On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 03:57:34PM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:19:11 +0200
> >From: chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
> >To: misc@openbsd.org
> >
> >On 08/01/06 16:48, Anton Karpov wrote:
> >
> >> This world sucks. We're living in a dark ages, playing with the same
> >> technologies as 20 years ago. UNIX is still here. Gcc is still here. C is
> >> still here. And it will always be the same.
> >> This world needs something really new. Maybe nuclear war is the answer?
> >> Oh, no, I'm not smoking crack....
> >
> >Nuclear war wouldn't help, leaves only less resources while we need
> >more...
> >
>
> this is the funniest post i've read on misc@ in a while. anton's suggestion
> that
> a "cataclysmic" event could drive people out of the current groupthink within
> which they exist is a good point. i can't quite tell if the last sentence is
> sarcasm or a wilted exclamatory.
>
> >I believe focusing on security and correct code the way Theo&Co do is
> >a basic requirement for the future. Thinking security can be build in
> >afterwards is nonsense or another way to say "rebuild"
> >
>
> the security and correct code that we currently enjoy precipitated from
> conflict
> with the status quo, be it FreeBSD, NetBSD or the Roman Empire.
>
> >Real shortage of people producing usable code keeps the OpenBSD
> >project in the current state. That state isn't bad at all compared to
> >alternatives (I'm still amazed) but I fully agree this is Turd
> >Polishing, (TP), and Mickey is terribly right with his "you (and your
> >kids) will go greyhair before you get halfway thru it" concerning an
> >"OpenCC". A C-compiler is like a Cathedral, where OpenBSD is more or
> >less a bunch of concatenated sheds. They do keep users dry, they are
> >usable but there is no luxury at all, now and in the foreseeable
> >future, at least not without a new bold plan and usable code.
> >
>
> mickey is right to be skeptical of such a project and its ability to achieve
> its
> goals. is it necessarily wrong to ignore the skepticism of others? next thing
> i
> know you're going to tell me the US really did land on the moon! ;)
i never doubted an ability to produce a valid compiler.
and yes americans might have been on the moon but they
certainly were not planning to do so by suggesting
to others to do it for them.
cu
--
paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
