We don't have science anymore. We don't have any Teslas, just a bunch of corporate whores. I'm bored, disgusted and scared.
Considering that you are posting on a site which advocates (albeit poorly, most of the time) open source and "hobbyist" programming, I think you may be a tad bit wrong.
Public Domain can mean openly available to everyone and not subject to copyright protection, or simply openly available to the public (i.e. for sale to the public).
You know, if every fuckwit in the world makes up definitions for commonly available words, english will get more fucked up than it already is.
3650 was just released for non-Asian markets (Asian market release was late 2002) and they're just coming to the channels as we speak. Expect to pay $450 for a SIM-free, never locked phone with no sub. Probably around $350-$400 with a new contract.
I'm going to have to tell AT&T how pissed off I am that they didn't warn me the T68 is better used as a paper weight than a cell phone, and see if they can cut me a deal on the phone. I'm pretty irritated about that situation. They have many known issues with the phone around here, and didn't disclose any of them when I bought the phone. Considering how long I've been a customer with AT&T, it pisses me off pretty bad that they did it.
No signal strength issues, in fact, maybe they put in a bigger antenna (or just screwed around with the signal meter software) because I get better reception than my other Nokia phones.
In the US of course...
I have a friend in the area who has the other Nokia GSM phone w/ Bluetooth and he says it's great. He was the one who originally showed me the T68, then a week after I bought it told me not to buy one because the signal strength sucks. I think I'm going to have to go back to Nokia.
What region? I'm in Portland, OR and have horrible luck with GSM. Also, only the major cities (Portland, Salem) have GSM networks right now so if I travel outside of the metro area into the rest of Oregon, I'm SOL.
I got a T68 and have never been more pissed off at a phone before. I'm going to replace it pretty quickly, as it gets no signal what so ever, but the Nokia GSM phones work just fine around here.
How much did you pay for it, and have you had any issues with signal strength?
No. The fact of the matter is that that wasn't the type of memory allocation the original poster was referring to. It's irrelevant what the standard has to say about what libc is supposed to do, since the OS itself is what the poster was complaining about, and the libc is at a level above that. (For example, what if the language being used is assembly language, not C, and therefore malloc and calloc aren't even there?)
This would almost be correct had he not directly said, "malloc()" himself. Right? Go back and read it. He said "so I guess at times you could call malloc() and get random junk from other running applications."
Understand this? He said malloc(). Not me.
[deleting the rest of your idiocy] I'm still unsure of why you try to do this. You try to make me look bad by saying I said things that I never say. I'm responding to someone saying malloc() should clear memory; end of it, nothing more, fin. You understand this, right? It's not past your grasp?
This is how our threads go, and have always gone: I respond correcting someone, or stating my opinion. You say I said something I never said, or say that I'm wrong. I say I didn't say that, clarify to extrordinary detail what I did in fact say. You respond with something trying to defend some arbitrary position that never has anything to do with the thread.
What are you trying to accomplish here? It never gets anywhere outside of you looking like a fool accusing me of things I never say.
Do you have any clue how memory management works at any level in the operating system?
Virtual Memory is just a method of mapping virtual memory segments to physical memory so they will not overlap. Memory management works differently in each operating system.
calloc() and malloc() are functions in a user-mode library. When they run out of space on their heap, they request more memory from the operating system. In Windows NT, this is with the VirtualAlloc call.
I went from DOS to Unix, with the exception of a few programs in NT years ago. What they do now I do not know. What I do know, is that malloc() is not expected to zero bits it allocates to you.
End of story. Keep arguing about how this has something to do with other parts of the operating system, and it doesn't fucking matter.
The original poster said something that was incorrect about his expectations on the function of malloc(). I corrected him. Your little tyrade about virtual memory, and what happens before a malloc() is ultimately pointless, you see. Because malloc() is not expected to zero memory. I don't care if it sets them all to an alternating pattern of prime numbers, I was letting him know you can't expect malloc() to go to zero.
If someone said, "I use my left side blinker on my car to let people know I want coffee", and someone else said, "That's actually designed for letting people know you are going to be turning left" would you go off about the engine of the car?
In the nicest way I can put this, what the fuck are you talking about this shit for, and can you please stop because I really don't give a flying rats ass about how windows manages it's virtual memory tables or how they relate to malloc().
