Subject: Re: self-hosting gc From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 19:14:26 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Tim Bradshaw <email@example.com> | The only kind of native code I'd regard as trusted is that for which | there is a formal correctness proof. How would you arrive at that proof? What software would you trust implicitly in order to trust some other software explicitly? > I believe Microsoft is setting up an entire trust infrastructure for > binaries, with cryptographic signing of applications and drivers and > whatnot, and that's probably for a reason. | You think I'm going to trust a program to be correct just because | someone's signed it? Come on, be serious. Well, you are obviously not the target audience for Microsoft's "we're the good guys, and the government that made us look like criminals in their court are the real bad guys" or their "we're the good guys, but all those bad guys abuse our naive incompetence to do bad things" propaganda. If there is one company I would _not_ trust to sign software I would depend on to be correct, it is Microsoft. Who _cares_ if buggy shitware with security holes the size of Washington state is signed or not? /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.