Linux-Advocacy Digest #252, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: WinTrolls and advocates are the ones who are geeks! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... (Michael Vester)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Ray Chason)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 15:17:38 GMT
dale wrote:
>
> i can understand the digicam stuff especially if it is usb but the burning
> stuff is totally out of line!! Cd record is a wonderful prog and deserves
> all credit it can get.. Have you ever tryed it? i dought it!
cdrecord is great for copying Microsoft CDs, audio CDs, and for making
archives of your /home/luser directory when you decide to strip your
machine down to reduce the amount of space used by Windoze, and increase
the amount used by Linux. Combined with mkisofs, it would seem pretty
difficult to me to beat the flexibility and safety of CD burning
on Linux.
As far as obtaining audio data, cdparanoia is great. You can often
reconstitute a broken CD (one with tracks that skip) with it.
Is there any software like that available for free in the Windoze world?
In any case, every Windoze user I've talked to that burns CDs tells
me about how often they've coastered a CD. I've never coastered one
under Linux, so I have no intention of wasting my time booting to
Windoze 2000 to burn CDs. Windoze, even of the NT/2000 ilk, has too
high a peak interrupt latency to be worth risking a $0.50 CD-R.
You never know when Windoze will pop in and garbage collect,
and not respond to the CD interrupt in time. Windoze latency is
like 10 msec typical even in the most advanced desktop versions.
Linux latency, on the other hand, is measured in microseconds.
To which OS would you trust your time-sensitive operations?
That being said, take note that Linux needs modification for
use in real-time applications.
> "John Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But when I want to do things such as web surf, read
> news,
> > >send email, download pictures from a camera, use my burner to create
> music
> > >compilations .... any technology made in the last 3 years, in other
> words,
> > >there is no choice other than windows.
See the above.
> > >Mac osX can't even burn a freaking
> > >Cd.
> >
> > Yeah I like bringing up the cd thing too ;-). I like to play with lots of
> > multimedia stuff, which unfortunately means I can't use only Unix.
You guys need to research where Linux is at now.
It's a moving target, and it's moving forward even faster than
Microsoft can whip its pony.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 6 May 2001 15:17:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:15 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:15:16
>>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:38 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:08:24
>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>>>>>practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
>>>>>exist in any way.
>>>>
>>>>What can I say? It *is* possible, and I can prove it by example.
>>>
>>>What commercial grade product have you produced using this insane
>>>method, then?
>>
>>When did commercial grade enter the picture?
>
>Again, we are talking software that people would be willing to pay for,
>or the entire issue of copyright goes "poof".
Bollocks. Good software can be a derivative work of bad software,
so copyright of bad software is quite important.
>>But if you really need that, I produced a image archiving system for a
>>newspaper, without access to the database used by the newspaper.
>>I did have another database that implemented the same API, though.
>
>And you're still going to refuse to see why that small distinction is a
>big one, are you?
What small distinction?
> [...remainder of Roberto missing the point again deleted as
>unproductive...]
Fine by me. Now, if you also applied that to your product!
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WinTrolls and advocates are the ones who are geeks!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 15:19:51 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Jasper wrote:
> >
> > "Linux users are really cool"??? Give me a break!
> >
> > Rock climbing, skydiving, bushwalking and dirt bikes are cool. Using
> > a computer is just a means to finding the time and money to do these
> > things.
> >
> > Only a computer geek would ever post something like what is written
> > below.
> >
> I am into music, art, reading and meditating.
>
> Is that cool or what?
>
> Matthew Gardiner
I am into soccer, running, reading, being with my family, and
programming/configuring/operating Linux.
Is that cool or what? But, ah, don't ask my wife... she
thinks I spend to much time configuring my systems and
network. <grin>
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 6 May 2001 15:21:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:33 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:16:53
>>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:09:38
>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>>>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>>>>>>>>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>>>>>>>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>>>>>>>> not working as expected. Right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>>>>>>>>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>>>>>>>>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>>>>>>>>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>>>>>>>>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>>>>>>>>performance requirements than anything else.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
>>>>>>>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
>>>>>who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
>>>>>so.
>>>>
>>>>Let's see, we should agree we are wrong because you say other say we are
>>>>wrong?
>>>
>>>No, you should recognize you are mistaken because I can provide an
>>>comprehensible and reasonable explanation of your error.
>>
>>If what you wrote so far is that "comprehensible and reasonable explanation",
>>I disagree about it being comprehensible, reasonable, or an explanation.
>
>This conclusively proves you didn't understand it, then.
Or that it was not comprehensible, reasonable, or an explanation.
It proves nothing one way or the other, unless you assume it
was or was not an explanation.
