Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235729 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-14 19:59 +0800 |
| Last post | 2026-10-19 13:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 533 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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" Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-10-18 14:19 -1000
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 02:03 +0000
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-18 19:54 -0700
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 06:10 +0000
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-19 14:35 +0000
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-10-19 20:45 +0000
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-10-19 20:52 +0000
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-19 21:02 +0000
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-10-19 23:10 +0000
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-20 14:16 +0000
Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 02:07 +0000
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 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:29 +0100
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 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 08:13 -0700
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 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 23:59 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-24 16:03 -0700
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: Whilst All The Computer Experts are Visiting r.a.sf.w. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:40 +0000
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: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-23 00:23 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 00:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-23 12:06 +0300
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 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-28 20:26 +0000
POSIX system() function (was: The end of software secrecy ...) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-10-29 14:26 +0000
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
Threads and processes (was: Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-25 23:48 +0000
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: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-25 18:17 +0000
Re: Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:57 +0000
Re: Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-26 03:53 -0700
Re: Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-26 14:44 +0000
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-26 08:56 -0700
Re: Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 16:19 +0000
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-26 11:46 -0700
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:19 -0700
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:19 -0700
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:09 +0000
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:10 -0700
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-10-26 13:36 -1000
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 Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-10-23 14:29 -1000
Threads and processes (Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-26 19:14 -0700
Re: Threads and processes (Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 06:08 +0000
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: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-20 14:15 +0000
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
Page 11 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 27 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-23 14:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bgi8e$25vd5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235955 |
On 10/23/2026 12:58 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/23/2026 1:03 AM, 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. How do you think pure software versions of virtual >> machines work? >> > > Well, a process lib needs to have certain things. Imvvho, at least > access to robust mutex? Fwiw. Akin to: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_mutexattr_getrobust.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-23 20:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bgh17$1s8$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #235914 |
In article <11bf4d1$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. >How do you think pure software versions of virtual machines work? By trapping and emulating accesses to privileged state, taking care to ensure that the environment that the guest sees faithfully emulates its expectations. You think that's something a programming _language_ like _C_ of all things should standardize? Why? - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 08:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235963 |
On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article <11bf4d1$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$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason green threads >>>>in java were a joke. >>> >>>Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, >>>yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an >>>operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of >>>standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect >>>from, you know, an operating system. >> >>I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading library but >>not a process library. Its perfectly possible to simulate a multiprocess >>enviroment. > >So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need >the language to standardize a process model for that. Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? Take your time...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 14:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <Ad3DS.44917$HDS9.23632@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #235996 |
boltar@caprica.universe writes: >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? It doesn't. It does have an abstraction wrapper around whatever threading support the target host has.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 14:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11biglo$2n3bg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236000 |
On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 14:25:36 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled: >boltar@caprica.universe writes: >>On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>In article <11bf4d1$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? > >It doesn't. It does have an abstraction wrapper around >whatever threading support the target host has. And iostream is an abstraction around low level C I/O, whats your point?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 22:55 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <QF3DS.2667$1bS2.2209@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #236000 |
On 10/24/2026 10:25 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > boltar@caprica.universe writes: >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>> In article <11bf4d1$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? > > It doesn't. It does have an abstraction wrapper around > whatever threading support the target host has. I don't think that's true. I currently believe, and I'm very welcoming of an alt.folklore.computers expert to correct me, that the Vista+ threading model that looks extremely much like the Posix threads, only the names of the routines were changed, was put in place exactly to sup- port the C++ threading model. I mean, /why else/ would Microsoft bend backwards and admit their ear- lier Win32 threading model was flawed? And why have a subset of the Po- six threads and not the full thing? A side by side comparison of the C++ threading model might be enlightening, but I have not done this textbook exercise myself just yet. What do you think, Scott? -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 13:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bj36b$316i4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236000 |
On 10/24/2026 7:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > boltar@caprica.universe writes: >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>> In article <11bf4d1$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? > > It doesn't. It does have an abstraction wrapper around > whatever threading support the target host has. But at least they are std now since C++11? Before it was use POSIX and hope the compiler is compliant. Actually, the most import aspect, imvvho, is std::atomic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 07:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bif5s$2pam0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #235996 |
On 10/24/26 01:21, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >> In article <11bf4d1$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$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason green threads >>>>> in java were a joke. >>>> >>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, >>>> yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an >>>> operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of >>>> standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect >>>> from, you know, an operating system. >>> >>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading library but >>> not a process library. Its perfectly possible to simulate a multiprocess >>> enviroment. >> >> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need >> the language to standardize a process model for that. > > Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? > > Take your time... You can have co-operative threads. IBM CICS used to run lots of threads (tasks) concurrently, and ran them well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 13:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11birhe$bfo$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #236001 |
In article <11bif5s$2pam0$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >On 10/24/26 01:21, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>> In article <11bf4d1$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... > >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. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 08:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bkeub$2pa9l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236007 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 14:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11blrok$10e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236029 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 10:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bn8ej$2s65h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236064 |
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$1@dont-email.me>, >>> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >>>> You can have co-operative threads. IBM CICS used to run lots of threads >>>> (tasks) concurrently, and ran them well. >>> >>> When I learned C, there was no threading and there were only different >>> processes, so you had to do a fork and then synchronize with the other >>> process. This wasn't a dealbreaker and we did plenty of stuff that way, >>> but having threads available was very nice and made for many operations >>> becoming more convenient to write. >> >> Unfortunately most win32 programmers don't really understand multiprocess >> programming because the w32 API is so borked so use threads even when >> seperate process would be more appropriate. >> >> > >Windows has what we need to run multi process. Even for a Mutex... >Remember WAIT_ABANDONED? win32 can't do fork() making it effectively a totally useless API for a lot of multiprocess development. Creating a brand new process is fine if you don't need any complicated shared state such as when kicking off something on the command line or creating a pipe (something else win32 is shit at) but thats about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 13:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bobmd$ttuj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236096 |
On 10/26/2026 3:01 AM, 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. Afaict, its not useless. > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” |
| Message-ID | <11boifa$10aqu$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236115 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:03:25 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > Shared state? Just use memory mapped files. You don't need > pipes/sockets etc. You need to know how to properly sync things. Like it or not, the Unix-type model is the closest we have to a standard set of OS APIs. It’s the only one that starts from an official spec, namely POSIX. At one point, Sun did spearhead a campaign to standardize Microsoft Windows, believe it or not <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5v0CK249rI> -- but of course Microsoft successfully stymied that effort. And as a result of all that past market strategizing, nowadays we have a multi-decade-long accumulation of Free software that assumes that basic Unix-type set of APIs, and nothing else is able to come close. So that is what we expect to have when we start new projects or keep existing ones going, because nobody wants to reinvent the wheel when they can build on all the high-quality work that has gone before. Like it or not, the Unix model has conquered the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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 | #236115 |
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 | #236192 |
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 | #236192 |
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 | #236203 |
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 | #236216 |
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 | #236219 |
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]
Page 11 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web