Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #124999 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-13 23:18 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-11-02 10:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 529 — 48 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
“The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 23:18 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 18:30 +0800
Transpiling from Pascal to Rust (was: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us") ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-14 11:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "De ongekruisigde ds." <ongekruisigde-ds@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-14 11:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 19:59 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-14 07:35 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-14 11:57 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" 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 Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 13:35 +0100
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 Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-06 12:43 +0100
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-06 16:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-20 23:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:49 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:15 +0100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-20 20:49 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 14:36 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-21 16:11 +1300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 05:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:48 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 09:39 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:51 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 15:50 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 16:41 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:48 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 14:48 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 17:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-20 17:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 20:50 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:06 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 07:47 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 11:06 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 23:10 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 12:29 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 17:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 14:12 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:51 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-22 12:19 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:15 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:16 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:06 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 10:32 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-23 14:09 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:47 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:38 +0000
Re: �The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> - 2026-10-25 08:11 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-25 09:30 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:37 -0700
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:42 -0700
Re: ?The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> - 2026-10-26 07:59 +0000
Re: ?The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-26 10:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:30 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:49 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:20 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:53 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-24 12:07 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com> - 2026-10-25 08:22 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:32 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-25 08:10 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 13:58 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-25 19:06 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 17:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 22:54 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:47 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-26 08:29 +1100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2026-10-25 20:10 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2026-10-25 01:03 +1100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:08 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-23 14:01 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 23:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 17:04 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 03:44 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:04 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:43 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-22 19:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 22:48 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-23 11:42 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 09:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:57 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-23 18:24 +0000
Whilst All The Computer Experts are Visiting r.a.sf.w. Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-24 16:12 +1300
Re: Whilst All The Computer Experts are Visiting r.a.sf.w. Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 15:22 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:40 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-23 18:50 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 16:56 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:27 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 15:36 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 19:20 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:57 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 18:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 20:26 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 18:48 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 19:01 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:50 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-22 16:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-22 16:25 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 22:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 11:28 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-23 10:21 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:49 +0000
