Trolls' Purpose
wd
be.
* Fill the Web with anti-Linux content for search engines?
* Derail serious conversation/action from taking place in COLA by
creating heated ridiculous arguments?
* etc.
The more of these posts I read, I think a lot of what they are doing
falls into the first category: filling the Web with anti-Linux content.
They are coming at Linux from every angle they can think of. They are
trying to propagate the myths about Linux being difficult to use.
Frankentroll has his own style (which I don't read anymore). Flatfish is
definitely doing it also. He changes his name to avoid being killfiled (to
create chaos through arguments and crossposting) and/or to sound like many
different "users" complaining about Linux.
Here is a sample (flatfish?) of something that someone might come across
online someday, or read in the crossposted newsgroups:
"Linux is a joke!!!!!!! I don't care that it is free. You can wrap a
piece of crap in a fancy gold wrapper, but it still taste like crap.
The install from ftp, this is so bad it's laughable. It took me so many
times to finally get it installed, I can't even tell ya. Then to add
Apache, PHP and MySQL with administrators, I had to select 103..."
(1130744100.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com)
These kinds of things reinforce the stereotypes of Linux being difficult
to use. The person that reads a few bits of information like this from
"different sources" internalizes it and then passes it off to other
people, "I've heard of Linux, but I think I remember something about it
being difficult to use. I don't want that kind of hassle." They will
then say these things to themselves about Linux without any actual
experience, and as soon as they reach their first natural hurdle with a
new operating system they will think back to their preconception, and say,
"it *IS* true, Linux is too difficult to use."
I saw this with someone who I got started with Linux. He couldn't figure
out how to add colors to text in OpenOffice. This was very annoying for
him. He thought Linux was too difficult because of this one
experience (based on his previous brainwashing). The reason that he
couldn't figure out how to select new colors for text is because in
Windows, you click on something and a menu opens. In OpenOffice, to open
the color picker you have to hold down the mouse button. If you just
click on it, nothing happens. It is just a different way of doing things
from Windows.
That is a very simple solution to a very simple problem. It has nothing
to do with "Linux being difficult to use." But the preconception of Linux
is brought back and the simple problem irrationally turns into "Linux is
difficult to use."
I believe this is one of the major reasons the long-time trolls are here.
High Plains Thumper
If you remember Tucker automobile, he was derailed by FUD spread through
radio and the news media, that the vehicle didn't even have a backup gear
and several other mistruths. He could never get his car off the ground, so
effective was this campaign, even though he had a superior automobile to
offer. That campaign was fueled by the automobile manufacturing industry,
to limit competition.
IMHO, there is a campaign to hurt, destroy, kill, prevent Linux from
getting off the ground. Some are ignorant individuals who in their twisted
logic do this out of their simple nature. Others have a deeper motive,
that if Linux becomes accepted universally among the masses will spell
profit loss toward for pay operating system software and some vendor
specific application and support utility software.
Linux is a usable operating system, KDE, Gnome and a few others are
suitable desktops, Open Office and other open and proprietary office
automation suites are mature products and fully suited for deployability.
Seven years ago, while outfits like Corel were packaging their distribution
version 1 of Linux, KDE and Gnome were fully functioning while Windows 98
and NT-4 were in vogue. KDE had some bugs in applications such as their
mail program, but still it was quite usable. Sun's Star Office Version 1.0
then was fully useful, another option to WordPerfect Office, Microsoft
Office and IBM's offering. Just like any new kid on the block, it had to
gain acceptability. KDE was very Windows-like, Gnome was easy to use and
anyone familiar with engineering workstations would feel comfortable with
Gnome. There was sufficient development of 3rd party software to fill the
niche of most if not all for work productivity.
I was amazed at the stability of Linux, it did not crash and freeze up when
running applications like Windows 98 and NT did occasionally. One did not
have to reboot their machine after playing an intensive graphic animation
game. Graphics were more fluid. If an application crashed, it did not
take out the operating system. One just restarted their application.
However, as a desktop it did not take off fully, although portions of
education sector accepted it, some smaller businesses and some scientific
sectors put it to work. Some of this is because of industry reluctance to
trying anything new. Similar to Tucker, some of it I believe is
attributable to FUD.
So, some do have an agenda to discredit Linux. Not all behind the keyboard
are simpletons begging for attention.
However, there are allies. One is some Governments who favor open source
as a competitor and a way to bring open standardization, another is sectors
of corporate industry, who see it as a way to limit a monopoly and bring
open competition and profitability back to their sector.
Another ally is people who debunk FUD. I am not overly concerned about
this newsgroup, because back in the day of Tucker, the average citizen had
no way to voice his or her uncensored opinion. News media chose whether to
publish or not publish one's views. Nowadays, we have a way, that is
through the reply function.
