Linux-Advocacy Digest #218, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 15:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Craig Kelley)
Re: Apple is doing a good thing ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Philip Brown)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Apple is doing a good thing (Craig Kelley)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Zippy)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: 05 May 2001 12:19:46 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > You, and most other people are confusing GPL and Open Source. Mundies
> > > comments are particularly against the GPL, not Open Source.
> > >
> > > While MS made comments about Open Source having a difficult business
> model
> > > to sustain, its primary beef was with the GPL. Notice that they are
> only
> > > questioning the business model of Open Source, but are attacking the
> GPL's
> > > effect on business directly.
> > >
> > > Don't make the mistake of trying to claim MS is against Open Source.
> They
> > > could care less if someone gives their code away. What they care about
> is
> > > that the GPL prevents businesses from taking advantage of code paid for
> by
> > > taxpayer dollars.
> >
> > No, I'm not confusing anything. You're trying to back-peddle on your
> > claim that proprietary intellectual property was the *real* motivating
> > force behind the internet.
>
> Indeed it was. Without proprietary IP, the companies involved in
> growing and commercializing the internet would have never done it.
> The Internet was founded on completely open and public domain
> information, which is what allowed companies to make their own
> proprietary versions.
Who said anything about growing and commercializing it? I am talking
about *developing* it.
> We would not have the internet as we know it, and probably would
> have never even had Linux, had it not been for the fact that the
> protocols and code were made publicly available for unrestricted
> use.
I disagree. Apply natural selection to technology and you *will* end
up with open source under general circumstances (ie, not some niche or
bleeding-edge projects). The internet could not have been without
open source, and it will only continue on those merits.
Linux is a by-product of this, and would always have been regardless.
The internet succeeded where multi-billion dollar companies failed
(Apple's E-World, AOL's QuantumLink/AOL, Microsoft's MSN, Compuserve,
The Source, Delphi -- one failure after another, falling down to open
source and open standards); to say we "probably would have never even
had Linux" is laughable.
> > I agree 100% with your statements above, but that is not what I was
> > addressing.
>
> You seemed to be saying that MS is against open protocols and open
> source. Well, any company is. Even so called "open" companies like
> Sun. They use openness as a tool to gain more marketshare, and
> would just as soon close everything up as soon as they gained a
> majority share.
I'll belive you when I see the first non-Microsoft implementation of
.NET that doesn't need any reverse-engineering to function.
Sun has been VERY benvolent with Java, despite commercial goons'
attempts to smear them with FSF-like zeal. It's strange that die-hard
GPL fans side with Microsoft whenever Java is the topic of
discussion. Regardless, one only needs to see othe Sun projects to
find the fault in your claims: NFS, sunrpc, nis, pam, and many many
others.
What has Microsoft ever done? Their answers to the above technologies
are all closed/proprietary/secret designs which only function with
Windows. Their laughable attempt at CIFS was a complete joke, and
their current promises for C# are dubious (but nice, if it actually
turns out..).
In short: HOW ARE MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGIES BETTER THAN GPL
TECHNOLOGIES?
Answer: They aren't; in fact they carry MORE baggage than their GPL
counterparts (Windows).
> > > The original internet wasn't even developed on Unix. My point is that,
> if
> > > the government had released the original DARPANET code under a license
> like
> > > the GPL, companies like DEC, IBM, and Sun would have never adopted it.
> >
> > Code != Protocol
>
> While it's possible to build implementations on protocol specifications
> alone, something as complex as a TCP/IP stack needs reference
> implementations.
>
> > Many (all?) TCP/IP stacks were developed to be BSD-compliant. The
> > internet wasn't developed on UNIX, but UNIX made it what it is today
> > (you're splitting hairs). Any way you look at it, Microsoft would
> > have done everything *worse* than it is now (see SMB, ntrpc, ActiveX
> > -- all communication technologies specifically designed to make people
> > dependent on Windows).
>
> ntrpc is DCE/RPC.
