Why not ask 'em? Say something along the lines of "You're really helping the company with your work. We really like it. Is there anything we can do for you?"
The idea behind this sounds almost exactly like squeak. Squeak can also be concidered a "virtual os", but uses smalltalk instead of a XSL deriviative (and XSL is a horror to acctually code in). Squeak's extremly cool, *everything* is an open objekt which you can interact with and change. It's not tied into any OS or Platform, if the system can run the squeak smalltalk interpreter, it works.
Try it out, it's really cool (and completly open, unlike this crap). It runs on Linux, Win32, Win CE, MacOS, MacOS X, OS/2, DOS, BeOS, NeXT, most commercial unices and a few PDAs. (hmm.. who have i left anyone out?:)
Sheez.. Kubrick made the movie, but the story's Arthur C Clarke's. I know the US is a visual culture, but hasn't anyone read the book 2001? It's true that they cowrote the story (but the *idea* came from Clarke's short story The Sentinel).
Clarke (who also invented the concept of communication satellites) is the one that has truly changed the world.
PS. There are also thee sequels (atleast in book form) to 2001 - 2010, 2061 and 3001. In 3001 Frank Poole is reviewed to see a very different earth - it would be interesting to see how far off Clarke will be.
Hate to post another "Me too" post - but here it is.
The beauty of Qt is that everything works they way you expect it to - Once you learn the basic concept of something, you can apply it to all widgets.
It just feeks "right". I've never done any MFC coding, but before i switched to Qt i used GTK. I've spent more time coding with GTK, but i dont know it half as well as Qt.
Most of the time the UI works just like i want it on the first run - and it's even easier with Qt Designer (The Trolls newest addition to Qt)
Another thing that few people realize is that there *are* language bindings to Qt aswell - atleast for Python and C - there's probably more, but not any that i've tested.
A fully working prototype of a 150GByte read-only disk has been demonstrated by C3D Inc. The clever part is their "Fluorescent Multilayer Disk" technology. Rather than having only one or two layers (as per CD-ROMs, DVD) these new disks have 10 layers, which can be read simultaneously giving data transfer rates exceeding 1 gigabyte per second....
i was under the impression that it was encrypted aswell. Hmmm./me goes backs and digs in the code.
speed: Well - i dont notice anything (but i havn't looked for a speed difference - i just kept on using my box as usual). I suppose that depends a lot on your system aswell. I'm sure it's slower, but not to the point where *i* notice.
Also, random tip: like other people pointed out - get enough memory to run without swap. I dont think there's any way to encrypt the swap under linux yet (might be tho), but if your sensitive data gets written to the swap, it can stay there for a long time. Or use Open(?)BSD - with integrated swap encryption.
I have my homedir encrypted with the loopback driver. It's worked like a charm for around a year, when i decided to try it just for fun. No dataloss, no crashes.
Some observations:
It's not noticeable slower. I havn't run any benchmarks, but there's absolutly no noticeable slowdown of any kind. Even when copying 0.5gb files between encrypted and unencrypted dirs - the harddrive is the limiting factor, not the encryption algorithm. Granted, i have a speedy CPU (Athlon 900mhz) and only a IDE hardrive (a 7200rpm deskstar). Just if you missed it, The speed difference isnt noticeable. There, now i've said it three times:)
Another thing to take into account is that you only need to encrypt data, not binaries. Encrypting/usr only gives an attacker more known plaintext to try to crack the key with.
As for the other drawback you mention, i think having no key authentication is acctually an adantage: There's no fixed header the Bad Guys can use to prove that it isnt a 2gb big chunk of random data. Think plausible deniability. (even tho it's a long shot: i swear officer, i always keep 2gb of the outout from/dev/urandom on all my computers)
As for algorithms, i think they're mostly irrelvant, as long as you use an algorithm with no known secure holes and a long enough keylength (128bits should be impossible for just about anyone to bruteforce). Cracking fingers (if you just want the data) or the passwords (if you dont want anyone to know you stole it) is most likely a lot easier than bruteforcing the algorithm. So the main advice here: Choose a good long password!
I havn't tried any of the other available methods, but i doubt any has a lower overhead than the kernel level loopback filesystem.
I feel reasonable safe about entrusting all my data to the loopback fs encryption. (i even reviewed the code before compiling - just to be on the safe side. Me, paranoid? Where'd you get that idea from?)
AMD has just released a simulator for their new 64 bit architecture (x86-64). download or read about it here.
Yes, it runs under linux. you can singlestep your cpu, peek at registers, etc etc.. if you feel like porting linux to a new arch, this'd be a good place to start.
