[Info-vax] CLI editing, was: Re: VMS - Virtual Terminals - A security risk way back yonder OR was that an Old Wives Tale ?

[lists at openmailbox.org]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 10:15:53 -0600
"John E. Malmberg via Info-vax" <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:

> On 2/15/2016 9:00 AM, William Pechter wrote:
> >
> > Which is why I liked the old rn/elm configure scripts from the pre-gnu
> > configure 80's which would recognise Eunice running under VMS.
> >
> > Gnu configure is only useful on more Unix-y like systems of the 90's.
> Gnu configure is not performing the minimum optimal tests to accomplish 
> what the program needs.  For some reason it is trying to test many 
> issues that either do not matter, or that it already knows the answer to.
> 
> Recent GNU configure scripts first test to see if a header file is 
> usable and regardless of the outcome, perform essentially the same test 
> to determine if the header file exists.
> 
> GNU configure is also testing to see if the system library calls work 
> with out the header files being used before testing to see if the system 
> header files are present and working for the libraries.
> 
> As a result, GNU configure will generally not produce the optimal 
> configuration for any system with backwards binary compatibility.
> 
> Since on *nix systems, the resulting configuration will usually work, it 
> may not get noticed that it is not the best.

The autotools scripts often break on anything besides Linux. I can't count
the times I've had problems with them on Solaris or OpenBSD. Most Linux
apps are simply not tested on anything but Linux and gcc and bash and then
only on Intel hardware, so the foregoing should come as a surprise to
nobody. The problem isn't only autotools or configure, but it certainly
starts there. And as soon as you add non-Intel hardware, non-bash POSIX
shell, or a non-gcc compiler to the equation the fun begins.