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 11 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 26 Next page →
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 09:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bsdkr$31fn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #491 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:03:25 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >On 10/26/2026 3:01 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> Creating a brand new process is fine if >> you don't need any complicated shared state such as when kicking off >> something >> on the command line or creating a pipe (something else win32 is shit at) >> but >> thats about it. >> > >Shared state? Just use memory mapped files. You don't need pipes/sockets >etc. You need to know how to properly sync things. Oh really? So you receive an incoming connection to a socket via an accept() call. In unix you can fork() at that point so the connecting client has a server process all to itself with all the state instantly copied from the parent process. HOw do you mimic that in windows? Start the server process from scratch and pass it a ton of state via the command line or using some roll-your-own shared memory nonsense? Give me a break. I guess in windows it spawns a thread leading to the issue of a single thread crashing bringing down the entire application - something multiprocess completely avoids.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 09:47 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bt5e6$2i4av$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541 |
boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:03:25 -0700 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >> On 10/26/2026 3:01 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> Creating a brand new process is fine if >>> you don't need any complicated shared state such as when kicking off >>> something >>> on the command line or creating a pipe (something else win32 is shit >>> at) but >>> thats about it. >>> >> >> Shared state? Just use memory mapped files. You don't need >> pipes/sockets etc. You need to know how to properly sync things. > > Oh really? So you receive an incoming connection to a socket via an > accept() > call. In unix you can fork() at that point so the connecting client has a > server process all to itself with all the state instantly copied from the > parent process. HOw do you mimic that in windows? Start the server process > from scratch and pass it a ton of state via the command line or using some > roll-your-own shared memory nonsense? Give me a break. I guess in > windows it > spawns a thread leading to the issue of a single thread crashing > bringing down > the entire application - something multiprocess completely avoids. > Innocent like a lamb for me. Just make a call to malloc() and probe the GarbageCollector. You've got it all wrong, stupid. -- Sometimes I just feel like I need to get away A place where I can be by myself, all alone I kinda lay down in the back yard Watch the leaves fall down on my face
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 14:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bto04$2prdo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #541 |
On 10/28/2026 2:01 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:03:25 -0700 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >> On 10/26/2026 3:01 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> Creating a brand new process is fine if >>> you don't need any complicated shared state such as when kicking off >>> something >>> on the command line or creating a pipe (something else win32 is shit >>> at) but >>> thats about it. >>> >> >> Shared state? Just use memory mapped files. You don't need pipes/ >> sockets etc. You need to know how to properly sync things. > > Oh really? So you receive an incoming connection to a socket via an > accept() > call. In unix you can fork() at that point so the connecting client has a > server process all to itself with all the state instantly copied from the > parent process. HOw do you mimic that in windows? Start the server process > from scratch and pass it a ton of state via the command line or using some > roll-your-own shared memory nonsense? Give me a break. I guess in > windows it > spawns a thread leading to the issue of a single thread crashing > bringing down > the entire application - something multiprocess completely avoids. > On Windows? Get used to https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock2/nf-winsock2-wsaduplicatesocketa DuplicateHandle etc... You can have multiple multi threaded processes on windows. Even ones with multiple fibers running on the multiple threads per process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 16:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bvrll$16ur7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #548 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:04:02 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >On 10/28/2026 2:01 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:03:25 -0700 >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >>> On 10/26/2026 3:01 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>> Creating a brand new process is fine if >>>> you don't need any complicated shared state such as when kicking off >>>> something >>>> on the command line or creating a pipe (something else win32 is shit >>>> at) but >>>> thats about it. >>>> >>> >>> Shared state? Just use memory mapped files. You don't need pipes/ >>> sockets etc. You need to know how to properly sync things. >> >> Oh really? So you receive an incoming connection to a socket via an >> accept() >> call. In unix you can fork() at that point so the connecting client has a >> server process all to itself with all the state instantly copied from the >> parent process. HOw do you mimic that in windows? Start the server process >> from scratch and pass it a ton of state via the command line or using some >> roll-your-own shared memory nonsense? Give me a break. I guess in >> windows it >> spawns a thread leading to the issue of a single thread crashing >> bringing down >> the entire application - something multiprocess completely avoids. >> > >On Windows? Get used to > >https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock2/nf-winsock2-wsadup >licatesocketa > >DuplicateHandle Right, lets duplicate everything manually - so much easier than one system call. And thats just file descriptors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 12:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c0814$3lc1s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #555 |