>>>>>>Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>>>>>>arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>>>>>"program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>>>>>library".
>>>>
>>>>No, I can not, because it makes no sense.
>>>
>>>Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>>
>>I suppose that's yet another reasonable, comprehensible explanation.
>
>Indeed, if you understand it, you will find it both reasonable and
>incomprehensible.
How can you say "indeed" and say the opposite of what you are
replying to?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 01:52:41 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Michael Vester wrote:
> >
> > "." wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Flatfish is a girl.
> > >
> > > You think so?
> > >
> > > -----.
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
> > > Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
> > > The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
> >
> > Just a hunch. Flatfish does write well. Also, in one posting, Flatfish
> > admits being a girl.
>
> As if anything Flatfish says is believable.
>
Flatfish is right about Linux not supporting obscure sound cards or that
Linux does not have an extensive collection of sound editing software
applications. There is a bit of credibility there. Open source developers,
stop whatever your doing and write some code so that Flatfish can compose
little music jingles on Linux.
Flatfish puts some effort into her/his posting. She/he goes into great
detail when describing botched up installations. I have met many women
that will take an opposing view point just because they enjoy doing so. I
don't think Flatfish really cares about operating systems, she/he just
likes to argue. From her/his descriptive posts, Flatfish has put a tiny
bit of effort into understanding Linux. The other wintrolls that post here
simply regurgitate Mafia$oft doctrine.
If I was betting, I bet that Flatfish or whatever pseudonym is currently
in use, is a girl. Like many other minor mysteries in life, this one
being extremely minor, this is not provable. I enjoy the postings of
Flatfish. She/he have a very pleasant writing style and she/he is able to
stir things up. Considering that She/he is one of the best losedos
advocates, losedos advocacy is certainly in the underdog position now.
>
> > --
> > Michael Vester
> > A credible Linux advocate
> >
> > "The avalanche has started, it is
> > too late for the pebbles to vote"
> > Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
<snip>
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 6 May 2001 15:32:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:21:41
>>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:11:10
>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:57:47
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>>>>>>not working as expected. Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Removing that need is the whole point of the API.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, just like removing the need to come up with an original plot-line
>>>>>is the whole point of many derivative movies.
>>>>>
>>>>>>The API defines how the library must behave. If it doesn't, then
>>>>>>there is a bug and the library is not an implementation of the API.
>>>>>
>>>>>The API has metaphysical Truth, is that what you're saying?
>>>>
>>>>The API has existence. You can print it in a piece of paper.
>>>>
>>>>If a library doesn't do what the APi says, it is not an
>>>>implementation of such API. By definition of "implementation".
>>>
>>>Is it possible for there to be a mistake in the API, or would you
>>>metaphysically insist that it must be a mistake in either the
>>>documentation (what's printed on the piece of paper) or the
>>>implementation (the library)?
>>
>>The API itself can be printed on a piece of paper, not only
>>the documentation.
>
>And what is then is "the API itself", but a description of the API?
Thatīs like saying a paperback of "The Great Gatsby" is a description
of "The Great Gatsby". It makes no sense.
>>An API can not be "wrong" because there is no platonic object
>>to compare it to, if you catch my drift.
>
>I am overjoyed to see you are approaching the point where you can
>understand me. Thank you for that effort.
>
>My entire point, Roberto, is that there ARE NO platonic objects. You
>see? An API cannot be 'wrong' because it is an abstraction which is
>inviolate in your mind. You are making it a platonic object, by the
>way, and in being unable to compare it to itself without finding
>identity and unity, you consider 'the API' cannot be wrong. Does that
>make sense?
Nothing can be wrong if you can only compare it to itself.
>>An API can not be "wrong" like a rock can not be "wrong".
>
>If someone throws a chunk of concrete into a pile under study by
>geologists, they will most surely say that rock is "wrong", don't you
>think? Rocks are physical things; APIs are just platonic objects.
No, I donīt think they would say the rock is "wrong".
APIs exist materially. They can not be platonic objects.
>>An API can be inadequate, though, and it can not fulfill its purpose.
>>
>>An implementation of the API can be wrong, because its "platonic object"
>>is the API.
>
>There are no platonic objects in this universe, Roberto, and this is the
>only universe that exists.
That is why I used quotes. The API is an object that describes what
the implementation should be. The use of "platonic object" was an
analogy.
>>> Why is the 'implementation' of an API on
>>>a piece of paper not an implementation, just like the code?
>>
>>You seem to have no idea of what an implementation is.
>
>No, I seem to have a need for a more precise idea of what you mean by
>'implementation', since the term can equally validly be applied to any
>implementation, not just 'the implementation in the formal programming
>language that a programmer means when he says "implementation"'.
