Editorials - 2002 Read past "pronouncements" from this site's main page. Please note that the editorials-by-mail option has, for the most part, been discontinued, since I am no longer writing editorials on a regular basis. Note: While every reasonable effort is made to ensure that these articles are factually correct, please bear in mind that the opinions expressed here are just that - opinions.
Practicing what I preach A New Look Email Tracking Comment: A new trend in spam? 3 reasons why I still use Microsoft Windows RIAA's File Trading FUD IP - An Intellectual Problem (Part II) IP - An Intellectual Problem (Part I) Comment: Forbes on Linux Open Source wide open! One small step... Closing the door on closed-source All your base are belong to MS Just what the .doc ordered Opening the Mail Who's ripping whom? Shape of things to come? Open Source is ready for business Bugfixes: Patch or Service Pack? The Cost of "Nickel and Diming" Myth: Anti-Virus is a must Canning SPAM Xerox Syndrome Of Evolution and Revolution Commoditizing the NOC Time for Apple to bite Dredging up the Car Analogy Deep Links - Deep S#*t! Welcome to jfitz technologies
December 17, 2002 If you've followed my editorials, you may be aware that while regularly singing the praises of Open Source software, I had continued to use Windows on my main desktop machine. Well no more. Over the past two to three months I've been increasingly using Red Hat, to the point where I now use it for all my day-to-day desktop tasks, (my servers have been running FreeBSD for quite some time). I'm pleased to report that the transition has been relatively painless. There are still a few lingering issues, but none that seriously impede my ability to get the job done. Any downsides are more than made up for by the overall flexibility, stability and usability of my new environment. At this point, graphics software for Windows, (that I paid good money for), is the only thing keeping a Microsoft O/S on any of my machines. I certainly won't be paying for upgrades any time soon.
December 12, 2002 I've introduced a slightly new look to this page. I find I no longer have the time to produce regular, lengthy editorials, so I've introduced this section, where I will add occasional quick comments on current tech happenings. The Tech News section has also changed. Rather than picking a selection of news items, (which also was overly time- consuming), I've now automated the task so that all the latest news headlines from a selection of sites are presented without any editorial input from myself. I hope you find this new format useful and informative. Thank you for visiting jfitz.com.
September 22, 2002 Email tracking has become so pervasive that I now almost take it for granted. However, a recent article about Kid-e-mail, a free tool that purportedly tracks the reader of a child's email, reminded me of the issue. So how does email tracking work? Here's a quick primer: Scripting. A scripting-enabled email client pretty much cedes control to the sender. Even without exploiting known security holes, scripts can be used to pass a significant amount of information about the activity of the reader back to a remote site. Web bugs. Image URLs can include extra parameters that identify the mail, and the address the mail was sent to. When the mail is opened in a HTML-enabled mail client, the image is loaded from the sender's website, and that download request, (including the extra identifying information), is logged by the web server, along with the IP address of the machine that the reader is using. Writing custom code to automate the tracking process is both easy and commonplace. DNS lookups. Even if access to remote web sites is blocked by the mail client, a HTML-enabled client will still attempt to look up the IP address of any website referred to in an image URL. This lookup is done by the O/S rather than the mail client, making it difficult to block without messing up all web access. Ultimately, the O/S ends up querying a remote server, and this query can be logged, much like a web bug. This might all sound pretty impressive, and Kid-e-mail's web site certainly makes it seem like there is nowhere for the potential child abuser to hide. Here's the problem though: the lowest-of-low-tech, text-only email client over a dial-up connection completely defeats all these tracking techniques. I sincerely hope that parents won't be fooled by the ridiculous claims of companies like Kid-e-mail. Maybe spend more time playing with your kids, and less time spying on them. Fitz.
September 04, 2002 Lately, I've noticed several incidents where my spam filters are blocking spam, but the spammer's mailserver is configured to keep retrying ad nauseam. This results in a partial Denial of Service situation, where my mailserver is rejecting the same message hundreds of times over a period of several hours. I'd hate to have to resort to faking acceptance of the mail, running the risk that a legitimate sender won't know when they've been blocked. I hope this is an anomaly and not a trend.