Re: “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 "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 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-07 01:17 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-07 09:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-07 20:20 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 12:19 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-08 09:10 +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
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 "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-23 04:10 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 21:21 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-23 05:43 +0000
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 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 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 "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-23 01:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-20 12:10 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:20 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 21:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:26 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:30 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 20:21 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 17:03 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 16:26 -0600
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 19:01 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:09 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2026-10-14 08:52 -0400
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 06:15 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 14:26 -0700
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 14:07 -0500
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-15 19:18 +0000
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 15:02 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-15 11:05 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 14:13 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Jay Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.me> - 2026-10-15 20:35 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 00:27 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" John Smith <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-30 05:04 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 10:30 +0100
Page 17 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 27 Next page →
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 22:39 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261029223922.00000e18@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125485 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:22:29 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:06:45 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 08:58:55 -0000 (UTC) > >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. > >> > > > >That's like if I'd say that Linux is 33 years (and counting) late > >because it has no QueueUserAPC(). Of course, I am smarter than saying > >such nonsense. > > > >More relevantly, Windows (Win32) has preemptive kernel-scheduled > >threads > >+ assortment of synchronization primitives since very beginning > >(1993) > > - ahead of many Unixen and behind some of them. Certainly ahead of > > Posix standardisation of threads. > > Wow, pre-emptive multitasking in 1993. Incredible technology! > Not just preemptive multitasking between processes, but kernel-scheduled threads within each process as well. Not a novel idea, but the one that eventually won over all others. In 1993 it was already obvious that it is going to win, but in 1988-1989, when development started, it was less trivial.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 15:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c0gf6$3p3b1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125487 |
On 10/29/26 13:39, Michael S wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:22:29 -0000 (UTC) > boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:06:45 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 08:58:55 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>> And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. >>>> >>> >>> That's like if I'd say that Linux is 33 years (and counting) late >>> because it has no QueueUserAPC(). Of course, I am smarter than saying >>> such nonsense. >>> >>> More relevantly, Windows (Win32) has preemptive kernel-scheduled >>> threads >>> + assortment of synchronization primitives since very beginning >>> (1993) >>> - ahead of many Unixen and behind some of them. Certainly ahead of >>> Posix standardisation of threads. >> >> Wow, pre-emptive multitasking in 1993. Incredible technology! >> > > Not just preemptive multitasking between processes, but > kernel-scheduled threads within each process as well. > Not a novel idea, but the one that eventually won over all others. > In 1993 it was already obvious that it is going to win, but in > 1988-1989, when development started, it was less trivial. Just an old idea from OS/360 MVT circa 1965-66. OS calls them tasks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 22:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <EJPES.62185$BaS5.30884@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #125487 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:22:29 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:06:45 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> >On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 08:58:55 -0000 (UTC) >> >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >> And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. >> >> >> > >> >That's like if I'd say that Linux is 33 years (and counting) late >> >because it has no QueueUserAPC(). Of course, I am smarter than saying >> >such nonsense. >> > >> >More relevantly, Windows (Win32) has preemptive kernel-scheduled >> >threads >> >+ assortment of synchronization primitives since very beginning >> >(1993) >> > - ahead of many Unixen and behind some of them. Certainly ahead of >> > Posix standardisation of threads. >> >> Wow, pre-emptive multitasking in 1993. Incredible technology! >> > >Not just preemptive multitasking between processes, but >kernel-scheduled threads within each process as well. >Not a novel idea, but the one that eventually won over all others. >In 1993 it was already obvious that it is going to win, but in >1988-1989, when development started, it was less trivial. > The thread design for SVR4 Unix started in the late 80s and released in 1993. Digital published "Evolving the UNIX System Interface to Support Multithreaded Programs" September 28, 1987. (Paul R. McJones and Garret F. Swart). The "The Topaz Operating System User's Guide" in that document describes the thread interface. (DIGITAL Systems Research Center operating system) for both VAX/Ultrix and the Firefly/Taos implementation. Here's a link to the paper published a couple years later: https://softwarepreservation.computerhistory.org/modula2+/doc/McJones_Swart-Evolving-1989.pdf And here's a link to the full technical report #21 (including the manual) https://ftp.zx.net.nz/pub/archive/gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/research-reports/SRC-021.