started looking around to see if they had found things from my machine (seemed unlikely as I was using mozilla and linux). They didn't - they'd just derived the term from a referrer that popped up a window on the evidence eliminator site.

    That their ads come up in your browser telling you that an investigation is now in progress about your browsing habits just tells me that these guys are generally about as sleazy as they get.

    I'd guess they get enough business from their spam, from their misleading (if not downright lying) ads that they should not need to worry about a single "evidence eliminator sucks" site, but evidently not. I suspect that someone involved has a sufficiently fragile ego that just ignoring criticism doesn't do - that critics must be destroyed as well.

    I'd suggest that an appropriate thing to say is that "Friends don't let friends use evidence eliminator."

    </end lies and dis-information> (1.00 / 5) (#190)
    by DJ Glock on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 04:20:28 AM EST

    i agree with Robin Hood. you're just a hater.

    *** ANONYMIZED ***

    time to reflect, eric (3.66 / 3) (#210)
    by cce on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 02:03:23 PM EST

    at first, i thought all these events occurred over the span of a month or two and was thinking, "well here's a normal guy fighting spammers," but then i realized -- you're still stuck in a glorified flame war based on a usenet post from over THREE YEARS AGO?

    you've got to realize that your time is worth a lot more than this, eric.  stop feeding the trolls at EE and move on with your life!  take up a new hobby!  you're unemployed now?  well, at least that's more time to go hiking/mountainbiking like it says on your resume.

    but one thing you don't need to do is go to court with some paranoid crackpot in the UK just to prove a point that "spammers suck."  any rational person can read the EE "disinformation" site and deduce that the guy's not playing with a full deck of cards.  british defamation laws unfortunately put the burden of proof on you instead of EE, and who wants to get a british lawyer?  so just consider your point proven and move on.  it doesn't matter what turns up when you google for your name.  in 10 years who's going to remember "evidence eliminator" and "robin hood software" anyhow?

    --love,
    andy churchill

    remind me of scientologists (none / 0) (#212)
    by dh003i on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 08:16:06 PM EST

    Seriously, these guys remind me of scientologists. They make false phoney claims, and then -- when you call them on it -- claim the entire world is full of evil conspirers trying to bring them down.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.

    Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#213)
    by stuartf on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 08:30:30 PM EST

    You decided not only was their product crap (it may well be), but you'd also offer them some web design advice as well? (Get rid of the animated gifs???) It's their web site, let them make it as allegedly unprofessional as they like. And since when have animated gifs been unprofessional?

    Gifs (none / 0) (#214)
    by CFK on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 09:42:03 PM EST

    Since about 1995, I believe.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (none / 0) (#220)
    by WWWWolf on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 08:48:30 AM EST

    You know, when I found the Evidence Eliminator Sucks page, I was of course trying to be objective and also read the story from the offender's side.

    That was a thrill. I had not, so far, got that particular version of Mozilla to crash - it's such a stable browser. And the EE site looked pretty ugly in Lynx, too. Not quite readable at least.

    Horrible experience. I bet the "conspiracy" page at EE site doesn't actually exist - or if it does, this browser of mine doesn't like me reading it.

    Actually, I was more of thinking the fact that such a page could possibly not be on the site. No respectable company ever puts up a page for sole purpose of slinging mud at the critics... therefore, I had to double-check that the page actually was, in fact, on the corporate web page.

    -- Weyfour WWWWolf, a lupine technomancer from the cold north...


    [ Parent ]
    Good Job (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by t reductase on Wed Jul 23, 2003 at 11:34:15 PM EST

    Go ahead. Fight Evidence Eliminator forever. Thank you. But the only way to deal with trolls is to drop out of the game.

    Hey Eric! (none / 0) (#219)
    by WWWWolf on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 08:42:26 AM EST

    I found your site some time ago through the "ICQ Lies" page, and loved it (I was in middle of reading all of this stuff about various net.scams, including disreputable software).

    An excellent page, yes, and I really loved to hear exactly what this program has that I had, er, heard of somewhere but, for some reason, didn't particularly put too much trust on in the first place.

    And thanks to your page I also found Eraser, which is a very cool little program (even though I don't have any sensitive files in my Windows partitions to actually shred, oh well...)

    Keep fighting! Spammers deserve almost everything they get, especially critique =)

    -- Weyfour WWWWolf, a lupine technomancer from the cold north...


    Let them sue. . . (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by IHCOYC on Thu Jul 24, 2003 at 03:12:30 PM EST

    Then perhaps by legal "discovery" you can get a copy of their customers list. When you do, turn it over to the US Dep't of Homeland Security's Child Exploitation Unit (formerly part of the Border Patrol).

    Let's face it, there's really only one reason why anyone would find their spams persuasive. And this way we will actually have an acid test as to whether the damned thing works as advertised or not.
     --
    Quod sequitur, sicut serica lucis albissima tingere rogant;
    Quod sequitur, totum devorabit.

    it's just a shame (none / 0) (#228)
    by werner on Fri Jul 25, 2003 at 04:14:51 AM EST

    we don't know which is the real address. we could sign the spamming bastards up for loads of catalogues like those cheeky little monkeys over on /. did to ralsky.

    The Spammer and the Penguin | 242 comments (217 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!