One other often overlooked ally is also the written word. A well written,
tactful letter at the right moment to politicians, education principals and
company leaders can have an impact to open doors for cost savings and
stability in IT infrastructure through Linux as a desktop and further
server functions.
There is another overlooked issue with personal desktop operating systems
like Windows in this forum. Even Windows requires a certain amount of
competency to install, patch and maintain. I have had to help people both
at work and at home get hardware to work by reinstalling drivers,
downloading and installing driver patches to correct hardware malfunctions
due to bugs, unsquirrel an application deinstallation that went badly or
not at all, reconfiguring printers to work, get network shares and modems
to work, even sometimes reinstall the OS, etc.
Not everyone is computer literate. If they struggle with Windows, then
they will struggle with Linux also.
--
HPT
Roy Schestowitz
> I wrote a post a while ago wondering what the purpose of the trolls might
> be.
>
> * Fill the Web with anti-Linux content for search engines?
> * Derail serious conversation/action from taking place in COLA by
> creating heated ridiculous arguments?
> * etc.
Excellent point. Owing to your post, I have made a vow never to reply trolls
again. I promised this before, but I have always caved. Let Bailo talk trash
on behalf of us...
> The more of these posts I read, I think a lot of what they are doing
> falls into the first category: filling the Web with anti-Linux content.
> They are coming at Linux from every angle they can think of. They are
> trying to propagate the myths about Linux being difficult to use.
> Frankentroll has his own style (which I don't read anymore). Flatfish is
> definitely doing it also. He changes his name to avoid being killfiled (to
> create chaos through arguments and crossposting) and/or to sound like many
> different "users" complaining about Linux.
I sometimes wonder how such posts can be found/search for. Are they not
merely thrown into a big pile in cyberspace? Will people intentionally
search for 'linux sux hard to use', for instance? I doubt it, unless they
are off their medication.
> Here is a sample (flatfish?) of something that someone might come across
> online someday, or read in the crossposted newsgroups:
>
> "Linux is a joke!!!!!!! I don't care that it is free. You can wrap a
> piece of crap in a fancy gold wrapper, but it still taste like crap.
> The install from ftp, this is so bad it's laughable. It took me so many
> times to finally get it installed, I can't even tell ya. Then to add
> Apache, PHP and MySQL with administrators, I had to select 103..."
> (1130744100.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com)
>
> These kinds of things reinforce the stereotypes of Linux being difficult
> to use. The person that reads a few bits of information like this from
> "different sources" internalizes it and then passes it off to other
> people, "I've heard of Linux, but I think I remember something about it
> being difficult to use. I don't want that kind of hassle." They will
> then say these things to themselves about Linux without any actual
> experience, and as soon as they reach their first natural hurdle with a
> new operating system they will think back to their preconception, and say,
> "it *IS* true, Linux is too difficult to use."
True. Bad reputation is being fed by the masses, which unfortunately still
use Windows and thus have interest it keeping it alive. People always fear
what they have not mastered yet.
> I saw this with someone who I got started with Linux. He couldn't figure
> out how to add colors to text in OpenOffice. This was very annoying for
> him. He thought Linux was too difficult because of this one
> experience (based on his previous brainwashing). The reason that he
> couldn't figure out how to select new colors for text is because in
> Windows, you click on something and a menu opens. In OpenOffice, to open
> the color picker you have to hold down the mouse button. If you just
> click on it, nothing happens. It is just a different way of doing things
> from Windows.
>
> That is a very simple solution to a very simple problem. It has nothing
> to do with "Linux being difficult to use." But the preconception of Linux
> is brought back and the simple problem irrationally turns into "Linux is
> difficult to use."
Bear in mind that /some/ applications are indeed difficult to use. This does
not apply, however, to projects as large as Firefox, OpenOffice and the
like. It often applies to a one-man application that was coded in some
distant garage during a summer vacation.
> I believe this is one of the major reasons the long-time trolls are here.
Better ignore the opposition and /advocate/ Linux rather than /defend/ it.
Not only should one killfile trolls, but also exclude them from archives
where possible. Google Groups is the exception, ironically enough.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Vista: as the reputation of "Longhorn" was mucked
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:50am up 67 days 17:39, 5 users, load average: 1.26, 1.07, 0.93
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
> Seven years ago, while outfits like Corel were packaging their distribution
> version 1 of Linux, KDE and Gnome were fully functioning while Windows 98
> and NT-4 were in vogue. KDE had some bugs in applications such as their
> mail program, but still it was quite usable. Sun's Star Office Version 1.0
> then was fully useful, another option to WordPerfect Office, Microsoft
> Office and IBM's offering. Just like any new kid on the block, it had to
> gain acceptability. KDE was very Windows-like, Gnome was easy to use and
> anyone familiar with engineering workstations would feel comfortable with
> Gnome. There was sufficient development of 3rd party software to fill the
> niche of most if not all for work productivity.
