Frankly, since I understand the math involved, I'm not sure why anyone would bother with propriatary accounting systems.
And I understand how to make hash tables and red-black trees, so I don't understand why anyone would bother with RDMBS when all they need is a C compiler and the gumption to "roll their own".
Of course that is absolutely, positively ridiculous. A complex program like Quickbooks isn't simply a couple of spreadsheets rolled together to give you a total, but is complete business management system.
...cue someone fresh out of their first physics class proclaiming "BUT THAT'S CAN'T BE POSSIBLE! What about the laws of the thermodynamics!"
I say that tongue in cheek because virtually any conversation about the reclamation of energy, or even simply improved efficiency, brings these nuts out of the woodwork.
600 feet is nothing. That's less than 3 or 4 houses I would guess.
A 600 foot radius increase is only "3 or 4 houses"??? Do you live in rural Texas and you're looking for ADSL for the ranch? Where I live I'd guess that a 600 foot radius increase would equal about..well I can't even contemplate it right now. I'd guess well over 1000.
The telcos know they have to do something before they get their clocks cleaned by the cable companies and wireless T-1 provider
I'm not sure how COs work in the states, but here in Canada a very good percentage of the population is within ADSL distance of a CO. Having said that, indeed they have been moving to remote COs, although ADSL is only a very small reason why: They simply make more sense. Why run an entire neighbourhoods copper pairs to the CO (and copper isn't cheap) when you can run them a much shorter distance to a little box and run a fibre back from that.
What's so wrong with people with 4 digit UIDs? (of course this post will incite people with lower UIDs to run in to proclaim "What's the big deal about low UIDs?", all the while pointing a big arrow at their own, even lower UID) In my case I most certainly am not an open source advocate, I don't run Linux (though I have a FreeBSD firewall), and I've been called a Microsoft astroturfer countless times (which is the standard method of proclaiming "Go along with the flow lest we feel vulnerable in our `alternative' beliefs"). Indeed I got this account when a hippie, alternative OS friend recommended the link way back in the day, and I promptly then forgot about it. Some time later I set up a new account (ergo2000 I believe), posted from it for a while, and one day remembered this old account. Silly story, but I had to justify having a somewhat low UID.
Most cable systems force you to rent a cable box (and, wonder of wonders, since they're a monopoly, they can gouge as much as they want)
They are? In my area the cable companies are scrambling to try to maintain their customer base in the face of satellite TV, and the numbers that keep coming out show them losing the battle. Just because there's one company on one medium doesn't make them a monopoly.
Having said that, I've oft wondered about such a standard: I have a Motorola box for my digital cable and it has a painfully slow GUI: Pulling up the menu you can literally watch it drawing the lines. Scanning through the channel listing, and again it's at least 2-3 seconds per page just waiting for it to draw. On top of that I'm sort of locked out of PVRs (unless the cable company provides it) because of the proprietary nature of the digital cable network, which is exactly what it looks like Sony is trying to solve.
Am I supposed to assume you're some sort of IT wizard and not question your anecdotal assertions because of that statement?
It's called empirical evidence my special bus riding friend. Am I to suppose that you're some sort of guru because you got PGP installed on your parent's PC?
That's why people use test labs -- even for small businesses, test first, then deploy.
Actually, I simplified the scenario for your sake (although obviously not quite enough. Let's try "INSTALL PGP NOT WORKEE"). PGP 7 was deployed in an environment with Office 97, and then started breaking as people upgraded to Office XP (or, alternately, when people installed new machines with Office XP). Of course this is all just in my imagination, and easy to find resources like this page, when talking about preliminary support for Office XP in 7.1 (a non-generally released NAI version), is all just a dream, right champion? I suspect that the version you really have a warez copy of a later NAI enterprise release, because it most certainly isn't 7.0.3 if you think it was install-and-use.
I have demonstrated a working system. You claim it won't work, and call me a moron. You can't dispute the facts, so you attack the messenger.
You're hilarious. Your initial posting was a hilarious contradiction of my direct experience (insinuating that I was creation fiction), claim that I'm spreading FUD (which is so unbelievably absurd given that there's a freeware version of 8 available), and then you turn around and claim that I attacked the messenger. You're a classic last worder. Keep it coming sucka: I know you will.
If you read his post again, you'll notice he's successfully using a PGP version that is not 8.0.
