Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.fortran > #126671 > 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 508 — 47 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.fortran
“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 William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:32 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-21 03:31 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-21 04:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> - 2026-10-21 10:41 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 14:53 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2026-10-21 15:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-21 16:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 11:05 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 20:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 14:22 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-22 04:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 07:37 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 12:17 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 09:21 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:40 -0400
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:58 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 19:04 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 19:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:00 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 23:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:27 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-21 03:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 05:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 20:09 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-20 23:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:49 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:15 +0100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-20 20:49 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 14:36 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-21 16:11 +1300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 05:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:48 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 09:39 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:51 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 15:50 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 16:41 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:48 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 14:48 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 17:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-20 17:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 20:50 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:06 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 07:47 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 11:06 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 23:10 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 12:29 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 17:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 14:12 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:51 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-22 12:19 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:15 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:16 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:06 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 10:32 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-23 14:09 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:47 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:38 +0000
Re: �The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> - 2026-10-25 08:11 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-25 09:30 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:37 -0700
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:42 -0700
Re: ?The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> - 2026-10-26 07:59 +0000
Re: ?The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-26 10:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:30 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:49 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:20 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:53 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-24 12:07 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com> - 2026-10-25 08:22 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:32 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-25 08:10 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 13:58 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-25 19:06 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 17:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 22:54 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:47 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-26 08:29 +1100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2026-10-25 20:10 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2026-10-25 01:03 +1100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:08 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-23 14:01 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 23:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 17:04 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 03:44 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:04 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:43 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-22 19:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 22:48 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-23 11:42 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 09:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:57 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-23 18:24 +0000
Whilst All The Computer Experts are Visiting r.a.sf.w. Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-24 16:12 +1300
Re: Whilst All The Computer Experts are Visiting r.a.sf.w. Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 15:22 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:40 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-23 18:50 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 16:56 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:27 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 15:36 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 19:20 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:57 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 18:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 20:26 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 18:48 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 19:01 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:50 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-22 16:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-22 16:25 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 22:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 11:28 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-23 10:21 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:49 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 07:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:06 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-23 11:56 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 17:15 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 16:22 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:03 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:58 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:06 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:45 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:21 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-24 14:25 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 14:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:55 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-24 07:26 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:57 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:19 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 10:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:03 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:59 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 09:47 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:04 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:19 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 12:49 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-30 11:21 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 22:09 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-10-26 15:31 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:16 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:08 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 22:05 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:16 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:21 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-24 16:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-24 12:17 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-24 21:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 01:11 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 00:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 08:42 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 13:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-25 15:59 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 16:29 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 17:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-26 09:50 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-26 16:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-26 15:32 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:31 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 13:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:41 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 17:06 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2026-10-25 10:19 -0700
