According to the Twofish team, Rijndal is far too close to broken to be chosen (9 rounds) and subsequently has a low safety factor. It may need more rounds.
> Serpent would be my third choice, but it's too slow compared to the others.
Serpent OTOH still looks very secure. Serpent is indeed slow in software, but damn fast in hardware. I would trade the increasingly less-of-a-problem software speed for the increase in known security.
NIST appears to have left the possibility of multiple algorithms, so there may be more than one winner. General opinion seems to be that this is unlikely to occur though (thankfully).
Likely winners:
Twofish (fast in s/w)
Serpent (solid)
Rijndael
Unlikely (IMHO)
MARS (eugh!)
RC6 (weak)
Whoever wins *should* be a net win for us all. These are all meant to be free and exportable (importable in some cases as they aren't all US ciphers;). However, despite the fact that all entries are meant to be free of restrictions, note that Hitatchi (and perhaps others), have claimed patent right that cover a number of the entries...
No, VAT is applied to the relevant part (ie the CD). As to the software example, it is clearly not a problem, because almost all the value in the package is in the software (on CD), and almost nothing in the manual (shock!) - so it all works out.
I got this from a usually reliable source, but it also fits the facts as I see them: check out the prices of (say) programming books with and without CD's. The average price of the ones with CD is not 17.5% higher than the others (indicating VAT on the book). Likewise Linux books with a free copy on linux in the back - it's a CD with VAT on it, but the VAT'able value is almost nill as the contents are free - thus no increase in cost.
You have to consider that you had a *cheque*. That peice of paper had to be *securely* shipped to the US bank, presumably at the expense of the UK bank.
It also isn't done much, so there is no economy of scale.
FWIW I have transfered much larger sums between banks in the UK and other european countries, and payed payed about 1gbp for it. It was an *electronic transfer*
best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Is this the right thing to do?
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 5
> It's the way things work, and fighting it is only self-congratulatory nonsense.
Not meaning to be rude, but: Utter nonsense.
"Survival Of The Fittest" isn't some great plan - it's a description of a process. You seem to be saying that we should just lie back and take whatever comes; after all, if something becomes extinct then it just wasn't fit enough, and it's somehow right that it should be dead! What if we nuked half of the planet? Oh, "Survival Of The Fittest", those creatures weren't fit enough to survive, and we shouldn't try to save them...
If you really want to base your view on "Survival Of The Fittest" as a big unbreakable rule, look at it this way. That tiger has proven to *be* fit even after it become extinct. By being an interesting creature, it is fitter than others that we might bring back. Another example: furry seals get more protection than slimy eels. Why? Because they are *fitter* (cuter).
This isn't meant as a flame, but who strapped you to a chair in front of the TV with your eyes wired open (a la Clockwork Orange)?
You *can* go elsewhere with 'push' media. You are *not* a 'captive audience'. Change the channel, or better - Turn Off The TV!
Do you really think there is actually any differnce between the two types? You don't think you're getting spoonfed from websites? You are, you just have more choice over what flavour you want...
Mike.
ps) I apologise in advance if you *are* strapped into a chair etc.;)
Expensive bulky phones that didn't work indoors? What I'm curious about is how the company ever got the money together to *put* all those damn satellites in orbit. Either, the people putting the money up were dumb (which seems unlikely), or Iridium had some good arguments. Does anyone know what they were?
I would have thought that in a bizarre way those people might be really employable now! "Hey I'm the guy that convinved all those rich people to give us billions of dollars to make that failed phone network! Now look deeply into my eyes and give me your bank account details..."
Hopefully this will never happen. Why? Because the aspect ratio is 5h1t3. Once you've worked on a widescreen monitor it's a bloody nightmare going back to 4x3, it's like going from a 21" 1280x1024 back to a 14" at 800x600, but worse.
...trans-national corporations with the power to control national governments? They're here, and this is the result. Sony have a lot of power (through political lobbying and lawsuits) to control what happens to ordinary people. We voted for Sony with our wallets, the question for the future is do we still have the power to vote them out?
It's irrelevant to my point: whereas a great proportion of the industry disagrees with you (support for UNIX, particularly the free unicies, is growing), Netware is going: people are migrating *from* netware. Maybe you were trying to goad me, but it wont work because I'm not a UNIX weenie;)
> This appears to be an OS that is being designed, not just reimplemented to mimic something 30 years old.