I'm sure the Samba team would love you to explain that; they've been
working to reverse-engineer them for 3 years now.
> In any event, My argument has nothing to do with how MS would have
> done it. My argument is against Alan's comment, which seems to have
> confused Mundie's comments on GPL with Open Source in general. His
> comment insinuates that The internet was built on the GPL, which it
> wasn't.
Translation: Microsoft doesn't have to do anything better, I just
want to complain about the response the Linux community offered.
> > > He's saying that 98, ME, NT, Three versions of 2000 and CE are all
> seperate
> > > forks. If they are, then Red Hat 7 is a fork, so is 7.1, so is 6.2.
> That's
> > > not the traditional definition of a fork.
> >
> > Okay, I'll bite: What is the "traditional definition" of a fork then?
>
> A fork is when you take a single code base and seperate it into two
> code bases with seperate development "tips". Most often, with
> different political and/or technical objectives.
>
> Linux kernel 2.4 is not a seperate fork from 2.2, it's a branch. A
> fork is when the projects diverge (as in a fork in the road). An
> example of forking would be BSD Light forking into OpenBSD, NetBSD,
> and FreeBSD. Three completely seperate projects or Emacs/XEmacs.
>
> Technically, 16 bit based Windows (9x/ME) and NT are two entirely
> different code bases without a common ancestor, but we can call them
> effective forks since they both implement the majority of the same
> API's.
Fine, but it doesn't change Alan's argument a bit: You don't have
the luxury of forking Windows code to suit your project.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apple is doing a good thing
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:07:36 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d187h$jqo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That's why 98/ME will be dead this
> > year, replaced by Windows XP.
>
> In exactly the same way they were replaced by Windows 2000.
They weren't intended to be replaced by Windows 2000.
MS will stop selling 9x based OS's after XP is released.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:10:23 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d0cj0$6pl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Not really. I think Alan made a critical error in mentioning the
> > internet. The Internet was funded by the government, and all of it's
> > development and code was made available as either public domain or
> > business friendly licensing (such as the BSDL).
> >
> > In fact, most of the Internet pioneers only did so because they could
> > make money off selling their proprietary implemenations (DEC, Sun, IBM,
> > etc..). If the original Internet code had been released GPL, we'd
> > probably all be running DECNET or something similar today.
>
> You do not understand the GPL. The GPL licenses one specific
> implementation. They are quite free to make their own implementation as
> long as none of the code is copied verbaitm. In fact, the code would have
> provided a useful reference even if it had been GPL.
I understand the GPL just fine. What you don't understand is how standards
are made. They are made through reference implementations, and people use
those to base their work on. RMS claims that even basing your work on a
GPL'd piece of software makes it derived from the GPL.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech
on OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: 05 May 2001 12:23:29 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> >> First of all, Microsoft is a member of the
> >> BSA.
>
> >The BSA is a Mafia$oft sockpuppet.
>
> Jsut this past week one of trade mags had an article about that,
> and how vendors such as Lotus and Novell are no longer
> participitating in BSA because it is so MS oriented/prejudiced.
Just like everyone who is not affiliated with Microsoft has left
COMDEX.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:11:42 -0500
"Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > Many (all?) TCP/IP stacks were developed to be BSD-compliant. The
> > internet wasn't developed on UNIX, but UNIX made it what it is today
> > (you're splitting hairs). Any way you look at it, Microsoft would
> > have done everything *worse* than it is now (see SMB, ntrpc, ActiveX
> > -- all communication technologies specifically designed to make people
> > dependent on Windows).
> >
>
> Doesn't matter M$ wasn't in the networking game at that stage anyway and
> now it lags with ipv6 implementation too. Recent Unixes have it built
> in, Windows 2000 and NT have 'developer' add-ons. That'll be fun, as
> the internet migrates to ipv6, watching M$ catch up.
