According to the regulation as recently posted to sci.crypt, even helping someone outside of the country with their crytographic product is illegal. And you can't even move to Mexico (which has no encryption restrictions) and get away from the long arm of American law -- the regulation says that if you're outside of the U.S. and either develop or help someone make a product that would be export-controlled within the U.S., you can be prosecuted. Before you say "so what, I'm in Mexico!", the U.S. government has been known to *KIDNAP* American citizens overseas in order to prosecute them here... hell, they don't even have to be American citizens, they kidnapped Manuel Noriega and prosecuted him here too, quite illegally I might add, the man was a scumbag but that doesn't excuse it.
The thing is, FreeBSD and Linux are like twins, except that FreeBSD does not have a new libc every day that breaks every program in existence, and FreeBSD is an operating system, not a kernel.
I finally switched to FreeBSD because I got tired of Netscape exhausting virtual memory and crashing my machine under Linux. FreeBSD kills Netscape (the proper behavior) and keeps running. FreeBSD runs all my commonly-used commercial Linux programs (Applix, WordPerfect, etc.), and the 'packages' system has a lot of packages that most Linux distributions don't come with (with the exception of SuSE!), so it's not like I had to give anything up.
That said, FreeBSD has some disadvantages -- it supports fewer hardware peripheral devices than Linux, system administration is a pain in the rear (almost everything is done via rc.conf, which is almost totally undocumented), and you're right, all the "cool" stuff is being done for Linux (stuff like neat new filesystems, etc.) and FreeBSD continues to lag. Still, if you want an OS that doesn't have a new libc library every fifteen minutes, FreeBSD is the one.
PostgreSQL was an academic database five years ago. Today, it is a full-featured SQL database with many of the same features as Oracle or Informix -- and, like those databases, it is not the fastest in the world and has a pretty hefty footprint. The speed problem is pretty much gone nowdays, but any SQL database that supports cursors, triggers, and transactions will be slower than an SQL database that ignores those features in favor of pure speed. MySQL leaves out features in exchange for speed. PostGreSQL doesn't. Which one to use depends on whether you need those features or not. For web site use you usually don't need those features. If you were writing an accounting or inventory package, on the other hand, I would not do it without having full transaction with rollbacks support, i.e. PostGreSQL. Otherwise you run the risk of database inconsistencies that could be the death of your business.
Err, I share my office with the guy who last overhauled the EST Inc. web site. I assure you that those are PNG images on the left menu. The version of GIMP that he uses doesn't even support GIF due to the patent issue. The banner ads and such, though, are animated GIF's. Those all come from an outside graphics artist, and basically we go with what he sends us.
Use JPEG. Netscape 4 for Linux does support PNG, by the way -- see http://www.estinc.com for an example. The little menu images on the left side of the screen are little PNG files.
-E
More Microsoftie blather, sigh
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 2
Man, I've counted at least two people from the Microsoft anti-Linux hit squad here today (just looking at their posting styles).
Anyhow: At Enhanced Software Technologies Inc. (the BRU guys), we run our infrastructure on Linux. Period. (Except for a legacy SCO box used for some old stuff, sigh, but that's going away soon). Sales, marketing, financials, every desktop is a Linux box.
WordPerfect 7 doesn't crash. KDE doesn't crash. (We used to use Afterstep, but KDE is easier for the clueless marketing types to use). The only thing that DOES crash is Netscape (a giant bug masquerading as a browser), but that's a nuisance, rather than a loss of mission critical data.
In short, anybody who says Linux is not stable in a workstation environment is smoking some mighty fine Redmond herb. We have too many examples to the contrary, ranging from Garden Grove CA onwards.
But you can certainly BLAME Microsoft if their software quits working. Saves having to actually do some work and FIX what's broken, which is what you'd have to do if it was Linux (either by fixing the source code yourself, or hiring a consultant to fix it for you).
-E
But rural areas don't have many phones
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 2
So 911 service isn't well funded out there.
