Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.lang.rust > #121 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-13 23:18 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-11-02 10:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 514 — 47 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.lang.rust
“The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 23:18 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" De ongekruisigde ds. <ongekruisigde-ds@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-14 06:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 18:30 +0800
Transpiling from Pascal to Rust (was: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us") ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-14 11:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "De ongekruisigde ds." <ongekruisigde-ds@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-14 11:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 19:59 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-14 07:35 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-14 11:57 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-14 23:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-14 16:11 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 16:36 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 07:47 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-15 00:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-14 20:25 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-15 04:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 22:50 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-15 07:26 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-15 21:14 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-15 14:21 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-15 21:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 16:29 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 13:07 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-10-14 14:04 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-14 19:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 05:55 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-14 22:11 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-14 20:42 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 21:43 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-15 11:22 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-10-15 10:40 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-18 09:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-18 10:34 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-19 06:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 15:44 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-19 20:09 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:10 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 18:08 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 17:10 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 18:57 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 05:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-20 18:46 +1300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 13:20 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:27 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-20 18:14 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 14:22 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-20 18:29 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:06 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:20 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:54 +0100
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2026-11-02 11:11 +0100
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:06 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:32 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-21 03:31 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-21 04:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> - 2026-10-21 10:41 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 14:53 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2026-10-21 15:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-21 16:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 11:05 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 20:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 14:22 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-22 04:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 07:37 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 12:17 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 09:21 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:40 -0400
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:58 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 19:04 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 19:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:00 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 23:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:27 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-21 03:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 05:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 20:09 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-20 23:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:49 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:15 +0100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-20 20:49 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 14:36 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-21 16:11 +1300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 05:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:48 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 09:39 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:51 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 15:50 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 16:41 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:48 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 14:48 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 17:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-20 17:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 20:50 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:06 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 07:47 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 11:06 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 23:10 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 12:29 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 17:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 14:12 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:51 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-22 12:19 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:15 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:16 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:06 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 10:32 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-23 14:09 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:47 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:38 +0000
Re: �The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> - 2026-10-25 08:11 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-25 09:30 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:37 -0700
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:42 -0700
Re: ?The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> - 2026-10-26 07:59 +0000
Re: ?The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-26 10:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:30 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:49 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:20 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:53 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-24 12:07 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com> - 2026-10-25 08:22 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:32 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-25 08:10 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 13:58 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-25 19:06 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 17:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 22:54 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:47 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-26 08:29 +1100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2026-10-25 20:10 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2026-10-25 01:03 +1100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:08 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-23 14:01 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 23:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 17:04 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 03:44 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:04 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:43 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-22 19:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 22:48 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-23 11:42 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 09:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:57 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-23 18:24 +0000
Whilst All The Computer Experts are Visiting r.a.sf.w. Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-24 16:12 +1300
