Linux-Advocacy Digest #877, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Mar 01 21:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: the truth about linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("Andy Walker")
Re: so can Windows do this ? ("Andy Walker")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Andy Walker")
Re: Getting first W2K server ("Walter Hill")
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux ("Walter Hill")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Bloody Viking)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Eugenio Mastroviti)
Re: the truth about linux (GreyCloud)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (GreyCloud)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL (Jeffrey
Siegal)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (GreyCloud)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: What does boxoffice measure? ("BrendaLee")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:21:42 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > "And lo it came to pass that I left windows running for a few hours
> > without using it. And verily it threw up a BSOD, and I had to reboot"
>
> And lo it came to pass that I left running a Windows machine with Personal
> Web server on it and it has been running now for several months without
> rebooting or crashing.
>
> Don't believe all that you read in the press about Windows.
>
I didn't read that. It happens fairly often.
Give me a Linux box any day.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:30:35 +0000
"Public " wrote:
<snippage of ill informed rant>
May I direct you towards Eric S. Raymond's writings on the advantages of
the open source model. (www.tuxedo.org)
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:23:06 -0000
Jan Johanson wrote in message <3ab419a9$0$48766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/11929.html
>
>"Lockheed Martin is working on the design of the new US CVN 77 aircraft
>carrier, and Microsoft Federal Systems is to co-operate in the ship's
>information technology architecture. This will, we kid you not, be based on
>Windows 2000. Microsoft Consulting Services will meanwhile chip in with
tech
>support during the ship's software design, development and deployment."
>
>Cause the Navy knows what everyone else already knows, W2K is rock solid
>enough to trust lives to.
>
>
>
This seems to explain why Americans keep hitting friendly troops then....
How about a competition for the first person to knock out the U.S. carrier
with the I love you virus!
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: so can Windows do this ?
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:34:42 -0000
Before this thread descends into arguments about Windows multitasking
abilities I'd just like to thank everyone for the info.
Now to continue the argument, even my old Amiga 500 is better at
multitasking than Windows and that includes NT as well ;-)
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:50:33 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <992h07$jpl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>
>> >"rus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> I find the video setup disheartening. I also find that text editing
>> >> instead of GUI controls for program setup frustrating. I am using
>> >> Caldera distro. Is there a distro for people only having time to do
>> >> work and not time for figuring out their OS?
>> >
>
>Try the $2- Mandrake 7.2 from Cheapbytes.com. It has a nice GUI fdisk
>and also a nice GUI video setup for you. I have 7.1, but the newer
>version is at least as user-friendly. At least you'll be up and
>running with ease and you can exit this here barroom for
>c.o.Linux.setup for any additional help.
>
>>
>> Don't listen to him. Use Debian instead.
>
>Debian's video setup is a PIA, which is what the poster is trying to
>avoid.
>
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>__
>
>
>
>
I would also recommend Mandrake 7.2 if you have an up to date machine but I
would also say hang on a while as sooner or later a new version with kernel
2.4, XFree86 4 and KDE2 stable release should be available. These should
support 3d cards more reliably.
If you are trying it out for the first time the best advice I can give you
is get a proper modem and throw away your winmodem if you have one!
------------------------------
From: "Walter Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:53:05 -0000
Edward Rosten wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> What are you talking about? Printing does not take 100% of the CPU,
not
>> >> even in Windows 3.1.
>> >
>> >Wouldn't suprise me. I used a 2x PII 400 a few years back which went up
>> >to 100% utilization on both processors for about a minute, whilst
>> >searching for a modem (or was it initializing-I don't remember). Oh, and
>> >it was MS' driver shipped with Windows.
>>
>> Shows just how hard Windows is working for you.....
>
>Ah, yes of course!
>
>In fact it was working so hard for me that it worked for 20 minutes
>whilst I installed a graphics card (ascompared to 2 with Linux).
you see - look how hard windows works for you compared to
Linux....
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
>--
>Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
>Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
>old? |eng.ox
> -The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Walter Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:59:16 -0000
Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ed Allen wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <cCOs6.82336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >It's alright, laugh it up. I know you're really just jealous
>> > >because you know that I'm right. You know that the only company
>> > >who really takes Linux seriously (if that's what it really is)
>> > >is IBM, and IBM has a poor track history with desktop and
>> > >small-server OSen.
>> > I suppose that is true if you have a secret definition for
>> > "seriously" like Erik likes to do.
>> >
>> > How many more millions does Intel need to invest to qualify in
>> > your private definition ?