August 27, 2002 My editorials generally extol the virtues of open source systems such as GNU/Linux and BSD, and I do use these systems extensively myself. However, my main "desktop", (it's actually a laptop), still runs Windows 2000 most of the time. Here's why:  Fonts - X-Windows has come a long way. The addition of anti-aliasing and sub-pixel rendering is an enormous improvement, and the tools for installing MS web fonts, (which are still the best out there), have become much more user friendly. However, bugs in font configuration, along with rampant mismatches in font selection and sizing across a range of open source applications, still makes desktop configuration a nightmare. Font quality and consistency remains one of Windows key strengths.Browsers - Internet Explorer running on Windows is still the best browser available. For me, the key selling point is the economy of space that the browser periphery can be made to use, leaving maximum real estate available for content. I have adjusted my Display Properties so that title bars, menu bars and scroll bars are as small as possible. I have then configured Internet Explorer's menu, icons and address bar so that they are all on a single line. I can get about 10% more viewable space with IE than with any other browser. On my small-ish laptop screen this makes a big difference.Applications - There are still a handful of applications that I cannot find acceptable alternatives for. They generally fall into two categories: Media Tools, (such as image / sound manipulation programs, media players, etc.), and Games. That said, new open source Media Tools are arriving each day, and I can probably learn to live without those few old games that never get ported.Hopefully, someday soon, I'll check back on this list and cross off all three items. Fitz.
August 14, 2002 This article officially gives the lie to the RIAA's assertion that online file trading is responsible for the drop in music sales over the past few years. My own (unofficial and very rough) calculations suggest that the "missing" dollars from the 5% drop in music sales in 2001 can be almost completely accounted for by the increase in sales for (RIAA member) Sony's PlayStation 2 combined with increased movie box office receipts from a record-breaking year. I can picture the Sony and AOL/Time Warner representatives at the RIAA meeting to discuss why music sales are down - sitting with their hands in their pockets, whistling nothing-in-particular and staring at the ceiling in a desperate attempt to look innocent. Of course my calculations don't take into account the increase in other entertainment-related expenditure, (such as rocketing DVD sales and the introduction of the XBox), not to mention the fact that we all seem to have less money in our pockets these days. Do the members of the RIAA think we have unlimited resources available to fund their excesses? Economics aside, if you're still plagued by nagging concerns that your habit of downloading a few mp3s here and there is hurting real artists, maybe you should check out this article. No, the members of the RIAA have the exploitation of artists down to a fine art. These days they're just applying their art to the customer as well. Fitz.
August 8, 2002 The previous editorial finished with the question: "What exactly constitutes a patentable software invention?" There are two principle trains of thought on this subject. One holds that software should be treated in the same way as any physical invention, and therefore is "patentable" if it meets the general patent requirements of being "new, useful and non-obvious". The other train of thought holds that software is more like literature, and should only be protected by copyright rather than patents. Both sides agree that source code itself is creative, and therefore copyrightable. The disagreement centers round the intangible "thing" that the source code represents. Is this "thing", (i.e. the software), patentable? Ideologically, I favor the second argument, which holds that it is not. Attempts to define the "thing" that a piece of software represents have led to overly restrictive patent claims. However, from a practical perspective, individuals and corporations still need concrete protection for truly inventive software, or the incentive to innovate will be diminished. We need to reward innovation without hampering further innovation by denying access to existing technology. To achieve this, I believe patent law needs an overhaul, either to introduce a new class of software patent, or to tighten up the provisions of existing patent law. Some changes I would propose: Reduce a patent's effective period to 5, (or 10 at most), years. With the pace of change in the software world, a 20 year patent may as well be forever.Require more specific descriptions of the "thing" being patented, especially if the "thing" is a software invention.Lapse patents that are not pursued.Make patent licensing subject to monopoly regulations, (such that a company that refuses to license a patented technology, or that asks for unreasonable license terms, could be subject to monopoly investigation).I doubt these suggestions would eliminate all patent abuse, but they should help redress some of the flaws in the current system. Fitz.
