I fully agree that people should learn more about computers. Specially less commercial side of computers [i.e recall when programming used to be a considered a hobby?].
I don't agree with this license scheme. Who controls the license? Can it be revoked? Who pays for it? Etc...
That's why MS makes Windows fairly idiot proof [not entirely though]. The trick is to make an OS an idiot can use.
Linux is not an OS an idiot can use. You have to know quite a bit about computers before you can reasonably maintain your own linux box.
With windows its fairly automated, and anything you have to tinker with is relatively simple compared to linux.
If MS is such a monopoly there must be some competitor it is crushing. What is the competitors name? Its not linux since linux is not geared towards the average user.
MS can only be a monopoly if it forces other competitors off the market. As far as I know thats not true. MS Just bundles software with their OS much like Redhat does with their linux distro [Damn they have netscape, must be a monopoly].
See the problem is you can't argue this because you're some stupid 12 yr old seeking attention by trying to oppose all things non linux.
The truth is there is a wealth of freely ported GNU tools for windows [and the list grows given cygwin] and that there exists tons of available to write software for windows.
Just trolls like you ignore facts like that in your pathetic attempts to look cool by dissing MS.
Nothing is stopping people from looking for alternatives.
I can type "Mozilla" in MSN Search and find it no problem at all.
I think you're missing the point. Its a monopoly only when alternatives are forced out of the arena, not when they are unpopular. Mozilla is a fully functional legitimate program that MS has not suppressed in any way shape or form. Any windows user can download Mozilla and make the switch.
Just because the average user rather use the browser that came with the os they spent 150$ on doesn't mean MS has a monopoly. It means MS IE comes with windows.
Also you're not *forced* to use IE at all anyways [for http/ftp stuff]. It just happens thats the default. You're allowed installing mozilla to change that though.
How is "when you control the hardware specification" any less of a monopoly?
So linux is good only if you use Linux approved hardware and configurations?
Isn't that the brewing of a monopoly of its own.
Also my beef is not with the lack of drivers. Its the lack of user friendlyness. I've tried Debian, Redhat and a few other distros. They all "work" but are a pain in the ass to get todo anything.
I can fry my hard disk and be up with windows [patches and all] in under 3 hours or so [assuming my hardware is not broken...]. That includes all the reboot time and such [and pepsi breaks].
Personally I don't have much to say on the subject of Gnome/KDE. For the most part they resemble windows [ala start button in Gnome] with some new fonts and such... Big deal! Nothing revolutionary.
Yeah but thats getting back to the point. Windows is more user friendly and is geared towards "lamer" users.
Linux in all its might is not a simple to use OS. For starters the average home user won't get passed the root login screen since they will be stumped as to what the password is. Then when there NIC or video card is not working they will not know to run Xconfigurator or whatever...
The reason Windows is a "monopolistic" operating system is that in desktop computing it has no serious competition.
I swear, if linux were simplified [and alot of packages merged to cause less confusion] than Linux would rock. It has a nice kernel, its free, its open source, etc.
You're mixing business with utopia. Stores don't advertise mozilla [for example] because they can't sell it. Stores want to make not lose money.
In your utopia people are all knowledgeable about computers there innards, etc... But truly this is not the case in many circles. My mom drives a ford. Not all fords are alike but I call it "the ford" just the same.
I have an athlon, there are about 10 different athon cores, but mine is an "athlon".
You have to realize that not everyone buys a computer to salute the FSF. Most [believe it or not] buy it so there little 12 yr old kid can play quake3 or etc.
Getting back to the business end of things. If you feel that MS product X is so bad why not make you're own version and sell it? Oh wait that happens. Believe it or not you can buy software for windows [what a concept].
Besides Redhat comes with Netscape pre-installed. So by your token Redhat linux is no better than windows. Redhat also comes bundled with XMMS, KDE/Gnome, etc..
So if I was some average user who has redhat linux instead of windows I would think that Netscape was "all there is" and that "XMMS" is the only mp3 player and that "staroffice" is the only office suite...
So wait... redhat is a monopolistic [note: not a monopoly] style company?
How hard do you think it is for me to go download winamp to play mp3s instead of wmp, or to download mozilla [which overrides all of IE's settings about handling html,ftp,http, etc...] or to download yahoo messenger instead of MSN messenger or to download staroffice instead of MS Office.
