If you're in the United States, get out now. In this country, "hackers" are branded "cyberterrorists" and anything you do with a computer is treated worse than many rapes and murders. Get out. There is no sense dealing with these people... you will be treated like an animal by a bunch of animals and there will be no justice.
I should know. I had a little bout with the FBI from some messing around with computers in college. They nearly destroyed my entire life. A felony for such a minor offense? Insane.
Whenever someone brings suit against Microsoft, they always try to settle. There is no court proceedings in which facts will become public record. There is no innocent or guilty verdict. It's all very quiet, subtle, and quickly brushed aside from peoples' view and memory.
Reading the Complaint, Be appears to have had a very strong case. I cannot believe they would actually lose in court again Microsoft. (Then again, Microsoft do have an army of lawyers and unlimited monetary resources at their disposal.) By accepting this settlement, they do not demonstrate Microsoft had engaged in any wrong-doing. By all accounts, a mere 23 million is nothing to Microsoft and they come out as the winners.
Shame on you, Be. Why doesn't anyone actually take a stand these days? Microsoft says: "here's a lollipop, now shut the fuck up." People, unfortunately, take it without any consideration for the public good in the long-term.
Wouldn't this require more complex in-orbit acrobatics to join the cargo and crew craft? (And then of course to detach for re-entry.) It seems to me that the more maneuvering would be required (which is potentially quite error-prone, even with computers handling it) the more risk is increased. Furthermore, you now have twice the number of flight systems to handle.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a step backwards.
I think Blair would complain if I called the book: "One Nine Eight Four". But if you'll kindly notice, I have emphasized the title (whether or not it is italicized is determined by your browser, but is no doubt emphasized in a structural sense), so there should be no confusion that I am refering to a proper name, not the digits 1, 9, 8, and 4, nor am I refering to the year itself.
Blair probably would not have bothered with such a trivial issue as we have just done now and he would call us both fools for it. Please kindly return to your gin.
Side note: does anyone else get the impression of Nazi era propaganda in this? It's an awesome ad, but come on: a blond-haired, blue-eyed kid? Why would such a child be the pinnacle of humanity? Just a thought, please don't moderate me for it.
Myself and most people I knew thought they sucked ass. Which is true: compared to alternatives, their hardware was subpar, their operating system was miserable. Now I am the happy owner of a 15" TiPB, and it's the best damn investment I've ever made.
My point is: there's can always be a turn-around for an individual or a group. Who knows, maybe one day Microsoft will hop on the open source bandwagon, choose honesty as a new collogne and become a major community contributor.
And what is that based on? A generic cryptographic framework that can be used in any application versus a specialized block device that integrates the functionality. Elaborate please. What if I was writing software that had nothing to do with block device encryption. How could I use loop-aes?
2.4.22 now includes cryptoapi in the pristine kernel. And if you go to a kernel.org mirror, look in/pub/linux/kernel/crypto/v2.4/testing/ and you will find patch-cryptoloop-[jari|hvr].2.4.22.0 (as of the time of this writing).
So there are patches for the last four kernels in the 2.4.x branch.
Just the x86 ones alone would require half a dozen separate builds or more, without taking into account SMP or lack of SMP.
This isn't entirely true. You could take a pristine kernel and make it modular. You would only really need two kernel packages, one with SMP and one without. This is what Debian does. Of course, then again, an SMP-enabled kernel will run just fine on a uniprocessor machine. You are certainly correct that you need to build for every architecture, but that is true for any software. Any reasons why you would need half a dozen builds for on arch when that turns out to not be the case in practice?
In this thread, many people have pointed out how evil Telstra is (I won't repeat). They are yet another greedy, monopolistic telco. Some people point out these things but then mention they don't know how to feel about the telco because now they are supporting open source.
Let's make one thing clear: the software an organization uses doesn't make them good or bad in a moral or ethical sense.
In otherwords, all you people who are wondering how you should feel about Telstra should just continue hating them. If Microsoft switched to 100% open source software, I would not forget all the shit they've pulled. I would still argue that everything that can be done to make them go away or pay for their crimes should be done. That goes for this telco too (assuming they are as bad as some people say).
We can certainly use the fact they've switched to open source to our advantage, citing it as a success story and so on. However, that does not mean all those affected should go off and pat them on the back. If they were a nasty telco running Windows, they'll be just as nasty of a telco running Linux--and with more money in their pocket to continue doing nasty things.
It only requires that you patch util-linux which kerneli also requires.
