Technology will obsolete this within 5-10 years
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 2
Did ya see the news about the Canadian cell phone company having to kowtow to the FBI for the very same wire tapping reasons? Friends, it's a lost cause. Within 5 years I expect to be able to use encrypted voice over IP and the FBI won't be able to learn jack about it. Even the destination will be hidden by anonymouse recallers(?) just as anonymous remailers hide email destinations.
Not eveyrone will use it of course, especially ordinary punters. But I sure will, and lots of you will, and definitely those who have something to hide and the brains to survive.
I believe the 36 bit addressing only allows you to use memory beyond 32 bits for paging; buffers, cache, etc. Logical addressing (program addresses) is still limited to 2GB or 3GB or whatever. So if you put 64G on your quad Xeon factory heater (tm), programs still max out at 4G. But you get plenty of disk buffers....
I was not complaining about bad spelling or typoes, I was complaining about the shoddy sentence structure which renders entire sentences into meaningless gibberish.
I distinctly remember the CEO or President of SGI saying that only 3 Unices would survive; two were Solaris and Linxu, the third I forget (Monterey? AIX?) but it positively was not IRIX. Now this may be the same guy who recently went to M$, or it may not be. But if it was, and that itself presages a change for the better in IRIX's future, then that quick a change for no better reason implies lack of stability at SGI.
Please, proofread your writing in the future. Several sentences are basically unintelligible except in context. Such lack only implies you were in a hurry, which doesn't help your self proclaimed debunking image.
There are four wholly separate BSD derived operating systems in current development...These projects neither pretend to be the same operating system nor operate with the same goals
And then sentences later he admits they used to be the same but forked. Geee mister what's *your* definition of fragmentation then?
Suppose 1000 lamers who check once an hour for new articles. That's an average of one every 3.6 seconds. Even with only 100 such lamers, that's 36 seconds. Not hard at all for one of them to get a first post.
There's what you call the console window on the right. There's the big window underneath everything that looks like a file browser on its left side, and has the grey you speak of at the top. At least one part of the window has www.news.com.
But between those two is a third window which is probably Opera help or something.
And possibly a fourth window between the Opera Help window and the www.news.com -- Says XSL etc. You can only see the bottom, but that part also looks like an independent window.
Maybe I am just paranoid from writing too many hardware diagnostics. However, it seems to me that nature's evolution has had millions and billions of years to work out the flaws in its "designs", to catch all the boundary conditions, race conditions, varying inputs, different ambient conditions, and so on. Don't forget the zillions of test units all interacting with each other:-)
This chip evolution simply can't have had the same level of testing. They don't know the inner workings, and they apparently are using circuits in novel and even unknown and mysterious ways.
Am I perhaps too paranoid here? How well can these chips be expected to work, especially when connected together? One of teh hardest debugging lessons I have yet to adequately learn is to change just one thing at a time. Murphy is my mother's middle name; I wonder how well these mystery circuits will work as they are thrown together into ever bigger piles.
I know someone who was investigated by the FBI (wiretapped and his neighbors questioned) for several reasons (mid 60s):
1. He questioned the federal policy of continuing to work in a building which the state had condemned as unsafe in an earthquake.
2. He started a union.
3. He raised so much flack over LBJ's proposed "volunary" $100/month war bonds that it was withdrawn.
It makes my blood boil to think of the sheer arrogance that someone has to have to think this activity makes you fair game for a full blooded investigation. As a human being, a relative, and even as a taxpayer, I resent this.
Then there; sthe forged Martin Luther King Jr. tapes or letters (I've forgotten now). This government simply has a track record which makes them unfit for snooping, yet they are so focused on more and more big brother power. I imagine psychiatrists must have a name for their disease.
...who said he expects 3 Unix to survive, Solaris, Linux, and something other than IRIX. Sounds pretty clear to me that its long term future has been de-assured.
When was the last time you read about someone stoned on a joint who went on a murderous rampage, or lynched some minority representative? Or a bunch of guys getting into a big fight at a football match after getti8ng stoned? Sheesh.
