From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200306052241.h55Mf9521982@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: some #s
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Jun 2003 06:33:08 CDT."
             <Pine.LNX.4.33.0306050630000.9676-100000@einstein.ssz.com>
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Date: Thu,  5 Jun 2003 18:41:08 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c59efdb0-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> writes:
> > Most sytems have well defined semantics for returning memory to a
> > ``known state'' after a process exits,
>
> And Unix and Microsoft (among many others) are known not to do that well.

Which, as I stated, is irrelevant since we're talking about Plan 9.

> Not to mention the many times programmers just don't do 'the right thing'.

Which programmers are those?  The OS programmers, or the application
programmers?  My whole point was that what the application programmers
did was irrelevant.

> Some time reading security literature about such holes will be quite
> elucidating. Try starting with "Applied Cryptography".

You know, I don't know why you think you're such an expert on everything.

Some time spent reading a book on basic English grammar and spelling
might be quite elucidating.  Try starting with ``Dick and Jane.''

	- Dan C.