The problem is "most people don't care". For an average joe-blow with zero computer knowledge he just wants to type up a book report. He doesn't care if the word processor was FSF approved or came from a third party.
However, the choice *does* exist if the user chooses to pursue it.
GNU is about free sharing of information.
GPL is the License which promotes/allows this
Yes but the spirit of both the GNU [or FSF] and GPL are not to be specific for only linux.
I think you guys are thinking counterproductive if you think only linux uses open software.
"What if people want to use windows software on linux."
Hey jack-ass I'll let you in on a tip. Not all windows software is from MS. There are alot of good free programs for windows that would be useful if they worked in a linux box.
Besides if MS is so bad and windows sucks so much, why are linux zealots spending time on bridging the gap in the first place? Oh thats right because for personal use windows is a *zillion* [I counted...] times better, easier, faster and more productive.
Go and hide under a rock you dumb "I wannabe a cool linux zealot" loser!
some yuppy stripped a computer, threw it in a tree, and put ?Linux? on it.
Who cares if it is "linux powered". I mean by badly using that term you guys are suggesting that Linux is only good for powering exotic little projects and not mainstream desktop users.
Maybe I should strip my computer and put it in a fish tank.... Then it will be a fisktank with windows?
I have another scheme that relies on interactive protocols and secure servers.
You want to send user X a message and you are user Y.
1. You contact your server Y and it gives you a challenge string R.
2. You hash it 2^L times [L == appropriate] and use the hash a key for the message.
3. You send the ciphertext to the smtp server.
The Y server than pre-appends R to the message and sends it on its way.
A modification is that [assuming relays are disabled] when you want to send a message to X, server Y contacts server X to get the challenge string. Then when the message is sent server X is the one that pre-appends the R string.
The latter case is preferable since it means that you can't setup a fake server to mass-spam people by making R a fixed string.
A simpler modification is to just rehash the message hash 2^16 times or so. On a decent computer it would probably take under a few seconds at most. That way you can automatically dump messages that don't have the correct hash. This [like the previous scheme] will make mass-spamming useless unless the spammer invests in crypto hardware.
Yet another scheme is todo this.
1. Make up a random string of 10 or so bytes call that R. Hash it 2^16 times [rehash the hash output] and call that K.
2. Encrypt the message you want to send with K as the key.
3. Send the ciphertext and R to the person.
On the decrypt side they rehash R to get K and decrypt. This isn't meant to give privacy but to prevent the message from being readble unless the sender uses the scheme. If the mail-readers forced detection/use of such schemes spammer who don't use the hash 2^16 [or whatever many times] will send messages that decrypt to random junk.
Et voila./ I've just solved the worlds spamming problems. If everyone could just simultaneously switch over to such a system the world would be a better place.
As an aside I think 2^16 should be switched with 2^20 or so since a decent 1.4ghz class cpu [i.e P4 or Athlon] could whirl thru 2^16 SHA-1 hashes in under a second.
Answer this: Do all user friendly programs have to be commercial? Is it possible to write a program that is usable by a majority intended audience and not charge money?
I mean seriously, I worked in the computer industry for only under a year [as an intern] and I was told to write stuff they could use, not stuff I would use.
I still don't see the use of writting software only you will want to use. Personally when I write stuff [like winamp plugins I have done] I use the plugins myself, yes, but I also love to hear from users that use it themselves. As in I'm trying to contribute something to others.
I think the "write stuff for myself" invalidates the happy-go-lucky sharing attitude that most OSS proponents are trying to develop.
But it seems you're stuck in your own little world where you can profit [not just in the $$$ sense] by writting software that doesn't take your users into account.
The purpose of OSS is not only to distribute source code to be a proponent of knowledge but also to promote useful programs.
What is the use in writting programs only you will use? I just don't get that. I mean I write dorky little scripts/programs todo stuff once in a while [crypto research mainly] and I don't really claim to be a big software developer since mainly I haven't dealt with coding along someone elses rules.
Anyone can write software if they choose. The trick to being a good coder is to write things that are not only good to learn from, easy to maintain, but user friendly.
And why do all user friendly programs have to be commercial? Look at winamp for example. Awesome program, entirely free. Its not OSS either! You should take pride in your coding not just look for "elite guru" karma points. You should look for user feedback and if they give praise you've done a good job, if they give critisism then you should read them and try to improve your code.
I think alot of linux "guru" coders just have to grow up and realize that if they want to get respect as good programmers they have to design things other people will want to use.
