Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #75866 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-10-10 01:30 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-10-15 18:11 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 277 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-10 01:30 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-10-10 08:20 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 11:03 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 11:42 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-11 11:09 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-11 11:57 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-12 12:53 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-12 17:50 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 21:30 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-12 12:56 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-10 09:29 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-10 03:34 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-10 13:06 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:17 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 21:42 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-10 23:02 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:42 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-11 18:48 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 22:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-12 23:08 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security apapmurray <apap.murray@mail.com> - 2025-10-11 14:26 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-13 03:07 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 10:42 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-13 12:47 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 16:34 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-13 17:41 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 19:07 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-13 18:22 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 01:44 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 06:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:40 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:02 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:31 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-15 01:25 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 22:57 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-17 16:13 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-17 22:55 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 05:40 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-18 03:12 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 11:16 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-18 21:54 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 03:32 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-20 18:01 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-20 20:52 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-21 02:25 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 00:47 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-21 09:42 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-21 22:58 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 23:52 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-22 05:31 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 01:57 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 12:12 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 23:57 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-23 04:06 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-22 21:45 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-23 03:22 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-23 19:30 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-23 09:05 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-23 19:35 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-23 09:04 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-23 19:16 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-22 05:19 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 12:39 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-22 18:03 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-22 15:27 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 22:42 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 04:24 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:34 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 11:06 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 03:04 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-19 19:33 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 01:40 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-20 10:03 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 23:31 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-21 09:28 +0100
Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-18 20:12 +0200
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 04:16 -0400
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-19 14:03 +0200
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 22:50 +0100
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-20 00:18 +0200
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-20 01:57 +0000
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-20 05:14 +0000
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-20 10:18 +0200
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 02:10 -0400
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-20 18:01 +0000
Re: Logic [Was: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-20 04:57 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:27 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:18 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:03 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-15 05:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:23 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:10 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 19:34 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:24 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 21:11 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:54 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:02 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-17 16:17 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-17 17:30 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:16 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 02:32 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:55 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:19 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:29 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-17 00:48 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-17 22:41 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 05:29 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-18 02:45 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 