"Jim Roland" <[email protected]>:
> From: "Jesse Pollard" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>; "Kurt Maxwell Weber" <[email protected]>; "J Sloan"
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
>
>
> [snip]
> > >In that case, I have the following options:
> > >1) Start my own ISP
> >
> > Only if the upstream provider doesn't require you to use windows.
> >
> > >2) Use Windows XP
> > >3) Not use Windows XP and not be able to use my current ISP
> > >4) Go to a different ISP
> >
> > You may not be able to find another. It took me a year. I gave up. I was
> > fortunate that Verio doesn't care what you have... though if you use
> > the dialup or basic dsl, MS is it, or no real support.
> >
> > >I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be
> killed
> > >for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
> >
> > No, but you might be forced out of a job.
>
> In one of the large metro areas in which I live, there are a LOT of ISPs
> that do not require you to use Windows, but will not support you beyond the
> IP layer if you don't. Use linux, install PPP with MS-CHAPv2 (with or
> without MPPE) for your dialup connection and it works just fine on a
> Winblows-only ISP. DSL or Cable, just acquire your actual IP settings
> program a Linksys router/hub box and be done with it.
Better re-read the fine print on the "fair-use" statement. BOTH DSL and
Cable, or dialup (New Orleans at least) will disconnect you if you run ANY
unattended operation (if they determine it IS unattended). No daemon services.
No routing/NAT (unless they do it). No remote login. No mail. DHCP reconfig
between 4 and 8 hours (or whenever they choose to).
They will let you plug in, but will not provide any support (even TCP/IP is
not assured).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Better re-read the fine print on the "fair-use" statement. BOTH DSL
> and Cable, or dialup (New Orleans at least) will disconnect you if you
> run ANY unattended operation (if they determine it IS unattended). No
This would take a lot of watching on their part.
My cable company occasionally portscans me, so I blackholed the
portscanning machine. Even before I had done that, though, they never
complained about my remote logins. They only complain if you use
excessive bandwidth or if you do anything commercial.
The DSL provider here, when it was still US West, explicitly stated to me
(over the phone) that they absolutely did not care what I did with it as
long as it was not illegal. However they would still not give you a
static IP address unless you paid them extra money. :}
Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: William T Wilson <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
> > Better re-read the fine print on the "fair-use" statement. BOTH DSL
> > and Cable, or dialup (New Orleans at least) will disconnect you if you
> > run ANY unattended operation (if they determine it IS unattended). No
>
> This would take a lot of watching on their part.
>
> My cable company occasionally portscans me, so I blackholed the
> portscanning machine. Even before I had done that, though, they never
> complained about my remote logins. They only complain if you use
> excessive bandwidth or if you do anything commercial.
>
> The DSL provider here, when it was still US West, explicitly stated to me
> (over the phone) that they absolutely did not care what I did with it as
> long as it was not illegal. However they would still not give you a
> static IP address unless you paid them extra money. :}
>
When I got Pac*Smell DSL, the installer guy (who seemed to be a
relatively clueful type) said "and [the contract] says you're not
allowed to run a server... but who'd know?"
-hpa
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-> From "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> :
> When I got Pac*Smell DSL, the installer guy (who seemed to be a
> relatively clueful type) said "and [the contract] says you're not
> allowed to run a server... but who'd know?"
..and please define "server". Does it mean that you can not run any programs
listening on a port and accepting incoming connections or datagrams? :-)
@Home tells you the same thing. Although they portscanned me frequently,
they were checking for specific servers and actually deny traffic on ports
135-139 (Winblows traffic). Unless they change over to non-routables (which
would kill things like ICQ, etc) they will not be able to stop me from using
ssh or others for remote access. @Home and other providers get around the
"server" issue by capping your maximum outbound bandwidth. This is
something I have had to live with when upload FTP files to some off-site
game servers I own.