That's like trying to get respect for drawing comics only *you* find funny. Sure you're having fun and you like them. Nobody else thinks they're funny and they won't respect you as a comic.
As for "I want a platform for doing things.", IMHO Linux is not that platform. It has crappy multimedia support, its a bitch to setup unless you're a kernel coder and generally it tries to at best emulate windows.
Yes I code, but I like to play games, watch tv, listen to music etc.... And while linux can do some of those windows can do all of them generally much more effectively.
Personally I think you have to wake up a bit. From reading your reply you don't seem to care much for what your potential users will want or need. If you're a coder or trying to be a successful coder you're going to have to wake up and take the users more seriously.
That's a good irony. The whole arguement for OSS is sharing is the way to enlightenment. However, now you're telling me they could care less of anyone else and OSS is just a fad?
Anyone can write software for themselves. That is not a challenge. The trick is to write software others will use.
I mean, how can people like you try and sell Linux as a "competitor" for windows when you could care less about the average joe blow user. I'd say of the entire make-up of computer users [non commercial, and yes I am making up these stats but anecdotally they seem to apply]... we have
90% don't know how [or care to] program their own programs. They like pushy buttons and cute gui dialogs. They like programs that are straightforward to use and don't involve alot of console work.
of the 10% that can program, 90% are just casual programmers that write do-dahs that never really get popular.
Of the remaing 10%, 90% of that 10% [of the 100%] only write stuff geared towards people like them [i.e competent programmers] and the remaining 10% of the 10% of all computer users try to make tools both useful and easy to use for the 90% of all computer users.
In other words, a small fraction [90% of 10% of 10% or 0.9%] of all computer users actually will use non-straightforward tools.
The rest [i.e. 99.1%] will use windows or mac OS X since it is geared towards them. No wonder more people use windows than linux. I could hardly call that a monopoly. They're just more considerate of their end users.
You can't write software just for yourself and expect everyone else to like it.
Look at GPG vs PGP [for windows] for example. They both have exactly the same features. PGP was written for the less advanced user but its not ideally suited for the linux guru elite wannabe hacker.
If linux developers started thinking "what does the average user with no real computer training want?" instead of "what would make be more elitez?" then Linux would rock. Until then Linux and many OSS projects will be limited in use.
I think the biggest problem getting new people into linux is trying to get them interested. For the most part people like simple to use computers. Most developers I know use tools like GCC but prefer the feel of windows just to get work done.
Another problem with linux [et al.] is that there is hardly any collective effort on one solid project. For example, you can use KDE or Gnome, Mozilla or Netscape, Vi or Gedit, etc...
While diversity is great in commerce, it sucks in freelance kits. There is no real incentive to be competetive when your programs are free.
The best thing the Linux community IMHO can do is build one big standard implementation of the kernel and support apps that use only one gui, one office suite, one compiler suite, one etc...
That way future development can concentrate on one mainstream instead of the many many many forked distributions.
As support evidence look at Windows. Windows 98 was based on 95, w2k was based on NT4/98, etc... For example, notepad from w2k looks [but has more functionality] the same as notepad from windows 3.1! They realized "if it ain't broke don't fix it". So while the underlying software is getting better in windows the look/feel/orientation is not changing too much [except for windows XP which is kinda silly looking].
A bit more info. PGP is not a cipher either. Its a cryptosystem. It uses a collection of Public Key Ciphers and symmetric key ciphers todo its work.
A public key cipher is a cipher where you make up a key where you can give out a public copy and keep a private copy. People can send you messages using your public key and only your private key can decrypt them. For example, In RSA you make up two primes p and q, and get N=pq, you make up an encryption exponent typically e=65537 [fixed] and find your own decryption exponent de = 1 mod (p-1)(q-1). Since only you know the factors only you know 'd' [your private key].
Think of it this way.
Let e=5 and then d=1/5.... If you are going to encrypt a message M=4 you do
C = M^e = 4^5 = 1024
Then to decrypt
M = 1024^d = 5^e^d = 5^(ed) = 5^(5/5) = 5
etc...
What PGP really does is uses the PK cipher to encode a random key used in the symmetric cipher. The symmetric ciphers actually encrypt your message, and the PK cipher encrypts the key used. When you go to decrypt a message you use your PK private key to decrypt the symmetric key and then you decrypt the message.
Arrg...
Buy Schneiers "Applied Cryptography" if you want to learn this.
