Theo Verelst Diary Page

Sun Jan 27 2001, 4:36 AM

I've decided after good example to write some diary pages with toughts and events.

Oh, in case anybody fails to understand, I'd like to remind them that these pages are copyrighted, and that everything found here may not be redistributed in any other way then over this direct link without my prior consent. That includes family, christianity, and other cheats. The simple reason is that it may well be that some people have been ill informed because they've spread illegal 'copies' of my materials even with modifications. Apart from my moral judgement, that is illegal, and will be treated as such by me. Make as many references to these pages as you like, make hardcopies, but only of the whole page, including the html-references, and without changing a iota or tittel...

And if not? I won't hesitate to use legal means to correct wrong that may be done otherwise. And I am serious. I usually am. I'm not sure I could get 'attempt to grave emotional assault' out of it, but infrigement on copyright rules is serious enough. And Jesus called upon us to respect the authorities of state, so christians would of course never do such a thing. Lying, imagine that.

Previous Diary Entries | List of Diary Pages | Home Page

Sun Jan 27 2001, 4:36 AM

No ramblings, serious words today.


At least I've been working, which with my view on life, and given my calvinistically influenced background is fine enough. Not that I've been paid much, but I live, and seem to have regained some public possiblity to without reasonable doubt force that I'm capable of at least some I've claimed, simply because I do.

Satisfied? No, though regularly I'm at least fine enough (lets not get overly enthousiastic here) with what I can do, though I'm sure I should divide that better in the pro's and con's to do justice, this is just the current feeling sum without all to much deep thought.

What have I been up to?

Well, at least I got my machine set running most popular flavours of lets say serious operating systems versions, a windows 95 based workstation type, two 2 windows 2000 server machines, and two linux flavours, each on their own machine, Suse (a year old version or so, unfortunately) and a recent Mandrake one.

What's up with them, what's running and what's not?

Most 'normal' things run. Period. That is office applications, network connections, web browsers with java, neat enough screen layouts and backgrounds, drawing programs, music programs, office++, lets say. No prob on 2000, 95 or ux, except I need to reinstall an internet link (physically) to get to the linux sound driver lib for compaq's it seems. Easy stuff.

The os-es all install easy enough, though seriously, the 2000 stuff can get wieldy, and still, I wouldn't like to leave a layman alone with a decent enough desktop and even a recent linux version to get it up and running even the basics, through the graphics-only installers. Realy every now and then even expert knowledge seems indispensable, and some may want to put unix system managers level at bachelor level, the idea of developing and dealing with the whole of progamming is definately worth university students' attention, and a few times I found myself dealing with processes and parameters outside the ordinary 'give your dns ip address' range. Who knows that even though in /etc/services the lets say ftp service is not commented out and given the right port number, one would still often need to start the inetd deamon, when that is not done by the autoinstaller? Not many, I guess, but basic enough, of course. For reasanoble expert.

On the less sucessfull side of things, isdn seems to be hard with eico cards, thus far my linuxes proxied, browsed, and ftp-ed fine, but invariably I get some error with the isdn driver when it's supposed to go from red or yellow to green, connecting in final instance failed. I'll get another wire, to try again, and maybe download and compile in decent drivers. Or maybe just a fresh install is enough. And I might want to, considering the friendly mandrake update tool may have wiped clean all my users acounts with wonderfull self made stuff... Grr. Then again, it may well be that an even by root unchangeable ownership file problem of /home/theov is simply caused by mounting an nfs or samba file system over the original directories, leaving them unreachable... I'll need to find out on monday, I guess.

And maybe rewrite my days work on a C program to pluck high and low databytes from a .wav stream seperately, and a tcl script to show the frequency distributions of both of them, preferably from a noise sample I created as predicted with my FM walkman receiver recorded on a PC soundcard into a half minute long 16 bit wav file. Wonderfull graphs? I'll make them again, and present them here, the highbyte reflects that I adjusted the volume fine with one of tcl/tk based sound tools 'snack's meter program, and with a few thousand samples per vertical point makes a nice enough gaussian impression, with a few jerky lines on the left side of the top, but definately guassian, and even smooth for the rest, and the low byte as to be expected for a true 16 bit converter shows a more or less even distribution for frequencies of occurance of all values between 0 and 255 (FF hex), varying with a sort of regular pattern between 90 and 110 percent of average, and one exception, the value 255, which occurs about twice as often. Wonderfull AD electronics, isn't it (major grin).