As the internet migrates to ipv6? You haven't any idea how long that is
going to take, do you? It would not surprise me if in 10 years, the
internet were still primarily ipv4. You're only going to see ipv6 adoption
in local private wide area networks for the foreseeable future.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Brown)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:24:56 GMT
On 5 May 2001 02:19:59 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
>You may not like using it for programming, and you may even argue it's
>not well suited for it, but it's obvious that [vi] was intended to be
>used to develop code.
"intended", and "best suited for" are fairly different beasts.
Personally, my minimum for a programmers "editor" is one that can deal with
compile errors appropriately. eg: run a "make" in a subwindow,
and automatically jump you to the place of each error.
There are multiple editors under 1meg in size that have this capability.
jove, jed, ....
--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
S.1618 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
The word of the day is mispergitude
------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:25:30 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Those licenses exluded other OS's from being installed instead of
> > > Windows.
> >
> > Okay, okay, so you *are* claiming that.
> >
> > But no credible source says that.
> >
>
> The FTC, the DOJ and the vendors said that. Who esle do you want?
No, they don't.
They have said that Microsoft made some deals
with some vendors where MS got paid for each
processor shipped, with Windows or no.
But none that excluded other OSes.
Ferinstance, dual booting Windows and some obscure
hobby OS is quite a common configuration for
the techno-elite. A compy with a per-processor
license could have addressed that market very
nicely, thank you.
[snip]
> > > The last action, which ended in a Consent Decree supposedly stopped
> > > per-processor licenses because of their predatory nature.
> >
> > Microsoft was not convicted of anything that time.
> >
> > They just cut a deal.
>
> To avoid going to trial and being convicted. Its like plea bargaining.
Yes, but it iddn't work, the DoJ sued anyway, and
they *went* to trial, and got convicted, and now they
look likely to win it on appeal.
They cut a deal to avoid going through all that,
but it did not work.
[snip]
> > > No kidding? Thats whay they signed? To avoid a guilty verdict?
> >
> > To avoid a lengly lawsuit. It's not like they needed
> > those licenses, anyway.
>
> To avoid being convicted. 'Those licenses" constituted the majority of
> vendors.
To avoid the lawsuit. Even if they do win this thing,
it will still have cost them a fortune.
[snip]
> > Okay, putting in features that the Department of
> > Justice had not approved.
>
> No, putting in "features" to illegally drive competitors from the
> marketplace.
Horrors! Competition! Can't have that!
> > But really, you can't expect MS not to compete
> > just because the DoJ doesn't like competition.
>
> They have NEVER competed on a level playing field.
There are no level playing fields. MS competed,
and the consumers benefited from this
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 21:17:34 +0200
"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:AbXI6.364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> COM was a good idea, granted. MTS is a nice application, I'll grant that
> too. But for the most part, Microsoft copy's other people's ideas. COM in
> itself isn't overly original anyway, just an extensive of the object
> oriented programming concept. It simply pairs a specific interface with an
> object so that as long as that interface is known the object can be
> accessed. Again, the underlying ideas behind COM that allow it to work
were
> developed by others. It is a good idea but not necessary originated by
> Microsoft. A good implementation of other people's ideas, once again...
This
> is another example of copy and extend business practice, which is
> Microsoft's main strategy. (In other words rather than come up with
> specifically new technology expand and improve upon existing technology.)
COM is not an extention of OOP, they can be easily confused, but there is a
difference between writing compotent oriented programming and OOP.
ObjectWatch had a good article several months ago, I would suggest you would
look it up.
And if it's so simple, how come no one came with the idea before?
MTS was what EJB is today.
"They never have come up with an original idea." -- I just picked up several
subjects where they did. I'm sure that there are more.
BTW, ObjectWatch worth a good reading anyway.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apple is doing a good thing
Date: 05 May 2001 12:26:55 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How secure OSX is has yet to be seen. It's not been out there very long,
> and i'm sure we'll start seeing security reports soon. But yes, it is
> certainly more secure than 98. That's why 98/ME will be dead this year,
> replaced by Windows XP.