>> >
>> > Lets not forget that AMD is encouraging Linux developers to use
their
>> > coming 64-bit chips. They don't qualify, why ?
>> >
>> > SGI does not qualify either. Why not ? They are planning to add
>> > their NUMA technology and sell Itanium cluster machines.
>> >
>> > Then too, all the universities using Linux to put together their
>> > own Supercomputers are not companies either.
>> > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1113447
>> >
>> > What do you think the graduating students will recommend for use
>> > at their new jobs ?
>>
>>
>> Yes, a very excellent point!
>
>It's a very common problem.
>
>Universities using archaic or esoteric systems to teach their students,
>and then when the students graduate and get out into the real world
>where companies have to make money, they realize they know nothing
>necessary to compete.
>
>Meanwhile, the intelligent individuals who decided not to waste
>their time on worthless university "computer science", and instead
>decided to learn the hot technologies that pay well and are making
>a fortune and are in high demand, even in today's economy.
>
>Those students may suggest it to their employers, but their employers
>will laugh because they know the truth about linux.
Only if they make a living selling Windows......otherwise they might just
instal Linux and acrue the benefits of using such a reliable OS......
Guess the best is to sell Windows but actually use Linux......oh yes....
Microsoft are doing that already......strange you don't mention that......
>
>-c
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 19 Mar 2001 01:02:34 GMT
Peter Hayes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: So do you *know* that the locksmith hasn't kept his own copy of your keys,
: or worse, given a copy to the police or sold it to someone he met in the
: pub?
In which case, you buy several locks, dismantle, re-key one with the assorted
tumblers, and compile. Now, the locksmith is locked out guarenteed.
That is a live physical analogue to open source and data security.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Eugenio Mastroviti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:08:14 +0000
Andy Walker wrote:
>
> Jan Johanson wrote in message <3ab419a9$0$48766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/11929.html
> >
> >"Lockheed Martin is working on the design of the new US CVN 77 aircraft
> >carrier, and Microsoft Federal Systems is to co-operate in the ship's
> >information technology architecture. This will, we kid you not, be based
> >on Windows 2000. Microsoft Consulting Services will meanwhile chip in
> >with
> tech
> >support during the ship's software design, development and deployment."
> >
> >Cause the Navy knows what everyone else already knows, W2K is rock solid
> >enough to trust lives to.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> This seems to explain why Americans keep hitting friendly troops then....
> How about a competition for the first person to knock out the U.S. carrier
> with the I love you virus!
>
>
Ummm... actually, that *does* sound fitting. What's the carrier being
called? Won't it be the "Ronald Reagan"? Can you say "Alzheimer"?
Eugenio
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:15:16 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> > Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:43:32 -0500, Masha Ku' Inanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > |
> > > |> > Here are some humorous snippets from a site located at
> > > |http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
> > > |> >
> > > |> > Finally! somebody willing to tell the truth!
> > > |>
> > > |> Nah, just another silly troll....
> > > |>
> > > |> jjs
> > > |>
> > > |
> > > |Remarkably, this ridiculous article sounds like any of the scores of
> > > |irritatingly patronizing religious tract-booklets out there, that tell you
> > > |the "truth" of any thing else OTHER than their point of view.
> > > |
> > > |But I've been thinking, since I read it..
> > > |
> > > |One thing that I have always wondered about the pro Linux vs the pro MS
> > > |people is that one of the main arguements is that "in order for Linux to
> > > |improve, it should be given X functionality, just like Windows has.."
> > > |
> > > |Or that "Linux needs to be more Windows-like" to ever succeed.
> > > |
> > > |Why?
> > > |
> > > |Isn't the main strength of Linux precisely that it is NOT Windows?
> > >
> > > I agree wholeheartedly.
> > >
> > > I also note that most of the "it has to be more like Windows to succeed"
> > > claims come from the Windows side of the fence.
> > >
> > > "Come over to the Dark Side." "Become like us, and you will succeed."
> > >
> > > I hope Linux resists the call and succedds on it own terms.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
> > > -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
> > > xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
> > > a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
> >
> > I agree also. Even the MSCEs at microsoft newsgroups answer peoples
> > questions concerning increasing sluggishness over time and increasing
> > frequency of lock-ups and BSODs and are told to re-install the o/s. Or
> > they are told to boot into dos and type in "scanreg /fix" and then
> > "scanreg /opt" to fix the screwed up registry. How the registry messes
> > itself up I don't know, but it doesn't sound like a good design to me.
> > The MSCEs also recommend defragging the hard drive once a week and fix
> > the registry as well.