10:53 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:38 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-18 17:39 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-18 18:50 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 04:26 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:37 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 03:52 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 12:02 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 18:31 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-18 18:51 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 04:23 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:31 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 10:50 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-18 18:40 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:33 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-19 19:10 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 01:10 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-20 10:02 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-20 18:55 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-20 12:30 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-20 20:57 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 00:31 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-21 09:37 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-21 13:54 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-21 15:46 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-21 23:02 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 00:13 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-22 04:44 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 01:49 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 12:35 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 12:35 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-22 18:03 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-22 14:50 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 15:01 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-22 21:50 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-23 09:43 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-23 18:56 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-23 00:32 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-23 09:11 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 23:17 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 11:58 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 22:22 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-22 04:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 01:36 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 11:42 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 00:06 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-20 20:56 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-21 02:45 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-21 01:09 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-21 19:13 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-22 11:38 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-22 21:49 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-22 23:20 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:37 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:53 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 10:47 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:35 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:49 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-20 01:59 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-20 02:28 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-17 16:19 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-17 22:07 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-17 17:57 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 10:44 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:39 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-17 22:52 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-18 11:02 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-19 02:50 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-19 11:57 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-13 11:45 -0700
Recursion and Fibonnaci (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 23:26 +0100
Re: Recursion and Fibonnaci Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-14 00:13 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 00:13 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:18 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-14 10:31 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 11:08 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 19:02 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 21:46 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 04:46 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-15 05:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:13 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 21:07 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:11 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 18:50 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:13 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 21:14 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 02:23 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:21 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 02:39 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:15 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:12 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-16 18:43 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-14 17:20 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:08 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 18:31 +0000
Computer Science (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:27 +0100
Re: Computer Science (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 04:40 +0000
Re: Computer Science (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-15 05:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 21:29 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-15 05:36 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-15 03:41 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:33 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:23 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:31 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:17 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:54 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-17 00:41 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:42 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:04 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 08:39 -0700
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:17 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 02:36 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 06:57 +0000
OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 10:13 +0100
