Linux-Advocacy Digest #898, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL (Jeffrey
Siegal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: How is FreeBSD faster than Linux? (Craig Kelley)
Re: How is FreeBSD faster than Linux? (.)
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... (Alan Baker)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Peter Hayes)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Peter Hayes)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Peter Hayes)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Peter Hayes)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Peter Hayes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:10:43 -0800
Pat McCann wrote:
> > > 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.)
>
> I'm thinking of a "Bonito" patent case in FL and "Vault vs. Quaid" in LA
> from which: "The Louisiana statute that effectively prevented the
> running of such programs by validating Vault's license restrictions
> therefore conflicted with the Copyright Act and was preempted." I was
> sure we all knew that the GPL hasn't hit the SC, if that's the problem.
I don't believe that Vault was considered by the SC.
The Florida statute in the Bonito cae did not "pervert" patent law, but
attempted to expand its scope, which is more obviously preempted.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:02:13 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> The effects are the same; the wording is different. Get a clue, Maxine.
Brave new world?
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How is FreeBSD faster than Linux?
Date: 19 Mar 2001 15:16:51 -0700
"Dark, Shadowy Hypnagogic Hallucination" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey bastards, how the hell do you come up with this ridiculous assertion
> that FreeBSD is faster than Linux?
[snip]
Different goals?
Linux is certainly faster than FreeBSD at some things, while FreeBSD
is faster at others.
--
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] (.)
Subject: Re: How is FreeBSD faster than Linux?
Date: 19 Mar 2001 22:16:24 GMT
Dark, Shadowy Hypnagogic Hallucination <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey bastards, how the hell do you come up with this ridiculous assertion
> that FreeBSD is faster than Linux? I mean, what kind of benchmark tests
> are you guys performing to determine this? A long time ago, when I
> dual-booted between FreeBSD and Linux, I noticed that Linux's glibc-2
> was quite a bit bigger than FreeBSD's libc.so. Maybe that could account
> for a little bit of a slowdown, but it shouldn't matter that much.
You dont know what the fuck youre talking about AT ALL.
> Also, the last time I compiled a Linux kernel, it was using -m486
> optimizations. Why? Surely, this slows things down on a Pentium,
> because the word alignments are different, aren't they? Also, I can't
> understand why something as important as the kernel needs to be compiled
> with -O2. I think -O is sufficient for most kernels.
Do not mistake your requirements for anyone elses.
> Anyways, what the fuck are you guys running that makes Linux slower than
> FreeBSD? Slackware and FreeBSD ran at nearly identical speeds for me.
> If you want a fast Linux, then dammit, run something like Slackware or
> Debian, because their kernels are able to be streamlined a lot more than
> RedHat's or Mandrakes. (Or am I wrong?)
You are wrong, you ignorant fleeb; they are precisely IDENTICAL, ASSHOLE.
> Also, I sensed some jealousy in here when the results were posted from
> Netcraft that showed FreeBSD having a 1100-day uptime. Hey, what the
> hell, it's better than seeing Windows NT or 2000 with an uptime like
> that. (Like the day would ever come that we'd see that.)
Freebsd is faster than linux in many ways. Linux is faster than freebsd
in some ways. Freebsd is more stable than linux, and has a better native
filesystem.
=====.
--
"ambition makes you look pretty ugly;
kicking and squealing, gucci little piggy"
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:06:47 GMT
In article <3ab6547f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Zed Mister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes. Check out Need For Speed and see for yourself. The lens flare in the
>game actually looks realistic, whereas this Photoshop one does not.
>Microsoft definitely did a stupid thing, but that doesn't change the fact
>that Direct3D is capable of lens flare. They probably didn't have any games
>that actually used the feature, since it isn't used that often (lens flare
>looks gimmicky and annoying). I guess one of the marketing people figured
>lens flare would look cool or something, and asked if it was possible to
>have it in a game. The programmers said "yes, it's possible" and the
>marketing person asked for a screenshot from a game that had it. The
>programmers said "we don't have any, none of the xbox games use it yet,
>since gamers think it's kind of stupid and a gimmick." The marketing person
>gets all mad and takes that as a personal attack and fires up Photoshop and
>adds the filter to one of the screenshots. Of course, none of this could
>have happened ... or could it? no, it couldn't ... or so one would think.
