rc4algorithm

Yeah, let's revert to 1988! Great solution! Muchly of advance!

It's not like de Raadt or Torvalds got arbitrarily dropped into their positions. People effectively chose them by investing usership and development effort into their projects.

> The overwhelming majority of C implementations additionally define the values of all-bits-zero floats and pointers.

So... Clang and GCC?

Regardless, you're ignoring the obvious difference: that isn't POSIX- or ISO-defined at all. If you choose to use it, you're using a weird dialect. Might as well just switch to Cyclone.

All of that useless zeroing is very painful from a performance perspective. It just isn't a reasonable option in performance-relevant code like kernels and core infrastructure. The Moore's Law argument doesn't apply because memory bus latencies and case pressure are lasting problems.

Unless the zeroing is defined by the language, assuming it t is incorrect and shouldn't be done.

OpenRISC has been stagnant for many years and will probably never make it to silicon.

This was written by Miod Vallet a couple days ago. He was the main nonstandard arch developer for OpenBSD and resigned last week. So, the context is that the author was one of the few leaders of the Luddites and considers it a lost cause.

The vast majority of MIPS systems are bargain-basement embedded systems, though. Also, the ISA is pretty messy (especially at the kernel layer) and doesn't support many modern features such as per-page W^X or crypto acceleration.

I dislike monopolies more than most, but MIPS isn't currently a very strong contender for ARM's market share.

This article suggests that there's no point in having a valid SMTP cert. However, consider end-users' clients, which store the SMTP domain (i.e. don't do MX lookups) and connect to it directly. For mail to users on the same email network, this is the only non-local SMTP hop. Securing this connection also prevents anyone on the end-user's local network from MitMing.

> I would happily admit there is extensive room for improvement in systemd, but we UNIX folks have been working with worse-is-better and rough-consensus-and-running-code for decades.

You're understanding "worse is better" backwards. It means "starkly simple to the point of being initially off-putting is better". In this context, it means (in part) "be a big boy and learn how to write a shell script". (Not to be too condescending, but I think that captures the Unix perspective here.)

There's so much wrong with this comment...

ETFs are just a way of buying equity, not a market that can be overcrowded.

The 2008 meltdown happened because of subprime mortgages, the approximate opposite of conservative index fund investments.

ETFs are (in this context) just a convenient way of buying modest amounts of an index fund.

Index fund companies like Vanguard charge a very low, extremely reasonable commission for both direct purchases and ETFs.

No no no no no. When you do this, you are:

1) Reinventing malloc for no good reason 2) Opening yourself up to a whole world of security holes

See Bob Beck's talk on the first 30 days of LibreSSL. Heartbleed wouldn't have been nearly as catastrophic if OpenSSL just used the system memory allocator like normal people.

I stopped reading after the first paragraph:

> From September 2014 to June 2015 alone, it repelled more than 30 million known malicious attacks at the boundaries of its networks.

Someone told them about SSHGuard and pf, I presume?

What a wonderful sentence. You can keep concocting winding philosophical sentences like that to defend the dignity of chickens, and the rest of us will keep trying feed people.