Which goes to show the power of decent fundamental knowledge: it may well be the known philips AD/DA thing: the value of zero getting either assymetric behaviour or uneven interval width during conversion. Or the converters electronics simply such and refuse to work well on the rising or falling edge of going between positive and negative or negative values, or simply the current sources aren't balanced right enough. Considering all values occur, and do roughly appear just as often, the uneveness is probably simply the inaccuracy of certain bits of the AD converter, which is fine enuogh. Or maybe there are other reasons for these graphs and their little enough anomalities, this interesting world of electronics and digitisation is good for serious top level electronics data sheets of many pages, which contain just the necessary information.

Anyhow, the resulting megabyte or so of cheap and easy random numbers from the lower significant byte is absolutely random, and even white noise enough to be taken as the starting point for uncrackable extended encryption keys for any normal and probably any party at all, though I'd consider trying to regain some sensible data from text files by doing statistical analysis combined with letter and word analysis and noise source characterists when supplied with very long and obviously encoded text file encryptions. But that may give some information, and a real crack still wouldn't be possible, though maybe there are optimistic or post space age scientists who would want to model the noise sources in my walkman (its a sony, wanna know its type number, the time of recording, and the exact geographical position and orientation of the receiver ?).

Anyhow, the linuxes and 2000 machines are in their network, and can all exchange files fine enough, some over file sharing, some over ftp, the linuxes can exchange email, as it seems reasonably well even, in the seperate (local) domain, with attachments, which is fine as an office basis, though it seems pop3 isn't standard enough in their installation I probably can add that, too. And of course all have at least one or two web browsers and servers, yes yes, we have the ever powerfull tcl/tk web server (of various kinds, but the by now standard scriptics supplied one is fine), the obvious apache on linux, and the oh oh, what's up now again IIS windows thing, which maybe gave me my first virus on one machine, though it could be because of something else (and I found it and got rid of it, just to be sure).

And of course I tried running one of linuxes' web browsers on the FreeX X windows server running on a 2000 machine taking a page from the squid proxy on the other linux, containing content from the one 2000 machine's iis server supplying a shared file from the CD on the other. Uh? Just an experiment to route a web servers data around at every level from the html+ files through the web data through the UI output of the web browser over an X client/server link. Which worked fine, quick, even.

File sharing workes via 'samba' on the mandrake to the 2000 server over the local net, even decent enough, though the older suse got stuck with ftp based windows thus far, which works fine, but not so smooth, and the linuxes together do share over nfs, but need work. Rlogin is fine from anywhere to anywhere, though sometimes over telnet instead of rlogin, the cygnus environment and 2000 itself don't like rlogin, but telnet (I'm not sure secured, I'll look into ssh soon enough, some have kerberos I saw) is fine all over, and the free X 86 X server (using quite some downloaded components, but then again, its free, and works more than fine enough on various platforms I've tried) works fine with the linux X-es, it even can be controlled through the desktop management processes of for instance the suse machine doing icons, taskbar and menus, managing local FreeX and the mandrake linux machines' Xwindows on that same screen on a 2000 server. Which can even be approached over a terminal server, and run another FreeX window there, with similar possibilities in parallel on a 95 workstation, connected over another network. No probs.

Maybe it is on purpose, but one does need to know about stty, ftp idiosyncracies, and practically even about /etc/shadow through useradd, ps -e , kill -9, and definately export DISPLAY=... and even more than a few make and shellscript intricacies for certain (kernal) rebuilds, and possibly file system/stream parameters for sharing setup to get some things to run, which I'm sure is not common knowledge, and quite impossible for a novice user to easily master. Though most of it all is a lot easier than when I put redhat 6.1 or so also on compaq machines some years ago, a few things unfortunately do not completely add up to the simplicity one may want as contender for ease of use qualifications outside freak scene.

I still need to delve more into the 2000, and probably after that, though not necessarily the linux, routing facilities, in this case between a small 4 machine and medium sized distributed few hundred node intranet, and the eternal external internet. I can talk across those boundaries, I've made one 2000 server pass data between the two intranets, I can browse over links covering various locations, and I can set up any topolog of data exchange trough for instance tcl sockets driving various network interface one one machine, which works fine, but I'm not satisfied sitting down and adjusting layer 2 or 3 simple switching or decent routing from the various adjust windows. And I simply didn't more than put on in a very basic fashion the linux facils over the install interface. I know my stuff enough to get routing to work when I can get a reasonable handle on how the various implementation parties dealt with the various issues in the osi stack, because I know tcp/ip enough, which is mostly the basis for contemporary networking, except for some novell remains, the wonderfull world of microsoft pre dhcp address assignment, and authenciation mechanisms, and the world of domains, authentiation on them, and the way of dealing with certificates. Not that I didn't get the latter even to work enough to be practical, I'm just not very satisfied with the principles and the tracibleness of the implementation. What is all that with user name based authentiation at both network service and user level, root ('administrator') based domain maintenance, and the fake-ability and copyability of certificates, especially on intranets?