An implementation of an API is something that performs the functions
and shows the behaviour required by the API.
> If the
>API is an abstraction or a platonic object, then you 'implement' it when
>you "write it down", and it doesn't matter how complete the description,
>or whether it is in a computer programming language or a natural human
>language.
An implementation in a human language doesnīt show any behaviour
and doesnīt perform any function, unless you couple it with a
human to act on its instructions. In that case, I would be
willing to reluctantly accept a human language implementation,
in some cases.
>>> If the API isn't code, how do you print it on a piece of paper?
>>
>>"Riding the Iron Rooster" is not code, yet it's printed
>>on a (large) piece of paper.
>
>Yes, but it is something else, even if it is not code.
Then, if both code and "something else" can be printed in a piece
of paper, your question above doesnīt make any sense.
>or whatever that iron rooster thing is.
The Iron Rooster is a train. Riding the Iron Rooster is a book
(and a pretty good one, too).
Also, "Iron Rooster" is a chinese metaphor for stingyness.
And, as a friend once said, "Riding the Iron Rooster" would
be a funny name for a porn flick.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 15:38:34 -0000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problem is that the FSF and the Linux community in general keep using
>the ambiguous term "free software", despite the fact that the FSF and the
>Linux community know for a fact how confusing this term can be. All the
>screams of "Free as in speech, not Free as in beer" are pointless.
Yes, Stallman's insistence on "free software" instead of "open source
software" strikes me as pedantic. Stallman can tell us why he has this
preference till he's blue in the face; the two terms are still more or
less the same in the real world.
>Most of the people i've talked to about the GPL, many of whom were planning
>to release code under the GPL really had no idea what the full implications
>of it are. They simply think that it's no-cost or public domain software.
This is vague. Are you assuming that, if I release a given source file
under the GPL, I cannot then use it elsewhere in a non-GPLd project?
If I hold the copyright, then that isn't so. It only applies to other
people's code that is GPL'd, i.e. not when I grant, but when I receive
a license using the GPL.
I point you to a company with a reasonable business model that turns on
this fact. Troll Tech licenses Qt as open-source software, under the
licensee's choice of the GPL or something called the QPL (unique to Qt
AFAIK), and also as a closed-source library that may be used in closed-
source programs. The point is that if you're doing GPL'd code, you can
have Qt for free, but if you're doing paid software, Troll Tech gets a
license fee for it.
Alas, I don't know whether Troll Tech is making any money, but they've
been around for a few years.
Furthermore, again quoting the GPL:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not
apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every
part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
derivative or collective works based on the Program.
[EF]
>> >Right after, an edict was issued that *NO* code that originated outside
>the
>> >company could be used in any product, no matter what its license.
[RC]
>> This was a paranoid overreaction; plenty of free/open source software
>> exists that is LGPL'd, or uses different licenses; code that is meant
>> to promote a standard, such as libpng, probably should use the BSD
>> license or something like it.
>
>It may be paranoid, and an overreaction, but the issue has never happened
>again. That's all they care about.
A perfect example of why "suit" and "PHB" are almost always
pejorative.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 6 May 2001 15:40:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:24:23
>>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:12:41
>>>GMT;
>>>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:55:54
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>There is no "correct" way to implement an API, there are MANY different
>>>>>>ways to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's just say that some of those ways MAY work, and some of them WILL
>>>>>work.
>>>>
>>>>If it's an implementation of the API, it will work as the API says.
>>>
>>>Nice tautology. I guess you never realized its unfalsifiable, did you?
>>>Unfalsifiable tautologies are worse than useless in this kind of
>>>context.
>>
>>What can I say, if you say a tautology is not true, you are by
>>definition wrong.
>
>That doesn't mean there's no difference between a statement that is true
>and a statement that is unfalsifiable.
Being unfalsifiable and being true can be two faces of the same
statement. The above statement is true. The rest I donīt care.
> At least to a reasonable man,
>like me. Whether you are likewise a reasonable man might well resolve
>to that point, however. Is everything you believe true to be considered
>unfalsifiable, Roberto?
The above is not something I believe to be true. It is something I
know to be true, because itīs trivially derived from the required
features of something to be called an implementation of the API.
>>>>Working
>>>>is part of being an implementation of the API.
>>>
>>>But somehow it is not a part of being a program? Why is that?
>>
>>Because not all programs are implementations of an API.
>
>The issue is the implementation of the API, not the program. So
>programs that don't use libraries don't have to work, in order to be
>programs?
A bunch of code that doesnīt work is not a program. It is a copyrighted
work, and it can be licensed. It can be a part of a program, and it
can be the basis from which programs are derived.
>>>>If it doesn't work as the API requires, it is at best a partial
>>>>implementation.
