| |||||||||||||
No, that's *36* bits young man.No, that's *36* bits young man.Posted Sep 12, 2002 9:37 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581)In reply to: No, that's *36* bits young man. by oldtoss Parent article: Multics security, thirty years later Yeah, well, when I started programming seriously (about 1975) I was told in no uncertain terms that if it wouldn't run in 16K (24-bit words - NOT on multics h/w), it wasn't worth writing. Things have moved on a bit since then, but "small is beautiful" is obviously still a worthwhile concept. Plain straightforward common sense suggests than the bigger a chunk of code is, the more likely it is to contain bugs - and security holes.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||