Re: OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 17:42 +0100
Re: OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-16 15:47 -0700
Re: OT: Examples for teaching recursion in programming Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-17 00:43 +0000
GOTO (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 23:48 +0100
Re: GOTO (was: Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 00:30 +0000
Re: GOTO c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 01:19 -0400
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:31 +0100
Re: GOTO Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-14 08:21 +0100
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:34 +0100
Re: GOTO c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-14 20:57 -0400
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:29 +0100
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:21 +0100
Re: GOTO Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 11:42 +0100
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 13:02 +0100
Re: GOTO rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-14 19:08 +0000
Re: GOTO Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:20 +0100
Re: GOTO rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:53 +0000
Re: GOTO The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:16 +0100
Re: GOTO Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 15:21 +0100
Re: GOTO Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 00:25 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 22:58 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 23:09 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-14 22:37 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-10-14 23:41 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-15 00:15 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-10-15 04:32 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:29 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:23 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:38 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-15 05:04 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:30 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-16 21:53 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-17 00:48 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-17 12:56 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-17 08:22 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 12:26 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 01:22 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 08:11 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-16 06:53 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 08:56 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 03:04 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-16 03:03 -0400
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-10-16 07:08 +0000
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:37 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 12:39 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:57 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 15:31 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 10:25 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-16 11:34 +0100
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-10-16 12:40 +0200
Re: Warning - Serious 'sudo' Flaw Compromises Security Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 18:11 +0100
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-11 22:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <W-WcnRRsBfSpknb1nZ2dnZfqnPhj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75949 |
On 10/11/25 14:48, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 02:42:58 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Note that a lot of people update like NEVER ... > > Thanks for the reminder. I hadn't updated the Fedora box in a few days. > Yep, another new kernel and some Python stuff. Python seems to get a lot > of patches. Lots of things seem to get frequent patches - and FireFox seems to update the entire thing like weekly now. But there does seem to be a fair segment who got sold on the idea that Linux was invulnerable. They install a distro and then NEVER update it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-12 23:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <avhtrlx0n3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #75975 |
On 2025-10-12 04:15, c186282 wrote: > On 10/11/25 14:48, rbowman wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 02:42:58 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> Note that a lot of people update like NEVER ... >> >> Thanks for the reminder. I hadn't updated the Fedora box in a few days. >> Yep, another new kernel and some Python stuff. Python seems to get a lot >> of patches. > > Lots of things seem to get frequent patches - and FireFox > seems to update the entire thing like weekly now. > > But there does seem to be a fair segment who got sold on > the idea that Linux was invulnerable. They install a distro > and then NEVER update it. There are people that know what they are doing and never update a machine, even servers accessible from internet, unless there is an issue that directly affects them. For example, the description of this issue says "A local attacker can exploit this flaw to escalate privileges". Well, clearly this is a non issue for a machine with no local users. Or a machine with trusted local users. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | apapmurray <apap.murray@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-11 14:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10cdluk$pc59$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75866 |
On 10/10/2025 06:30, c186282 wrote: > Me, I just un-installed 'sudo'. I've always seen it > as a kind of stupid work-around to proper security > anyway. Open a terminal and 'su' instead. I use sudo out of habit, never really thought about it. I suppose I could keep an authenticated session alive and set TMOUT to a reasonable value. Or maybe try run0 for the first time ever since I use systemd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 03:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1NucnW53DZrMOHH1nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75944 |
On 10/11/25 09:26, apapmurray wrote: > On 10/10/2025 06:30, c186282 wrote: >> Me, I just un-installed 'sudo'. I've always seen it >> as a kind of stupid work-around to proper security >> anyway. Open a terminal and 'su' instead. > > I use sudo out of habit, never really thought about it. I suppose I > could keep an authenticated session alive and set TMOUT to a reasonable > value. Or maybe try run0 for the first time ever since I use systemd. Sudo basically trashes the user-sep concept in Linux. Really you should NOT install it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 10:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10cihiq$23kb8$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76027 |
