Zero-Knowledge Ceases Linux Support 296
My brief experience with Freedom's software - I attempted to run their first version, on Windows. It didn't work on my machine, and totally killed networking when I uninstalled it.
Fine, I said. I'll wait, because the concept here is great, and obviously what they're doing is pretty technically challenging.
So when version 2 came out I tried again, this time on my Debian GNU/Linux system. (I had defenestrated myself in the meantime.) They only offered support and downloads for Red Hat systems. However, if I compiled from source, including a "kernel shim" and some modules and a half-dozen other knick-knacks inserted into the system at various places, it should theoretically work, they said. (Zero Knowledge described the process as "non-trivial", hah-hah.) I tried. I think I almost got it working. I asked for help. Couldn't get any. I gave up.
Oh, and while I'm at it, they never made it easy for broadband users to use their system either - it was (I'm not entirely sure this is still true, so I'm hedging a bit) geared entirely toward dial-up users. Hmmm, they have a product which is attractive to technically-inclined people, and they're limiting it to inferior operating systems and slow internet connections. What is wrong with this picture?
So, that's my story of attempting to use Freedom. The Zero Knowledge people badgered Slashdot for a while, asking if we would do a review of their software. See above for why we never did. Frankly, I'm not at all surprised that the population of Red Hat Linux users is much smaller than the number of Windows users using their service. Linux users probably would have been a bigger chunk if they had ever reached out to people not using Red Hat. I suppose it's a pretty good thing that I didn't end up actually using their system, because they would be cutting me off with this decision - I'm obviously not going to "upgrade" to Windows.
Cryptobox has been in the news recently. They're another project trying to do roughly what Zero Knowledge is trying. Secure, anonymous communications over the internet is obviously a nice target, but just as obviously a very hard one to hit. I'm still waiting. I'm willing to pay. Here's my optimum criteria:
- Easy installation packages for both client and server (apt-get install foo)
- Must not fsck up the the machine upon installation or removal
- Both client and server source available
- Reasonably low service fee, if there's a fee (ideally, the server cloud would be provided by volunteers, I'd be happy to be one)
- Best possible anonymity and security
These are in rough order of priority. A system which offers a significant improvement in anonymity but perhaps has various attacks which could be made against it, BUT is easy to install and meets all the other criteria, is far far better than a system which is theoretically invulnerable but impossible to install, or worse, not deployed at all. Everyone building these types of systems keeps attempting to get it perfect on the first try, and as a result, there is nothing.
More ZK trivia (Score:3)
It's called a proof because it involves proving you know something. A Zero Knowledge proof means you prove you have certain knowledge without divulging any information about what it is you know (Zero knowledge is what you're giving out).
A good example of this is password verification. To verify a password you only need to provide a hashed value of the password and it can be compared to the correct hash. Thus you can prove to someone you know the password (you could not have generated the hash otherwise) without giving any information (an ideal hash function cannot be reversed to provide the original pw).
The example you gave about the guys in the bar is not really a ZK proof, but it is associated with them because it is a cryptographic problem that uses similar protocols for a solution.
As an aside, true ZK proofs are not known to be possible. Normally they achieve 'proof' with sufficiently high probability, but never absolute. It's sort of like asking yes or no questions: you have a 50% probability of guessing the right answer. But repeating the protocol, say, 10 times, will provide (1/2)^10 chance of guessing all correctly (or 1 in 1024). At that point you can be pretty sure the person really knows. This is, of course, somewhat simplified. Pick your favourite Crypto book for a better explanation (I think the Vanstone, Menezes & Oorschot book, The Handbook of Applied Cryptography, has some good stuff on this).
Re:why Linux isn't MacOS (Score:2)
While the code they've written is no doubt super groovy (and, indeed it is - i've paid for their top level of service), what they're actually selling is the service. They have a network servers scattered around the globe shifting, I suspect, not insignificant amounts of traffic around. Someone has to pay for that...
The previously free version of their software and service was worth having in itself. Their ad-blocking and password/form management stuff is super-neato. The privacy stuff (what you pay for) is even sweeter.
Now, if someone wants to tell me how to get Freedom on a Windoze box to work behind a twice masquaraded connection, i'll be a happy bunny (yes, I could, and should, ask their support people, but it's not that high a priority for me right now. Aren't I a good customer, paying for their service, and then not using it for a couple of months?)
...j
Re:I'll bite, Troll. (Score:2)
Or, to rephrase that, it's open source [zeroknowledge.com].
Freedom is open source (Score:2)
I, and a few others, have stated this elsewhere, but i'm going to make this real simple for those with a short attention span.
Go to their open source [zeroknowledge.com] page, grab the code for the client (dated April 30, 2001) and server (27 October, 2000), and hack away. Form your own Freedom-esque network. Go crazy.
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
2. You falsely assume that the only reason these companies can't make profit on their product is because Linux people don't pay. That's bull. The problem is that the market is so small that even if all those who use it pay, with zero piracy, that's still sometimes not enough money to keep the product afloat. Especially if the port was a monumental effort because Unix was never in the design plans at the start. (In general, companies that already produce some sort of Unix software to begin with (like Oracle) can roll out a Linux port with a lot less effort than someone who does not. Then even if the market is small, there's still profit to be made because the development effort was small. From the sound of things, this wasn't the case here.)