Sorry, contentfree post ahead. Please disregard. (most sensible ppl read at +2, so this shouldn't bother too many)
I just have to add my wohoo!! to the crowd. this rocks! [/me dances a happy little dance around his box]. Qt is a very nice toolkit, and *finally* all the licensing gripes are gone! It seems to me most of the OSS community spends far to much time griping over licenses instead of coding. Imagine if all the time and energy spent depating licenses had been put to good use coding.
Again: Wohoo!! Qt rocks! Trolltech rocks! KDE Rocks! (Gnome rocks too - just slightly less, today.)
I'd like to know what you're smoking - can i have some?
First of all, Qt 2.0 is *not* proprietary. Qt is licensed under a certified Open Source License. Repeat after me. *Qt* *is* *not* *proprietary*. I'm surprised how many people get this wrong. Qt before the days of Free Qt Foundation and 2.0 was proprietary, but it isn't today. period.
What do you mean by "Troll tech's greed and control desire"? To me, it seems that they've been bending over backwards to please the OSS crowds. (but that's just my subjective opinion - feel free to disagree:)
Please don't go around spreading FUD like that.
No, i don't have anything to do with Troll tech or KDE, other than that i like coding with 'em.
i agree that it would be better if the trolls licensed Qt under LGPL or BSD, but i can understand their reasons for not doing it.
GTK+ has better language bindings, that's true. It's easier to wrap a c library to other languages than a c++ one. But for *me* personally, working in c++, Qt is a better choice. I just dislike the feel of GTK+. It feels like a bad kludge trying to fit an object model into a language that doesnt support it. Qt OTOH feels designed, clean and easy to work with. (GTK also give me horrible flashbacks of cobol fingers with_the_really_long_function_names()):)
:pointless rant:
I get the feeling that the traditional FSF crowd dislike KDE/Qt because it's developed by a different group of people than gnome (read: europeans vs americans) There's a witch hunt around KDE/Qt that never seem to stop. (ok, the original license gripe was a real problem, but IMHO that's fixed now). A lot of other programs have conflicting licenses that cause problems, but there's no will (mostly among redhat and debian) to work with the KDE crowd to solve it. For example, debian redistributes pine in a easy to compile source package, even though they can't legally distribute as a binary. Why not do the same with KDE?
If there's a will, there's a way. But some people don't seem to be happy until KDE/Qt is dead and buried.
:/pointless rant:
Programming with Qt is *nice*.:)
Phew. I'm done. Flame away, i'm wearing my asbestos underwear.
Wrong. I know of Python and C bindings for Qt. There are probably others aswell. Sorry, don't have an URL nearby. But they're not hard to find.
>2. A single company governs its base library QT. >(GTK is GPL?ed)
isn't GTK LGPLed? In any case, Qt is just as free and open as mozilla for example. Troll tech can *never* make Qt free edition proprietary, even if they got bought out by microsoft.
>3. Its licenses still doesn?t meet the community >standard?s. (GNOME 2.0 and StarOffice are both >going to be in Debian 3.0, I wonder if KDE will >make it. )
The QPL (qt license) is a certified Open Source license, even RMS agrees with that. The problem is that it's GPL incompatible (according to some). That's why debian doesn't link KDE (GPLed) and Qt (QPL) together and distribute it. Qt itself is already in the debian archives.
The good thing about C is that nothing goes on behind your back. It's a portable, highlevel asm that allows you to see *exactly* what instructions the code will compile to. (compare this to c++ and most other "advanced" languages where a var[i]++ can involve millions of instructions that are never seen.)
C gives you more power over your computer than most other languages. It may not be as "powerful" (read: productive) as Eiffel or Haskell but you can't beat it for coming close to the iron.
Jabber supports SSL connections (at least on the server side, I haven't seen a client that supports it yet), so
at some point I'll even be able to have my conversations encrypted! (Of course, I could just ssh into my
friend's box and use talk locally...)
If you want encrypted conversations, check out Keep in Touch http://kit.tpu.org. (Blatant plug). I could really use some help w/ this project, if anyone's interested.
-henrik
Substitute French for big american company/government and think about what yahoo would say. Hmm. The french still have the same attitude as the americans (wanting to control the world) without the military to back it up..
French was once the major world power, but they don't seem to have noticed that it slipped away. Alas, i predict the same fate to America. No great empire has ever lasted.
Ever heard of KDE2? The KDE team has been focusing most of it's energy on KDE2, which is an total redesign of KDE. It's currently in the beta status, and the full release is due in september.
If KDE 1.1.2 was *all* they had done in two years, you might have had a point, but KDE 2 is there, and is already extremly impressive (including a good webbrowser even)
Slashdot Mirror
-henrik
my guess is that we'd be back to 1992. ;)
Would that be so bad?