While it is correct that malloc does not guarantee that the memory will be cleared (even on Unix, it will contain random junk), it is still unacceptable that the OS leaks data from one application to the next. In Unix, if you find junk in a malloc'ed segment, it can only come from the application itself (previously allocated, used, and then freed memory), never from another app.
Wrong. Apparently nobody here has ever coded on a system with only 1-2 megs of RAM available. I'm done explaining it, but read the thread or go read a book on what is and isn't possible with malloc() and not blitting zero to your memory segment.
I doubt this is the current Microsoft standard in Windows, since it opens up huge security holes in a multiuser OS..
It's also the standard in Unix. It is not up to the operating system to determine what is whose information. If you free your information, and it has everybodies password in plain text, than it will be reallocated and if malloc() is used to reallocate it, than it will be readable and could be written to a word document.
Two of the oldest tricks to gain information you shouldn't havem on a Unix system, were to malloc(3) a fairly large chunk of memory and then read the data that was left by the last user/process.
Run it a few times, it'll segfault at some point. You will start to see memory overlapping.
To reiterate: Memory freed by another process previously without being previously zeroed out can be given to another process through a malloc() call with that data in tact..
But of course those tricks haven't worked for over 10 years now in the Unix world.
They aren't tricks. It's about lazy programmers who don't feel the need to call a quick zero blit on the memory before it's free'd.
I would be very surprised to learn that they do work on Windows.
the OS *is* responsible for clearing memory from other programs that it gives to you.
You should define clearing here. If by clearing you mean segmenting it so it will not allocate any pointers to that segment than yes, it should do that. If by clearing you mean that after every free() call it should clear that memory space, than no, it shouldn't.
If I have a temporary scratch pad that I'm just sticking an arbitrary value in (say a formatted date string, don't argue stack vs. hash please;)) and I free it, I don't want the added overhead. If I'm storing a password, than I will zero it out before freeing. This is my responsibility as a programmer.
(You mean malloc(3), BTW, not malloc (1), which would be a user command rather than a C function)
Egg on my face.. Thanks for pointing it out. Can I blame it on all the perl code? OR better yet, I am such a C guru that I need not the man pages, for I have them all memorized!
Whether the OS clears ram or not has nothing to do with whether or not the C library calls calloc and malloc do so.
I would advise you to stop this thread, because we are talking about standards here. calloc() sets memory to zero. malloc() does not. This does not depend upon what C library you are using, this is the standard.
The decision of what appaers in that memory space is made before calloc and malloc are involved.
Yes, just like the decision for their to be molecules that can be arranged for a cup of coffee are there long before it's brewed. This is irrelevant.
In this case it's Microsoft's fault either way, since they coded BOTH the OS and the application.
Uhm, the same thing happens in Linux too. People use malloc() and do not zero out the memory they are given. This is not operating system specific. malloc() should not be expected to set the memory to zero. That is what you are gauranteed when you code an application. Same thing as every data type is greater than or equal to the data size of char (e.g., sizeof(int) >= sizeof(char))
You are taking a simple informational post (malloc() isn't supposed to zero out memory) that you criticized because you failed to understand, and are trying to maintain that you know something about ANSI/ISO C.
The fact of the matter is malloc() is not expected to zero the memory, where as calloc() is. malloc(0) can return a null pointer or a pointer to zero bytes. These are the things that malloc() is designed and understood to do. You can argue what happens behind the scenes all you want, but as for the actual function call, it is not expected to zero the memory.
Any operating system with some sort of security certification will write zeros to a page before giving it to the application.
calloc() does this. malloc() will not zero the memory out. Some operating systems that have security certifications will just fill with random bits.
Windows NT has always done this. If not, all an app would have to do to look at another process's memory space would be to keep allocating pages.
No, it hasn't always done this. I wrote a page-dumper for NT that would print out every string in memory from start to finish. It was user space, didn't run as administrator.
malloc() takes chunks of the application's virtual memory that has already been allocated by the operating system and paritions it outs. It won't bother zeroing the memory for performance reasons.
First you claim he was mistaken, then proceed to post the "correction" - which consisted of something that agrees perfectly with what he described happening. Make up your mind.
I've missed you Dunbar.