Re: Whilst All The Computer Experts are Visiting r.a.sf.w. Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 15:22 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:40 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-23 18:50 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 16:56 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:27 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 15:36 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 19:20 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:57 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 18:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 20:26 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 18:48 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 19:01 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:50 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-22 16:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-22 16:25 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 22:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 11:28 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-23 10:21 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:49 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 07:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:06 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-23 11:56 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 17:15 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 16:22 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:03 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:58 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:06 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:45 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:21 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-24 14:25 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 14:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:55 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-24 07:26 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:57 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:19 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 10:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:03 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:59 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 09:47 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:04 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:19 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 12:49 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-30 11:21 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 22:09 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:16 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:08 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 22:05 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:16 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:21 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-24 16:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-24 12:17 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-24 21:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 01:11 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 00:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 08:42 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 13:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-25 15:59 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 16:29 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 17:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-26 09:50 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-26 16:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-26 15:32 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:31 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 13:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:41 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 17:06 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2026-10-25 10:19 -0700
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:03 -0400
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 12:21 -0600
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 19:26 +0100
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 12:29 -0600
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 19:59 +0100
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-26 09:43 +1300
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 19:54 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 16:13 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 16:17 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 16:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 17:14 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 22:04 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:06 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 21:47 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:09 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 23:07 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-29 22:26 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 00:54 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 02:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 10:59 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 11:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 15:23 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-30 16:07 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-10-30 20:37 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-30 22:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-31 04:14 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 05:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-31 09:47 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-31 19:56 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-01 08:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 21:59 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-02 15:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 08:48 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-04 11:24 +0100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 16:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-04 23:53 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-06 15:38 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-06 16:39 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-02 23:46 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:02 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:03 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-03 21:51 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-03 13:10 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 08:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:00 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:59 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 08:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:22 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 16:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 10:56 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 19:53 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-11-04 14:17 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:24 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:40 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:06 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 21:09 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 21:11 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 07:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 19:22 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-31 09:45 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-31 09:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:11 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-01 08:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 18:03 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-02 15:44 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:34 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:14 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-01 08:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 18:04 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-02 15:45 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:33 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 22:56 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 17:22 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:59 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-26 14:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 16:16 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 21:45 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:12 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 22:40 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:44 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 08:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:05 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:06 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 00:06 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 22:39 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-29 15:13 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-29 22:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 02:10 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-30 11:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 11:05 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 06:17 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:54 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:05 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 10:45 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:44 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-27 09:06 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 10:22 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-27 10:40 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-27 15:03 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:34 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-25 15:56 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:20 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 22:24 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:01 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:03 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:12 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:22 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 10:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 13:10 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-27 08:43 +1300