I'm sure this guy would love to have redundant power supplies, hot swap RAID, etc. in his workstations, but a $12,000 workstation is the same price as a 911 dispatcher in Utah (well, actually, 911 dispatchers in Utah probably make less than that, but $12K was what they made in my rural community in Louisiana). If it's a choice between talking to a dispatcher, and getting a busy signal because they don't have enough dispatchers because they had to fire one to buy a redundant computer, well, I'll choose a dispatcher all the time.
That's the kind of hard decisions that governments must make all the time, and why it's a mystery that Linux hasn't taken hold in a big way in the government market.
-E
You forgot "was improperly configured"
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft developers (i.e., actual programmers within Microsoft) are quick to tell me "if NT is unstable, it's because you didn't configure it right." They claim that their own heavily-used development machines have been up and running for months.
What, it takes being an actual Microsoft engineer to configure NT?
meanwhile, I can throw Linux on any old junk PC in the office and it just works. Same PC that NT blue-screens on regularly.
Yes, the EULA absolves MS of all liability, says you can't sue them even if it crashes ten times a day and erases all your mission critical data regularly, etc.
But: you can say "man, that's Microsoft's problem, I've reported it to them and they say they'll fix it but I can't do anything about it until they do." Then you can go along with sitting on your bun drawing your paycheck for clicking a mouse.
Whereas with Linux, you have the source, so even if you say "Man, that's Red Hat's problem, I've reported it to them" etc., sooner or later someone is bound to say "Hold it! You have the source! Why don't YOU fix the problem?" Thus requiring you to actually do work.
I run EST Inc.'s network on Linux because I like solving problems, but if I were a lazy guy more intent on my paycheck than on solving problems, I'd certainly rather run NT. With NT I can just shrug my shoulders and say "That's Microsoft's problem." With Linux, people expect me to fix the problem.
But, alas, I appear to be unusual in my desire to fix problems. Most people seem to prefer to "leave it to Mickeysoft".
-E
Odd, I've never had a kernel panic
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 2
Okay, I'll admit it. When I was beta-testing a driver for the Computone Intelliport II I had a kernel panic.
But I've never had a kernel panic with the stock Linux kernel on supported hardware, and I've had some sites out in the field since 1996. (Not running continuously, they were upgraded from Red Hat 3.0.3 to Red Hat 4.2 in that time frame, but there were no kernel panics).
-E
So you admit Linux is easier to set up than NT?
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 2
He says he set up Linux and it just runs. NT doesn't.
So maybe he's a moron (I reserve judgement). But if he is, that says that it's easier (for a moron) to set up a stable Linux system than it is for a moron to set up a stable NT system.
'Nuff said. Go back to spending your Wagged money and leave us alone.
Providian Bank -- did the same to me as MBNA did to A.C. above -- sent a card at low interest rate, then at 1st late payment (caused by slow postal service in my rural community at the time) hiked the interest rate to 22%. I payed it off and cancelled it immediately.
Fleet -- got an advertisement in the mail. Reading the fine print, they do the exact same thing. One of my other credit cards recently got bought by Fleet. After getting the runaround with their customer service department while trying to get a fraudulent charge removed from my bill (I am about to mail their company president a copy of "Knock Your Socks Off Service" to give to the service department manager), I am in the process of cancelling them too.
Anybody have a NON-ripoff credit card company? I'm running out of folks to cancel:-).
Yes, our shrink-wrapped commercial software product will run on every commercially available Linux.
I am happily running my 1997 vintage Applix Office on SuSE, Red Hat 6.0, and FreeBSD with no problems. So it's not just BRU that runs pretty much everywhere.
Hey, dude, you need to read the FUD 101 HOWTO, you're doing a lousy job!
