Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #56833 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-02-22 12:56 -0600 |
| Last post | 2014-03-01 21:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 197 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> - 2014-02-22 12:56 -0600
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 14:15 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 14:47 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 21:30 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 19:04 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-23 00:36 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 09:48 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-23 16:41 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 12:05 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-23 17:22 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-24 02:15 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 03:57 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 18:25 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-25 08:16 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-25 19:50 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-02-23 07:51 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 11:23 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-02-23 15:05 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 20:01 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 04:21 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-24 04:35 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 06:00 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-24 16:52 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-24 21:54 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 17:44 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-25 00:19 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 19:26 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-25 00:40 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 19:46 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-25 00:57 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 17:43 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-25 00:19 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 19:29 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-25 00:40 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 19:45 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-25 00:57 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 05:04 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 06:00 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 16:10 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-24 12:15 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 22:33 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 17:47 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-02-25 13:41 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-25 09:06 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-25 17:34 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-25 19:14 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-25 20:42 +0100
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-25 21:32 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> - 2014-02-25 17:12 -0600
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> - 2014-02-25 17:24 -0600
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-26 02:38 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> - 2014-02-25 21:03 -0600
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-26 04:19 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2014-02-28 11:29 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> - 2014-02-28 12:48 -0600
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-26 01:44 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-25 21:59 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 22:33 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 23:13 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 17:45 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 23:17 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 18:28 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-24 23:16 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-02-24 21:17 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-25 21:03 +0100
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-25 21:00 +0100
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-25 22:02 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-25 08:11 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-25 16:47 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-25 17:03 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-25 19:45 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-26 00:05 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-25 20:57 +0100
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2014-02-26 09:52 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-06 02:36 +0200
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-24 21:24 +0100
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 20:43 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 17:40 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-23 16:47 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-02-23 15:37 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 20:08 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 01:15 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-02-23 18:45 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 02:52 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-02-23 19:01 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 04:23 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-24 22:10 +0100
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 22:21 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 17:27 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 17:27 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-02-24 21:05 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-25 19:34 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-24 21:58 +0100
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 18:04 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-25 02:44 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 01:14 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 04:11 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 18:36 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-25 08:20 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-25 17:00 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-25 20:05 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-25 21:31 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-02-25 19:13 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-26 04:35 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-26 06:42 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-01 21:57 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-26 23:29 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-04-13 15:06 -0400
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-04-13 21:11 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-04-15 17:03 -0400
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-16 09:29 +1200
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-25 19:29 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-26 00:49 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-25 19:59 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-26 02:03 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-25 22:13 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-26 14:03 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-26 23:42 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-27 17:03 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-26 02:47 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-26 00:10 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-04-13 15:11 -0400
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-13 15:43 -0400
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-26 02:42 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-04-13 15:08 -0400
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-13 15:41 -0400
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-25 19:18 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-26 23:39 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-27 17:09 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 13:03 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-02-23 01:32 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 10:07 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-06 02:44 +0200
