I'm glad that Redhat has all those things (and much more!), but that still doesn't explain why you claimed that Debian needs help when you've never used it.
In fact, Debian's package system IS highly superior to Redhat's. Redhat's package format has some things which Debian's doesn't, but the system itself is SO much better it's not funny.
You can completely upgrade an entire Debian system from one release to any later release with a pair of commands and a/etc/apt file change (clearly documented and very simple).
You can even order apt to get the sources and compile them for you and then install the result (although this is brand new).
Everything's automated, and what's even more amazing, everything's automatic. It works! The first time I ran apt it was to upgrade from a seriously outdated and somewhat hacked-about 1.2 system; the upgrade went entirely flawlessly, and I'm still running the result.
Redhat is a pain to upgrade in comparison. You have to boot into an installation program.
And that's not even counting the programs which display available programs for you -- Debian's had those for FAR longer than Redhat.
I don't want to sound anti-Redhat -- they're a GREAT distro. However, to say that Debian need to learn from Redhat in packaging systems is to reverse the situation.
I read somewhere that not only was neutrino flux low, but the vibrational frequency of the sun was wrong.
The sun, as everyone knows, is fluid -- it's generally considered to have a solid core, though. Because it's fluid, it oscillates somewhat, and that oscillation can be measured. The problem, according to this article, is that the period of the oscillations is wrong for a solid core -- OTOH, it's almost perfect for a constant-density fluid sphere. The first and second harmonics also match this model (I haven't seen anything about the third harmonics, presumably they don't match or are too small to measure).
This adds up to a possible explanation for the lack of neutrinos: the sun isn't fusing. This is also supported by the shrinkage we've measured and deduced.
The energy output we recieve would then be provided mainly by gravitational collapse.
I don't know what this will do to the future life of the sun -- possibly reduce it to millions of years rather than billions. Presumably our theories of stellar lifecycles need a little adjusting.
I wonder when the sun flamed out? And will it start up again?
Oh, BTW, the study which originally reported the discrepency was russian; it was repeated with new data in the UK. I don't remember anything else about it.
"We apologize" doesn't mean "we feel sorry." IT just acknowledges the problem.
However, a true nerd will use the time granted by waiting on hold to run a calculation proving that no limited resource should ever economically be built to handle maximum traffic. You get diminishing returns, especially since not that many people are adversely impacted by the maximum-traffic times.
Or worse yet, if the DID improve the maximum-load size, it's quite likely that more people would find it convenient to call during peak hours, thus leaving everyone in the same bad situation.
Our freeways always have this second problem -- widening them is possible and would seem to benefit a lot of people, but in practice whenever it happens people change their habits to use the highway more, and you wind up just as congested.
-Billy (sniff)
Re:New Disrto Is Needed
on
Linux Lite?
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you, and I have more to say -- but first a little note. This article isn't about the ideal user interface for installation; rather, it's about the need for security. The way it recommends achieving the security appears to be confusing many people -- he recommends being secure by running as few networks services as possible.
Now, back to the subject of your post. You have a very good point; an upgrade-driven install package would be truly nice (especially if it was part of the OS, run on every bootup). However, it's only a start. I'd also like install programs to ask questions in the right order. Rather than starting by asking "how much space do you want me to take," the distro should start by asking, "what do you want me to do?"
Partitioning would be one of the last steps -- that way the partitioner can offer a minimum size.
Everything can be set up that way -- essentially, make the computer do the planning instead of the new user.
This particular thing isn't a weak link -- it's an accidentally strong link which allows anybody with any decent hacking skills to upgrade their system to use strong crypto.
It's pie ALL over MS' face, and Linux has the same strength -- only Linux has it intentionally, not accidentally.
As to the part about viruses being able to replace your crypt with weak crypto -- okay, it's a danger, but only if you haven't replaced the key yourself already.
This is a GREAT opportunity for everyone to upgrade their security.
First, let me weasel out of this by noting that I was talking about Beowulf, not technology in general:-).