Actually, and perhaps you're new here so I'll just ignore the unbelieavable stupidity of that question, most people postulate for discussion generating purposes (or for karma whoring). i.e. Note that he didn't say "Why would I upgrade from x.x.x", but rather just some generic upgrade claim (and it got moderated up because it does fill a natural question void). Secondly, I put a huge question around if it might not work with Office 2000.
I still find it hilarious, though, that you're running around screaming that you just installed 7.0.3 and it ran off the bat with Outlook XP (even with all the patches at http://www.pgpi.com). I think you might want to inform those in the PGP team who worked long hard nights trying to get PGP working in Outlook 2002 (BTW, because I realize you'll misunderstand this: When I say Office, obviously I'm referring to Outlook as there is no other direct integration in Office with PGP), or those countless authors of PGP FAQs who explicitly state that PGP does not work with Outlook 2002 (AKA Outlook XP). Keep your fantasy facts coming though.
To make this most humorous, though, I've actually be using PGP (you know: A non-warez copy) successfully in Outlook 2002 for some time via some select settings in the PGP Tray to eliminate the need to use the toolbar or menu item options.
If the government really wants to get you, they'll surround you with Tempest vans, put a key sniffer in your keyboard, grab all your traffic through your ISP and monitor your phone calls.
About 99.999% of the people using PGP have no concern about their government watching them (though there should be some concern there as working in law enforcement is a job, not a moral position. What I mean by that is that there's absolutely zero guarantee that there isn't vindictive criminals with jobs in the intelligence/law enforcement community who would use casual snooping to destroy someone who they felt cult them off in traffic, or is dating their former girlfriend, or has a nice house they'd like to break into), but rather is concerned about their PC being stolen and all of their emails being read or redistributed (a very real possibility), or coworkers snooping into their emails (who nominated the email administrator the keeper of all secrets?), or corporate espionage, or that cable modem installer guy from doing some spelunking while doing his install, etc.
I use the club on my car and I laugh whenever someone offers up some witty comment about the club. It is, they proclaim, of no use against professional thieves as they saw on he latest episode of 20/20. The reality, of course, is that professional thieves are by far the minority of car thieves, but instead it's absolutely effective in stopping joy riders, or bottom barrel criminals looking for a quick lift to help them rob a variety store. I've come to realize that people critique measures like this (as they do with home security, personal security, etc) because they're lazy, but they see it as a zero-sum "game" : If MY car is secure, then it's that much more possible that THEIR car will be broken into. If my house is heavily fortified, then it's that much more possible that their house will be busted into. I've noticed this sort of "pull the lobster back in the bucket" mentality frequently, and I believe it's the same thing when people express outrage that others are protecting their privacy: They see this as a weakening of their own privacy. It reminds me of a joke about not having to outrun a bear, just making sure that you can run faster than at least one of the people you're with.
Actually, I've tried compiling PGP 6.5.x on Windows before, using Visual Studio. I did it more than once and the binaries were different each time - not just timestamp different. Significantly different.
I'm not sure what environment settings you had, however I have done the same and the resulting binary is exactly the same each and every time. The binary does change if any of the configuration options are modified at all, of course, or if different versions of libraries are used, etc.
I asked people in the newsgroups about it and someone said that the compilers optimize randomly.
That person is an idiot. The compiler optimization in Visual Studio isn't random whatsoever (as a sidenote it's one of the best optimizers around), and even the premise of that is absurd.
I seem to recall John Carmack making a related grumble about compiles on different machines - same source code, one worked and one didn't.
99% of the time that people complain about computers doing random things, and everything being "the same" (or the classic "I didn't change anything!") it turns out to be some idiotic human error. If a compile turned out different code on a different machine then John had different libraries (which includes the dev. environment libraries, or the platform SDK libraries), or different compile options, or entirely possibly bogus hardware. It was not all the same and one compiler just randomly decided that it'd produce bogus code.
I regret to inform you that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Well thank you captain for informing me that the fact that PGP 7 does not properly integrate with the Outlook 2002 (Office XP) I'm looking at in front of me is all just an illusion in my head. Indeed, do a search on Google or Deja and it is verified, hundreds of times over, that 7.0.3 in particular is trashed in Outlook XP: They are not compatible. On top of that the problems encountered in the case where I selected PGP and had it installed company wide, to find that it did not properly integrate with Outlook 2002, was again all just an amazing mystery in my head.