Actually, seven years ago, StarOffice was owned by Star Division,not
Sun, and it was at version 5.x. Back then, they still had a native OS/2
version of which I have the CD I purchased lying right next beside me
(not for the software, because OS/2 is -- alas! -- no longer a
mainstream contender in the OS arena, but for the amazing collection of
typefaces that came with it).
StarOffice version 5 was IIRC the first version (or was that the hardly
missed because so buggy version 4?) that presented itself as a
monolithic application. Prior versions had distinctly separate (but very
well integrated) modules for wordprocessing, spreadsheeting and such,
which, in my opinion, was a much better way of doing things. Obviously
my opinion was not that of the makers of StarOffice, because it still is
a monolithic beast.
And at that time WordPerfect 8 for Linux was released as well. Another
program I still have in the boxed version, collecting dust on the shelf
simply because it's just too much hassle to hunt down the antique
libraries needed to get it going on a modern Linux distribution. Note
however that I still think WP8 is the best wordprocessor ever made by
Man. WP8 could do things with paper and ink that OOo 2 still cannot do
today. Would you believe that I never actually bought that copy, but
that it was sent to me for free by someone who had no use for it anymore?
Oh, let's not forget the FrameMaker beta that floated on the Net for
some time. If you happen to have a copy archived away somewhere, you can
still find the instructions to overcome the time limitations on the Net.
And whatever happened to Applix Office? My first bought Linux
distribution was S.u.S.E. (note the periods! You'd have to be from the
last century to remember them) Office Suite 99, basically S.u.S.E. 5.3 +
Applixware 4.4.1, a good office suite, provided you didn't want to print
at over 300 dpi (due to the crappy fontengine that came with it).
Ahhh, memories...
--
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
See? Ubuntu just works.
M
"Karel "de Jazz" Jansens" <karelj...@tiscalinet.be> wrote in message
news:-YKdnUkoXqW...@scarlet.biz...
> See? Ubuntu just works.
Perhaps you guys can explain something for me about all the distros. When I
ask (or anyone come to that) asks folks about them, the answer that comes
back is *choice*.
Ok seems fair enough (although for someone new to linux like me the number
available does seem to be a little over the top :-) ).
Take Ubuntu and it's KDE variant (which incidentally I tried and liked
:-) ). This distribution is supposedly debian based. Comes on a single CD as
opposed to many CD's in the case of debian, and they seemed to have tweaked
it so you basically get all the desktop stuff you would normally want on
that single CD, plus a couple of other tweaks like the default web browser
page etc. If I am not mistaken I think it also uses a more recent version of
the kernel too.
That's all very nice...
The bit that puzzles me is if it is debian based, why mess with the
directory structure etc, and make it so that they have to have their our
repositories, and not be able to use the debian ones? Seems like needless
duplication or am I missing something?
Regards,
M
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Canonical has committed to a 6 month release cycle. Debian has not. In
order to release Ubuntu versions on schedule, they take a "snapshot" of
Sid, and work on it for six months, then release.
Ubuntu has limited the number of architectures they will support. Debian
has, IIRC, 7 major arch branches, with all the testing and debugging
that entails. Further, Debian will hold all the branches from release,
for a bug in one of the far less popular ones. Not a bad thing, but it
does affect how long it takes to release.
Canonical pushed Ubuntu patches back to Debian, the relevent maintainers
are of course free to accept or decline said patches.
There are a lot of good reasons to use plain Debian, especially for
servers. Debian rocks there. But Ubuntu kicks butt on the desktop and
laptop niche IMHO.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDZ7J1d90bcYOAWPYRAkAMAKDKtcAVmgbOgKn2EUiScj8ShPcKSACdGz7U
n6rjA0dq57/ODDhSnMJFGlw=
=XEFK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I have seen the light. I was not impressed.
7
> I wrote a post a while ago wondering what the purpose of the trolls might
> be.
>
> * Fill the Web with anti-Linux content for search engines?
> * Derail serious conversation/action from taking place in COLA by
> creating heated ridiculous arguments?
> * etc.
>
> The more of these posts I read, I think a lot of what they are doing
> falls into the first category: filling the Web with anti-Linux content.
> They are coming at Linux from every angle they can think of. They are
> trying to propagate the myths about Linux being difficult to use.
In years to come archives will show how bad micoshaft and its
astroturfer have been. All these anti-linux posts will be traced
back to micoshaft, Sun$ and other unmentionable companies
engaged in enraged acts of terror against the public with their
stash of cash. It will speed up the need for new laws to curb
astroturfers and make it illegal run campaigns other
than fully licensed, registered and open to scrutiny type of campaings.
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
It probably has a lot to do with Ubuntu's upgrade philosophy. That, and
what Jim said. :)
(just read it)
--
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
"Those of us who fail history, are doomed to repeat it in summer school."