On 13/10/2025 08:07, c186282 wrote: > On 10/11/25 09:26, apapmurray wrote: >> On 10/10/2025 06:30, c186282 wrote: >>> Me, I just un-installed 'sudo'. I've always seen it >>> as a kind of stupid work-around to proper security >>> anyway. Open a terminal and 'su' instead. >> >> I use sudo out of habit, never really thought about it. I suppose I >> could keep an authenticated session alive and set TMOUT to a >> reasonable value. Or maybe try run0 for the first time ever since I >> use systemd. > > Sudo basically trashes the user-sep concept > in Linux. Really you should NOT install it. > I've never had any problem trashing a concept dreamed up by a computer scientist. To achieve a pragmatic result. Including code littered with 'go to jail, move directly to jail, do not collect £200' What else is try throw and catch? The IP stack doesn't obey idealised rules either. I remember in my hardware days being asked to test a board, about 6" x 10" with about 60 gold plated contacts on one edge that contained two 741 op-amps 7 resistors and three capacitors, simply because the 'bock digram' showed two analogue signals being added together and subtracted from a third...and the monkey who turned the block diagram into board level specifications simply copied it In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. -- Yogi Berra -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 12:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10cios3$25sim$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76045 |
On 10/13/25 10:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 13/10/2025 08:07, c186282 wrote: >> On 10/11/25 09:26, apapmurray wrote: >>> On 10/10/2025 06:30, c186282 wrote: >>>> Me, I just un-installed 'sudo'. I've always seen it >>>> as a kind of stupid work-around to proper security >>>> anyway. Open a terminal and 'su' instead. >>> >>> I use sudo out of habit, never really thought about it. I suppose I >>> could keep an authenticated session alive and set TMOUT to a >>> reasonable value. Or maybe try run0 for the first time ever since I >>> use systemd. >> >> Sudo basically trashes the user-sep concept >> in Linux. Really you should NOT install it. >> > > I've never had any problem trashing a concept dreamed up by a computer > scientist. > To achieve a pragmatic result. > > Including code littered with 'go to jail, move directly to jail, do not > collect £200' > > What else is try throw and catch? > FWIW in C an error handling style pattern using GOTOs, like throw/catch, was deemed OK. It was only unstructured use of GOTOs that was frowned upon, i.e. using GOTOs rather than functions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 16:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10cj667$29n96$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76063 |
On 13/10/2025 12:47, Pancho wrote: > On 10/13/25 10:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 13/10/2025 08:07, c186282 wrote: >>> On 10/11/25 09:26, apapmurray wrote: >>>> On 10/10/2025 06:30, c186282 wrote: >>>>> Me, I just un-installed 'sudo'. I've always seen it >>>>> as a kind of stupid work-around to proper security >>>>> anyway. Open a terminal and 'su' instead. >>>> >>>> I use sudo out of habit, never really thought about it. I suppose I >>>> could keep an authenticated session alive and set TMOUT to a >>>> reasonable value. Or maybe try run0 for the first time ever since I >>>> use systemd. >>> >>> Sudo basically trashes the user-sep concept >>> in Linux. Really you should NOT install it. >>> >> >> I've never had any problem trashing a concept dreamed up by a computer >> scientist. >> To achieve a pragmatic result. >> >> Including code littered with 'go to jail, move directly to jail, do >> not collect £200' >> >> What else is try throw and catch? >> > > FWIW in C an error handling style pattern using GOTOs, like throw/catch, > was deemed OK. It was only unstructured use of GOTOs that was frowned > upon, i.e. using GOTOs rather than functions. Plenty of code divas will go to any lengths to avoid the dreaded goto. Despite the fact than in Intel style assembler an if then else is basically achieved using a conditional branch and a goto... CMP A,B; if (A = B) BE S2: ; then goto S2 S1: ; execute else... JMP S3; ENDIF S2: ; execute IF TRUE S3: ENDIF etc etc. -- "I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gRaHQ.184188$6_hb.85411@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #76064 |
On 2025-10-13, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 13/10/2025 12:47, Pancho wrote: > >> FWIW in C an error handling style pattern using GOTOs, like throw/catch, >> was deemed OK. It was only unstructured use of GOTOs that was frowned >> upon, i.e. using GOTOs rather than functions. > > Plenty of code divas will go to any lengths to avoid the dreaded goto. > > Despite the fact than in Intel style assembler an if then else is > basically achieved using a conditional branch and a goto... > > CMP A,B; if (A = B) > BE S2: ; then goto S2 > S1: ; execute else... > JMP S3; ENDIF > S2: ; execute IF TRUE > S3: ENDIF > > etc etc. It's funny how CS weenies loudly decry the undisciplined use of GOTOs, while the undisciplined use of function calls is OK. It's still spaghetti code - but since a function call is just a GOTO paired with a COME FROM, you're running double strands. The other way to spot CS weenies is their gratuitous use of recursion. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 19:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10cjf5m$2cnh5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76071 |
On 13/10/2025 18:41, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-10-13, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 13/10/2025 12:47, Pancho wrote: >> >>> FWIW in C an error handling style pattern using GOTOs, like throw/catch, >>> was deemed OK. It was only unstructured use of GOTOs that was frowned >>> upon, i.e. using GOTOs rather than functions. >> >> Plenty of code divas will go to any lengths to avoid the dreaded goto. >> >> Despite the fact than in Intel style assembler an if then else is >> basically achieved using a conditional branch and a goto... >> >> CMP A,B; if (A = B) >> BE S2: ; then goto S2 >> S1: ; execute else... >> JMP S3; ENDIF >> S2: ; execute IF TRUE >> S3: ENDIF >> >> etc etc. > > It's funny how CS weenies loudly decry the undisciplined use > of GOTOs, while the undisciplined use of function calls is OK. > It's still spaghetti code - but since a function call is just > a GOTO paired with a COME FROM, you're running double strands. > > The other way to spot CS weenies is their gratuitous use of > recursion. > Possibly. It can be elegant. Or not. I used it in a maze building program very successfully. -- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H.L.Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <SrbHQ.68586$RrE7.59909@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #76073 |