July 26, 2002 In essence, a patent establishes a legal monopoly on an invention for 20 years. The patent was "invented", (sorry, couldn't resist), to protect and encourage inventors. One could picture the scatty professor racing from the tool shed to the patent office to stake a claim on the next technological marvel, thereby ensuring his or her fame and fortune. These days, most inventions occur as part of "just another day's work", for which the inventor, (or, more likely, group of inventors), gets "just another day's pay". The only person racing to the patent office, (metaphorically speaking of course), is the corporate patent lawyer. The inventor(s) may still get the fame, but the bulk of the fortune almost invariably ends up on a corporate balance sheet, (that is, of course, assuming the accounting is above board). In and of itself, this change in emphasis is not a bad thing. Many inventions require multi-million dollar investments and facilities that go way beyond the scope of the average tool shed. What incentive would there be for Merck to invest billions researching new drugs if Pfizer could just sit back and wait, then knock off cheap copies? But in the murky waters of software technology and associated Intellectual Property, (IP), patent laws show their weaknesses, and can hinder innovation rather than promoting it. IP "land grabbing", where an individual or company buys patents that have not been pursued, then seeks to profit by vigorously upholding the patent rights, is morally reprehensible. A patent should lapse if the original patent holder, (or their agent), fails to engage in production of the patented item, or fails to enforce the rights assigned by the patent in a timely manner. IP "land grabbing", along with attempts to enforce effectively lapsed patents, are pretty straightforward issues - they're simply wrong. A trickier question to address in the software world is this: "What exactly constitutes a patentable invention?" I'll tackle that question in Part II. Fitz.
July 19, 2002 The recent Forbes series on Linux speaks volumes about mainstream acceptance of open source. Comments like "he's not anti-Windows, he's just 'anti-spending-money'" should certainly resonate with Forbes' readership. Here are links to the articles: Biotech's Cut-Rate Supercomputer Is Linux A Good Bet For Investors? Checking E-Mail On Linux Retail Therapy Browsing The Web On Linux Red Hat Lives In Microsoft's Crosshair Better Instant Messaging Through Linux Linux Not Just For Geeks Anymore
July 17, 2002 Despite having God and all the powers of goodness on its side, a recent report indicates that open source code may have vulnerabilities. Shocked mathematicians and computer scientists are scrambling to understand how this could have happened. A visibly shaken Tux P. Enguin, at a hastily arranged press conference, asked users to remain calm and to join him in apportioning the blame where it squarely belongs - on the shoulders of Bill Gates and his army of mindless minions (none of which could be reached for this story, citing technical problems with an asteroid sized death ray due to be deployed in orbit later this month). Long considered to be immune to the limitations placed on formal systems imposed by Godel's incompleteness theory, scientists and mathematicians are being forced to re-evaluate open source as the solution to pestilence, famine, plague and death. To date, the most probable theory is that Microsoft corrupted some well placed, virtuous insider in the open source movement, using filthy lucre, to intentionally place these holes. "There is simply no other way that this could have happened" says Occam S. Razor. In related developments, the Sun/Oracle sponsored trade group, Windows Hardball Innovations Need to End (WHINE), has appealed to the government to intervene - "If this trend continues, Linux servers will suffer more hacks than Microsoft's. The government needs to ensure a level playing field and compel Microsoft to cease any secure code reviews ongoing in their products. In the interests of consumer choice, Microsoft must also offer IIS without any security fixes", a spokesperson for the group said. Finally, Slashdot greeted the news with the headline "Microsoft losing the edge in the war to attract hackers". © Andrew Murphy 2002 (thanks Murph!)