Post I responded to:
It turns out that Windows didn't use to bother zeroing out RAM when it handed it over to an application
This means that he thinks Windows will zero out memory allocated. This is wrong, and I illustrated that malloc() does this intentionally.
Post I responded to:
so I guess at times you could call malloc() and get random junk from other running applications.
This is also incorrect, you will only get memory that is unused by any application. Yes, you can over step your bounds, just as you can assign random addresses to pointers.
Post I responded to:
The combination of the OS not clearing RAM and Office writing out memory which it had allocated but never bothered using resulted in email headers in Word documents.
Now, here is the real meat. The OS is not supposed to zero the RAM, unless you use calloc(). That is what calloc() is for. Office should ensure that the memory is zero'd if doing a malloc to prevent things like this. See Cisco CERTs for some good reasons why.
Now, I hope with this overly verbose explanation of why he was wrong, and detailing out in what ways he was wrong (Not in his understanding of malloc() so much, but his understanding of what the operating systems role is when it gives a segment of memory to a process) I expect you can agree with me on this and not feel the urge to be condescending or argue.
In case you failed to... you know... read the article, and the subject, this is not about the memo that Ms. Garrett has written from WEF. This is about the obviously misinformed as to what email really is journalist getting pissed off about her privacy being invaded.
She wrote email. Friends forwarded email because they didn't realize it would piss her off. She gets pissed off. LawMeme writes story about it. Slashdot links to LawMeme story.
The next bus stop is about 300 meters up, you can catch it if you hurry.
It turns out that Windows didn't use to bother zeroing out RAM when it handed it over to an application, so I guess at times you could call malloc() and get random junk from other running applications. And Office of course doesn't actually write files out in a known format, it pretty much just dumps memory out intact (which is why it's such a pain to reverse engineer the file format). The combination of the OS not clearing RAM and Office writing out memory which it had allocated but never bothered using resulted in email headers in Word documents. This was fixed years ago, of course. I kinda missed it, though. I still routinely run strings on Office docs to see what shows up.
Uhm, no, you are mistaken in your understanding of malloc. This is the standard for malloc:
malloc() allocates size bytes and returns a pointer to the allocated memory. The memory is not cleared.
Taken from malloc (1).
It is not the operating systems responsibility to clear the memory of something recently allocated, and it is good programming practice to set the bits to 0 after a malloc unless you know for a damn well certainty that you will fill the entire segment.
Sure, but none of those differences will make Linux a non-Unix. Even you yourself say that there are differences between Solaris and BSD kernels, yet both are usually refererred to as Unix. Why not Linux, too?
What you are talking about is the end-user applications that are Unix-like. When you are talking about the kernel (Linux is a kernel, and that's as far as it goes) there are kernels that operate in a very Unix-like fashion, which is System V standards (usually, I'm not going to get into SCO) which includes Solaris and the BSD family. Linux does things much different, with it's closest similarities to Minix which is considered a Unix-like operating system.
The differences you see as an end-user are slight, so that you cannot understand how different the underlying architecture is. A perfect example is driving a Rotary engine vs. a piston engine. From your average drivers point of view they will not know the difference. The actual mechanics beneath the hood are completely changed, so while both are engines they operate on completely different principles.
They still have the same end-user devices (pedals, steering wheel) just like Unix and Unix-like operating systems (shell, window manager/X, etc.)
Different kernels do different things better or worse, like Solaris Unix can scale very well, Linux can cluster very well. This is largely in part to the different architecture of the system.
Linux is a UNIX-Like kernel. Solaris is a UNIX kernel.
Re:How is this different than multi-session?
on
Presenting The CDR-ROM
·
· Score: 2, Informative
How is this different than multi-session? The site is slashdotted and equiring minds want to know...
It's a disc that is divided into two segments. One segment is your standard ROM disc, that sounds like it will be stamped using normal duplication methods. The remainder of the disc is to be surfaced as a CD-R, allowing people to burn information on there.
But both Ford and GMs are cars, just like both Solaris and SuSE are Unix in every way that matters.
There are tremendous differences between the Linux kernel and the Solaris kernel. Same with any BSD kernel vs. Linux vs. Solaris.
Trying to say that they are the same in "every way that matters" is seriously on par with saying that a fire truck engine is the same as a Honda Civic engine in every way that matters.