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 02:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c0ubj$q9u$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #125490 |
In article <EJPES.62185$BaS5.30884@fx35.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >>On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:22:29 -0000 (UTC) >>boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:06:45 +0200 >>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>> >On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 08:58:55 -0000 (UTC) >>> >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> >> And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. >>> >> >>> > >>> >That's like if I'd say that Linux is 33 years (and counting) late >>> >because it has no QueueUserAPC(). Of course, I am smarter than saying >>> >such nonsense. >>> > >>> >More relevantly, Windows (Win32) has preemptive kernel-scheduled >>> >threads >>> >+ assortment of synchronization primitives since very beginning >>> >(1993) >>> > - ahead of many Unixen and behind some of them. Certainly ahead of >>> > Posix standardisation of threads. >>> >>> Wow, pre-emptive multitasking in 1993. Incredible technology! >>> >> >>Not just preemptive multitasking between processes, but >>kernel-scheduled threads within each process as well. >>Not a novel idea, but the one that eventually won over all others. >>In 1993 it was already obvious that it is going to win, but in >>1988-1989, when development started, it was less trivial. > >The thread design for SVR4 Unix started in the late 80s and >released in 1993. > >Digital published "Evolving the UNIX System Interface to >Support Multithreaded Programs" September 28, 1987. >(Paul R. McJones and Garret F. Swart). > >The "The Topaz Operating System User's Guide" in that document >describes the thread interface. (DIGITAL Systems Research >Center operating system) for both VAX/Ultrix and the Firefly/Taos >implementation. > >Here's a link to the paper published a couple years later: > >https://softwarepreservation.computerhistory.org/modula2+/doc/McJones_Swart-Evolving-1989.pdf > >And here's a link to the full technical report #21 (including the manual) > >https://ftp.zx.net.nz/pub/archive/gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/research-reports/SRC-021.pdf Speaking of.... I have a distinct memory of reading a paper called something like, "fork mixed with threads considered harmful"; I could have sworn it was by Luca Cardelli, but I do not think that is correct, nor can I find it.... At least the Gatekeeper archive of SRC reports was mirrored. Maybe it's in there (it's not the evolving paper, though that touches on the issues). - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 11:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c1urp$36v0j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125487 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 22:39:22 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:22:29 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:06:45 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> >On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 08:58:55 -0000 (UTC) >> >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >> And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. >> >> >> > >> >That's like if I'd say that Linux is 33 years (and counting) late >> >because it has no QueueUserAPC(). Of course, I am smarter than saying >> >such nonsense. >> > >> >More relevantly, Windows (Win32) has preemptive kernel-scheduled >> >threads >> >+ assortment of synchronization primitives since very beginning >> >(1993) >> > - ahead of many Unixen and behind some of them. Certainly ahead of >> > Posix standardisation of threads. >> >> Wow, pre-emptive multitasking in 1993. Incredible technology! >> > >Not just preemptive multitasking between processes, but >kernel-scheduled threads within each process as well. >Not a novel idea, but the one that eventually won over all others. >In 1993 it was already obvious that it is going to win, but in >1988-1989, when development started, it was less trivial. Implementing threads is trivial compared to implementing multi processes with shared memory. Adding them to a pre-existing kernel might be tricky but when you're building one from scratch as per NT then its hardly a big deal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 11:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c2ma5$fqic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125501 |
On 10/30/2026 4:25 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 22:39:22 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:22:29 -0000 (UTC) >> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:06:45 +0200 >>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 08:58:55 -0000 (UTC) >>>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>>> And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's like if I'd say that Linux is 33 years (and counting) late >>>> because it has no QueueUserAPC(). Of course, I am smarter than saying >>>> such nonsense. >>>> >>>> More relevantly, Windows (Win32) has preemptive kernel-scheduled >>>> threads >>>> + assortment of synchronization primitives since very beginning >>>> (1993) >>>> - ahead of many Unixen and behind some of them. Certainly ahead of >>>> Posix standardisation of threads. >>> >>> Wow, pre-emptive multitasking in 1993. Incredible technology! >>> >> >> Not just preemptive multitasking between processes, but >> kernel-scheduled threads within each process as well. >> Not a novel idea, but the one that eventually won over all others. >> In 1993 it was already obvious that it is going to win, but in >> 1988-1989, when development started, it was less trivial. > > Implementing threads is trivial compared to implementing multi processes with > shared memory. Adding them to a pre-existing kernel might be tricky but when > you're building one from scratch as per NT then its hardly a big deal. > Multi process with shared memory can be tricky indeed. Step one, you need to ponder on making it "robust". Threads do not need to be robust. Well, you should not have a thread up and die anyway. Now, for multi process, that should be handled. There are many different ways.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 06:17 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <eUOFS.76336$UnO1.2645@fx13.ams4> |