3. I will gladly pay for a product I *like*, but I'm not going to go out and buy every damn thing that comes out for Linux just to up the numbers. Some things I have paid for include: Civ:CTP from Lokisoft, Xess from (can't remember right now), Applixware, and of course the Linux distros themselves.
Re:This sucks (Score:2)
This is a fine example of "marginal product". It is something that may only survive under WinDOS due to the HUGE size of it's market. That market is large enough that there might be a few in it interested in this product.
This is infact the class of software that is most problematic for any Alternative OS. There's enough interest in things like Games or Spreadsheets on ANY platform to make them a viable concern.
This is where cross-platform development can be really beneficial. Only support one codebase but do QA against several. This aspect of Unix is why Linux currently has the commercial server applications it does.
The cost is minimal.
The "marginal product" vendors will likely have to switch to cross-platform development enviroments before ANY altOS is percieved as viable with respect to such a product.
Re:Perfectly reasonable (Score:3)
Did you know that Chilliware released their shiny happy little Apache configuration tool for Solaris as well? For them, it's probably just another "make" away.
Build it right from the beginning.
CryptoBox is no replacement for ZKS Freedom (Score:2)
See InfoAnarchy.org [infoanarchy.org] for a discussion of CryptoBox. It isn't clear what exactly it is trying to accomplish and the cryptography doesn't seem very thoroughly worked out.
Zero Knowledge has failed on engineering grounds (efficiency, compatibility, etc. etc.) and on grounds of marketing, business, user interface, etc., but their cryptography was always real strong cryptography from the beginning. They employed many of the best cryptographers and crypto hackers of the world (including Ian Goldberg, Stefan Brands, Adam Back, Adam Shostack...), and they tried to design a system that would strongly protect users even in the face of a very sophisticated, expensive attack such as could be launched by a government or by organized crime.
CryptoBox does not have the same cryptographic pedigree. On the other hand, there is a project still in the design stages called "Free Haven" that is staffed by experienced crypto hackers. (No, I'm not a part of that project, although I would consider joining it in the future...).
Regards,
Zooko
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
But the other guy is correct, as a whole Linux users are unwilling to spend money on software.
I don't believe this is an assertion that can be proved simply by counter example. You would have to show 51% of Linux users buying product from Loki, not just one person.
For the record, this was the same problem the Amiga world faced. The lack of market sales eventually drove stores and producers away from the OS.
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
But A lot of people I knew had games, software, etc. that was not purchased. Again there were a few who did, but overwhelmingly most did not.
The Amiga community lobbied the stores hard to get them to carry software. I recall Software Etc. being an example, they carried Amiga then dropped it, and then we lobbied them hard to carry it again.
But even after lobbying them, nobody bought product and it languished on the shelves.
Now on the C-64 there was a tremendous amount of piracy as well. Today with the PC the same is true. But the difference is/was that the userbase is so tremendously large that companies can still make enough money to survive without worrying too much about those problems.
When the userbase is drastically small, if you want to grow the support the piracy cannot be tolerated.
Now I don't know about this articles example. It could be that their product was just poor. If so, they die, that's part of the evolution of the business.
But how many Linux users have copies of Loki games they did not pay for? I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect that might be quite a high figure.
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Finally management relented and said yes.
Then reality set in.
Never heard of "Zero Knowledge" or their software (Score:2)
No big loss.
Re:The real problem is (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
--
Re:Don't get mad .... (Score:2)
Damn, where are those moderator points when I need them. I've got to admit, MY first thought was "Oh, well, if Zero Knowledge's stuff is something Free Software users (Gnu/Linux, BSD, etc.) want, somebody will start up a free implementation of the same sort of thing eventually."
Hey, it worked for OpenSSH, and SSH didn't even drop support, they just proprietized it...
---
Re:Don't waste your time... (Score:2)
Or, even better, DON'T pick one.
Pardon me if I rant a bit more:
Make your program GUI-independant. Write the guts as a command-line tool, and if you find you really need a flashy GUI, you can always wrap one around the core program.
There are already too many Linux apps hopelessly tied to a particular GUI, likely to break when the GUI undergoes the next major change (*cough* GTK).
I often find myself saying "Gee that looks like a great app... too bad I'd have to install all of KDE in order to use it!"
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
That's a bit different then what we're talking about. You spent that time to take something that worked and then make it work exactly the way you want it too. We're talking about purchasing something, then spending that hundred hours just getting the car to start.
Re:No forking, huh? (Score:2)
The difference between distributions is mostly in where they put stuff. All the software and libraries installed is the same. This is not fragmentation (at least no more then the fragmentation between versions of Windows).
do you really need their software though? (Score:2)
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
For me personally, it's all about control and the long-term point of view. Microsoft has a very arrogant attitude about what I can do on my computer, and Linux doesn't. Each subsequent Microsoft OS has gone further down the path of removing user control and substituting control by Microsoft; and now they're embarking down the path of allowing control by large media interests. I also have some reservations about Microsoft's business practices, so if I were to use Windows I would be implicitly supporting them which I don't want to do. I guess it's a "superior" platform if you're just another bump-on-the-log in front of a monitor, writing email to Mom and playing Tribes, but I prefer to really use my computer, and Linux lets me and in fact encourages me to do so.