The very name tells you the one time pad is meant to be used one time, yet the author states:
After you make a key file, you can use it over and over again
and helpfully suggests that
you might want to make a separate key file for each person with whom you want to exchange encrypted files
No no no! You DO NOT re-use one time pads. You DO NOT share one key with multiple people even with "lesser" crypto systems, but ESPECIALLY withone time pads, because that implies re-use.
One time pads are only unbreakable when used just once. Multiple uses leave clues for analysis.
Anyone who knows even a little about crypto knows that the weakest link is managing the keys. That's why PGP's private keys are hidden by that obnoxious pass phrase. If the black bag guys break into your computer and copy your PGP files, they still have to decrypt them because your pass phrase muddles things. With this one time pad, they have the key immediately, no further work required.
This guy seems to imply you should keep your one time key lying aorund the hard disk so you can encrypt and decrypt at will. Good gosh, PGP encrypts the private key with the pass phrase at least. Here you leave your one time key OUT IN THE OPEN, and REUSE it, over and over again. This is NOT secure crypto.
THIS IS LESS SECURE THAN PGP. This is a silly little toy and DOES NOT PROVIDE SECURITY.
He massively understates how easy it is to factor RSA private keys. He says "it is possible", yet he is wrong. Until and unless new algorithms are found, there are not enough atoms in the universe to factor 4096 bit keys before the universe collapses back into the next big bang. Luck does not enter into it. There is only so much theoretical computational power available in the lifetime of the universe; it won't crack even a single key. And if you spread it over multiple keys, then the chances for any single attack drop correspondingly.
Alphas are fast but expensive; I haven't seen any figures, but I bet for the same amount of money, the detested Pentiums give more performance.
That's the reason to be interested in PPCs. Low prices come from volume production, and Alphas just ain't got it. PPCs have a start in that direction with Macs, and it's possible that adding Linux would boost production enough to keep the price low. Since PPCs (like Alphas) make better use of silicon die space, they have an inherent advantage over any x86. It just takes volume production to realize that advantage.
Good gosh, she was his best partner. Certainly he was the bigger star, but his movies after Ginger became incerasingly silly, pairing him with some young spring chicken. Whereas her movies after Fred showed class. No one was as good as Fred Astaire, and no one was as good as Ginger Rogers. To compare her to Microsoft shows no respect.
First, remap the two keys with the windoze logo to ALT. I did this so long ago I've forgotten the details. I think the one taht says ALT appears to Emacs as the META key, so I map the two new keys to ALT. It's confusing if I think about it so I just don't do that any more.
Second, remap the the "menu" key (the third new one) to I think Hyper. That is now my FVWM2 control key. MENU + INSERT gives me the root menu, MENU + arrows bops among the desktop pages, MENU + HOME moves, etc.
This leaves ALT and META available entirely to prograns, so I don't worry about CTRL-ALT F1 changing consoles on me.
If your comment about "nuts" is my other comment above, you din't read it write, or I didn't write it clearly enough. There is a continuum from a full RDBMS on one end to gdbm/dbm on the other, with mysql being in the middle. There certainly are times when even mysql is overkill, and gdbm is perfectly good enough. And there are times when mysql is not good enough, and you need a real RDBMS with transactions.
That's what it comes down to. Consider gdbm/dbm as even lower on the functionality list, and even faster (I reckon, but don't truly know). Not all programs need a full RDBMS. That's all, no hidden agenda.
I believe I have read that 40% of NT 4.0 programs won't run on W2K. That strikes me as pretty serious compatibility problems. Programs from my old Slackware 1.0.9 kernel still run on the same box, even tho it has been upgraded to ELF, glibc, and 2.0.3? kernel.
My background has very little X programming; I am not interested in GUIs or graphics. That said, here is my 2 cents:-)
1. What radical mods? If you mean to fix the other points, they don't sound that radical to me.
2. Seems like a non-issue to me. Not only do they have more to lose by ditching Linux and *BSD, but said communities can continue with the existing releases, as they threatened last time.
3. Dumping everything prior to R6 would be fine with me, but how much bloat does it really add? Even if it adds a full megabyte of code, how much of that code actually executes?
4. I don't see this at all. If the core libs were OO only, other programmers would suffer. If they are going to be in both OO and non-OO, then one will be better than the other. And pure OO is not realistic. Some things work better in OO, some don't.