July 11, 2002 One of the problems with the fast-paced evolution of technology is that sometimes we miss important events in the chaos of change. If the "event" is in fact a problem, we also miss the opportunity to fix it and learn from it, and the repercussions can often be felt long into the future. A good example would be when Microsoft deliberately included hidden code in early versions of Windows that prevented it from working on versions of DOS other than MS-DOS. At the time, the other versions of DOS were small potatoes on the technology landscape, and the viability of Windows itself was uncertain. Had that seemingly small transgression been caught and punished, the precedent it set may have avoided much of the mess that ensued when Microsoft "grew up" and became the 800lb bully it is today. The next week or so will see a vote on the use of royalty-based, patented technologies in standards adopted by the World Wide Web Consortium, (W3C). To the average web-surfer this may seem like a mundane issue, but the fact is that the outcome of this vote could have a huge impact on the future ownership of technology. To my mind, it is essential that international standards remain royalty free. Otherwise, we are collectively agreeing to prop-up "patent machines" like IBM and Microsoft. From the corporate perspective, the equation is simple: charge for use of existing patents; use that money to buy more patents. Technology becomes a slave to business. Useful technologies are taxed for adhering to standards, while innovative technologies are absorbed to feed the taxation machine. I'm not naive enough to believe that large corporations don't, and won't, buy new technologies when it is more cost-effective than innovating from within, but I do feel it is just plain wrong to hand them carte-blanche at the same standards table that we all end up feeding from. If we do, this is one decision we may live to regret for a long time to come. Fitz.
July 8, 2002 To date, my series on migrating a business to an open source desktop has focused on switching application software. The final step in a migration should be the conversion of the actual desktop O/S itself. The choice of O/S, (one of the BSD's, or a Linux distribution), is largely a matter of personal choice - all the major distributions support most common hardware and open source software. Aside from cost and support considerations, it would be advisable to test potential O/S candidates against as much legacy hardware as possible, as support for old or unusual hardware will vary. It is important to manage expectations during the transition. The switch will involve sacrificing some functionality, at least until alternatives can be put in place. Being open, (excuse the pun), about the long-term cost savings and the reduced dependency on a single vendor, is essential to ensure that employees understand why they are being asked to accept this reduced functionality. One final consideration: Presumably, you will have ensured that all critical business needs are met by the new O/S. However, it is also worthwhile considering non-essential, and even "recreational", applications. For example, if employees are allowed to listen to CDs or private mp3's while they work, taking the time to ensure that sound drivers and applications are installed will be worth the effort. Failure to do so may engender resentment toward the new O/S among users who do not have the skill to install the necessary software themselves. Having got this far in the conversion process, I doubt you will ever look back. Fitz.
July 2, 2002 I spoke too soon. In an earlier editorial, I derided the response of the software industry to increasingly open distribution channels, while labeling the response of the recording and movie industries "Orwellian". Turns out the software industry, (in the guise of Microsoft), was only pausing for breath. If MS have their way with their newly announced Palladium initiative, Orwell's world will seem positively liberal. MS would have us believe that this is all about protecting our best interests, and that predictions about potential misuse of the technology amount to little more than a far-fetched conspiracy theory. Well, this is one conspiracy theory that I buy. Even if MS haven't deliberately planned all the minor details, the temptation to take advantage of this technology will be irresistible. And I fully expect governments and corporations to cozy up to MS, effectively realizing my worst nightmare scenario for the digital age. Let me spell this out: Hardware identification systems primarily serve vendors. Ultimately, they restrict your freedom by forcing you to work on designated hardware, running designated software. True protection of YOUR data should be tied to YOU, (through the use of software keys, or biometric data, that only YOU can provide), NOT to a machine that is controlled by an anonymous third party. My only hope, and it's a pretty faint one, is that the whole idea will be stillborn because it's such a monumental affront to our rights. Savor your freedoms while you can - they may soon belong to Microsoft. Fitz.
