Linux-Advocacy Digest #862, Volume #26 Sat, 3 Jun 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Bob Germer)
Re: Homebrew (Was: Beer Wars at CSMA) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: HUMOR: More MS conspiracies... (was Re: Amazon is switching to Windows with HP)
(Mig Mig)
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (rj friedman)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (sturman)
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:45:21 GMT
On 06/03/2000 at 03:03 PM,
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >> Actually, I think a better thing to do would be for BG to simply decide
> >> he has enough money and close Microsoft. Stop selling any more
> >> software, don't give anyone the source. Pay out the shareholders. Hell,
> >> if you want to be really mean you give the source to the Chinese
> >> government.
> >
> >> Basically, say to the govt "I'm taking my toys and going home".
> >
> >That would be contempt of court. If BG tried that, all the assets of MS
> >would immediately be siezed by the US Government.
> It would be no such thing. How on earth did you figure that? Show me a
> law that says a company cannot stop operating if they feel like it!
I am sorry, but MS will be under direct court supervision the moment Judge
Jackson issues his ruling. Only the actual breakup will be subject to an
automatic stay. At the moment the gavel falls, MS will be ordered to stop
certain practices, do certain things in preparation for the final breakup,
etc. Read the Findings of Law and proposed order. Failure to comply, which
moving lock stock and barrel to Canada would be, is indeed the factual
basis for a finding of contempt.
> >> Linux not having a worthwhile UI yet leaves Apple. They don't have
> >> compatible hardware. Intel, AMD and others would sink into the ground.
> >> You'd probably end up with a major recession in the US.
> >
> >I see that you are from Australia.
> Your point being?
You have an insufficient knowledge of our laws, courts, and economy as
evidenced by your assumptions and assertations.
> >MicroSoft employs an infantisimal
> >percentage of our workforce. In fact, I seriously doubt that MS has
> >anywhere near the 345,00 new jobs our economy created last month in a slow
> >month. Even if MS has 500,000 employees it would only add about a third of
> >a percentage point to our 4.1% unemployment rate raising it to 4.4% TOPS.
> >That would not cause a ripple.
> Microsoft is one of the major exporters. Why on earth are you quoting
> jobs figures to me when I'm talking:
> i) Balance of trade figures. MS is a major exporter.
Microsoft export sales are a drop in the bucket. We are in a worldwide
economy now and the BOT is not something most economists worry about any
longer.
> ii) Microsoft shutting down would bankrupt almost all of the software
> development houses in the world.
I fail to see how this would affect the two largest software vendors in
the world, namely IBM and Computer Associates. PC software is a very, very
small part of the total software market. Moreover, not all small vendors
need MS to continue to develop for other operating systems.
> iii) Most companies depend on MS software to run. Without a cheap
> upgrade path they have to fork out thousands of dollars per machine in
> training and testing for new operating systems. That will bankrupt a
> LOT of companies.
No, most companies do NOT depend on MS to run. Many small companies do,
but no major corporation would be seriously impacted if MS went away
today. There is no reason that they would have to stop using what they
already have. In fact, more companies are using Win 95 than Win 98. Far
more companies are successfully running without upgrading from NT 3.5 or
4. For the most part, it is only geeks and MS salesmen who believe that
running anything but the latest version is important.
> Now if you are going to try to say that the ripple effects from that
> aren't bone chillingly scary then I think you've got your head so deep
> in the sand that only your feet are showing.
Sorry, but MS is a very, very small part of the US economy. And as OEM's
start to offer alternative operating systems on their new hardware as
several major ones have already done, competition will be increased.
Corel, IBM, Lotus, etc. are all developing xNIX versions of their
software. So are other vendors.
> >Assuming the assinine that MS does move to Canada and takes all its
> >employees, the people who would suffer the most are the employees. MS
> >employees would find no buyers for their US homes or would have to sell
> >them in a very depressed local real estate market
> Agreed. However, if the Canadian govt paid the employees enough then
> I'm sure they'd do it. If MS has the 500,000 employees you claim it
> does then they can pretty much buy their houses out of petty cash.
> Remember MS makes about 5 million dollars a day on bank interest alone.
There you go again, shooting off half-cocked. I never said MS had 500,000
employees. I wrote a hypothetical which read, "ASSUMING MS had 500,000
employees. It is nowhere near that in point of fact.
> >A home worth $300,000
> >the day the move was announced would suddenly become worth less than
> >$200,000, very likely less than the mortgage and selling costs.