However, quantum computing is NOT just a way to make more powerful computers; it's a completely different way of working, and to my understanding, although it's solved the factoring problem (or at least there's an algorithm for it), that doesn't mean that it's solved the discrete log problem used in ElGamal.
Solving the DL problem would also solve the factoring problem, but not the other way around.
Now, one thing I don't know: have they solved the DL problem using quantum computing? I have no idea.
That's not true -- Windows doesn't use that key for ANYTHING but CryptoAPI modules. And there's no reason why the NSA would want to keep ANY of MS' modules, unless they're a LOT stupider than their reputation makes them look -- if they're going to replace one module with a top-secret TrulySecure module, they'll HAVE to replace all the other ones as well, since they aren't known to be TrulySecure.
Thus, the NSA has no reason to want their own public key _and_ Microsoft's active at the same time -- it's better if they're exclusive.
In addition, the NSA would obviously realize that if _they_ can replace the second key, so can _anyone_.
Given current factoring technology, no. I don't have the numbers handy, but they're super-astronomical -- imagine computers the size of atoms, each testing one key in the time it takes light to cross said atom, communicating via ansible (instantly), packed bumper-to-bumper, filling up a sphere with the radius of one of the planet's orbits. This structure would take a few billion years to do this crack. (Source: sci.crypt, with numbers.)
Unless you're talking about just the weakest level, of course. But that's no challenge -- it's already been done, although for RSA rather than ElGamal.
What makes you think that would improve anything? The majority of people don't have a clue about security or even democracy. Thier opinion is less than worthless.
I'm glad we don't have a democracy -- and I hope we never move any closer to one than we are. Democracy makes the fatally flawed assumption that the will of the masses outweighs the rights of any.
I disagree with you -- anything truly can be used for violence, and the cause is humans, not the thing.
The cure for HIV? Well, let's look at some uses.
- the cure won't come on its own -- there are going to be some scientific advances, and some of them are going to have violent potential in and of themselves. This assumes that the cure has no side-effects, an unheard-of situation.
- economics -- one can use the cure as an economic club.
- psychology -- someone who stopped being sexually promiscuous strictly because of AIDS will almost certainly start again once the cure is available. This opens the door to new types of infections (which have ALWAYS turned up just as the previous infection was defeated!). This can also be deliberately manipulated.
#2 is incorrect -- all symbols were stripped, both _KEY and _NSAKEY. Symbol stripping is standard on executable releases; it reduces bulk and helps keep dirty names out of releases.
#3 is amusing -- you use the phrase "so many smarter things to do" and "Microsoft" in the same sentence. Face it, Microsoft has always been stupid. And getting bigger doesn't help -- the IQ of a group is equal to the minimum of the IQs of its members, divided by the size of the group (as a Debian user, I'm unhappy about that rule:).
#4 is just SO wrong it's not funny. Most every OS vendor, and many other software and hardware vendors, have deals to ship this stuff.
I'm sure you're right that the NSA wants that. However, the way they would _GET_ that is either asking Microsoft to give them MS' secret key so they can write their own codes, OR secretly replacing Microsoft's public key with their own on the computers they're using (after all, there is no reason to continue using MS' key).
So this isn't a good explanation for the existance of the second key.
I think the true explanation is even simpler: someone who didn't know crypto added it and specified its features, and either nobody who knew crypto paid attention, or their warnings simply weren't heeded until too late.
I've seen this happen MANY times, and it's astounding how smart, well-worded, and properly delivered arguments can be completely ignored until it's too late.
I'm sure the third key got in W2K in a very similar way.
No, you're supposed to only moderate the one moderation, not the total. So for example, suppose I see a post which looks like this:
You Suck (Score: 7, Flamebait) YOU ALL SUCK.
If I were asked to metamoderate it, I would have to say that it was fair. Why? Because it most certainly IS flamebait.
Now, there are also at least four other moderators who are going to get a BAD metamoderation, because they gave positive points to such a bad article. But punishing them isn't your job, it's the job of whoever gets to metamoderate them.
I don't know how this message got a score of two -- it's nothing but flamebait.
Python don't use tab delimiters. "make" does, and the problems are obvious.