If you would like I can get a complete list as to the major differences between each of the kernels, and how it can effect you. My guess is you are not a low-level system user, nor do any programming in C or lower languages, otherwise you would understand this already.
There are severe penalties against drinking and driving in every State today. Obviously this is far short of a solution.
Right, and I happen to know of a case where a girl was drunk, hit a cop on a motorcycle, permanently disfiguring him and he has to go through rounds of reconstructive and cosmetic surgery... and she got 2 years.
This happened about a year ago, if memory serves correctly. The bar that served her is getting hit harder than she is. So, when the punishments start getting real, let me know.
So in other words, you favor mob rule over rational legislation?
Uhm, this is what I was speaking against. Go back and re-read it. I was saying prohibition will cause otherwise complacent and wealthy people to become very aggressive and turn brewing into a criminal organization.
Whether our not you can control your drug habit, the fact remains that half of all automotive fatalities are caused by people who cannot.
So punish the people that do it, not the cause. It's the same thing as the Xbox mod'ers who are pissed off that it's illegal. It's my body, what I chose to put in it is my own fault. If you drink and kill someone, it's murder. End of story. That's just my philosophy, but it's how I feel.
There are also people who can handle amphetimines, heroin, cocaine, and almost everything else on the list. Why is it so clear that alcohol must be an exception?
Because one beer does not effect most peoples state, at all. I've not seen a person who can snort a line and remain perfectly in sorts.
There's absolutely no way that they know anybody's intentions when they go to a site like that. The internet is a source of INFORMATION. At some point, information's going to be accessed. It's not like you can call me a pirate just for visiting a site about piracy. Heck, you can't even call me a pirate if I download an ISO. How do they know I'm not replacing a scratched disk?
Exactly. Collect my information. Visit isonews, and every head-shop website, along with terrorist website that you can think of. Choke on the deluge of people giving a big collective middle finger to anybody attempting to pin them down for the crime of reading a website.
Blah blah blah I know, it's all been said before by lots of people. The difference for me today is that I now understand why privacy nuts are so fanatical about it. Out of context, data can be used in horrible ways.
I think we should just flood them with bogus info. Go buy 30 galons of bleach and 50 pounds of fertilizer. The donate it to local farmers, just to throw them off.
Our society does not tolerate the use of dangerous drugs. Federal enforcement of drug control regulations is a success. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, and the people have consistently shown an inability to use it without causing death and destruction. If you have a medical reason for using alcohol, then you should be able to get a prescription for it. Otherwise, possession and sale should be treated exactly like the other dangerous drugs.
Sorry chief, but prohibition has already been tried. If you think you can just ban alcohol, there are a select several hundred pub owners that would have a word with you.
As for me, I enjoy a nice cold beer, straight from the tap. I don't drink excessively, and I do it because I enjoy the taste. And no, you cannot make non-Alcoholic brew taste like the "real thing." So take your lack of personal accountability stance and go shove it up your ass.
Someone gets drunk and kills someone in a car? Go kill em for fucks sake, but stay away from my beer because I, like many others, do not become dangerous when I drink.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't have science anymore. We don't have any Teslas, just a bunch of corporate whores. I'm bored, disgusted and scared.
Considering that you are posting on a site which advocates (albeit poorly, most of the time) open source and "hobbyist" programming, I think you may be a tad bit wrong.
Public Domain can mean openly available to everyone and not subject to copyright protection, or simply openly available to the public (i.e. for sale to the public).
You know, if every fuckwit in the world makes up definitions for commonly available words, english will get more fucked up than it already is.
At that point my download will be finished. I thank you for your cooperation.
3650 was just released for non-Asian markets (Asian market release was late 2002) and they're just coming to the channels as we speak. Expect to pay $450 for a SIM-free, never locked phone with no sub. Probably around $350-$400 with a new contract.
I'm going to have to tell AT&T how pissed off I am that they didn't warn me the T68 is better used as a paper weight than a cell phone, and see if they can cut me a deal on the phone. I'm pretty irritated about that situation. They have many known issues with the phone around here, and didn't disclose any of them when I bought the phone. Considering how long I've been a customer with AT&T, it pisses me off pretty bad that they did it.
No signal strength issues, in fact, maybe they put in a bigger antenna (or just screwed around with the signal meter software) because I get better reception than my other Nokia phones.
In the US of course...