So I have my own domain running, and even my linux email deamons get it that they are part of it and accept the usual stuff, and let web browsers take shortcuts and full domain names fine enough, connect it up with an existing domain and to some extend exchange connections, but I'm not satisfied with theoretical and practical basis, though, seriously, the ideas are quite not beyond me. Seriously. existed long before, and I was fine using and knew a nice and variable IP address was behind that long before any of you had ever typed an url, for certain.

And I wrote in decent, quite error free, efficient, and profi C code a server which in an at least innovative enough fashion made processes link up through an unformatted, run time namespace, which proved itself in (workstation) practice, quite some years ago. So I'm not complaining, or lets say arguing out of mere lack of knowledge. I would like to see programmers fit the simple bill I as engineer learned officially shortly after I enrolled my first software course at univerity freshman, and intimately knew many years before: first one thinks, specifies, and writes down the course and detailed version of that specification with great exactness and care, and then one implements, and tests and reiterates and debugs until the specification is met. And of course for complicated problems the reachability of a working outcome for a certain desired specification depends on the skill of the programmer.

Simple. That's normal in any engineering job. And when one buys a decent machine, it sais in the manual what its specs are, what it is for and what shouldn't be attempted. Hello, this vacuum cleaner is going to make u very happy, it is rated at 600 Watts (not va), has 10 meters of rubber cords, and 5 supplied extensions. Thank you, that will be 200 dollars.

'No no, this car has driven from the factory to this dealer, but we didn't want to show that milage, show we've adjusted it back, but it is brand new'... 'The gearbox is of a new kind, it must be sloppy, that is for ease of use, and if you go to this very special gass station that engine noise will stop in the end' 'If you ask this magician to lay hands on it, the engine will suddenly allow you to make the heating work again, ' ' if you want, we'll make sure the brakes will actually work long enough, then again, most people don't drive enough to make it realy necessary to install the right types of brakes, just don't break that hard when you're doing 100, and you're fine, oh realy, you think that is special? Nowadays these arrangements are normal, didn't you know?'

No. And neither do official instances. They expect reasonable value for money, and even though those conveyor belts can probably cheaply produce just about anything, one expects a reasonable reliable and sensible product to change hands, and that the price is reasonable. And that safety measures are tested and specified and reliable enough. Normal stuff.

'Hello can I buy some asperine' 'Of course, but of course there will be some very special pills included, and you know how it is, you must eat them, too' 'Oh didn't you know you should have eaten asperine in this society or you'll be in major danger?' Huh? 100% peanuts may be including some cheap variations, biological may include some shady growing areas, but normally one expects to be able to trust product information, or the whole thing sucks.

And 'peanutbutter' by itself may be fine for tourist shopping, but its variation and purity matter in normal life, and 'special brew to make you feel better' is not enough on a label even to fight a serious bad cold. Things don't work that way.

'One operating system, please!' ...

But you're not educated and qualified enough to judge ! Gmph.

Seriously, I bet some would have me out of the way for being completely obsolete in my computer judgement skills, so they can take their pityfull antichrist logic and make their little miserable corner of this globe belief their actually god and that others can buy a bit of their eternal and all saving knowledge when they're feeling sucked up to enough.

And seriously this is not sucked from my thumb (dutchism, I guess) altogether, I've been near some who claimed to be quite something, while they realy quite objectively were not. I hear bureaucracy helps. I hear philosophy dealt with and dicarded the type of logic by and large long ago, and that in most branches of society, that is common knowledge.

The idea that software grows on trees and has sort of a life of its own as if it were some miserable demon is to most lets say incredible stupidity that seems to have more place then I like to imagine.

Software is a product, it can be written after the stricted scientifical rules, and even when written more losely will never exhibit much 'life of its own' unless some hidden things are at stake which definately would be quantatively and qualitatively knowable if one would demand so. There is no 'overwhelming complexity' which simply cannot be mastered. Software ain't no pandoras' box. Its a set of rules, a scheme, computations, list handling if you like, comparisons, ordering rules, or whatever, chess, for all I care, but it isn't alive or not to be captured, in fact the reverse, it is a construction more than most other things, and consciously and knowingly put together, or its chances of working are quite minimal.