On 2025-10-13, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 13/10/2025 18:41, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> The other way to spot CS weenies is their gratuitous use of >> recursion. > > Possibly. It can be elegant. Or not. > I used it in a maze building program very successfully. That's why I included the word "gratuitous" above. I once wrote an assembler for the Univac 90/30 (sort of like the IBM 360). To test the macro processor I wrote a recursive Towers of Hanoi macro. It generated no code, just a bunch of MNOTEs telling you where to move the disks. The program listing itself was the solution. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 01:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RI2cnfyQDJK4fnD1nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #76074 |
On 10/13/25 14:22, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-10-13, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 13/10/2025 18:41, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> The other way to spot CS weenies is their gratuitous use of >>> recursion. >> >> Possibly. It can be elegant. Or not. >> I used it in a maze building program very successfully. > > That's why I included the word "gratuitous" above. > > I once wrote an assembler for the Univac 90/30 (sort of > like the IBM 360). To test the macro processor I wrote > a recursive Towers of Hanoi macro. It generated no code, > just a bunch of MNOTEs telling you where to move the disks. > The program listing itself was the solution. Recursion is FUN - if you have the stack/mem to spare. Once wrote an n-field sort routine that relied on recursion. Nice, small, satisfying. But yea, it CAN become stupid. Often a straight-on approach is quicker and simpler. CS isn't "practical programming" - not at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 06:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ml69afFhs47U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #76097 |
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 01:44:08 -0400, c186282 wrote: > On 10/13/25 14:22, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2025-10-13, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 13/10/2025 18:41, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> The other way to spot CS weenies is their gratuitous use of >>>> recursion. >>> >>> Possibly. It can be elegant. Or not. >>> I used it in a maze building program very successfully. >> >> That's why I included the word "gratuitous" above. >> >> I once wrote an assembler for the Univac 90/30 (sort of like the IBM >> 360). To test the macro processor I wrote a recursive Towers of Hanoi >> macro. It generated no code, >> just a bunch of MNOTEs telling you where to move the disks. >> The program listing itself was the solution. > > Recursion is FUN - if you have the stack/mem to spare. Once wrote an > n-field sort routine that relied on recursion. Nice, small, > satisfying. > > But yea, it CAN become stupid. Often a straight-on approach is > quicker and simpler. > > CS isn't "practical programming" - not at all. It's the same as any other relationship between science and engineering. You don't want a physicist designing a bridge although the basis of civil engineering is physics. There are universities that offer BS and MSE programs in software engineering. I don't know how much they differ from the computer science programs. The local university offers CS and I'm not overly impressed but technology isn't really their forte.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 10:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10cl5qu$2q6c4$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76099 |
On 14/10/2025 07:36, rbowman wrote: > It's the same as any other relationship between science and engineering. > You don't want a physicist designing a bridge although the basis of civil > engineering is physics. There are universities that offer BS and MSE > programs in software engineering. I don't know how much they differ from > the computer science programs. The local university offers CS and I'm not > overly impressed but technology isn't really their forte. I once browsed my local university frequented bookshop for books on computer stuff. CDS bough things like Knutshg 'fundamental algorithms;' An impenetrable and pointless exercise in mathematical analysis. Software engineers or information technologists bought books with chapters like 'planning and management of complex project design' , purpose and implementation of documentation standards' and 'use of test routines' 'uses and abuses of object orientated philosophy' and so on. In other words, what you actually need to write software...in a real world -- “It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” Thomas Sowell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 23:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cmkps$39hde$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76115 |
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 10:40:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > I once browsed my local university frequented bookshop for books on > computer stuff. > CDS bough things like Knutshg 'fundamental algorithms;' An impenetrable > and pointless exercise in mathematical analysis. I have a copy of “Sorting and Searching” on my shelf. That was the only volume of his magnum opus I felt worth buying. > Software engineers or information technologists bought books with > chapters like > 'planning and management of complex project design' , purpose and > implementation of documentation standards' and 'use of test routines' > 'uses and abuses of object orientated philosophy' and so on. > > In other words, what you actually need to write software...in a real > world Anybody who buys a book with “philosophy” in the title ... probably shouldn’t be allowed to manage a software project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 23:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <A3BHQ.499403$2R62.462147@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #76142 |
On 2025-10-14, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > Anybody who buys a book with “philosophy” in the title ... probably > shouldn’t be allowed to manage a software project. Ironically, an elective course on logic that I took in university was labeled "Philosophy 302". That's where I learned about things like De Morgan's theorem, which comes in quite handy for programming. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 01:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cmt5g$3bg6j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76146 |
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 23:31:44 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2025-10-14, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Anybody who buys a book with “philosophy” in the title ... probably
>> shouldn’t be allowed to manage a software project.
>