----- Original Message -----
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> Followup to:
<[email protected]>
> By author: William T Wilson <[email protected]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> >
> > > Better re-read the fine print on the "fair-use" statement. BOTH DSL
> > > and Cable, or dialup (New Orleans at least) will disconnect you if you
> > > run ANY unattended operation (if they determine it IS unattended). No
> >
> > This would take a lot of watching on their part.
> >
> > My cable company occasionally portscans me, so I blackholed the
> > portscanning machine. Even before I had done that, though, they never
> > complained about my remote logins. They only complain if you use
> > excessive bandwidth or if you do anything commercial.
> >
> > The DSL provider here, when it was still US West, explicitly stated to
me
> > (over the phone) that they absolutely did not care what I did with it as
> > long as it was not illegal. However they would still not give you a
> > static IP address unless you paid them extra money. :}
> >
>
> When I got Pac*Smell DSL, the installer guy (who seemed to be a
> relatively clueful type) said "and [the contract] says you're not
> allowed to run a server... but who'd know?"
>
> -hpa
>
> --
> <[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
> "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
> http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
I confronted @Home's tech support, and they're programmed to say "server"
but even tier-2 had no idea what it actually meant that I could and could
not do. Go figure.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hua Zhong" <[email protected]>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> -> From "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> :
> > When I got Pac*Smell DSL, the installer guy (who seemed to be a
> > relatively clueful type) said "and [the contract] says you're not
> > allowed to run a server... but who'd know?"
>
> ..and please define "server". Does it mean that you can not run any
programs
> listening on a port and accepting incoming connections or datagrams? :-)
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Pollard" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "J
Sloan" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> "Jim Roland" <[email protected]>:
> > From: "Jesse Pollard" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>; "Kurt Maxwell Weber" <[email protected]>; "J Sloan"
> > <[email protected]>
> > Cc: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 3:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> > > >In that case, I have the following options:
> > > >1) Start my own ISP
> > >
> > > Only if the upstream provider doesn't require you to use windows.
> > >
> > > >2) Use Windows XP
> > > >3) Not use Windows XP and not be able to use my current ISP
> > > >4) Go to a different ISP
> > >
> > > You may not be able to find another. It took me a year. I gave up. I
was
> > > fortunate that Verio doesn't care what you have... though if you use
> > > the dialup or basic dsl, MS is it, or no real support.
> > >
> > > >I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be
> > killed
> > > >for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
> > >
> > > No, but you might be forced out of a job.
> >
> > In one of the large metro areas in which I live, there are a LOT of ISPs
> > that do not require you to use Windows, but will not support you beyond
the
> > IP layer if you don't. Use linux, install PPP with MS-CHAPv2 (with or
> > without MPPE) for your dialup connection and it works just fine on a
> > Winblows-only ISP. DSL or Cable, just acquire your actual IP settings
> > program a Linksys router/hub box and be done with it.
>
> Better re-read the fine print on the "fair-use" statement. BOTH DSL and
> Cable, or dialup (New Orleans at least) will disconnect you if you run ANY
> unattended operation (if they determine it IS unattended). No daemon
services.
> No routing/NAT (unless they do it). No remote login. No mail. DHCP
reconfig
> between 4 and 8 hours (or whenever they choose to).
>
> They will let you plug in, but will not provide any support (even TCP/IP
is
> not assured).
>
TCP/IP is assured, in the case of my @Home service, they provide me with the
transport layer and settings (IP, subnet, etc) but no software support.
That is a provider choice, and I have no problem with it. Microsoft does
not (and will never) control the transport layer. Doing so will kill Cisco
routers, etc. Being an ISP myself, there is absolutely nothing Microsoft
can say or do to force me to support only them. If XP clients don't work
with my service, give someone a little while and there will be a plug-in or
patch that allows XP to run with standard service. As I said, they can do
nothing for force me to move over to only Microsoft support. I am Linux,
and I'm only a small-guy.