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-22 17:49 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 19:07 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-22 22:23 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-23 03:49 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 10:12 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-23 16:42 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 14:38 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 10:11 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 14:38 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 10:42 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-24 17:07 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-02-22 23:01 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 14:38 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-24 01:46 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-01 21:52 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-02 00:05 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-24 22:24 +0100
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw mcarels@xs4all.nl (Maarten Carels) - 2014-02-24 10:43 +0100
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 18:39 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 19:16 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 14:18 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-22 13:43 -0600
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 14:52 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-02-22 20:05 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 15:16 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-02-22 21:10 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 16:25 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-02-22 22:13 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 22:19 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 18:55 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-02-23 09:38 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 10:17 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-02-23 15:42 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 10:45 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-02-23 17:09 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 13:51 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-02-23 20:07 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 15:14 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 15:20 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-24 02:18 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-22 17:51 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 17:55 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-22 21:50 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 19:09 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-02-22 12:35 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 16:59 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 22:14 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 17:53 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-22 18:01 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 18:22 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 18:29 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 23:33 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 18:23 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 01:08 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-22 21:49 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-02-22 22:57 -0800
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-23 16:36 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 11:58 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 14:35 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-23 21:03 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 18:23 -0500
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 01:07 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-24 01:53 +0000
Re: Latest IOS/OS X SSL security flaw Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-01 21:53 +0000
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-23 20:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MZudnaWC2r_uBpfOnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56926 |
On 2014.02.23, 18:37 , Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <bmun0vF59p1U4@mid.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-02-23, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> In article <bmsu50Fnr6sU2@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-02-23, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On 2014.02.22, 16:30 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014-02-22, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2014.02.22, 14:15 , nospam wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <lears8$l8d$1@dont-email.me>, Ted Lee
>>>>>>>> <tmplee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The press and gossip rag reports say the recently discovered
>>>>>>>>> security flaw with SSL is present in both IOS and OS X. The
>>>>>>>>> patch for IOS showed up last night. The reports say the OS X
>>>>>>>>> one will be out soon. Has anyone run across a technically
>>>>>>>>> competent (as opposed to sensationalized fear-mongering amateur
>>>>>>>>> drivel) discussion of the flaw *and* a conclusive statement
>>>>>>>>> that it is indeed present in OS X?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is in os x, and it's nothing more than an extra goto.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROFL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> goto has always been a source of low software quality - and it
>>>>>>> rears its head again here - although it looks more like sloppy
>>>>>>> editing than anything else - like another line of condition code
>>>>>>> had been deleted or moved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. And as John Gruber (Daring Fireball) asserted, the
>>>>>> practice of using curly braces for if blocks would have made the
>>>>>> slip-up much more obvious. I tend to prefer using braces in if
>>>>>> blocks myself.
>>>
>>> I tend toward "overkill unto the verge of paranoia" when bracing
>>> conditionals, for exactly that reason. Even though I'm quite aware
>>> that "if (foo) bar(foo);" is perfectly valid code that'll compile
>>> without so much as a hiccup, if I'm coding something that needs that
>>> sort of construct, I'm most likely going to write it as
>>> if (foo)
>>> {
>>> bar(foo);
>>> }
>>> else
>>> {
>>> // It's a bad idea to bar() a nil foo
>>> }
>>> specifically to negate even the possibility of getting bit by that
>>> type of bug. Vertical space is cheap insurance :)
>>
>> Indeed! Like minds, there! (Only difference I tend not to indent th
>> braces themselves.)
>
> That's at least partly the product of the ridicule I took from the
> instructor when I turned in my first project in my first formal Pascal
> class - I didn't believe in indenting - PERIOD! So imagine 100 lines or
> so of Pascal without so much as a single indent to be seen *ANYWHERE*.
> After that, I started indenting every damned thing under the sun. Over
> time, I fell back to an indenting policy that's at least A LITTLE saner.
> :)
>
> I couldn't help it - I was a roughly 16 year old self-taught "computer
> expert" who cut his programming teeth on a mix of TRS-80 Level I BASIC,
> Integer (and later Applesoft) BASIC, Z80 *MACHINE LANGUAGE* (not
> "assembler" - We're talking pure hex bytes arrived at through laborious
> lookups in the back of the book), 8080 assembler created by
> hand-translating pencil-and-paper source into hex and then punching it
> into the old MS-DOS DEBUG.COM program a byte at a time) and 6502
> assembler (using, at first, nothing but the built-in "mini-assembler" on
> the Apple II, eventually moving to the "LISA" assembler, and finally
> Merlin-Pro)
Did pretty much all that and at the same age. (Machine language
(6502/10; 6800); ASM; BASIC) Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in
column 7 other than labels. hp-2100 assembler; 1802 (ugh); 8085 (quite
nice, actually); 8086... even IBM360/370 assembler ...
When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was:
THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR.
(Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code).