The pain of dealing with Linux isn't enough to overcome the disadvantages (both current and expected to arise in the future) of using a Microsoft platform. And with each passing year, Linux gets easier to use, Windows becomes more restrictive, and Microsoft exerts more and more power over the software industry. I don't have a lot of faith that if I "upgrade" to Windows, Microsoft will look out for my best interests in the same way that the like-minded global community of free software hackers has done.
...well, you asked :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:The real problem is (Score:4)
Sorry - this is blatantly false.
Among its other services, ZK provides a "Freedom Internet Privacy Suite," which is essentially a large VPN. WHen you use their "Freedom Network," you're sending the data through a 128-bit encrypted network prior to hitting the internet at large. All the rest of the Internet can tell is that you're coming from Zero Knowledge.
In response to the offtopic/troll post (Score:2)
OpenBSD makes a great server and firewall for my DSL broadband connection. But as a workstation, it'd be a bit too limiting for what I tend to use it for (not that it's impossible, plenty of people do so).
MS Windows 2000 is a huge improvement over the other Microsoft operating systems, but too accomplish some of the things that I use the Linux box for, it seems sluggish and bloated in comparison at those tasks. And even when I've had to use it, I tend to use open source tools (Apache, Gimp, etc) that work just as well on the alternatives. So, for the most part, it gets used for those programs that simply don't have a suitable *nix compatible alternative (free or otherwise).
I could use FreeBSD, but don't for a small number of reasons. The first being that support for my nvidia TNT2 Ultra is much better under Linux than FreeBSD (it's not a great reason, but still a reason).
Add to that the fact that I'm simply more comfortable finding the information I need about running something under X than FreeBSD (and this is more to do with how individuals search, and less to do with the available resources).
Anyway, it boils down to the fact that Linux has nearly all of the advantages of the other alternative operating systems, while not suffering some of the disadvantages that would plague my individual hardware and tasks.
It's not a "superior OS", but it's "superior in exactly what this individual needs to do". The others maybe superior hammers, but right now I need a screwdriver. ... or something like that.
Re:Perfectly reasonable (Score:2)
Lots of people are reporting that their Linux version sucked. Mind explaining why that is?
There are a lot of companies I never hear of. I don't go around looking for stuff I don't need. At least they never spammed me.
I find CVS to be of excellent quality. But Bugzilla, I don't find that to be very good at all. I really haven't used the professional versions. Are they as portable?
Re:Perfectly reasonable (Score:3)
When you start with a programming staff that is clueless about making a product portable from the outset, and then try to retrofit it to a single distribution of Linux, instead of trying to make it portable to all of Unix during the Unix porting, or even during the original development, then I can fully understand why the product must have been crap (even for Windows).
By the way, their marketing must have sucked, too, because I never heard of them. I'm not opposed to buying software for Linux, even if it is binary only. I have done so in the past. The only exception is I won't load a binary only module into my kernel. But these guys simply missed the boat, in both development and marketing, it seems.
This is often the problem with products which start out for Windows and later get retrofitted to Linux. The original developer(s) only know Windows and probably never wrote portable code in their lives. And then when they think Linux might be something to market for, they make the second mistake of choosing a particular distribution, and again screw up the whole idea of portable software, making something that doesn't work on other distributions, or other Unix(-like) systems which lots of people do use.
Of course, there is also one issue to consider. Competition in the open source free software community is tough. The price can't be beat, the quality of a lot of it is superior to anything you can get commercially (usually because it's not released until it's really ready, after lots of smart people beta test it), and the support comes from people who in the community who are real programmers and actually use it, instead of someone who couldn't get a job doing programming.
So I say "bye bye" to FREEDOM Internet Privacy Suite. Obviously I didn't need ya, and you've finally realized that yourselves.
why Linux isn't MacOS (Score:3)
None of this is true for the Linux community!
Rather than spending our time and effort whining to one or another closed-minded, short-sighted, software vendor "that there are also preferences for other operating systems," we should be working to either make the products from those vendors irrelevant (as this product already seems to be, for the most part) or to duplicate the functionality in an open or free product.
In the few cases where some piece of software can't be duplicated, and where you really like or need the product, go out and plunk down some cash: you'll have slightly more influence with most companies as a paying client than as joe-random-whiner who is just has an axe to grind, and, by increasing the income stream for the Linux version, you'll make it more likely that the company will see the Linux market as profitable.
Rememeber, we don't need their products, they need our business. If they don't want to let us play ball in their little yard, we can go play in the public park, without them. By the time these bozo's wake up and realize which way the wind is blowing, it will be too late.
Have you left your god fearing bunker lately? (Score:2)
Linux is NOT inherently honest, linux does not have strong beliefs in the teachings of Christ. Linux is ANARCHY. Linux isn't the beliefs on one idea or one concept.
You my friend, are misleed. Put the fear of life back in, take out the fear of god and then you will see reason.
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
I saw a GUI ping program for Windows 95, it was 1.2MB and didn't do anything other than repeatedly ping an IP. But it was shareware, the author wanted $10.
Now, in an OS with a lack of real utils you can get away with charging for ping, grep, etc.
