There are several "provably secure" computer systems. As in you can demonstrate they fulfil certain mathematical constraints and those constraints are absolute. Then you have to write the code and prove the code, then you have to hope the prover is correct and the hardwareis correct. Nothing is 100%.

As to the randomisation stuff - yes I've got examples, and we've hit the same thing in Linux with randomisation. You get cases where memory scribbles cause a problem only if the layout happens to be a specific variant (especially with stack randomisation). From "either it dies or it works" you get "1 in 10,000 times xyz app blows up". That does make debugging much much harder. Of course a good reply to that is "so improve the debugging tools".

Bar: "Funny thing though, you never referred to DM as a 'Fuckwit'."

Actually, Bar, should you prefer read the first draft of that article, you will find that I did characterize Mr. McBride in response to Paragraph 13, as follows:

"Mr. McBride, the only way to defend this in court is to tell the judge that you are a complete fucking idiot, and that all previous mangement was equally incompetent. Even if a court buys that explanation, I hardly think they'll reward SCO's utter stupidity to the tune of 3 billion dollars. It's far more likely that they will require SCO to pay IBM's court costs instead."

-- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77770&cid= 6908490

Any other false assumptions you'd like to share in promoting your fitness to belong in the same complete fucking idiot class as Darl 'Fuckwit' McBride?

'who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.'

Aww, c'mon baby, we're just a bunch of horned up geeks who'll swoon on any chick who is even halfway technically literate, not to mention a motorcycle rider. How about slashdot doing an interview with her? :-)