On 10/29/2026 9:19 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:04:02 -0700 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >> On 10/28/2026 2:01 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:03:25 -0700 >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >>>> On 10/26/2026 3:01 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>>> Creating a brand new process is fine if >>>>> you don't need any complicated shared state such as when kicking >>>>> off something >>>>> on the command line or creating a pipe (something else win32 is >>>>> shit at) but >>>>> thats about it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Shared state? Just use memory mapped files. You don't need pipes/ >>>> sockets etc. You need to know how to properly sync things. >>> >>> Oh really? So you receive an incoming connection to a socket via an >>> accept() >>> call. In unix you can fork() at that point so the connecting client >>> has a >>> server process all to itself with all the state instantly copied from >>> the >>> parent process. HOw do you mimic that in windows? Start the server >>> process >>> from scratch and pass it a ton of state via the command line or using >>> some >>> roll-your-own shared memory nonsense? Give me a break. I guess in >>> windows it >>> spawns a thread leading to the issue of a single thread crashing >>> bringing down >>> the entire application - something multiprocess completely avoids. >>> >> >> On Windows? Get used to >> >> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock2/nf- >> winsock2-wsadup >> licatesocketa >> >> DuplicateHandle > > Right, lets duplicate everything manually - so much easier than one > system call. > And thats just file descriptors. > Do we actually need everything, or just a subset?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 11:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c1uiv$19181$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #558 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 12:49:55 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >On 10/29/2026 9:19 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> Right, lets duplicate everything manually - so much easier than one >> system call. >> And thats just file descriptors. >> > >Do we actually need everything, or just a subset? That will depend entirely on the application. There could be a boatload of startup config in memory plus all the enviroment variables.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 22:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261026220901.00005fbd@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #480 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 10:01:55 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 14:19:14 -0700 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: > >On 10/25/2026 1:34 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 13:57:02 -0400 (EDT) > >> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) gabbled: > >>> In article <11bif5s$2pam0$1@dont-email.me>, > >>> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > >>>> You can have co-operative threads. IBM CICS used to run lots of > >>>> threads (tasks) concurrently, and ran them well. > >>> > >>> When I learned C, there was no threading and there were only > >>> different processes, so you had to do a fork and then synchronize > >>> with the other process. This wasn't a dealbreaker and we did > >>> plenty of stuff that way, but having threads available was very > >>> nice and made for many operations becoming more convenient to > >>> write. > >> > >> Unfortunately most win32 programmers don't really understand > >> multiprocess programming because the w32 API is so borked so use > >> threads even when seperate process would be more appropriate. > >> > >> > > > >Windows has what we need to run multi process. Even for a Mutex... > >Remember WAIT_ABANDONED? > > win32 can't do fork() making it effectively a totally useless API for > a lot of multiprocess development. Creating a brand new process is > fine if you don't need any complicated shared state such as when > kicking off something on the command line or creating a pipe > (something else win32 is shit at) but thats about it. > You are clueless about Windows. That's o.k. Your pretense that you know something about it is not o.k. In that regard you are not better than LDO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 20:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bp535$166h0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #494 |
On 10/26/2026 1:09 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 10:01:55 -0000 (UTC) > boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 14:19:14 -0700 >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >>> On 10/25/2026 1:34 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 13:57:02 -0400 (EDT) >>>> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) gabbled: >>>>> In article <11bif5s$2pam0$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >>>>>> You can have co-operative threads. IBM CICS used to run lots of >>>>>> threads (tasks) concurrently, and ran them well. >>>>> >>>>> When I learned C, there was no threading and there were only >>>>> different processes, so you had to do a fork and then synchronize >>>>> with the other process. This wasn't a dealbreaker and we did >>>>> plenty of stuff that way, but having threads available was very >>>>> nice and made for many operations becoming more convenient to >>>>> write. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately most win32 programmers don't really understand >>>> multiprocess programming because the w32 API is so borked so use >>>> threads even when seperate process would be more appropriate. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Windows has what we need to run multi process. Even for a Mutex... >>> Remember WAIT_ABANDONED? >> >> win32 can't do fork() making it effectively a totally useless API for >> a lot of multiprocess development. Creating a brand new process is >> fine if you don't need any complicated shared state such as when >> kicking off something on the command line or creating a pipe >> (something else win32 is shit at) but thats about it. >> > > You are clueless about Windows. That's o.k. > Your pretense that you know something about it is not o.k. > In that regard you are not better than LDO. Seems so! Damn it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 09:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bse2s$31g12$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #494 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:09:01 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 10:01:55 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> win32 can't do fork() making it effectively a totally useless API for >> a lot of multiprocess development. Creating a brand new process is >> fine if you don't need any complicated shared state such as when >> kicking off something on the command line or creating a pipe >> (something else win32 is shit at) but thats about it. >> > >You are clueless about Windows. That's o.k. >Your pretense that you know something about it is not o.k. >In that regard you are not better than LDO. OK, whats the windows API call thats the equivalent of fork()? I'm not talking about CreateProcessA() which doesn't even come close.