It's a clone of Netware! It's being designed to mimic an old OS... a bit like Linux. Did you have a point?
> I expected to see this kind of ranting before I even started reading the comments.
You think that's ranting? I assume English isn't your first language then.
[www.m-w.com] intransitive senses 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2 : to scold vehemently
Those are my views on the subject, articulated in a measured manner. You don't like them? Fine, but I'm afraid it's no more of a rant than it is a rabbit.
best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Please, no more articles about benchmarks
on
Java Rocks On Linux
·
· Score: 1
To be honest he was basically right. Any modern JVM is compiling the code on the fly, and then running the machine instructions, not interpreting the bytecode. Whilst the JVM is still conceptually a bytecode interpreter, in effect it is doing little interpreting, spending most of it's time as a JIT compiler and then executing the resultant code.
When you said:
> The JVM takes instructions for its "architecture" and *interprets* them to the native architecture
It was almost exactly right, if you replace the word "*interprets*", with "compiles". You dont "interpret to" an architecture, you 'compile for'. If you are interpretting then the underlying architecture is irrelevant - your program code (JVM) is executing the bytecode within your VM.
Hope this helps
best wishes,
Mike.
ps) IOW, Java is not interpreted. In fact it is not merely compiled once, but twice!
I think the difference is that UNIX was (is!) a Good Thing - and it's worth making a free copy of it (Linux), or making it free (*BSD). OTOH, many people feel that Netware is *dead* - old and uninteresting, with nothing to offer.
Why would you need a copy of something *bad*? I would be interested to hear what the people at TRG had as their reason...
> The chip also comes with 144 new multimedia instructions for better graphics and sound.
I'm weeping! I *know* that they're multimedia instructions and so on, and probably really useful, and that people aren't hand coding this stuff... but doesn't anyone else think this is ugly?
What abstraction layers?! The entire point was that you wouldn't need any - what would there be to abstract? - the relatively small difference between Solaris/HP-UX/Linux at the OS level.
I dont understand the 'point and click' line either really. Is it a joke?
For your first point: almost all Sun, HP, and other commerical unix boxes run whatever they're shipped with, nobody wants to change them. If you're buying a 'big-name' UNIX box, you're buying service, support, reliability, etc. It's just extra hassle to change. It's basically irrelevant anyway, as people aren't going to change their desktop environment just to run an application (IMHO).
Second: Qt portable to windows as you say. Qt!=KDE.
Third: Whatever. I wasn't (and will not) address the technical arguments for/against KDE/Gnome. They are orthogonal to my point.
One example, off the top of my head. If I run KDE, and have my KDE themes set up, I wont have any other themes set up. If I run a 'pure GTK+' app, will I get my KDE theme on it? No, and it'll look out of place.
This is going to give a lot of mindshare to Gnome rather than KDE. It should be clearly obvious *why* this is a huge win for the Gnome camp: I know there will always be a KDE, and a Gnome - whatever the future brings. Likewise there will always be a kppp and a g equivalent.
What there might not be is a k[killer-app], but there'll be a g[killer-app]
If you want to write a big UI driven app, you will be able to target Gnome - with all the bells and whistles - and do linux/sun/hp ports for almost free. If you want a KDE version you'll have to buy or write a portability layer to abstract everything away, and I think we all know how much fun that is.
I *really* dont have a problem with KDE, it looks good to me in my role as joe 'free linux using software only' user - as does Gnome, but if I was writing a UNIX app, I now see a big reason to go with full-on Gnome support rather than KDE.
best wishes,
Mike.
Disadvantages? Not even close...
on
Techno Jacket
·
· Score: 2
From the end of the article:
> Disadvantages of the jackets include the possible implications of network crashes and the effects of rainstorms on techno-clothing while being worn.
They must be joking! I think it would have been more accurate to write:
'Disadvantages of the jackets include the fact that you look like a complete prat and that the wearer will probably suffer fatal beatings by members of the public on account of their appalling clothing.'
"Techno Clothing"? "Totally Sad" clothing more like. Better to wear normal clothing and have people suspect you are a geek [0], rather than wear this jacket and confirm the fact.
> I have a dream where you walk up to a computer (at that time rather a terminal), you touch it - and the usage of it is as evident to you as the usage of a hammer.