--
Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bmvkqfFbp4lU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56930 |
On 2014-02-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > Did pretty much all that and at the same age. (Machine language > (6502/10; 6800); ASM; BASIC) Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in > column 7 other than labels. hp-2100 assembler; 1802 (ugh); 8085 (quite > nice, actually); 8086... even IBM360/370 assembler ... > > When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was: > > THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR. > > (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code). Pascal had similar effects on me. Glad I learned it when I did! -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-23 18:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <leebn4$lvk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56930 |
In article <MZudnaWC2r_uBpfOnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.02.23, 18:37 , Don Bruder wrote:
> > In article <bmun0vF59p1U4@mid.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2014-02-23, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>> In article <bmsu50Fnr6sU2@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2014-02-23, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>>>> On 2014.02.22, 16:30 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2014-02-22, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2014.02.22, 14:15 , nospam wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <lears8$l8d$1@dont-email.me>, Ted Lee
> >>>>>>>> <tmplee@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The press and gossip rag reports say the recently discovered
> >>>>>>>>> security flaw with SSL is present in both IOS and OS X. The
> >>>>>>>>> patch for IOS showed up last night. The reports say the OS X
> >>>>>>>>> one will be out soon. Has anyone run across a technically
> >>>>>>>>> competent (as opposed to sensationalized fear-mongering amateur
> >>>>>>>>> drivel) discussion of the flaw *and* a conclusive statement
> >>>>>>>>> that it is indeed present in OS X?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> it is in os x, and it's nothing more than an extra goto.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ROFL.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> goto has always been a source of low software quality - and it
> >>>>>>> rears its head again here - although it looks more like sloppy
> >>>>>>> editing than anything else - like another line of condition code
> >>>>>>> had been deleted or moved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Indeed. And as John Gruber (Daring Fireball) asserted, the
> >>>>>> practice of using curly braces for if blocks would have made the
> >>>>>> slip-up much more obvious. I tend to prefer using braces in if
> >>>>>> blocks myself.
> >>>
> >>> I tend toward "overkill unto the verge of paranoia" when bracing
> >>> conditionals, for exactly that reason. Even though I'm quite aware
> >>> that "if (foo) bar(foo);" is perfectly valid code that'll compile
> >>> without so much as a hiccup, if I'm coding something that needs that
> >>> sort of construct, I'm most likely going to write it as
> >>> if (foo)
> >>> {
> >>> bar(foo);
> >>> }
> >>> else
> >>> {
> >>> // It's a bad idea to bar() a nil foo
> >>> }
> >>> specifically to negate even the possibility of getting bit by that
> >>> type of bug. Vertical space is cheap insurance :)
> >>
> >> Indeed! Like minds, there! (Only difference I tend not to indent th
> >> braces themselves.)
> >
> > That's at least partly the product of the ridicule I took from the
> > instructor when I turned in my first project in my first formal Pascal
> > class - I didn't believe in indenting - PERIOD! So imagine 100 lines or
> > so of Pascal without so much as a single indent to be seen *ANYWHERE*.
> > After that, I started indenting every damned thing under the sun. Over
> > time, I fell back to an indenting policy that's at least A LITTLE saner.
> > :)
> >
> > I couldn't help it - I was a roughly 16 year old self-taught "computer
> > expert" who cut his programming teeth on a mix of TRS-80 Level I BASIC,
> > Integer (and later Applesoft) BASIC, Z80 *MACHINE LANGUAGE* (not
> > "assembler" - We're talking pure hex bytes arrived at through laborious
> > lookups in the back of the book), 8080 assembler created by
> > hand-translating pencil-and-paper source into hex and then punching it
> > into the old MS-DOS DEBUG.COM program a byte at a time) and 6502
> > assembler (using, at first, nothing but the built-in "mini-assembler" on
> > the Apple II, eventually moving to the "LISA" assembler, and finally
> > Merlin-Pro)
>
>
> Did pretty much all that and at the same age. (Machine language
> (6502/10; 6800); ASM; BASIC) Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in
> column 7 other than labels. hp-2100 assembler; 1802 (ugh); 8085 (quite
> nice, actually); 8086... even IBM360/370 assembler ...
>
> When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was:
>
> THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR.
>
> (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code).
Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there
in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic)
learned to code is wrong?
