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 14 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 27 Next page →
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 08:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cerhh$1grqd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125627 |
On Mon, 02 Nov 2026 16:51:47 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> gabbled: >On 2026-11-02, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: > >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 >> >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> >>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order to >>>> serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >>> >>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or able, >>> but don't like them. >>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of select/poll >>> on Windows. >> >> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on sockets. > > >By "multiplex on sockets" do you mean supporting more then one connection >on a single socket? Serious question here: could you tell me how this can >be useful? No I don't mean that and I can't be bother explaining what multiplexing means to someone who's clearly never used it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 11:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cf15m$iv6p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125645 |
On 11/4/26 09:48, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2026 16:51:47 GMT > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> gabbled: >> On 2026-11-02, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 >>> >>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>> >>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) >>>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>> >>>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order to >>>>> serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >>>> >>>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or able, >>>> but don't like them. >>>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of select/poll >>>> on Windows. >>> >>> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on sockets. >> >> >> By "multiplex on sockets" do you mean supporting more then one connection >> on a single socket? Serious question here: could you tell me how this can >> be useful? > > No I don't mean that and I can't be bother explaining what multiplexing means > to someone who's clearly never used it. > Don't be so smug. You could at least give him a hint. If you bother enough to reply, you might as well show that you know. Like, search for "unix select", or something? Jeroen Belleman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 16:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cfm73$1hahr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125650 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 11:24:54 +0100 Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> gabbled: >On 11/4/26 09:48, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2026 16:51:47 GMT >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> gabbled: >>> On 2026-11-02, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 >>>> >>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order to >>>>>> serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >>>>> >>>>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or able, >>>>> but don't like them. >>>>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of select/poll >>>>> on Windows. >>>> >>>> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on >sockets. >>> >>> >>> By "multiplex on sockets" do you mean supporting more then one connection >>> on a single socket? Serious question here: could you tell me how this can >>> be useful? >> >> No I don't mean that and I can't be bother explaining what multiplexing means > >> to someone who's clearly never used it. >> > >Don't be so smug. You could at least give him a hint. >If you bother enough to reply, you might as well show >that you know. Right, because typing "IO multiplexing" into google or an AI is such an arduous task.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 23:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cgd23$13svo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125656 |
On 11/4/26 17:24, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 11:24:54 +0100 > Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> gabbled: >> On 11/4/26 09:48, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2026 16:51:47 GMT >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> gabbled: >>>> On 2026-11-02, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 >>>>> >>>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in >>>>>>> order to >>>>>>> serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or >>>>>> able, >>>>>> but don't like them. >>>>>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of >>>>>> select/poll >>>>>> on Windows. >>>>> >>>>> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on >> sockets. >>>> >>>> >>>> By "multiplex on sockets" do you mean supporting more then one >>>> connection >>>> on a single socket? Serious question here: could you tell me how >>>> this can >>>> be useful? >>> >>> No I don't mean that and I can't be bother explaining what >>> multiplexing means >> >>> to someone who's clearly never used it. >>> >> >> Don't be so smug. You could at least give him a hint. >> If you bother enough to reply, you might as well show >> that you know. > > Right, because typing "IO multiplexing" into google or an AI is such an > arduous task. > That's fine too, as a hint, no issue there. 'Multiplexing' is a copiously overloaded concept, so a little bit of help to steer him into the right direction is not out of place. Let's leave it at that. Jeroen Belleman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-06 15:38 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261106153855.00006a30@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125660 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 23:53:55 +0100 Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: > On 11/4/26 17:24, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 11:24:54 +0100 > > Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> gabbled: > >> On 11/4/26 09:48, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2026 16:51:47 GMT > >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> gabbled: > >>>> On 2026-11-02, boltar@caprica.universe <boltar@caprica.universe> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 > >>>>> > >>>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) > >>>>>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in > >>>>>>> order to > >>>>>>> serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. > >>>>>> Or able, > >>>>>> but don't like them. > >>>>>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of > >>>>>> select/poll > >>>>>> on Windows. > >>>>> > >>>>> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't > >>>>> multiplex on > >> sockets. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> By "multiplex on sockets" do you mean supporting more then one > >>>> connection > >>>> on a single socket? Serious question here: could you tell me > >>>> how this can > >>>> be useful? > >>> > >>> No I don't mean that and I can't be bother explaining what > >>> multiplexing means > >> > >>> to someone who's clearly never used it. > >>> > >> > >> Don't be so smug. You could at least give him a hint. > >> If you bother enough to reply, you might as well show > >> that you know. > > > > Right, because typing "IO multiplexing" into google or an AI is > > such an arduous task. > > > > That's fine too, as a hint, no issue there. > > 'Multiplexing' is a copiously overloaded concept, so a little > bit of help to steer him into the right direction is not out > of place. > > Let's leave it at that. > > Jeroen Belleman Unless you didn't pay attention yet, boltar is asshole and proud at that. Or arshole? I'm not sure what is a correct spelling in his area.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-06 16:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11ckvsh$3r70o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125675 |
On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 15:38:55 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Wed, 4 Nov 2026 23:53:55 +0100 >Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote: >> 'Multiplexing' is a copiously overloaded concept, so a little >> bit of help to steer him into the right direction is not out >> of place. >>=20 >> Let's leave it at that. >>=20 >> Jeroen Belleman > >Unless you didn't pay attention yet, boltar is asshole and proud at >that. >Or arshole? I'm not sure what is a correct spelling in his area. Neither, but don't worry about it. When you've finished your little sucky thumb tantrum maybe mummy will pick up all the toys around your pram for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 23:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261102234658.0000349e@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125622 |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) > >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order > >> to serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. > >> > > > >That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or > >able, but don't like them. > >It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of > >select/poll on Windows. > > Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on > sockets. > That's nonsense. That part of Winsock2 API did not change since 1993. That is, in early 2000s they added poll() (WAASAPoll), but select() is the same BSD select() from the very beginning, just a little easier to use than original, because nfds is DNC. Now, if you woulds say that on Winsock2 select() can't multiplex waiting for socket I/O with waiting for other sorts of I/O (files and pipes) then your statement would make more sense*. But it does not sound like you really want to make sense. You strongly prefer mindless bashing. ---- * - Although, 1) of course, there (in Win32) exist not too complicated alternative methods to achieve such multiplexing as well. Just not via select(). 2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing waiting for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, Multiplexing sockets with pipes could still make sense, infrequently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 15:02 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cb4ql$3a1ce$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125629 |
On 11/2/2026 1:46 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC) > boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order >>>> to serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >>>> >>> >>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or >>> able, but don't like them. >>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of >>> select/poll on Windows. >> >> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on >> sockets. >> > > That's nonsense. That part of Winsock2 API did not change since 1993. > That is, in early 2000s they added poll() (WAASAPoll), but select() is > the same BSD select() from the very beginning, just a little easier to > use than original, because nfds is DNC. > Now, if you woulds say that on Winsock2 select() can't multiplex > waiting for socket I/O with waiting for other sorts of I/O (files and > pipes) then your statement would make more sense*. > But it does not sound like you really want to make sense. You strongly > prefer mindless bashing. > > ---- > * - Although, > 1) of course, there (in Win32) exist not too complicated alternative > methods to achieve such multiplexing as well. Just not via select(). > 2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing waiting > for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, Multiplexing > sockets with pipes could still make sense, infrequently. > > Well, before IOCP we would need to use WaitForMultipleObjects, iirc. But there was a trick we had to use. We had to alter the indices! Shift them, or even randomize them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 15:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cb4si$3a1ce$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125629 |