In unix, that's standard.
Linux users buy a lot of games (at least, compared to how many other things they buy) and I know a lot of people who bough WP8. Games like Q3-Arena, SoF, etc, and huge apps like WP8 are things for which freeware clones are rare.
If companies want to sell software, maybe they should write something that can't be cloned in six months by a bunch of geeks in their parents' basements.
There's a whole different spin on it if you look at it from that angle. People with proprietary OSes are like people with proprietary hardware... stuck buying overpriced crud from a few large companies. There's a reason DDR SDRAM is catching on and RDRAM isn't, one's an open commodity which you can buy from anyone cheaply, the other is hideously overpriced and comes from select companies only.
Now, RAMBUS could whine about how PC users are unwilling to pay for RAM, but the truth would be that PC users are unwilling to pay more for crap.
The real reason most privacy and encryption systems don't sell is that GPG is free, a few tweaks on IP Chains and you've got a box dropping all incoming packets from IPs it doesn't know, etc. Who needs BlackIce or ZoneAlarm?
When developers develop useful applications which can't be hacked together in a few minutes, they might sell them.
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
Re:"I would gladly pay for... (Score:2)
As much as the AppleWorks dev group iritates me for leaving me without a decent office suite for OS-X, I feel only pity for them. Remember, these poor coders f*cked up Steve Job's big rollout during a time when his stock options are down. That can't be healthy.
(For the non-Mac folk, Apple writes AppleWorks, their office suite. It doesn't have the feature list of Microsoft Office, but does most everything many people need and is quite simple. Unfortunately the dev group dropped the ball on OS-X. The software was late and then only barely works. It is prone to random and non-random instant death. Stupid things that should never have gotten out the door. e.g. in a spreadsheet when you select the `number format' menu item BAAAAAM, your process is dead. How could that get by testing?)
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
I encourage the rest of you to give in to the American consumerist way. Drown your sorrow at this linux product folding with credit card receipts from companies that still support linux.
Or, more succinctly, put your money where your mouth is.
--
Re:Minimum Support (Score:2)
1. Most people commenting think this software is a ZoneAlarm clone. They don't understand the anonymity aspect.
2. This is something we will have to be used to when there are so few Linux users compared to Windows, and such an overwhelming number of the Linux users seem to think it's taboo to pay for anything. I've seen this in discussion threads for many different software packages. "Why should I pay for {softwareX}, when {softwareY & Z} will do the same thing for free. Then when someone wants to save the software they ask for a petition or emails sent in to save it. 80% of the people writing in haven't bought any software in years.
It's just like when you write to your senator and he throws away your letter when he sees that you are not on his list of registered voters. If you don't vote, your voice doesn't count. If you don't buy software, you give up your voice on the direction of the software industry. Imagine Zero Knowledge getting 1500 emails tomorrow, only 3 of which come from paying customers. Make any sense?
Re:Perfectly reasonable (Score:2)
Is it the networking? Well, the proliferation of Sockets was supposed to make that less problematic.
The it probably has some really low level network access, like driver level stuff
In order to work seamlessly, your VPN would have to be kernel level, living in or below your TCP IP stack so that other applications automatically get VPN communications when they do normal network access calls.
You should note that this is not a trivial and easily a major part of ZKs development time.
One can steer away from uncessary platform dependence. It just takes a little foresight.
Not when you're writing code that runs in kernel space.
Re:Don't waste your time... (Score:2)
your signature is the biggest lie ever told on
Post something about how great IE is or hos nice the kind folks at MS are and you'll hit 50 karma in no time. Try defending linux against astro turfers like yourself and you'll get beat down in a hurry.
Re:Don't waste your time... (Score:2)
GUIs, Competition, and Bears... oh my! (Score:2)
The window manager, only part of a GUI environment for Linux, has little to do with it. Take a look at what KDE, GNOME, and other toolkits offer. There are common conventions amoung them. Often very simular conventions to Windows, as well as other OS' GUIs.
"Standardization" as a point of weakness in Linux is a red herring. There is already Linux commercial software that doesn't seem to have these issues with standards - StarOffice, Real Player, and Adobe Acrobat Reader as examples. Furthermore, when a company decides it wants to go down the path of "support", they tend to pick a distribution. RedHat seems to be the most popular. Does that mean my Mandrake, Suse, or Debian distro won't run the software? No - but the hack is mine to make and the company doesn't have to spin support cycles on my stuburness.
The only reason this would seem to have merrit is because IT business types often have a hard time understanding the political issues of Open Source (and/or Free) software. The fact that someone would develop competing Free/free software confuses them. That is - unless locking a market and eventual profit is the motive.Its not unheard of for competing products being developed - for a cost. The software industry is littered with companies that were, at one point, innovative in their field. They put out a product that broke new ground. And then the competition took notice and developed competing products. And either because of more savvy marketing, faster innovation, or cost cutting won, leaving the origional innovator an irrevelent part of industry history.
Sometimes that competition came from the very vendor of the same OS the ground-breaking software was developed, and marketed, towards.
That's usually referred to as "competition". One person has even been noted for calling it "innovation".