Not entirely true. Or perhaps we're talking about the same code. AFAIK, the default util-linux package contains the code to work with cryptoloop devices. At least on a default Debian install, I get:
michaela@elwing:~$/sbin/losetup --help ... --encryption <cipher>, -e <cipher> encrypt with <cipher>. Check/proc/cipher for available ciphers. --keybits <num>, -k <num> specify number of bits in the hashed key given to the cipher. Some ciphers support several key sizes and might be more efficient with a smaller key size. Key sizes < 128 are generally not recommended ...
And of course I have no problems passing --keybits=<keybits> -o encryption=<cipher>,loop to mount(8) either. I haven't had to patch this package for quite a long time (I do not recall when).
So your choice is to use loop-aes or kerneli with the main difference being a single up to date patch (for each new kernel) with loop-aes or you can be confused why kerneli doesn't even have patches for the last FOUR kernels in the 2.4.x branch.
I thought the issue with patch-int not getting updated was because all of it's functionality went into cryptoapi and that it was essentially deprecreated. That's one of the things I was really excited about with 2.6.x--we no longer have to patch the kernel to get crypto. Everything works out of the box.
Kerneli isn't a worth while choice anymore and it hasn't been as long as jari has been working on the AES(blowfish, serpent,twofish,etc) support. I suggest you stop trolling and use it;-p
The jari patch for the loop device seems to be kept up-to-date (it's nice because it can even handle swap devices--which if those go unencrypted can be a serious leak). Of course, I don't want to go to loop-aes because as I mentioned earlier, all this stuff is being included in the pristine 2.6.x kernels.
Which brings me back to my original question: why doesn't it work in 2.6.x yet? Is the kernel broken or is util-linux? Did they change how the passphrase gets sent to the kernel? One thing I haven't tried yet is creating a loop without a passphrase--that might indicative of obsolete code in util-linux. Which reminds me, I think I read that there's a 2.12 release of util-linux that is geared for use with 2.6.x. I wonder...
A script with variable-fontsized text based on the screen resolution.
You know nothing. Trust me. That's not how you make web sites more accessible. This is how you defeat accessibility because many screen readers and specialized browsers don't understand JavaScript. You use stylesheets and standards compliant mark up. Get out of the web business, please.
Keeping in mind that 24pt font on 640x480 is about an inch high...
Oh yea? Prove it. What if they have a 21 inch monitor running at 640x480? What if they have a 12 inch monitor running at that 640x480. In any case, what if they have their DPI set to something other than "standard" screen resolution? 72, 75, 100 are all very common. What if they use a custom stylesheet? What if the browser is set to magnify fonts?
It's simple: adhere to web standards. There is nothing to be done about making big fonts or using graphics over text as some other idiot suggested. Use strict XHTML and use pure CSS to layout it out and control appearance. Here's why.
When you develop by web standards, which also implies separation of content from structure, you get content which is marked up based on what it is and not what it should look like. You never have any guarantee as to what size, shape, or color your content is going to appear as. The best you can do is describe it. For example, headers should be marked up with header tags, emphasized text should use <em> as opposed to <i>. How do you know a user has emphasized text set to italic? They may not. Publishers sure as hell don't do that when reviewing manuscripts. This is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. I highly suggest everyone go over and read Jeffery Zeldman's site for more details.
So what does this get you? Since we're dealing with accessibility, I'll concentrate on that aspect of standards compliant web design. If your content is properly marked up, it gets properly interpreted by screen readers and other software and devices that allow poor/no eye-sign view to get the content. A screen reader doesn't know what the hell <font size="+3">Title</font> mean. It doesn't know how to address it or "present" it to the user. However, if you use <h1>Title</h1> to define the text, the screen reader knows it's a top-level header. Based on the programmed behavior, the content will be far more intelligible.
But it goes further still. Many people who have tough time using web sites due to small fonts or bad colors will supply their own style sheets. (This is why good browsers give you this option in the first place.) People should be able to override the stylesheets provided with your site so it can become more accessible to them. If doing this breaks your site in some way, then its your fault and you should lose that customer.
At any rate, I highly recommend that everyone who is about to embark or is in the business of web design and development read this book: Designing With Web Standards by Jeffery Zeldman. This guy knows what he's talking about and if more people followed his advice, we'd have a web that was usable by everyone, regardless of their sensory disabilities.
I also recommend scoping out the CSS Zen Garden. It's a site built with XHTML strict and styled with pure CSS. You can even switch stylesheets on it and it's visual appearance gets completely overhauled without any modification to the mark up or structure. Now imagine how easy it would be to supply your own CSS to the site to make it more usable.
