Linux-Advocacy Digest #395, Volume #34 Thu, 10 May 01 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: No More Linux! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux" (Claus Sørensen - Formand for KLID)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS (Bob Tennent)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("JS PL")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Bob Hauck)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 13:33:22 -0400
chrisv wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >right... 80% of men are bisexual, and Nooooone of them recognize it
> >in each other?????
>
> Damn, you are dense. People keep it secret, you know? They don't
Translation: Chrisv has a secret.
> want anyone else to have even the TINIEST suspicions. People CAN
> suppress their feelings and keep secrets, you know. Also, I'm sure on
> most men, the desire is so weak that it almost never crosses their
> minds, and if it does, the thought is immediately suppressed, since
> "I'm a manly man not a damn queer. Hell, I make FUN of queers with my
> buds!"
Personally, I don't make fun of them, I don't even pay attention
to them...until THEY start making an issue of it.
The First Amendment gives you a right to remain silent. If you're
homosexual, I suggest that you use it....
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: 10 May 2001 11:34:59 -0600
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 10 May 2001 02:56:40 +0700, "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I decided to become a FreeBSD snob instead. <g>
> >
> > Talk to me I'm listening :)
> >
> > What will FreeBSD do for me (as a desktop non programmer user) that
> > Linux can't?
>
> What would it do for you? Make you go to comp.os.freeBSD.advocacy ? :)
> (if there is one)
Oh lets! :)
I'll burn the discs for you flatfish+-=++, and even send a nice
introductory message to the FreeBSD advocacy groups ahead of time!
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Sørensen - Formand for KLID)
Crossposted-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:36:38 GMT
On Thu, 10 May 2001 14:44:55 GMT, "Robert Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Is there any chance that IBM could make the source to OS/2 Warp available to
>the open source community? Would Microsoft stop them?
Actually there is a Open Source project called FreeOS where they will
make a free operating system to support OS/2 programs and
applications.
See more here: http://www.quasarbbs.com/daniel/freeos/main.html
The most enjoyable greetings
--
Claus Sørensen K L I D
Formand ------------------ Tlf: 20 94 62 34
Nøddelunden 110 Kommercielle Linux Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2765 Smørum Interessenter i Danmark Web: www.klid.dk
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: 10 May 2001 11:38:03 -0600
Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > They [Apple] have done a lot of work on Darwin, and if the BSD teams want to
> > grab some code they are more than welcome to do so.
>
> The difference is that contributing back to BSD-licensed software
> depends on the good will and generosity of the company that uses this
> software. With GPL, its no longer voluntary - if you ship, you have
> to share.
>
> I can easily imagine otherwise generous companies restricting
> redistributions of important, ground-breaking stuff or say, device
> drivers that would reveal hardware interfaces - while continuing to
> submit bug fixes and so on.
>
> This might lead to BSD code "winning out" in the end - but the end
> users lose, information about that device might be crucial for
> somebody somewhere.
But on the other side of the coin is no device driver at all. I don't
see how that is any better.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:33:44 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Why should Pete feel stupid?
> >You made a statement that you can't back up because you haven't a clue
> >concerning Direct-x.
>
> I use it. It sucks. 'Nuf said.
Linux. I use it. It sucks. 'nuf said.
There?
Happy now?
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:32:09 +0100
In article <9de6i3$ne1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> "Another Linux Oopsie".
>
> poppycock from stem to stern.
Fair enough, I see I'm wasting my time explaining it to you.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:43:57 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You're not on very solid ground here. As I recall, Linux syscalls are
> > called via int 80h. The DOS interrupt may be very low level and
primitive
> > in comparison, but both are still APIs by definition.
>
> Go take a universeity-level systems programming course, and get back to
> us.
Have you taken such a course, Aaron?
If so, please let us know what that course had
to say on this subject.
I'd love to know, myself.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 May 2001 12:08:22 -0500
On Wed, 9 May 2001 23:27:22 -0400, JS PL <hieverybody!> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:37:33 -0400, JS PL <hieverybody!> wrote:
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 01:54:12
>> >> [...]
>> >> >Yes, Win9x suck for everything. I couldn't imagine trying to do
>> >> >anything like CD burning in Win9x, let alone try to get any decent
>> >> >amount of work done.
>> >> >
>> >> >Win9x just suck.