5. Don't understand the complaint. Is there an alternative to one lib per language?
6. No particular comment. I have never noticed sluggishness, even on my old 486. Maybe we have different standards.
7. I do not like consistency for the sake of consistency. I don't want all programs the same. Fvwm does fine by me for most things. Any enforced consistency would stifle new ideas.
What I like about X is the separation of components: display server, client, core lib, toolkit lib, desktop lib. There's a flexibility and vitality that would be lost if everything were done the Windows or Mac way. I suspect there isn't another creature out there as flexible as X. Dropping R4 and R5 support would probably be fine with 99.99% of the programs out there. The things I hear about 6.5 sound like good evolutionary improvements
I suppose I let it bother me too much, but your worries about consistency really puzzle me. The world would never change for the better if consistency were the driving force. I would rather have the flexibility of X than the so-called consistency of Windows and the Mac.
They say RH 6.0 because it's one point on an almost infinite line. It's much easier for marketing droids than saying Linux with x.x.x kernel x.x.x libc x.x.x X and so on.
Download it, check the tar -- there's no install script, it's very straightforward. Install it, then run ldd, see if it works.
Please stop this RH bashing FUD. Use your brain. Download it, check it out, THEN complain if you still think it's hoaky. Otherwise you sound like a lazy ass wanna be geek.
This book is like man pages; it refreshes more than teaches. I find it indispensable when I have to use, say, semaphores and shared memory, and haven't used them for a year or so. Instant memory awakener. You better know C first, and have some concept of multiple processes communicating together (race condistions, deadlocks, etc).
I will certainly buy the next edition, but it had better continue the style and content. Add new chapters, but don't take away the old.
I have installed Hylafax and have no problems with it, but I have never used the Windows client(s), not having any Windows machines around to try it on. All I know is that I have read of it, probably in the hylafax documentation. So I'm not really helping much, am I?:-(
Slashdot Mirror
Did ya see the news about the Canadian cell phone company having to kowtow to the FBI for the very same wire tapping reasons? Friends, it's a lost cause. Within 5 years I expect to be able to use encrypted voice over IP and the FBI won't be able to learn jack about it. Even the destination will be hidden by anonymouse recallers(?) just as anonymous remailers hide email destinations.
Not eveyrone will use it of course, especially ordinary punters. But I sure will, and lots of you will, and definitely those who have something to hide and the brains to survive.
What a waste of $500M.
--
I believe the 36 bit addressing only allows you to use memory beyond 32 bits for paging; buffers, cache, etc. Logical addressing (program addresses) is still limited to 2GB or 3GB or whatever. So if you put 64G on your quad Xeon factory heater (tm), programs still max out at 4G. But you get plenty of disk buffers....
--
I was not complaining about bad spelling or typoes, I was complaining about the shoddy sentence structure which renders entire sentences into meaningless gibberish.
--
I distinctly remember the CEO or President of SGI saying that only 3 Unices would survive; two were Solaris and Linxu, the third I forget (Monterey? AIX?) but it positively was not IRIX. Now this may be the same guy who recently went to M$, or it may not be. But if it was, and that itself presages a change for the better in IRIX's future, then that quick a change for no better reason implies lack of stability at SGI.
Please, proofread your writing in the future. Several sentences are basically unintelligible except in context. Such lack only implies you were in a hurry, which doesn't help your self proclaimed debunking image.
--
Now that's some interesting NewSpeak.
There are four wholly separate BSD derived operating systems in current development...These projects neither pretend to be the same operating system nor operate with the same goals
And then sentences later he admits they used to be the same but forked. Geee mister what's *your* definition of fragmentation then?
--
Suppose 1000 lamers who check once an hour for new articles. That's an average of one every 3.6 seconds. Even with only 100 such lamers, that's 36 seconds. Not hard at all for one of them to get a first post.
--
There's what you call the console window on the right. There's the big window underneath everything that looks like a file browser on its left side, and has the grey you speak of at the top. At least one part of the window has www.news.com.
But between those two is a third window which is probably Opera help or something.
And possibly a fourth window between the Opera Help window and the www.news.com -- Says XSL etc. You can only see the bottom, but that part also looks like an independent window.