I am very curious about exactly what you were thinking when you started the FUD machine.
Interesting seeing that one of the big features of PGP 8 over PGP 7 is support for Office XP. Gee, I wonder why they'd say that?
Normally I'd just ignore an ignorant moron such as yourself, but your righteousness in replying just blows me away. To proclaim FUD is especially laughable when I'm not scaring people away from PGP, but rather saying that PGP 8 is a nice upgrade. Learn when to cry FUD you fool.
I think the concern more is "how do you know it isn't sending a copy of your private key to some malicious organization" (well...to any organization), or "does it have a keystroke logger". Because PGP is a security application, naturally a lot of its uses will be where the data is highly valuable (unfortunately, really. PGP and its ilk should be used even for the mundane).
Having said that I downloaded the source code and they indeed provide a list of the exact environment options to compile it (see readme.pdf right in the root of the source tree), namely Visual Studio 6.0 SP 5 with Visual C++, the Platform SDK, the NT 4.0, 98, and 2000 DDK. With these tools one should be able to compile an exact replica of theirs (btw: No there isn't any session or time dependent data, and two binary compiled on the same platform should indeed lead to the exact output). I gave it a shot but unfortunately VS.NET would give entirely different binaries anyways, but ignoring that there are some elements of the code that break in the more C++ conformant Visual C++ 7.
As an additional piece of information related to my prior response, I can now get at the license agreement which includes the following tidbit under "What You Can Do":
compile the source code for each PGP software program into an executable code version of the program;
I would back it up by pointing to the site, however right now it appears to be completely slashdotted. As such I'll have to say this without reference, but I'm pretty sure that the source code disclaimer list specifically mentions that it can be used to compile into a binary to compare with the binary that they give to ensure that there are no back doors, etc. If it's like prior versions, they'll give a specific list of versions of software (i.e. Visual Studio version XYZ) to compile it with, and truly the result will be a perfect clone of the distribution binary.
Sorry it's specifically the integration in Outlook that is the problem: With Office XP, and I'm pretty sure Office 2000, the toolbar integration is broken and one had to resort to a special set of configuration options to use PGP (for instance "decrypt on opening", as the manual option was no longer available).
The source code to PGP has been available for a long time from pgpi.com. Indeed, there is the freeware copy (it actually links you back to the main PGP page) of PGP 8.0 available there.
You can buy a copy of Windows at Best Buy, or you can download it from a warez channel, or you can go to a friends and rip an ISO of his copy. Doe sanyone see a problem with this logic?
Phil has always advocated that it is very important that there is peer review of security products, and I entirely agree with him on that point, but he is not An open source advocate (which is why I find the nitpicking about the license absurd: It's not GPLd, folks, it's peer review. The release of the source is only intended to allow for particularly paranoid folks to ensure that there aren't any backdoors in the code). They are two entirely different things, and it's completely reasonable for him to release those products as he has.
If someone builds the source and distributes the binary, they are no different from someone ripping an ISO and distributing warez.
I'd take a manual over an automatic anytime. The only problem is that the car I'm using at the time isn't mine, and has automatic..
Nowadays lots of cars are coming with powerful systems like traction control that can perform activities that even the best driver couldn't match, and most of them require an automatic transmission to keep the driver from futzing up the equation.
Uhh, by definition, the "baby bells" can't be as large as AT&T was. Back in the day, AT&T was the phone company period.
Does starting it off with "Uhh" really hammer home a point?
In any case, what is the definition that you're apparently using here? If everything remained the same? Well you see, everything didn't remain the same, and telephone companies branched out from being a POTS provider to wireless, data (which is now a huge business), and of course tonnes of additional features on that POTS line. There is nothing saying that each Baby Bell couldn't have grown up to be as big or bigger than AT&T.
What bugs me is those guys that get Linux running as a firewall, and then suddenly think they are this super-powerful ultra-l33t highly trained UNIX admin
Not only do they then think that they're super UNIX admins, they also think that they're super Windows admins. About 99% of the tripe spouted off against Windows on Slashdot is completely factless garbage that, ironically, would be discredited by anyone who was an MCSE (because such a certificate indicates some knowledge and impetus to know the truth, rather than the "what I read on Slashdot and continue to perpetuate" knowledge that most Linux gurus proclaim). Slamming an MCSE is a pastetime of many of these people, and really all I can attribute it to jealousy.