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 22:05 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261028220558.000033eb@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #543 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 09:08:44 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:09:01 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 10:01:55 -0000 (UTC) > >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> win32 can't do fork() making it effectively a totally useless API > >> for a lot of multiprocess development. Creating a brand new > >> process is fine if you don't need any complicated shared state > >> such as when kicking off something on the command line or creating > >> a pipe (something else win32 is shit at) but thats about it. > >> > > > >You are clueless about Windows. That's o.k. > >Your pretense that you know something about it is not o.k. > >In that regard you are not better than LDO. > > OK, whats the windows API call thats the equivalent of fork()? I'm not > talking about CreateProcessA() which doesn't even come close. > There is no equivalent for fork(). But nearly all things that Posix devs achieve by fork() followed by one or another magic incantation and then followed by exec() can be achived on Windows as well, typically by means of one or another magic flag in parameters of CreateProcess or of one of it's more complicated cousins (CreateProcessAsUser, CreateProcessWithLogon, CreateProcessWithToken, may be others). These things never fascinated me, so I am not an expert. Now, there were cases where Unix programmers used fork() without following it by exec(), but I would think that in the recent 25-30 years such programming patterns are discouraged in favor of threads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 16:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bvrh2$34rmg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #547 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 22:05:58 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 09:08:44 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:09:01 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> >On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 10:01:55 -0000 (UTC) >> >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >> win32 can't do fork() making it effectively a totally useless API >> >> for a lot of multiprocess development. Creating a brand new >> >> process is fine if you don't need any complicated shared state >> >> such as when kicking off something on the command line or creating >> >> a pipe (something else win32 is shit at) but thats about it. >> >> >> > >> >You are clueless about Windows. That's o.k. >> >Your pretense that you know something about it is not o.k. >> >In that regard you are not better than LDO. >> >> OK, whats the windows API call thats the equivalent of fork()? I'm not >> talking about CreateProcessA() which doesn't even come close. >> > >There is no equivalent for fork(). But nearly all things that Posix >devs achieve by fork() followed by one or another magic incantation and >then followed by exec() can be achived on Windows as well, typically by >means of one or another magic flag in parameters of CreateProcess or >of one of it's more complicated cousins (CreateProcessAsUser, >CreateProcessWithLogon, CreateProcessWithToken, may be others). These >things never fascinated me, so I am not an expert. > >Now, there were cases where Unix programmers used fork() without >following it by exec(), but I would think that in the recent 25-30 years >such programming patterns are discouraged in favor of threads. Depends how much resilience you need. If the child process needs the state of the parent but doesn't need to interact with it or any of the other child processes much if at all and you're not creating dozens of them a second then why would you use a thread with all the associated hassle of critical section requirements, deadlocks, potential race conditions and one thread crashing killing the whole application?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 14:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11blrsn$10e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #419 |
On 10/25/2026 1:34 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 13:57:02 -0400 (EDT) > kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) gabbled: >> In article <11bif5s$2pam0$1@dont-email.me>, >> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >>> You can have co-operative threads. IBM CICS used to run lots of threads >>> (tasks) concurrently, and ran them well. >> >> When I learned C, there was no threading and there were only different >> processes, so you had to do a fork and then synchronize with the other >> process. This wasn't a dealbreaker and we did plenty of stuff that way, >> but having threads available was very nice and made for many operations >> becoming more convenient to write. > > Unfortunately most win32 programmers don't really understand multiprocess > programming because the w32 API is so borked so use threads even when > seperate process would be more appropriate. > > What about separate multi threaded processes?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 16:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bin3i$ma9$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #388 |
In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) >>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>>You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason green threads >>>>>in java were a joke. >>>> >>>>Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, >>>>yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an >>>>operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of >>>>standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect >>>>from, you know, an operating system. >>> >>>I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading library but >>>not a process library. Its perfectly possible to simulate a multiprocess >>>enviroment. >> >>So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need >>the language to standardize a process model for that. > >Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? > >Take your time... What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think that a _process_ is? Please, take all the time you need to answer. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 12:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bj08r$309uk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396 |