You did okay on your FUD Method #1 (exaggerating weaknesses) with the "mediocre device support". But you need to apply some FUD Distraction Methods for the FUD #2 (outright lies) where you state "no meaningful GUI", since Linux has at least two meaningful GUI's (GNOME and KDE). I suggest that next time you try more extensive "Sandwiching" (distraction method #1), preferably by using FUD Method #1 to attack various attributes of those GUI's. Same goes with the 'ages of cruft' and 'so-so performance', you really need to use some distraction methods to make your FUD stick. If you're stuck with how to do that, go to Microsoft's very own "Linux is a poor value proposition" page, which is a masterful blend of FUD#1 (exaggerating weaknesses), FUD#2 (outright fabrication), and FUD#3 ("spinning" a strength as a weakness).
Sheesh, how much is Wagged paying you anyhow? Whatever it is, it's too much, 'cause you're doing a LOUSY job of FUD! I know you can do better, after all, your firm did an excellent job on the "Linux is a poor value proposition" page...
I am amazed at all the Microsoft FUD. Microsoft has what, now, 30 people who do nothing but read Slashdot and spread FUD?
I work for a software vendor. We make commercial software for Linux. It works on all distributions. It ain't pretty to make it work on all distributions (we basically have to distribute a statically linked copy, along with a dynamically linked copy in order to comply with the LGPL), but so it goes. We run our entire internal infrastructure off of Linux, and our developers have various Linux distributions (heck, my desktop is FreeBSD!). WordPerfect and Applix are our internal word processor and office suite, and both work on every machine in our office, even on my FreeBSD box.
In other words, we're talking pure FUD. Yes, it takes a bit of care to make your software work on all Linux distributions, but a commercial vendor can do it without much problem. WordPerfect does it. Applix does it. BRU does it. If vendor X doesn't do it, that's vendor X's problem, not Linux's.
I have no faith in the good intentions of my government, but I do have faith in the academic community's ability to successfully analyze mathematical algorithms -- which is all that encryption is.
With symmetrical algorithms 256 bits gets you unbreakable for the next 50 years or so (depends on the algorithm, of course, but I'm thinking a good one like one of the AES finalists). With assymetrical (public key) encryption there is a bit of doubt there -- the public key does include information that could be used to derive the private key, but it would require a quantum leap in our ability to solve certain hard mathematical problems.
In any event, if I'm a national government and I want to ruin your life all I have to do is flash my FBI batch at your local sheriff's office, tell him that you are a drug trafficer, and then said sheriff can immediately burst into your home and sieze your property and all bank accounts. You then must prove that your possessions were not bought with drug money in order to get them back, but how are you going to do that without money to hire a lawyer (because they siezed your bank accounts, remember?). And how are you going to do that without a job, because said deputies burst into your employer's office, told them you were a drug dealer, and seized your computer at work, thus resulting in you being fired? We already have a police state, it just tries to be polite about it except when dealing with what the majority thinks is the "scum of society".
The mark of a good encryption algorithm is that even if the opponent has seized your computer and has the complete source code to the encryption algorithm (perhaps by reverse-engineering the program), he cannot crack your crypto-text without the key.
In other words, security by obscurity does not work in reality, so you might as well use well-tested algorithms that are provably secure (well, secure at today's state-of-the-art anyhow, I make no promises for fifty years from now!). Design of crypto algorithms is HARD. It's very easy to make mistakes. So it's best to use algorithms that are well-known and that have been extensively analyzed, because even experts make mistakes (hmm, was it RC4 that had the weak keys?).
You can already go to http://www.replay.com (a Dutch site) and download all the crypto you'd ever want. The problem is that we can't put encryption into the Linux kernel, because the Feds then would shut down all the U.S. Linux kernel mirrors as "illegally exporting armaments" (sheesh).
The problem with most "uncrackable" schemes is that they do not dedicate the same resources to key management as they do to theoretical power. Key management is *THE* hard problem in cryptographic systems, and the #1 way to break a system. In practice, something like BlowFish with a 128-bit (or if you're paranoid, 256-bit) key is pretty much unbreakable today, and public key encryption methods are used to do the "hard part" (key management to exchange keys for the "real" encryption method), thus reducing the possibility of it being broken by the expedient of reducing the amount of crypto-text available to be attacked.