>> >
>> >I run Windows 98 on one machine (rarely) and the apps crash less than the
>> >apps on my Linux box. I can't remember the last time the Win98 OS
>crashed,
>>
>> Hey...JS PL is a linux user...what linux distro and version are you
>running?
>
>The newest Mandrake. DL'ed over 56k. I might even buy it when it hits the
>shelves in boxes. If it hasn't already.
>
>> >then a gain, I touch the machine about once a month. Maybe some of that
>> >Win2k reliability on the same network is rubbing off on it.
>>
>> My Windows 2K box never crashes anymore because I never turn it on
>anymore.
>> I see the same applies for your Windows 98 box. This is hilarious. Do
>> you want to improve the reliability of your Windows box?: Don't use it.
>> Perfect!
>
>My Win2k box never crashes anyway. If your does you must have screwed
>something up severely in the setup.
My Win2K box crashed regularly on the default installation until I
figured out that it had installed, all on its own, conflicting SCSI
drivers for some reason.
I thought you were one of the folks who said Windows just working correctly
the first time "out-of-the-box"? Of course, the BSODs that I got on my
W2K default installation didn't do anything to help me figure out that the
conflicting SCSI drivers were the problem. That only became evident after
some detailed use of the device manager and many reboots.
I won't even talk about all the BSODs I got when I followed the advice of
the online help pages and set my parallel port device properties to "handle
all interrupts assigned to the port".
>My Win98 box doesn't crash either, but it appears to be on and producing
>light whenever I look over there at it.
>
So you're just using it to waste electicity then?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:35:52 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >I know that Direct-X works great for audio because I can use one
> >program, say a pop and click filter, in all of my Direct-X aware
> >programs which are all of them seamless. The plugins automagically
> >appear as menu items and work flawlessly.
>
> Your perspective is naive, and your requirements are ingenuous. You can
> dream up whatever 'because' you want to declare 'why' Directx "works
> great"; that won't change the fact that it sucks.
Yes but you're not giving any good reasons as to _why_ DirectX sucks. I
might just as well say "Linux sucks".
> >You are the one who doesn't have a clue concerning Direct-X...
>
> I use it. It sucks. 'Nuf said.
Linux. I use it. It sucks. 'nuf said.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:39:07 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >>But in the same breathe trashes Windows, yet they're using it to post?
> >>Puh-lease!
>
> But if they're using Windows, then they will have first hand knowledge
> of its problems. This makes perfect sense to me.
If they're bad mouthing Windows and praising Linux, then why are they
still using Windows? That sounds to me like hypocracy.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:37:59 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Why aren't you using PAN instead of Agent?
>
> Because I use Agent, not PAN. Guffaw.
OK, why are you using a Windows application (which you despise?) instead
of a Linux equivalent (which you think is wonderful?).
Titter.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:48:11 -0700
Isaac wrote:
> >It is pretty likely that MS could, as a license term (without
> >consideration of antitrust issues). MS licenses its products using an
>
> The antitrust issue is a fairly substantial one I would think.
Yes and no. For Microsoft, probably. In terms of GPL, the issue is
whether the copyright mechanism for imposing the restriction exists, not
whether the restriction would be otherwise-legal for Microsoft.
For what the FSF wants to do, the antitrust issue seems much less
serious (though it could possibly still be there).
> >In fact, some of its library and application products are specifically
> >limited, by license, to being used with Windows. License-wise, what's
>
> I wonder if such a license term is enforceable. Can such products
> not be run legally on Wine?
I think there was some litigation in connection with this issue against
(or at least hardball negotiation with) commercial Windows work-alikes
like Wabi, Bristol, etc., which resulted in these products becoming
Microsoft licensees. (This was prior to the high-profile Bristol case
about Microsoft later refusing to renew Bristol's license on similar
terms.) In that context, the restrictions appear enforcable, or at least
not obviously unenforcable.
> >the difference between application (or library) A being limited to be
> >used with operating system B, and operating system A being limited to be
> >used with applications B, C, and D only?
> >
> Asked and answered.
Not exactly. The nature of these restrictions is quite different from a
"number of connections" type restriction (although it should be noted
that various Windows EULA's, have, at times, included a variety of
different use restrictions, not just "number of connection" restrictions
which appear to be primarily a pricing issue).
> There is the question of enforceability of such a license term. It's
> not clear that the question would go away even if your jurisdiction
> adopted UCITA.