(Buffy Summers)
Thomas Wootten
In other words you're advocating that the government be allowed to control
what the citizenry may and may not campaign on. You realise that's what
you've implied don't you?
--
Tom Wootten, Fresher NatSci, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
The Ghost In The Machine
<tw...@nospam.cam.ac.uk>
wrote
on Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:30:25 +0000
<dk8foh$oft$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>:
> 7 wrote:
>
>> wd wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote a post a while ago wondering what the purpose of the trolls might
>>> be.
>>>
>>> * Fill the Web with anti-Linux content for search engines?
>>> * Derail serious conversation/action from taking place in COLA by
>>> creating heated ridiculous arguments?
>>> * etc.
>>>
>>> The more of these posts I read, I think a lot of what they are doing
>>> falls into the first category: filling the Web with anti-Linux content.
>>> They are coming at Linux from every angle they can think of. They are
>>> trying to propagate the myths about Linux being difficult to use.
>>
>>
>> In years to come archives will show how bad micoshaft and its
>> astroturfer have been. All these anti-linux posts will be traced
>> back to micoshaft, Sun$ and other unmentionable companies
>> engaged in enraged acts of terror against the public with their
>> stash of cash. It will speed up the need for new laws to curb
>> astroturfers and make it illegal run campaigns other
>> than fully licensed, registered and open to scrutiny type of campaings.
>
> In other words you're advocating that the government be allowed to control
> what the citizenry may and may not campaign on. You realise that's what
> you've implied don't you?
>
s/campaign on/run on their hardware/
One could quibble about fairness here, but ideally Linux
would trounce Microsoft on its own turf without help from
the goverment. (It's been helpful that Microsoft seems
to have been fairly good lately at shooting itself in the
foot, though the hackers, for reasons of their own, are
being helpful as well; I suspect as time goes on, however,
that said hackers will simply go after the biggest target,
which may very well be IBM, as Microsoft diminishes in
importance on the desktop -- if it ever does.)
Also, ideally, an encryption algorithm should be totally
transparent and utterly uncrackable without the private
key. I for one would think government would want to be
transparent as well, if only because that way we can ensure
that shenanigans such as the Iraq "For Our Own Defense
Because He's got WMDs...Erm, I Mean, Because We Wanted To"
war can be avoided.
Open source would be a step in governmental openness but
it is not really a requirement here, merely a means to an
end -- careful design of an IIS website would allow for
anyone to access it, not just IE.
I for one wouldn't recommend IIS, but I'm not sure about
disallowing it for government procurement, either, as
long as the requirements from the end-user perspective are
clearly laid out and include accessibility from browsers
in accordance with W3 and other published standards.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
7
> 7 wrote:
>
>> wd wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote a post a while ago wondering what the purpose of the trolls
>>> might be.
>>>
>>> * Fill the Web with anti-Linux content for search engines?
>>> * Derail serious conversation/action from taking place in COLA by
>>> creating heated ridiculous arguments?
>>> * etc.
>>>
>>> The more of these posts I read, I think a lot of what they are doing
>>> falls into the first category: filling the Web with anti-Linux content.
>>> They are coming at Linux from every angle they can think of. They are
>>> trying to propagate the myths about Linux being difficult to use.
>>
>>
>> In years to come archives will show how bad micoshaft and its
>> astroturfer have been. All these anti-linux posts will be traced
>> back to micoshaft, Sun$ and other unmentionable companies
>> engaged in enraged acts of terror against the public with their
>> stash of cash. It will speed up the need for new laws to curb
>> astroturfers and make it illegal run campaigns other
>> than fully licensed, registered and open to scrutiny type of campaings.
>
> In other words you're advocating that the government be allowed to control
> what the citizenry may and may not campaign on. You realise that's what
> you've implied don't you?
Absolutely!
Here is my 17th attempt at draft legislation....
The Engines of Democracy Astro Turfing Rights Bill
--------------------------------------------------
1. All astro turfers must register for employment and obtain employee ID.
2. Clients are nice people too, and deserve every contract to be
to be displayed openly with a contract ID so that everyone may know
astroturfing company / client relationship and how much money
has parted hands. Particularly important for politicos who
are worried of excessive spending by the other side.
3. All astro turfers must show their employer registration ID, and client
contract ID with any works of art and fiction they produce.
In return legal immunity is provided to the astro turfer,
the client and astroturfing from any prosecution for opionins
expressed, except for anything that falls under existing libel laws.
4. Failure to do so can net unlimited liability for its employers
and the clients who use the services.
5. This allows all astro turfed hooting tooting votes and opinions
to be counted as just one vote and make democracy work fairly.
6. Bring astro turfing in line with current advertising rules
i.e. a. they must be factual
b. they have been refereed
c. they have paid tax
7. Any mis information reported by astro turfers is subject
to laws of libel, and through use of employee ID, can
render the employee, the employer and the client liable.