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:03 -0400
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 12:21 -0600
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 19:26 +0100
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 12:29 -0600
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 19:59 +0100
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-26 09:43 +1300
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 19:54 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 16:13 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 16:17 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 16:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 17:14 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 22:04 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:06 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 21:47 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:09 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 23:07 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-29 22:26 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 00:54 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 02:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 10:59 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 11:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 15:23 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-30 16:07 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-10-30 20:37 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-30 22:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-31 04:14 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 05:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-31 09:47 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-31 19:56 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-01 08:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 21:59 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-02 15:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 08:48 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-04 11:24 +0100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 16:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-04 23:53 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-06 15:38 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-06 16:39 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-02 23:46 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:02 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:03 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-03 21:51 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-03 13:10 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 08:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:00 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:59 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 08:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:22 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 16:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 10:56 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 19:53 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-11-04 14:17 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:24 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:40 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:06 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 21:09 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 21:11 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 07:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 19:22 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-31 09:45 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-31 09:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:11 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-01 08:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 18:03 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-02 15:44 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:34 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:14 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-01 08:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 18:04 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-02 15:45 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:33 -0800
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: “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 "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-22 01:16 +0000
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 12 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 26 Next page →
| From | Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 14:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11blg8n$3r48p$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126992 |
On 10/25/2026 1:19 PM, Robert Woodward wrote: > In article <11bl7vr$3nprb$2@dont-email.me>, > Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > >> On 10/25/26 06:34, Dan Cross wrote: >>> In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>>> model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There >>>> is >>>> no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle >>>> about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >>> >>> You didn't answer my questions. >>> >>> What do you think that a "thread" is? >>> What do you think that a "process" is? >>> >>> - Dan C. >> >> I vote that alt.folklore.computers gets pruned from the list of >> recipients, as this discussion seems irrelevant here. > > For that matter, this entire thread has ceased to have anything to do > with rec.arts.sf.written. > Based on 40+ years of usenet experience, the only thing which will stop the cross posting is the death of this thread. pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 12:21 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11blhag$3rp4s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126994 |
Cryptoengineer wrote: > On 10/25/2026 1:19 PM, Robert Woodward wrote: >> In article <11bl7vr$3nprb$2@dont-email.me>, >> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/25/26 06:34, Dan Cross wrote: >>>> In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>>>> model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. >>>>> There >>>>> is >>>>> no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant >>>>> waffle >>>>> about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >>>> >>>> You didn't answer my questions. >>>> >>>> What do you think that a "thread" is? >>>> What do you think that a "process" is? >>>> >>>> - Dan C. >>> >>> I vote that alt.folklore.computers gets pruned from the list of >>> recipients, as this discussion seems irrelevant here. >> >> For that matter, this entire thread has ceased to have anything to do >> with rec.arts.sf.written. >> > > Based on 40+ years of usenet experience, the only thing which will stop > the cross posting is the death of this thread. > > pt What struck me about Game of Thrones was that the monarchy existed in Game of Thrones for the sole reason of some guys conspiring in Chapter One about taking it for themselves. What a bunch of polymaths. -- Can you strip away so we may start again? "There’s a switch and they don't seem authentic or themselves. It feels like I’m an unnecessary body and it’s a waste of time to even be there." -- Grim, playful Blaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 19:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11blhl1$3rpcf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126992 |