> Like I said. MS could cover that easily. 50 billion dollars could be
> paid for simply enough.
You don't seem to understand arithmetic either. $300,000 per home
multiplied by 500,000 theoretical employees is equal to 150 Billion
dollars. As Ev Dirkson once said, "A billion here, a billion there. Sooner
or later it adds up to real money." And if you don't know who Ev Dirkson
was and who his daugher is, don't presume to have enough knowledge of the
US economy and history to comment thereon.
> >Also they
> >would suddenly find themselves in a country with socialized medicine, much
> >higher taxes, and a dollar suddenly worth only 67% of what it was the day
> >before.
> Huh? Canadians manage to live OK last I looked. Also, you'll find that
> when they convert their money to Canadian dollars they actually get more
> of them. Did the whole foreign currency thing just slip you by?
Even if MS employees were raised to the equivalent in Canadian dollars of
their US dollar salary, they will be far worse off economically. Take for
instance, the price of a gallon of gasoline. Currently, in the US it costs
$1.60 or so for unleaded regular. In Canada last week, I paid $3.45 US per
gallon. If I buy a car in the US, I will pay between $0 and at most 8.5%
(New York) in sales tax. In Canada, it's 17% last I heard. In Ottowa last
week, I had a tire blow, a Firestone. The tire cost me $85.68 US including
mounting, balancing, and disposal of the worn out tire it replaced. (I
actually bought four tires for $342.70 but that was the cost of the one
which blew out in less than 3,000 miles). I was quoted by the Firestone
dealer outside Ottowa a cost in Canadian dollars for a replacement
(Firestone Canada dealers wouldn't honor the warranty saying I had to pay
for the tire and get reimbursed by Firestone in the US) of $192.00 which
is equivalent to over $130 US. I said I'd drive back to the US on the
donut spare. I got the tire replaced in Niagra Falls, NY.
We had not planned to stay in Ottowa more than one day. Events, including
the flat, caused us to have to spend 2 additional days. I went to a
supermarket to get toothpaste, soap, hair spray for my wife, and insulin
for Rachel who didn't have enough with her. The bar of Irish Spring soap
which costs about 67 cents or about 1 dollar Canadian cost me 1.40 + 17%
VAT. The toothpaste was nearly twice as much as here in the US for the
same brand in the same package other than the French additions. Ditto for
the hairspray. And the insulin? More than 5 times as much in equivalent
currency not to mention several long distance phone calls to her doctor,
pharmacist, etc in the US. Here, insulin is not a prescription drug.
Evidently there it is.
Then there is the cost of tobacco. A carton of cigarettes costs me $20.05
in Pennsylvania for 10, 20 cigarette packages. In Canada, they are more
than $5.00 US per PACK!
Fast food costs about 30% more in Canada that at the same brand restaurant
in the US. One cannot get a drink of many major international brands of
whiskey in Canada because Canada limits booze to 80 proof. Eighty proof
Gordons just ain't a reasonable substitute for 100 proof Bombay Gin.
Canadian Club just ain't a reasonable substitute for Jack Daniels Black.
In the Maritimes, seafood is a good value with prices lower in equal
currency than in New England in the US. But in Ottowa, it was nearly 25%
higher before the damned 17% VAT. This is true of most consumer products
in Canada.
And consider this. Baseball and Hockey players absolutely HATE to be
traded to Canadian teams. Even when the salary is adjusted for the rate of
exchange, the cost of living is so much higher that they won't sign long
term contracts. And the problem varies from region to region with the
highest cost of living and greatest desire to get out from the teams in
Quebec. Eric Lindros, sat out a year to avoid signing with the Nordiques.
The son of the Montreal Expo's manager refused to sign a new contract and
signed with a US baseball team for less money than the Expos were
offering! The Toronto Blue Jays have a similar problem with free agents.
And finally, when Canada's Minister of Health required cancer surgery a
few years back, he came to the US and paid for what his ministry provides
"free" to every Canadian citizen. Now if the Minister of Health doesn't
consider the health care system adequate, why should anyone? Why are there
towns with nearly as many doctor's offices as residents in virtually every
port of entry city in the US. Why are their parking lots populated with
Canadian license plate bearing cars?
Canada is a very nice country. It has less crime in most cities than we
have in the US. Some cities have cleaner air than comparable sized US
metropolitan areas (Some do not, BTW). But the cost of living is higher in
constant dollars than in the US. The availability of choices in consumer
products is much more limited than in most US states. Interest rates for
residential mortgages are 30% higher or more than in the US.