I'm not sure how you drive an automatic, but generally when you shift into gear in an automatic you have your foot on the brake. Most cars idle at a rate that will lead to slow movement by just modulating the brake (only a few cars have an idle that's so low that one actually needs to press the gas to get going). I see absolutely no advantage to this, as with an automatic I can control movement down to the tiniest amount merely by altering the pressure on the brake.
What a ridiculous myth. Netscape absolutely monopolized the browser market, but killed themselves when they got so refocused primarily on the web server (where they might make money) that they pretty much gave up on the browser market. I realize that many on here have an absurd revisionist history, but for those who were actually computing through the changes, you know that around version 3 Netscape slowed down, and then 4 was just a bloated minor change. At the same time Microsoft kept steaming along. That's competitive forces at its best. Netscape was NEVER the underdog that everyone likes to romantically pretend they were now.
Maybe BeOS?...Oops, another product killed by illegal M$ actions.
You're being funny here, right? If anything, Linux killed BeOS, not Microsoft, because BeOS generally catered to the same sort of crowd that Linux catered to (just as Linux helped cement the death of OS/2, and keeps Amiga from rising from the ashes. In the interest of obscure operating systems, I hereby proclaim that Linux should be banned by governments worldwide).
but we'd likely get slapped down by M$'s threats of no more Office for Mac.
Wow...so now Microsoft HAS to make successful products otherwise they're abusing their powers. There is just no end to the constraints you believe that they should live under is there?
You don't think the phrase Moron Confused by Sun Equipment came from nowhere, now did you?
Funny, but I've never ever heard this brilliant little gem before. I suggest that you take a peek out of your little zealot cave every now and then and you'll discover a real world of real people looking for cost effective, powerful solutions to their problems. Raving maniac anti-Microsoftarians are just as bad as the most brianwashed pro-Microsoft VB fanatic (they're one and the same).
Turning into?:-) Seriously though, you wax fondly about the nascent days of Slashdot, however this has ALWAYS been the breeding grounds for contrarian opinion and behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, since I understand the math involved, I'm not sure why anyone would bother with propriatary accounting systems.
And I understand how to make hash tables and red-black trees, so I don't understand why anyone would bother with RDMBS when all they need is a C compiler and the gumption to "roll their own".
Of course that is absolutely, positively ridiculous. A complex program like Quickbooks isn't simply a couple of spreadsheets rolled together to give you a total, but is complete business management system.
...cue someone fresh out of their first physics class proclaiming "BUT THAT'S CAN'T BE POSSIBLE! What about the laws of the thermodynamics!"
I say that tongue in cheek because virtually any conversation about the reclamation of energy, or even simply improved efficiency, brings these nuts out of the woodwork.
600 feet is nothing. That's less than 3 or 4 houses I would guess.
A 600 foot radius increase is only "3 or 4 houses"??? Do you live in rural Texas and you're looking for ADSL for the ranch? Where I live I'd guess that a 600 foot radius increase would equal about..well I can't even contemplate it right now. I'd guess well over 1000.
The telcos know they have to do something before they get their clocks cleaned by the cable companies and wireless T-1 provider
I'm not sure how COs work in the states, but here in Canada a very good percentage of the population is within ADSL distance of a CO. Having said that, indeed they have been moving to remote COs, although ADSL is only a very small reason why: They simply make more sense. Why run an entire neighbourhoods copper pairs to the CO (and copper isn't cheap) when you can run them a much shorter distance to a little box and run a fibre back from that.
What's so wrong with people with 4 digit UIDs? (of course this post will incite people with lower UIDs to run in to proclaim "What's the big deal about low UIDs?", all the while pointing a big arrow at their own, even lower UID) In my case I most certainly am not an open source advocate, I don't run Linux (though I have a FreeBSD firewall), and I've been called a Microsoft astroturfer countless times (which is the standard method of proclaiming "Go along with the flow lest we feel vulnerable in our `alternative' beliefs"). Indeed I got this account when a hippie, alternative OS friend recommended the link way back in the day, and I promptly then forgot about it. Some time later I set up a new account (ergo2000 I believe), posted from it for a while, and one day remembered this old account. Silly story, but I had to justify having a somewhat low UID.
main screen turn on?
Most cable systems force you to rent a cable box (and, wonder of wonders, since they're a monopoly, they can gouge as much as they want)
They are? In my area the cable companies are scrambling to try to maintain their customer base in the face of satellite TV, and the numbers that keep coming out show them losing the battle. Just because there's one company on one medium doesn't make them a monopoly.