I have a friend in the area who has the other Nokia GSM phone w/ Bluetooth and he says it's great. He was the one who originally showed me the T68, then a week after I bought it told me not to buy one because the signal strength sucks. I think I'm going to have to go back to Nokia.
What region? I'm in Portland, OR and have horrible luck with GSM. Also, only the major cities (Portland, Salem) have GSM networks right now so if I travel outside of the metro area into the rest of Oregon, I'm SOL.
I got a T68 and have never been more pissed off at a phone before. I'm going to replace it pretty quickly, as it gets no signal what so ever, but the Nokia GSM phones work just fine around here.
How much did you pay for it, and have you had any issues with signal strength?
A large following of people who resist change?
The Linux-counter:
A large following of people who resist changing their clothes.
No. The fact of the matter is that that wasn't the type of memory allocation the original poster was referring to. It's irrelevant what the standard has to say about what libc is supposed to do, since the OS itself is what the poster was complaining about, and the libc is at a level above that. (For example, what if the language being used is assembly language, not C, and therefore malloc and calloc aren't even there?)
This would almost be correct had he not directly said, "malloc()" himself. Right? Go back and read it. He said "so I guess at times you could call malloc() and get random junk from other running applications."
Understand this? He said malloc(). Not me.
[deleting the rest of your idiocy]
I'm still unsure of why you try to do this. You try to make me look bad by saying I said things that I never say. I'm responding to someone saying malloc() should clear memory; end of it, nothing more, fin. You understand this, right? It's not past your grasp?
This is how our threads go, and have always gone: I respond correcting someone, or stating my opinion. You say I said something I never said, or say that I'm wrong. I say I didn't say that, clarify to extrordinary detail what I did in fact say. You respond with something trying to defend some arbitrary position that never has anything to do with the thread.
What are you trying to accomplish here? It never gets anywhere outside of you looking like a fool accusing me of things I never say.
Do you have any clue how memory management works at any level in the operating system?
Virtual Memory is just a method of mapping virtual memory segments to physical memory so they will not overlap. Memory management works differently in each operating system.
calloc() and malloc() are functions in a user-mode library. When they run out of space on their heap, they request more memory from the operating system. In Windows NT, this is with the VirtualAlloc call.
I went from DOS to Unix, with the exception of a few programs in NT years ago. What they do now I do not know. What I do know, is that malloc() is not expected to zero bits it allocates to you.
End of story. Keep arguing about how this has something to do with other parts of the operating system, and it doesn't fucking matter.
The original poster said something that was incorrect about his expectations on the function of malloc(). I corrected him. Your little tyrade about virtual memory, and what happens before a malloc() is ultimately pointless, you see. Because malloc() is not expected to zero memory. I don't care if it sets them all to an alternating pattern of prime numbers, I was letting him know you can't expect malloc() to go to zero.
If someone said, "I use my left side blinker on my car to let people know I want coffee", and someone else said, "That's actually designed for letting people know you are going to be turning left" would you go off about the engine of the car?
In the nicest way I can put this, what the fuck are you talking about this shit for, and can you please stop because I really don't give a flying rats ass about how windows manages it's virtual memory tables or how they relate to malloc().
While it is correct that malloc does not guarantee that the memory will be cleared (even on Unix, it will contain random junk), it is still unacceptable that the OS leaks data from one application to the next. In Unix, if you find junk in a malloc'ed segment, it can only come from the application itself (previously allocated, used, and then freed memory), never from another app.
Wrong. Apparently nobody here has ever coded on a system with only 1-2 megs of RAM available. I'm done explaining it, but read the thread or go read a book on what is and isn't possible with malloc() and not blitting zero to your memory segment.
It's also the standard in Unix. It is not up to the operating system to determine what is whose information. If you free your information, and it has everybodies password in plain text, than it will be reallocated and if malloc() is used to reallocate it, than it will be readable and could be written to a word document.
Two of the oldest tricks to gain information you shouldn't havem on a Unix system, were to malloc(3) a fairly large chunk of memory and then read the data that was left by the last user/process.
Uhm, try this:
Run it a few times, it'll segfault at some point. You will start to see memory overlapping.
To reiterate: Memory freed by another process previously without being previously zeroed out can be given to another process through a malloc() call with that data in tact..
But of course those tricks haven't worked for over 10 years now in the Unix world.