Riiiiight. <smirk>
>
>"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <3ab5af43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Zed Mister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Uhm.... lens flare has been a part of Direct3D for a LONG time ... it was
>> >used extensively in Need For Speed: Porche Unleashed, and the version
>before
>> >that (I don't remember the name). Those games used Direct3D 5.0 and 6.0
>as
>> >their 3D API. The lens flare in those games was actually much more
>advanced
>> >and looked a whole lot better than the Photoshop filter that was used in
>> >that demo screenshot.
>>
>> So...
>>
>> Direct3D produces lens flares that are a "whole lot better" than
>> Photoshop, but somehow Microsoft just forgot that it could do that?
>>
>> The used a Photoshop lens flare to make the screenshot look worse?
>>
>> Riiiiight.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Alan Baker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > 'Today, Microsoft released this statement on www.xbox.com:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Some of the images for Amped released during Gamestock were enhanced
>to
>> >> > illustrate some features that will be in the final product. ...
>> >>
>> >> And we know how good MS is about ensuring that all their brag features
>> >actually
>> >> make it into their final products.
>> >>
>> >> Bobby Bryant
>> >> Austin, Texas
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Alan Baker
>> Vancouver, British Columbia
>> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to
>that
>> wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
>> bottom of that cupboard."
>
>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:21:22 -0500
Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001
> > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
> > >> [...]
> > >> >Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail to NT
> > >> >all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible news
> > >> >site with "unnamed" sources.
>
> Actually Erik, there were several separate reports from Drestin Black,
> each with
> great enthusiasm for Microsoft, that claimed that Microsoft was going to
> convert
> hotmail. Each attempt was identified - Drestin cited the use of NT
> servers on
> the site. The NT 4.0 attempt failes, as did NT 5.0 and the up-times on
> Windows 2000
> aren't looking that great.
If you wanna have some fun, send Drestin some email ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
and ask him about the wonderful investment his M$ stock purchases were...
That's always good for a laugh.
>
> There were attempts under a pilot project to convert the back-end
> sendmail/pop UNIX
> servers to Exchange, but these attempts were killed in the Proof of
> Concept stage
> on all three platforms.
>
> Microsoft has managed to create a respectable cluster of proxy servers
> that provide
> the "front-end" interfaces to Hotmail. They do very little work, and
> clusters are
> routed using CISCO (UNIX) routers.
>
> With a fair amount of help from UNIX, Windows 2000 can appear to be a
> somewhat
> stable platform. In 2K clusters, they recommend SAN servers (UNIX
> powered) which
> are shared between multiple hosts.
>
> It works, but if you actually have to pay for the software and licenses,
> it's not
> really a competitive solution. The Data Center edition licenses cost
> $20k/CPU (MSRP),
> and the reccomended configuration is pairs of 4-way SMP processors. The
> Win2K solution
> is still quite labor intensive as well. Microsoft did come out with
> improved scripting
> support for Windows 2000, but does not provide a functional scripting
> language (you can
> download Active-PERL if you wish). Microsoft has also deleted PERL from
> the Windows 2000
> Workstation Resource kit.
>
> > >> There was only one occurrence, so it is not surprising that all
> > >> references are based on the same story of this occurrence.
>
> I would refer you to drestin's postings (searchable on Google).
>
> Microsoft has announced several times that they were going to convert
> hotmail,
> but never announced the official results of the project. Furthermore,
> none of
> the official publications will carry stories of the failures since
> Microsoft does
> have the right to restrict disclosures.