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 08:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 08:39 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:20 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 09:51 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 22:44 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 15:41 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 03:21 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 22:31 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 06:27 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:48 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:56 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:30 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:57 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 11:34 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 10:11 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:55 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-24 12:38 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:55 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:46 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 16:58 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:00 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 03:39 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:51 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 05:56 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:36 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-23 21:00 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 05:14 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:49 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2026-10-25 16:31 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-25 20:07 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:36 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:02 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:14 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:22 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 09:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 18:15 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:10 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 09:20 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 03:52 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:38 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-20 12:11 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:29 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 07:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 07:55 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 08:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 07:41 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:40 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:23 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:53 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-22 19:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-21 13:27 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 09:14 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 02:00 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-22 02:17 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 03:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-22 04:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 04:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-22 04:56 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 14:34 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-22 07:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 16:40 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-22 11:18 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 03:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 04:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-23 05:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-23 19:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 05:19 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 06:29 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-22 07:26 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 03:19 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 22:29 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 06:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 11:45 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:57 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:43 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:50 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-24 12:43 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:29 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:19 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:56 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:01 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 03:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:26 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:27 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:57 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:09 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:28 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:23 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:46 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:51 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:29 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:01 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:00 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 16:16 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 00:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:11 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:39 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:26 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:45 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:47 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 11:00 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-27 18:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:48 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 22:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 21:35 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-28 01:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 22:18 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-27 19:28 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:16 -0700
Re: Structured Programming (was Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us”) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 23:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:21 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:40 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:29 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:33 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:45 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:53 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 15:42 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 16:06 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-26 22:29 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:58 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 15:46 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-22 03:46 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 04:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-22 06:39 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:54 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-20 12:10 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:20 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 21:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:26 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:30 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 20:21 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 17:03 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 16:26 -0600
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 19:01 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:09 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2026-10-14 08:52 -0400
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 06:15 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 14:26 -0700
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 14:07 -0500
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-15 19:18 +0000
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 15:02 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-15 11:05 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 14:13 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Jay Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.me> - 2026-10-15 20:35 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 00:27 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" John Smith <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-30 05:04 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" anthk <anthk@disroot.org> - 2026-10-31 18:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 10:30 +0100
Page 13 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 26 Next page →
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 16:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bl9qm$10h8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #427 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 13:34:58 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>> [snip] >> >>No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There is >>no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle >>about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. > >You didn't answer my questions. > >What do you think that a "thread" is? >What do you think that a "process" is? Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question with a question. Given I've been programming on unix for over 30 years and have written dozens of applications using multi process and multi threading and sometimes using both I'm quite well aware of the differences. Perhaps you arn't which is why you need me to tell you. Well go do your own research. In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think C++ can provide a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one? Take your time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 16:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bla34$fid$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #434 |
In article <11bl9qm$10h8f$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 13:34:58 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>> [snip] >>> >>>No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>>model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There is >>>no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle >>>about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >> >>You didn't answer my questions. >> >>What do you think that a "thread" is? >>What do you think that a "process" is? > >Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question with a question. In other words, you don't know. >Given I've been programming on unix for over 30 years and have written dozens >of applications using multi process and multi threading and sometimes using both >I'm quite well aware of the differences. Perhaps you arn't which is why you >need me to tell you. Well go do your own research. I'm quite sure you don't actually know. >In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think C++ can provide >a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one? You've got system(), right? What, precisely, do you want this "multi process" API to look like? >Take your time. If you want a serious answer, you've got to define your terms. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 16:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11blaui$2q6vd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #436 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 16:17:40 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article <11bl9qm$10h8f$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 13:34:58 -0000 (UTC) >>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: > >>>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>>>model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There is >>>>no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle >>>>about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >>> >>>You didn't answer my questions. >>> >>>What do you think that a "thread" is? >>>What do you think that a "process" is? >> >>Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question with a question. > >In other words, you don't know. Oh do piss off you bore, i'm not going to humour you while you try to unpaint yourself from a corner. You clearly have no idea why C++ implements one API but not the other but you wanted to try and sound clever anyway. Whoops, didn't turn out quite how you expected did it? >>In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think C++ can provide >>a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one? > >You've got system(), right? What, precisely, do you want this system?? ROTFL!! :) Oh dear, you really have no clue!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 17:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bldda$ba7$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #438 |