On 25/10/2026 18:19, Robert Woodward wrote: > In article <11bl7vr$3nprb$2@dont-email.me>, > Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > >> On 10/25/26 06:34, Dan Cross wrote: >>> In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>>> model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There >>>> is >>>> no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle >>>> about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >>> >>> You didn't answer my questions. >>> >>> What do you think that a "thread" is? >>> What do you think that a "process" is? >>> >>> - Dan C. >> >> I vote that alt.folklore.computers gets pruned from the list of >> recipients, as this discussion seems irrelevant here. > > For that matter, this entire thread has ceased to have anything to do > with rec.arts.sf.written. > Was it ever relevant to that group? At least one person in this thread is renowned for his irritating habit of adding every newsgroup he can think of to lists. "This post is in English - I'll add alt.languages.english to the list. I see there was a number mentioned - I've added sci.maths for their thoughts. I've just thought about thoughts, so alt.philosophy is needed too". Anyone who feels that might refer to them could do their part towards making the world a nicer place, and either quit that habit, or leave Usenet. As I don't follow any of these groups other than C++, I can't say if it is topical or not in the other groups. I certainly don't mind if irrelevant groups are removed, but there is a real risk that some twit will re-add them. Then you still have the pointless (to you) threads, but now they are also fragmented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 12:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11blhq1$3rt71$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126996 |
David Brown wrote: > On 25/10/2026 18:19, Robert Woodward wrote: >> In article <11bl7vr$3nprb$2@dont-email.me>, >> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/25/26 06:34, Dan Cross wrote: >>>> In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>>>> model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. >>>>> There >>>>> is >>>>> no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant >>>>> waffle >>>>> about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >>>> >>>> You didn't answer my questions. >>>> >>>> What do you think that a "thread" is? >>>> What do you think that a "process" is? >>>> >>>> - Dan C. >>> >>> I vote that alt.folklore.computers gets pruned from the list of >>> recipients, as this discussion seems irrelevant here. >> >> For that matter, this entire thread has ceased to have anything to do >> with rec.arts.sf.written. >> > > Was it ever relevant to that group? At least one person in this thread > is renowned for his irritating habit of adding every newsgroup he can > think of to lists. "This post is in English - I'll add > alt.languages.english to the list. I see there was a number mentioned - > I've added sci.maths for their thoughts. I've just thought about > thoughts, so alt.philosophy is needed too". Sorry about that. I only did it because Eternal September, if I take away one of the Newsgroups: listings, it won't let me post. In such a case it only allows 3 newsgroups. That won't do for this thread. -- Can you strip away so we may start again? "There’s a switch and they don't seem authentic or themselves. It feels like I’m an unnecessary body and it’s a waste of time to even be there." -- Grim, playful Blaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 19:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bljj6$3rvgq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126997 |
On 25/10/2026 19:29, Blaine wrote: > David Brown wrote: >> On 25/10/2026 18:19, Robert Woodward wrote: >>> In article <11bl7vr$3nprb$2@dont-email.me>, >>> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/25/26 06:34, Dan Cross wrote: >>>>> In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows >>>>>> threading >>>>>> model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. >>>>>> There >>>>>> is >>>>>> no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant >>>>>> waffle >>>>>> about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >>>>> >>>>> You didn't answer my questions. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think that a "thread" is? >>>>> What do you think that a "process" is? >>>>> >>>>> - Dan C. >>>> >>>> I vote that alt.folklore.computers gets pruned from the list of >>>> recipients, as this discussion seems irrelevant here. >>> >>> For that matter, this entire thread has ceased to have anything to do >>> with rec.arts.sf.written. >>> >> >> Was it ever relevant to that group? At least one person in this >> thread is renowned for his irritating habit of adding every newsgroup >> he can think of to lists. "This post is in English - I'll add >> alt.languages.english to the list. I see there was a number mentioned >> - I've added sci.maths for their thoughts. I've just thought about >> thoughts, so alt.philosophy is needed too". > > Sorry about that. I only did it because Eternal September, if I take > away one of the Newsgroups: listings, it won't let me post. In such a > case it only allows 3 newsgroups. That won't do for this thread. > I was not thinking of you. (And in the case of this thread, the original poster cross-posted wildly to start with.) I've nothing against the occasional cross-post thread, and some threads can be relevant to multiple groups. A comparison to C++ and Fortran could easily be relevant to c.l.fortran and c.l.c++. It's mass cross-posting to irrelevant groups that bugs me (and many others).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 09:43 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11blpo1$3up7u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126992 |
On 26/10/2026 06:19, Robert Woodward wrote: > In article <11bl7vr$3nprb$2@dont-email.me>, > Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: snip >> I vote that alt.folklore.computers gets pruned from the list of >> recipients, as this discussion seems irrelevant here. > For that matter, this entire thread has ceased to have anything to do > with rec.arts.sf.written. Yes. You are correct, but there are several from r.a.sf.written making a contribution and although it is mainly above my pay grade, I am still reading. In Thunderbird, it is extremely easy to mark a thread as ignored after which you will not be annoyed by further posts on that topic. Easier than complaining.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 19:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bmfdg$6dat$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #127001 |
On 10/25/26 13:43, Titus G wrote: > On 26/10/2026 06:19, Robert Woodward wrote: >> In article <11bl7vr$3nprb$2@dont-email.me>, >> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > > snip > >>> I vote that alt.folklore.computers gets pruned from the list of >>> recipients, as this discussion seems irrelevant here. > >> For that matter, this entire thread has ceased to have anything to do >> with rec.arts.sf.written. > > Yes. You are correct, but there are several from r.a.sf.written making a > contribution and although it is mainly above my pay grade, I am still > reading. In Thunderbird, it is extremely easy to mark a thread as > ignored after which you will not be annoyed by further posts on that > topic. Easier than complaining. But a lot less fun!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 16:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bl9qm$10h8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126977 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 13:34:58 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>> [snip] >> >>No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There is >>no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle >>about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. > >You didn't answer my questions. > >What do you think that a "thread" is? >What do you think that a "process" is? Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question with a question. Given I've been programming on unix for over 30 years and have written dozens of applications using multi process and multi threading and sometimes using both I'm quite well aware of the differences. Perhaps you arn't which is why you need me to tell you. Well go do your own research. In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think C++ can provide a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one? Take your time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 16:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bla34$fid$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #126984 |
