Paul,
I know, I am an old Unix Programmer that now loves .NET ! As a matter of fact I was
programming before Unix was around ! I have seen a lot of old Unix programmers end up
in the unemployment line because they failed to change with the times and I am afraid
this is just another case !
Thus spake Jeff Roberts:
Paul,
I know, I am an old Unix Programmer that now loves .NET ! As a
matter of fact I was programming before Unix was around !
I seriously doubt someone as naive as yourself has been programming
for more than 32 years.
I have seen a lot of old Unix programmers
I have seen a lot of old Unix programmers end up in the unemployment
line because they failed to change with the times and I am afraid
this is just another case !
Unix programming guru's are impossible to find. Again, I seriously
doubt your information, and wonder if you don't work for
I will take a stab at it, but I am not going to be able to cover it all here !
A .NET port of OpenSSL would require replacing the C style DLL interface with a .NET
Object DLL. The OpenSSL source code would have to be able to be compiled under the C#
(pronounced c sharp) compiler. Microsoft
Hi there,
On Thursday 14 March 2002 10:13, Jeff Roberts wrote:
A .NET port of OpenSSL would require replacing the C style DLL interface
with a .NET Object DLL. The OpenSSL source code would have to be able to
be compiled under the C# (pronounced c sharp) compiler. Microsoft has
just
I believe that most future software development is and will
be done as a .NET component and that if OpenSSL is not ported
to it, then OpenSSL will die the same fate as Windows 3.1
You're joking, right? You don't honestly believe that .NET
is going to eliminate the need for real UNIX servers,
Maybe when Mono (the Open-Source version of .NET) is available?
OpenSSL is primarily for UNIX systems, which at present have no .NET
support. So making a .NET port sounds about like making a Java port, from
this description.
I guess Microsoft, fresh from the black eye over Java, is trying to