Having said that, I've oft wondered about such a standard: I have a Motorola box for my digital cable and it has a painfully slow GUI: Pulling up the menu you can literally watch it drawing the lines. Scanning through the channel listing, and again it's at least 2-3 seconds per page just waiting for it to draw. On top of that I'm sort of locked out of PVRs (unless the cable company provides it) because of the proprietary nature of the digital cable network, which is exactly what it looks like Sony is trying to solve.
Am I supposed to assume you're some sort of IT wizard and not question your anecdotal assertions because of that statement?
It's called empirical evidence my special bus riding friend. Am I to suppose that you're some sort of guru because you got PGP installed on your parent's PC?
That's why people use test labs -- even for small businesses, test first, then deploy.
Actually, I simplified the scenario for your sake (although obviously not quite enough. Let's try "INSTALL PGP NOT WORKEE"). PGP 7 was deployed in an environment with Office 97, and then started breaking as people upgraded to Office XP (or, alternately, when people installed new machines with Office XP). Of course this is all just in my imagination, and easy to find resources like this page, when talking about preliminary support for Office XP in 7.1 (a non-generally released NAI version), is all just a dream, right champion? I suspect that the version you really have a warez copy of a later NAI enterprise release, because it most certainly isn't 7.0.3 if you think it was install-and-use.
I have demonstrated a working system. You claim it won't work, and call me a moron. You can't dispute the facts, so you attack the messenger.
You're hilarious. Your initial posting was a hilarious contradiction of my direct experience (insinuating that I was creation fiction), claim that I'm spreading FUD (which is so unbelievably absurd given that there's a freeware version of 8 available), and then you turn around and claim that I attacked the messenger. You're a classic last worder. Keep it coming sucka: I know you will.
If you read his post again, you'll notice he's successfully using a PGP version that is not 8.0.
Actually, and perhaps you're new here so I'll just ignore the unbelieavable stupidity of that question, most people postulate for discussion generating purposes (or for karma whoring). i.e. Note that he didn't say "Why would I upgrade from x.x.x", but rather just some generic upgrade claim (and it got moderated up because it does fill a natural question void). Secondly, I put a huge question around if it might not work with Office 2000.
I still find it hilarious, though, that you're running around screaming that you just installed 7.0.3 and it ran off the bat with Outlook XP (even with all the patches at http://www.pgpi.com). I think you might want to inform those in the PGP team who worked long hard nights trying to get PGP working in Outlook 2002 (BTW, because I realize you'll misunderstand this: When I say Office, obviously I'm referring to Outlook as there is no other direct integration in Office with PGP), or those countless authors of PGP FAQs who explicitly state that PGP does not work with Outlook 2002 (AKA Outlook XP). Keep your fantasy facts coming though.
To make this most humorous, though, I've actually be using PGP (you know: A non-warez copy) successfully in Outlook 2002 for some time via some select settings in the PGP Tray to eliminate the need to use the toolbar or menu item options.
If the government really wants to get you, they'll surround you with Tempest vans, put a key sniffer in your keyboard, grab all your traffic through your ISP and monitor your phone calls.
About 99.999% of the people using PGP have no concern about their government watching them (though there should be some concern there as working in law enforcement is a job, not a moral position. What I mean by that is that there's absolutely zero guarantee that there isn't vindictive criminals with jobs in the intelligence/law enforcement community who would use casual snooping to destroy someone who they felt cult them off in traffic, or is dating their former girlfriend, or has a nice house they'd like to break into), but rather is concerned about their PC being stolen and all of their emails being read or redistributed (a very real possibility), or coworkers snooping into their emails (who nominated the email administrator the keeper of all secrets?), or corporate espionage, or that cable modem installer guy from doing some spelunking while doing his install, etc.
I use the club on my car and I laugh whenever someone offers up some witty comment about the club. It is, they proclaim, of no use against professional thieves as they saw on he latest episode of 20/20. The reality, of course, is that professional thieves are by far the minority of car thieves, but instead it's absolutely effective in stopping joy riders, or bottom barrel criminals looking for a quick lift to help them rob a variety store. I've come to realize that people critique measures like this (as they do with home security, personal security, etc) because they're lazy, but they see it as a zero-sum "game" : If MY car is secure, then it's that much more possible that THEIR car will be broken into. If my house is heavily fortified, then it's that much more possible that their house will be busted into. I've noticed this sort of "pull the lobster back in the bucket" mentality frequently, and I believe it's the same thing when people express outrage that others are protecting their privacy: They see this as a weakening of their own privacy. It reminds me of a joke about not having to outrun a bear, just making sure that you can run faster than at least one of the people you're with.