Well you are talking apples and Oranges. Rijndael is a symmetric block cipher where the encrypt and decrypt key are private [and typically the same, or a derivative of the other]. You can typically attack a block cipher through itterative statistical attacks [differential, linear, truncated differentials, boomerangs, square, etc...] or through a brute force of the key space.
Typically for symmetric ciphers those itterative attacks fail [require too many ciphertext/plaintext pairs to work] so brute force is the only remaining known attack.
In the case of DH/ElGamal/RSA over the field of integers [i.e what PGP basically uses for its private/public key stuff] there are ways to attack those systems faster than randomly guessing the secret information. For example, in RSA you can factor the public modulus [typically the 'n' part of your key] to find the private decrypt exponent. Factoring a N-bit number is typically faster than guessing the N/2-bit factors. [Similar idea holds for DH/DSA and ElGamal]. So factoring a 1024-bit RSA key modulus may take the same amount of time as brute forcing a 80-bit symmetric block cipher's key.
That's why in symmetric block ciphers you can get away with smaller keys than in public key ciphers.
Unless a shortcut attack is found a 256-bit key will ALWAYS be secure from brute force searching via a computer. There is not enough energy in the universe to make a conventional computer process that much work.
That doesn't preclude QC related attacks but keep in mind that QC is far from reality [in a usable sense] and that even then it will be along time before you're playing your QC powered Gameboy...
Currently the best ways to defeat a cipher like Rijndael [or AES if you will] is non-mathy. You install virii, trojans, backdoors, bribe people, beat it out of them, etc...
Actually breaking AES from ciphertext/plaintext pairs only is not likely for a long time to come
Slashdot Mirror
I fully agree that people should learn more about computers. Specially less commercial side of computers [i.e recall when programming used to be a considered a hobby?].
I don't agree with this license scheme. Who controls the license? Can it be revoked? Who pays for it? Etc...
That's why MS makes Windows fairly idiot proof [not entirely though]. The trick is to make an OS an idiot can use.
Linux is not an OS an idiot can use. You have to know quite a bit about computers before you can reasonably maintain your own linux box.
With windows its fairly automated, and anything you have to tinker with is relatively simple compared to linux.
Long live MS!
You're not answering my question.
If MS is such a monopoly there must be some competitor it is crushing. What is the competitors name? Its not linux since linux is not geared towards the average user.
MS can only be a monopoly if it forces other competitors off the market. As far as I know thats not true. MS Just bundles software with their OS much like Redhat does with their linux distro [Damn they have netscape, must be a monopoly].
See the problem is you can't argue this because you're some stupid 12 yr old seeking attention by trying to oppose all things non linux.
The truth is there is a wealth of freely ported GNU tools for windows [and the list grows given cygwin] and that there exists tons of available to write software for windows.
Just trolls like you ignore facts like that in your pathetic attempts to look cool by dissing MS.
Long live MS!
Fill in the blank.
MS is a monopoly and the average user should use _______ by default as setup by the OEM.
Tom
Suppose MS windows is banned from the market. What are my alternatives as a joe-average user?
Nothing is stopping people from looking for alternatives.
I can type "Mozilla" in MSN Search and find it no problem at all.
I think you're missing the point. Its a monopoly only when alternatives are forced out of the arena, not when they are unpopular. Mozilla is a fully functional legitimate program that MS has not suppressed in any way shape or form. Any windows user can download Mozilla and make the switch.
Just because the average user rather use the browser that came with the os they spent 150$ on doesn't mean MS has a monopoly. It means MS IE comes with windows.
Also you're not *forced* to use IE at all anyways [for http/ftp stuff]. It just happens thats the default. You're allowed installing mozilla to change that though.
How is "when you control the hardware specification" any less of a monopoly?
So linux is good only if you use Linux approved hardware and configurations?
Isn't that the brewing of a monopoly of its own.
Also my beef is not with the lack of drivers. Its the lack of user friendlyness. I've tried Debian, Redhat and a few other distros. They all "work" but are a pain in the ass to get todo anything.
I can fry my hard disk and be up with windows [patches and all] in under 3 hours or so [assuming my hardware is not broken...]. That includes all the reboot time and such [and pepsi breaks].
Personally I don't have much to say on the subject of Gnome/KDE. For the most part they resemble windows [ala start button in Gnome] with some new fonts and such... Big deal! Nothing revolutionary.
Yeah but thats getting back to the point. Windows is more user friendly and is geared towards "lamer" users.
