[RC5] Possible V3 addition.

Marc Sissom marcus at dfwmm.net
Thu Mar 12 23:16:54 EST 1998


Mark Salyer wrote:
> 
> Well, I never thought that most of the replies would be *this* negative, I
> figured we could debate the good and bad instead of just bashing to begin
> with, but I won't take anything personally :).

Some of us enjoy bashing. Bash us back. If your ideas stand up under
the onslaught, then they are strong ideas. It's evolution in action.

> >This is a major point of contention in some places, personally
> >I think that we should expend more effort getting more individuals
> >to join the resource pool, and worry about recruiting corporate
> >cpu farms later.
> >
> 
> I do not think that we should just forget about those corporate cpu farms,

I did not say that we should forget about corp, cpu farms. The quickest,
easiest way to gain access to those, would be to release the source
code.
This will happen with the advent of v3(which I imagine will
serendepitously
occur just after the release of client versions 2.998 and 2.999);
meanwhile,
I suggest we focus on recruiting other resources.

> I administer systems that could use their time correct..  There are not alot
> of *free* utilities out there that do this, and when you are a non-profit
> yourself, you can't afford $10 per machine by 2000 machines to just set the
> time..  You are more concearned about the *individual*, and that is fine,
> they could use an ini setting to turn this off..  Some corporations could
> use this and I am speaking for one..  I would as soon trust DCI as any other
> small programming shop to set the time on my servers..

I'm sure that if you have to maintain 2K boxes a discounted license
could be arranged. If you do a proper analysis, your superiors(the
ones in charge of the money) presumably would be convinced that it is
in their best interests to purchase such software. Write up a report.
Show them how much trouble it causes when the clocks are off. Show
them how much time you spend fixing said troubles. Show them that it
costs _more_ to not have the software than it costs to purchase it,
and I'm sure they will buy. Else, they should be canned.

If your analysis shows instead that it would not be worthwhile to
purchase clock sync. software, then you should be convinced that
you were in error.

> Besides, why should I trust the Linux developers more than the DCI
> developers?  And I must say, I have been running Linux since 92...

Either you are not telling the truth or, you have not been running
linux very much since 1992. The answer is self evident to anyone
that is vaguely familiar with the os, the apps, and the software
distribution methods that are regularly used.

> I would not think you could find something as quick to do that would be
> somewhat useful.  Remember, though it may be free for Unix, It is not
> necessarily the same for Win/Macs.

So buy(linux?) a better os.

> Yes, it is somewhat crude, but it could use some work.

Do the work.

> You and I are on opposite ends of the argument here, you are more thinking
> of the individual, and I am more thinking of the company.  When I go to the
> head of the company and say there is something that I would like to run on
> non-critical machines,

You should be able to explain how it is in the best interests of the
company to run it. If the boss disagrees, either accept his decision or
come up with better arguments.

> I would like to be able to say that this does
> something for us as well.

The demonstration of ridiculous encryption restrictions if of value
to many, corps and their shareholders included.

>  Non-Computer people sometimes do not care about
> encryption,

Show them why they should care. Demonstrate what can happen when
things that were thought to be confidential are revealed. Ask them
what they would be willing to do if the gov. decided that you could
only have a certain kind of lock on your door, a cheap, flimsy lock
at that. Show them that this encryption restriction nonsense and the
arguments behind it are comparable to the gov saying that deadbolt
locks should be outlawed for everyone because they make it difficult
for the police to knock down the doors of criminals. What would the
reaction be if the gov decided to outlaw window shades, drapes, cur-
tains, blinds, etc. just because they made it difficult for law en-
forcement agencies to spy on suspected outlaws?

> and I thought that would help.. I just wanted to know what
> everyone else thought, and I think I now know that no one thinks it was a
> good idea..   If I have offended someone, then I apologise...

No offense taken, none meant. Just bash us back. If you, your ideas, and
arguments can knock us about, we'll accept them as viable.
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list