It looks like they called it: LibreSSL

http://www.libressl.org/

That's what it looks like, anyway.

Support them if you can!

Too bad they hadn't forked OpenSSL a while back. Now there is a competing library.

Now we need to support that fork, and assess the feasibility of porting to Linux as well as the other BSD's, of course.

Do they have a new name for it yet?

If SSL = "Secure Sockets Layer", how about: ActualSSL (it's actually secure), DaemonSSL, Pitchfork(ed)SSL, something...

8-)

These numbers aren't a big change from estimates 5 months ago.
42% of Chernobyl's Cs emission, but much lower land deposition - only 21% of total Cs emissions hit land.
And this is from 3 or 4 separate failures at old ill-prepared sites following a once-in-a-thousand-year quake which hit a chain of volcanic islands which are plagued by quakes.
Emission per failure is nearly a full order of magnitude below Chernobyl.
Total land deposition is also nearly a full order of magnitude below Chernobyl.
The lesson is to improve your game, not loose your cool.

'consider that Microsoft has not given Mono a legal blessing'

IANAL, and I have myself had reservations about this point...

However, it seems quite unlikely that MS would succeed in choking off core (C# + CLR) Mono development - for a lot of little reasons:

1. Novell appears to be Mono's primary backer and they appear to have real patent leverage w.r.t. MS.

2. Probably not many of the patents covering the core can hold water due to prior art. I think it's been suggested that MS + Sun together could launch a more effective patent attack. How likely is that? (things like WinForms, ASP, ADO would seem to be in greater danger)

3. Mono could still ship with the odd feature stripped or workaround mechanism in place.

4. MS can not simply beat up on who it feels like nowadays; not with the EU and others breathing down it's neck.

As an aside, can anyone think of a *language* implementation that was killed by patent litigation?

--
Mike Greaves