You know that you've actually been trained to use a hammer dont you? I don't mean "101 Introduction to hammering", I mean you saw people using them, or asked a parent "what's this odd thing for?" before you realised it was designed for knocking nails into wood. It isn't actually that obvious that a hammer is for hammering. It could be a doorstop (with an easy grip handle), a unfathomable agricultural tool, or something to stir lobsters when you cook them!
And when you say:
> it is a mere tool. Like a hammer or a pencil or anything.
It's really streching the truth. It's like saying a nuclear power station is a mere tool, like a bicycle dynamo. Or that 'Go' is a mere game, like Tic-Tack-Toe.
Computer are obviously tools, and they aren't as easy to use as the could, or should, be. However, there's no getting around the fact that they do perform *complex* operations for us. More complicated than hammers and pencils.
I may be being overly cynical, but I found almost nothing of interest in that article. This is just about all I heard Dell say:
(Paraphrasing) 'Our customers want to use linux, so we're getting around to making it easier for them.'
His bottom line: to sell machines. Good for Michael Dell, but is this actually news? It's not as if he's actually annouched any big concrete push to support linux or anything...
> And one big disadvantage: the card would have to have the entire scene in fast, local RAM.
I think you might have misunderstood the point I was making. In this scenario, the graphics card would only be a framebuffer, not even a Z buffer. The fast local RAM would be normal system RAM.
As for performance, well we can only guess (it's a hypothetical situation), but that's my opinion. Sure cards can pump out the polygons these days. the question is: If they didn't have to, all that effort would have gone into something else instead - How fast would *that* be?
Slashdot Mirror
According to the Twofish team, Rijndal is far too close to broken to be chosen (9 rounds) and subsequently has a low safety factor. It may need more rounds.
> Serpent would be my third choice, but it's too slow compared to the others.
Serpent OTOH still looks very secure. Serpent is indeed slow in software, but damn fast in hardware. I would trade the increasingly less-of-a-problem software speed for the increase in known security.
best wishes,
Mike
http://www.flat222.org/Paranoia
;)
will perform similar functionality (and other stuff), and also be more secure
NOTE: It's very much "in development" at the moment...
best wishes,
Mike.
NIST appears to have left the possibility of multiple algorithms, so there may be more than one winner. General opinion seems to be that this is unlikely to occur though (thankfully).
;). However, despite the fact that all entries are meant to be free of restrictions, note that Hitatchi (and perhaps others), have claimed patent right that cover a number of the entries...
Likely winners:
Twofish (fast in s/w)
Serpent (solid)
Rijndael
Unlikely (IMHO)
MARS (eugh!)
RC6 (weak)
Whoever wins *should* be a net win for us all. These are all meant to be free and exportable (importable in some cases as they aren't all US ciphers
best wishes,
Mike.
No, VAT is applied to the relevant part (ie the CD). As to the software example, it is clearly not a problem, because almost all the value in the package is in the software (on CD), and almost nothing in the manual (shock!) - so it all works out.
I got this from a usually reliable source, but it also fits the facts as I see them: check out the prices of (say) programming books with and without CD's. The average price of the ones with CD is not 17.5% higher than the others (indicating VAT on the book). Likewise Linux books with a free copy on linux in the back - it's a CD with VAT on it, but the VAT'able value is almost nill as the contents are free - thus no increase in cost.
IMHO, IANAL, etc etc,
Mike.
> I agree, but we've never had the chance to alter the way we think before.
;)
I assume you didn't go to university then. Altering the way I thought was what I spent most of my time doing
> It's an entirely new situation in our history.
right...
best wishes,
Mike.
You have to consider that you had a *cheque*. That peice of paper had to be *securely* shipped to the US bank, presumably at the expense of the UK bank.
It also isn't done much, so there is no economy of scale.
FWIW I have transfered much larger sums between banks in the UK and other european countries, and payed payed about 1gbp for it. It was an *electronic transfer*
best wishes,
Mike.
> It's the way things work, and fighting it is only self-congratulatory nonsense.
Not meaning to be rude, but: Utter nonsense.
"Survival Of The Fittest" isn't some great plan - it's a description of a process. You seem to be saying that we should just lie back and take whatever comes; after all, if something becomes extinct then it just wasn't fit enough, and it's somehow right that it should be dead! What if we nuked half of the planet? Oh, "Survival Of The Fittest", those creatures weren't fit enough to survive, and we shouldn't try to save them...