June 27, 2002 Continuing the theme of discussing some of the necessary steps to switch a business to Open Source software, this editorial focuses on what is probably the biggest obstacle for most businesses - Microsoft's file formats. This is not an area where you can take a back seat, waiting for Open Source filters and converters to achieve full compatibility with Microsoft products. If you do, you will be waiting forever. As long as Microsoft has a majority share of the market, it is in their own commercial interests to keep evolving file formats so that competing products have to play catch-up. In my opinion, filters are now good enough to facilitate a switch for most common business applications. However, making any switchover a success will still require careful planning and execution, and, maybe more importantly, total commitment from staff and management at every level. I would recommend a two-step approach. In the first step, Microsoft file formats and products are retained, but constructs and features that are not handled well by Open Source replacements are phased out of all active, and key historical, documents. In the second step, Open Source file formats and applications supplant their Microsoft equivalents. New documents are saved in the new formats. Old documents are converted as required. Microsoft products are retained, (at least on strategic PCs), to handle the inevitable unforeseen conversion difficulties. It would be foolhardy to underestimate the difficulty of this changeover. It should be undertaken while the desktop is still running Windows, and should not overlap with other steps in the overall conversion strategy. Almost certainly, this will be the hardest pill to swallow. Like most pills however, once swallowed, you should start to feel better. Fitz.
June 24, 2002 An earlier editorial outlined why I believe Open Source software is ready to take on the desktop. In this editorial I'd like to begin discussing some of the practical steps that need to be taken to execute a changeover. Oddly enough, my ideal desktop changeover strategy begins on the server - the mailserver to be specific. In My Very Humble Opinion, the notion that an organization needs to consolidate all user mail storage on centralized mail servers, (usually of the Exchange variety), is total MS BS. I would estimate that 80+% of all stored mail is complete and utter garbage. My preferred solution would involve centralized qmail mailservers, with "local" storage of user mail, ("local" is in quotes because it may make sense to store mail on shared nfs- or samba- mounted fileservers for backup and control purposes). For mail that genuinely requires centralized storage, (projects, planning, etc.), I would use ezmlm, (qmail's mailing list software). Setting up a mailing list is not as complex as you might think. By default, qmail and ezmlm will allow any user to set up a mailing list with a single command. This includes fully automated subscribe, unsubscribe and help email aliases. Since each list gets its own storage folder, it's easy to ensure that important lists are stored on central servers. Adding a simple web based interface in front of an important mailing list will ensure that the appropriate corporate search engines can index it. The cost and risk involved on the server side in this kind of changeover are significant. However, client side changes, including retraining users to familiarize them with mailing lists that are accessible via corporate search engines, should not be too difficult, since users who are familiar with browsing should find the new approach very intuitive. Next up: The .doc stranglehold. Fitz.
June 18, 2002 Efforts by the RIAA to stifle file-sharing technologies with lawsuits and enforced copy protection leave me with a sick feeling in my stomach. The writing has been on the wall for closed distribution channels since the day the first online bulletin board or ftp server went live, effectively signaling the start of the era where "the network is the computer". It's remarkable how slow industries have been to take steps to protect their own viability, and equally remarkable how unimaginative their responses have been. The software industry was the first to fall. In the face of increasing pressure from open-source software, the best the industry could do was label it "Un-American", and attempt to stymie it by pressuring hardware distributors not to support it. Next up, the music industry. Their best response is breathtakingly Orwellian in scope, amounting to complete control of the distribution channel, right down to the sound wave leaving the headphone and hitting your eardrum. The movie industry is following in the footsteps of the RIAA. The might of their combined effort should make the RIAA's solo efforts seem puny by comparison. Combined with corporate control of Internet-based TV and print distribution channels, and growing government interest in digital surveillance, we are presented with an "appalling vista", (to quote Lord Denning), when we consider the prospects for the free flow of information. Hopefully, the clarity of vision espoused by the handful of librarians who have jealously protected our printed body of knowledge from corporate or legislative exploitation in the past will again prevail in this digital age. The alternative scenarios are too frightening to even consider. Fitz.
