> I'm sure you remember the easter egg that Ken Thompson revealed a
> few years ago. It's well worth reading:
>
> http://www.wins.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/b/backdoor.html
> http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/
>
> With this in mind, many people still maintain machines that they have
> read _every_ line of source for. To them, running an outside binary
> is anathema.
the question is whether you want to compile a compiler with a compiler
that is known and documented as broken or use a binary that has been
distributed and used for nigh unto a year with no complaints.
rely on a broken compiler?
rely on someone else?
if you insist on using a broken compiler, don't expect help. if you use a
broken compiler to make your new compiler, don't expect people to have any
faith in your results.
-d
[reply to: david@127-0-0-1.kalifornia.com without the 127-0-0-1.]
*** *** Flames will go to /dev/null
** WARNING ** SPAM mail will be returned to you at a
*** *** minimum rate of 50,000 copies per email