In article <11bl9qm$10h8f$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 13:34:58 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>> [snip] >>> >>>No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>>model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There is >>>no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle >>>about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >> >>You didn't answer my questions. >> >>What do you think that a "thread" is? >>What do you think that a "process" is? > >Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question with a question. In other words, you don't know. >Given I've been programming on unix for over 30 years and have written dozens >of applications using multi process and multi threading and sometimes using both >I'm quite well aware of the differences. Perhaps you arn't which is why you >need me to tell you. Well go do your own research. I'm quite sure you don't actually know. >In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think C++ can provide >a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one? You've got system(), right? What, precisely, do you want this "multi process" API to look like? >Take your time. If you want a serious answer, you've got to define your terms. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 16:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11blaui$2q6vd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126986 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 16:17:40 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article <11bl9qm$10h8f$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 13:34:58 -0000 (UTC) >>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: > >>>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>>>model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There is >>>>no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle >>>>about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >>> >>>You didn't answer my questions. >>> >>>What do you think that a "thread" is? >>>What do you think that a "process" is? >> >>Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question with a question. > >In other words, you don't know. Oh do piss off you bore, i'm not going to humour you while you try to unpaint yourself from a corner. You clearly have no idea why C++ implements one API but not the other but you wanted to try and sound clever anyway. Whoops, didn't turn out quite how you expected did it? >>In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think C++ can provide >>a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one? > >You've got system(), right? What, precisely, do you want this system?? ROTFL!! :) Oh dear, you really have no clue!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 17:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bldda$ba7$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #126988 |
In article <11blaui$2q6vd$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 16:17:40 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>> [snip] >>>>You didn't answer my questions. >>>> >>>>What do you think that a "thread" is? >>>>What do you think that a "process" is? >>> >>>Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question >with a question. >> >>In other words, you don't know. > >Oh do piss off you bore, i'm not going to humour you while >you try to unpaint >yourself from a corner. You clearly have no idea why C++ >implements one API >but not the other but you wanted to try and sound clever >anyway. Whoops, didn't >turn out quite how you expected did it? Actually, it "turned out" juat about exactly as I expected it would. >>>In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think >C++ can provide >>>a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one? >> >>You've got system(), right? What, precisely, do you want this > >system?? ROTFL!! :) > >Oh dear, you really have no clue! You're snotty little attitude aside, I note that you can't even arriculate what, exactly, it is that you want. "Argument by insult" seems about par for the course here, but using that to hide your ignorance both doesn't work and makes you look incredbily insecure. Anyway, go ahead and keep flailing. Ta! - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 09:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bn7rn$2s5fj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126990 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 17:14:18 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article <11blaui$2q6vd$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>anyway. Whoops, didn't >>turn out quite how you expected did it? > >Actually, it "turned out" juat about exactly as I expected it >would. You have low expectations then. >>Oh dear, you really have no clue! > >You're snotty little attitude aside, I note that you can't even Anyone who equates system() with multiprocess programming doesn't know wtf they're talking about. Hows that for a snotty aside? >arriculate what, exactly, it is that you want. "Argument by >insult" seems about par for the course here, but using that to >hide your ignorance both doesn't work and makes you look >incredbily insecure. > >Anyway, go ahead and keep flailing. Ta! Go ahead and remain clueless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 22:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261026220433.00007818@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #127028 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 17:14:18 -0000 (UTC) > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >In article <11blaui$2q6vd$1@dont-email.me>, > ><boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: > >>anyway. Whoops, didn't > >>turn out quite how you expected did it? > > > >Actually, it "turned out" juat about exactly as I expected it > >would. > > You have low expectations then. > > >>Oh dear, you really have no clue! > > > >You're snotty little attitude aside, I note that you can't even > > Anyone who equates system() with multiprocess programming doesn't > know wtf they're talking about. Hows that for a snotty aside? > > >arriculate what, exactly, it is that you want. "Argument by > >insult" seems about par for the course here, but using that to > >hide your ignorance both doesn't work and makes you look > >incredbily insecure. > > > >Anyway, go ahead and keep flailing. Ta! > > Go ahead and remain clueless. > system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard library?" Sometimes the answer is "because functionality is not available otherwise". But more often functonality is available in native OS API. Not just that, typically functionality of native APIs is better than one of standard language library. So, what is the other reason? It is portability at source level + "learn once use everywhere". Here system() fails. That is, the function is the same everywhere, but string argument is OS-dependent. So, system() may be achieves functionality, but does not really help portability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 09:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bsdv7$31fvn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #127043 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> Go ahead and remain clueless. >> > > >system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. >The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. >The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself "Why >do we want xyz in standard library?" The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via signals (well, not easily), you can't set its process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the default shell to do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no choice or it really is a case of "go run this, I don't care what happens".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 21:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261028214746.00004151@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #127095 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 09:06:47 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) > >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> Go ahead and remain clueless. > >> > > > > > >system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. > > Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. > > >The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. > >The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself > >"Why do we want xyz in standard library?" > > The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do with > it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't communicate with > it via pipes, you can't control it via signals (well, not easily), > you can't set its process group, tty and on and on. Actually, if you are creative enough you can do most of the above-mentioned things. Of course, what you can and what you can't do depends on capabilities of your default shell. And of course the way by which you achieve your goals via system() is VERY OS-dependent. > Oh, and it also > fires up the default shell to do the actual execution making it > hideously inefficient. It matters only when the work delegated to sub-process is both brief and done very often. > No serious unix dev uses system() unless thay > have absolutely no choice or it really is a case of "go run this, I > don't care what happens". > I can't argue about it. Supposedly, it depends on definition of "serious unix dev". In my book, serious dev is one who knows to peek correctly-sized tool to the job rather than one who always uses the most efficient tool. But that's is off topic. Pay attention that I agree with you that system() is not suitable as The Only standard way of support of multiple processes in C++ standard library, even if my reasons for that are different from yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 14:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11btoac$2prdo$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #127095 |