Squeak can also be concidered a "virtual os", but uses smalltalk instead of a XSL deriviative (and XSL is a horror to acctually code in). Squeak's extremly cool, *everything* is an open objekt which you can interact with and change. It's not tied into any OS or Platform, if the system can run the squeak smalltalk interpreter, it works.
Try it out, it's really cool (and completly open, unlike this crap). It runs on Linux, Win32, Win CE, MacOS, MacOS X, OS/2, DOS, BeOS, NeXT, most commercial unices and a few PDAs. (hmm.. who have i left anyone out? :)
-henrik
Sheez.. Kubrick made the movie, but the story's Arthur C Clarke's. I know the US is a visual culture, but hasn't anyone read the book 2001? It's true that they cowrote the story (but the *idea* came from Clarke's short story The Sentinel).
Clarke (who also invented the concept of communication satellites) is the one that has truly changed the world.
PS. There are also thee sequels (atleast in book form) to 2001 - 2010, 2061 and 3001. In 3001 Frank Poole is reviewed to see a very different earth - it would be interesting to see how far off Clarke will be.
-henrik
But please remember that not all people are native english speakers (and kde in particular has a lot of european hackers)
-henrik
Hate to post another "Me too" post - but here it is.
The beauty of Qt is that everything works they way you expect it to - Once you learn the basic concept of something, you can apply it to all widgets.
It just feeks "right". I've never done any MFC coding, but before i switched to Qt i used GTK. I've spent more time coding with GTK, but i dont know it half as well as Qt.
Most of the time the UI works just like i want it on the first run - and it's even easier with Qt Designer (The Trolls newest addition to Qt)
Another thing that few people realize is that there *are* language bindings to Qt aswell - atleast for Python and C - there's probably more, but not any that i've tested.
-henrik
this?
A fully working prototype of a 150GByte read-only disk has been demonstrated by C3D Inc. The clever part is their "Fluorescent Multilayer Disk" technology. Rather than having only one or two layers (as per CD-ROMs, DVD) these new disks have 10 layers, which can be read simultaneously giving data transfer rates exceeding 1 gigabyte per second....
-henrik
-henrik
uhm.. one of the *BSDs do. Net?
i was under the impression that it was encrypted aswell. Hmmm. /me goes backs and digs in the code.
speed: Well - i dont notice anything (but i havn't looked for a speed difference - i just kept on using my box as usual). I suppose that depends a lot on your system aswell. I'm sure it's slower, but not to the point where *i* notice.
Also, random tip: like other people pointed out - get enough memory to run without swap. I dont think there's any way to encrypt the swap under linux yet (might be tho), but if your sensitive data gets written to the swap, it can stay there for a long time. Or use Open(?)BSD - with integrated swap encryption.
-henrik
I have my homedir encrypted with the loopback driver. It's worked like a charm for around a year, when i decided to try it just for fun. No dataloss, no crashes.
:)
/usr only gives an attacker more known plaintext to try to crack the key with.
/dev/urandom on all my computers)
Some observations:
It's not noticeable slower. I havn't run any benchmarks, but there's absolutly no noticeable slowdown of any kind. Even when copying 0.5gb files between encrypted and unencrypted dirs - the harddrive is the limiting factor, not the encryption algorithm. Granted, i have a speedy CPU (Athlon 900mhz) and only a IDE hardrive (a 7200rpm deskstar). Just if you missed it, The speed difference isnt noticeable. There, now i've said it three times
Another thing to take into account is that you only need to encrypt data, not binaries. Encrypting
As for the other drawback you mention, i think having no key authentication is acctually an adantage: There's no fixed header the Bad Guys can use to prove that it isnt a 2gb big chunk of random data. Think plausible deniability. (even tho it's a long shot: i swear officer, i always keep 2gb of the outout from
As for algorithms, i think they're mostly irrelvant, as long as you use an algorithm with no known secure holes and a long enough keylength (128bits should be impossible for just about anyone to bruteforce). Cracking fingers (if you just want the data) or the passwords (if you dont want anyone to know you stole it) is most likely a lot easier than bruteforcing the algorithm. So the main advice here: Choose a good long password!
I havn't tried any of the other available methods, but i doubt any has a lower overhead than the kernel level loopback filesystem.
I feel reasonable safe about entrusting all my data to the loopback fs encryption. (i even reviewed the code before compiling - just to be on the safe side. Me, paranoid? Where'd you get that idea from?)
-henrik
Yes, it runs under linux. you can singlestep your cpu, peek at registers, etc etc.. if you feel like porting linux to a new arch, this'd be a good place to start.
-henrik
s/Rocker/Rocket
/. lameness filter]
[This text is here only to confuse the
Just imagine if the "winners" rocker blows up a few seconds after launch.
Ouch.
