full-disclosure - [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: eballen1 at qwest.net (Bruce Ediger)
Subject: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Bill Royds wrote:

> Actually most of VMS was written in a programming language called BLISS-32
> which was designed to write an OS.
	...
> The result of BLISS was VAX assembler code rather than raw machine code,
> which is why the port to Alpha went  the way it did.  Bliss fell out of
> favour at DEC becuase it required programmers to learn a new style of coding
> from C so the Alpha code used more C than Bliss.

Actually, no.

The "Digital Technical Journal" ran an article at the time titled
"Porting OpenVMS from VAX to Alpha AXP":

   Most of the OpenVMS kernel is in VAX assembly language (VAX MACRO- 32).
   Instead of rewriting the VAX MACRO-32 code in another language, we
   developed a compiler. In addition, we required inspection and manual
   modification of the VAX MACRO-32 code to deal with certain VAX
   architectural dependencies. Parts of the kernel that depended heavily
   on the VAX architecture were rewritten, but this was a small percentage
   of the total volume of VAX MACRO-32 source code.

http://research.compaq.com/wrl/DECarchives/DTJ/DTJ800/

It's pretty clear from the details given in that article that very, very
little of VMS (the OS) was in BLISS at the time of the Alpha port.

This counterexample refutes your argument.  I'm truly sorry: it's such
a seductive theory, like the "market share" argument for Windows viruses
and worms.