So it will be programmed to exhibit some demonic rules which automatically give it itself in the whole of those spiritual things which 'are', and get eternal power? Huh? No. Though it may well be programmed with just about everything, but when I unplug my network cable, and remove all suspect programs, possible my a new 'clean' install of a trusted source, nothing 'demonic' is ever going to happen, and the best proof of supernatural life is probably looking for changes of variance of software rule based random generators during major attention events, as a proof maybe of Gods allmight to know and plan beforehand through incredible complexity. Though that is not a bullshitting remark (check the respectable princeton's section on lets say the paranormal in scientific sense), it is supposed to indicate that there is nothing much to learn 'pattern' wise from software, realy the number of deamons in this world and bottomless pit is probably proportional to the anount of nonsense that I sometimes smell in computer junkies with no serious background.

Unless it is simply about power, and then appearently I am to accept that people overtaken by the rich that never give them anything are going to be given by me what isn't givable and be justified in behaviour equating letting me at least acknowledging my subdual to some beastly or whory system they want to run. Well, I don't think so. I'm top stuff in this area, and not for sale. And probably not very corruptable, either. And I do challenge them, and don't fear them much, and probably never will, simply because the respective starting points. In something as complicated as computers, maffia type knowledge as means of blackmail probalby won't work much unless one wants it to. Which I don't. And when we don't all join, it will never work! Well, then it will not work with me around. And let me see so much effort to corrupt, that must be because I have something they want, why bother, otherwise?

Otherwise they'd be doing their thing, let the world know how wonderfull and great that is, and not expect me to cry out how great they are all the time. They wouldn't care. But they do. Oh boy, they do. It is almost heartbreaking what efforts some must do to render me aside from where it is all at, at times, amazing, what a proof from the contrary the secret groups and agenda's must be at stake. Unmistakable. And for what? A name in computers? The alledged position to 'rule' there? The means to blackmail the world into telephone exchanges with taps they can arrange and use at their disposal? Why? Let them go to hell. Computer are hard to design and chips hard enough to fabricate, and basically fun enough and interesting enough machines, and that's it. Want a part? Then work at something interesting, decent, or fun enough, and basically make contentwise clear you deserve some position or respect in the world around such machines, or you're a con of some kind, and then in the end who cares? I don't.

So this verelst doesn't give the illuminati the right to 'claim' computers like the catholics would try to demand sacrifices for its fabrication, sale, and use? No. Never. Fuck them. And their system. And damned be their logic, and into the natural oblivian it deserves their names. And so called christians into similar logic would better think again before trying me on the subject, or think they can get away with thinking about such things and expecting their alledged God to agree or leave them unjudged when they'd effectively steal faces and murder persons in the process, and live the life of the world and its wannabee master instead of live according to Jesus rules in the time of grace and mercy and not of greed and in persuit of some holy grail which is at best the thing He drunk from or something, so who cares. Jude probably doesn't, he's dead.

So what about me in all that? Well I'm good enough in the whole subject to claim to be pretty much top material, hard to beat even in the whole of things, though I'm sure there hundreds in several areas of expertise I wouldn't like to challenge, but then again, if that is all... Mysteries may be made I'll never master, of course. The saying goes: one fool can pose more questions than ten wise man can answer, which I agree with, in other words, one can make incredibly complicated mazes, but what's the point proofwise of finding ones' way out? Ever try to by heart sum all prime numbers unter 6 figures? And, was it odd or even? I mean, who cares, unless there is some point?

In the middle ages, the mostly church based nobles owned the land and pretty much everything worth while, and the lives of many were supposedly owned by their masters and rulers, for no good reason, and unfortunately the breaking of that damnation took a long time, and a lot of effort when it happened. It prooved possible, and luckily for centuries already in many countries relative freedom in such areas is thinkable and to some extend there, sometimes even quite acceptable.

The idea of clinging on to other 'production goods' by rich and powerfull ones has been challenged later, with at least the success that when I was 12 I could by parts made by quite expensive and uncommon production goods for little enough to afford on allowance. Progress? Probably, at least not retardation. Lets not allow stupid and damned middle ages thinking in the 1/3 of the economy area of computers, and safe it from the miserableness of putting little dwarfs in charge to keep some bureaucracy running, and make the better things only achievable through bribes and connections, let's be wiser than that and do the hard work to make software for instance similar to bread or other normal goods in life which one can buy safely enough with some normal money in ones' pockets.

Or implement Gods laws and make the best and gracious praise His wonderfullness in some small form alluded to by human beings for free for many, without distinction, without sacrifice execept the reasonable. Against all the miserable natural and spiritual superfluous and evil existance in this world. As progress and challence to innovate nice things instead of sucking proofs of mans natural gutless and cowardless corruptability. Great words? Maybe, but I do know what it can mean when computer circuits work according to plans, and what it means I can put work up on free pages viewable all over the world, and seriously if anyone wants to challenge to power of those things, I call them stupid.