| In reply to | #125406 |
On 10/27/2026 3:45 AM, Michael S wrote: > Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same > time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11. > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sync/slim-reader- > writer--srw--locks > Of course WinXP remained popular for few more years, approximately up > until 2nd half of 2010, but that too predates publication of C++11 in > 2011-09. Wasn't that work done in preparation for the C++11 standard? I did not keep track of the standard's discussion, but presumably Microsoft had people both on the C++ standard's committee, and the Vista programming team. Best wishes, and happy standards! -- 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 | 2026-11-02 14:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cb4bp$39ts3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125596 |
On 11/1/2026 2:17 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 10/27/2026 3:45 AM, Michael S wrote: >> Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same >> time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11. >> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sync/slim-reader- >> writer--srw--locks >> Of course WinXP remained popular for few more years, approximately up >> until 2nd half of 2010, but that too predates publication of C++11 in >> 2011-09. > > Wasn't that work done in preparation for the C++11 standard? I did not > keep track of the standard's discussion, but presumably Microsoft had > people both on the C++ standard's committee, and the Vista programming > team. I think so. > > > Best wishes, and happy standards!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 13:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bobqb$ttuj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125388 |
On 10/26/2026 2:59 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 22:56:19 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 08:41:48 -0000 (UTC) >> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>> In article <20261025011151.000038ef@yahoo.com>, >>>>> Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ >>>>> standard library? No it would not be. >>>>> The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc... >>>> >>>> POSIX has all of that. POSIX also has a process model. Why not >>>> just make POSIX a part of the language, then? (Answer that and >>>> you may start to understand why this is harder than it looks >>>> for C++ [and C].) >>> >>> No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>> model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. >> >> Actually, implementing C++11 (or C11) threads fully in user space on >> pre-Vista Win32 (i.e. before addition of support for conditional >> variables to OS API) would be quite challenging. I don't know if >> anybody bothered. >> I think that it is possible, but if you want it robust then it (cond. >> variables) will cost you significant overhead relatively to "native" >> synchronization primitives. > > C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it effectively > useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest common denominator called > Windows. > 3 level locking? What do you mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 10:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bkj49$3fber$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125315 |
On 25/10/2026 00:11, Michael S wrote: > On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 21:24:58 -0000 (UTC) > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: > >> In article <11bj08r$309uk$1@dont-email.me>, >> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >>> On 10/24/26 09:41, Dan Cross wrote: >>>> In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, >>>> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>>> In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>>>>> In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>> <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason >>>>>>>>> green threads in java were a joke. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, >>>>>>>> yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an >>>>>>>> operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of >>>>>>>> standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect >>>>>>>> from, you know, an operating system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading >>>>>>> library but not a process library. Its perfectly possible to >>>>>>> simulate a multiprocess enviroment. >>>>>> >>>>>> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need >>>>>> the language to standardize a process model for that. >>>>> >>>>> Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? >>>>> >>>>> Take your time... >>>> >>>> What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it >>>> different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think >>>> that a _process_ is? >>>> >>>> Please, take all the time you need to answer. >>> >>> Threads share resources such as address space, files, etc. A process >>> runs in its own address space. (at least these days, before virtual >>> memory, who knows?) >> >> Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, >> so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C >> should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. >> >> - Dan C. >> > > First, he was talking about C++. Unlike me, he does not appear to care > about C. > Second, while in theory threads can be implemented by C++ > compilers+language support library, in practice I had never seen it > done. All I had seen is C++ threads implemented in library as thin > wrapper atop of the OS (or RT