Re:what's in a name? (Score:2)
the OS bandwagon (Score:2)
Hell, as someone pointed out, you can accomplish most of what Zero Knowledge software accomplishes with free tools anyhow, so whats all the kerfuffle about? We live in a capitalist world
As for all the folks who think they are the cat's pajamas with all the 'zero knowledge' jokes
Re:More ZK trivia (Score:2)
If one of the guys is wearing a Rolex he obviously can afford to pick up the tab. (heheheh) You still don't know how much he makes... but you know he's not starving!
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:3)
They don't want your email, idiot. They want you to buy their stupid software. I never heard of Zero*, and from what it sounds like, Linux users think that their software is crap.
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
Of course there's a good reason for this. I'm testing the device drivers we write on the Linux box, while the Win2000 machine is running nice stable drivers.
Either system is only as stable as the drivers you have running on it. There's a lot of hardware, available with device drivers for Windows. If you consider the number of people using Windows, and the number of hardware vendors that don't thoroughly test their drivers, it's not surprising that you end up with a lot of people complaining loudly about the stability of Windows. Linux does seem to do a better job of seperating the different parts of the OS/distribution, so that one part crashing doesn't make the system unusable, such as when IE crashes on Windows. However, most of the people using windows aren't using a lot of different applications at once, so the difference between crashing the OS and crashing a particular appliction isn't that great for them.
My oppinion is use whatever works best for you. I'll write drivers for whatever OS marketing tells me we need to develop. Though a binary driver interface for Linux would really make my job a lot easier when it comes to supporting Linux. It really sucks when APIs change with ever point release.
Re:How the hell is this +5, Insightful??? (Score:2)
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
I have worked with a lot of different OS's. I can see that most of them have applications where they excel, and yes I know how to point out the strengths of the OS which best serves my purposes. You are justified in calling that spin. However, in my previous post I wasn't advocating either Windows or Linux as the perfect OS for every occasion. We typically support around 6 OSs with our drivers, and work hard to make our software as cross platform as possible. If you're telling me that advocating choice is spinning the facts, then I may as well accuse you of zealotry. Sorry you had a bad experience working at Microsoft. Sorry that the inherrant instabilities in some of Microsoft's design choices don't make it appropriate to you. Don't use their software. For some people it's still a good choice.
Linux doesn't already do these things (Score:3)
The Freedom Network provides this by allowing your system to cryptographically and transparently communicate with its network, having your requests "pop out" of their network at a random point to reach its destination.
This makes your use of the Internet untraceable, unless you identify yourself and allow session management facilities to take hold.
I too tried to get Freedom client to work on my Debian GNU/Linux system, to no avail. I had hoped that it would work someday.
Freedom is a service I would paid for, if it were to work on my platform (which now seems more doubtful than ever).
Free/OS software/users/support (Score:2)
Forgive me for trolling, but I somehow doubt that a guy who makes his living extolling the virtues of Napster, free software, and open source would pay for Linux software/services.
Maybe if Linux users like Michael HAD been paying for the product/services offered by Zero-Knowledge, they would have been making money off of it and not discontinued it!
This is the downside to free software and open source: Do not expect commercial support. Get used to surfing old newsgroup postings or scouring IRC, because if someone is not making money from the users, he will not have money to provide support with!!!
upgrade to windows?! (Score:3)
I tried to upgrade but I couldnt find a Windows.rpm anywhere. Pity, I really wanted an OS that's stable flexible powerful and free instead of this Linux crap....
Hmm... (Score:5)
Freedom is no longer available for free.
I need more coffee to fully comprehend that.
what's in a name? (Score:4)
So why not implement a big VPN? (Score:2)
Some management software that lets people look at the VPN as we know would be cool to have but not absolutely necessary. That'd allow people to contact node owners and request linkages into the network through them. This software could just be an SQL database somewhere and some web-based forms into it. Node owners would be responsible for updating link information for their nodes.
You could grab an unused class A for addressing, or a hunk of IPv6 address space. I'd be surprised if the network ever hit a million users so that should be plenty. I happen to know that 9.0.0.0 never routes to the internet, so you could easily grab that address space for your own nefarious purposes.
Linux implements everything you need to do this already, and it could easily be set up for free.
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
Windows has good office software, games, and stability.
Stability? Windows? My Linux (and other unix) boxes stay up for months at a time running just fine. I have to reboot my Windows box 2 or 3 times a week because it starts running slowly or locks up.
I'll give you office software and games. Hell, those two things are all I use my Windows box for, and mostly the latter. But I can't give you stability.
--TyRe:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
When there is a large number of non-technical Linux users on the home desktop (and I don't mean large number as in "I know a few non-techies that run linux". I mean dominante desktop market share), then we will see people buying software for linux. This will only happen after people can purchase machines loaded with linux from retail outlets. Even if we make linux installers easy to use, the majority of Windows users don't even install their operating system.
ZeroKnowledge drops linux. (Score:3)
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
Actually, I switched to Linux because I don't have time to fuck about windows and m$ applications. No time to wait for 5 minutes or so every time the machine needs a reboot, which is very often. No time to search the menu tree every time I need a perfectly trivial function performed. No time to look after an expert to tell me I need to turn off the "float over text" button in order to make pictures behave sensibly in a m$-word document. No time to go out and buy a "utility program" every time I need to perform some very basic system function. No time to click on every directory and write down the contents' size when I need to find why my disk has so little space available. No time to fuck around the binary registry files.