On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) >> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> Go ahead and remain clueless. >>> >> >> >> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. > > Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. > >> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. >> The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself "Why >> do we want xyz in standard library?" > > The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do with it is > collect its exit code when its done. You can't communicate with it via > pipes, you can't control it via signals (well, not easily), you can't set its > process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the default shell to > do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No serious unix dev > uses system() unless thay have absolutely no choice or it really is a case of > "go run this, I don't care what happens". > > Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block until the process is done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 16:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bvron$34s2l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #127104 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless. >>>> >>> >>> >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. >> >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. >> >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an efficiency. >>> The problem with system() identified most easily if we ask ourself "Why >>> do we want xyz in standard library?" >> >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do with it is >> collect its exit code when its done. You can't communicate with it via >> pipes, you can't control it via signals (well, not easily), you can't set its > >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the default shell >to >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No serious unix dev >> uses system() unless thay have absolutely no choice or it really is a case of > >> "go run this, I don't care what happens". >> >> > >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block until >the process is done. Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about that. Makes it even less useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 23:07 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261029230758.0000262c@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #127109 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:20:39 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: > >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) > >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. > >> > >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. > >> > >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an > >>> efficiency. The problem with system() identified most easily if > >>> we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard library?" > >> > >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do > >> with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't > >> communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via signals > >> (well, not easily), you can't set its > > > >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the > >> default shell > >to > >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No > >> serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no > >> choice or it really is a case of > > > >> "go run this, I don't care what happens". > >> > >> > > > >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block > >until the process is done. > > Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about > that. Makes it even less useful. > Does it block when your command processor is bash and your command string is "my_subprocess &"? Does it block when your command processor is cmd.exe and your command string "start my_subprocess" or "start /b my_subprocess"? I almost certainly tried both in the past, but don't remember what happens in each case. My expectations are that in both cases caller blocked only briefly. It is not blocked until the finish my_subprocess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 22:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <AKPES.62186$BaS5.8822@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #127113 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:20:39 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700 >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >> >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 >> >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) >> >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. >> >> >> >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. >> >> >> >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an >> >>> efficiency. The problem with system() identified most easily if >> >>> we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard library?" >> >> >> >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do >> >> with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't >> >> communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via signals >> >> (well, not easily), you can't set its >> > >> >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the >> >> default shell >> >to >> >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No >> >> serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no >> >> choice or it really is a case of >> > >> >> "go run this, I don't care what happens". >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block >> >until the process is done. >> >> Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about >> that. Makes it even less useful. >> > >Does it block when your command processor is bash and your command >string is "my_subprocess &"? You might need to do 'nohup my_subprocess &' if my_subprocess doesn't intercept SIGHUP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 00:54 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261030005434.00005458@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #127116 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 22:26:40 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 16:20:39 -0000 (UTC) > >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:09:32 -0700 > >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: > >> >On 10/28/2026 2:06 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:04:33 +0200 > >> >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >> >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:51:51 -0000 (UTC) > >> >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> >>>> Go ahead and remain clueless. > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> system() can do most of the same things as spawn() family. > >> >> > >> >> Rubbish, you clearly didn't bother to spend 2 mins googling. > >> >> > >> >>> The problem with system() is not that. Often not even an > >> >>> efficiency. The problem with system() identified most easily if > >> >>> we ask ourself "Why do we want xyz in standard library?" > >> >> > >> >> The problem with system is its fire and forget - all you can do > >> >> with it is collect its exit code when its done. You can't > >> >> communicate with it via pipes, you can't control it via signals > >> >> (well, not easily), you can't set its > >> > > >> >> process group, tty and on and on. Oh, and it also fires up the > >> >> default shell > >> >to > >> >> do the actual execution making it hideously inefficient. No > >> >> serious unix dev uses system() unless thay have absolutely no > >> >> choice or it really is a case of > >> > > >> >> "go run this, I don't care what happens". > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >Right. std::system, at least when I use it, makes the caller block > >> >until the process is done. > >> > >> Thats true. Its been so long since I used it I'd forgotten about > >> that. Makes it even less useful. > >> > > > >Does it block when your command processor is bash and your command > >string is "my_subprocess &"? > > You might need to do 'nohup my_subprocess &' if my_subprocess > doesn't intercept SIGHUP. You are likely right. Otherwise OS will kill my_subprocess at about the same time the caller of system() gets control back. I would not figure it out myself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 26 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.fortran
csiph-web