On 11/2/2026 1:46 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC) > boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order >>>> to serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >>>> >>> >>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or >>> able, but don't like them. >>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of >>> select/poll on Windows. >> >> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on >> sockets. >> > > That's nonsense. That part of Winsock2 API did not change since 1993. > That is, in early 2000s they added poll() (WAASAPoll), but select() is > the same BSD select() from the very beginning, just a little easier to > use than original, because nfds is DNC. > Now, if you woulds say that on Winsock2 select() can't multiplex > waiting for socket I/O with waiting for other sorts of I/O (files and > pipes) then your statement would make more sense*. > But it does not sound like you really want to make sense. You strongly > prefer mindless bashing. > > ---- > * - Although, > 1) of course, there (in Win32) exist not too complicated alternative > methods to achieve such multiplexing as well. Just not via select(). > 2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing waiting > for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, Multiplexing > sockets with pipes could still make sense, infrequently. > > Have you ever used IOCP on windows?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 21:51 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261103215142.00005755@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125636 |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:03:44 -0800 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/2/2026 1:46 PM, Michael S wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC) > > boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) > >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in > >>>> order to serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. > >>>> > >>> > >>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or > >>> able, but don't like them. > >>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of > >>> select/poll on Windows. > >> > >> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex > >> on sockets. > >> > > > > That's nonsense. That part of Winsock2 API did not change since > > 1993. That is, in early 2000s they added poll() (WAASAPoll), but > > select() is the same BSD select() from the very beginning, just a > > little easier to use than original, because nfds is DNC. > > Now, if you woulds say that on Winsock2 select() can't multiplex > > waiting for socket I/O with waiting for other sorts of I/O (files > > and pipes) then your statement would make more sense*. > > But it does not sound like you really want to make sense. You > > strongly prefer mindless bashing. > > > > ---- > > * - Although, > > 1) of course, there (in Win32) exist not too complicated alternative > > methods to achieve such multiplexing as well. Just not via select(). > > 2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing > > waiting for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, > > Multiplexing sockets with pipes could still make sense, > > infrequently. > > > > > > Have you ever used IOCP on windows? No, I didn't. IMHO, IO compleiion ports "solve" problems that do not exist today and mostly did not exist since 15-20 years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 13:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cdik1$58t9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125643 |
On 11/3/2026 11:51 AM, Michael S wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:03:44 -0800 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/2/2026 1:46 PM, Michael S wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 >>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in >>>>>> order to serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or >>>>> able, but don't like them. >>>>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of >>>>> select/poll on Windows. >>>> >>>> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex >>>> on sockets. >>>> >>> >>> That's nonsense. That part of Winsock2 API did not change since >>> 1993. That is, in early 2000s they added poll() (WAASAPoll), but >>> select() is the same BSD select() from the very beginning, just a >>> little easier to use than original, because nfds is DNC. >>> Now, if you woulds say that on Winsock2 select() can't multiplex >>> waiting for socket I/O with waiting for other sorts of I/O (files >>> and pipes) then your statement would make more sense*. >>> But it does not sound like you really want to make sense. You >>> strongly prefer mindless bashing. >>> >>> ---- >>> * - Although, >>> 1) of course, there (in Win32) exist not too complicated alternative >>> methods to achieve such multiplexing as well. Just not via select(). >>> 2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing >>> waiting for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, >>> Multiplexing sockets with pipes could still make sense, >>> infrequently. >>> >>> >> >> Have you ever used IOCP on windows? > > No, I didn't. > IMHO, IO compleiion ports "solve" problems that do not exist today > and mostly did not exist since 15-20 years ago. > Are you suggesting that IOCP is useless? What about AIO or io_uring? AIO is basically IOCP anyway. io_uring is special, but still uses a "completion" setup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 08:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cerrs$3kuh8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125629 |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 23:46:58 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on >> sockets. >> > >That's nonsense. That part of Winsock2 API did not change since 1993. >That is, in early 2000s they added poll() (WAASAPoll), but select() is > the same BSD select() from the very beginning, just a little easier to >use than original, because nfds is DNC. >Now, if you woulds say that on Winsock2 select() can't multiplex >waiting for socket I/O with waiting for other sorts of I/O (files and >pipes) then your statement would make more sense*. Yes, for some bizarre reason MS implemented the userspace sockets as some kind of handle instead of an integer file descriptor like every other sockets library. >2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing waiting >for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, Multiplexing >sockets with pipes could still make sense, infrequently. Depends on the use case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 01:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11clu6t$347eh$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #125629 |
In comp.lang.c++ Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC)
> boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled:
>> >On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC)
>> >boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>> >> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order
>> >> to serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or
>> >able, but don't like them.
>> >It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of
>> >select/poll on Windows.
>>
>> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on
>> sockets.
>>
>
> That's nonsense. That part of Winsock2 API did not change since 1993.
> That is, in early 2000s they added poll() (WAASAPoll), but select() is
> the same BSD select() from the very beginning, just a little easier to
> use than original, because nfds is DNC.