You mean NEXT year. It's slipped (again).
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:14:44 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d109q$g7c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Don't make the mistake of trying to claim MS is against Open Source.
> > They could care less if someone gives their code away. What they care
> > about is that the GPL prevents businesses from taking advantage of code
> > paid for by taxpayer dollars.
>
> Since when has the GNU project been supported by the taxpayer?
Who said it was? I'm talking about code developed at JPL or the NSA (such
as Secure Linux, which is government funded, but GPL'd)
> And you also seem to be saying that they are annoyed that they can't make
> money off other peoples work? Well so what? Do you think anyone cares
> about MS that much?
Federal law prohibits work developed by the government from being
copyrighted. That means it can't be GPL'd by law, but it still is happening
because the GPL has infected the government.
> > The original internet wasn't even developed on Unix. My point is that,
> > if the government had released the original DARPANET code under a
> > license like the GPL, companies like DEC, IBM, and Sun would have never
> > adopted it.
>
> Why not? The GPL doesn't license protocols. Companies would be quite free
> to develop a compatible implementation, using the GPL source as a
> reference.
No, they're not. Using GPL'd source as a reference makes the work a derived
work, and subject to the GPL's license terms.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:27:10 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Please name the top 20 OEM that does not have a ppl.
> >
> > Oh, I don't think there was one- Compaq was, in my
> > humble opinion, *right* about this. A top 20 OEM that
> > tried to foist lesser operating systems on their customers
> > would not be top-20 for very long!
> >
>
> They foisted M$ OSs on people. You ststement does not hold water.
They gave their customers what they wanted; that is what
it takes to be a top-20 OEM.
[snip]
> > Then I suggest you are being sloppy with your accusations; you
> > know full well that MS never excluded anyone. At their *worst*
> > they want you to sell *their* product, whatever else you may sell.
>
> Excluding OS and app competitors is what per-processor and per-system
> licensing is all about.
No. It's about selling Microsoft product.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:28:15 GMT
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Q4HI6.118153$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Got one already. A BSCS from Rensselaer Polytechnic.
> >
> > You must be a minority, then. Nobody as stupid as you could graduate
> > with a BSCS unless you are a member of some political "victim" group.
> >
> Atleast he finishes what he started, unlike some people.
Hmmmm?
What's all this?
Is there an amusing story behind this comment?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:16:57 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 5 May 2001 09:04:22 +0000 (UTC), John Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I installed Redhat 7.1 using the kde desktop.
> >
>
> smart move.
>
> >
> >Microsoft should take pity on you and offer free internships so that you
can
> >learn how to do things right the first time.
> >
>
> The entire world knows that any Microsoft x.0 release is buggy crapware.
> How is Microsoft going to teach anyone to do something right the first
time?
As if Linux is any better? KDE 2.0 was pretty unstable, and I was told by a
KDE developer that 2.1 was far and above more stable.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zippy)
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:34:27 GMT
i wrote a response to this, but my DSL provider's news server is about as
reliable as an intellectual property patent (which is to say, not very), so
the response is lost to posterity.
i think it's about time for another round of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for
the phone companies. i want to be able to CHOOSE my local DSL provider and
phone company, which still isn't possible in most areas.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:37:43 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> You are a retard. The per-processor licensing fees ARE restraint
> >> of trade, you idiot.
> >
> >You say that, but you don't say they excluded anyone- nobody
> >is saying that.
>
> That's because it is built into the phrase "restraint of trade".
Oh. If so, Microsoft is clearly innocent by even hostile
accounts.
> How
> can you enumerate who was excluded, given the LACK of presence? Am I to
> say they 'excluded 3Com from making OSes'?
You can if you like, but I think you know that it isn't
true.
> No, they simply engaged in
> contracts in restraint of trade. Thus, these contracts excluded
> competition. Is English a second language for you?
