I was once in an organization that had a policy that any desired software must be approved by the IT folks. If it was not freeware, it needed to be paid for. There was no specific prohibition against OSS. But the IT folks would not support anything but Microsoft products. You could use Linux, but you'd be on your own.
We had two Linux boxes running in our office. One for standard ail and dialup, and another running an important application related to our mission.
It's not like that all over. I had a similar problem in a previous position. I needed a low-volume, local email solution with the ability to have dialup connectivity with the campus mail server. I asked our IT folks for an NT box and Exchange. They decided we did not need it bad enough to spend the required money. Fine. Slackware to the rescue. I put together a 386/20 with 8MB RAM, and a 140MB hard disk and made it a mail server for about a dozen people. No problem.
There are lots of Linux and *BSD boxed in the.gov and.mil domains. Lots of people have a requirement and don't have the time, money, or both that it takes to get a commercial solution. So they bring in the handy-dandy CDROM and install an Open Source solution in less time and money than it would take to purchase something that may not be as useful in the long run.
Recently I was asked how to use PGP to encrypt mail from a form on a business so that no one could see it as it traveled between the web-hosting business and the actual owner of the site.
I mentioned the (then upcoming) command-line version of PGP, but also GNUPG.
S/MIME has a good architecture, but the business versions of PGP also have good key management on other features intended for business users.
And as far as "real world" use, S/MIME is new and has announced support from vendors, but on the Internet "email encryption" and "PGP" are all but synonymous. Recent versions of PGP integrate well with the most popular Windows mail clients (except Netscape Messenger). It also features clipboard integration with any other text-processing application.
It's already too late. Both PGP and GPG are available internationally. SSL for browsers and other types of TCP connections is avialable internationally. PGP is available in Win95/98/NT versions with a plugin for the default Outlook Express mail client that used by most clueless newbies. All a criminal needs to be able to do is complete a standard Win9x-style program donlaod and install, then take one extra step; send the resulting public key to his partners in crime.
Any criminal with enough sense to look into encryption will be able to do this, anywhere in the industrial world. But the NSA and FBI's priomary interest in stalling/preventing encryption is that it makes it much, much harder to routinely scan lots of communications for keywords and extract bits and pieces; bits and pieces that would be assembled later into the "Big Picture". Routine encryption would all be prevent that. That's why they're screaming and kicking.
But they will be dragged into this. Because as soon as you pose the question in terms the aveage unwaired individual can understand, they immediately object to anyone, especially the government, being able to eavesdrop on communications that they intend to keep private.
With every passing year the U.S. export regs get closer to being overcome by events.
The only way to stop spam is to get the people who do send it and make it in there best intrest not to do so.
One way to do this is to tell them they face large fines for violating the law. Large enough to offset the potential profit. So patching sendmail to violate the law would become an expensive proposition.
If the headers include accurate and complete (normal) routing info and one header indicated it is an unsolicited bulk message (commercial or otherwise) we'd have all the info we need to handle spam.
The other thing that's needed is a law requiring bulk mailers to
Actually remove people that request removal from the mailing list
Not pass the email address to other entities
Include an email address within the message to handle these functions.
The problem is that NT marketing hype encourages clueless admins.
One of the benefits of headless Linux boxes is the prevention of accidental Ctrl-Alt-Delete login attempts. The longest downtime I ever had on Linux was the result of troubleshooting a bad IP Address/Netmask given to me by a clueless NT admin. There are entirely too many of these folks with certificates calling themselves admins.
X predates MS Windows. Do you think Microsoft just snatched the name "Windows" out of thin air?
Not only that, Microsoft released a version of NetMeeting for Linux. And do you think it's even remotely possible that he's unaware that Netscape and WordPerfect run on Linux. Please.
For Gates to sit there now and claim that Linux does not come with a graphical interface is just a baldfaced lie. The sad thing is that the audience he was addressing probably sucked it right up without question.
This article was posted on the Windows User group Network. Bill gates could have said just about anything about his competitors and not been questioned among that audience.
The sad thing is that many press folks are not computer saavy and will just parrot Gates' words as if they were true. They don't know any better and they won't check.
The same reporters that trumpeted the release of GNOME will turn right around and quote Gates saying Linux does not have a GUI. You don't have to know anything about Linux to recognize that one of the two stories has to be inaccurate.
Linux folks recompile the kernel because features that aren't commonly used are not compiled in by default. In NT, all the features are compiled in by default. That's why NT is slow and clumsy when compared to Linux running the same services on the same hardware.
