On 10/23/06, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:

Ulex Europae wrote:

...

I can't be bothered with learning

And that is why you fail. Do or do not.

I do not need a pilot's license to benefit from an airplane. I do not need a driver's license to benefit from an automobile. I do not need to learn C to benefit from Mixmaster software, your snipjob damaged the context of what I wrote. I do need Mixmaster software that works on the Win32 platform in that last case, and that is the major, non-troll point both you and Eugen glossed over.

Eugen put it rather succinctly.

No he didn't, he kneejerked. So did you. Anyone else? Why is there still no functional software for the Win32 platform?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:21:07PM -0400, Ulex Europae wrote:

I do need Mixmaster software that works on the Win32 platform in that last case, and that is the major, non-troll point both you and Eugen glossed over.

Why don't you look into new-generation onionizers, such as Tor and i2p? As you already noticed, Mixmaster is so stable it smells funny.

...

Eugen put it rather succinctly.

No he didn't, he kneejerked. So did you.

Actually, no, your post had all the earmarks of a classical troll.

Anyone else? Why is there still no functional software for the Win32 platform?

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ulex Europae" Subject: Re: Mixmaster?

Why is there still no functional software for the Win32 platform?

Start with the obvious: What purpose would it serve? You say you "need" one, why? Why do you need to run a server? The client for Mixmaster is an email client. As a result there is no need for a billion mixmaster servers out there, since the high bandwidth big mail systems run on UNIX, and those are the primary target for Mixmaster, I really don't see the purpose in supporting anything else. Joe

Here's a free VM generator. I have no idea if it can be configured to support Mixmaster: http://www.easyvmx.com/ As for the tone, it doesn't hurt to have a fire lit under one's butt sometimes. Although I agree with the 'Cypherpunks Write Code' paradigm, the other half of the coin is that if only Cypherpunks write (and use!) code then we might as well walk around with targets painted on our jackets. It wouldn't hurt to have a Win32 Mixmaster client, so long as no one doing anything important believes that it'd be all that secure. (On the other hand, f*ck 'em if they do...) -TD

From: "Roy M. Silvernail" To: cypherpunks@jfet.org Subject: Re: Mixmaster? Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:33:02 -0400

Ulex Europae wrote:

...

I do not need to learn C to benefit from Mixmaster software, your snipjob damaged the context of what I wrote.

If you want to run it on that Redmond stuff, then I guess you do, actually. (or run a VM, as suggested upthread).

...

I do need Mixmaster software that works on the Win32 platform in that last case, and that is the major, non-troll point both you and Eugen glossed over.

Didn't gloss over it. The motto 'round here is "Cypherpunks Write Code", and while it's honored more in the breach, it still stands.

Perhaps you are needy, but you picked precisely the wrong tone for your little chastisement. Getting in the collective face of the developers of the software you "need" isn't neighborly. You also forget that it's both free and Free. You want guaranteed development results? The usual process is RFQ->PO->check.

...

Anyone else? Why is there still no functional software for the Win32 platform?

Because \polite{Windows networking is not the best environment one could use}. The workarounds are a royal pain. And since Windows isn't the only choice anymore, a lot of us have moved on to where things aren't broken by design. (got raw sockets?)

Go the VM route. On Windows, it'll hurt the least. http://www.vmware.com/download/server/ http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/directory/ubuntu.html -- Roy M. Silvernail is roy@rant-central.com, and you're not "It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFT CRM114->procmail->/dev/null->bliss http://www.rant-central.com

_________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

On 11/26/06, J.A. Terranson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Ulex Europae wrote:

...

Anyone else? Why is there still no functional software for the Win32 platform?

Who cares?

Because for better or worse, Microsoft is still the dominant OS provider around and is likely to remain so for some time to come.

Why should people put effort into supporting win32?

Let me restate that in a way that even a curmudgeon like yourself should have no trouble digesting: "...If quality tools are not available, then individuals and businesses will not use them. As long as communication encryption is not widespread, crypto rights will be vulnerable to attack as a special interest issue vs public safety..." You can read the original here: http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@minder.net/msg21213.html Yours? Mine? Try ours. Our rights. I'll bet I can find even earlier admonitions to the same effect. --Ulex

-- Yours,

J.A. Terranson