June 13, 2002 What follows isn't so much a prediction of what future computers will look like, as a description of what I'd like to see right now. I would like a box, about the size of a large laptop, with no screen or keyboard. It should be available as an all-in-one unit, or as stackable components - main unit, storage, networking, etc. All units should have the same form-factor and make little or no noise. The front of the all-in-one unit, or the main controller, should have an LCD display, a DVD, and hi-fi-like buttons. It should be possible to perform simple tasks like starting an application - CD, DVD, game-controller, etc. - from the front panel. The functionality of the panel should be coded into the O/S and the design of the buttons should be generic enough to allow the functionality to be reprogrammed as the software evolves. The back should include power connectors and any ports required to connect units to peripherals or to each other. Connection jacks - including monitors jacks - should be no bigger than current USB/Firewire jacks. Wireless networking should be built-in for all peripherals, (either in the all-in-one unit, or a connected networking unit). Wired options should also be available where they make sense for speed or security, or to lower the cost of peripherals. Wired peripherals should be powered from the main unit, (USB-style). Wireless keyboards, tv/monitors, speakers and remote controls, should be the norm. Fitz.
June 10, 2002 I've always been a fan of open source software. It offers high quality at a low cost. That said, until recently I would not have recommended a general deployment of an open source O/S on business desktops. Lack of applications, lack of support, and general ease of use concerns, all conspired to make it a risky proposition at best. However, the balance is shifting. Projects like Mozilla and OpenOffice are at a stage where they offer acceptable alternatives to the Windows products they compete with. The fact that they work on Windows, and interoperate with Microsoft products, offers businesses a great starting point for a migration. Building dual-boot systems, with access to Windows files from the second O/S, further eases the transition, (and offers a way out), and is now a routine operation, rather than a black art. Support from big names like IBM, Sun and Oracle, coupled with the growth of open source specialists such as Red Hat and SuSE, validates open source as a mainstream proposition, rather than the choice of maverick IT managers. On the server side, cross-platform file, print and authentication projects, (Samba in particular), make it possible for an open source server to serve Windows clients in a transparent way. In almost all other areas, open source server software is first class. The time, cost and effort involved in a switch to open source should not be underestimated. That said, the quality of the technology, and the availability of support, finally makes the switch a viable option. Fitz.
June 6, 2002 Note: This article was originally written in reply to this post on bugtraq. - Both, please. In his heart and soul I believe even Bill Gates knows responsible, timely disclosure coupled with ongoing patches and occasional service pack "roll-ups", (for those who need to play catch-up), is the right way to tackle bug fixes. If Microsoft were renowned for excellent security and timely patches, and other companies were known for the lack thereof, I can almost guarantee that MS would be trumpeting responsible disclosure and timely patching from the rooftops. The real problem is getting resource-strapped, distracted vendors to play the patching game. I'm not a fan of excessive legislation, and even less a fan of excessive litigation, but I think the threat of a legal "stick" is needed to keep vendors in line. A few precedents in class-action civil suits where vendors are, (successfully), sued for, (large), damages resulting from failures to disclose and/or patch known vulnerabilities in a timely fashion should suffice. In the absence of any sign of a corporate moral backbone, courts need to be seen to impose swift, sharp remedies - and without crumbling in the face of fat corporate checkbooks. We live in hope... Fitz.
June 3, 2002 An earlier editorial commented on the decreasing capital expenditure required to build and maintain telecommunications infrastructure. As equipment costs fall, the cost of billing is the next major component that hinders the provision of the most cost-efficient service. In other words, the average phone bill is as high as it is in large part because of the cost of tracking, preparing and processing the bill itself - We pay telcos to bill us. The current model, where each call, (in fact, each leg of each call), is tracked and billed separately, is doomed to fail as we continue to push more and more data over networks at ever increasing speeds. The model has only survived thus far because it is such a tremendous cash cow for telcos, and the barriers to entry have hindered competition. The long term impact is that many newer networking technologies are neutered by the need to conform to outdated billing models. Hardware is designed to capture insanely complex billing information - right down to the packet-level, (heaven forbid that we ever see real-world, packet-level billing). Itemized billing made sense when costs were high and capacity was low. Neither criterion applies. It's time to re-evaluate the model. Fitz.