NT users need to be able to tune the kernel to decrease system overhead and increase stability, but they can't. Not being able to do something is generally not an advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
I was once in an organization that had a policy that any desired software must be approved by the IT folks. If it was not freeware, it needed to be paid for. There was no specific prohibition against OSS. But the IT folks would not support anything but Microsoft products. You could use Linux, but you'd be on your own.
We had two Linux boxes running in our office. One for standard ail and dialup, and another running an important application related to our mission.
It's not like that all over. I had a similar problem in a previous position. I needed a low-volume, local email solution with the ability to have dialup connectivity with the campus mail server. I asked our IT folks for an NT box and Exchange. They decided we did not need it bad enough to spend the required money. Fine. Slackware to the rescue. I put together a 386/20 with 8MB RAM, and a 140MB hard disk and made it a mail server for about a dozen people. No problem.
.gov and .mil domains. Lots of people have a requirement and don't have the time, money, or both that it takes to get a commercial solution. So they bring in the handy-dandy CDROM and install an Open Source solution in less time and money than it would take to purchase something that may not be as useful in the long run.
There are lots of Linux and *BSD boxed in the
Recently I was asked how to use PGP to encrypt mail from a form on a business so that no one could see it as it traveled between the web-hosting business and the actual owner of the site.
I mentioned the (then upcoming) command-line version of PGP, but also GNUPG.
S/MIME has a good architecture, but the business versions of PGP also have good key management on other features intended for business users.
And as far as "real world" use, S/MIME is new and has announced support from vendors, but on the Internet "email encryption" and "PGP" are all but synonymous. Recent versions of PGP integrate well with the most popular Windows mail clients (except Netscape Messenger). It also features clipboard integration with any other text-processing application.
It can interoperate with PGP5/6 users as long as they use DH/DSS keys and the associated default symmetric encryption (3DES or CAST128?).
See the GNUPG Homepage for more info.
It's already too late. Both PGP and GPG are available internationally. SSL for browsers and other types of TCP connections is avialable internationally. PGP is available in Win95/98/NT versions with a plugin for the default Outlook Express mail client that used by most clueless newbies. All a criminal needs to be able to do is complete a standard Win9x-style program donlaod and install, then take one extra step; send the resulting public key to his partners in crime.
Any criminal with enough sense to look into encryption will be able to do this, anywhere in the industrial world. But the NSA and FBI's priomary interest in stalling/preventing encryption is that it makes it much, much harder to routinely scan lots of communications for keywords and extract bits and pieces; bits and pieces that would be assembled later into the "Big Picture". Routine encryption would all be prevent that. That's why they're screaming and kicking.
But they will be dragged into this. Because as soon as you pose the question in terms the aveage unwaired individual can understand, they immediately object to anyone, especially the government, being able to eavesdrop on communications that they intend to keep private.
With every passing year the U.S. export regs get closer to being overcome by events.
One way to do this is to tell them they face large fines for violating the law. Large enough to offset the potential profit. So patching sendmail to violate the law would become an expensive proposition.
If the headers include accurate and complete (normal) routing info and one header indicated it is an unsolicited bulk message (commercial or otherwise) we'd have all the info we need to handle spam.
The other thing that's needed is a law requiring bulk mailers to
The problem is that NT marketing hype encourages clueless admins.
One of the benefits of headless Linux boxes is the prevention of accidental Ctrl-Alt-Delete login attempts. The longest downtime I ever had on Linux was the result of troubleshooting a bad IP Address/Netmask given to me by a clueless NT admin. There are entirely too many of these folks with certificates calling themselves admins.
X predates MS Windows. Do you think Microsoft just snatched the name "Windows" out of thin air?
Not only that, Microsoft released a version of NetMeeting for Linux. And do you think it's even remotely possible that he's unaware that Netscape and WordPerfect run on Linux. Please.
For Gates to sit there now and claim that Linux does not come with a graphical interface is just a baldfaced lie. The sad thing is that the audience he was addressing probably sucked it right up without question.
This article was posted on the Windows User group Network. Bill gates could have said just about anything about his competitors and not been questioned among that audience.
The sad thing is that many press folks are not computer saavy and will just parrot Gates' words as if they were true. They don't know any better and they won't check.
The same reporters that trumpeted the release of GNOME will turn right around and quote Gates saying Linux does not have a GUI. You don't have to know anything about Linux to recognize that one of the two stories has to be inaccurate.
Linux folks recompile the kernel because features that aren't commonly used are not compiled in by default. In NT, all the features are compiled in by default. That's why NT is slow and clumsy when compared to Linux running the same services on the same hardware.
NT users need to be able to tune the kernel to decrease system overhead and increase stability, but they can't. Not being able to do something is generally not an advantage.