Of course, there's always the possibility that some quantum leap in mathematical knowledge will make asymetrical (public key) algorithms unsafe. But symmetric algorithms like BlowFish do not share that quality, and it is a LOT easier to distribute keys for BlowFish than to distribute keys for One Time Pads (said keys which must be the same length as the text to be encrypted/decrypted).
Doing well? Other than being owned by S3 and losing major amounts of money...
Diamond has been on the ropes for a while now, either barely breaking even or actually losing money. That's why S3 could pick them up so cheaply, even though S3 itself is hardly in the best of health.
I always read the Register, because I don't have time to go search for computer news and their little niblets are entertaining. But I do admit that I don't rely on them for accuracy (grin).
The current PCI bus spec tops out at 33Mhz. The current AGP bus spec tops out at 66Mhz. Intel now has a 66Mhz PCI spec (i.e., just as fast as AGP), but a) it is currently available only in their latest motherboard, and b) in that motherboard, it requires eliminating the AGP slot. As for 64-bit PCI, both Compaq and AMI have motherboards that do 64-bit PCI with Intel 32-bit processors. Remember that the width of the bus does not have to be the same as the width of the processor... for example, current chipsets already have a 64-bit bus to main memory, and serialize it to a stream of 32-bit words when it comes time to present the data to the processor. And some Alpha motherboards have busses as wide as 256 bits to main memory, and again, serialize it to a stream of 64-bit words when it comes time to present the data to the (64-bit) processor.
A year ago Linux did not support the 64-bit PCI spec even on Alphas (which did have 64-bit PCI slots even back then). But I have not checked things out lately, too many other fun things to do and I'm not in that business anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the regulation as recently posted to sci.crypt, even helping someone outside of the country with their crytographic product is illegal. And you can't even move to Mexico (which has no encryption restrictions) and get away from the long arm of American law -- the regulation says that if you're outside of the U.S. and either develop or help someone make a product that would be export-controlled within the U.S., you can be prosecuted. Before you say "so what, I'm in Mexico!", the U.S. government has been known to *KIDNAP* American citizens overseas in order to prosecute them here... hell, they don't even have to be American citizens, they kidnapped Manuel Noriega and prosecuted him here too, quite illegally I might add, the man was a scumbag but that doesn't excuse it.
-E
The thing is, FreeBSD and Linux are like twins, except that FreeBSD does not have a new libc every day that breaks every program in existence, and FreeBSD is an operating system, not a kernel.
I finally switched to FreeBSD because I got tired of Netscape exhausting virtual memory and crashing my machine under Linux. FreeBSD kills Netscape (the proper behavior) and keeps running. FreeBSD runs all my commonly-used commercial Linux programs (Applix, WordPerfect, etc.), and the 'packages' system has a lot of packages that most Linux distributions don't come with (with the exception of SuSE!), so it's not like I had to give anything up.
That said, FreeBSD has some disadvantages -- it supports fewer hardware peripheral devices than Linux, system administration is a pain in the rear (almost everything is done via rc.conf, which is almost totally undocumented), and you're right, all the "cool" stuff is being done for Linux (stuff like neat new filesystems, etc.) and FreeBSD continues to lag. Still, if you want an OS that doesn't have a new libc library every fifteen minutes, FreeBSD is the one.
-E
Alphas may handle files bigger than 2gb, but the EXT2 filesystem doesn't.
-E
PostgreSQL was an academic database five years ago. Today, it is a full-featured SQL database with many of the same features as Oracle or Informix -- and, like those databases, it is not the fastest in the world and has a pretty hefty footprint.
The speed problem is pretty much gone nowdays, but any SQL database that supports cursors, triggers, and transactions will be slower than an SQL database that ignores those features in favor of pure speed.