Yes, this is definitely a rant. I hope many of you take it to heart, nevertheless. Browsers are becoming more and more standards compliant all the time. The web as a practice is becoming more refined and serious as opposed to being laden with idiots who pirated a copy of Dreamweaver or Frontpage and are out there polluting the scene with crap.
loop works just fine and if you want crypto use the fucking loop-aes.sf.net package for loop.o.
OKay, so what if you're me and don't want to use Rijandel? I prefer Serpent over others because it was an AES finalist and it's faster than Blowfish and Rijandel. (Why Rijandel was chosen is beyond my comprehension, so don't ask.)
The point is: it's better to use cryptoloop with the cryptoapi so you are not locked into one particular cypher. It's stupid to write a block device patch that wholey integrates the cypher to be used when an entire crypto framework for the kernel already exists.
cryptoloop's corruption problems have been fixed in 2.6.0-test4. cryptoloop is quite stable, since it's only a thin layer between cryptoapi and loop. But loop is really causing problems.
It is in test4 that I last tried it. If it's a kernel problem, it hasn't been fixed.
Seriously, that block device driver needs a lot of work. I can't really recommend using cryptoloop to anyone, before loop.c has not been fixed.
I've been using the cryptoloop to encrypt my filesystems for years now. I've evern developed a small set of utilities to help manage them along the way. There were no problems before, I don't see why there shuold be now.
OpenPGP/GPG Integration?
on
Aethera 1.0
·
· Score: 1
For me it's crutial that my mailer support this. I am presently looking for a solid alternative to KMail. Does the mailer here support PGP?
I use the cryptoapi+cryptoloop for encrypted filesystems on just about every one of my machine's where user data might be stored. However, one of them (my workstation) I wanted to try 2.6 on for shits and giggles (it's a box that regularly gets trashed and screwed up, so it's little concern). When running 2.6 with all the appropriate modules compiled and loaded (including the cryptoloop block device) it *always* fails to mount them! Even if I just create a tiny little file and try to mount it through a cryptoloop device, the system (reiserfs specifically) always complains about not being able to recognize any data on the device (no filesystem). The behavior is conistent with entering an incorrect passphrase on an existing device.
What could possibly be the problem? Does 2.6 require a new suite of userspace tools to do this? Is the 2.6 cryptoloop device currently broken? Has anyone else run into this problem? I'm really excited about running 2.6 (given the often hyped performance improvements) but this is the only thing holding me back.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're in the United States, get out now. In this country, "hackers" are branded "cyberterrorists" and anything you do with a computer is treated worse than many rapes and murders. Get out. There is no sense dealing with these people... you will be treated like an animal by a bunch of animals and there will be no justice.
I should know. I had a little bout with the FBI from some messing around with computers in college. They nearly destroyed my entire life. A felony for such a minor offense? Insane.
Whenever someone brings suit against Microsoft, they always try to settle. There is no court proceedings in which facts will become public record. There is no innocent or guilty verdict. It's all very quiet, subtle, and quickly brushed aside from peoples' view and memory.
Reading the Complaint, Be appears to have had a very strong case. I cannot believe they would actually lose in court again Microsoft. (Then again, Microsoft do have an army of lawyers and unlimited monetary resources at their disposal.) By accepting this settlement, they do not demonstrate Microsoft had engaged in any wrong-doing. By all accounts, a mere 23 million is nothing to Microsoft and they come out as the winners.
Shame on you, Be. Why doesn't anyone actually take a stand these days? Microsoft says: "here's a lollipop, now shut the fuck up." People, unfortunately, take it without any consideration for the public good in the long-term.
Wouldn't this require more complex in-orbit acrobatics to join the cargo and crew craft? (And then of course to detach for re-entry.) It seems to me that the more maneuvering would be required (which is potentially quite error-prone, even with computers handling it) the more risk is increased. Furthermore, you now have twice the number of flight systems to handle.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a step backwards.
Right.
I think Blair would complain if I called the book: "One Nine Eight Four". But if you'll kindly notice, I have emphasized the title (whether or not it is italicized is determined by your browser, but is no doubt emphasized in a structural sense), so there should be no confusion that I am refering to a proper name, not the digits 1, 9, 8, and 4, nor am I refering to the year itself.
Blair probably would not have bothered with such a trivial issue as we have just done now and he would call us both fools for it. Please kindly return to your gin.
See my post with links to other formats on IBM's site.
You can go straight to IBM's site and download Real Media (high | low), QuickTime (high | low), or MPEG (high | low) versions of it.