In article <11blaui$2q6vd$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 16:17:40 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>> [snip] >>>>You didn't answer my questions. >>>> >>>>What do you think that a "thread" is? >>>>What do you think that a "process" is? >>> >>>Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question >with a question. >> >>In other words, you don't know. > >Oh do piss off you bore, i'm not going to humour you while >you try to unpaint >yourself from a corner. You clearly have no idea why C++ >implements one API >but not the other but you wanted to try and sound clever >anyway. Whoops, didn't >turn out quite how you expected did it? Actually, it "turned out" juat about exactly as I expected it would. >>>In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think >C++ can provide >>>a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one? >> >>You've got system(), right? What, precisely, do you want this > >system?? ROTFL!! :) > >Oh dear, you really have no clue! You're snotty little attitude aside, I note that you can't even arriculate what, exactly, it is that you want. "Argument by insult" seems about par for the course here, but using that to hide your ignorance both doesn't work and makes you look incredbily insecure. Anyway, go ahead and keep flailing. Ta! - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 09:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bn7rn$2s5fj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #440 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 17:14:18 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article <11blaui$2q6vd$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>anyway. Whoops, didn't >>turn out quite how you expected did it? > >Actually, it "turned out" juat about exactly as I expected it >would. You have low expectations then. >>Oh dear, you really have no clue! > >You're snotty little attitude aside, I note that you can't even Anyone who equates system() with multiprocess programming doesn't know wtf they're talking about. Hows that for a snotty aside? >arriculate what, exactly, it is that you want. "Argument by >insult" seems about par for the course here, but using that to >hide your ignorance both doesn't work and makes you look >incredbily insecure. > >Anyway, go ahead and keep flailing. Ta! Go ahead and remain clueless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 22:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261026220433.00007818@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #477 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 17:14:18 -0000 (UTC) > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >In article <11blaui$2q6vd$1@dont-email.me>, > ><boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: > >>anyway. Whoops, didn't > >>turn out quite how you expected did it? > > > >Actually, it "turned out" juat about exactly as I expected it > >would. > > You have low expectations then. > > >>Oh dear, you really have no clue! > > > >You're snotty little attitude aside, I note that you can't even > > Anyone who equates system() with multiprocess programming doesn't > know wtf they're talking about. Hows that for a snotty aside? > > >arriculate what, exactly, it is that you want. "Argument by > >insult" seems about par for the course here, but using that to > >hide your ignorance both doesn't work and makes you look > >incredbily insecure. > > > >Anyway, go ahead and keep flailing. Ta! > > Go ahead and remain clueless. > system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard library?" Sometimes the answer is "because functionality is not available otherwise". But more often functonality is available in native OS API. Not just that, typically functionality of native APIs is better than one of standard language library. So, what is the other reason? It is portability at source level + "learn once use everywhere". Here system() fails. That is, the function is the same everywhere, but string argument is OS-dependent. So, system() may be achieves functionality, but does not really help portability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 09:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bsdv7$31fvn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #492 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> Go ahead and remain clueless. >> > > >system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. >The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. >The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself "Why >do we want xyz in standard library?" The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via signals (well, not easily), you can't set its process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the default shell to do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no choice or it really is a case of "go run this, I don't care what happens".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 21:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261028214746.00004151@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #542 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 09:06:47 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) > >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> Go ahead and remain clueless. > >> > > > > > >system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. > > Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. > > >The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. > >The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself > >"Why do we want xyz in standard library?" > > The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do with > it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't communicate with > it via pipes, you can't control it via signals (well, not easily), > you can't set its process group, tty and on and on. Actually, if you are creative enough you can do most of the above-mentioned things. Of course, what you can and what you can't do depends on capabilities of your default shell. And of course the way by which you achieve your goals via system() is VERY OS-dependent. > Oh, and it also > fires up the default shell to do the actual execution making it > hideously inefficient. It matters only when the work delegated to sub-process is both brief and done very often. > No serious unix dev uses system() unless thay > have absolutely no choice or it really is a case of "go run this, I > don't care what happens". > I can't argue about it. Supposedly, it depends on definition of "serious unix dev". In my book, serious dev is one who knows to peek correctly-sized tool to the job rather than one who always uses the most efficient tool. But that's is off topic. Pay attention that I agree with you that system() is not suitable as The Only standard way of support of multiple processes in C++ standard library, even if my reasons for that are different from yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 14:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11btoac$2prdo$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #542 |
On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) >> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> Go ahead and remain clueless. >>> >> >> >> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. > > Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. > >> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. >> The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself "Why >> do we want xyz in standard library?" > > The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do with it is > collect its exit code when its done. You can't communicate with it via > pipes, you can't control it via signals (well, not easily), you can't set its > process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the default shell to > do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No serious unix dev > uses system() unless thay have absolutely no choice or it really is a case of > "go run this, I don't care what happens". > > Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block until the process is done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 16:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bvron$34s2l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #551 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless. >>>> >>> >>> >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. >> >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. >> >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. >>> The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself "Why >>> do we want xyz in standard library?" >> >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do with it is >> collect its exit code when its done. You can't communicate with it via >> pipes, you can't control it via signals (well, not easily), you can't set its > >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the default shell >to >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No serious unix dev >> uses system() unless thay have absolutely no choice or it really is a case of > >> "go run this, I don't care what happens". >> >> > >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block until >the process is done. Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about that. Makes it even less useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 23:07 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261029230758.0000262c@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #556 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:20:39 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: > >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) > >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. > >> > >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. > >> > >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an > >>> efficiency. The problem with system() identified most easily if > >>> we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard library?" > >> > >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do > >> with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't > >> communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via signals > >> (well, not easily), you can't set its > > > >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the > >> default shell > >to > >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No > >> serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no > >> choice or it really is a case of > > > >> "go run this, I don't care what happens". > >> > >> > > > >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block > >until the process is done. > > Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about > that. Makes it even less useful. > Does it block when your command processor is bash and your command string is "my_subprocess &"? Does it block when your command processor is cmd.exe and your command string "start my_subprocess" or "start /b my_subprocess"? I almost certainly tried both in the past, but don't remember what happens in each case. My expectations are that in both cases caller blocked only briefly. It is not blocked until the finish my_subprocess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 22:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <AKPES.62186$BaS5.8822@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #560 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:20:39 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700 >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >> >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 >> >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) >> >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. >> >> >> >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. >> >> >> >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an >> >>> efficiency. The problem with system() identified most easily if >> >>> we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard library?" >> >> >> >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do >> >> with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't >> >> communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via signals >> >> (well, not easily), you can't set its >> > >> >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the >> >> default shell >> >to >> >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No >> >> serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no >> >> choice or it really is a case of >> > >> >> "go run this, I don't care what happens". >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block >> >until the process is done. >> >> Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about >> that. Makes it even less useful. >> > >Does it block when your command processor is bash and your command >string is "my_subprocess &"? You might need to do 'nohup my_subprocess &' if my_subprocess doesn't intercept SIGHUP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 00:54 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261030005434.00005458@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #563 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 22:26:40 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:20:39 -0000 (UTC) > >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700 > >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: > >> >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 > >> >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >> >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) > >> >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless. > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. > >> >> > >> >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. > >> >> > >> >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an > >> >>> efficiency. The problem with system() identified most easily if > >> >>> we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard library?" > >> >> > >> >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do > >> >> with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't > >> >> communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via signals > >> >> (well, not easily), you can't set its > >> > > >> >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the > >> >> default shell > >> >to > >> >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No > >> >> serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no > >> >> choice or it really is a case of > >> > > >> >> "go run this, I don't care what happens". > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block > >> >until the process is done. > >> > >> Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about > >> that. Makes it even less useful. > >> > > > >Does it block when your command processor is bash and your command > >string is "my_subprocess &"? > > You might need to do 'nohup my_subprocess &' if my_subprocess > doesn't intercept SIGHUP. You are likely right. Otherwise OS will kill my_subprocess at about the same time the caller of system() gets control back. I would not figure it out myself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 02:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c0v1j$her$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #564 |
In article <20261030005434.00005458@yahoo.com>,
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 22:26:40 GMT
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:20:39 -0000 (UTC)
>> >boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700
>> >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled:
>> >> >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200
>> >> >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled:
>> >> >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC)
>> >> >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>> >> >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an
>> >> >>> efficiency. The problem with system() identified most easily if
>> >> >>> we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard library?"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do
>> >> >> with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't
>> >> >> communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via signals
>> >> >> (well, not easily), you can't set its
>> >> >
>> >> >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the
>> >> >> default shell
>> >> >to
>> >> >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No
>> >> >> serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no
>> >> >> choice or it really is a case of
>> >> >
>> >> >> "go run this, I don't care what happens".
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block
>> >> >until the process is done.
>> >>
>> >> Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about
>> >> that. Makes it even less useful.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Does it block when your command processor is bash and your command
>> >string is "my_subprocess &"?
>>
>> You might need to do 'nohup my_subprocess &' if my_subprocess
>> doesn't intercept SIGHUP.
>
>
>You are likely right. Otherwise OS will kill my_subprocess at about the
>same time the caller of system() gets control back.
>I would not figure it out myself.
Only if you intended to close the TTY the programs were started
on. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be necessary:
```
term% cat a.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int
main(void)
{
struct tm *t;
time_t now = time(NULL);
printf("Starting child, time is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
sleep(5);
now = time(NULL);
printf("Bye bye, now is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
}
term% cat b.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int
main(void)
{
time_t now = time(NULL);
printf("Parent starting, time is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
system("./a &");
printf("./a started in background\n");
sleep(2);
now = time(NULL);
printf("Ahhh!!! time is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
return 0;
}
term% make a
cc -O2 -pipe -o a a.c
term% make b
cc -O2 -pipe -o b b.c
term% ./b
Parent starting, time is Fri Oct 30 02:21:06 2026
./a started in background
Starting child, time is Fri Oct 30 02:21:06 2026
Ahhh!!! time is Fri Oct 30 02:21:08 2026
term% Bye bye, now is Fri Oct 30 02:21:11 2026
```
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 10:59 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261030105900.000020ce@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #566 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 02:22:43 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> In article <20261030005434.00005458@yahoo.com>,
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 22:26:40 GMT
> >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> >
> >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:20:39 -0000 (UTC)
> >> >boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700
> >> >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled:
> >> >> >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200
> >> >> >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled:
> >> >> >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC)
> >> >> >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
> >> >> >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an
> >> >> >>> efficiency. The problem with system() identified most
> >> >> >>> easily if we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard
> >> >> >>> library?"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can
> >> >> >> do with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't
> >> >> >> communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via
> >> >> >> signals (well, not easily), you can't set its
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up
> >> >> >> the default shell
> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No
> >> >> >> serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no
> >> >> >> choice or it really is a case of
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "go run this, I don't care what happens".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller
> >> >> >block until the process is done.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about
> >> >> that. Makes it even less useful.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Does it block when your command processor is bash and your command
> >> >string is "my_subprocess &"?