No. You should see how bad I am with with langauges
other than by native tongue! :D
But seriously, you seem to want to say
MS excluded other OSes without actually
coming out and *saying* it. There *were*
specific other OSes they could have
excluded, if you want to insist on that.
> >> Mafia$oft was found GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
> >
> >Nobody has every conviced Microsoft of "per processor
> >licensing".
>
> Of course not. Nobody's ever convicted them of spiking Java,
Actually, they did get nailed on that one.
> or killing DR-DOS, either.
That's not a crime. That's a public service. :D
> MS always gives up before they get convicted, so that
> sock puppets like you can try to pass this bullshit off as rational
> thought.
Nope. MS *has* lost two significant cases recently, and one
of them looks like it is going to *stick*, too.
> MS agreed not to continue ppl (and then found a loophole, of
> course, and continued) in the 1995 consent decree they signed to avoid
> prosecution for their forced bundling of Windows and DOS.
That's a strange perspective. Don't you think
that had the DoJ wished to stop the bundling of DOS
with Windows, they might have insisted upon having
that in the consent decree?
> >The recent farce was about bundling a browser with the OS.
>
> And resulted in a conviction in federal court. Doh!
Bummer, huh?
> And, yes, you can still try to say it will be overturned with a straight
> face, because you are apparently fundamentally dishonest to begin with.
> It ain't gonna happen, and no reasonable person would claim any
> certainty about what will happen.
I'm not *certain*, but I think it's even odds
between thrown out wholesale, and remanded
for a retrial with a different judge.
[snip]
> >You mean not realise this, but the point of signing a consent
> >decree is often to avoid the whole "GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!"
> >thing.
>
> Also known as a conviction.
Well, in polite circles, yes. :D
[snip]
> >Yes, but of putting too many features in their OS, not of
> >restraint of trade as you seem to understand the concept.
>
> They were found guilty of
> A) monopolizing PC OSes
> B) attempted monopolization of browsers
> C) restraint of trade through bundling
>
> Choke on it, trollboy.
Not so. They were found guilty of putting
a feature in their OS that, in the DoJs view,
should have been sold separately.
Our friend Judge Jackson tried to bundle as
much into his Finding of "Fact" as he could,
but that's not the same thing as a conviction.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:26:29 -0500
"Eric Leblanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "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.
>
> First, compression after encryption is useless because a good encryption
> algorithm will produce output which will be statistically
indistinguishable
> from random bits and no compression algorithm can compress random bits.
> A cyphertext that can be compressed means that your algorithm is flawed.
The purpose of the compression is not to compress, but to change the data
stream. Just one more set of instructions that need to be executed to
decode the data.
> Second, the opponents cryptoanalysts will probably find out you used
> a series of compressors in no time at all especially if you compressed
> the ciphertext. Compressing the plaintext would have been better. It
reduce
> the redundancy of the plaintext allowing you to extend your key.
How would they figure this out if the output of the compression was itself
encrypted as well?
> Third, once cryptoanalyst have found out your algorithm, the only thing
> protecting you is your keyspace. If you have only a 4 bits keyspace, well,
> you are toast in one microseconds.
Indeed, but they could spend decades trying to figure out which combinations
of which algorithms are used, and in what order.
> A strong cryptosystem need to have at least the following attributes:
>
> 1) Security reside in the secrecy of the key not the algorithm used
Only if it's possible for the secrecy of the key to be compromised.
> 2) Cyphertext from a strong cryptosystem should look random to statistical
> tests.
You're assuming a public key encryption system.
> 3) Strong cryptosystem should have a large keyspace so that you can't
> bruteforce search the key.
Again, only if the algorithm is known.
> > 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.
>
> What would you prefer? A safe that is hidden and might be faulty or a safe
> that is in plain sight and 'proven' difficult to break into?
When you need general cryptography for ordinary people to communicate with
other ordinary people, you are correct. If I'm sending sensitive data to a
single person, both of us in the same organization with heavy security on
the encoding and decoding software, then it is irrelevant.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