They aren't tricks. It's about lazy programmers who don't feel the need to call a quick zero blit on the memory before it's free'd.
I would be very surprised to learn that they do work on Windows.
Surprise, and it's not even your birthday.
the OS *is* responsible for clearing memory from other programs that it gives to you.
;)) and I free it, I don't want the added overhead. If I'm storing a password, than I will zero it out before freeing. This is my responsibility as a programmer.
You should define clearing here. If by clearing you mean segmenting it so it will not allocate any pointers to that segment than yes, it should do that. If by clearing you mean that after every free() call it should clear that memory space, than no, it shouldn't.
If I have a temporary scratch pad that I'm just sticking an arbitrary value in (say a formatted date string, don't argue stack vs. hash please
(You mean malloc(3), BTW, not malloc (1), which would be a user command rather than a C function)
Egg on my face.. Thanks for pointing it out. Can I blame it on all the perl code? OR better yet, I am such a C guru that I need not the man pages, for I have them all memorized!
Whether the OS clears ram or not has nothing to do with whether or not the C library calls calloc and malloc do so.
I would advise you to stop this thread, because we are talking about standards here. calloc() sets memory to zero. malloc() does not. This does not depend upon what C library you are using, this is the standard.
The decision of what appaers in that memory space is made before calloc and malloc are involved.
Yes, just like the decision for their to be molecules that can be arranged for a cup of coffee are there long before it's brewed. This is irrelevant.
In this case it's Microsoft's fault either way, since they coded BOTH the OS and the application.
Uhm, the same thing happens in Linux too. People use malloc() and do not zero out the memory they are given. This is not operating system specific. malloc() should not be expected to set the memory to zero. That is what you are gauranteed when you code an application. Same thing as every data type is greater than or equal to the data size of char (e.g., sizeof(int) >= sizeof(char))
You are taking a simple informational post (malloc() isn't supposed to zero out memory) that you criticized because you failed to understand, and are trying to maintain that you know something about ANSI/ISO C.
The fact of the matter is malloc() is not expected to zero the memory, where as calloc() is. malloc(0) can return a null pointer or a pointer to zero bytes. These are the things that malloc() is designed and understood to do. You can argue what happens behind the scenes all you want, but as for the actual function call, it is not expected to zero the memory.
Understand?
Any operating system with some sort of security certification will write zeros to a page before giving it to the application.
calloc() does this. malloc() will not zero the memory out. Some operating systems that have security certifications will just fill with random bits.
Windows NT has always done this. If not, all an app would have to do to look at another process's memory space would be to keep allocating pages.
No, it hasn't always done this. I wrote a page-dumper for NT that would print out every string in memory from start to finish. It was user space, didn't run as administrator.
malloc() takes chunks of the application's virtual memory that has already been allocated by the operating system and paritions it outs. It won't bother zeroing the memory for performance reasons.
Uhm, do you know what virtual memory is?
I've missed you Dunbar.
Post I responded to:
This means that he thinks Windows will zero out memory allocated. This is wrong, and I illustrated that malloc() does this intentionally.
Post I responded to:
This is also incorrect, you will only get memory that is unused by any application. Yes, you can over step your bounds, just as you can assign random addresses to pointers.
Post I responded to:
Now, here is the real meat. The OS is not supposed to zero the RAM, unless you use calloc(). That is what calloc() is for. Office should ensure that the memory is zero'd if doing a malloc to prevent things like this. See Cisco CERTs for some good reasons why.
Now, I hope with this overly verbose explanation of why he was wrong, and detailing out in what ways he was wrong (Not in his understanding of malloc() so much, but his understanding of what the operating systems role is when it gives a segment of memory to a process) I expect you can agree with me on this and not feel the urge to be condescending or argue.
In case you failed to... you know... read the article, and the subject, this is not about the memo that Ms. Garrett has written from WEF. This is about the obviously misinformed as to what email really is journalist getting pissed off about her privacy being invaded.
She wrote email.
Friends forwarded email because they didn't realize it would piss her off.
She gets pissed off.
LawMeme writes story about it.
Slashdot links to LawMeme story.
The next bus stop is about 300 meters up, you can catch it if you hurry.
Uhm, no, you are mistaken in your understanding of malloc. This is the standard for malloc:
Taken from malloc (1).
