>re: the gets() warning:
>
>It *SHOULD NOT* be removed.  any program which uses gets() has a potential
>bug (and, if it's a set-id program, a potential security hole).
>
>Good alternatives to gets() have been around for a long time, and its
>insecure naturs has been known for a long time, too.
>
>The only reason it's used anymore is programmer cluelessness and/or laziness.
>
>
>cgd

these should be the good reasons for removing the *broken* gets().
Removing gets() solves the long term problem, and fits into the
"budgets" for "laziness", too.  

Shao


------------------------------------------------------------------------------