Alas I'm digressing.
Actually, I've tried compiling PGP 6.5.x on Windows before, using Visual Studio. I did it more than once and the binaries were different each time - not just timestamp different. Significantly different.
I'm not sure what environment settings you had, however I have done the same and the resulting binary is exactly the same each and every time. The binary does change if any of the configuration options are modified at all, of course, or if different versions of libraries are used, etc.
I asked people in the newsgroups about it and someone said that the compilers optimize randomly.
That person is an idiot. The compiler optimization in Visual Studio isn't random whatsoever (as a sidenote it's one of the best optimizers around), and even the premise of that is absurd.
I seem to recall John Carmack making a related grumble about compiles on different machines - same source code, one worked and one didn't.
99% of the time that people complain about computers doing random things, and everything being "the same" (or the classic "I didn't change anything!") it turns out to be some idiotic human error. If a compile turned out different code on a different machine then John had different libraries (which includes the dev. environment libraries, or the platform SDK libraries), or different compile options, or entirely possibly bogus hardware. It was not all the same and one compiler just randomly decided that it'd produce bogus code.
I regret to inform you that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Well thank you captain for informing me that the fact that PGP 7 does not properly integrate with the Outlook 2002 (Office XP) I'm looking at in front of me is all just an illusion in my head. Indeed, do a search on Google or Deja and it is verified, hundreds of times over, that 7.0.3 in particular is trashed in Outlook XP: They are not compatible. On top of that the problems encountered in the case where I selected PGP and had it installed company wide, to find that it did not properly integrate with Outlook 2002, was again all just an amazing mystery in my head.
I am very curious about exactly what you were thinking when you started the FUD machine.
Interesting seeing that one of the big features of PGP 8 over PGP 7 is support for Office XP. Gee, I wonder why they'd say that?
Normally I'd just ignore an ignorant moron such as yourself, but your righteousness in replying just blows me away. To proclaim FUD is especially laughable when I'm not scaring people away from PGP, but rather saying that PGP 8 is a nice upgrade. Learn when to cry FUD you fool.
Go away.
I think the concern more is "how do you know it isn't sending a copy of your private key to some malicious organization" (well...to any organization), or "does it have a keystroke logger". Because PGP is a security application, naturally a lot of its uses will be where the data is highly valuable (unfortunately, really. PGP and its ilk should be used even for the mundane).
Having said that I downloaded the source code and they indeed provide a list of the exact environment options to compile it (see readme.pdf right in the root of the source tree), namely Visual Studio 6.0 SP 5 with Visual C++, the Platform SDK, the NT 4.0, 98, and 2000 DDK. With these tools one should be able to compile an exact replica of theirs (btw: No there isn't any session or time dependent data, and two binary compiled on the same platform should indeed lead to the exact output). I gave it a shot but unfortunately VS.NET would give entirely different binaries anyways, but ignoring that there are some elements of the code that break in the more C++ conformant Visual C++ 7.
As an additional piece of information related to my prior response, I can now get at the license agreement which includes the following tidbit under "What You Can Do":
compile the source code for each PGP software program into an executable code version of the program;
I would back it up by pointing to the site, however right now it appears to be completely slashdotted. As such I'll have to say this without reference, but I'm pretty sure that the source code disclaimer list specifically mentions that it can be used to compile into a binary to compare with the binary that they give to ensure that there are no back doors, etc. If it's like prior versions, they'll give a specific list of versions of software (i.e. Visual Studio version XYZ) to compile it with, and truly the result will be a perfect clone of the distribution binary.
Sorry it's specifically the integration in Outlook that is the problem: With Office XP, and I'm pretty sure Office 2000, the toolbar integration is broken and one had to resort to a special set of configuration options to use PGP (for instance "decrypt on opening", as the manual option was no longer available).
The source code to PGP has been available for a long time from pgpi.com. Indeed, there is the freeware copy (it actually links you back to the main PGP page) of PGP 8.0 available there.