executive) implementation. > I can not see while the same can't be done for processes, with > API modeled on posix_spawn() or Windows CreateProcess(). > It does not look like variety in this field is bigger than in case of > threads. More like it is smaller. > No one is suggesting that the threads themselves are implemented in pure, standard, portable C++. You need an underlying OS or support of some sort if you are going to have preemptable threads. It's the same principle as IO and file access. But the difference between threads and processes is very simple from the viewpoint of C and C++. Suppose you have a global (i.e., external linkage) variable : int x; Two threads that have "int a = x;" see the same "x" (ignoring data races and synchronisation). Two processes see completely different "x". With threads, you are still within the same program execution - the same code, the same data. Thus it is appropriate that the language can describe the threads, and provide an execution model that can describe what is safe and unsafe for sharing the data. It is then highly useful for the programmer to have some standard data types and functions for doing this safe access, and wrappers around common OS functions for threads. With processes, you have two separate programs. Usually it is different code and data (with a spawn), sometimes it is the same code and a copy of the data (with a fork). But the programs are separate. C and C++ model programs, not systems of programs. It is not more part of C and C++ than details of the filesystem. Of course the standard library could provide some standard wrappers for spawn, fork, and related process control functions. But what use would they be? Many of the details are OS-specific - for example, you'd either have to say that C++ programmers on Linux don't get "fork", or that C++ programmers on Windows get "fork" without realising the massive overheads involved in emulating it. It would be possible, of course, to have some standard library classes and functions here - with optional parts to make it useable on common OS'es. But it is very different from threading, which is integral to the execution model of C++ and C (since C++11 and C11) - it is that model that makes threading integration important. Wrappers around common OS calls is unlikely to give programmers anything significant. > Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ > standard library? No it would not be. > The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc... > That's more realistic, and potentially more useful. And it is in progress. (I haven't tracked the progress for the networking TS - but it seems to be a lot more work than originally anticipated.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 20:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bp6nj$16ku1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125329 |
On 10/25/2026 2:45 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 25/10/2026 00:11, Michael S wrote: >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 21:24:58 -0000 (UTC) >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: >> >>> In article <11bj08r$309uk$1@dont-email.me>, >>> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/24/26 09:41, Dan Cross wrote: >>>>> In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>>>> In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>> <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>>>>>> In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>> <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason >>>>>>>>>> green threads in java were a joke. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, >>>>>>>>> yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an >>>>>>>>> operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of >>>>>>>>> standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect >>>>>>>>> from, you know, an operating system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading >>>>>>>> library but not a process library. Its perfectly possible to >>>>>>>> simulate a multiprocess enviroment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need >>>>>>> the language to standardize a process model for that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? >>>>>> >>>>>> Take your time... >>>>> >>>>> What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it >>>>> different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think >>>>> that a _process_ is? >>>>> >>>>> Please, take all the time you need to answer. >>>> >>>> Threads share resources such as address space, files, etc. A process >>>> runs in its own address space. (at least these days, before virtual >>>> memory, who knows?) >>> >>> Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, >>> so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C >>> should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. >>> >>> - Dan C. >>> >> >> First, he was talking about C++. Unlike me, he does not appear to care >> about C. >> Second, while in theory threads can be implemented by C++ >> compilers+language support library, in practice I had never seen it >> done. All I had seen is C++ threads implemented in library as thin >> wrapper atop of the OS (or RT executive) implementation. >> I can not see while the same can't be done for processes, with >> API modeled on posix_spawn() or Windows CreateProcess(). >> It does not look like variety in this field is bigger than in case of >> threads. More like it is smaller. >> > > No one is suggesting that the threads themselves are implemented in > pure, standard, portable C++. You need an underlying OS or support of > some sort if you are going to have preemptable threads. It's the same > principle as IO and file access. > > But the difference between threads and processes is very simple from the > viewpoint of C and C++. Suppose you have a global (i.e., external > linkage) variable : > > int x; > > Two threads that have "int a = x;" see the same "x" (ignoring data races > and synchronisation). Two processes see completely different "x".[...] Bingo. So, trying to imply that system is something okay for multi process, well, good luck. Daft. C/C++ has no std way to deal with multi process. But, we can use C/C++ to program for it all day long. Interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 09:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bpm22$1a80h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125444 |