Linux in all its might is not a simple to use OS. For starters the average home user won't get passed the root login screen since they will be stumped as to what the password is. Then when there NIC or video card is not working they will not know to run Xconfigurator or whatever...
The reason Windows is a "monopolistic" operating system is that in desktop computing it has no serious competition.
I swear, if linux were simplified [and alot of packages merged to cause less confusion] than Linux would rock. It has a nice kernel, its free, its open source, etc.
You're mixing business with utopia. Stores don't advertise mozilla [for example] because they can't sell it. Stores want to make not lose money.
In your utopia people are all knowledgeable about computers there innards, etc... But truly this is not the case in many circles. My mom drives a ford. Not all fords are alike but I call it "the ford" just the same.
I have an athlon, there are about 10 different athon cores, but mine is an "athlon".
You have to realize that not everyone buys a computer to salute the FSF. Most [believe it or not] buy it so there little 12 yr old kid can play quake3 or etc.
Getting back to the business end of things. If you feel that MS product X is so bad why not make you're own version and sell it? Oh wait that happens. Believe it or not you can buy software for windows [what a concept].
Besides Redhat comes with Netscape pre-installed. So by your token Redhat linux is no better than windows. Redhat also comes bundled with XMMS, KDE/Gnome, etc..
So if I was some average user who has redhat linux instead of windows I would think that Netscape was "all there is" and that "XMMS" is the only mp3 player and that "staroffice" is the only office suite...
So wait... redhat is a monopolistic [note: not a monopoly] style company?
Tom
This is a big load of doo-doo.
How hard do you think it is for me to go download winamp to play mp3s instead of wmp, or to download mozilla [which overrides all of IE's settings about handling html,ftp,http, etc...] or to download yahoo messenger instead of MSN messenger or to download staroffice instead of MS Office.
The problem is "most people don't care". For an average joe-blow with zero computer knowledge he just wants to type up a book report. He doesn't care if the word processor was FSF approved or came from a third party.
However, the choice *does* exist if the user chooses to pursue it.
Now get off your high horse!
GNU is about free sharing of information.
GPL is the License which promotes/allows this
Yes but the spirit of both the GNU [or FSF] and GPL are not to be specific for only linux. I think you guys are thinking counterproductive if you think only linux uses open software.
You do realize there are ports of GNU software for windows?
Besides when GNU was founded linux didn't exist.
So go take a history less you jack-ass and stop being such a pissy little linux zealot.
Of linux zealot stupidity.
"What if people want to use windows software on linux."
Hey jack-ass I'll let you in on a tip. Not all windows software is from MS. There are alot of good free programs for windows that would be useful if they worked in a linux box.
Besides if MS is so bad and windows sucks so much, why are linux zealots spending time on bridging the gap in the first place? Oh thats right because for personal use windows is a *zillion* [I counted...] times better, easier, faster and more productive.
Go and hide under a rock you dumb "I wannabe a cool linux zealot" loser!
some yuppy stripped a computer, threw it in a tree, and put ?Linux? on it.
Who cares if it is "linux powered". I mean by badly using that term you guys are suggesting that Linux is only good for powering exotic little projects and not mainstream desktop users.
Maybe I should strip my computer and put it in a fish tank.... Then it will be a fisktank with windows?
Tom
I have another scheme that relies on interactive protocols and secure servers.
You want to send user X a message and you are user Y.
1. You contact your server Y and it gives you a challenge string R.
2. You hash it 2^L times [L == appropriate] and use the hash a key for the message.
3. You send the ciphertext to the smtp server.
The Y server than pre-appends R to the message and sends it on its way.
A modification is that [assuming relays are disabled] when you want to send a message to X, server Y contacts server X to get the challenge string. Then when the message is sent server X is the one that pre-appends the R string.
The latter case is preferable since it means that you can't setup a fake server to mass-spam people by making R a fixed string.
This requires that server X be trusted....
Tom
A simpler modification is to just rehash the message hash 2^16 times or so. On a decent computer it would probably take under a few seconds at most. That way you can automatically dump messages that don't have the correct hash. This [like the previous scheme] will make mass-spamming useless unless the spammer invests in crypto hardware.
./ I've just solved the worlds spamming problems. If everyone could just simultaneously switch over to such a system the world would be a better place.
Yet another scheme is todo this.