On 10/24/26 09:41, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>> In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) >>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>> In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason green threads >>>>>> in java were a joke. >>>>> >>>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, >>>>> yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an >>>>> operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of >>>>> standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect >>>>> from, you know, an operating system. >>>> >>>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading library but >>>> not a process library. Its perfectly possible to simulate a multiprocess >>>> enviroment. >>> >>> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need >>> the language to standardize a process model for that. >> >> Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? >> >> Take your time... > > What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it > different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think > that a _process_ is? > > Please, take all the time you need to answer. > > - Dan C. Threads share resources such as address space, files, etc. A process runs in its own address space. (at least these days, before virtual memory, who knows?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 21:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bj7na$5bt$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #401 |
In article <11bj08r$309uk$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >On 10/24/26 09:41, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>> In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>>> In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason green threads >>>>>>> in java were a joke. >>>>>> >>>>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, >>>>>> yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an >>>>>> operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of >>>>>> standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect >>>>>> from, you know, an operating system. >>>>> >>>>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading library but >>>>> not a process library. Its perfectly possible to simulate a multiprocess >>>>> enviroment. >>>> >>>> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need >>>> the language to standardize a process model for that. >>> >>> Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? >>> >>> Take your time... >> >> What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it >> different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think >> that a _process_ is? >> >> Please, take all the time you need to answer. > >Threads share resources such as address space, files, etc. A process >runs in its own address space. (at least these days, before virtual >memory, who knows?) Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 01:11 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261025011151.000038ef@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #407 |
On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 21:24:58 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: > In article <11bj08r$309uk$1@dont-email.me>, > Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > >On 10/24/26 09:41, Dan Cross wrote: > >> In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, > >> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: > >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) > >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >>>> In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, > >>>> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) > >>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >>>>>> In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, > >>>>>> <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason > >>>>>>> green threads in java were a joke. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, > >>>>>> yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an > >>>>>> operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of > >>>>>> standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect > >>>>>> from, you know, an operating system. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading > >>>>> library but not a process library. Its perfectly possible to > >>>>> simulate a multiprocess enviroment. > >>>> > >>>> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need > >>>> the language to standardize a process model for that. > >>> > >>> Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? > >>> > >>> Take your time... > >> > >> What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it > >> different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think > >> that a _process_ is? > >> > >> Please, take all the time you need to answer. > > > >Threads share resources such as address space, files, etc. A process > >runs in its own address space. (at least these days, before virtual > >memory, who knows?) > > Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, > so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C > should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. > > - Dan C. > First, he was talking about C++. Unlike me, he does not appear to care about C. Second, while in theory threads can be implemented by C++ compilers+language support library, in practice I had never seen it done. All I had seen is C++ threads implemented in library as thin wrapper atop of the OS (or RT executive) implementation. I can not see while the same can't be done for processes, with API modeled on posix_spawn() or Windows CreateProcess(). It does not look like variety in this field is bigger than in case of threads. More like it is smaller. Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ standard library? No it would not be. The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 00:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bjif3$7p0$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #410 |
In article <20261025011151.000038ef@yahoo.com>, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 21:24:58 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: > >> In article <11bj08r$309uk$1@dont-email.me>, >> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >> >On 10/24/26 09:41, Dan Cross wrote: >> >> In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, >> >> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >> >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >> >>>> In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, >> >>>> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >> >>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) >> >>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >> >>>>>> In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, >> >>>>>> <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason >> >>>>>>> green threads in java were a joke. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, >> >>>>>> yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an >> >>>>>> operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of >> >>>>>> standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect >> >>>>>> from, you know, an operating system. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading >> >>>>> library but not a process library. Its perfectly possible to >> >>>>> simulate a multiprocess enviroment. >> >>>> >> >>>> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need >> >>>> the language to standardize a process model for that. >> >>> >> >>> Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? >> >>> >> >>> Take your time... >> >> >> >> What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it >> >> different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think >> >> that a _process_ is? >> >> >> >> Please, take all the time you need to answer. >> > >> >Threads share resources such as address space, files, etc. A process >> >runs in its own address space. (at least these days, before virtual >> >memory, who knows?) >> >> Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, >> so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C >> should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. >> >> - Dan C. >> > >First, he was talking about C++. Unlike me, he does not appear to care >about C. First, he's a big boy, and I'm sure he can answer for himself. But ok then, C++, not C. The questions still stand. >Second, while in theory threads can be implemented by C++ >compilers+language support library, in practice I had never seen it >done. This is not saying much about anything aside from the countours of your own experience, I'm afraid. >All I had seen is C++ threads implemented in library as thin >wrapper atop of the OS (or RT executive) implementation. In the late 1990s, into the early 2000s, most "threads" on Unix-style systems were implemented in userspace, in the C library, often by exposing the "normal" system call endpoints in the library, but making them thin wrappers around equivalent asynchronous system calls. There was even a paper about using the Xinu pedagogical system from Doug Comer to implement something very close to threads on 4.2BSD, with signals and a context saving/restoration primitive to approximate a timer interrupt. For a more recent historical example the FreeBSD MP library was initially implemented this way, as were pre-LinuxThreasd threads on Linux; Solaris threads up until Solaris 2.6 or so similarly. Of course, it wasn't a great way to do things because if something _did_ block...well, there went your concurrency. Making Unix systems multithreaded was challenging because of decades of software that was written assuming a single-threaded userspace environment (the kernel had been "multithreaded" since very near the start, even if much of the system was written assuming a single processor; but parallelism is not the same thing as concurrency), and this was compounded because people were trying to implement complex M:N threading models; Sun did this, and FreeBSD tried with their KSEs; the Linux people did not. While cool in theory, M:N threading relied on very specific usage patterns to work well in practice, and almost no one actually wrote software that way, so you ended up with userspace threads fighting the kernel scheeduler, and vice versa. More recently, the Akaros research system introduced the notion of a "many-core process" and pushed fine-grained "thread" scheduling entirely to userspace; the kernel is totally unaware of how userspace schedules anything. That system uses an N:C model, where $C$ is the number of *cores* assigned to a process (all system calls in Akaros are asychronous by design, to avoid the pitfalls of user-threads blocking on synchronous kernel services that beset Unix). >I can not see while the same can't be done for processes, with >API modeled on posix_spawn() or Windows CreateProcess(). C, and C++, have had `system()` for as long as I can remember, if you just want to run a program (note that both `posix_spawn` and `CreateProcess` take the names of programs to run in that new process). >It does not look like variety in this field is bigger than in case of >threads. More like it is smaller. Nope. But if you think differently, see the questions above. >Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ >standard library? No it would not be. >The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc... POSIX has all of that. POSIX also has a process model. Why not just make POSIX a part of the language, then? (Answer that and you may start to understand why this is harder than it looks for C++ [and C].) - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 08:42 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261025084234.0000449c@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #413 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: > In article <20261025011151.000038ef@yahoo.com>, > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 21:24:58 -0000 (UTC) > >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: > > > >> In article <11bj08r$309uk$1@dont-email.me>, > >> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > >> >On 10/24/26 09:41, Dan Cross wrote: > >> >> In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, > >> >> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: > >> >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) > >> >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >> >>>> In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, > >> >>>> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: > >> >>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) > >> >>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >> >>>>>> In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, > >> >>>>>> <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a > >> >>>>>>> reason green threads in java were a joke. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for > >> >>>>>> threads, yet you want C to standardize processes which also > >> >>>>>> ... need an operating system. I mean, POSIX already does > >> >>>>>> an ok job of standardizing the sorts of process-y things > >> >>>>>> you would expect from, you know, an operating system. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a > >> >>>>> threading library but not a process library. Its perfectly > >> >>>>> possible to simulate a multiprocess enviroment. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't > >> >>>> need the language to standardize a process model for that. > >> >>> > >> >>> Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? > >> >>> > >> >>> Take your time... > >> >> > >> >> What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it > >> >> different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think > >> >> that a _process_ is? > >> >> > >> >> Please, take all the time you need to answer. > >> > > >> >Threads share resources such as address space, files, etc. A > >> >process runs in its own address space. (at least these days, > >> >before virtual memory, who knows?) > >> > >> Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, > >> so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C > >> should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. > >> > >> - Dan C. > >> > > > >First, he was talking about C++. Unlike me, he does not appear to > >care about C. > > First, he's a big boy, and I'm sure he can answer for himself. > But ok then, C++, not C. The questions still stand. > > >Second, while in theory threads can be implemented by C++ > >compilers+language support library, in practice I had never seen it > >done. > > This is not saying much about anything aside from the countours > of your own experience, I'm afraid. > > >All I had seen is C++ threads implemented in library as thin > >wrapper atop of the OS (or RT executive) implementation. > > In the late 1990s, into the early 2000s, most "threads" on > Unix-style systems were implemented in userspace, in the C > library, often by exposing the "normal" system call endpoints > in the library, but making them thin wrappers around equivalent > asynchronous system calls. > > There was even a paper about using the Xinu pedagogical system > from Doug Comer to implement something very close to threads on > 4.2BSD, with signals and a context saving/restoration primitive > to approximate a timer interrupt. > > For a more recent historical example the FreeBSD MP library was > initially implemented this way, as were pre-LinuxThreasd threads > on Linux; Solaris threads up until Solaris 2.6 or so similarly. > > Of course, it wasn't a great way to do things because if > something _did_ block...well, there went your concurrency. > > Making Unix systems multithreaded was challenging because of > decades of software that was written assuming a single-threaded > userspace environment (the kernel had been "multithreaded" since > very near the start, even if much of the system was written > assuming a single processor; but parallelism is not the same > thing as concurrency), and this was compounded because people > were trying to implement complex M:N threading models; Sun did > this, and FreeBSD tried with their KSEs; the Linux people did > not. While cool in theory, M:N threading relied on very > specific usage patterns to work well in practice, and almost no > one actually wrote software that way, so you ended up with > userspace threads fighting the kernel scheeduler, and vice > versa. > > More recently, the Akaros research system introduced the notion > of a "many-core process" and pushed fine-grained "thread" > scheduling entirely to userspace; the kernel is totally unaware > of how userspace schedules anything. That system uses an N:C > model, where $C$ is the number of *cores* assigned to a process > (all system calls in Akaros are asychronous by design, to avoid > the pitfalls of user-threads blocking on synchronous kernel > services that beset Unix). > How any of this trivia has anything to do with real-world implementations of C++11 threads? > >I can not see while the same can't be done for processes, with > >API modeled on posix_spawn() or Windows CreateProcess(). > > C, and C++, have had `system()` for as long as I can remember, > if you just want to run a program (note that both `posix_spawn` > and `CreateProcess` take the names of programs to run in that > new process). > I mentioned that in one of my earlier responses to boltar. However there exist situation in which system() is not a satisfactory replacement for spawn(), most often because overhead of launching shell sometimes matters. > >It does not look like variety in this field is bigger than in case of > >threads. More like it is smaller. > > Nope. But if you think differently, see the questions above. > > >Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ > >standard library? No it would not be. > >The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc... > > POSIX has all of that. POSIX also has a process model. Why not > just make POSIX a part of the language, then? (Answer that and > you may start to understand why this is harder than it looks > for C++ [and C].) > > - Dan C. > It (both spawn and IPv4) is not harder (and not easier) than fopen/fread/fwrite or than time-related functions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 13:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bl0e6$68c$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #414 |
In article <20261025084234.0000449c@yahoo.com>, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: >> In article <20261025011151.000038ef@yahoo.com>, >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >[snip] >> >Second, while in theory threads can be implemented by C++ >> >compilers+language support library, in practice I had never seen it >> >done. >> >> This is not saying much about anything aside from the countours >> of your own experience, I'm afraid. (This statement remains true.) >[snip history showing a long line of "OS Threads" implemented > as a library] > >How any of this trivia has anything to do with real-world >implementations of C++11 threads? Your statement, "while in theory threads can be implemented by C++ compilers+language support library, in practice I had never seen it done" is probably strictly true: you, individually, have never seen it done. But that does not imply that it has never been done. In fact, it has; many times over. There are complications, but it can be done. That is what I was telling you, supported by examples. The thread models adopted by both C and C++ are based on all of that prior art. >I mentioned that in one of my earlier responses to boltar. >However there exist situation in which system() is not a satisfactory >replacement for spawn(), most often because overhead of launching shell >sometimes matters. Let me reiterate the questions above: what do you think that a thread is? What do you think that a process is? And let me add to that, what do you think that a "shell" is? - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 15:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <YHpDS.27364$9b8f.4666@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #426 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >In article <20261025084234.0000449c@yahoo.com>, >Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> >>How any of this trivia has anything to do with real-world >>implementations of C++11 threads? > >Your statement, "while in theory threads can be implemented by >C++ compilers+language support library, in practice I had never >seen it done" is probably strictly true: you, individually, have >never seen it done. > >But that does not imply that it has never been done. In >fact, it has; many times over. There are complications, but it >can be done. That is what I was telling you, supported by >examples. Although it does, generally, rely on specific operating system interfaces (e.g. makecontext, setcontext, et alia).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 26 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.lang.rust
csiph-web