Certainly, use-based EULA's do require that licensees not own their
copies of the software, which probably requires some sort of valid
contract.
> The question would definitely be resolved if copyright
> law supported such a limitation.
Copyright law clearly supports the right of the licensor to
conditionally authorize the use of software, unless the licensee owns
his copy of the software (which is prevented with an agreement to that
effect).
> Even if MS could impose such a restriction, their doing so would not be
> nearly as detrimental as having the restriction written into copyright
> law so that it was the default limitation.
I'm not sure I agree with that, as I am often not swayed by arguments
about default conditions. Current UCC-based software transactions, by
default, carry at least implied warranties unless disclaimed. How many
software tranactions actually carry warranties?
> >The only thing that prevents FSF from relying on the same kinds of use
> >restrictions to do what it wants to do with GPL is that the FSF is
> >philosophically opposed to use restrictions, but Microsoft certainly
> >isn't.
>
> Also as has been pointed out, a newly added clause would not retroactively
> protect already released GPL'd code.
True enough.
> And maybe MS could add such restrictions, but they might not be interested
> in forbidding users from writing programs for their own use. Perhaps
> it is inappropriate to call that philosophy, but it's close.
I don't see a difference here. FSF is not interested in forbidding
users from writing programs for their own use.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 08:48:35 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 20:53:14
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001
> >> >"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >> >> > MS did not exclude anyone from developing on
> >> >> > Windows. They *encouraged* it.
> >> >>
> >> >> ... but only if the developers promised to phase out the OS/2
> >> >> equivalents. Ask Borland (ObjectVision, anyone?)
> >> >
> >> >Had Microsoft been as foolish as you suggest,
> >> >they would have failed. Windows needed developers
> >> >and MS could not afford to drive them away.
> >>
> >> And the fact that the most common applications used today are all
> >> Microsoft products doesn't seem to register with you, does it?
> >
> >Sound editing?
> >Movie editing?
> >3d graphics?
> >Graphics editing?
> >OCR?
> >Instant Messaging?
> >File sharing?
> >Anti Virus?
> >Download Managers?
> >FTP Clients?
> >
> >Just a couple of stuff where MS application either don't even exist, or
> >exist and not even close to be the most common.
>
> Wordprocessor
> Spreadsheet
Presentation, too.
> Database
Excuse me? Since when SQL Server is an application? And since when it's
common, for that matter?
Or do you mean Access, that isn't a Database, not by a longshot.
It's a desktop database, big difference.
> Browser
Just plain better than anything else on the market.
> Email/newsreader
> etc.
What *else*, you just listed 5 subjects, I dispute on one and added another.
I listed 10 where MS isn't even close to being the first, or even the
second.
Perhaps you need more help:
Programming. (IDE, compilers, enviroments)
And you know what, that is about it.
Let's see a couple of other stuff where MS isn't a contester?
Anti-Spam Tools
IRC (Clients & Servers)
Download Managers
Web Accelerators
Compression Utilities
Oh, and let's not forget:
Games
So, want to keep going?
> The fact that the most common applications used today are all Microsoft
> products doesn't seem to register with you, does it?
No, because it's not true.
Downloads.com list the most popular applications, none of them are MS one.
It's really quite simple, MS specialize in several areas, office stuff,
mainly. But that is it.
There are several areas where their products are indeed the most popular.
That is by *far* not so in most areas.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: 10 May 2001 17:45:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001 12:19:38 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2717264,00.html
>
>Ransom Love (his real name, ISYN) says he agrees with MS that the GPL is not
>appropriate for Commerical software, and is considering alternate licenses
>such as the BSDL.
And what does this have to do with Linux? Does he plan to write a new operating
system kernel to replace Linux? If he writes the code, he can choose the
license. And if he wants to allow Microsoft to grab his code and fork it,
that's his choice. I'm just glad Linus didn't make the same choice.
Bob T.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:01:50 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Because stupid bigots like to rationalize their hatred of gays by
>> >> blaming them for AIDS.
>> >
>> >No. I merely refuse to associate with people who are so fucking suicidal.
>>
>> Again, the false logic from Kookis. Homosexual != suicidal.
>> Homosexuality != unprotected anal sex. Idiot.
Aaron> Does "protection" ever break?
Aaron> a) no
Aaron> B) YES
Is there a single documented case of HIV transmission during
condom protected sex. No.
