Category: Annoyances

Posted on
by

Several months ago, Scummy Computer Operations sued IBM claiming that IBM had copied code from UNIX into Linux. They refused to say what code had been copied. Already this sounds fishy. In their initial filing, they insulted the ethics and competence of the entire Open Source community. Eventually they started making wilder and wilder claims. They called into question the entire open source development model. They started threatening Linux users, and made noise about how they were going to start issuing license terms for Linux, without having proven that they actually own anything in Linux. The only specifics anyone’s managed to get out of them involve code IBM wrote itself and contributed to both OSes.

All they had to do was say “This code here is in violation of our copyright.” At which point the Linux kernel developers could look at it, say, “Hmm, that was contributed by so-and-so on such-and-such a date.” (The entire development process is open to the public – SCO could do this themselves.) An investigation could then be made, and the code could be either shown to be not in violation or removed and replaced with something else. Instead, they’ve remained (deliberately?) vague, such that over the course of four months, with the entire source code for Linux available to the entire world, no one has managed to find anything and say, “this must be what they’re complaining about.”

Yesterday Red Hat got fed up and sued SCO, saying the accusations were a load of bull and accusing them of anti-competetive practices.

Now, not only is SCO claiming that Red Hat’s suit proves that SCO is right (they deny it, therefore it must be true!), their licensing terms for Linux would make it more expensive than Windows.

And you know what really makes me sick? SCO’s stock price just went up. These people are deceptive scumbags. They’re making claims that they refuse to back up. They’re setting prices and threatening to go after people for money, but they refuse to prove that they own what they’re selling. Even in the unlikely event that they’re telling the truth and there is UNIX code in Linux, they’ve acted unethically by not giving anyone a chance to correct the issue.

See also: TWikiWeThey: SCO vs. IBM [archive.org] and OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint

Posted on
by

Yes, the American Teleservices Association is suing over the do-not-call list.

The ATA estimates that the do-not-call list will cost as many as 2 million U.S. telemarketing jobs, wiping out almost a third of its industry.

Sounds like a good start.

Maybe they can get jobs that don’t involve annoying the hell out of people in their own homes.

Spam is a problem because it’s pervasive. There are no limits on how many messages one business can send, and very little in the way of entry barriers. If outside controls (societal, legal, or technological) leave it unchecked, it really can destroy email as a useful means of communication. (Consider getting 500 spams with one order confirmation somewhere in the middle.)

Telemarketing does have limits. Even with recorded messages, it takes time to make the call. There’s usually a limited number of outgoing phone lines. And if they’ve got live people making the calls, they can only make as many calls as they have people – and people need paychecks and space to work.

No, the problem with telemarketing is that it’s invasive. The phone just screams for attention, interrupting whatever you’re doing. You can choose when to check your email, or your postal mailbox, but the telephone wants you to answer it now, and even if you choose not to, it keeps ringing until your answering machine takes the call or the caller gives up.

Telemarketers don’t just try to reach you at your mailbox, front door, or living room. They are the only form of advertising I know of that reaches into the bedroom – even when you’re asleep.

And yet these scumbags are defending their “right” to interrupt you while you’re eating dinner, or reading a book, or watching TV. They want to be able to wake you up when you’re sleeping in on Saturday. If you have a cell phone, they can get you at the grocery store. They can get you on your lunch break. Someone can start jabbering about resort condos while you’re in line for Space Mountain.

That’s not protected speech. It’s harassment.

Posted on
by

I hate drivers who refuse to let me in, even though they can clearly see that my lane is disappearing. What do they expect me to do, vanish in a puff of smoke? Or do they actually want me to go off the side of the road and crash into a ditch?

Especially when, after I manage to get into the lane despite their best efforts, they refuse to back off and give themselves adequate stopping distance. As if no one ever has to slam on their brakes.

Especially when, just ahead, traffic is dropping from 50 mph to a dead stop. So I have to slam on the brakes, but can’t. If I brake too hard, the idiot behind me will crash into me. If I don’t brake hard enough, I’ll hit the car in front.

Today, I found the narrow window between braking too much and braking too little. But there are few driving situations that make me more nervous.