On 27/10/2026 04:44, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/25/2026 2:45 AM, David Brown wrote: >> No one is suggesting that the threads themselves are implemented in >> pure, standard, portable C++. You need an underlying OS or support of >> some sort if you are going to have preemptable threads. It's the same >> principle as IO and file access. >> >> But the difference between threads and processes is very simple from >> the viewpoint of C and C++. Suppose you have a global (i.e., external >> linkage) variable : >> >> int x; >> >> Two threads that have "int a = x;" see the same "x" (ignoring data >> races and synchronisation). Two processes see completely different >> "x".[...] > > Bingo. So, trying to imply that system is something okay for multi > process, well, good luck. Daft. C/C++ has no std way to deal with multi > process. But, we can use C/C++ to program for it all day long. Interesting. There are, of course, languages and runtime systems that handle processes too. An obvious example is Python. But it does it using a significantly "thicker" abstraction layer, combined with a significant run-time system to manage it all. And as a programmer, you have to be aware that you can't access global data from different processes, in the way you can do from different threads - you can only use data that is explicitly shared, or of appropriate data structures (like the process-aware queues). Behind the scenes, there is a lot of work to pass and synchronise all this using named pipes, memmapped shared files, etc. While C++ programmers are used to there being a certain degree of "hidden work" (unlike in C, where work is much more explicit), this kind of thing is not at all a match for the C++ philosophy. And there are languages like Erlang that divide everything into micro-processes, and use the same mechanisms for controlling and passing data around regardless of whether this little processes are in the same thread, or different threads, different OS processes, or different computers. That works because there are very narrow and tightly controlled mechanisms for sharing data. Note that these are both languages that run on a VM, not compiled languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 10:22 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261027102255.00006052@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125447 |
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 09:06:26 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 27/10/2026 04:44, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > On 10/25/2026 2:45 AM, David Brown wrote: > > >> No one is suggesting that the threads themselves are implemented > >> in pure, standard, portable C++. You need an underlying OS or > >> support of some sort if you are going to have preemptable threads. > >> It's the same principle as IO and file access. > >> > >> But the difference between threads and processes is very simple > >> from the viewpoint of C and C++. Suppose you have a global (i.e., > >> external linkage) variable : > >> > >> int x; > >> > >> Two threads that have "int a = x;" see the same "x" (ignoring data > >> races and synchronisation). Two processes see completely > >> different "x".[...] > > > > Bingo. So, trying to imply that system is something okay for multi > > process, well, good luck. Daft. C/C++ has no std way to deal with > > multi process. But, we can use C/C++ to program for it all day > > long. Interesting. > > There are, of course, languages and runtime systems that handle > processes too. An obvious example is Python. But it does it using a > significantly "thicker" abstraction layer, combined with a > significant run-time system to manage it all. And as a programmer, > you have to be aware that you can't access global data from different > processes, in the way you can do from different threads - you can > only use data that is explicitly shared, or of appropriate data > structures (like the process-aware queues). Behind the scenes, there > is a lot of work to pass and synchronise all this using named pipes, > memmapped shared files, etc. While C++ programmers are used to there > being a certain degree of "hidden work" (unlike in C, where work is > much more explicit), this kind of thing is not at all a match for the > C++ philosophy. > > And there are languages like Erlang that divide everything into > micro-processes, and use the same mechanisms for controlling and > passing data around regardless of whether this little processes are > in the same thread, or different threads, different OS processes, or > different computers. That works because there are very narrow and > tightly controlled mechanisms for sharing data. > > Note that these are both languages that run on a VM, not compiled > languages. > What you wrote about Erlang resembles MPI, which of course is readily available for many compiled or jitted languages, including Fortran, C and C++. I tried to utilize MPI 20 years ago, but the thinking behind it is to different from mine, so I ran away in horror.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 10:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bpv20$n77$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #125448 |
In article <20261027102255.00006052@yahoo.com>, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 09:06:26 +0100 >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> [snip] >> And there are languages like Erlang that divide everything into >> micro-processes, and use the same mechanisms for controlling and >> passing data around regardless of whether this little processes are >> in the same thread, or different threads, different OS processes, or >> different computers. That works because there are very narrow and >> tightly controlled mechanisms for sharing data. >> >> Note that these are both languages that run on a VM, not compiled >> languages. > >What you wrote about Erlang resembles MPI, which of course is readily >available for many compiled or jitted languages, including Fortran, C >and C++. >I tried to utilize MPI 20 years ago, but the thinking behind it is to >different from mine, so I ran away in horror. Erlang uses the "actor" model to represent concurrency; state is held by each actor, and actors communicate via message passing, potentially changing state in response to messages. This is a model for _concurrency_, in which multiple independent threads of execution are coordinated to some in a single system. One may think of MPI-style systems this way, but there's a subtle distinction. The typical use case for something like MPI is _parallel_ computation of a numerically intensive problem, where "neighbors" nodes need to occasionally share state; this is usually about _parallelism_; that is, simultaneity. While a concurrency primitive is _necessary_ to think about parallelism (and MPI can be used in that fashion), the two are distinct concepts that are often conflated. To paraphrase Rob Pike on it, concurrency is about dealing with multiple things at once, while parallelism is about doing lots of things at the same time. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 15:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <l33ES.122397$DBw4.35922@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #125449 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >In article <20261027102255.00006052@yahoo.com>, >Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 09:06:26 +0100 >>David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>> [snip] >>> And there are languages like Erlang that divide everything into >>> micro-processes, and use the same mechanisms for controlling and >>> passing data around regardless of whether this little processes are >>> in the same thread, or different threads, different OS processes, or >>> different computers. That works because there are very narrow and >>> tightly controlled mechanisms for sharing data. >>> >>> Note that these are both languages that run on a VM, not compiled >>> languages. >> >>What you wrote about Erlang resembles MPI, which of course is readily >>available for many compiled or jitted languages, including Fortran, C >>and C++. >>I tried to utilize MPI 20 years ago, but the thinking behind it is to >>different from mine, so I ran away in horror. > >Erlang uses the "actor" model to represent concurrency; state is >held by each actor, and actors communicate via message passing, >potentially changing state in response to messages. This is a >model for _concurrency_, in which multiple independent threads >of execution are coordinated to some in a single system. Chorus (the microkernel) worked in a similar fashion. The microkernel coordinated between actors using message passing. The actors implemented the higher level operating system functionality. The Amadeus project, for example, implemented a version of unix on top of the microkernel using message passing between actors (The Object manager handled files and filesystems, the Process actor handled the POSIX process and thread (SVR4.2ES/MP threads) interfaces including fork, and light-weight processes that implemented threads, and the Streams actor provide system V streams support and networking. Unisys released the OS as part of their massively parallel OPUS computer system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 02:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cf1oc$irnr$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125451 |
On 10/27/2026 8:03 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >> In article <20261027102255.00006052@yahoo.com>, >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 09:06:26 +0100 >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> And there are languages like Erlang that divide everything into >>>> micro-processes, and use the same mechanisms for controlling and >>>> passing data around regardless of whether this little processes are >>>> in the same thread, or different threads, different OS processes, or >>>> different computers. That works because there are very narrow and >>>> tightly controlled mechanisms for sharing data. >>>> >>>> Note that these are both languages that run on a VM, not compiled >>>> languages. >>> >>> What you wrote about Erlang resembles MPI, which of course is readily >>> available for many compiled or jitted languages, including Fortran, C >>> and C++. >>> I tried to utilize MPI 20 years ago, but the thinking behind it is to >>> different from mine, so I ran away in horror. >> >> Erlang uses the "actor" model to represent concurrency; state is >> held by each actor, and actors communicate via message passing, >> potentially changing state in response to messages. This is a >> model for _concurrency_, in which multiple independent threads >> of execution are coordinated to some in a single system. > > Chorus (the microkernel) worked in a similar fashion. The > microkernel coordinated between actors using message passing. > > The actors implemented the higher level operating system > functionality. The Amadeus project, for example, implemented > a version of unix on top of the microkernel using message > passing between actors (The Object manager handled files and > filesystems, the Process actor handled the POSIX process > and thread (SVR4.2ES/MP threads) interfaces including fork, > and light-weight processes that implemented threads, and > the Streams actor provide system V streams support and > networking. > > Unisys released the OS as part of their massively parallel > OPUS computer system. There are many ways to handle proper sync in multiprocess systems. Indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 15:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <KEpDS.27363$9b8f.2846@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #125315 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 21:24:58 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: > >> >> Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, >> so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C >> should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. >> >> - Dan C. >> > >First, he was talking about C++. Unlike me, he does not appear to care >about C. >Second, while in theory threads can be implemented by C++ >compilers+language support library, in practice I had never seen it >done. All I had seen is C++ threads implemented in library as thin >wrapper atop of the OS (or RT executive) implementation. >I can not see while the same can't be done for processes, with >API modeled on posix_spawn() or Windows CreateProcess(). >It does not look like variety in this field is bigger than in case of >threads. More like it is smaller. > >Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ >standard library? No it would not be. >The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc... For which we, thankfully, have POSIX on most non-windows operating systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 19:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bp1p5$158nj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125336 |