Aaron> DOH!
Aaron> The life expectancy of a male homosexual is 20 YEARS SHORTER than
Aaron> that of a male heterosexual.
No, this is a falsehood, based on a fraud's lies (Paul Cameron).
Aaron> What does this tell you?
Nothing, as it is false.
Note that female homosexuals have very low incidence of HIV.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:05:57 -0400
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >My Win98 box doesn't crash either, but it appears to be on and producing
> >light whenever I look over there at it.
> >
>
> So you're just using it to waste electicity then?
I don't live in California anymore. So I have the luxury of wasting
electricity. The amount of wasting I do could probably feed a small village
in Malnutrania.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:06:24 GMT
On Thu, 10 May 2001 11:41:32 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that if you
> > don't provide much material to work with even weak crypto can appear to
> > be "secure".
> Who cares? I'm not sending 500MB of data. And, even if I was, I could come
> up with hundreds of randomly chosen algorithms, each one unique.
Nobody cares if this is just a schoolyard game. But if you are trying
to provide real security for important data, then you will surely be
encrypting lots of messages.
So, now we're going to change the algorithm at least with each
message. This creates a big problem, namely that of distribution of
the algorithm to your correspondents. If you are willing to suffer
that sort of problem, why not just use a one-time pad and be provably
secure?
> But why go to all that trouble? Normally you wouldn't. But the point
> really is, that if you know the algorithm it can be cracked if you throw
> enough hardware at it.
That is not true. There exist algorithms that are provably secure in
the mathematical sense. The one-time pad for example. The problem is,
the key is the same length as the message, which makes key distribution
a problem. Your "randomly chosen algorithm" approach would seem to
suffer from a distribution problem at least as great as that and does
not seem to provide any assurance of security other than that you and I
can't think of a way to break it in five minutes of thinking about it.
> If you don't know the algorithm, and it's not something that shows
> any kind of pattern that can be deduced, then it's effectively
> unbreakable.
The concept of "pattern that can be deduced" is perhaps a broader
concept than you realize.
> > Actually, the military doesn't go in for secret algorithms any more.
> > The keys are where the security lies and those are what is closely
> > controlled.
>
> Which has just as much chance of being pilfered as the algorithm does.
But keys are easier to change. If you change your algorithm, you at
least have to analyze it to be sure that it does not have any silly
weaknesses. Just because it is unknown to your foes does not mean that
they can't deduce an equivalent one by looking at the cyphertext. A
good algorithm has the properties of pseudo-randomness that you assert,
but finding one of those is not trivial.
For instance, a substitution code is a terrible choice, even if your
foe does not know you are using one. The reason is that it leaves
letter frequencies unchanged, making it obvious what type of code you
have used. Note also that doing multiple substitutions does not change
this at all and is therefore worthless WRT making the code harder to
crack. Just "doing more" does not necessarily help.
My point is that without doing some analysis, probably a lot of
analysis, you can't be sure that your super-duper algorithm doesn't
suffer from a problem like this. Just because your algorithm is
"complicated" in some way you can't be sure that it really produces
random-looking output when subjected to various statistical tests. Nor
can you be sure that it will be hard to deduce an inverse algorithm
(which may be entirely different than the one you used). Because of
this, simply using "lots of random algorithms" is not something anybody
ought to trust.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:42:11 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Microsoft infringed on Stacs's patent. Stac's patent. -IF- Stac
> purchased the patent... so, what? Microsoft infringed on Stacs's patent.
> --
I think the significance of it all is that you cannot use Stac as a poster
child as an unfortunate "little" developer who is bludgeoned and savaged by
the evil giant Microsoft as all you antis are eager to do. Stac was a
company that bought a patent at almost the same time that Microsoft bought
theirs. Stac violated the terms and conditions of their use of Windows by
reverse engineering what were legitimate trade secrets of Microsoft and
Microsoft's purchased, not developed or reverse-engineered, patent was
found to be in violation of Stac's purchased, not developed, patent. This
is pretty mundane legal mumbo-jumbo that cost Microsoft about a $100M by the
time that everything was settled. That was about 12 year's worth of sales
revenue for Stac who made out many times better by suing than by coding.
I'm sure the Stac founders sit around their pools in Palm Springs and laugh
about the twits like you that see them as "unfortunate"!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
