IIC Internet Virtual servers

[Jerry Feldman]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:17:49 -0400
Matthew Gillen <me at mattgillen.net> wrote:

> Jerry Feldman wrote:
> > The stupid language of these service agreements is just that, stupid,
> > but legally necessary. 
> > What they really don't want is for people to be running IRC and game
> > servers.
> 
> But why?  The only plausible explanation I've heard is because then you'd
> actually be using the bandwidth you're supposedly paying for.
> 
> And if that's what's really going on here, isn't that the definition of
> false advertising?
> "You can use 5Mb/s*!"
> *but we're going to do everything we can to keep you from actually using that much
> 
> Someone should sue...
To an extent I see your point and agree with you. But, look at it this
way, if you are on an office LAN  and you decide to use 100% of the
bandwidth, the LAN would be quite slow. The problem is expectation. Is
Comcast or Verizon selling you a dedicated 5Mbps or a shared 5Mbps. 

> > But, there is some validity. How many people would set up Windows with an
> > unpatched IIS web server. (Now called PWS).
> 
> Hopefully if people know enough to set up a web server, they know that IIS is
> crap.  But regardless, that's like saying I shouldn't be allowed to have a car
> because I might crash it.  As long as they release themselves from liability,
> they shouldn't care what you do with it.
Windows used to come with IIS enabled by default. The average computer
illiterate Windows user in most cases was not even aware of this. Same
with Outlook Express that used to come with Windows Scripting Host
enabled. I agree with you, but we don't license computer users. (Maybe
we should require a license to use the Internet just like ham radio
operators are licenced).


-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9