[Info-vax] A few tools for improving software security

[bill]

On 1/23/2024 5:36 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/23/2024 8:13 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2024-01-22, Dan Cross <cross at spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>> In article <uolqc2$o1rq$4 at dont-email.me>,
>>> Simon Clubley  <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-21, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo at nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 10:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), John Dallman 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's two quite hard
>>>>>> things, and starting on them now makes less sense than carrying on 
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the current strategy, for good or ill.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that?s called the ?sunk-cost fallacy?.
>>>>
>>>> So VSI's choices are to either continue selling x86-64 systems to 
>>>> customers
>>>> and complete the missing bits, or they stop selling systems for 3 years
>>>> while they write a migration tool from the ground up for something that
>>>> will never be as close in operation as the first option above.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, I wonder which option they will choose ? :-)
>>>>
>>>> Lawrence, you manage to make the current bunch of extreme zealots on 
>>>> both
>>>> sides of the political landscape in the US seem reasonable.
>>>
>>> I would suggest respectfully to stop feeding the troll.  Or, as
>>> I suspect he's less a troll than just a crank, perhaps stop
>>> turning the crank.
>>>
>>
>> I know Dan. I'm finally at the end of trying to reason with him, and
>> I have come to the same conclusion that others have, but I consider it
>> rude to just stop talking to someone without explaining why, which
>> I have now done. :-)
>>
>> Simon.
>>
> 
> What is really rude is talking about Linux on c.o.v ...
> 

I don't know about rude, but even suggesting that the VMS kernel
(which now runs just fine on x86-64) should be replaced with a
Linux kernel has to be the stupidest idea I have ever seen here.

bill