I read the thread from your post onwards, and up-posts some as well. If you mean the entire, up to the root, it's hundreds of posts long.

Then I'm formally requesting a citation that backs up your original post.

I said, "But it does give the appearance of a troll." and referenced the many readers, one writer problem, which you have not once acknowledged.

It makes you lazy for not providing it in the first place, or second place... I never said you were wrong, only that you failed to provide a reference (and handwaving at Google or a large body of Slashdot comments is not a reference).

This was my main point. Whether it is practical to rewrite OpenSSL in a safe language isn't something I was arguing. To requote what I originally responded to:

No, I explicitly used your definition and said it was inflammatory. This isn't a question of opinion. It's a question of whether your accusations are true or not. If your accusations are true then your post was not a troll, and you could have reduced the chances of it being labeled as such by providing references in advance.

I didn't say it was false. I said you didn't provide any evidence, and you still haven't (I wonder why?)

You're the one being untruthful here, per above.

First of all, the post you responded to made reference to a quote that was linked in the summary. You, on the other hand, made a sweeping accusation without any references.

Second, by claiming the group he donated to promoted "hate speech" and making comparisons to Westboro Baptist Church, drug dealers, and slave traders, your post is offensive if the accusations aren't true.

The fabrications are all on your end, and given your carelessness here, your original post becomes even more suspect.

Buffer overflows are an extremely common security error, especially at the level something like OpenSSL is written at.

You're arguing because bugs still exist, there's no reason to remove a large class of bugs and it isn't the language's fault. That's nonsense. Buffer overflows are a language problem endemic to C.

I didn't say it was a panacea. It's still a large class of errors that can be completely removed without the failed advice that we can just code better to avoid them.

It's better to remove a very large class of bugs by the language making them impossible rather than insisting that a certain coding style will save you, "This time for sure!"

But what the grandparent post said still applies. It's how C treats memory via pointers. The issue, from looking at the code you posted, is that memcpy() copies from beyond the length of rec_p. In a sane language that doesn't treat memory as free-for-all, this isn't possible.

It's the kind of mistake programmers make all the time in C. Sure, you can tell me battle-hardened, conscientious, professional programmers wouldn't make this mistake. Whatever, we've seen this kind of thing too many times for this sentiment to mean anything practically useful.

If your accusations appear untrue and inflammatory, they have the appearance of being a troll. We've been over this. That's the whole point of providing evidence, which you are too lazy to do even at this point.

Sure, it happens all the time, but there's less chance of it happening when you substantiate your claims.

But it does give the appearance of a troll.

I didn't see any when I read this thread and replied.

You're ignoring the many readers, one writer problem. If you want your posts to be taken seriously when there's a good chance it won't be taken at face value, it's better to substantiate them upfront yourself.

Without evidence it is inflammatory. There are many readers and one writer. Expecting all your readers to verify your accusations is a non-starter. You can give yourself credibility at the time of reading by not being lazy yourself and providing the evidence in advance.

Bullshit. Windows 95 was a rockstar (as in it was that well-received). It became the standard UI for computing, the one people run back to when Gnome 3 and other abominations came out. It almost killed the Mac.

Maybe if you had provided evidence for your accusations it wouldn't have been labeled a troll.

Shut the fuck up.

Otherwise known as the Pinocchio ratio.

If you make the statement, "religion has caused so much more suffering in the world than it has ever managed to prevent, for example how wars may be started by people, but wartime atrocities almost always require religion to be involved", then it's bullshit to include governments that specifically denied religion.

What is being argued against is supernatural belief in a deity. If you move the goalposts to include any strong belief system, the original argument is meaningless.

Those that didn't follow his orders would be tortured and killed. He was a tyrannical dictator. But you don't need Stalin to find war atrocities. Name a war and you can find them, such as the My Lai Massacre.

He's both.