In contrast to all that, Linux and other Unices are a breeze to operate. You just have to invest a little bit beforehand, learning some basic skills, just like in driving a car, or dancing, or cooking, for instance.
No RAD tools for me, thanks! (Score:2)
I know, my company has contracted some consultants to develop something using RAD tools (Centura and Delphi). It's all OK, until you need just the smallest change that deviates from what the RAD tools were meant to do. Then, those $50k or more are gone down the drain. In our experience, if it costs $50k to do 99% of the job using RAD, it will cost $500k or more to do the last 1%.
Minimum Support (Score:2)
On the more paranoid note, could it be possible for them to have received a 'consulting fee' to only support WIN based products?
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
Easy to see why (Score:2)
This sounds like it's been planned. First, they look like a great company when their product has Linux support. The catch is that it doesn't work (if what's said here is true), and then they blame it on the users (who can't "support" a product that doesn't work). That way, they don't have to do any work on the Linux version after all.
Marketing strategy?
Re:Hmm... (Score:5)
The price of Freedom is $39.95.
--
Windows not only supported platform (Score:2)
They have Mac support in the works too. At least, I assume so, because a few months back they were posting on comp.sys.mac.programmer.* and there was a job with them posted on the usual Mac job sites. Since it hasn't shown up lately, I presume they filled it.
take-aim-at-foot? (Score:2)
This story was posted "from the take-aim-at-foot,-fire dept." I'd like to know why.
This is a commercial company. They need to make more money than they spend on product development. How are they shooting themselves in the foot by cutting their losses?
Wash, Rinse, Repeat (Score:2)
"Freedom of speech has always been the abstract red-headed stepchild of the Constitution"
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:4)
I will pay for a given piece of software with money. I will pay for a given piece of software with time and effort. Very rarely will I do both.
This sucks (Score:2)
If anyones curious about what ZK means.. (Score:2)
..be sure to read Blum, De Santis, Micali, and Persiano's Non-Interactive Zero Knowledge [nec.com] research index.
Bad marketing is why they have no customers (Score:2)
From reading other replies, it's clear that at least half of posters have no idea what makes this software unique, and why you can't do what it does with freely available tools for Linux. I blame bad promotion on their part.
When you go to their website at www.zeroknowledge.com, you see a list of the "Standard Services," all of which can be provided by various free tools. It's the company's "Premium Services" that are worth paying for, and those are hidden a minimum of two clicks in. If you actually go to www.freedom.net, the Premium Services are mentioned right up front, but highlighted in gray instead of red and not clearly explained.
If you use the Premium Services, all of your Web, email, and IRC traffic is encrypted and bounced through their "Freedom Network." It's like a big VPN that entirely masks your location and identity from the outside Internet.
They ought to be advertising the hell out of a capability like that. The only other service that comes close is Anonymizer.com, and that runs all your traffic through a single relay point--meaning a single set of logs to be subpoenaed and parsed.
The only reason I can think of not to loudly promote such a service is to stay below the radar of various regulating bodies who may be concerned about the proliferation of untraceable Internet connections. Safe, but not a good way to convince people your product is worth buying.
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:5)
Although KDE has no download managers, it does a greater range of religious software than is available for another platform, including a handy bible study program [freshmeat.net] and a biblical quote generator [freshmeat.net]. Therefore, rather than being the OS of "1337 h4x0rs", Linux is the OS of all good, honest God-fearing people. Rather than being a "strange anomoly", Linux is an operating system with impeccable moral credentials and is the obvious choice for all good citizens. And, as we all know, the only people who need privacy and products such as Zero-Knowledge are those evil scoundrels who have something to hide. Therefore, the fact that the Linux community, with its inherent honesty and strong belief in the teachings of Christ, shunned Zero-Knowledge is no real surprise.
--
Re:Is this softwarre realy neccessary ? (Score:2)
What you're missing is that it's more than just personal information being protected, it's your IP.
If I recall correctly, the way it works is that you have a local software proxy (box #1) that encrypts all internet traffic and sends it to a ZK server (box #2) that doesn't know how to decrypt your traffic, but it knows who you are, then it sends your request to another ZK server (box #3) that doesn't know who you are, but knows how to decrypt your traffic and send it on to its intended recipient.
When the reply comes, box #3 encrypts it and sends it back to box #2 (who can't decrypt it, but knows where box #1 is) who sends it back to box #1 that decrypts it and passes it along to the program owning the socket.
I'm sure I've missed something here, but the idea is that nobody who knows what you're doing on the internet knows who you are, and nobody that knows who you are knows what you're doing. Hence, privacy.
I think I'm being punished by laziness here. I've been interested in their product since I discovered it at OLS last year. Never got around to buying it, and now I can't. Bummer. Canadian company and everything...
Re:"I gladly paid. (Score:2)
Re:"I gladly paid. (Score:3)
Could it be... (Score:2)
But seriously I don't think they will be missed too much.
No forking, huh? (Score:2)
Naw, there's no danger of Linux fracturing into incompatible forks. Anyone who raises any such issue is obviously a FUD-spewing Microsoft astroturfer telling outrageous lies.