>
> Recently, Microsoft chartered a benchmark in which the lab was supposed
> to discover
> that SQL Server 7 was much faster on Windows 2000 than on NT 4.0. When
> the tests
> showed that NT 4.0 was about 20% faster than Windows 2000, Microsoft not
> only canceled
> the test, but demanded that the results, which had been posted on a web
> site (as scheduled),
> be removed. The results were removed, but the president of the lab did
> discuss Microsoft's
> use of NDAs to prevent further disclosure of the results.
>
> SQL Server 2000 does run faster on Windows 2000, but Microsoft was
> trying to make the case
> for a 2-step migration to companies who didn't want to be hit with the
> expense and risk
> of upgrading both SQL Server and Windows 2000.
>
> There are rumors that the FTC is investigating Microsoft for fraud based
> on their use
> of nondisclosure agreements for the purpose of misinforming the public.
> ECMA and Japan
> have both sanctioned Microsoft for just this activity. It seems that in
> the U.S.A.,
> where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are so highly touted,
> Microsoft has
> the strongest ability to censor the press and to silennce employees of
> customers and
> partners.
>
> > >> The fact is
> > >> that you would go to your grave swearing that it never happened, and
> > >> using as your only proof a series of arguments from ignorance, and the
> > >> fact that unless the attempt was successful, it can be disqualified by
> > >> your rules for not being 'complete' enough.
> > >
> > >I'm not using an argument from ignorance.
>
> Read Soviet history books printed in 1945, 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, and
> 1995.
> Each book gives a radically different account of history. In some,
> Stalin was
> a hero and Trotski was a demon, in others, Stalin was a villain.
>
> > Yes, you are, Erik; you do it all the time, and apparently you don't
> > recognize it, even after I've pointed it out a couple dozen times.
> >
> > >MS has stated quite clearly that
> > >no conversion was attempted, much less a failed one.
> >
> > Shocker.
> >
> > >It's an anonymous
> > >source in a less than credible news site versus the actual people that would
> > >know. You choose to believe the anonymous sources because you want to.
> >
> > As incredible as it may seem, when it comes down to an anonymous report
> > (which is otherwise uncontradicted) versus Microsoft bullshit, the smart
> > money is obviously on the anonymous report. That must really drive you
> > nuts, I guess, but its true.
> >
> > >> >Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was ever
> > >> >attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT within
> > >> >weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
> > >> >familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a task, let
> > >> >alone complete and fail within weeks.
> > >>
> > >> How do you complete something that failed? You moron. As if we give a
> > >> rat's ass what Microsoft "themselves" claim.
> > >
> > >Hint: Look up the word complete. You can either successfully, or
> > >unsuccessfully complete something.
> >
> > And what on god's green earth is an "unsuccessful completion" but a
> > failure to complete successfully the plan? Christ, Erik, it must be
> > painfully obvious even to you that you have your head up your ass on
> > this point, but I suppose it takes dedication as well as purposeful
> > ignorance to be a sock puppet.
> >
> > [...]
> > >> And unrefuted.
> > >
> > >What exactly do you call the MS official statement that the rumors are
> > >false, if not a refutation?
> >
> > The MS official statement. What more needs to be said? I think its
> > just you that doesn't know that means "bullshit", to anyone with more
> > than two brain cells.
> >
> > --
> > T. Max Devlin
> > *** The best way to convince another is
> > to state your case moderately and
> > accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> --
> Rex Ballard
> It Architect
> http://www.open4success.com
--
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: Peter Hayes <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:18:28 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:23:53 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
<...>
> It must be very easy to put things in Microsoft code without some development
> authority noticing. Think of all the "easter eggs" in Windows, office, etc.
> Think about the "netscape programers are weenies" back door. MS did not know
> about it!
There may well be NSA stooges on MS's payroll, placed to insert back doors
into their software.
Don't forget the flap over the Russian "hackers" who spied on MS's code for
weeks or months. It'd be easy for them to insert a few lines of code that
MS would never find in amongst the 30,000,000 lines in W2K, for example.