On 10/25/2026 8:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 21:24:58 -0000 (UTC) >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote: >> > >>> >>> Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, >>> so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C >>> should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. >>> >>> - Dan C. >>> >> >> First, he was talking about C++. Unlike me, he does not appear to care >> about C. >> Second, while in theory threads can be implemented by C++ >> compilers+language support library, in practice I had never seen it >> done. All I had seen is C++ threads implemented in library as thin >> wrapper atop of the OS (or RT executive) implementation. >> I can not see while the same can't be done for processes, with >> API modeled on posix_spawn() or Windows CreateProcess(). >> It does not look like variety in this field is bigger than in case of >> threads. More like it is smaller. >> >> Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ >> standard library? No it would not be. >> The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc... > > For which we, thankfully, have POSIX on most non-windows operating > systems. POSIC, bow down, even way before C11. It still can be used, and is very nice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 08:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bkf42$1047q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125312 |
On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 21:24:58 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article <11bj08r$309uk$1@dont-email.me>, >Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >>On 10/24/26 09:41, Dan Cross wrote: >>> In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> >wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) >>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>> In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> >wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>>>> In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> >wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason green >threads >>>>>>>> in java were a joke. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, >>>>>>> yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an >>>>>>> operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of >>>>>>> standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect >>>>>>> from, you know, an operating system. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a threading library >but >>>>>> not a process library. Its perfectly possible to simulate a multiprocess >>>>>> enviroment. >>>>> >>>>> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need >>>>> the language to standardize a process model for that. >>>> >>>> Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? >>>> >>>> Take your time... >>> >>> What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it >>> different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think >>> that a _process_ is? >>> >>> Please, take all the time you need to answer. >> >>Threads share resources such as address space, files, etc. A process >>runs in its own address space. (at least these days, before virtual >>memory, who knows?) > >Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, >so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C >should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. Who mentioned C? I was talking about C++ which has a threading API already. Do try and keep up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 22:24 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261025222414.00004efc@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125325 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 08:37:22 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 21:24:58 -0000 (UTC) > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >In article <11bj08r$309uk$1@dont-email.me>, > >Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > >>On 10/24/26 09:41, Dan Cross wrote: > >>> In article <11bhppd$2lpkc$1@dont-email.me>, > >>> <boltar@caprica.universe> > >wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC) > >>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >>>>> In article <11bf4d1$skul$1@dont-email.me>, > >>>>> <boltar@caprica.universe> > >wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:22:30 -0000 (UTC) > >>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >>>>>>> In article <11bd7rg$2cvfs$1@dont-email.me>, > >>>>>>> <boltar@battlestar.co.uk> > >wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> You need an OS to do threading properly too. Theres a reason > >>>>>>>> green > >threads > >>>>>>>> in java were a joke. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Weird that you think you need a operating system for threads, > >>>>>>> yet you want C to standardize processes which also ... need an > >>>>>>> operating system. I mean, POSIX already does an ok job of > >>>>>>> standardizing the sorts of process-y things you would expect > >>>>>>> from, you know, an operating system. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in having a > >>>>>> threading library > >but > >>>>>> not a process library. Its perfectly possible to simulate a > >>>>>> multiprocess enviroment. > >>>>> > >>>>> So write a simulator in your language of choice. You don't need > >>>>> the language to standardize a process model for that. > >>>> > >>>> Ditto threads. So why does C++ have a threading library? > >>>> > >>>> Take your time... > >>> > >>> What, pray tell, do you think that a _thread_ is? And how is it > >>> different from a _process_? For that matter, what do you think > >>> that a _process_ is? > >>> > >>> Please, take all the time you need to answer. > >> > >>Threads share resources such as address space, files, etc. A > >>process runs in its own address space. (at least these days, before > >>virtual memory, who knows?) > > > >Indeed, but I'm hoping Mr Boltar will chime in with his answers, > >so that we can understand why thinks that a language like C > >should introduce a *process* model, and how threads are similar. > > Who mentioned C? I was talking about C++ which has a threading API > already. Do try and keep up. > In that regard, C and C++ are very similar. Similar primitives modeled mostly on Posix threads were added to both languages at approximately the same time. https://en.cppreference.com/c/thread The difference is not in this specific case, but in generally more conservative attitude of C committee relatively to its C++ counterpart w.r.t. extending Standard library.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web