> > I've never had to defrag under Solaris and I don't have a registry to
> > fix.
> ^^^
>
> You mis-spelled "get broken"
Ooops!! I never did very well in English comp.
And I suspect that what I just wrote doesn't look right. :-)
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
> 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: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:22:10 -0800
Charles Lyttle wrote:
>
> "Norman D. Megill" wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >> I would also bet that, if that is the case, that M$ is required to give
> > >> the source to the Department of Defense in electronic form, AND give the
> > >> military the right to modify the source code for their own internal use.
> > >
> > >Yep, we do! When we purchased some VAXes we got source code,
> > >schematics, the whole works. Same for microsoft stuff. Of course
> > >agreements of non-disclosure and security protecting their proprietary
> > >software were in place. After reviewing their source code all I can say
> > >is that the mil. now calls it messy-dos!
> >
> > It is true that selected organizations can get Windows source code. But
> > there is no way a few dozen or even a few hundred of the organization's
> > programmers could do an adequate audit of the source code. There is
> > simply too much source code. And what a waste; since the NDA prevents
> > sharing, each organization must duplicate the effort of the others.
> > Even Microsoft's entire body of programmers has demonstrated time and
> > again that they allow serious security holes to slip through.
> >
> > There is no substitute for having thousands, possibly millions, of
> > programmers around the world scrutinize open source code for security
> > holes. Not even Microsoft's coffers can buy that kind of auditing.
> >
> > --Norm
> And how do you verify that the code you got is the code that was used in
> the build?
> --
> Russ Lyttle
> "World Domination through Penguin Power"
> The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
Ve hav vays!
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:25:02 -0800
Pat McCann wrote:
> JD wants to encumber the software and maybe certain (but not all)
> derivatives with a few easily-tolerated terms, while GPL licensors
> want to (or at least do) encumber the software and all derivatives
> with (instances of) the GPL and all of its terms, including the
> purely political discriminatory denial of the right to publish
> derivatives by those developing closed source software. (I use
> "political" in the sense of the GPL's attempt to construct through
> license law, a perversion of copyright law, something that the
> US supreme court has come down on when tried by US States.)
(Has such a case reached the Supreme Court? I don't remember that.)
Your assertion that what GPL tries to do is a "perversion" of copyright
law is a conclusion that really would need to be made by a court. If
you had said, "construct through license law what *might* be a pervsion
of copyright law," I would agree completely. It is *possible* that a
court could throw out the entire copyleft concept on that basis. I
wouldn't bet on it ever happening, though.
> I also try to use it in quotes to remined readers that the term has an
> eccentric meaning.
That's reasonable. You may have noticed that I sometimes do the same
thing.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:26:25 -0800
"Norman D. Megill" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> [snip]
> >> I would also bet that, if that is the case, that M$ is required to give
> >> the source to the Department of Defense in electronic form, AND give the
> >> military the right to modify the source code for their own internal use.
> >
> >Yep, we do! When we purchased some VAXes we got source code,
> >schematics, the whole works. Same for microsoft stuff. Of course
> >agreements of non-disclosure and security protecting their proprietary
> >software were in place. After reviewing their source code all I can say
> >is that the mil. now calls it messy-dos!
>
> It is true that selected organizations can get Windows source code. But
> there is no way a few dozen or even a few hundred of the organization's
> programmers could do an adequate audit of the source code. There is
> simply too much source code. And what a waste; since the NDA prevents
> sharing, each organization must duplicate the effort of the others.
> Even Microsoft's entire body of programmers has demonstrated time and
> again that they allow serious security holes to slip through.
>
> There is no substitute for having thousands, possibly millions, of
> programmers around the world scrutinize open source code for security
> holes. Not even Microsoft's coffers can buy that kind of auditing.
>
> --Norm
I have yet to see anything impossible for the Mil. to do. The mil. tho
just
looked at the code and called it quite a mess. Sphagetti. Why they
even
wanted it in the first place is beyond me. But when your pointy haired
boss wants it then we have to go get it.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 19 Mar 2001 01:33:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Chad Everett wrote:
:>
:>The rigor of their security clearance procedures has nothing whatsoever
:>to do with their ability to break modern encryption algorithms.
:>
:>You probably think the movie "Enemy of the State" is a documentary and
:>believe everything you hear on Art Bell.
:>
:>
: TO SIT ON YOUR ASS AND PRETEND THAT GERMANY'S DECISION TO LEAVE
: MICROSOFT IS A MILD THREAT AND SOMETHING WHICH BELONGS ON ART BELL
: IS TRUELY CRAZY.