<...>
> > The fact is, there was a so-called "NSA key" found in Windows. While it did
> > not turn out to be a back door, it may well have been used for testing such
> > an idea, and, more importantly, it shows that such a back door *could* be
> > put in Windows (or any other commerical OS for which the source is completly
> > hidden from end users). Even the NSA are not stupid enough to use the
> > letters "NSA" in a real back door, so there could easily be a real back door
> > in every Windows system without anyone outside NSA and a few key MS people
> > knowning about it.
>
> From what I remember about this flap, the defense was that the backup key was
> to sign software that could be installed. For the ridiculous purpose that if
> the main key was lost at Microsoft, they could use the backup key. Regardless
> of what "experts" say, the explanation did not fit any concept of reality that
> I could grasp.
>
> How would the main key be lost? It isn't a physical object, it is a computer
> file that is backed up. There are probably thousands of copies of it in backup
> tapes.
>
> I think there is more to it than the explanations. I may be paranoid, but the
> alternative is to trust Microsoft and the NSA. A difficult choice I am sure.
When I raised this topic here a year or so ago I was advised to look out
for the black helicopters.
Now that it's finally got through to someone in a position of
responsibility in at least one country just how irresponsible it is to
trust anything from MS, can I stop watching out for them?
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:18:31 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:26:00 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Chad Myers wrote:
<...>
> > I suppose if they had conclusive proof of it, it would make sense,
> > but they don't, so it doesn't.
>
> No...they're doing what ANY responsible military does: obtain EVERYTHING
> that's fundamental to wartime operations from domestic sources.
>
> Anything that is reliant upon the co-operation of foreign businessmen
> is a weakness....even if the foreign product is better.
>
> For example....a foreign owned oil-refinery is OK, as long as the refinery
> can be run by your own people, even withOUT the authorization of the
> foreign owners.
>
> But foreign software, reliant upon licenses....UGH.
I'd have thought that at time of war the niceties of licensing issues would
be far from anybody's thoughts.
The obvious concern is over back doors where the enemy (even if that
"enemy" is a nominally "friendly" power) can "read your mail" or, more
likely, disable all your networked computers through one instruction via
said back door.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:18:32 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:07:32 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > This also means they won't use any Sun or Oracle product, or any of a
> > > thousand others. I guess they did a good job martyring themselves,
> > > but it's a pretty stupid move in general. Microsoft, Sun, and Oracle
> > > all make very good and useful products.
> > >
> > > I suppose if they had conclusive proof of it, it would make sense,
> > > but they don't, so it doesn't.
> > >
> > I think there is a confusion of who needs proof of what.
> >
> > It is perfectly reasonable, and correct, to require proof that something
> is
> > secure. It is stupid to assume something is secure unless you have
> "conclusive
> > proof" it is not.
> >
> > Microsoft provides no proof that its products are secure.
> >
> > Should a military organization use software which it has no proof is
> secure?
> >
> > I bet Microsoft shows the source to the US military, I would also bet the
> same
> > is not said for the german military.
>
> Since the german army is going to purchase more than 1500 licenses, they can
> get the code and review it.
> Hell, considerring how much leverage they have, they could've done so long
> ago.
I see, and is the code they get the code that was used to generate their
binaries, or is it the code MS and/or the NSA *want* them to get.
Trust no one...
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:18:33 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:21:48 -0500, "Masha Ku' Inanna"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snipped a lot of .. well. . snipped a lot>
>
> I see that Charlie's coffee was rather strong this morning, huh? His
> eloquence has hit a new low.
But it was needing said.
Anyone going anywhere near XP is asking for trouble, and they can't say
they weren't warned - not just by Charlie, but by any semi-intellegent
reading of the Russian spying exploits on MS's servers.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:18:34 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
Precisely.
> 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.
Anyone wanting truly secure communications over the internet would use
their own encryption scheme, not some "current encryption scheme".
Uncrackable. Anyone here could devise a system in five minutes that
couldn't be cracked.
> 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.
The really clever spies/crooks/whatever will never draw attention to
themselves. Neither the NSA nor anyone else will ever know. Like the
perfect crime is the crime you don't know has been committed.
Peter
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