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bmvqfpFcqfdU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56936 |
On 2014-02-24, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > In article <MZudnaWC2r_uBpfOnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com>, > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >> >> Did pretty much all that and at the same age. (Machine language >> (6502/10; 6800); ASM; BASIC) Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in >> column 7 other than labels. hp-2100 assembler; 1802 (ugh); 8085 (quite >> nice, actually); 8086... even IBM360/370 assembler ... >> >> When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was: >> >> THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR. >> >> (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code). > > Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there > in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic) > learned to code is wrong? Every developer has their own style. Trying to get a number of them to agree on such minutia is akin to herding cats. : ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-23 19:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <leecl6$lvk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56938 |
In article <bmvqfpFcqfdU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2014-02-24, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > > In article <MZudnaWC2r_uBpfOnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com>, > > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > >> > >> Did pretty much all that and at the same age. (Machine language > >> (6502/10; 6800); ASM; BASIC) Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in > >> column 7 other than labels. hp-2100 assembler; 1802 (ugh); 8085 (quite > >> nice, actually); 8086... even IBM360/370 assembler ... > >> > >> When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was: > >> > >> THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR. > >> > >> (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code). > > > > Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there > > in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic) > > learned to code is wrong? > > Every developer has their own style. Trying to get a number of them to > agree on such minutia is akin to herding cats. : ) With or without rabies? :) -- Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 04:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlgliap.fcb.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #56938 |
In message <bmvqfpFcqfdU3@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2014-02-24, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: >> In article <MZudnaWC2r_uBpfOnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com>, >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>> >>> Did pretty much all that and at the same age. (Machine language >>> (6502/10; 6800); ASM; BASIC) Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in >>> column 7 other than labels. hp-2100 assembler; 1802 (ugh); 8085 (quite >>> nice, actually); 8086... even IBM360/370 assembler ... >>> >>> When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was: >>> >>> THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR. >>> >>> (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code). >> >> Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there >> in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic) >> learned to code is wrong? > Every developer has their own style. Trying to get a number of them to > agree on such minutia is akin to herding cats. : ) As if that's even difficult. First, you assume a spherical cat... -- Knowledge equals power... --... Power equals energy... People were stupid, sometimes. They thought the Library was a dangerous place because of all the magical books, which was true enough, but what made it really one of the most dangerous places there could ever be was the simple fact that it was a library. Energy equals matter... --... Matter equals mass. And mass distorts space. It distorts it into polyfractal L-Space. --Guards! Guards!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <83psta-ic81.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #56938 |
On 2014-02-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2014-02-24, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: >> In article <MZudnaWC2r_uBpfOnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com>, >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>> >>> Did pretty much all that and at the same age. (Machine language >>> (6502/10; 6800); ASM; BASIC) Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in >>> column 7 other than labels. hp-2100 assembler; 1802 (ugh); 8085 (quite >>> nice, actually); 8086... even IBM360/370 assembler ... >>> >>> When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was: >>> >>> THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR. >>> >>> (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code). >> >> Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there >> in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic) >> learned to code is wrong? > > Every developer has their own style. Trying to get a number of them to > agree on such minutia is akin to herding cats. : ) This is where I should be grateful to those who laid down programming standards at my early places of work. Indentation, where comments went and what they should include, variable and label naming conventions etc all helped when it came to maintaining code written by another member of the team, and your own code too. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 22:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bn1uumFqvbpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56984 |
On 2014-02-24, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > On 2014-02-24, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> On 2014-02-24, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: >>> In article <MZudnaWC2r_uBpfOnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com>, >>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> Did pretty much all that and at the same age. (Machine language >>>> (6502/10; 6800); ASM; BASIC) Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in >>>> column 7 other than labels. hp-2100 assembler; 1802 (ugh); 8085 (quite >>>> nice, actually); 8086... even IBM360/370 assembler ... >>>> >>>> When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was: >>>> >>>> THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR. >>>> >>>> (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code). >>> >>> Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there >>> in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic) >>> learned to code is wrong? >> >> Every developer has their own style. Trying to get a number of them to >> agree on such minutia is akin to herding cats. : ) > > This is where I should be grateful to those who laid down programming > standards at my early places of work. Indentation, where comments went > and what they should include, variable and label naming conventions etc > all helped when it came to maintaining code written by another member of > the team, and your own code too. Absolutely. That's one of the less appreciated duties of a dev lead. You just have to pick your battles. ; ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 17:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dsudnSfCO_HBWpbOnZ2dnUVZ8i6dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56938 |
On 2014.02.23, 21:52 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-02-24, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:
>> In article <MZudnaWC2r_uBpfOnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did pretty much all that and at the same age. (Machine language
>>> (6502/10; 6800); ASM; BASIC) Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in
>>> column 7 other than labels. hp-2100 assembler; 1802 (ugh); 8085 (quite
>>> nice, actually); 8086... even IBM360/370 assembler ...
>>>
>>> When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was:
>>>
>>> THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR.
>>>
>>> (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code).
>>
>> Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there
>> in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic)
>> learned to code is wrong?
>
> Every developer has their own style. Trying to get a number of them to
> agree on such minutia is akin to herding cats. : )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
--
Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 17:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mfOdnZpeGaDYWpbOnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56936 |
On 2014.02.23, 21:45 , Don Bruder wrote:
> Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there
> in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic)
> learned to code is wrong?