MySQL leaves out features in exchange for speed. PostGreSQL doesn't. Which one to use depends on whether you need those features or not. For web site use you usually don't need those features. If you were writing an accounting or inventory package, on the other hand, I would not do it without having full transaction with rollbacks support, i.e. PostGreSQL. Otherwise you run the risk of database inconsistencies that could be the death of your business.
-E
"HTML Programmer", eh? Talk about a skill that will be obsolete in 20 years, when we're all using XML and have WYSIWYG XML editors...
BTW, programmers write programs, not text. So "HTML Programmer" is a misnomer in the first place -- that should be "HTML page creator".
-E
Err, I share my office with the guy who last overhauled the EST Inc. web site. I assure you that those are PNG images on the left menu. The version of GIMP that he uses doesn't even support GIF due to the patent issue.
The banner ads and such, though, are animated GIF's. Those all come from an outside graphics artist, and basically we go with what he sends us.
-E
Use JPEG. Netscape 4 for Linux does support PNG, by the way -- see http://www.estinc.com for an example. The little menu images on the left side of the screen are little PNG files.
-E
Man, I've counted at least two people from the Microsoft anti-Linux hit squad here today (just looking at their posting styles).
Anyhow: At Enhanced Software Technologies Inc. (the BRU guys), we run our infrastructure on Linux. Period. (Except for a legacy SCO box used for some old stuff, sigh, but that's going away soon). Sales, marketing, financials, every desktop is a Linux box.
WordPerfect 7 doesn't crash. KDE doesn't crash. (We used to use Afterstep, but KDE is easier for the clueless marketing types to use). The only thing that DOES crash is Netscape (a giant bug masquerading as a browser), but that's a nuisance, rather than a loss of mission critical data.
In short, anybody who says Linux is not stable in a workstation environment is smoking some mighty fine Redmond herb. We have too many examples to the contrary, ranging from Garden Grove CA onwards.
-E
Has anybody ever succesfully sued Microsoft?
As far as I can tell, the answer is "No."
But you can certainly BLAME Microsoft if their software quits working. Saves having to actually do some work and FIX what's broken, which is what you'd have to do if it was Linux (either by fixing the source code yourself, or hiring a consultant to fix it for you).
-E
So 911 service isn't well funded out there.
I'm sure this guy would love to have redundant power supplies, hot swap RAID, etc. in his workstations, but a $12,000 workstation is the same price as a 911 dispatcher in Utah (well, actually, 911 dispatchers in Utah probably make less than that, but $12K was what they made in my rural community in Louisiana). If it's a choice between talking to a dispatcher, and getting a busy signal because they don't have enough dispatchers because they had to fire one to buy a redundant computer, well, I'll choose a dispatcher all the time.
That's the kind of hard decisions that governments must make all the time, and why it's a mystery that Linux hasn't taken hold in a big way in the government market.
-E
Microsoft developers (i.e., actual programmers within Microsoft) are quick to tell me "if NT is unstable, it's because you didn't configure it right." They claim that their own heavily-used development machines have been up and running for months.
What, it takes being an actual Microsoft engineer to configure NT?
meanwhile, I can throw Linux on any old junk PC in the office and it just works. Same PC that NT blue-screens on regularly.
Pfui.
-E
Yes, the EULA absolves MS of all liability, says you can't sue them even if it crashes ten times a day and erases all your mission critical data regularly, etc.
But: you can say "man, that's Microsoft's problem, I've reported it to them and they say they'll fix it but I can't do anything about it until they do." Then you can go along with sitting on your bun drawing your paycheck for clicking a mouse.
Whereas with Linux, you have the source, so even if you say "Man, that's Red Hat's problem, I've reported it to them" etc., sooner or later someone is bound to say "Hold it! You have the source! Why don't YOU fix the problem?" Thus requiring you to actually do work.
I run EST Inc.'s network on Linux because I like solving problems, but if I were a lazy guy more intent on my paycheck than on solving problems, I'd certainly rather run NT. With NT I can just shrug my shoulders and say "That's Microsoft's problem." With Linux, people expect me to fix the problem.