If you really want to base your view on "Survival Of The Fittest" as a big unbreakable rule, look at it this way. That tiger has proven to *be* fit even after it become extinct. By being an interesting creature, it is fitter than others that we might bring back. Another example: furry seals get more protection than slimy eels. Why? Because they are *fitter* (cuter).
best wishes,
Mike.
This isn't meant as a flame, but who strapped you to a chair in front of the TV with your eyes wired open (a la Clockwork Orange)?
You *can* go elsewhere with 'push' media. You are *not* a 'captive audience'. Change the channel, or better - Turn Off The TV!
Do you really think there is actually any differnce between the two types? You don't think you're getting spoonfed from websites? You are, you just have more choice over what flavour you want...
Mike.
ps) I apologise in advance if you *are* strapped into a chair etc.
Expensive bulky phones that didn't work indoors? What I'm curious about is how the company ever got the money together to *put* all those damn satellites in orbit. Either, the people putting the money up were dumb (which seems unlikely), or Iridium had some good arguments. Does anyone know what they were?
I would have thought that in a bizarre way those people might be really employable now! "Hey I'm the guy that convinved all those rich people to give us billions of dollars to make that failed phone network! Now look deeply into my eyes and give me your bank account details..."
Mike
> What happens when we get 4000x3000 displays?
;)
Hopefully this will never happen. Why? Because the aspect ratio is 5h1t3. Once you've worked on a widescreen monitor it's a bloody nightmare going back to 4x3, it's like going from a 21" 1280x1024 back to a 14" at 800x600, but worse.
Give me 1960x1280 or give me death
Mike.
...trans-national corporations with the power to control national governments? They're here, and this is the result. Sony have a lot of power (through political lobbying and lawsuits) to control what happens to ordinary people. We voted for Sony with our wallets, the question for the future is do we still have the power to vote them out?
;)
</Jon Katz>
Mike.
> Face it. Unix is obsolete.
;)
It's irrelevant to my point: whereas a great proportion of the industry disagrees with you (support for UNIX, particularly the free unicies, is growing), Netware is going: people are migrating *from* netware. Maybe you were trying to goad me, but it wont work because I'm not a UNIX weenie
> This appears to be an OS that is being designed, not just reimplemented to mimic something 30 years old.
It's a clone of Netware! It's being designed to mimic an old OS... a bit like Linux. Did you have a point?
> I expected to see this kind of ranting before I even started reading the comments.
You think that's ranting? I assume English isn't your first language then.
[www.m-w.com] intransitive senses 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2 : to scold vehemently
Those are my views on the subject, articulated in a measured manner. You don't like them? Fine, but I'm afraid it's no more of a rant than it is a rabbit.
best wishes,
Mike.
To be honest he was basically right. Any modern JVM is compiling the code on the fly, and then running the machine instructions, not interpreting the bytecode. Whilst the JVM is still conceptually a bytecode interpreter, in effect it is doing little interpreting, spending most of it's time as a JIT compiler and then executing the resultant code.
When you said:
> The JVM takes instructions for its "architecture" and *interprets* them to the native architecture
It was almost exactly right, if you replace the word "*interprets*", with "compiles". You dont "interpret to" an architecture, you 'compile for'. If you are interpretting then the underlying architecture is irrelevant - your program code (JVM) is executing the bytecode within your VM.
Hope this helps
best wishes,
Mike.
ps) IOW, Java is not interpreted. In fact it is not merely compiled once, but twice!
I think the difference is that UNIX was (is!) a Good Thing - and it's worth making a free copy of it (Linux), or making it free (*BSD). OTOH, many people feel that Netware is *dead* - old and uninteresting, with nothing to offer.
Why would you need a copy of something *bad*? I would be interested to hear what the people at TRG had as their reason...
best wishes,
Mike.
From the CNET article:
> The chip also comes with 144 new multimedia instructions for better graphics and sound.
I'm weeping! I *know* that they're multimedia instructions and so on, and probably really useful, and that people aren't hand coding this stuff... but doesn't anyone else think this is ugly?
Whatever happened to RISC?
Mike.
What abstraction layers?! The entire point was that you wouldn't need any - what would there be to abstract? - the relatively small difference between Solaris/HP-UX/Linux at the OS level.
I dont understand the 'point and click' line either really. Is it a joke?
best wishes,
Mike.