In those days the way we learned was about as wrong as it could get!
--
... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
for the services these companies offer. What they really
want is to have us "on the leash."
-David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 21:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <leh8at$sa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57002 |
In article <mfOdnZpeGaDYWpbOnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2014.02.23, 21:45 , Don Bruder wrote: > > > Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there > > in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic) > > learned to code is wrong? > > In those days the way we learned was about as wrong as it could get! Yabbut... It worked :) -- Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-25 19:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g46dnU-v66wEq5DOnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #57048 |
On 2014.02.25, 00:05 , Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <mfOdnZpeGaDYWpbOnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2014.02.23, 21:45 , Don Bruder wrote:
>>
>>> Can't and won't argue with that. It took me a few tries, but I got there
>>> in the end :) Besides - Who am I to say that the way you (generic)
>>> learned to code is wrong?
>>
>> In those days the way we learned was about as wrong as it could get!
>
> Yabbut...
>
> It worked :)
With various amounts of hair pulling, moaning and head slapping...
--
Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
people are not trained to perform.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 21:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qbosta-ic81.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #56930 |
On 2014-02-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in column 7 other than labels. Ah, that's where I used DEC's "terminal format" (which I wrongly called tab format in my earlier post). With this a single tab preceded FORTRAN-77 statements, which was a darned sight faster to type than spaces. Labels started at column 1 and continuation lines had a single digit at something like column 6 or 7, meaning you'd add a tab (maybe two to emphasise the continuation). DEC COBOL also used tabs in terminal format source files. That was a great time saver which helped offset the language's verbosity. It saved a bit of disk space too, but you really saw the benefit when working with source code over a slow modem line. > When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was: > > THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR. > > (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code). The early assembler examples I came across were indented using tabs with labels in column 1, and I tended to think Yuck! when I came across anything else. The indentation used in Pascal and other languages were a natural progression for me. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 18:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r6ydneWZ-MiETZbOnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56983 |
On 2014.02.24, 15:58 , Paul Sture wrote:
> On 2014-02-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> Did FORTRAN-77 where everything started in column 7 other than labels.
>
> Ah, that's where I used DEC's "terminal format" (which I wrongly called
> tab format in my earlier post). With this a single tab preceded
> FORTRAN-77 statements, which was a darned sight faster to type than spaces.
>
> Labels started at column 1 and continuation lines had a single digit at
> something like column 6 or 7, meaning you'd add a tab (maybe two to
> emphasise the continuation).
>
> DEC COBOL also used tabs in terminal format source files. That was a
> great time saver which helped offset the language's verbosity.
>
> It saved a bit of disk space too, but you really saw the benefit when
> working with source code over a slow modem line.
>
>> When I saw Pascal style (indented) for the first time it was:
>>
>> THIS IS RIGHT. THIS MAKES SENSE. THIS IS CLEAR.
>>
>> (Actually made me write better and clearer assembler code).
>
> The early assembler examples I came across were indented using tabs with
> labels in column 1, and I tended to think Yuck! when I came across anything
> else. The indentation used in Pascal and other languages were a natural
> progression for me.
--
Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
people are not trained to perform.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-25 02:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <leh035$bme$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #56983 |
Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> writes:
> The early assembler examples I came across were indented using tabs with
> labels in column 1, and I tended to think Yuck! when I came across anything
> else.
I hear that. I'm extremely fussy about writing stuff that's easy to read.