Posted on
by

You know those people who like to bitch about “basically?” The ones who picked on “like” and “you know” (and, mercifully, seem to have given up)? I’ve got another one for them, and it ain’t “Could I get.”

Maybe it’s more prevalent in a business environment where people are asking advice and permission all the time, but the phrase “go ahead and” has really started to grate my cheese. People no longer say “I’m going to send you the form,” but “I’m going to go ahead and send you the form.” The woman across the cube wall from me actually said it twice in one sentence today–something like, “I’m going to [GAA] send you the form, and then you [GAA] fill it out and send it in.” I’ve blocked out her exact words, thank god.

Omit unnecessary words, guys. GAAh.

Posted on
by

Two years ago, the company I work for moved to a new office. We used to do most of our domain name registrations through Network Solutions, mainly out of habit from when they were the only registrar, and accounts were of two types:

  1. Contacts. This involved a person or role and contact information.
  2. Domain names. This involved the person or company who registered the domain name, and links to three contacts (admin, technical, and billing).

So I had a contact account for any registrations we did on our clients’ behalf. We moved – again, this was two years ago – and I updated the address.

Network Solutions has restructured their entire account system into something immensely complicated. Somehow this single contact account has been split into three separate accounts, none of which had the password I started with, and all of which had the old address.

Yes, all three redundant accounts showed the address and phone number that I deleted two years ago.

We used to have people lose their domain names (or at least get them put on hold) because they never gave NS their new address when they moved, and they wouldn’t get the renewal notice. I guess these days it doesn’t really matter. Even if you do update your address, they’ll revert it anyway.

Posted on
by

My dad forwarded me an opinion piece from the eWeek newsletter called Idiocy Imperils the Web. Jim Rapoza argues that – especially by now – people should really have figured out not to click on unknown attachments. My favorite quote: “Most people figure out that if they keep grabbing the electric fence, they’ll get a shock every time.”

I’ve thought along these lines for several years now. [Update: Not anymore (see below)] Once the first two waves of high-profile email viruses hit, it was time for people to wise up. Instead we have a variation on the classic joke:

Three guys walk into a bar. You’d think the third one would have ducked.

Except it’s more like “Ten guys walk into a bar. You’d think the third, fourth, fifth…”

Although I’m also reminded of a quote from Jakob Neilsen’s “Alertbox” usability column from April 1996:

The fact that the Internet doubles every year implies that at any time half of the users will have been on the net for less than a year. In other words, we are doomed to have 50 percent novice users for the foreseeable future.

This has, of course, slowed down since 1996 – recent statistics show Internet growth in the US has dropped to 5% – but it seems very unlikely that newbies can account for all – or even most – of the virus spreaders.

Yes, the responsibility rests ultimately on the jerks who write these things – but they wouldn’t be able to get anywhere without the idiots who click on them.

Update March 2023: In the 20(!) years wince I wrote this, I’ve come around to agree with Bruce Schneier’s remarks on the subject from 2011:

People get USB sticks all the time. The problem isn’t that people are idiots, that they should know that a USB stick found on the street is automatically bad and a USB stick given away at a trade show is automatically good. The problem is that the OS trusts random USB sticks. The problem is that the OS will automatically run a program that can install malware from a USB stick. The problem is that it isn’t safe to plug a USB stick into a computer. (emphasis added)

Yes, people absolutely need to be careful with storage they plug in, with files they download, with apps they install. Of course they do. But that only gets you so far. In addition to unintended security vulnerabilities, the software and hardware makers need to do better at not building glaring holes like auto-running malware.

I mean, just yesterday the YouTube channel for Linus Tech Tips — a channel that’s all about the tech — was taken over through malware that installed itself from a malicious PDF file and collected the session tokens from the computer’s web browsers, enabling the hackers to clone their login session and replace the channel with one promoting cryptocurrency. If YouTube — owned by Google, one of the biggest tech companies in the world — had flagged the IP-hopping or region-hopping of the login session, it could have at the very least thrown up some roadblocks.

(The number of things I just typed that wouldn’t have made any sense back in 2003…)

Admittedly, it’s hard to blame Microsoft or Google for exploding USB sticks, but I certainly wouldn’t blame the victim for it either.