I don't know if what I experienced in both Cape Breton Island, Quebec,
Halifax, and Ottowa hotels is typical of what individual Canadian
subscribers experience, but my choices of TV programming were far more
limited than what I would find in a similar quality hotel in the US or
Belgium. In Canada, at the Chateau Frontenaque in Quebec City, I had a
choice of 14 English and 16 French channels. This is a luxury hotel
equivalent to the Pierre in New York or the Mark Hopkins in San Francisco.
In both hotels, I had a choice of more than 50 channels. In Belgium at a
lower level hotel in Brussels, I had over 20 English language channels and
more than 40 French, German, etc. channels. I know that some US channels
such as the History Channel are not allowed to be aired Canada. I have
heard, but cannot state that the reason one sees long range TV antennas on
100 foot or higher towers in backyards of homes and farms in southern
Ontario is so that residents can pick up US programming not available on
Canadian Cable.
In London, Paris, Frankfurt, Brussels, Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Mexico City,
and a dozen other places in the world, I could find 100 or more newspapers
for sale from around the world. In Montreal, Ottowa, Vancouver, Calgary,
and Edmonton, I could not find major US papers such as the Washington
Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Sun Times, Investors Business
Daily, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Miami Herald or the Philadelphia
Inquirer. Yet every one of those papers can be found the day after
publication in London, Paris, Edinburgh, etc. In Toronto, I called every
news agency listed in the classified. Not one had any of those papers.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: Homebrew (Was: Beer Wars at CSMA)
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:47:12 GMT
As a connoisseur of the hops myself I find that pretty funny!
On 3 Jun 2000 16:44:25 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just curious, given the original association of home computer use with
>homebrewing:
>
> http://www.bambi.net/bob/homebrew.html
>
>And the early arrival of things like the HOMEBREW digest on the internet:
>
> http://hbd.org/hbd/HBD_idx.html
>
>I wonder how much brewing is associated with the current crop of
>advocates. My prejudice would be that UNIX hackers still brew, but ...
>oh, Mac advocates drink overchilled white wine (brewed by autocratic
>winemakers in black turtlenecks) ... Windows users probably say "uh ..
>this stuff (opening their hand to squint at the label". :-)
>
>Of course if you do brew, perhaps we can look for a correlation between
>beer style and platform choice.
>
>John
>(who has been known to brew and compile UNIX kernels, though never at the
>same time!)
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: More MS conspiracies... (was Re: Amazon is switching to Windows
with HP)
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:58:38 +0200
You actually managed to be funny in parts of your post. Congratulations an
bravo to you Stephen.
The length of the post however indicates that you have a lot of spare
time. Dont you have a girlfriend Stephen? If you have, please spend more
time with her and let those with humour take care of the "humoresque" parts.
Cheers
PS.. Just being yourself is funny enough.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: 3 Jun 2000 17:56:59 GMT
On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:30:23 "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
¯< barely intelligible RJ tirade snipped >
Oops - here comes the tarbrush and the "F-O-S" meter (it
measures the intensity of the Wardell style of "full-of-shit
debate tactics.
C'mon Wardell - you know you HAD to snip it because it
showed you up!
¯Note that RJ never seems to actually state how many [desktop users] his best guess
is...
Note that Wardell never seems to actually get it that his
guess is a joke, and I won't make one for two reasons:
1) it is irrelvant to the life and death of OS/2, because it
is not the desktop user that decides the fate of OS/2.
Because the big boys pay the freight. As long as they
continue to pay the freight (and they are talking seven
years into the future) OS/2 will be alive and kicking for
all the users - even if there were only ONE desktop user,
OS/2 would be alive and well at his disposal;
2) I have no more idea of how many OS/2 desktop users are
out there than Wardell does, but I am not fool enough to
name a figure based on what I don't know.
Wardell names a figure of 3000 - 5000 desktop users based on
nothing more than the amoung of sales Stardock was able to
make in the OS/2 marketplace. But what Wardell refuses to
understand is that the reason for the lack of sales were due
to Stardock's products and the attitude of its president
(Wardell).
It had a couple of old games - in a market that had
transitioned to a definite business focus, so games were by
and large out of place - plus they were OLD. It also had a
desktop utility bundle - that consisted of a series of
separate utilities, but marketed as if it were a single
product. In order to get the one utility you wanted, you had
to buy the entire bundle - $US 150 in its heyday.