And of course, if you use MPlayer, you can watch the movie from the Windows Media stream simply with:
mplayer mms://windowsmedia.dvlabs.com/adcritic/ibm-linux-p rodigy.asf
Enjoy.
Side note: does anyone else get the impression of Nazi era propaganda in this? It's an awesome ad, but come on: a blond-haired, blue-eyed kid? Why would such a child be the pinnacle of humanity? Just a thought, please don't moderate me for it.
Myself and most people I knew thought they sucked ass. Which is true: compared to alternatives, their hardware was subpar, their operating system was miserable. Now I am the happy owner of a 15" TiPB, and it's the best damn investment I've ever made.
My point is: there's can always be a turn-around for an individual or a group. Who knows, maybe one day Microsoft will hop on the open source bandwagon, choose honesty as a new collogne and become a major community contributor.
Actually, that would be in 1984. But close enough.
This page featuring the ad offers it in Windows MediaPlayer format. Is there anyone out there with an MPEG copy?
What kind of self-respecting Linux distribution review lacks screen shots of the installer, package manager, default desktop, and some web browser.
Clearly this review is inferior. I suggest we find someone else to do it right!
As I demonstrated earlier, this is not correct.
And what is that based on? A generic cryptographic framework that can be used in any application versus a specialized block device that integrates the functionality. Elaborate please. What if I was writing software that had nothing to do with block device encryption. How could I use loop-aes?
My apologies: my head wasn't on straight and I was thinking of something else when I wrote this. Ignore my disagreement to your statement. :-)
2.4.22 now includes cryptoapi in the pristine kernel. And if you go to a kernel.org mirror, look in /pub/linux/kernel/crypto/v2.4/testing/ and you will find patch-cryptoloop-[jari|hvr].2.4.22.0 (as of the time of this writing).
So there are patches for the last four kernels in the 2.4.x branch.
This isn't entirely true. You could take a pristine kernel and make it modular. You would only really need two kernel packages, one with SMP and one without. This is what Debian does. Of course, then again, an SMP-enabled kernel will run just fine on a uniprocessor machine. You are certainly correct that you need to build for every architecture, but that is true for any software. Any reasons why you would need half a dozen builds for on arch when that turns out to not be the case in practice?
I think it's more a matter of telling the **AA where they can shove it.
In this thread, many people have pointed out how evil Telstra is (I won't repeat). They are yet another greedy, monopolistic telco. Some people point out these things but then mention they don't know how to feel about the telco because now they are supporting open source.
Let's make one thing clear: the software an organization uses doesn't make them good or bad in a moral or ethical sense.
In otherwords, all you people who are wondering how you should feel about Telstra should just continue hating them. If Microsoft switched to 100% open source software, I would not forget all the shit they've pulled. I would still argue that everything that can be done to make them go away or pay for their crimes should be done. That goes for this telco too (assuming they are as bad as some people say).
We can certainly use the fact they've switched to open source to our advantage, citing it as a success story and so on. However, that does not mean all those affected should go off and pat them on the back. If they were a nasty telco running Windows, they'll be just as nasty of a telco running Linux--and with more money in their pocket to continue doing nasty things.
Think about it.
Not entirely true. Or perhaps we're talking about the same code. AFAIK, the default util-linux package contains the code to work with cryptoloop devices. At least on a default Debian install, I get:
And of course I have no problems passing --keybits=<keybits> -o encryption=<cipher>,loop to mount(8) either. I haven't had to patch this package for quite a long time (I do not recall when).
I thought the issue with patch-int not getting updated was because all of it's functionality went into cryptoapi and that it was essentially deprecreated. That's one of the things I was really excited about with 2.6.x--we no longer have to patch the kernel to get crypto. Everything works out of the box.
The jari patch for the loop device seems to be kept up-to-date (it's nice because it can even handle swap devices--which if those go unencrypted can be a serious leak). Of course, I don't want to go to loop-aes because as I mentioned earlier, all this stuff is being included in the pristine 2.6.x kernels.
Which brings me back to my original question: why doesn't it work in 2.6.x yet? Is the kernel broken or is util-linux? Did they change how the passphrase gets sent to the kernel? One thing I haven't tried yet is creating a loop without a passphrase--that might indicative of obsolete code in util-linux. Which reminds me, I think I read that there's a 2.12 release of util-linux that is geared for use with 2.6.x. I wonder...
You can get all the advanced features and functionality of Longhorn (and then some) later this month! Where? Here, of course!
Does it require any additional userspace tools?