: This is GERMANY! They practically OWN all the european banks.
News to me. I thought that most privately held banks were still held
by a few wealthy non-German families, and that most banks in this day
and age are no longer privately held in the first place.
: At one time in our history they practically conquered the world.
Because Hitler was largely ignored outside of Germany, until it was
too late to easily stop him. Also, because the Germans had many
legitimate complaints about the treaty of Versailles, and,
unfortunately, a very convenient scapegoat whom it had been
politically fashionable to hate for over 400 years at that point, not
just in Germany, but throughout much of Europe.
The conditions that led to Hitler's rise no longer exist in Germany,
but we are only a mild economic downturn away from their existing in a
large variety of other places, including the U.S., so we are not in a
position to point an accusing finger of blame at Germany or any other
country.
Not to mention that even during times of peace, our own foreign policy
has not exactly been exemplary.
: Nothing GERMANY does can be taken lightly.
: NOTHING!
To be blunt, I trust most other governments MUCH more than our own,
because our own is far more powerful.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "BrendaLee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does boxoffice measure?
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:53:13 -0500
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner) wrote:
> > True. Hollywood is one of my almost-pet-peeves. (I only allow myself
> > three or four full-blown pet peeves, so I have to be selective about
> > what I let bother me.)
> > Why is that we (speaking about the American culture here) pay these
> > people millions of dollars, practically worship them as dieties or
> > royalty, pay them to endorse our products, and generally emulate the
> > hell out of them when their only talent that they exercise publicly is
> > their ability to act!?!?
>
> it is better to look good than to be good
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
I think to many of us they also set an example. Granted it may not be a good
one in many respects of the word but they seem to set the tone for a good
many people.
BrendaLee
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
>
>
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:45:42 -0800
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:47:52 -0800, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >>
> >> GreyCloud wrote:
> >> >
> >> > J Sloan wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Dave Martel wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
> >> > > > By: John Lettice
> >> > > > Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
> >> > > > plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
> >> > > > according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
> >> > > > Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
> >> > > > the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
> >> > > > access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
> >> > > > read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
> >> > > > computers used in sensitive areas..."
> >> > >
> >> > > This makes me quite proud of my German ancestry.
> >> > >
> >> > > j
> >> > To all... no one is safe from NSA's equipment! Go ahead and encrypt
> >> > ... you can't hide anything from those guys. They are a very scary
> >> > organization!
> >>
> >> That's what THEY WANT you to think.
> >>
> >> The truth is less fearsome.
> >
> >I used to work for them. I know. They make their own chips for their
> >own computer designs. Believe me, even if you shred a document they
> >have ways to put it back together again. Their custom computers can
> >decrypt any message that uses current encryption schemes and do it in 3
> >seconds, where it would take a Pentium III several thousand years to
> >do.
>
> This is simply not true. It would take "geological" time to break
> a decrypted message that uses a modern encryption algorithm..unless you
> have the key or the encrypted message along with its plaintext.
>
> The NSA is NOT the agency that they used to be. Technology is rapidly
> surpassing them.
>
You can think that, but they've been doing decryption work for several
decades now.
I sure wish I could say more, but even DSC had a show about what little
the agency was willing to show, and one building had a great many of
their own super-cooled super computers of their own design. NSA has
always acquired all commercial and non-commercial encryption algorithms
and found the necessary holes or weaknesses in them. Believe me they
know how and are far more advanced in technology that a lot of people
think they are.
> > But they also rely on more proven tactics to get information...
> >spying, electronic eavesdropping or outright theft! If one is on their
> >target list your screwed. Then if you think that your are secure in
> >your office and think you are free to discuss in private they will hear
> >you using their technology. Believe me, no one can hide from them once
> >they are on your trail. Before they hired me I had to go thru a two
> >week battery of psyhcological testing. They are very thourough. I saw
> >one gal run out of these tests only after 2 hours crying. Its a very
> >deep and probing test and its scary. Back in the 60's and early 70's it
> >used to be called No Such Agency. Harry Truman started the agency back
> >in the late 40's.
>
> The rigor of their security clearance procedures has nothing whatsoever
> to do with their ability to break modern encryption algorithms.
Okay, what I'm trying to say here is that once you get in you are very
well taken care of. Also they are very careful of who they hire. They
hire the very best talent, and
this talent is used in many areas including encryption methods. They
pay very well.
> You probably think the movie "Enemy of the State" is a documentary and
> believe everything you hear on Art Bell.
Who's Art Bell?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