Seriously, could some of the folks who so furiously denounce and rebut Craig Mundie explain how this fits into their world view? I mean, here you have an app with source available and a well-connected (and somewhat knowledgeable) VA Systems employee is unable to get it running on non-Red Hat.
As a LinuxPPC user, believe that I've been around this block a few times...
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Out of curiosity... (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, why did you then write a "review" [slashdot.org] of Myst III that consisted entirely of "I couldn't get it to install"?
Come to think of it, what were you trying to run it on, given that you have "defenestrated" yourself? Is there a Linux port that doesn't appear on UBI's site? Or is it just more of the magical ability of Slashdot editors to play Windows-only games while being full-time Linux users?
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Re:Why not upgrade to windows? (Score:2)
These are core to the reasons I only have one windows machine, a laptop, at home. The begining of this trend probably coincided with the disappearance of a development language, which you now have to shell out biggy bucks for.
So as they gear product to work best with their partners, what happens when these greate add-ins are hijacked by crackers (and you know they will, sure as the sun rises) You need protection. Beauty of Linux, or non-dominant "operating systems" is they are less attractive to the kind of malicious buggers, as they have big egos and would prefer their work to be performed on a big stage. Still, I'm not all that worried about Freedom not being supported for Linux. I can disable services until I get them fixed, not such an easy undertaking with Windows, as it seems to crack up pretty easily. Too many octopi in the pie.
IMHO Windows "OS" is an oxymoron, yes there's an OS in there, but the rest is the backend for all of their products, its more of a "Bunch of Stuff", but no one in M$ marketing would probably recommend putting that on the package while their execs continue to bad mouth Linux.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Re:"I gladly paid. (Score:2)
I'm coming to corrupt your children! Mua-hahahahaha...
Re:What do you expect . . . (Score:4)
So to those in the know, it's a pretty good name. When a user doesn't need to disclose their personal information, they don't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5)
Gonna see more of this.... (Score:2)
I can see a business model based around free software and high-priced consistency like Arsdigita [arsdigita.com] being a somewhat feasible business model, but generic products like office suites or firewall tools in a shrink wrap aren't going to get any market share on open platforms, because there are free alternatives.
The other problem is the mentality of people running GNULinux or *BSD just doesn't lend them to pay for stuff.
To contradict myself, I think that something like Oracle 8i is doing well on Linux, even if it is only being used for development or interim production while waiting for a Solaris or AIX box, I believe it will replace NT as the OS of choice to run Oracle on Intel. But that is the exception... and the reason for that is that anyone setting up an Oracle installation is a little passed the 'if-i-can't-click-it-it's-too-complicated-and-makI can't see the gaming market for the GNULinux desktop ever making anyone rich. Same goes for the office suites. Console gaming is console gaming, the market is totally different than desktop platform gaming. It really doesn't matter to the 12 year old kid what OS runs on his console, and he doesn't wanna be able to create Word documents on it.
Anyway... I think that as a Software Dude, that wants to make a living working on GNULinux or *BSD, the only companies that are going to survive are one's that:
- have a good chunk of open-source code that is better than other products out there
- have a high enough profile to use the existing installations of their open-source software as marketting
- have enough cash flow to completely write off the people that will just download their software that they paid employees to write, and never give them a cent
- generate that cash flow through customization and consulting
- hire smart enough people and train them on the product so that they get the consulting work implementing their product, because regardless of the price they charge the customer gets their money's worth
- have clients that believe enough in open-source that will be willing to pay a consultant to customize an application and release those changes as open-source
Which is prettymuch what Arsdigita [arsdigita.com] does. I wish the company I work for did the same. We already give out all source to our clients with every project, the trick is convincing the brass that giving it out to the general population would increase our sales enough to compensate for the people that would just take it and use it.Whatcha doooo with those rollin' papers?
Make doooooobieees?
They've done this in other ways too (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Re:Wrong! (Score:2)
Sorry chap, but i said "platform." And the scope of the Linux platform has increased beyond a kernel and basic set of file i/o services to include a series of advanced tools for serving files, web pages, a number of very nice compilers and GUIs and IDEs and mp3 players and version control services and word processing packages and graphics manipulation tools and web browsers and DVD software and hacking tools. All free. If you have a commercial package installed, you're probably using one that doubles some other functionality for which you didn't have to pay. And this is my point: Linux is about making as much free and part of the OS as possible. This is not an environment in which you make a mint preserving your "Freedom and security software"...it's an environment in which you can't possibly make money. It's like trying to sell Ferraris at a flea market.
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
And this is what MS is talking about when they consider open source a threat...open source programmers are doing the same work as MS' programmers and doing it for free. Ain't no company, no matter how big it is, that can compete with freedom (though Apple comes close with it's darling OS-X).
Re:"I would gladly pay for... (Score:2)
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
All in all, I'll say I've put about a hundred hours into making the car work the way I like it. My freelance rate is $40.hr. Does Volkswagen of America owe me $4000?
Here's a picture: http://images.dasmegabyte.org/dasmb31337.jpg [dasmegabyte.org]. It rocks.