You know nothing. Trust me. That's not how you make web sites more accessible. This is how you defeat accessibility because many screen readers and specialized browsers don't understand JavaScript. You use stylesheets and standards compliant mark up. Get out of the web business, please.
Oh yea? Prove it. What if they have a 21 inch monitor running at 640x480? What if they have a 12 inch monitor running at that 640x480. In any case, what if they have their DPI set to something other than "standard" screen resolution? 72, 75, 100 are all very common. What if they use a custom stylesheet? What if the browser is set to magnify fonts?
As I said, you don't know anything about this.
It's simple: adhere to web standards. There is nothing to be done about making big fonts or using graphics over text as some other idiot suggested. Use strict XHTML and use pure CSS to layout it out and control appearance. Here's why.
When you develop by web standards, which also implies separation of content from structure, you get content which is marked up based on what it is and not what it should look like. You never have any guarantee as to what size, shape, or color your content is going to appear as. The best you can do is describe it. For example, headers should be marked up with header tags, emphasized text should use <em> as opposed to <i>. How do you know a user has emphasized text set to italic? They may not. Publishers sure as hell don't do that when reviewing manuscripts. This is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. I highly suggest everyone go over and read Jeffery Zeldman's site for more details.
So what does this get you? Since we're dealing with accessibility, I'll concentrate on that aspect of standards compliant web design. If your content is properly marked up, it gets properly interpreted by screen readers and other software and devices that allow poor/no eye-sign view to get the content. A screen reader doesn't know what the hell <font size="+3">Title</font> mean. It doesn't know how to address it or "present" it to the user. However, if you use <h1>Title</h1> to define the text, the screen reader knows it's a top-level header. Based on the programmed behavior, the content will be far more intelligible.
But it goes further still. Many people who have tough time using web sites due to small fonts or bad colors will supply their own style sheets. (This is why good browsers give you this option in the first place.) People should be able to override the stylesheets provided with your site so it can become more accessible to them. If doing this breaks your site in some way, then its your fault and you should lose that customer.
At any rate, I highly recommend that everyone who is about to embark or is in the business of web design and development read this book: Designing With Web Standards by Jeffery Zeldman. This guy knows what he's talking about and if more people followed his advice, we'd have a web that was usable by everyone, regardless of their sensory disabilities.
I also recommend scoping out the CSS Zen Garden. It's a site built with XHTML strict and styled with pure CSS. You can even switch stylesheets on it and it's visual appearance gets completely overhauled without any modification to the mark up or structure. Now imagine how easy it would be to supply your own CSS to the site to make it more usable.
Yes, this is definitely a rant. I hope many of you take it to heart, nevertheless. Browsers are becoming more and more standards compliant all the time. The web as a practice is becoming more refined and serious as opposed to being laden with idiots who pirated a copy of Dreamweaver or Frontpage and are out there polluting the scene with crap.
OKay, so what if you're me and don't want to use Rijandel? I prefer Serpent over others because it was an AES finalist and it's faster than Blowfish and Rijandel. (Why Rijandel was chosen is beyond my comprehension, so don't ask.)
The point is: it's better to use cryptoloop with the cryptoapi so you are not locked into one particular cypher. It's stupid to write a block device patch that wholey integrates the cypher to be used when an entire crypto framework for the kernel already exists.
It is in test4 that I last tried it. If it's a kernel problem, it hasn't been fixed.
I've been using the cryptoloop to encrypt my filesystems for years now. I've evern developed a small set of utilities to help manage them along the way. There were no problems before, I don't see why there shuold be now.
For me it's crutial that my mailer support this. I am presently looking for a solid alternative to KMail. Does the mailer here support PGP?
I use the cryptoapi+cryptoloop for encrypted filesystems on just about every one of my machine's where user data might be stored. However, one of them (my workstation) I wanted to try 2.6 on for shits and giggles (it's a box that regularly gets trashed and screwed up, so it's little concern). When running 2.6 with all the appropriate modules compiled and loaded (including the cryptoloop block device) it *always* fails to mount them! Even if I just create a tiny little file and try to mount it through a cryptoloop device, the system (reiserfs specifically) always complains about not being able to recognize any data on the device (no filesystem). The behavior is conistent with entering an incorrect passphrase on an existing device.
What could possibly be the problem? Does 2.6 require a new suite of userspace tools to do this? Is the 2.6 cryptoloop device currently broken? Has anyone else run into this problem? I'm really excited about running 2.6 (given the often hyped performance improvements) but this is the only thing holding me back.