8. All astro turfers have the right to snitch on their employers
and clients with legal protection from the law if they
choose to do so. That is employers and clients must not compel
employees into signing any agreements that prohibit their
god given rights of freedom of speech.
9. Public companies must register transactions with astro turfing
companies and make available to investors and the SEC the full
nature of the contract between them and their astro turfing
companies so that investors can be confident of the investments
they are making, and that it is not based on faked misinformation
inadvertently supplied by astro turfers.
Client and Employer Misconduct
------------------------------
10. Should the employer or the Client is found to be in misconduct
when hiring astro turfers to put out incorrect information,
the client and the employer gurantees to indemnify the employee
from any cost arising out of litigation.
Disabilities allowance
----------------------
11. Its widely accepted that disabled people and housewives
are used for astro turfing as they are likely to sit
in front of a computer and type out nonsense all day.
For those disabled people that are housewives or that have to
operate a computer without an arm, or a leg, or a brain,
we demand that pay is equal to that of fit and lifeless
colleagues.
Career progression
------------------
12. No astro turd likes being called an idiot. Its un-winnable to argue
a point when you are an astro turd and have no qualifications.
So we need an astro turfing institute where we can hoof and poof
and gain merits for our nefarious activities.
All qualifications shall be cited with employee ID and client
contract ID as part of the legal requirement to become
a qualified astro turfer.
Puppet Master Authentication
----------------------------
13. Astro turfers have the right to know who they are ultimately working
for. Thus we propose all contracts be signed by the actual
puppet master(s) names that has instigated the action as opposed
to their paid minions or suckered bum boys. There can be no
transferrance of this responsibility. I.e. as a puppet master, you
cannot legally claim you were acting under orders.
Each named person must take full personal responsibility
or none at all and be prosecuted for fraud.
1 April is Anuual Holiday
-------------------------
14. Most professions need a holiday like banks have
bank holiday. It is proposed 1 April, or April fool's day
is a national astro turfing holiday.
This is a matter of deep seated tradition.
Why is that?
Because though we are fools, we don't suffer other fools.
Certified Accounts
------------------
15. When your astro turfing company wins something by
faking 10,000+ people, and no one knows if the
actual figure is 10 people, 15 people or 150 people
that manufactured all the astroturfing letters, there is
a need for actual figures to be available when
astroturfing takes down somebody or something or the company
completes its contract so that those who lost know how so few
astroturds had defeated so many with astroturfing methodologies.
Scores do need to be settled later.
Thus, companies must keep certified accounts of
each contract, i.e. how many people they used
and how many fake letters and identities they used to send it
all out, and in particular, how many votes they manufactured
through company activities.
Pay Rise
--------
16. Pay rise is a sentitive topic. All astrotufers and their
companies are entitled to pay rises, but employer and/or
the client may refuse. Well if clients did any business in the
past through you, then you must use those records and offer to
repost them with summaries to clarify the situation.
In this way, employers and employees can benefit from pay rises
by invoicing the client spuriously on a whim.
We demand that this practice is legalized along
with legalizing astroturfing.
Psycho Councilling
-----------------
17. Astro turfing can force you to hide your identities
and create new identities to decieve your friends in newsgroups
and social groups your asked to join and destroy.
Normal humans can't live with the constant lies, deceit, nym shifting
and ass covering tactics of a habbitual astro turfer.
Astroturfers can become internet psycho with so many
personalities that its impossible to tell one personality from
another, and it is known for astroturds to quarrel with other
posters despite them other posters being themselves
and their own sock puppets!
Astro turfers need constant psycho councilling and it is not
to be deducted from wages these costs.
M
"Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:lcok33-...@fimbul.myth...
"Karel "de Jazz" Jansens" <karelj...@tiscalinet.org> wrote in message
news:lPydnWm6Fun...@scarlet.biz...
>It probably has a lot to do with Ubuntu's upgrade philosophy. That, and
>what Jim said. :)
>(just read it)
Thanks guys, makes a lot more sense now that you have explained it.
At the time I wanted to install Php5, but unfortunately with Ubuntu I could
not figure a way to do it, so I moved onto debian.
As you say it seems to rock :-), hopefully even more so when "etch" becomes
a formal release.
Only minor thing I have found so far is that I can't persuade the OS to
suspend my monitor after a certain length of time ( I am using KDE as the
GUI). Screen saver kicks in when it should though. Wonder if I need to
install / configure something else?
Apart from that things seem to be coming along very nicely :-).
Cheers,
M
DFS
LOL!!!
Good job, little guy. That's funny.
acd
> Only minor thing I have found so far is that I can't persuade the OS to
> suspend my monitor after a certain length of time ( I am using KDE as the
> GUI). Screen saver kicks in when it should though. Wonder if I need to
> install / configure something else?
>
right click on Desktop -> Configure Desktop -> Display -> Power Control
can be done by xset(1) too.