May 30, 2002 I use Internet Explorer and Outlook Express without Anti-Virus protection. I've never had a problem, (touch wood), even though I receive most email viruses soon after their release. Here's how I've dodged the bullet: I make sure my software is fully patched. Most common viruses and scripts exploit vulnerabilities that have already been fixed. I have scripting disabled in the Internet Zone. This prevents attacks and kills pop-up ads. For sites that require scripting: 1) I add frequently visited "script-sites" to the Secure Zone, or 2) I use a second browser, (Mozilla or Opera), for less common sites. I use a personal firewall. I like Sygate, because it's configurable based on both application and port. Most personal firewalls are relatively easy to work around, but they will stop some basic forms of attack. I port-forward email over SSH, and have blocked Outlook Express' remote access. This prevents HTML mail from downloading nasty stuff. Mail is still legible, but remote images are blank. OE still accesses the Internet indirectly to do DNS lookups, but my exposure is greatly reduced. I don't download or run files unless I'm sure where they come from. Downloading a patch from Microsoft's website is usually okay. Downloading from a link that some guy in a chat room gave me is a big fat no-no. The total cost of this solution: nothing. Fitz.
May 27, 2002 A recent law will make it illegal to falsify the contact information associated with domain names. With a few extensions, this law could also require mailserver identification, which would help enforce other new SPAM laws. The law would need to ban the following:  running mailservers without MX records.running publicly accessible open relays.falsifying or tampering with return address or delivery information in an email header.MX records are DNS records that identify mailservers associated with particular domains. Requiring an MX record ties the mailserver to a valid contact. This makes it illegal for Joe Bloggs to set up a mailserver without having a registered domain. This doesn't limit Joe Bloggs' rights, but it does protect everybody else's right to know who controls the originating mailserver.An open relay is a mailserver that allows anybody to send mail from that machine. Banning open relays means mail must come from within the network of the originating mailserver. This being the case, the operator of a mailserver can be held accountable for the mail that originates on that server.As an email passes from one mailserver to another, various header records are added identifying when and where the email was routed. I can't think of any legitimate reason to modify, omit or falsify this routing information, so it should be a crime to do so.Well-run servers already comply with these rules. Only spammers have anything to fear. Fitz.
May 23, 2002 ~ A crippling inability to profit from innovative technology. Xerox invented a multi-billion dollar industry, (in fact several multi-billion dollar industries), and ended up with nothing to show for it. From Xerox PARC, the disease has spread. Sun's got it. Take Java: sure, it's got its flaws, but it's still inherently portable, secure and easy to use, with a broad base of developer support. Can Sun make money from it? Not on your nelly. What's worse, Sun's hardware is beginning to show symptoms of the disease. Once quarantined in telco bunkers, the Sparc no longer ignites. IBM had it, (OS/2), appears to be cured, (DB2), but may yet prove prone to relapses. Napster has it bad. In fact, they bred a new strain of the disease. "Napster Syndrome" applies to those select few companies who not only can't make a business profitable, they can't even make it legal. All the while, Microsoft seems to be immune. Bill and Steve could be in business selling abacuses to NASA and still manage to turn a profit. Go figure. Fitz.
May 20, 2002 Technology grows through evolution, not revolution. Only in hindsight can we see the truly "revolutionary" impact of any particular technological innovation. The first car hardly revolutionized transportation in its day, nor did the first computer revolutionize how we process information. Each merely began a new chapter in the incremental progress of technology as a whole. The Press and Wall Street create the myth of technological revolution, and we, through a mixture of greed and short-sightedness, propagate the myth. Eventually, the illusion is exposed and the "revolution" ends, leaving millionaires and paupers in its wake. I'm not trying to dictate morality here - the cycle of boom and bust, enthusiasm and disappointment, is part and parcel of what drives economies and technologies alike. However, we would do well to remember the inexorable nature of technological progress when Wall Street announces the arrival of the next mythical revolution. We just might save ourselves a whole lot of time and effort. Not to mention money. Fitz.