> >>
> >> You might need to do 'nohup my_subprocess &' if my_subprocess
> >> doesn't intercept SIGHUP.
> >
> >
> >You are likely right. Otherwise OS will kill my_subprocess at about
> >the same time the caller of system() gets control back.
> >I would not figure it out myself.
>
> Only if you intended to close the TTY the programs were started
> on. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be necessary:
What happens when caller is GUI-style application?
>
> ```
> term% cat a.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <time.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> int
> main(void)
> {
> struct tm *t;
> time_t now = time(NULL);
> printf("Starting child, time is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
> sleep(5);
> now = time(NULL);
> printf("Bye bye, now is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
> }
> term% cat b.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <time.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> int
> main(void)
> {
> time_t now = time(NULL);
> printf("Parent starting, time is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
> system("./a &");
> printf("./a started in background\n");
> sleep(2);
> now = time(NULL);
> printf("Ahhh!!! time is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
> return 0;
> }
> term% make a
> cc -O2 -pipe -o a a.c
> term% make b
> cc -O2 -pipe -o b b.c
> term% ./b
> Parent starting, time is Fri Oct 30 02:21:06 2026
> ./a started in background
> Starting child, time is Fri Oct 30 02:21:06 2026
> Ahhh!!! time is Fri Oct 30 02:21:08 2026
> term% Bye bye, now is Fri Oct 30 02:21:11 2026
> ```
>
> - Dan C.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 11:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c1uqd$keq$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #568 |
In article <20261030105900.000020ce@yahoo.com>,
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 02:22:43 -0000 (UTC)
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
>
>> In article <20261030005434.00005458@yahoo.com>,
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 22:26:40 GMT
>> >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >> >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:20:39 -0000 (UTC)
>> >> >[snip]
>> >> >Does it block when your command processor is bash and your command
>> >> >string is "my_subprocess &"?
>> >>
>> >> You might need to do 'nohup my_subprocess &' if my_subprocess
>> >> doesn't intercept SIGHUP.
>> >
>> >
>> >You are likely right. Otherwise OS will kill my_subprocess at about
>> >the same time the caller of system() gets control back.
>> >I would not figure it out myself.
>>
>> Only if you intended to close the TTY the programs were started
>> on. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be necessary:
>
>What happens when caller is GUI-style application?
That depends on a number of factors, but basically, "it does the
same thing". Why would it be any different?
SIGHUP is the "hangup" signal, and _usually_ generated by the
kernel when a process loses its controlling terminal, though it
_can_ be sent from the command line (or a program) using the
`kill` command or one of its many imitators (basically, anything
that invokes `raise()` or the `kill()` system call).
The classic example of its use was a dial-in terminal line that
recognized modem status and reacted to a "carrier detect" signal
dropping; the kernel would clean up by SIGHUP'ing the process
group of anything associated with that terminal; one can see
this readily in early Unix kernel sources. This is a reason why
SIGHUP is one of the few signals a shell will actually honor.
Nowadays, this most often happens when an interactive session
associated with a pseudoterminal is closed; this could be window
in a terminal emulator program, or it could be a network login
via e.g. `ssh` that closes.
For programs that are not associated with a TTY at all, this
won't happen; this is why traditionally Unix daemons often
overloaded SIGHUP to force reloading a config file or similar:
since daemons are not generally associated with user ttys (or
often any TTY at all, including the console), the kernel will
never automatically send them a SIGHUP to terminate, so it's a
"safe" signal to pick for administrative control.
Crucially, using `system()` to invoke a program, even one that
is backgrounded, does not usually allocate a new terminal, nor
does it necessarily close one (though I suppose one could use it
to invoke something like, `kill -9 -1` to zap all of one's
processes; you could even background that if you wanted, but
that seems silly).
GUI programs are no different in this regard. Many of them may
not even be associated with a tty device at all, and may receive
their "session has ended" notification some other way.
So I go back to my original statement, "only if you intended to
close the TTY the programs were started on." IF you intend to
start some long-running program in the background and you won't
stay logged in after doing that, then sure, use `nohup`. But
if you don't care about that, then you don't need to bother.