> Ironically, an elective course on logic that I took in university was
> labeled "Philosophy 302".
> That's where I learned about things like De Morgan's theorem, which
> comes in quite handy for programming.
I didn’t think philosphers believed in logic ... ;)
I found an explanation of De Morgan’s Theorem in a book on computing
hardware, I think it was. Hard to believe you can find people who write
software, who don’t understand it. I remember on the Python group some
years ago getting into an argument with someone who didn’t seem to
appreciate that the opposite of
a = b ∨ a = c
was not
a ≠ b ∨ a ≠ c
but
a ≠ b ∧ a ≠ c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 22:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <-ZCcnbpqnNEEkHL1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #76155 |
On 10/14/25 21:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 23:31:44 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2025-10-14, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Anybody who buys a book with “philosophy” in the title ... probably >>> shouldn’t be allowed to manage a software project. >> >> Ironically, an elective course on logic that I took in university was >> labeled "Philosophy 302". >> That's where I learned about things like De Morgan's theorem, which >> comes in quite handy for programming. > > I didn’t think philosphers believed in logic ... ;) > > I found an explanation of De Morgan’s Theorem in a book on computing > hardware, I think it was. Hard to believe you can find people who write > software, who don’t understand it. I remember on the Python group some > years ago getting into an argument with someone who didn’t seem to > appreciate that the opposite of > > a = b ∨ a = c > > was not > > a ≠ b ∨ a ≠ c > > but > > a ≠ b ∧ a ≠ c Never even heard of DeMorgan ... but I've fooled around enough with ands/ors/nands/xors to know what you're talking about. Wrote nice little, not 'encryption' but 'obfuscator', app for use in the company. The goals were to mush things up enough so nobody there would even try to decode it BUT if you did understand the process you COULD (in a bit) decode it even if you lost the password. Not everything needs to be spook-proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-17 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ctpvt$17cip$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #76159 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 10/14/25 21:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 23:31:44 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2025-10-14, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Anybody who buys a book with “philosophy” in the title ... probably >>>> shouldn’t be allowed to manage a software project. >>> >>> Ironically, an elective course on logic that I took in university was >>> labeled "Philosophy 302". >>> That's where I learned about things like De Morgan's theorem, which >>> comes in quite handy for programming. >> >> I didn’t think philosphers believed in logic ... ;) >> >> I found an explanation of De Morgan’s Theorem in a book on computing >> hardware, I think it was. Hard to believe you can find people who write >> software, who don’t understand it. I remember on the Python group some >> years ago getting into an argument with someone who didn’t seem to >> appreciate that the opposite of >> >> a = b ∨ a = c >> >> was not >> >> a ≠ b ∨ a ≠ c >> >> but >> >> a ≠ b ∧ a ≠ c > > Never even heard of DeMorgan The basics underlying boolean logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-17 22:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2smdnb0rA9AEnG71nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #76280 |
On 10/17/25 12:13, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 10/14/25 21:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 23:31:44 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> On 2025-10-14, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anybody who buys a book with “philosophy” in the title ... probably >>>>> shouldn’t be allowed to manage a software project. >>>> >>>> Ironically, an elective course on logic that I took in university was >>>> labeled "Philosophy 302". >>>> That's where I learned about things like De Morgan's theorem, which >>>> comes in quite handy for programming. >>> >>> I didn’t think philosphers believed in logic ... ;) >>> >>> I found an explanation of De Morgan’s Theorem in a book on computing >>> hardware, I think it was. Hard to believe you can find people who write >>> software, who don’t understand it. I remember on the Python group some >>> years ago getting into an argument with someone who didn’t seem to >>> appreciate that the opposite of >>> >>> a = b ∨ a = c >>> >>> was not >>> >>> a ≠ b ∨ a ≠ c >>> >>> but >>> >>> a ≠ b ∧ a ≠ c >> >> Never even heard of DeMorgan > > The basics underlying boolean logic: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws Never heard of him until now. Figured out the relevant boolean/logic rules on the fly while writing my programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-18 05:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mlgnj9Fc4rqU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #76295 |
On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 22:55:20 -0400, c186282 wrote: > On 10/17/25 12:13, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> On 10/14/25 21:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 23:31:44 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2025-10-14, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Anybody who buys a book with “philosophy” in the title ... probably >>>>>> shouldn’t be allowed to manage a software project. >>>>> >>>>> Ironically, an elective course on logic that I took in university >>>>> was labeled "Philosophy 302". >>>>> That's where I learned about things like De Morgan's theorem, which >>>>> comes in quite handy for programming. >>>> >>>> I didn’t think philosphers believed in logic ... ;) >>>> >>>> I found an explanation of De Morgan’s Theorem in a book on computing >>>> hardware, I think it was. Hard to believe you can find people who >>>> write software, who don’t understand it. I remember on the Python >>>> group some years ago getting into an argument with someone who didn’t >>>> seem to appreciate that the opposite of >>>> >>>> a = b ∨ a = c >>>> >>>> was not >>>> >>>> a ≠ b ∨ a ≠ c >>>> >>>> but >>>> >>>> a ≠ b ∧ a ≠ c >>> >>> Never even heard of DeMorgan >> >> The basics underlying boolean logic: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws > > Never heard of him until now. Figured out the relevant boolean/logic > rules on the fly while writing my programs. I stumbled onto 'Principia Mathematica' at an early age which probably warped me for life. I don't really care for mathematics, I think that also led me to some of Dodgson's work. He is better know in other fields. youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web