--
acd
Thomas Wootten
Thomas Wootten
<snip>
> Also, ideally, an encryption algorithm should be totally
> transparent and utterly uncrackable without the private
> key.
Impossible. Transparency is not a problem, but all encryption algorithms can
be cracked given enough processing power.
The important thing is to make sure that the difficulty of cracking scales
fast (like exponentially) with key length
But then if anyone where to ever prove that 'p=np' is true, any encryption
algorithm will be cracked in polynomial time with respect to key length.
Which is not good.
And quantum computing could crack the keys anyway.
There ARE uncrackable encryption methods, based on quantum physics, and some
are already in use, but it's hardware based, not software.
<snip>
lqu...@uku.co.uk
Thomas Wootten wrote:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> <snip>
> > Also, ideally, an encryption algorithm should be totally
> > transparent and utterly uncrackable without the private
> > key.
>
> Impossible. Transparency is not a problem, but all encryption algorithms can
> be cracked given enough processing power.
> The important thing is to make sure that the difficulty of cracking scales
> fast (like exponentially) with key length
>
> But then if anyone where to ever prove that 'p=np' is true, any encryption
> algorithm will be cracked in polynomial time with respect to key length.
> Which is not good.
>
> And quantum computing could crack the keys anyway.
>
> There ARE uncrackable encryption methods, based on quantum physics, and some
> are already in use, but it's hardware based, not software.
>
> <snip>
>
Not to split hairs but...
- "all encryption algorithms can be cracked given enough processing
power."
One-time pad. (aka - Vernam's cipher)
(But I get your point.)
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper schreef:
>
>> Seven years ago, while outfits like Corel were packaging their
>> distribution version 1 of Linux, KDE and Gnome were fully
>> functioning while Windows 98 and NT-4 were in vogue. KDE had some
>> bugs in applications such as their mail program, but still it was
>> quite usable. Sun's Star Office Version 1.0 then was fully useful,
>> another option to WordPerfect Office, Microsoft Office and IBM's
>> offering. Just like any new kid on the block, it had to gain
>> acceptability. KDE was very Windows-like, Gnome was easy to use and
>> anyone familiar with engineering workstations would feel comfortable
>> with Gnome. There was sufficient development of 3rd party software
>> to fill the niche of most if not all for work productivity.
>
> Actually, seven years ago, StarOffice was owned by Star Division,not
> Sun, and it was at version 5.x. Back then, they still had a native
> OS/2 version of which I have the CD I purchased lying right next
> beside me (not for the software, because OS/2 is -- alas! -- no longer
> a mainstream contender in the OS arena, but for the amazing collection
> of typefaces that came with it).
You are correct, it's been a while. I still have the original ISO
download somewhere, it was also available on SuSE 6.4 and I think SuSE
4.3.
> StarOffice version 5 was IIRC the first version (or was that the
> hardly missed because so buggy version 4?) that presented itself as a
> monolithic application. Prior versions had distinctly separate (but
> very well integrated) modules for wordprocessing, spreadsheeting and
> such, which, in my opinion, was a much better way of doing things.
> Obviously my opinion was not that of the makers of StarOffice, because
> it still is a monolithic beast.
Version 5 was usable, once you got past the monolithic part. AFAIK, the
internet browser feature could be used to browse file structures also.
> And at that time WordPerfect 8 for Linux was released as well. Another
> program I still have in the boxed version, collecting dust on the
> shelf simply because it's just too much hassle to hunt down the
> antique libraries needed to get it going on a modern Linux
> distribution. Note however that I still think WP8 is the best
> wordprocessor ever made by Man. WP8 could do things with paper and ink
> that OOo 2 still cannot do today. Would you believe that I never
> actually bought that copy, but that it was sent to me for free by
> someone who had no use for it anymore?
There are things that WP 6.1 would do, that Word 2003 still cannot.
Thing I liked best about WP is it was SO EASY TO USE, none of this
paragraph and section typesetting crap you have to do with Word. I know
some legal secretaries that decried the day their employer dumped WP for
Word, to "modernize".
> Oh, let's not forget the FrameMaker beta that floated on the Net for
> some time. If you happen to have a copy archived away somewhere, you
> can still find the instructions to overcome the time limitations on
> the Net.
>
> And whatever happened to Applix Office? My first bought Linux
> distribution was S.u.S.E. (note the periods! You'd have to be from the
> last century to remember them) Office Suite 99, basically S.u.S.E. 5.3
> + Applixware 4.4.1, a good office suite, provided you didn't want to
> print at over 300 dpi (due to the crappy fontengine that came with
> it).
I jumped from SuSE 4.3 to 6.4, but they still had Applix on the CD.
Since I had WP 8 for Linux and Star Office for spreadsheets, this
decreased the need for another and I had bought the 6.4 distro late so
that I could not test Applix except a very short time.
--
HPT
wd
> There are things that WP 6.1 would do, that Word 2003 still cannot.