But, alas, I appear to be unusual in my desire to fix problems. Most people seem to prefer to "leave it to Mickeysoft".
-E
Okay, I'll admit it. When I was beta-testing a driver for the Computone Intelliport II I had a kernel panic.
But I've never had a kernel panic with the stock Linux kernel on supported hardware, and I've had some sites out in the field since 1996. (Not running continuously, they were upgraded from Red Hat 3.0.3 to Red Hat 4.2 in that time frame, but there were no kernel panics).
-E
He says he set up Linux and it just runs. NT doesn't.
So maybe he's a moron (I reserve judgement). But if he is, that says that it's easier (for a moron) to set up a stable Linux system than it is for a moron to set up a stable NT system.
'Nuff said. Go back to spending your Wagged money and leave us alone.
-E
Other cards to avoid:
:-).
Providian Bank -- did the same to me as MBNA did to A.C. above -- sent a card at low interest rate, then at 1st late payment (caused by slow postal service in my rural community at the time) hiked the interest rate to 22%. I payed it off and cancelled it immediately.
Fleet -- got an advertisement in the mail. Reading the fine print, they do the exact same thing. One of my other credit cards recently got bought by Fleet. After getting the runaround with their customer service department while trying to get a fraudulent charge removed from my bill (I am about to mail their company president a copy of "Knock Your Socks Off Service" to give to the service department manager), I am in the process of cancelling them too.
Anybody have a NON-ripoff credit card company? I'm running out of folks to cancel
-E
Go to http://www.estinc.com
Yes, our shrink-wrapped commercial software product will run on every commercially available Linux.
I am happily running my 1997 vintage Applix Office on SuSE, Red Hat 6.0, and FreeBSD with no problems. So it's not just BRU that runs pretty much everywhere.
Next FUD, please!
-E
You did okay on your FUD Method #1 (exaggerating weaknesses) with the "mediocre device support". But you need to apply some FUD Distraction Methods for the FUD #2 (outright lies) where you state "no meaningful GUI", since Linux has at least two meaningful GUI's (GNOME and KDE). I suggest that next time you try more extensive "Sandwiching" (distraction method #1), preferably by using FUD Method #1 to attack various attributes of those GUI's. Same goes with the 'ages of cruft' and 'so-so performance', you really need to use some distraction methods to make your FUD stick. If you're stuck with how to do that, go to Microsoft's very own "Linux is a poor value proposition" page, which is a masterful blend of FUD#1 (exaggerating weaknesses), FUD#2 (outright fabrication), and FUD#3 ("spinning" a strength as a weakness).
Sheesh, how much is Wagged paying you anyhow? Whatever it is, it's too much, 'cause you're doing a LOUSY job of FUD! I know you can do better, after all, your firm did an excellent job on the "Linux is a poor value proposition" page...
-E
I am amazed at all the Microsoft FUD. Microsoft has what, now, 30 people who do nothing but read Slashdot and spread FUD?
I work for a software vendor. We make commercial software for Linux. It works on all distributions. It ain't pretty to make it work on all distributions (we basically have to distribute a statically linked copy, along with a dynamically linked copy in order to comply with the LGPL), but so it goes. We run our entire internal infrastructure off of Linux, and our developers have various Linux distributions (heck, my desktop is FreeBSD!). WordPerfect and Applix are our internal word processor and office suite, and both work on every machine in our office, even on my FreeBSD box.
In other words, we're talking pure FUD. Yes, it takes a bit of care to make your software work on all Linux distributions, but a commercial vendor can do it without much problem. WordPerfect does it. Applix does it. BRU does it. If vendor X doesn't do it, that's vendor X's problem, not Linux's.
-E
I have no faith in the good intentions of my government, but I do have faith in the academic community's ability to successfully analyze mathematical algorithms -- which is all that encryption is.