Those utilities - having been written by different authors
(and not a single product as many inferred) - often didn't
get along with each other. The standard response to the
probelm was "don't run those two together." Then, while some
were interesting when they first came out, they hadn't been
updated in years (literally, years) - they, too were OLD and
TIRED, and a LOT better freeware and shareware came out in
the meantime - better and cheaper, and you could pick and
choose the utilities that you wanted.
Stardock - by doing nothing for years - had basically let
the market slide away from it. There was no market left for
Stardock's products. Then, when suggestions were made as to
the kind of products Stardock could do that would appeal to
the post transition to business platform type of OS/2 user,
Wardell got on his high horse and proclaimed that he wasn't
interested in listening to what the users wanted, he was
only interested in doing the things he wanted.
So when Wardell use the number of Stardock sales to
extrapolate to the size of the OS/2 desktop market - and
from that to the categorical pronouncement that OS/2 is
dead/dying - you have to understand that while the sales
figures may indeed have been small - the conclusion is
seriously flawed.
No amount of guessing throwing sand in the eyes - in the
form of making this a contest of guessing how many the
numbers are is going to change that.
Of
¯course, the bottom line is that NO ISV anywhere is doing well selling OS/2
¯desktop software. That is a fact. There are no print magazines at the
¯store for OS/2 users. OS/2 has no presence at retail. Look, OS/2 is dead on
¯the desktop. Hiding your head in the sand isn't going to change that obvious
¯fact.
¯
¯> We know why you are carrying on in this vein. You can't face
¯> the fact that it was your attitude and your products that
¯> were the reason for your inability to make a buck doing
¯> OS/2. Your overbearing and brittle ego couldn't take it. So
¯> to absolve yourself of failure you turn to the excuse that
¯> it was because OS/2 only has 3-5 thousand users.
¯
¯This is just bizarre reasoning. First of all, let's say I have "a bad
¯attitude" whatever that's supposed to mean. If my "bad attitude" on an OS/2
¯news group could somehow affect an ISVs OS/2 software sales to any
¯noticeable amount that would mean that the market is extremely small.
¯
¯Secondly, your other contention is simply incorrect and you know it.
¯Stardock probably made more money on OS/2 software than virtually any other
¯ISV. In 1997 and on the OS/2 market died off in a hurry. For you to try to
¯blame this on anything other than the fact that most OS/2 users switched to
¯other platforms is just plain silly.
¯
¯>
¯>
¯> ¯You do what remains of the OS/2 community a disservice by behaving like
¯such
¯> ¯a rabid nutcase...
¯>
¯> Shove it. Exactly who do you think you are to pontificate
¯> about what does or does not do the "OS/2 community" (whoever
¯> and whatever they are), any kind of service or disserivice.
¯
¯I am someone who apparently has not been living in a cave for the past few
¯years and recognizes the situation OS/2 is in.
¯
¯I am also sane enough to recognize that a third party of another OS reading
¯your diatribe has probably concluded that what's left of the OS/2 users are
¯a bunch of militia-like fanatics who have no sense of reality. Can you even
¯name a credible third party source that DOESN'T think OS/2 is dead as a
¯desktop client?
¯
¯What do you even do with OS/2? Why not share with us what "work" you are
¯actually doing on a day to day basis?
¯
¯< rantings of a fanatic deleted >
¯
¯Brad
¯
¯> ________________________________________________________
¯>
¯> [RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
¯> rj friedman Team ABW
¯> Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
¯>
¯> To send email - remove the `yyy'
¯> ________________________________________________________
¯>
¯
¯
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 04:09:32 +1000
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8hatua$u0s$18$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [Big time snippage]
> >
> > Microsoft's Windows 2000 is the slowest operating system known to
> > mankind.
> >
> > No-one can challenge this statement.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> I was expecting more from you, Charlie.
More ? As in it's lacking a few gratuitous insults and some profanity ?
I suppose if you were a regular reader/enjoyer of Charlie's tripe you might
feel a tad shortchanged by the post above :). Fear not, there'll be more -
there always is.
------------------------------
From: sturman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 12:58:47 -0500
Default wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Disregarding the monetary aspects of this issue, why do those here feel
> that Linux is better than the other operating systems, and more
> importantly, why do you feel it will succeed when Apple finally releases
> 'X'? {And I'm no great fan of Chuckle's forthcoming 'X' either.}
>
<snip>
>
You have to realize that it is all relative, different strokes for
different folks. MacOS and Windows are meant for those that don't know
computers and are just starting. Once you get to know them, the
capability of having advanced features is there to satisfy the users
evolved usage, i.e. installing better web servers, getting a compiler,
etc. Whereas Linux starts at the evolved usage stage and is geared
towards programmers/techies/geeks. These discussions help to make Linux
become a more user friendly OS while maintaining a robustness that
should make it a better product overall. They are also a forum for
those just starting to get involved, help others, and learn. Why would
I want to pay for Win/Mac when I can get Linux for free and it does all
the same things whether better or worse? And in the case of worse, I,
as a programmer, have a chance of making it better. Why should my Mom,
who has trouble using AOL, be put in a position of having to download
the latest kernel or XFree86 and compile it it has some now feature that
she needs? It is all relative.