> Thing I liked best about WP is it was SO EASY TO USE, none of this
> paragraph and section typesetting crap you have to do with Word. I know
> some legal secretaries that decried the day their employer dumped WP for
> Word, to "modernize".
WordPerfect was always better than MS Word. I used to use Multimate
(remembering the 360K floppies...), then went to WordPerfect once PCs got
a little more sophisticated. Always preferred WordPerfect to Word (before
I knew about OpenOffice).
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
> "Karel \"de Jazz\" Jansens" <karelj...@tiscalinet.be> wrote in
> news:-YKdnUkoXqW...@scarlet.biz:
>>StarOffice version 5 was IIRC the first version (or was that the
>>hardly missed because so buggy version 4?) that presented itself as a
>>monolithic application. Prior versions had distinctly separate (but
>>very well integrated) modules for wordprocessing, spreadsheeting and
>>such, which, in my opinion, was a much better way of doing things.
>>Obviously my opinion was not that of the makers of StarOffice, because
>>it still is a monolithic beast.
>
>
> Version 5 was usable, once you got past the monolithic part. AFAIK, the
> internet browser feature could be used to browse file structures also.
Yeah. I Thank #DEITY# they dropped the browser part; I really did not
like it.
>>And at that time WordPerfect 8 for Linux was released as well. Another
>>program I still have in the boxed version, collecting dust on the
>>shelf simply because it's just too much hassle to hunt down the
>>antique libraries needed to get it going on a modern Linux
>>distribution. Note however that I still think WP8 is the best
>>wordprocessor ever made by Man. WP8 could do things with paper and ink
>>that OOo 2 still cannot do today. Would you believe that I never
>>actually bought that copy, but that it was sent to me for free by
>>someone who had no use for it anymore?
>
>
> There are things that WP 6.1 would do, that Word 2003 still cannot.
> Thing I liked best about WP is it was SO EASY TO USE, none of this
> paragraph and section typesetting crap you have to do with Word. I know
> some legal secretaries that decried the day their employer dumped WP for
> Word, to "modernize".
I purposely did not make a comparison with Word, because I haven't used
a recent version for some time now. In fact, the only version of Word I
ever used for a prolonged period of time was the version that came on
the ROMcard of my HP Omnibook 425. That one was a decent text editor
that didn't crash too much. :)
>>Oh, let's not forget the FrameMaker beta that floated on the Net for
>>some time. If you happen to have a copy archived away somewhere, you
>>can still find the instructions to overcome the time limitations on
>>the Net.
>>
>>And whatever happened to Applix Office? My first bought Linux
>>distribution was S.u.S.E. (note the periods! You'd have to be from the
>>last century to remember them) Office Suite 99, basically S.u.S.E. 5.3
>>+ Applixware 4.4.1, a good office suite, provided you didn't want to
>>print at over 300 dpi (due to the crappy fontengine that came with
>>it).
>
>
> I jumped from SuSE 4.3 to 6.4, but they still had Applix on the CD.
> Since I had WP 8 for Linux and Star Office for spreadsheets, this
> decreased the need for another and I had bought the 6.4 distro late so
> that I could not test Applix except a very short time.
4.4.1 was on a par with most contemporary offerings. It was very fast
indeed, both in loading tima and in responsiveness. It's main problem
was that it only recognized its own fonts or the PostScript fonts you
installed with its own font installer, and those would only print at 300
dpi.
--
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens
"Those of us who fail history, are doomed to repeat it in summer school."
(Buffy Summers)
High Plains Thumper
About the only thing that keeps me from using Open Office for now are 2
defective CD units on my 1,700 MHz Pentium. My Verbatim CD-R/W unit now
doesn't recognise CD's, stopped working a week ago. Six months ago, my
Creative DVD-Rom bit the dust. Seems nowadays few make quality CD units.
I remember my first CD-Rom unit, a Sony 2x worked 4 years later, replaced
it with a faster CD unit. I should have my HP Miniscribe DVD-R/W up and
running soon.
With the DVD-Rom toast, I could could not install Debian Sergeant. I
installed a Debian variant that was on CD instead of DVD, but their open
circulation version lacks some basic admin tools in X and in shell mode,
probably due to the limited space on one CD. They seemed to have done an
impressive job though on the desktop. Since I have a 42K modem
connection, use of their on-line update feature to install the rest has
been somewhat impractical.
Without being able to load Debian modules on DVD has left me dead in the
water. I might opt for SuSE 10.1 when it is out next Spring, since it
comes with the manual, an invaluable resource and I am most familiar with
SuSE. Meanwhile when I get the HP DVD up and running, I will replace
that open circulation version with undiluted Debian. Replacing the WinXP
unit with Linux as server on a home network will be an easy task once the
DVD unit is working again.