--
Maybe I am just paranoid from writing too many hardware diagnostics. However, it seems to me that nature's evolution has had millions and billions of years to work out the flaws in its "designs", to catch all the boundary conditions, race conditions, varying inputs, different ambient conditions, and so on. Don't forget the zillions of test units all interacting with each other :-)
This chip evolution simply can't have had the same level of testing. They don't know the inner workings, and they apparently are using circuits in novel and even unknown and mysterious ways.
Am I perhaps too paranoid here? How well can these chips be expected to work, especially when connected together? One of teh hardest debugging lessons I have yet to adequately learn is to change just one thing at a time. Murphy is my mother's middle name; I wonder how well these mystery circuits will work as they are thrown together into ever bigger piles.
--
I know someone who was investigated by the FBI (wiretapped and his neighbors questioned) for several reasons (mid 60s):
1. He questioned the federal policy of continuing to work in a building which the state had condemned as unsafe in an earthquake.
2. He started a union.
3. He raised so much flack over LBJ's proposed "volunary" $100/month war bonds that it was withdrawn.
It makes my blood boil to think of the sheer arrogance that someone has to have to think this activity makes you fair game for a full blooded investigation. As a human being, a relative, and even as a taxpayer, I resent this.
Then there; sthe forged Martin Luther King Jr. tapes or letters (I've forgotten now). This government simply has a track record which makes them unfit for snooping, yet they are so focused on more and more big brother power. I imagine psychiatrists must have a name for their disease.
--
...who said he expects 3 Unix to survive, Solaris, Linux, and something other than IRIX. Sounds pretty clear to me that its long term future has been de-assured.
--
When was the last time you read about someone stoned on a joint who went on a murderous rampage, or lynched some minority representative? Or a bunch of guys getting into a big fight at a football match after getti8ng stoned? Sheesh.
--
The very name tells you the one time pad is meant to be used one time, yet the author states:
After you make a key file, you can use it over and over again
and helpfully suggests that
you might want to make a separate key file for each person with whom you want to exchange encrypted files
No no no! You DO NOT re-use one time pads. You DO NOT share one key with multiple people even with "lesser" crypto systems, but ESPECIALLY withone time pads, because that implies re-use.
One time pads are only unbreakable when used just once. Multiple uses leave clues for analysis.
Anyone who knows even a little about crypto knows that the weakest link is managing the keys. That's why PGP's private keys are hidden by that obnoxious pass phrase. If the black bag guys break into your computer and copy your PGP files, they still have to decrypt them because your pass phrase muddles things. With this one time pad, they have the key immediately, no further work required.
This guy seems to imply you should keep your one time key lying aorund the hard disk so you can encrypt and decrypt at will. Good gosh, PGP encrypts the private key with the pass phrase at least. Here you leave your one time key OUT IN THE OPEN, and REUSE it, over and over again. This is NOT secure crypto.
THIS IS LESS SECURE THAN PGP. This is a silly little toy and DOES NOT PROVIDE SECURITY.
He massively understates how easy it is to factor RSA private keys. He says "it is possible", yet he is wrong. Until and unless new algorithms are found, there are not enough atoms in the universe to factor 4096 bit keys before the universe collapses back into the next big bang. Luck does not enter into it. There is only so much theoretical computational power available in the lifetime of the universe; it won't crack even a single key. And if you spread it over multiple keys, then the chances for any single attack drop correspondingly.
--
We need to keep WINE production up, not in :-)
--
Alphas are fast but expensive; I haven't seen any figures, but I bet for the same amount of money, the detested Pentiums give more performance.
That's the reason to be interested in PPCs. Low prices come from volume production, and Alphas just ain't got it. PPCs have a start in that direction with Macs, and it's possible that adding Linux would boost production enough to keep the price low. Since PPCs (like Alphas) make better use of silicon die space, they have an inherent advantage over any x86. It just takes volume production to realize that advantage.
--
Good gosh, she was his best partner. Certainly he was the bigger star, but his movies after Ginger became incerasingly silly, pairing him with some young spring chicken. Whereas her movies after Fred showed class. No one was as good as Fred Astaire, and no one was as good as Ginger Rogers. To compare her to Microsoft shows no respect.