The OS will not kill your program when the shell started by
`system` exits or anything; nor will the shell itself.
- Dan C.
>> ```
>> term% cat a.c
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <time.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>>
>> int
>> main(void)
>> {
>> time_t now = time(NULL);
>> printf("Starting child, time is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
>> sleep(5);
>> now = time(NULL);
>> printf("Bye bye, now is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
>> }
>> term% cat b.c
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <time.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>>
>> int
>> main(void)
>> {
>> time_t now = time(NULL);
>> printf("Parent starting, time is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
>> system("./a &");
>> printf("./a started in background\n");
>> sleep(2);
>> now = time(NULL);
>> printf("Ahhh!!! time is %s", asctime(gmtime(&now)));
>> return 0;
>> }
>> term% make a
>> cc -O2 -pipe -o a a.c
>> term% make b
>> cc -O2 -pipe -o b b.c
>> term% ./b
>> Parent starting, time is Fri Oct 30 02:21:06 2026
>> ./a started in background
>> Starting child, time is Fri Oct 30 02:21:06 2026
>> Ahhh!!! time is Fri Oct 30 02:21:08 2026
>> term% Bye bye, now is Fri Oct 30 02:21:11 2026
>> ```
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 15:23 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261030152357.0000203c@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #570 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 11:25:01 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: > The OS will not kill your program when the shell started by > `system` exits or anything; > Good to know. > nor will the shell itself. That part I guessed myself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 16:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c2fcl$19bk2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #570 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 11:25:01 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article <20261030105900.000020ce@yahoo.com>, >Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Only if you intended to close the TTY the programs were started >>> on. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be necessary: >> >>What happens when caller is GUI-style application? > >That depends on a number of factors, but basically, "it does the >same thing". Why would it be any different? Windows treats GUI apps entirely differently to console ones so a Windows dev might not appreciate that on unix there is no demarcation - a GUI app simply has a network connection to the X server and it can either sit in an event loop waiting for events - as per a windows main thread - or go do other things and periodically check the X event list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 20:37 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c2rla$hko3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #573 |
On 10/30/26 17:07, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 11:25:01 -0000 (UTC) > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >> In article <20261030105900.000020ce@yahoo.com>, >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Only if you intended to close the TTY the programs were started >>>> on. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be necessary: >>> >>> What happens when caller is GUI-style application? >> >> That depends on a number of factors, but basically, "it does the >> same thing". Why would it be any different? > > Windows treats GUI apps entirely differently to console ones so a Windows > dev might not appreciate that on unix there is no demarcation - a GUI app > simply has a network connection to the X server and it can either sit in > an event loop waiting for events - as per a windows main thread - or go do > other things and periodically check the X event list. > That's where threads are useful: The GUI is one thread, and the "other things" are in one or more other threads. There are altogether too many programs that hang the GUI while "other things" are going on. That should never happen! Jeroen Belleman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 22:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” |
| Message-ID | <11c362o$lfc1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #575 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 20:37:14 +0100, Jeroen Belleman wrote: > That's where threads are useful: The GUI is one thread, and the > "other things" are in one or more other threads. There are > altogether too many programs that hang the GUI while "other things" > are going on. That should never happen! Back in the 1990s, threading was seen as the answer to everything. Some even tried multithreaded GUIs. The trouble with threading is its “default-shared-everything” model, as opposed to separate processes, which are “default-shared-nothing”. It is all too easy to forget to synchronize access to shared objects, lock things properly etc, and end up with hard-to-diagnose bugs that tend to hide themselves when you try to go look for them (see “Heisenbug”). The trend nowadays is to revive the old coroutine concept, in a new guise called “stackless” coroutines. These give you support for async operations, but with transfers of control being made explicit at “await” points, rather than unpredictably as with full preemptive threading. This greatly reduces the opportunity for race conditions. Credit to Microsoft for pioneering this, but nowadays you see the idea popping up in JavaScript and Python and who knows where else. Threading is still definitely useful, mainly for performance, where the bottleneck is in CPU usage. But if a program is spending most of its time waiting for I/O over the network, or for a user to initiate a GUI action, or something external and relatively slow like that, then coroutines keep things simpler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 26 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.lang.rust
csiph-web