Python uses block structured code, plain and simple. If Python's structure is offensive, then you should also be complaining about every other language aside from your current favorite. If indentation is bad, then so should BEGIN/END be bad (or open/close braces, if you happen to like BEGIN/END, or END if you happen to like one of the above...).
Tk is ties to Tcl -- all of the languages you mention require Tcl to be installed in order to use Tk.
The exception is Perl, which does a massive parsing of the Tcl and Tk sources to hack its way into Tk.
(Programs written in) Tk does require recompilation, of course. I don't know what you could be attempting to say which could result in your statement being true.
And wxWindows works on FAR more platforms than Tk, and is smaller, simpler, and FAR faster.
Tcl/Tk utterly and completely lacks any approach to elegance and simplicity. We should all jump at a chance to get rid of the albatross of Tcl being linked into every program we distribute merely in order to do basic graphics.
Perl/Tk is the exception which tests the rule, of course -- and the rule happens to hold. Look at the Perl source; what happens is that Perl tears apart Tcl and Tk sources to get the Tk into a state usable without Tk.
So you _can_ use Tk without Tcl -- if you use Perl OR if you're willing to tear apart the Tcl/Tk sources every time you compile.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad that Redhat has all those things (and much more!), but that still doesn't explain why you claimed that Debian needs help when you've never used it.
/etc/apt file change (clearly documented and very simple).
In fact, Debian's package system IS highly superior to Redhat's. Redhat's package format has some things which Debian's doesn't, but the system itself is SO much better it's not funny.
You can completely upgrade an entire Debian system from one release to any later release with a pair of commands and a
You can even order apt to get the sources and compile them for you and then install the result (although this is brand new).
Everything's automated, and what's even more amazing, everything's automatic. It works! The first time I ran apt it was to upgrade from a seriously outdated and somewhat hacked-about 1.2 system; the upgrade went entirely flawlessly, and I'm still running the result.
Redhat is a pain to upgrade in comparison. You have to boot into an installation program.
And that's not even counting the programs which display available programs for you -- Debian's had those for FAR longer than Redhat.
I don't want to sound anti-Redhat -- they're a GREAT distro. However, to say that Debian need to learn from Redhat in packaging systems is to reverse the situation.
I read somewhere that not only was neutrino flux low, but the vibrational frequency of the sun was wrong.
The sun, as everyone knows, is fluid -- it's generally considered to have a solid core, though. Because it's fluid, it oscillates somewhat, and that oscillation can be measured. The problem, according to this article, is that the period of the oscillations is wrong for a solid core -- OTOH, it's almost perfect for a constant-density fluid sphere. The first and second harmonics also match this model (I haven't seen anything about the third harmonics, presumably they don't match or are too small to measure).
This adds up to a possible explanation for the lack of neutrinos: the sun isn't fusing. This is also supported by the shrinkage we've measured and deduced.
The energy output we recieve would then be provided mainly by gravitational collapse.
I don't know what this will do to the future life of the sun -- possibly reduce it to millions of years rather than billions. Presumably our theories of stellar lifecycles need a little adjusting.
I wonder when the sun flamed out? And will it start up again?
Oh, BTW, the study which originally reported the discrepency was russian; it was repeated with new data in the UK. I don't remember anything else about it.
-Billy
"We apologize" doesn't mean "we feel sorry." IT just acknowledges the problem.
However, a true nerd will use the time granted by waiting on hold to run a calculation proving that no limited resource should ever economically be built to handle maximum traffic. You get diminishing returns, especially since not that many people are adversely impacted by the maximum-traffic times.
Or worse yet, if the DID improve the maximum-load size, it's quite likely that more people would find it convenient to call during peak hours, thus leaving everyone in the same bad situation.
Our freeways always have this second problem -- widening them is possible and would seem to benefit a lot of people, but in practice whenever it happens people change their habits to use the highway more, and you wind up just as congested.
-Billy (sniff)
I agree with you, and I have more to say -- but first a little note. This article isn't about the ideal user interface for installation; rather, it's about the need for security. The way it recommends achieving the security appears to be confusing many people -- he recommends being secure by running as few networks services as possible.