--
HPT
M
"acd" <a...@nowhere.org> wrote in message news:4367...@nntp.zianet.com...
Yes I have done that, fiddled with the settings, even tried checking the
check box that says the screen saver is aware of power management, sadly to
no avail.
M
The Ghost In The Machine
<lqu...@uku.co.uk>
wrote
on 1 Nov 2005 17:02:43 -0800
<1130893363....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
So far, the highest I've seen is 15 qbits, which is not all
that powerful. In any event 2^1024 =~ 1.797693 * 10^308.
Even if one were to try one key per attosecond (10^-18 s),
it would take awhile -- the Universe would probably die the
heat death first.
acd
>
> Yes I have done that, fiddled with the settings, even tried checking the
> check box that says the screen saver is aware of power management, sadly
> to no avail.
>
> M
okidoki, you'll also need the driver in the X server
under section monitor in XF86config or xorg.conf you'll need something like
Section "Monitor"
#DisplaySize 360 270 # mm
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "CPQ"
ModelName "COMPAQ MV940"
Option "DPMS"
EndSection
what matters is the DPMS Option :-)
your X logfile will then show :
(II) Loading extension DPMS
that should have been done right by whatever distro you're using though ...
if that doesn't work i won't know anything anymore :-)
--
acd
M
"acd" <a...@nowhere.org> wrote in message news:4369...@nntp.zianet.com...
I am running debian, sounds to me like I need to take a closer look at my
/etc/X11/XF86config-4 config file.
Thanks for your help, I will go and have another poke around.
Best Regards,
M
Thomas Wootten
2^1024...i.e exponential
you're thinking of brute force. what I was saying about p=np and suchlike
implies the existence of a shortcut. in the same way that a bogstandard
random monoalphabetic substitution has 4x10^26 possible keys, but can be
cracked by frequency analysis and suchlike.
The Ghost In The Machine
<dkbjjp$mhc$2...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>:
Yep.
>
> you're thinking of brute force. what I was saying about p=np
> and suchlike implies the existence of a shortcut.
Not necessarily; the implementation of the P side of that
equation may take longer than the NP side. Then again, I'd
have to study the issue; back in my college daze they'd not
settled the P =? NP question yet.
(However, a straightforward implementation of a nondeterministic
finite state acceptor of N states would have 2^N states.)
> in the same way that a bogstandard
> random monoalphabetic substitution has 4x10^26 possible keys,
> but can be cracked by frequency analysis and suchlike.
>
That's because humans prefer things like "fred" to "jOiu23z2p8". ;-)
Thomas Wootten
For a chosen key length. As the key length increases the situation must
reverse.
> Then again, I'd
> have to study the issue; back in my college daze they'd not
> settled the P =? NP question yet.
They still haven't. It may be undecideable.
>
> (However, a straightforward implementation of a nondeterministic
> finite state acceptor of N states would have 2^N states.)
>
>> in the same way that a bogstandard
>> random monoalphabetic substitution has 4x10^26 possible keys,
>> but can be cracked by frequency analysis and suchlike.
>>
>
> That's because humans prefer things like "fred" to "jOiu23z2p8". ;-)
>
Indeed. The same way computers prefer things like 386269746279746573 to
AFB5623CD4EA2.
M
Checked my /etc/X11/XF86config-4
Option "DPMS"
is there, checked my monitor manual and linux is using the correct driver
vesa, checked the log file and have got:
(II) Loading extension DPMS
grrr! I will have to live with it.
Thanks anyway acd
M
acd
> Checked my /etc/X11/XF86config-4
>
> Option "DPMS"
>
> is there, checked my monitor manual and linux is using the correct driver
> vesa, checked the log file and have got:
>
> (II) Loading extension DPMS
>
> grrr! I will have to live with it.
>
> Thanks anyway acd
>
> M
urghs, that sucks, i run debian sarge and unstable, never had a problem.
dpms is part of vesa standard afaik. could be your monitor, but if it works
in windoze there's no reason it shouldn't in linux.
sorry to hear that,
--
acd
Aragorn
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
I could be out on a limb here, but I believe that the /vesa/ driver is a
framebuffer driver, i.e. not a "real" driver.
My own system currently also needs the framebuffer driver for X11 as ST
MicroElectronics - the maker of the Kyro chipset - did not support
their proprietary driver for the Mandrake-specific 2.4 kernel (due to a
security patch in the MDK kernel that made the driver unstable) and
they are not supporting the 2.6 series of kernels because the way
drivers are loaded in 2.6 is too different from in 2.4.
(I didn't pick this video card - the people who built my computer did
that.)
Anyway, to cut the story short, I don't have DPMS support here either.
So I guess it must be the /fbdev/ thing...
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
acd
> Anyway, to cut the story short, I don't have DPMS support here either.
> So I guess it must be the fbdev thing...
>
hm, i don't use framebuffer support in my kernel but dpms works just fine.
--
acd