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
By the way, that was a thesis statement, not just a generalization, which is why you can argue an opposing viewpoint and neither of us is necesarily wrong. Generalizations aren't inherently bad, because people understand they aren't meant to be true for everyone. If they were true for everyone, they wouldn't be genralizations, they would be facts. And the facts are in support of the generalization in this case -- companies that sell products for GNU-Linux operating systems that have "free" parrellels experience fewer units sold per capita that companies that sell similar products on the Windows side (look at the sales of any image viewer on PC...they're often quite profitable, despite the fact that freeware viewers such as IrfanView are as good if not better). In fact, I'd argue that the paradigms for software between the two platforms are almost completely opposite: PC users assume that free software can't be as good as for-pay software, and Linux users often assume the opposite (this is a thesis, too). This is one of the problems Windows oriented companies have when moving people to Linux...free software sounds like a shitty idea to somebody who paid $400 for a piece of software to write letters to grandma and be interrupted by an animated office supply.
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
Re:"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:2)
Beleive me, I love the ideas of free software, and in fact have devoted some considerable time to porting Tomcat to OS-X. But if you were to breakdown the number of users of Linux who were in your demographic vs the ones who just wanted a great OS with everything available for free (or extremely cheap, I had a friend who bought a linux book for $5 that came with a CD with Red Hat 7.something on it rather than the $45 Red Hat 7.something package. Guess how much of the proceeds of that book went to Red Hat?), you'd no doubt discover the majority are in the latter area...maybe they paid for quake 3 or CnC, but they sure as heckfire didn't pay for the OS, the consecutive kernels, &tc.
"I would gladly pay for sevice..." (Score:5)
Then goddamn it, why didn't you? Because the software was beta? Because it required a little hacking? This never would have stopped you if it was GNU licensed software with a Makefile or an rpm and available on every street corner distro ftp.
I'm an OS-X user, and I have to fight for nearly every piece of software I use -- fight x86 only binaries, Linux makefiles that are unfriendly to BSD at times and unfriendly to the G4 at others, and I have to fight against companies who think that, since Classic will run their software with 75% functionality and very slowly, they don't need to devote time to a rebuild. And though I complain, I never really let it bother me -- in the Mac world, I'm still in a very elite minority. I don't scream that I would pay for a version of AppleWorks, or a good build of instant messenger. I'm used to Apple getting the shaft from every company out there whose decision makers don't realise that though the market share is small, Apple users buy software like nobody's business. That's right, buy -- not compile or extend or pay for service. And yet, we get shafted by everybody...IBM (and they make our bloody processor, man), Corel, Microsoft, and even Adobe sometimes. It's a way of life for the mac user...you feel everything about your platform is superior, and yet nobody in the computer world will share your joy.
I guess what I'm saying is, if your platform prides itself on the freedom (as in beer) and hackability of most of its applications, you can't complain when a company decides that maybe this platform isn't the right space for them to devote their limited resources on a product which should be unhackable by design. It's more work with very low return, and ain't a CFO alive who will fight for that philosophy -- even if it does mean a free (as in love) society.
Re:Wrong! (Score:5)
Either way, i apologize for being so general as to use the term "Linux users never pay for anything"...but I was trying to be a bit reactive to what is essentially a complaint beyond the scope of Linux development. The OS is made free, and users -- at least, the class of users most vocal in the realm of Slashdot -- often complain when any development for their OS is closed, made available for fee only or stops production entirely. This is, you have to admit, a little silly under the paradigm that programmers should release everything free for modification and manipulation; if an app is closed, it was never GNU-Linux to begin with (the old Straight Edge philosophy that, if you aren't now, you never were). Freedom is a perfect example of a software company not understanding what Linux is -- a tremulous entity with no reliable reference installation and no absolute commonality of libraries. A windows company tried to bring their software, designed by programmers used to unhacked, straightforward platforms (so straightforward they apparently didn't account for advanced settings, advanced connections or advanced users), to a platform that is neither stragihtforward nor unhacked. And they gave up on it -- just like so many others have given up on the idea that Linux is a viable commercial platform, because it is so difficult to be sure what goes into it. Part of this is due to the lack of common libraries and APIs, something Linux users are proud of, and to a certain extent should be. Part of it is also that Linux users are too well informed to pay for a product that's already been built, for free, and requiring only a moderate amount of monkey wrenching before it works better than a commercial product with set abilities, set preferences and set failings.
If you buy commercial distros and don't hack them, if you rely on RedHat out of the box and never use Make or rpm or vi, you're a different type of user entirely (and, consequently, one who has no right to 'dis the windows crowd because you're essentially no different...same mindset, different OS).
Perfectly reasonable (Score:5)
Suppose you came up with a novel product/service for Linux. It turns out to be so good that Linux users are actually buying it. It runs on most distros. You're making making good money and a name for yourself in the community. People like you.
Now, you decide that you're going to branch off and do a Windows port. Hey, its a big market, right? So you hire on some Windows programmers and start up a Windows version...
What would you do? Simple - ditch the Windows product, and tell your existing Windows customers that if they want to keep using your product/service, you recommend they switch to Linux.
ZeroKnowledge is simply focusing on profits, and they'd be remiss as a company if they didn't. There is no conspiracy. They simply had the intelligence to realize that, "Hey - our Linux product sucks and we're losing money on it," and act accordingly.