Now, back to the subject of your post. You have a very good point; an upgrade-driven install package would be truly nice (especially if it was part of the OS, run on every bootup). However, it's only a start. I'd also like install programs to ask questions in the right order. Rather than starting by asking "how much space do you want me to take," the distro should start by asking, "what do you want me to do?"
Partitioning would be one of the last steps -- that way the partitioner can offer a minimum size.
Everything can be set up that way -- essentially, make the computer do the planning instead of the new user.
-Billy
This particular thing isn't a weak link -- it's an accidentally strong link which allows anybody with any decent hacking skills to upgrade their system to use strong crypto.
It's pie ALL over MS' face, and Linux has the same strength -- only Linux has it intentionally, not accidentally.
As to the part about viruses being able to replace your crypt with weak crypto -- okay, it's a danger, but only if you haven't replaced the key yourself already.
This is a GREAT opportunity for everyone to upgrade their security.
-Billy
First, let me weasel out of this by noting that I was talking about Beowulf, not technology in general :-).
However, quantum computing is NOT just a way to make more powerful computers; it's a completely different way of working, and to my understanding, although it's solved the factoring problem (or at least there's an algorithm for it), that doesn't mean that it's solved the discrete log problem used in ElGamal.
Solving the DL problem would also solve the factoring problem, but not the other way around.
Now, one thing I don't know: have they solved the DL problem using quantum computing? I have no idea.
-Billy
That's not true -- Windows doesn't use that key for ANYTHING but CryptoAPI modules. And there's no reason why the NSA would want to keep ANY of MS' modules, unless they're a LOT stupider than their reputation makes them look -- if they're going to replace one module with a top-secret TrulySecure module, they'll HAVE to replace all the other ones as well, since they aren't known to be TrulySecure.
:)
Thus, the NSA has no reason to want their own public key _and_ Microsoft's active at the same time -- it's better if they're exclusive.
In addition, the NSA would obviously realize that if _they_ can replace the second key, so can _anyone_.
No, I'm certain that this one was an MS flub.
-Billy
Given current factoring technology, no. I don't have the numbers handy, but they're super-astronomical -- imagine computers the size of atoms, each testing one key in the time it takes light to cross said atom, communicating via ansible (instantly), packed bumper-to-bumper, filling up a sphere with the radius of one of the planet's orbits. This structure would take a few billion years to do this crack. (Source: sci.crypt, with numbers.)
Unless you're talking about just the weakest level, of course. But that's no challenge -- it's already been done, although for RSA rather than ElGamal.
-Billy
I seem to recall a major crypto company moving to Australia.
-Billy
mutt is a text-mode editor which integrates VERY well with GPG and PGP.
-Billy
What makes you think that would improve anything? The majority of people don't have a clue about security or even democracy. Thier opinion is less than worthless.
I'm glad we don't have a democracy -- and I hope we never move any closer to one than we are. Democracy makes the fatally flawed assumption that the will of the masses outweighs the rights of any.
-Billy
I disagree with you -- anything truly can be used for violence, and the cause is humans, not the thing.
The cure for HIV? Well, let's look at some uses.
- the cure won't come on its own -- there are going to be some scientific advances, and some of them are going to have violent potential in and of themselves. This assumes that the cure has no side-effects, an unheard-of situation.
- economics -- one can use the cure as an economic club.
- psychology -- someone who stopped being sexually promiscuous strictly because of AIDS will almost certainly start again once the cure is available. This opens the door to new types of infections (which have ALWAYS turned up just as the previous infection was defeated!). This can also be deliberately manipulated.
I'm going off now, but I think you get the idea.
-Billy
#1 is correct, and I'm sure it's the main reason.
:).
#2 is incorrect -- all symbols were stripped, both _KEY and _NSAKEY. Symbol stripping is standard on executable releases; it reduces bulk and helps keep dirty names out of releases.