For example, here's a modem driver for the PDP-11 Kermit (one of the very
few things I'm able to disclose, heh) -
http://www.panix.com/~zippy/krt/krtkm.mac
Scroll down a bit to the actual code. I also try to comment clearly, so
the next guy has a fighting chance to understand what I did. That's not
easy in an 80 col world.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 01:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bmvkodFbp4lU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56926 |
On 2014-02-23, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > > That's at least partly the product of the ridicule I took from the > instructor when I turned in my first project in my first formal Pascal > class - I didn't believe in indenting - PERIOD! So imagine 100 lines or > so of Pascal without so much as a single indent to be seen *ANYWHERE*. > After that, I started indenting every damned thing under the sun. Over > time, I fell back to an indenting policy that's at least A LITTLE saner. >:) My condolences! : D > I couldn't help it - I was a roughly 16 year old self-taught "computer > expert" who cut his programming teeth on a mix of TRS-80 Level I BASIC, > Integer (and later Applesoft) BASIC, Z80 *MACHINE LANGUAGE* (not > "assembler" - We're talking pure hex bytes arrived at through laborious > lookups in the back of the book), 8080 assembler created by > hand-translating pencil-and-paper source into hex and then punching it > into the old MS-DOS DEBUG.COM program a byte at a time) and 6502 > assembler (using, at first, nothing but the built-in "mini-assembler" on > the Apple II, eventually moving to the "LISA" assembler, and finally > Merlin-Pro) Very similar to me, except I learned Z80 assembly, at about the same age, too. Cool. : ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 04:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlglhj1.fcb.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #56895 |
In message <led5e1$4q9$1@dont-email.me>
Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <bmsu50Fnr6sU2@mid.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-02-23, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> > On 2014.02.22, 16:30 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >> On 2014-02-22, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> >>> On 2014.02.22, 14:15 , nospam wrote:
>> >>>> In article <lears8$l8d$1@dont-email.me>, Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> The press and gossip rag reports say the recently discovered security
>> >>>>> flaw with SSL is present in both IOS and OS X. The patch for IOS showed
>> >>>>> up last night. The reports say the OS X one will be out soon. Has
>> >>>>> anyone run across a technically competent (as opposed to sensationalized
>> >>>>> fear-mongering amateur drivel) discussion of the flaw *and* a conclusive
>> >>>>> statement that it is indeed present in OS X?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> it is in os x, and it's nothing more than an extra goto.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html>
>> >>>
>> >>> ROFL.
>> >>>
>> >>> goto has always been a source of low software quality - and it rears its
>> >>> head again here - although it looks more like sloppy editing than
>> >>> anything else - like another line of condition code had been deleted or
>> >>> moved.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed. And as John Gruber (Daring Fireball) asserted, the practice of
>> >> using curly braces for if blocks would have made the slip-up much more
>> >> obvious. I tend to prefer using braces in if blocks myself.
> I tend toward "overkill unto the verge of paranoia" when bracing
> conditionals, for exactly that reason. Even though I'm quite aware that
> "if (foo) bar(foo);" is perfectly valid code that'll compile without so
> much as a hiccup, if I'm coding something that needs that sort of
> construct, I'm most likely going to write it as
> if (foo)
> {
> bar(foo);
> }
> else
> {
> // It's a bad idea to bar() a nil foo
> }
I like more compact code:
if (foo) { bar(foo); }
and I won't put in an empty else (because those cause their own host of
troubles) but I do throw braces around any blocks I can.
--
'Winners never talk about glorious victories. That's because they're the
ones who see what the battlefield looks like afterwards. It's only the
losers who have glorious victories.' --Small Gods
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-24 18:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dMudndUn8-IKSpbOnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56946 |
On 2014.02.23, 23:11 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <led5e1$4q9$1@dont-email.me>
> Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:
>> In article <bmsu50Fnr6sU2@mid.individual.net>,
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 2014-02-23, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2014.02.22, 16:30 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-02-22, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014.02.22, 14:15 , nospam wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <lears8$l8d$1@dont-email.me>, Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The press and gossip rag reports say the recently discovered security
>>>>>>>> flaw with SSL is present in both IOS and OS X. The patch for IOS showed
>>>>>>>> up last night. The reports say the OS X one will be out soon. Has
>>>>>>>> anyone run across a technically competent (as opposed to sensationalized
>>>>>>>> fear-mongering amateur drivel) discussion of the flaw *and* a conclusive
>>>>>>>> statement that it is indeed present in OS X?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is in os x, and it's nothing more than an extra goto.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROFL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> goto has always been a source of low software quality - and it rears its
>>>>>> head again here - although it looks more like sloppy editing than
>>>>>> anything else - like another line of condition code had been deleted or
>>>>>> moved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. And as John Gruber (Daring Fireball) asserted, the practice of
>>>>> using curly braces for if blocks would have made the slip-up much more
>>>>> obvious. I tend to prefer using braces in if blocks myself.
>
>> I tend toward "overkill unto the verge of paranoia" when bracing
>> conditionals, for exactly that reason. Even though I'm quite aware that
>> "if (foo) bar(foo);" is perfectly valid code that'll compile without so
>> much as a hiccup, if I'm coding something that needs that sort of
>> construct, I'm most likely going to write it as
>> if (foo)
>> {
>> bar(foo);
>> }
>> else
>> {
>> // It's a bad idea to bar() a nil foo
>> }
>
> I like more compact code:
>
> if (foo) { bar(foo); }
Pascal:
if foo then bar(foo);
Much more readable.