--
First, remap the two keys with the windoze logo to ALT. I did this so long ago I've forgotten the details. I think the one taht says ALT appears to Emacs as the META key, so I map the two new keys to ALT. It's confusing if I think about it so I just don't do that any more.
Second, remap the the "menu" key (the third new one) to I think Hyper. That is now my FVWM2 control key. MENU + INSERT gives me the root menu, MENU + arrows bops among the desktop pages, MENU + HOME moves, etc.
This leaves ALT and META available entirely to prograns, so I don't worry about CTRL-ALT F1 changing consoles on me.
--
If your comment about "nuts" is my other comment above, you din't read it write, or I didn't write it clearly enough. There is a continuum from a full RDBMS on one end to gdbm/dbm on the other, with mysql being in the middle. There certainly are times when even mysql is overkill, and gdbm is perfectly good enough. And there are times when mysql is not good enough, and you need a real RDBMS with transactions.
--
That's what it comes down to. Consider gdbm/dbm as even lower on the functionality list, and even faster (I reckon, but don't truly know). Not all programs need a full RDBMS. That's all, no hidden agenda.
--
I believe I have read that 40% of NT 4.0 programs won't run on W2K. That strikes me as pretty serious compatibility problems. Programs from my old Slackware 1.0.9 kernel still run on the same box, even tho it has been upgraded to ELF, glibc, and 2.0.3? kernel.
--
My background has very little X programming; I am not interested in GUIs or graphics. That said, here is my 2 cents :-)
1. What radical mods? If you mean to fix the other points, they don't sound that radical to me.
2. Seems like a non-issue to me. Not only do they have more to lose by ditching Linux and *BSD, but said communities can continue with the existing releases, as they threatened last time.
3. Dumping everything prior to R6 would be fine with me, but how much bloat does it really add? Even if it adds a full megabyte of code, how much of that code actually executes?
4. I don't see this at all. If the core libs were OO only, other programmers would suffer. If they are going to be in both OO and non-OO, then one will be better than the other. And pure OO is not realistic. Some things work better in OO, some don't.
5. Don't understand the complaint. Is there an alternative to one lib per language?
6. No particular comment. I have never noticed sluggishness, even on my old 486. Maybe we have different standards.
7. I do not like consistency for the sake of consistency. I don't want all programs the same. Fvwm does fine by me for most things. Any enforced consistency would stifle new ideas.
What I like about X is the separation of components: display server, client, core lib, toolkit lib, desktop lib. There's a flexibility and vitality that would be lost if everything were done the Windows or Mac way. I suspect there isn't another creature out there as flexible as X. Dropping R4 and R5 support would probably be fine with 99.99% of the programs out there. The things I hear about 6.5 sound like good evolutionary improvements
I suppose I let it bother me too much, but your worries about consistency really puzzle me. The world would never change for the better if consistency were the driving force. I would rather have the flexibility of X than the so-called consistency of Windows and the Mac.
--
They say RH 6.0 because it's one point on an almost infinite line. It's much easier for marketing droids than saying Linux with x.x.x kernel x.x.x libc x.x.x X and so on.
Download it, check the tar -- there's no install script, it's very straightforward. Install it, then run ldd, see if it works.
Please stop this RH bashing FUD. Use your brain. Download it, check it out, THEN complain if you still think it's hoaky. Otherwise you sound like a lazy ass wanna be geek.
--
This book is like man pages; it refreshes more than teaches. I find it indispensable when I have to use, say, semaphores and shared memory, and haven't used them for a year or so. Instant memory awakener. You better know C first, and have some concept of multiple processes communicating together (race condistions, deadlocks, etc).
I will certainly buy the next edition, but it had better continue the style and content. Add new chapters, but don't take away the old.
--
In ten years you'll be able to auction it off for big bucks lotsa yucks
--
Mmmmmm creamy gooey sweet mmmmmmm je meal deal for upper class homers mmmmmmm Napoleans
--
I have installed Hylafax and have no problems with it, but I have never used the Windows client(s), not having any Windows machines around to try it on. All I know is that I have read of it, probably in the hylafax documentation. So I'm not really helping much, am I? :-(
--