1. Make up a random string of 10 or so bytes call that R. Hash it 2^16 times [rehash the hash output] and call that K.
2. Encrypt the message you want to send with K as the key.
3. Send the ciphertext and R to the person.
On the decrypt side they rehash R to get K and decrypt. This isn't meant to give privacy but to prevent the message from being readble unless the sender uses the scheme. If the mail-readers forced detection/use of such schemes spammer who don't use the hash 2^16 [or whatever many times] will send messages that decrypt to random junk.
Et voila
As an aside I think 2^16 should be switched with 2^20 or so since a decent 1.4ghz class cpu [i.e P4 or Athlon] could whirl thru 2^16 SHA-1 hashes in under a second.
Tom
Ok you're really this stupid right?
Answer this: Do all user friendly programs have to be commercial? Is it possible to write a program that is usable by a majority intended audience and not charge money?
Tom
How does that one example invalidate my argument?
I mean seriously, I worked in the computer industry for only under a year [as an intern] and I was told to write stuff they could use, not stuff I would use.
I still don't see the use of writting software only you will want to use. Personally when I write stuff [like winamp plugins I have done] I use the plugins myself, yes, but I also love to hear from users that use it themselves. As in I'm trying to contribute something to others.
I think the "write stuff for myself" invalidates the happy-go-lucky sharing attitude that most OSS proponents are trying to develop.
But it seems you're stuck in your own little world where you can profit [not just in the $$$ sense] by writting software that doesn't take your users into account.
Tom
The purpose of OSS is not only to distribute source code to be a proponent of knowledge but also to promote useful programs.
What is the use in writting programs only you will use? I just don't get that. I mean I write dorky little scripts/programs todo stuff once in a while [crypto research mainly] and I don't really claim to be a big software developer since mainly I haven't dealt with coding along someone elses rules.
Anyone can write software if they choose. The trick to being a good coder is to write things that are not only good to learn from, easy to maintain, but user friendly.
And why do all user friendly programs have to be commercial? Look at winamp for example. Awesome program, entirely free. Its not OSS either! You should take pride in your coding not just look for "elite guru" karma points. You should look for user feedback and if they give praise you've done a good job, if they give critisism then you should read them and try to improve your code.
I think alot of linux "guru" coders just have to grow up and realize that if they want to get respect as good programmers they have to design things other people will want to use.
That's like trying to get respect for drawing comics only *you* find funny. Sure you're having fun and you like them. Nobody else thinks they're funny and they won't respect you as a comic.
As for "I want a platform for doing things.", IMHO Linux is not that platform. It has crappy multimedia support, its a bitch to setup unless you're a kernel coder and generally it tries to at best emulate windows.
Yes I code, but I like to play games, watch tv, listen to music etc.... And while linux can do some of those windows can do all of them generally much more effectively.
Personally I think you have to wake up a bit. From reading your reply you don't seem to care much for what your potential users will want or need. If you're a coder or trying to be a successful coder you're going to have to wake up and take the users more seriously.
That's a good irony. The whole arguement for OSS is sharing is the way to enlightenment. However, now you're telling me they could care less of anyone else and OSS is just a fad?
Anyone can write software for themselves. That is not a challenge. The trick is to write software others will use.
I mean, how can people like you try and sell Linux as a "competitor" for windows when you could care less about the average joe blow user. I'd say of the entire make-up of computer users [non commercial, and yes I am making up these stats but anecdotally they seem to apply]... we have
90% don't know how [or care to] program their own programs. They like pushy buttons and cute gui dialogs. They like programs that are straightforward to use and don't involve alot of console work.
of the 10% that can program, 90% are just casual programmers that write do-dahs that never really get popular.
Of the remaing 10%, 90% of that 10% [of the 100%] only write stuff geared towards people like them [i.e competent programmers] and the remaining 10% of the 10% of all computer users try to make tools both useful and easy to use for the 90% of all computer users.
In other words, a small fraction [90% of 10% of 10% or 0.9%] of all computer users actually will use non-straightforward tools.
The rest [i.e. 99.1%] will use windows or mac OS X since it is geared towards them. No wonder more people use windows than linux. I could hardly call that a monopoly. They're just more considerate of their end users.
That's the big problem
"are developing what THEY want".
You can't write software just for yourself and expect everyone else to like it.
Look at GPG vs PGP [for windows] for example. They both have exactly the same features. PGP was written for the less advanced user but its not ideally suited for the linux guru elite wannabe hacker.