--
Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
people are not trained to perform.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-25 08:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlgoki2.1jei.g.kreme@oswin.local> |
| In reply to | #57025 |
In message <dMudndUn8-IKSpbOnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.02.23, 23:11 , Lewis wrote:
>> In message <led5e1$4q9$1@dont-email.me>
>> Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> In article <bmsu50Fnr6sU2@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2014-02-23, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On 2014.02.22, 16:30 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014-02-22, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2014.02.22, 14:15 , nospam wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <lears8$l8d$1@dont-email.me>, Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The press and gossip rag reports say the recently discovered security
>>>>>>>>> flaw with SSL is present in both IOS and OS X. The patch for IOS showed
>>>>>>>>> up last night. The reports say the OS X one will be out soon. Has
>>>>>>>>> anyone run across a technically competent (as opposed to sensationalized
>>>>>>>>> fear-mongering amateur drivel) discussion of the flaw *and* a conclusive
>>>>>>>>> statement that it is indeed present in OS X?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is in os x, and it's nothing more than an extra goto.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROFL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> goto has always been a source of low software quality - and it rears its
>>>>>>> head again here - although it looks more like sloppy editing than
>>>>>>> anything else - like another line of condition code had been deleted or
>>>>>>> moved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. And as John Gruber (Daring Fireball) asserted, the practice of
>>>>>> using curly braces for if blocks would have made the slip-up much more
>>>>>> obvious. I tend to prefer using braces in if blocks myself.
>>
>>> I tend toward "overkill unto the verge of paranoia" when bracing
>>> conditionals, for exactly that reason. Even though I'm quite aware that
>>> "if (foo) bar(foo);" is perfectly valid code that'll compile without so
>>> much as a hiccup, if I'm coding something that needs that sort of
>>> construct, I'm most likely going to write it as
>>> if (foo)
>>> {
>>> bar(foo);
>>> }
>>> else
>>> {
>>> // It's a bad idea to bar() a nil foo
>>> }
>>
>> I like more compact code:
>>
>> if (foo) { bar(foo); }
> Pascal:
> if foo then bar(foo);
> Much more readable.
Not really.
if (foo) { bar(foo); }
a = a + 1;
if foo then bar(foo);
a = a + 1;
The first (C) example is much clearer to me that the assignment line is
*not* part of the if block.
--
Granny Weatherwax didn't hold with looking at the future, but now she
could feel the future looking at her. She didn't like its expression at
all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-25 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bn40grF96u7U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57058 |
On 2014-02-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <dMudndUn8-IKSpbOnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.02.23, 23:11 , Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <led5e1$4q9$1@dont-email.me>
>>> Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> I tend toward "overkill unto the verge of paranoia" when bracing
>>>> conditionals, for exactly that reason. Even though I'm quite aware that
>>>> "if (foo) bar(foo);" is perfectly valid code that'll compile without so
>>>> much as a hiccup, if I'm coding something that needs that sort of
>>>> construct, I'm most likely going to write it as
>>>> if (foo)
>>>> {
>>>> bar(foo);
>>>> }
>>>> else
>>>> {
>>>> // It's a bad idea to bar() a nil foo
>>>> }
>>>
>>> I like more compact code:
>>>
>>> if (foo) { bar(foo); }
>
>> Pascal:
>
>> if foo then bar(foo);
>
>> Much more readable.
>
> Not really.
>
>
> if (foo) { bar(foo); }
> a = a + 1;
>
> if foo then bar(foo);
> a = a + 1;
>
> The first (C) example is much clearer to me that the assignment line is
> *not* part of the if block.
Agreed.
That said, I dislike your approach of placing as much as possible on a
single line. It's not as easy to scan through many lines of such code as
it would be if things weren't stacked up like that, and it doesn't make
things easy for the developer later on when you need to add additional
comments and statements inside of the if clause. So I tend to adhere to
this expanded format instead, so that modification down the line is as
easy as possible:
if (foo)
{
// blah blah blah
bar(foo);
b = a * c;
}
a = a + 1;
To each, their own, of course; but I'm always doing my best to think
ahead and consider that the code I write will probably need to be
modified by someone else at some point in the future. One of my goals
is to make that job as easy as I can for them.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web