May 16, 2002 A significant portion of any phone or ISP bill is attributable to federal regulation of the telcos' NOCs, (Network Operations Centers). This regulation is essential - it covers everything from signal strength through redundant backups and flame-retardancy. Without oversight, telecom infrastructure would probably be hopelessly unreliable. However, the assumption that meeting the regulatory requirements necessarily incurs a high cost is increasingly being called into question. The arrival of telco-strength Linux and BSD implementations on cheap, reliable hardware promises to commoditize what is one of the last bastions of high-margin hardware and software sales. Lower costs will allow smaller companies to enter markets currently dominated by large telcos. This in turn facilitates small-scale, "organic" growth of the network, driven by customer needs rather than telco dictates. This new economic reality should do more for competition in telecommunications over the next several years than all the legal tinkering that we've seen since the original AT&T breakup in the early '80's. Bottom line: better service at a better price. ...we hope. Fitz.
May 13, 2002 The FreeBSD underpinnings of Apple's OS X diminish the barriers to creating an Apple OS for the PC. Technical issues aside, the question remains: "Is this a viable business proposition?" Let's consider, starting with the retail prices for some common OS's:
At current prices, OS X is great value for money when compared to Windows. Even compared to commercial Linux and BSD-based offerings, the premium seems reasonable for such a highly regarded OS. One of the major arguments against PC OS X is that it would cannibalize Apple's hardware sales. Frankly, I don't buy this. Apple's slick hardware designs, with their tight OS integration, justify the premiums that they command. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if PC OS X increased Mac sales, as businesses took advantage of the seamless migration path. And, all the while, Apple's competitors would be sending in the check for each PC sold with OS X installed. Sweet. Me? I'll be first in line to upgrade. Fitz.
May 9, 2002 Applying a car analogy to computing is a great way to explain technical issues in a non-technical way. Conveniently, it's also a great way to understand some of the legal and economic issues. Microsoft lawyers will argue blue in the face, (with thousand-page depositions to back it up), that SOFTWARE IS DIFFERENT. Three words: NO IT'S NOT. If a computer were a car, software would be the gasoline. Without gas, all you have is a piece of hardware that's going nowhere. That's roughly where the analogy ends. If Microsoft were Shell, Shell would sell 98% of all gas - for $100 a gallon. Chevron-Texaco, BP and others, (Linux et al.), would be standing on street corners trying to give the stuff away for free. Most car companies would foist Shell's gas upon you, and Shell would legally require you to use their gas exclusively once a single drop hits your tank. In all honesty, Microsoft's "gas" is about as good as anybody else's, but I, for one, still want the freedom to choose. Don't you? Fitz.
May 7, 2002 There appears to be a low-key effort under way to criminalize, or at least stigmatize, the practice of "Deep Linking". A "Deep Link" refers to any hyperlink that doesn't link to a site's topmost page, (i.e. its homepage). The "Tech News" items on this page, and, indeed, most hyperlinks on this site, can be categorized as "Deep Links". In fact, almost all useful links on the Web are "Deep". To my mind, even the suggestion that hyperlinks can be sub-categorized in this way is ludicrous. The thought of criminalizing them is beyond ludicrous. If a site doesn't want to share information, there are simple technologies available to prevent public access. We do not need to surrender broad freedoms just to bolster an advertising industry that has lost touch with reality and is bankrupt of ideas. If you don't want to play the game, take your ball and go - no need to burst anybody else's ball on the way out. Enjoy your freedoms, Fitz.
April 23, 2002 Regular visitors may notice the new look and the new name. This is part of an ongoing effort to turn this site into something more than just a personal website. I picked the name "jfitz technologies" mainly because "jfitz.com" already gets a fair amount of traffic, and "brand-building" a different name would require more effort than I care to expend. Of course there's also the egomaniacal satisfaction of having a company named after myself. "jfitz technologies" and the logo are trademarks. Except where noted otherwise, the resources on this site are "public domain". This means they can be used freely for commercial or non-commercial purposes. What sort of a messed-up business model is this? Enjoy, John Fitzgibbon.
Apparently, before April 23, 2002 I had nothing much to say for myself... |
