Slashdot Mirror

C

Perl

Python

Ruby

By that same measure, it's not impossible to obfuscate python. If there's enough money involved, you can bet an innocuous hack will be coded in there somewhere.

haha in refernce to your java being easy to read by default, you're forgetting about people like this.

INTERCAL is a bit like learning FORTRAN - it's a bit long of tooth - maybe try bf, unlambda, whitespace or my personal favorite, java2k. Any base 11 probabilistic programming language is tops in my book.

Well, they have a history of not using more open and standard technologies and would much rather use a home grown technology (see: J++, IE HTML, etc). It doesn't really surprise me, although I certainly agree that it would do users a lot of good. We use python quite a bit at the shop, and integration with MS Office is very useful. Fortunately, there are some tools for this using win32com, but it would be better to have it built in like OOo has it.

the filesystems used in linux are free and open.

• explore2fs application that reads files from an ext2/ext3 partition, with LVM2 support
• ext2ifs old project by the maker of explorefs2, native reading support of ext2/ext3 in windows NT and up
• ext2fsd native reading support of ext2/ext3
• ext2ifs NON-opensource (maybe violating GPL ?) native read/write support for ext2 (and ext3, but the driver could fuck-up the journaling if partition wasn't unmounted clean in linux). Has a nice GUI to assign drive letters to partitions.
• rfstools and GUI Yareg application that reads files from an reiserfs partition.
• rfsd - native reading support for reiserfs

• It is possible to add access to linux partition in windows
• Even write access is possible and currently the non-open source ext2ifs provides a solution that can be read/written by both OS and which is a little better than FAT32
• although Windows has no propper device mapper but only Dynamic Drives, LVM2 data can still be accessed (although not with a native driver).
• None of this numerous attempt is done by Microsoft. This show how much they want to play nice with the others

If you know of a Windows ext3 or Raiser driver, then please tell me. Basically, nothing has changed.

Well, instead of moaning about the non-existence of something that you've clearly not checked for, you could always try this site, followed by this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one, plus many others.

http://www.fs-driver.org/
http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/ext2ifs.htm
http://ext2fsd.sourceforge.net/
http://freesourcecodes.tripod.com/ext2.htm
http://p-nand-q.com/e/reiserfs.html
http://www.wolfsheep.com/map/#RFSGUI
http://www.it.fht-esslingen.de/~zimmerma/software/ ltools.html

The above links were all gathered from http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/ext2ifs.htm I've not tried any of them, but this one looks the most polished. YMMV, knock yourself out, etc.

This program has everything you want to manage services and a whole lot more: (even sourcecode incase you are paranoid)
http://p-nand-q.com/e/pserv.html

-modify, recompile and use new object code of any non-kernel module without rebooting

Bzzzt. This is a problem in linux as well. Suppose you recompile glibc. Sure the file system will happily replace the library for you, however all running application will continue to use the old library which will be kept on the hardrive until all application free it up. This is the reason why some updates in macs trigger reboots. On linux, you should reboot as well after updating glibc, or you risk using one that may potentially have security problems.

-heck, for that matter rewrite or modify any portion of the kernel and recompile it (although rebooting is needed)
I agree with this point somewhat...there are things in windows you can not touch. However, windows provides hooks into the deepest parts of the kernel. And there is an SDK that allows you to build drivers that can change a lot about the internals of Windows.

-use any number of filesystem or even write your own
Although difficult, it is possible to get a driver for those filesystems. There are programs that allow windows to read mac disks, and there are tools that you can use to get reiserfs on windows. A lot of these are hacks. However, unless Windows VFS is not modularized or incompatable, I do not see why the filesystems are not developed as drivers on Windows. If a Windows driver developer can chime in with how Windows VFS works, maybe we would know a real answer why I can not read my XFS partition from Windows (if I had Windows, that is)

Um, who says you can't support reiser (read only at least) ?

http://p-nand-q.com/download/rfstool.html

I'm still waiting for ReiserFS support, natively. Even just read only. The alternative isn't terribly nice.

How-to-obfuscate in Python

http://p-nand-q.com/python/lambdaizing_quicksort.h tml

there is rfstool for reiserfs (afaik not v4)
and many for ext2/3

if OTOH, you are looking for a fully featured driver that can be used for production use, then i wouldn't count on it

• Whitespace
• Java2k (mostly non-english)
• HQ9+
• Beatnik

Greetings...
hildi

Reiserfs can at least be accessed under Windows.

My personal peeve with ReiserFS is, though, that I've had the main ReiserFS partition on my Laptop completely destroyed by a simple power failure once. Many files were in lost+found afterwards, but some had their contents destroyed. (And restoring files by looking at their contents is not fun for ~1000 files...) So I've kinda lost trust in it. ext3 may be slow, but I've never had a single problem with it. Seems very robust to me. So, reliability is more important than speed for me (whoever needs performant servers is of course entitled to a different opinion). XFS and JFS seemingly can't be accessed from Windows, so that is a Minus for some.

Uh, rfstool maybe?

rfstool

Yes, this is an excellent point. Case in point. Basically, everything can be done in any Turing-complete language (which is something I wish the "But you can do everything in Visual Basic!" sales people would get...).

My feeling is that, when people say something like "This language's code is easier to read", they don't mean as much the language's syntax, as the coding practices that the language's structure encourages.

See "There should be more than one way to do it" as opposed to "There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to do it", for instance. Different philosophies that fit different languages that fit different coding practices. You'll note that both principles do correlate with the main selling point of their respective language, namely, Perl's ability to be the shortest path from 'nothing' to 'job's done', and Python's knack at remaining damn readable through thousands of lines of code even for programmers not yet involved in the project (among other things).

Down the road it's only a matter of goals, and picking the most appropriate tool to reach that goal. The tricky part, of course, being that 'appropriate' is a relative thing, and sometimes a somewhat unfitting tool is more appropriate in terms of practicality than something you don't yet know and would have to learn from scratch.

Oh, and zealotry is sclerosis of the mind.

Well, assuming that's a legitimate question and you're not just being a smart-ass (hard to tell)...

I used rfstool.

I found a howto guide here though it looks like it replaces all usage of Lucida Console with Vera Mono. It's worth a try.

for (i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
j = j + i;
}

for ($i = 1; $i <= 10; $i++) {
$j = $j + 1;
}

for i in range(1,10)
j = j + i

There is also an IOCCC-like contest for esoteric languages. It's homepage is here.
Take a look especially at Sorted!, which is a real cute language... :)

Another list of esoteric languages is also available.

You mean like this or this or this or this?

All of these are designed so that people can release source code to compile elswhere without revealing "intellectual property", but there are other ways. NVidia ran their "open-source" drivers through the C preprocessor before releasing them, making them nearly useless for development.

Of course, simplistically renaming variables won't change the binary code output much. You need to at least rearrange variables and code, and maybe determine independent statements and reorder them, etc. Perhaps pad arrays with extra space on the end, and so forth.