#3 is amusing -- you use the phrase "so many smarter things to do" and "Microsoft" in the same sentence. Face it, Microsoft has always been stupid. And getting bigger doesn't help -- the IQ of a group is equal to the minimum of the IQs of its members, divided by the size of the group (as a Debian user, I'm unhappy about that rule
#4 is just SO wrong it's not funny. Most every OS vendor, and many other software and hardware vendors, have deals to ship this stuff.
-Billy
I'm sure you're right that the NSA wants that. However, the way they would _GET_ that is either asking Microsoft to give them MS' secret key so they can write their own codes, OR secretly replacing Microsoft's public key with their own on the computers they're using (after all, there is no reason to continue using MS' key).
So this isn't a good explanation for the existance of the second key.
I think the true explanation is even simpler: someone who didn't know crypto added it and specified its features, and either nobody who knew crypto paid attention, or their warnings simply weren't heeded until too late.
I've seen this happen MANY times, and it's astounding how smart, well-worded, and properly delivered arguments can be completely ignored until it's too late.
I'm sure the third key got in W2K in a very similar way.
-Billy
No, you're supposed to only moderate the one moderation, not the total. So for example, suppose I see a post which looks like this:
You Suck (Score: 7, Flamebait)
YOU ALL SUCK.
If I were asked to metamoderate it, I would have to say that it was fair. Why? Because it most certainly IS flamebait.
Now, there are also at least four other moderators who are going to get a BAD metamoderation, because they gave positive points to such a bad article. But punishing them isn't your job, it's the job of whoever gets to metamoderate them.
-Billy
I was just talking to a friend of mine who's connected to some work on the asynchronous ARM processors... Now THAT is cool stuff.
-Billy
Not Yahoo -- you're probably thinking of Infoseek.
I don't know how this message got a score of two -- it's nothing but flamebait.
Python don't use tab delimiters. "make" does, and the problems are obvious.
Python uses block structured code, plain and simple. If Python's structure is offensive, then you should also be complaining about every other language aside from your current favorite. If indentation is bad, then so should BEGIN/END be bad (or open/close braces, if you happen to like BEGIN/END, or END if you happen to like one of the above...).
A techincal veneer is no disguise for jingoism.
-Billy
You're trying to say that the fact that Xanadu's source (and so on) isn't in Xanadu format means that Xanadu isn't (or might not be) useful.
True in the sense that buggy, incomplete code isn't useful. False in the sense that buggy, incomplete code proves nothing about design quality.
Xanadu doesn't NOW solve problems. I'm confident that it will in the future, though.
-Billy
It's nice to imagine a world rid of Cobol (can we also remove Fortran?), but at what cost? Perl is almost as bad!
You get to use a hard drive and magnet? I have to use a box of iron filings, a hammer, the ground, and the Earth's magnetic field.
Kids these days -- think they're tough.
-Billy
Tk is ties to Tcl -- all of the languages you mention require Tcl to be installed in order to use Tk.
The exception is Perl, which does a massive parsing of the Tcl and Tk sources to hack its way into Tk.
(Programs written in) Tk does require recompilation, of course. I don't know what you could be attempting to say which could result in your statement being true.
And wxWindows works on FAR more platforms than Tk, and is smaller, simpler, and FAR faster.
Tcl/Tk utterly and completely lacks any approach to elegance and simplicity. We should all jump at a chance to get rid of the albatross of Tcl being linked into every program we distribute merely in order to do basic graphics.
-Billy
Perl/Tk is the exception which tests the rule, of course -- and the rule happens to hold. Look at the Perl source; what happens is that Perl tears apart Tcl and Tk sources to get the Tk into a state usable without Tk.
So you _can_ use Tk without Tcl -- if you use Perl OR if you're willing to tear apart the Tcl/Tk sources every time you compile.
-Billy
Tk is nice once you're used to it -- but it's terrible in many other ways.
It's utterly bound to Tcl, for one thing. You have to link Tcl in in order to use Tk.
There are many better toolkits, you just have to give them the same chance you gave Tk back when you first learned it.
-Billy
The things you're asking for are attributes of a toolkit, not a framework. Be careful not to get the two confused.
-Billy