Linux in the news
All in one big page
See also: last week's Back page page.
Script-fu.org is a new site dedicated to the scripting language used by the GIMP. Here's all the stuff you need to get started doing magic things with our favorite image editor.
Linuxapps.com has been through a major upgrade. It has a new look and a new interface, worth a look.
January 28, 1999
Letters to the editor should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:47:49 -0600 To: email@example.com From: James Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Mac OS X Web pages... Hi Folks, Have you sauntered over to the Apple Website and looked at Mac OS X screenshots lately? The Mac OS makes an impressive front end for Unix. If it runs as good as it looks... If Linux developers could come up with a GUI that makes Unix easy to use, my complaints would melt. Apple has gone a long way towards that. Mac OS X may replace my current Linux DNS server (sniff) for those chores because of it's ease of use. James Thompson NRN Consulting Iowa City IA email@example.com
From: Dick Hein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Discussion on FUD Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 00:43:39 -0800 As to what it is, I think this piece - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9267/fuddef.html ...pretty well sums it up. Concerning use of the term to describe criticism of Linux - I don't see anything wrong with using it when appropriate. FUD =is= practiced, after all, and is no stranger to the likes of the Redmond crew. Regards, Dick ---------------------------------------------------- Dick Hein / firstname.lastname@example.org / Mountain View, California.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:54:42 -0000 (GMT) From: Dirk Koopman <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: It's not all good... For my sins I have been running Linux as a programming platform since 0.99.x days and whilst I have seen many things improved, there are others which have not. Recently I was asked to prepare a machine for someone who wanted very cheap internet access and home word processing, he was a newby and happy to try anything. Naturally I thought of Linux, so I installed RedHat 5.2 and Star Office onto a spare 32Mb Cyrix DX2/66 clone together with X and isdn. To cut a long and painful story short, the system was unusable. Star Office took forever to load and then, in a VERY short time of use, proceeded to use all 48Mb of swap space (as well as the available RAM) and ran like a woodlouse (i.e. somewhat slower than a dog). Loading Netscape Communicator wasn't much better, at least it left a (small) bit of RAM, but then started to eat swap as you surfed. What makes this worse is that I remember running a similar configuration (but with an Intel DX2/66) in early 1.0 days with X and Netscape and having program loading competitions with sceptical M$ fans and beating them hands down. In disgust, I loaded Win95 and IE 3.2 and although it can't be said to be a fast machine (in any way) it is at least usable, programs (even Office) load in a tolerable amount of time and the system is stable enough for casual home use. Is this warning for us all? try a loading competition now with Netscape on Linux and IE (or even Netscape) on identical modern specification machines, you may be surprised by the results! Regards Dirk Koopman --- Dirk-Jan Koopman, Tobit Computer Co Ltd At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:55:17 +0000 From: David Jao <djao@MATH.HARVARD.EDU> To: email@example.com Subject: Misleading report on Sarah Flannery's encryption algorithm ZDNet, BBC News, Slashdot, and now LWN have all published reports on Sarah Flannery's new encryption algorithm which are in some way inaccurate. The discovery of a new direction for exploration, and the coming of age of a new researcher are very deserving of praise, but the possible immediate practical impact of this particular algorithm has been way overblown. Details on the discovery are sketchy at this point. I am basing this letter on the few details of the algorithm that I have been able to pick up from Slashdot posts and the various news sites, so take it with a grain of salt. That said, it seems that no news site has an accurate conception of the proper significance of Sarah's discovery. Sarah has discovered a matrix algorithm which is provably equivalent to RSA in security, uses about 20 times less CPU, and 8 times more memory. This discovery is of great interest to researchers and theorists, but has little practical impact on user level software in the forseeable future. No production program being distributed today uses RSA for bulk encryption of data. Programs like PGP use RSA to encrypt a small session key, which is in turn used with some other cipher (not RSA) for bulk encryption. The practical value of fast RSA encryption is questionable, because RSA is simply not used to encrypt large quantities of data in today's world. Furthermore, there are already enough free (i.e., unpatented) cryptographic algorithms available today that the addition of one more is not too exciting. Today we already have Diffie Hellman, El Gamal, DSA (for signing), Blowfish, and CAST. GNU Privacy Guard has progressed very well using these existing free algorithms. Even RSA itself will fall out of US patent protection in less than two years. The value of one more free algorithm, while positive, is not, as you say, "incalculable." I know you guys are not cryptographers, so I forgive you (and other news sites) for their mistakes. But now you know the truth. By itself, this particular discovery of Sarah's will not make a difference to users in the next 10 years. We all should be most encouraged by the prospect of future research from Sarah and others (possibly based on Sarah's current work) that will dwarf this recent achivement in practical benefit. -David
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:31:18 -0800 From: Jay Jakosky <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: French vs. US cryptographic restriction. "The biggest news of this week in security has been the about-face of the French government policy on encryption. Part 1 and Part 2 of the government documents in French describe a "project" (essentially, a proposed new law) which promises, eventually, complete freedom of the use of cryptography within France. In the meantime, until the law is enacted, the maximum allowable keysize for cryptography has been increased from 40 bits to 128 bits, certainly trumping the U.S. Government's recent increase in allowable keysize to 56 bits. Exportation of cryptography is still controlled by virtue of existing agreements with other countries." You are neither the first nor the last to refer to 56 bits as the limit of the strength of U.S. domestic cryptography. Strength of cryptography EXPORTED from the U.S. is now limited to 56 bits. France in no way trumped the U.S. since they still have a limit on domestic cryptographic strength. I'm sure you know this but your statement (quaoted above) portrays a different message about the comparative freedom of France and the U.S.