>>>
>>>Would that cast doubt on the existence of the API, or merely its
>>>metaphysical integrity?
>>
>>The API can't exist or not exist. If it doesn't exist, it is not an API
>>and it is not a car.
>
>Did you mean "can exist or not exist"?
No. I meant exactly what I wrote.
> If so, what signifies this
>'existence' in a concrete sense? Does an API simply 'exist' as soon as
>someone says it does?
Almost. Iīd say as soon as someone creates it.
> It seems likely, since it is an abstraction, not
>a thing.
An API is a thing. Yet it is a thing that can be created. Like a book.
>Is not being a car sufficient?
No, it is necessary, but not sufficient. Of the things that are not
cars, some are APIs. Of the things that donīt exist, there is no
way to know if any is an API.
> Then it would always exist,
>wouldn't it, since an API is never a car?
No.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 15:40:33 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess it depends on what you mean by "secure". If someone doesn't
> > > know
> > > > > the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure
> > > >
> > > > What crap. If you don't understand something don't make pathetic
> > > > attempts to show that you do. ANY 4-bit encryption algorithm could be
> > > > cracked by brute force in less time than it took you to write such
> > > > rubbish. The best known encryption algorithms are known and open to
> > > > peer review. If you invent a new encryption algorithm but won't make
> > > > it open to peer review then it just will not be accepted. Security
> > > > through obscurity just doesn't cut it at any time.
> > >
> > > What's crap is your understanding.
> > >
> > > You can only brute force it if you know the decode algorithm. You can
> > > guess, and analyze and do lots of things, but it could be things like
> XORing
> > > the data against a pets name, while rotating 3 bits and compressing it
> using
> > > 10 different compression algorithms. The number of possible
> combinations of
> > > decode algorithms is limitless.
> > >
> > You aren't required to know the algorithm to crack encryption. You don't
> > care about the algorithm, you care about recovering the message. So the
> > attack has to create an algorithm that decodes the message. It doesn't
> > matter if the algorithm is the "correct" algorithm or not. In fact,
> > doing things such as you suggest often make a code easier to crack. When
> > you apply multiple compression algorithms, or multiple xor, the attacker
> > doesn't have to know how many times you compressed, he just has to find
> > one scheme to go from encrypted message to plain text.
>
> Ahh, but that's just it. Such a scheme typically needs to have a "rosetta
> stone" or some way to identify at least one character or word in the data.
> Suppose the encrypted data isn't plain text at all, but something that is
> based on a random character set chosen for the day it was encrypted? You
> need a point of reference, and without having that, you might as well have
> monkeys banging on keyboards.
>
No, you don't typically need a "rosetta stone". If you have such, then
you can apply a "known plain text attack". But that isn't the only
attack.
> Typically, when trying to break encryption without knowing the algorithm,
> you either look for common algorithms, or you look for patterns that match
> known language patterns.
You look for clues. Compression algorithms for example, will add
information to the file that permits deduction of the compression
scheme. So applying (by computer) tests for compression will very
rapidly "back out" the compressions.
>If you disguise the language patterns by making
> sure that even the same phrase doesn't create the same series of bytes, then
> you remove the ability to deduce a new algorithm.
>
But you can't do that with a 4 bit key. A 4 bit key means a cycle length
of 16. So every 16 letters, or words, you can get repeats. These repeats
will have spacing with a factor of 16. If 16 is the smallest factor,
then I need only to test for key lenghts of 2 and 4, which totals out to
4 +16 = 20 keys.
Enigma was originally cracked without any knowledge of the algorithm,
and it had a key length of 26^7 IIRC.
> > > Yes, if you had the software that encoded the data, you could probably
> > > reverse engineer it and figure it out, but if you only have encrypted
> data
> > > and know that a key is 4 bits, then you could spend eternity looking for
> the
> > > right algorithm.
> >
> > There are only 16 possible 4 bit keys. NSA would probably spend about 16
> > microseconds decrypting your message, no matter how you applied the key.
>
> I doubt it.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 15:41:40 GMT
On 6 May 2001 12:15:11 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>Linux was/is and will continue to be a miserable failure as a consumer
>>desktop OS until it wakes up and starts offering an end result that is
>>superior instead of an inferior result based upon theoretical superior
>>technologies.
>
>>Consumers want instant gratification and Linux is way out in left
>>field as far as that is concerned.
>
>Which one is it --- superior end result, or instant gratification? I.e.
>LaTeX or WinWord?
If I were doing extensive tables and equations etc type work I would
probably take the time to learn LaTeX.
Isn't Latex available for Windows as well?
I can't stand WinWord BTW.
Flatfish
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