> Now, if you woulds say that on Winsock2 select() can't multiplex
> waiting for socket I/O with waiting for other sorts of I/O (files and
> pipes) then your statement would make more sense*.
> But it does not sound like you really want to make sense. You strongly
> prefer mindless bashing.
>
> ----
> * - Although,
> 1) of course, there (in Win32) exist not too complicated alternative
> methods to achieve such multiplexing as well. Just not via select().
> 2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing waiting
> for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, Multiplexing
> sockets with pipes could still make sense, infrequently.
Just curious how you solve problem of blocking in single threaded
program? AFAIK to get data from disc one needs about 10ms or possibly
more, which is pretty long time on modern machines. Do you assume
that all data that you need is in RAM (or will be after short startup
time)?
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 09:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cmrot$1l6bb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125698 |
On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 01:17:19 -0000 (UTC) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) gabbled: >In comp.lang.c++ Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >> * - Although, >> 1) of course, there (in Win32) exist not too complicated alternative >> methods to achieve such multiplexing as well. Just not via select(). >> 2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing waiting >> for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, Multiplexing >> sockets with pipes could still make sense, infrequently. > >Just curious how you solve problem of blocking in single threaded >program? AFAIK to get data from disc one needs about 10ms or possibly >more, which is pretty long time on modern machines. Do you assume >that all data that you need is in RAM (or will be after short startup >time)? Both select() and poll() can be non blocking if you pass a zero timeout value to them. Any file descriptors than can be read from and/or written to will be set in the mask.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 20:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261107202054.00001932@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125698 |
On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 01:17:19 -0000 (UTC) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote: > In comp.lang.c++ Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC) > > boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >> >On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) > >> >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> >> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in > >> >> order to serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. > >> >> > >> > > >> >That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or > >> >able, but don't like them. > >> >It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of > >> >select/poll on Windows. > >> > >> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex > >> on sockets. > >> > > > > That's nonsense. That part of Winsock2 API did not change since > > 1993. That is, in early 2000s they added poll() (WAASAPoll), but > > select() is the same BSD select() from the very beginning, just a > > little easier to use than original, because nfds is DNC. > > Now, if you woulds say that on Winsock2 select() can't multiplex > > waiting for socket I/O with waiting for other sorts of I/O (files > > and pipes) then your statement would make more sense*. > > But it does not sound like you really want to make sense. You > > strongly prefer mindless bashing. > > > > ---- > > * - Although, > > 1) of course, there (in Win32) exist not too complicated alternative > > methods to achieve such multiplexing as well. Just not via select(). > > 2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing > > waiting for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, > > Multiplexing sockets with pipes could still make sense, > > infrequently. > > Just curious how you solve problem of blocking in single threaded > program? I don't. If it is important and I expect that file operation will take significant time then I do it in another thread. May be, if I were doing server-side I'd treat it differently, but on cleent it's unlikely that I don't have more hardware threads than work to do, so separate thread is just right thing to do in such case. Assuming, of course, that performance at all matters, which is uncommon. > AFAIK to get data from disc one needs about 10ms or possibly > more, which is pretty long time on modern machines. I absolutly do not care about spinning rust. For close to 15 years. > Do you assume > that all data that you need is in RAM (or will be after short startup > time)? > In practice, it's extremely likely that all data is in system's file cache, i.e. in RAM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-07 12:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11co150$3p4na$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125708 |
On 11/7/2026 10:20 AM, Michael S wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 01:17:19 -0000 (UTC) > antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote: > >> In comp.lang.c++ Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 >>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>>>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in >>>>>> order to serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or >>>>> able, but don't like them. >>>>> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of >>>>> select/poll on Windows. >>>> >>>> Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex >>>> on sockets. >>>> >>> >>> That's nonsense. That part of Winsock2 API did not change since >>> 1993. That is, in early 2000s they added poll() (WAASAPoll), but >>> select() is the same BSD select() from the very beginning, just a >>> little easier to use than original, because nfds is DNC. >>> Now, if you