-henrik
Sorry, contentfree post ahead. Please disregard. (most sensible ppl read at +2, so this shouldn't bother too many)
I just have to add my wohoo!! to the crowd. this rocks! [/me dances a happy little dance around his box]. Qt is a very nice toolkit, and *finally* all the licensing gripes are gone! It seems to me most of the OSS community spends far to much time griping over licenses instead of coding. Imagine if all the time and energy spent depating licenses had been put to good use coding.
Again: Wohoo!! Qt rocks! Trolltech rocks! KDE Rocks! (Gnome rocks too - just slightly less, today.)
-henrik
I'd like to know what you're smoking - can i have some?
:)
First of all, Qt 2.0 is *not* proprietary. Qt is licensed under a certified Open Source License. Repeat after me. *Qt* *is* *not* *proprietary*. I'm surprised how many people get this wrong. Qt before the days of Free Qt Foundation and 2.0 was proprietary, but it isn't today. period.
What do you mean by "Troll tech's greed and control desire"? To me, it seems that they've been bending over backwards to please the OSS crowds. (but that's just my subjective opinion - feel free to disagree
Please don't go around spreading FUD like that.
No, i don't have anything to do with Troll tech or KDE, other than that i like coding with 'em.
-henrik
i agree that it would be better if the trolls licensed Qt under LGPL or BSD, but i can understand their reasons for not doing it.
:)
:)
GTK+ has better language bindings, that's true. It's easier to wrap a c library to other languages than a c++ one. But for *me* personally, working in c++, Qt is a better choice. I just dislike the feel of GTK+. It feels like a bad kludge trying to fit an object model into a language that doesnt support it. Qt OTOH feels designed, clean and easy to work with. (GTK also give me horrible flashbacks of cobol fingers with_the_really_long_function_names())
:pointless rant:
I get the feeling that the traditional FSF crowd dislike KDE/Qt because it's developed by a different group of people than gnome (read: europeans vs americans) There's a witch hunt around KDE/Qt that never seem to stop. (ok, the original license gripe was a real problem, but IMHO that's fixed now). A lot of other programs have conflicting licenses that cause problems, but there's no will (mostly among redhat and debian) to work with the KDE crowd to solve it. For example, debian redistributes pine in a easy to compile source package, even though they can't legally distribute as a binary. Why not do the same with KDE?
If there's a will, there's a way. But some people don't seem to be happy until KDE/Qt is dead and buried.
:/pointless rant:
Programming with Qt is *nice*.
Phew. I'm done. Flame away, i'm wearing my asbestos underwear.
-henrik
>1. Its only one language C++ (gnome is over 10).
Wrong. I know of Python and C bindings for Qt. There are probably others aswell. Sorry, don't have an URL nearby. But they're not hard to find.
>2. A single company governs its base library QT. >(GTK is GPL?ed)
isn't GTK LGPLed? In any case, Qt is just as free and open as mozilla for example. Troll tech can *never* make Qt free edition proprietary, even if they got bought out by microsoft.
>3. Its licenses still doesn?t meet the community >standard?s. (GNOME 2.0 and StarOffice are both >going to be in Debian 3.0, I wonder if KDE will >make it. )
The QPL (qt license) is a certified Open Source license, even RMS agrees with that. The problem is that it's GPL incompatible (according to some). That's why debian doesn't link KDE (GPLed) and Qt (QPL) together and distribute it. Qt itself is already in the debian archives.
-henrik
>the chip ran at 1 GHz when cooled to 25 degrees >Celcius, at room temperature it ran just at just >under 500 MHz)..
:)
Ahem..
25 degrees C is just *above* room temperature.
-henrik
The good thing about C is that nothing goes on behind your back. It's a portable, highlevel asm that allows you to see *exactly* what instructions the code will compile to. (compare this to c++ and most other "advanced" languages where a var[i]++ can involve millions of instructions that are never seen.)
C gives you more power over your computer than most other languages. It may not be as "powerful" (read: productive) as Eiffel or Haskell but you can't beat it for coming close to the iron.
-henrik
If you want encrypted conversations, check out Keep in Touch http://kit.tpu.org. (Blatant plug). I could really use some help w/ this project, if anyone's interested. -henrik
> It won't crash randomly.
:)
Wanna bet?
Substitute French for big american company/government and think about what yahoo would say. Hmm.
The french still have the same attitude as the americans (wanting to control the world) without the military to back it up..
French was once the major world power, but they don't seem to have noticed that it slipped away. Alas, i predict the same fate to America. No great empire has ever lasted.
-henrik
Oh dear..
Ever heard of KDE2? The KDE team has been focusing most of it's energy on KDE2, which is an total redesign of KDE. It's currently in the beta status, and the full release is due in september.
If KDE 1.1.2 was *all* they had done in two years, you might have had a point, but KDE 2 is there, and is already extremly impressive (including a good webbrowser even)
Just try it.