The fact that PGP doesn't work in general in Office XP should be a pretty big bonus (actually I think it even had problems with Office 2000).
You can buy a copy of Windows at Best Buy, or you can download it from a warez channel, or you can go to a friends and rip an ISO of his copy. Doe sanyone see a problem with this logic?
Phil has always advocated that it is very important that there is peer review of security products, and I entirely agree with him on that point, but he is not An open source advocate (which is why I find the nitpicking about the license absurd: It's not GPLd, folks, it's peer review. The release of the source is only intended to allow for particularly paranoid folks to ensure that there aren't any backdoors in the code). They are two entirely different things, and it's completely reasonable for him to release those products as he has.
If someone builds the source and distributes the binary, they are no different from someone ripping an ISO and distributing warez.
I'd take a manual over an automatic anytime. The only problem is that the car I'm using at the time isn't mine, and has automatic..
Nowadays lots of cars are coming with powerful systems like traction control that can perform activities that even the best driver couldn't match, and most of them require an automatic transmission to keep the driver from futzing up the equation.
Uhh, by definition, the "baby bells" can't be as large as AT&T was. Back in the day, AT&T was the phone company period.
Does starting it off with "Uhh" really hammer home a point?
In any case, what is the definition that you're apparently using here? If everything remained the same? Well you see, everything didn't remain the same, and telephone companies branched out from being a POTS provider to wireless, data (which is now a huge business), and of course tonnes of additional features on that POTS line. There is nothing saying that each Baby Bell couldn't have grown up to be as big or bigger than AT&T.
Uh huh...too bad that it's at least 7 different exams. When formulating your righteous trolls, at least get your facts right.
What bugs me is those guys that get Linux running as a firewall, and then suddenly think they are this super-powerful ultra-l33t highly trained UNIX admin
Not only do they then think that they're super UNIX admins, they also think that they're super Windows admins. About 99% of the tripe spouted off against Windows on Slashdot is completely factless garbage that, ironically, would be discredited by anyone who was an MCSE (because such a certificate indicates some knowledge and impetus to know the truth, rather than the "what I read on Slashdot and continue to perpetuate" knowledge that most Linux gurus proclaim). Slamming an MCSE is a pastetime of many of these people, and really all I can attribute it to jealousy.
I'm not sure how you drive an automatic, but generally when you shift into gear in an automatic you have your foot on the brake. Most cars idle at a rate that will lead to slow movement by just modulating the brake (only a few cars have an idle that's so low that one actually needs to press the gas to get going). I see absolutely no advantage to this, as with an automatic I can control movement down to the tiniest amount merely by altering the pressure on the brake.
Oops, M$ killed them with illegal actions.
What a ridiculous myth. Netscape absolutely monopolized the browser market, but killed themselves when they got so refocused primarily on the web server (where they might make money) that they pretty much gave up on the browser market. I realize that many on here have an absurd revisionist history, but for those who were actually computing through the changes, you know that around version 3 Netscape slowed down, and then 4 was just a bloated minor change. At the same time Microsoft kept steaming along. That's competitive forces at its best. Netscape was NEVER the underdog that everyone likes to romantically pretend they were now.
Maybe BeOS?...Oops, another product killed by illegal M$ actions.
You're being funny here, right? If anything, Linux killed BeOS, not Microsoft, because BeOS generally catered to the same sort of crowd that Linux catered to (just as Linux helped cement the death of OS/2, and keeps Amiga from rising from the ashes. In the interest of obscure operating systems, I hereby proclaim that Linux should be banned by governments worldwide).
but we'd likely get slapped down by M$'s threats of no more Office for Mac.
Wow...so now Microsoft HAS to make successful products otherwise they're abusing their powers. There is just no end to the constraints you believe that they should live under is there?
You don't think the phrase Moron Confused by Sun Equipment came from nowhere, now did you?
Funny, but I've never ever heard this brilliant little gem before. I suggest that you take a peek out of your little zealot cave every now and then and you'll discover a real world of real people looking for cost effective, powerful solutions to their problems. Raving maniac anti-Microsoftarians are just as bad as the most brianwashed pro-Microsoft VB fanatic (they're one and the same).
Slashdot's turning into an Anti-MS tabloid.
:-) Seriously though, you wax fondly about the nascent days of Slashdot, however this has ALWAYS been the breeding grounds for contrarian opinion and behaviour.
Turning into?