With symmetrical algorithms 256 bits gets you unbreakable for the next 50 years or so (depends on the algorithm, of course, but I'm thinking a good one like one of the AES finalists). With assymetrical (public key) encryption there is a bit of doubt there -- the public key does include information that could be used to derive the private key, but it would require a quantum leap in our ability to solve certain hard mathematical problems.
In any event, if I'm a national government and I want to ruin your life all I have to do is flash my FBI batch at your local sheriff's office, tell him that you are a drug trafficer, and then said sheriff can immediately burst into your home and sieze your property and all bank accounts. You then must prove that your possessions were not bought with drug money in order to get them back, but how are you going to do that without money to hire a lawyer (because they siezed your bank accounts, remember?). And how are you going to do that without a job, because said deputies burst into your employer's office, told them you were a drug dealer, and seized your computer at work, thus resulting in you being fired? We already have a police state, it just tries to be polite about it except when dealing with what the majority thinks is the "scum of society".
-E
The mark of a good encryption algorithm is that even if the opponent has seized your computer and has the complete source code to the encryption algorithm (perhaps by reverse-engineering the program), he cannot crack your crypto-text without the key.
In other words, security by obscurity does not work in reality, so you might as well use well-tested algorithms that are provably secure (well, secure at today's state-of-the-art anyhow, I make no promises for fifty years from now!). Design of crypto algorithms is HARD. It's very easy to make mistakes. So it's best to use algorithms that are well-known and that have been extensively analyzed, because even experts make mistakes (hmm, was it RC4 that had the weak keys?).
-E
You can already go to http://www.replay.com (a Dutch site) and download all the crypto you'd ever want. The problem is that we can't put encryption into the Linux kernel, because the Feds then would shut down all the U.S. Linux kernel mirrors as "illegally exporting armaments" (sheesh).
-E
None of which matters if you have the key.
The problem with most "uncrackable" schemes is that they do not dedicate the same resources to key management as they do to theoretical power. Key management is *THE* hard problem in cryptographic systems, and the #1 way to break a system. In practice, something like BlowFish with a 128-bit (or if you're paranoid, 256-bit) key is pretty much unbreakable today, and public key encryption methods are used to do the "hard part" (key management to exchange keys for the "real" encryption method), thus reducing the possibility of it being broken by the expedient of reducing the amount of crypto-text available to be attacked.
Of course, there's always the possibility that some quantum leap in mathematical knowledge will make asymetrical (public key) algorithms unsafe. But symmetric algorithms like BlowFish do not share that quality, and it is a LOT easier to distribute keys for BlowFish than to distribute keys for One Time Pads (said keys which must be the same length as the text to be encrypted/decrypted).
-E
Doing well? Other than being owned by S3 and losing major amounts of money...
Diamond has been on the ropes for a while now, either barely breaking even or actually losing money. That's why S3 could pick them up so cheaply, even though S3 itself is hardly in the best of health.
-E
I always read the Register, because I don't have time to go search for computer news and their little niblets are entertaining. But I do admit that I don't rely on them for accuracy (grin).
-E
The current PCI bus spec tops out at 33Mhz. The current AGP bus spec tops out at 66Mhz. Intel now has a 66Mhz PCI spec (i.e., just as fast as AGP), but a) it is currently available only in their latest motherboard, and b) in that motherboard, it requires eliminating the AGP slot. As for 64-bit PCI, both Compaq and AMI have motherboards that do 64-bit PCI with Intel 32-bit processors. Remember that the width of the bus does not have to be the same as the width of the processor... for example, current chipsets already have a 64-bit bus to main memory, and serialize it to a stream of 32-bit words when it comes time to present the data to the processor. And some Alpha motherboards have busses as wide as 256 bits to main memory, and again, serialize it to a stream of 64-bit words when it comes time to present the data to the (64-bit) processor.
A year ago Linux did not support the 64-bit PCI spec even on Alphas (which did have 64-bit PCI slots even back then). But I have not checked things out lately, too many other fun things to do and I'm not in that business anymore.
-E