Linux is still a niche market and will continue to succeed in that niche
market because it is free and runs on old/cheap (relatively) hardware.
In the past you had a programmer with free time and not a lot of money
to shell out for those commercial UNIX versions and the hardware that
they run on. Then Linux came on the scene and it was free and worked
with your old computer. Now those programmers can spend their free time
contributing to it, and make it have the features that their current OS
lacked ( severely in some cases ). It comes with all the tools to
promote this contribution unlike other OSes where you have to shell out
the bucks to buy individual software packages to be able to contribute
to said OS.
What we have now is a lot of hope (thus the discussions) that we can
make an OS that serves everybody's needs well and to move out of this
niche.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:59:56 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Rob S. Wolfram would say:
>R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Most public key encryption systems have a vulnerability to the
>>"Two Primes Hack". The public key is usually the product of two
>>prime numbers, occaisionally 3. The private key is one of those
>>prime numbers, the other is bogus. Using a fast-primes variation
>>on the Seive of aristosthenes (uses only primes as divisors), the
>>key can be broken with a 900 mhz Athelon in a few minutes.
>
>Rex, you've clearly heard a few bells and whistles, but this makes no
>sense whatsoever.
Well, it's not _completely_ bogus. There do exist some forms of
weak keys for RSA.
However, competently understanding what that statement means pretty
much requires being a mathematician with training in cryptography.
The two primes, p and q, do need to have some special properties,
and knowledge of this goes back a goodly twenty years, as it is
documented in Knuth's Seminumerical Algorithms, 2nd Edition,
published in 1981.
For RSA:
- p-1 and q-1 should not be divisible by 3
- p-1 and q-1 should both contain at least one "very large prime
factor"
Some other required properties have probably been discovered over
the last 20 years, but it of course _doesn't_ mean that the
Infamous Sieve is of any use in doing the factorization of the
public key to find the private key.
If Rex calculated the _memory space_ required by his sieve, to store all
the primes up to 2^1024, he might ascertain just how big the problem is.
That is left as an exercise to the reader...
>The RSA algorithm *always* uses 2 (large) primes (p and q). One then
>picks a large number d which is relatively prime to (p-1)(q-1). Then
>the "multiplicative inverse" e of d is calculated. This means that
>e.d = 1 (mod (p-1)(q-1)). The public key is a set of two numbers, namely
>e and n (which is p.q). The private key is the set of two numbers d and
>n.
>
>Now let's say you have a computer that is capable of doing 1G operations
>p/s (which would need *more* that 1GHz), then the *fastest* known
>algorithm (yes, faster than Lenstra's number field sieve) to factor a
>300-digit n would take approximately 5 E 12 years (1024bits makes up
>approxiamtely 300 digits).
Alternatively, count the storage space required to hold the expected
number of primes...
>A third algorithm in use is in fact a variant on discrete logs, and is
>based on the "addition" of two points on an ellyptic curve, which yields
>yet another point on the curve. Point of interrest here is that there is
>no known algorithm like the number field sieve to attack EC keys. For
>this reason the keys are a lot shorter (approximately 160 bits), but
>many cryptographers (among which Bruce Schneier) are reluctant to
>embrace this system. Also it seems very hard to implement. I have been
>talking to RSA Inc's Steve Burnett at the SANE conference a few weeks
>back, and he told me that it took 1 engineer (him) to wite the code for
>the RSA algorithm a few months. It took 5 PhD's *2 years* to implement
>EC crypto.
There's a book on the topic, with sample code, on many computer bookstore
shelves. _NASTY_ mathematics. I finally took a close look at EC last
fall, when I was on vacation, and had some time to read Neal Koblitz's
"A Course in Number Theory and Cryptography". EC makes my head hurt;
I don't want to even _think_ about trying to implement it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
"In the free software world, a rising tide DOES lift all boats, and
once the user has tasted Unix it's easy for them to switch between
Unices."
-- david parsons
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
