Joshua Juran wrote: > On Jun 26, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: > >> On 6/26/09 5:35 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote: >> >>> autoconf, automake and libtool. What more could one need? >>> >>> Actually, what other non-overlapping software could one >>> legitimately use to >>> increase the hate? >> This reminds me of an April Fools thing I planned on doing but never >> executed. >> >> I was going to implement the next generation codebase for /bin/true -- >> shared library, autoconf/automake/libtool project, language >> bindings for >> everything under the sun. Oh, also a networking model, so you could >> determine truth over a network socket. Of course, you'd have to >> have an >> obvious bug in the protocol so that someone could implement a DDOT >> (distributed denial of truth) attack. > > Well for starters, it's ridiculous to have separate codebases for / > bin/true and /bin/false when they basically do the same thing. Why > not combine the two into a single program, true-or-false, which takes > a parameter? On the other hand, if a platform already ships with > true and false, you may as well reuse them, so true-and-false should > exec those if available (as determined by autoconf).
You are not thinking clearly. We obviously need a Boolean Enterprise Architecture, complete with Frameworks, Patterns, remote, realtime, distributed, and ORM solutions, a few new agile methods, and while we are at why not throw in a Community Process too that can create Boolean Enhancement Proposals. > You might also want to consider encrypting the truth, or providing > redundant channels, for those who can't handle it. > > Josh > > > >