If linux developers started thinking "what does the average user with no real computer training want?" instead of "what would make be more elitez?" then Linux would rock. Until then Linux and many OSS projects will be limited in use.
I think the biggest problem getting new people into linux is trying to get them interested. For the most part people like simple to use computers. Most developers I know use tools like GCC but prefer the feel of windows just to get work done.
Another problem with linux [et al.] is that there is hardly any collective effort on one solid project. For example, you can use KDE or Gnome, Mozilla or Netscape, Vi or Gedit, etc...
While diversity is great in commerce, it sucks in freelance kits. There is no real incentive to be competetive when your programs are free.
The best thing the Linux community IMHO can do is build one big standard implementation of the kernel and support apps that use only one gui, one office suite, one compiler suite, one etc...
That way future development can concentrate on one mainstream instead of the many many many forked distributions.
As support evidence look at Windows. Windows 98 was based on 95, w2k was based on NT4/98, etc... For example, notepad from w2k looks [but has more functionality] the same as notepad from windows 3.1! They realized "if it ain't broke don't fix it". So while the underlying software is getting better in windows the look/feel/orientation is not changing too much [except for windows XP which is kinda silly looking].
-- Peace!
A bit more info. PGP is not a cipher either. Its a cryptosystem. It uses a collection of Public Key Ciphers and symmetric key ciphers todo its work.
A public key cipher is a cipher where you make up a key where you can give out a public copy and keep a private copy. People can send you messages using your public key and only your private key can decrypt them. For example, In RSA you make up two primes p and q, and get N=pq, you make up an encryption exponent typically e=65537 [fixed] and find your own decryption exponent de = 1 mod (p-1)(q-1). Since only you know the factors only you know 'd' [your private key].
Think of it this way.
Let e=5 and then d=1/5.... If you are going to encrypt a message M=4 you do
C = M^e = 4^5 = 1024
Then to decrypt
M = 1024^d = 5^e^d = 5^(ed) = 5^(5/5) = 5
etc...
What PGP really does is uses the PK cipher to encode a random key used in the symmetric cipher. The symmetric ciphers actually encrypt your message, and the PK cipher encrypts the key used. When you go to decrypt a message you use your PK private key to decrypt the symmetric key and then you decrypt the message.
Arrg...
Buy Schneiers "Applied Cryptography" if you want to learn this.
Tom
Well you are talking apples and Oranges. Rijndael is a symmetric block cipher where the encrypt and decrypt key are private [and typically the same, or a derivative of the other]. You can typically attack a block cipher through itterative statistical attacks [differential, linear, truncated differentials, boomerangs, square, etc...] or through a brute force of the key space.
Typically for symmetric ciphers those itterative attacks fail [require too many ciphertext/plaintext pairs to work] so brute force is the only remaining known attack.
In the case of DH/ElGamal/RSA over the field of integers [i.e what PGP basically uses for its private/public key stuff] there are ways to attack those systems faster than randomly guessing the secret information. For example, in RSA you can factor the public modulus [typically the 'n' part of your key] to find the private decrypt exponent. Factoring a N-bit number is typically faster than guessing the N/2-bit factors. [Similar idea holds for DH/DSA and ElGamal]. So factoring a 1024-bit RSA key modulus may take the same amount of time as brute forcing a 80-bit symmetric block cipher's key.
That's why in symmetric block ciphers you can get away with smaller keys than in public key ciphers.
Hope that helps!
Tom
You're kidding right?
Unless a shortcut attack is found a 256-bit key will ALWAYS be secure from brute force searching via a computer. There is not enough energy in the universe to make a conventional computer process that much work.
That doesn't preclude QC related attacks but keep in mind that QC is far from reality [in a usable sense] and that even then it will be along time before you're playing your QC powered Gameboy...
Currently the best ways to defeat a cipher like Rijndael [or AES if you will] is non-mathy. You install virii, trojans, backdoors, bribe people, beat it out of them, etc...
Actually breaking AES from ciphertext/plaintext pairs only is not likely for a long time to come
Have you read up on AES? Its not some form of DRM or something.
Its a real block cipher designed by two of the best cryptographers [in this field of study] in the world.
Rijndael is based on a design that is 7 years old [Square Block Cipher] and is fairly easy to analyze w.r.t to current forms of cryptanalysis.
Rijndael has been around since 1998, what do you think that NIST just made it up last week?
Stupid troll go away!