woulds say that on Winsock2 select() can't multiplex >>> waiting for socket I/O with waiting for other sorts of I/O (files >>> and pipes) then your statement would make more sense*. >>> But it does not sound like you really want to make sense. You >>> strongly prefer mindless bashing. >>> >>> ---- >>> * - Although, >>> 1) of course, there (in Win32) exist not too complicated alternative >>> methods to achieve such multiplexing as well. Just not via select(). >>> 2) today, with nearly all file I/O deeply cached, multiplexing >>> waiting for file I/O with waiting for sockets is a bad idea. OTOH, >>> Multiplexing sockets with pipes could still make sense, >>> infrequently. >> >> Just curious how you solve problem of blocking in single threaded >> program? > > I don't. > If it is important and I expect that file operation will take > significant time then I do it in another thread. > May be, if I were doing server-side I'd treat it differently, but on > cleent it's unlikely that I don't have more hardware threads than work > to do, so separate thread is just right thing to do in such case. > Assuming, of course, that performance at all matters, which is uncommon. > > >> AFAIK to get data from disc one needs about 10ms or possibly >> more, which is pretty long time on modern machines. > > I absolutly do not care about spinning rust. For close to 15 years. > >> Do you assume >> that all data that you need is in RAM (or will be after short startup >> time)? >> > > In practice, it's extremely likely that all data is in system's file > cache, i.e. in RAM. In say, IOCP, AIO, etc, we can use a single thread to handle that, no problem. But you will lose the concurrency the system provides. We can intermix file io and socket io. No problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-08 09:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cpeae$1n4ic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125708 |
On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 20:20:54 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Sat, 7 Nov 2026 01:17:19 -0000 (UTC) >antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote: >> Just curious how you solve problem of blocking in single threaded >> program? > >I don't. >If it is important and I expect that file operation will take >significant time then I do it in another thread. So you don't understand the concept of non-blocking I/O. >> AFAIK to get data from disc one needs about 10ms or possibly >> more, which is pretty long time on modern machines. > >I absolutly do not care about spinning rust. For close to 15 years. 15 years ago commercial SSDs were expensive, low capacity and failure prone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 15:00 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cb4lk$3a1ce$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125622 |
On 11/2/2026 7:43 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 21:59:41 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 08:32:42 -0000 (UTC) >> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order to >>> serve individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >>> >> >> That's because many people unable to implement state machines. Or able, >> but don't like them. >> It has nothing to do with availability and functionality of select/poll >> on Windows. > > Last time I had the misfortune to use win32 it couldn't multiplex on sockets. > Ever use Nt say 4.0? IOCP?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 14:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cb4kf$3a1ce$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125546 |
On 11/1/2026 1:32 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 19:56:10 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 09:47:42 -0000 (UTC) >> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 05:37:23 -0000 (UTC) >>> Lawrence =3D?iso-8859-13?q?D=3DFFOliveiro?=3D <ldo@nz.invalid> gabbled: >>>> Here=E2=80=99s a fun little thing: if you set a socket to nonblocking and >>>> then do the connect(2) call, it will seemingly fail with an >>>> EINPROGRESS error. But in fact, the connection attempt gets >>>> initiated, and you can monitor its subsequent progress from your >>>> event loop. =20 >>> =20 >>> Far too many devs don't know about or don't understand multiplexing >>> using select() or poll(). Admittedly these are borked on Windows as >>> you can't use sockets with them=20 >> >> On what planet? > > On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order to serve > individual sockets, not because it needs to be. > Either you are trolling or don't have a clue?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 08:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cersr$1grvp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125633 |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 14:59:26 -0800 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >On 11/1/2026 1:32 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 19:56:10 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 09:47:42 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 05:37:23 -0000 (UTC) >>>> Lawrence =3D?iso-8859-13?q?D=3DFFOliveiro?=3D <ldo@nz.invalid> gabbled: >>>>> Here=E2=80=99s a fun little thing: if you set a socket to nonblocking and >>>>> then do the connect(2) call, it will seemingly fail with an >>>>> EINPROGRESS error. But in fact, the connection attempt gets >>>>> initiated, and you can monitor its subsequent progress from your >>>>> event loop. =20 >>>> =20 >>>> Far too many devs don't know about or don't understand multiplexing >>>> using select() or poll(). Admittedly these are borked on Windows as >>>> you can't use sockets with them=20 >>> >>> On what planet? >> >> On this one where you see code that is only multithreaded in order to serve >> individual sockets, not because it needs to be. >> > >Either you are trolling or don't have a clue? Seems to be your standard response to anyone you disagree with. Go back under your bridge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web