For your first point: almost all Sun, HP, and other commerical unix boxes run whatever they're shipped with, nobody wants to change them. If you're buying a 'big-name' UNIX box, you're buying service, support, reliability, etc. It's just extra hassle to change. It's basically irrelevant anyway, as people aren't going to change their desktop environment just to run an application (IMHO).
Second: Qt portable to windows as you say. Qt!=KDE.
Third: Whatever. I wasn't (and will not) address the technical arguments for/against KDE/Gnome. They are orthogonal to my point.
best wishes,
Mike.
One example, off the top of my head. If I run KDE, and have my KDE themes set up, I wont have any other themes set up. If I run a 'pure GTK+' app, will I get my KDE theme on it? No, and it'll look out of place.
best wishes,
Mike.
This is going to give a lot of mindshare to Gnome rather than KDE. It should be clearly obvious *why* this is a huge win for the Gnome camp: I know there will always be a KDE, and a Gnome - whatever the future brings. Likewise there will always be a kppp and a g equivalent.
What there might not be is a k[killer-app], but there'll be a g[killer-app]
If you want to write a big UI driven app, you will be able to target Gnome - with all the bells and whistles - and do linux/sun/hp ports for almost free. If you want a KDE version you'll have to buy or write a portability layer to abstract everything away, and I think we all know how much fun that is.
I *really* dont have a problem with KDE, it looks good to me in my role as joe 'free linux using software only' user - as does Gnome, but if I was writing a UNIX app, I now see a big reason to go with full-on Gnome support rather than KDE.
best wishes,
Mike.
From the end of the article:
> Disadvantages of the jackets include the possible implications of network crashes and the effects of rainstorms on techno-clothing while being worn.
They must be joking! I think it would have been more accurate to write:
'Disadvantages of the jackets include the fact that you look like a complete prat and that the wearer will probably suffer fatal beatings by members of the public on account of their appalling clothing.'
"Techno Clothing"? "Totally Sad" clothing more like. Better to wear normal clothing and have people suspect you are a geek [0], rather than wear this jacket and confirm the fact.
best wishes,
Mike
[0] Not nerd.
> I have a dream where you walk up to a computer (at that time rather a terminal), you touch it - and the usage of it is as evident to you as the usage of a hammer.
You know that you've actually been trained to use a hammer dont you? I don't mean "101 Introduction to hammering", I mean you saw people using them, or asked a parent "what's this odd thing for?" before you realised it was designed for knocking nails into wood. It isn't actually that obvious that a hammer is for hammering. It could be a doorstop (with an easy grip handle), a unfathomable agricultural tool, or something to stir lobsters when you cook them!
And when you say:
> it is a mere tool. Like a hammer or a pencil or anything.
It's really streching the truth. It's like saying a nuclear power station is a mere tool, like a bicycle dynamo. Or that 'Go' is a mere game, like Tic-Tack-Toe.
Computer are obviously tools, and they aren't as easy to use as the could, or should, be. However, there's no getting around the fact that they do perform *complex* operations for us. More complicated than hammers and pencils.
best wishes,
Mike
I may be being overly cynical, but I found almost nothing of interest in that article. This is just about all I heard Dell say:
(Paraphrasing) 'Our customers want to use linux, so we're getting around to making it easier for them.'
His bottom line: to sell machines. Good for Michael Dell, but is this actually news? It's not as if he's actually annouched any big concrete push to support linux or anything...
best wishes,
Mike.
Thing of the past? Sure maybe it *used* to be the floors - now it's the walls. Look at the corners of walls, desks, whatever.
;)
> Some algorithms you could look at if you are interested: Quadtree LOD, ROAM, Triangle Bintrees w/out ROAM.
Oh the irony! stop it!
best wishes,
Mike.
> Problem with this approach is that the ray tree can get arbitrarily deep, in complex scenes.
Ray casting != Ray Tracing. In casting you stop when the ray hits the first object, then you're done. There is no ray tree.
best wishes,
Mike.
> And one big disadvantage: the card would have to have the entire scene in fast, local RAM.
I think you might have misunderstood the point I was making. In this scenario, the graphics card would only be a framebuffer, not even a Z buffer. The fast local RAM would be normal system RAM.
As for performance, well we can only guess (it's a hypothetical situation), but that's my opinion. Sure cards can pump out the polygons these days. the question is: If they didn't have to, all that effort would have gone into something else instead - How fast would *that* be?
best wishes,
Mike.