It is not the operating systems responsibility to clear the memory of something recently allocated, and it is good programming practice to set the bits to 0 after a malloc unless you know for a damn well certainty that you will fill the entire segment.
Yes I know there is more to being UNIX than just having the fork() system call, but what other basket would you put Linux in at the time it came out?
I'm saying Linux is UNIX-Like. It's not actually UNIX. If you say "This runs on any UNIX-Like system", than it should work on any UNIX system as well.
Sure, but none of those differences will make Linux a non-Unix. Even you yourself say that there are differences between Solaris and BSD kernels, yet both are usually refererred to as Unix. Why not Linux, too?
What you are talking about is the end-user applications that are Unix-like. When you are talking about the kernel (Linux is a kernel, and that's as far as it goes) there are kernels that operate in a very Unix-like fashion, which is System V standards (usually, I'm not going to get into SCO) which includes Solaris and the BSD family. Linux does things much different, with it's closest similarities to Minix which is considered a Unix-like operating system.
The differences you see as an end-user are slight, so that you cannot understand how different the underlying architecture is. A perfect example is driving a Rotary engine vs. a piston engine. From your average drivers point of view they will not know the difference. The actual mechanics beneath the hood are completely changed, so while both are engines they operate on completely different principles.
They still have the same end-user devices (pedals, steering wheel) just like Unix and Unix-like operating systems (shell, window manager/X, etc.)
Different kernels do different things better or worse, like Solaris Unix can scale very well, Linux can cluster very well. This is largely in part to the different architecture of the system.
Linux is a UNIX-Like kernel. Solaris is a UNIX kernel.
How is this different than multi-session? The site is slashdotted and equiring minds want to know ...
It's a disc that is divided into two segments. One segment is your standard ROM disc, that sounds like it will be stamped using normal duplication methods. The remainder of the disc is to be surfaced as a CD-R, allowing people to burn information on there.
But both Ford and GMs are cars, just like both Solaris and SuSE are Unix in every way that matters.
There are tremendous differences between the Linux kernel and the Solaris kernel. Same with any BSD kernel vs. Linux vs. Solaris.
Trying to say that they are the same in "every way that matters" is seriously on par with saying that a fire truck engine is the same as a Honda Civic engine in every way that matters.
If you would like I can get a complete list as to the major differences between each of the kernels, and how it can effect you. My guess is you are not a low-level system user, nor do any programming in C or lower languages, otherwise you would understand this already.
There are severe penalties against drinking and driving in every State today. Obviously this is far short of a solution.
Right, and I happen to know of a case where a girl was drunk, hit a cop on a motorcycle, permanently disfiguring him and he has to go through rounds of reconstructive and cosmetic surgery... and she got 2 years.
This happened about a year ago, if memory serves correctly. The bar that served her is getting hit harder than she is. So, when the punishments start getting real, let me know.
So in other words, you favor mob rule over rational legislation?
Uhm, this is what I was speaking against. Go back and re-read it. I was saying prohibition will cause otherwise complacent and wealthy people to become very aggressive and turn brewing into a criminal organization.
Whether our not you can control your drug habit, the fact remains that half of all automotive fatalities are caused by people who cannot.
So punish the people that do it, not the cause. It's the same thing as the Xbox mod'ers who are pissed off that it's illegal. It's my body, what I chose to put in it is my own fault. If you drink and kill someone, it's murder. End of story. That's just my philosophy, but it's how I feel.
There are also people who can handle amphetimines, heroin, cocaine, and almost everything else on the list. Why is it so clear that alcohol must be an exception?
Because one beer does not effect most peoples state, at all. I've not seen a person who can snort a line and remain perfectly in sorts.
There's absolutely no way that they know anybody's intentions when they go to a site like that. The internet is a source of INFORMATION. At some point, information's going to be accessed. It's not like you can call me a pirate just for visiting a site about piracy. Heck, you can't even call me a pirate if I download an ISO. How do they know I'm not replacing a scratched disk?
Exactly. Collect my information. Visit isonews, and every head-shop website, along with terrorist website that you can think of. Choke on the deluge of people giving a big collective middle finger to anybody attempting to pin them down for the crime of reading a website.
Blah blah blah I know, it's all been said before by lots of people. The difference for me today is that I now understand why privacy nuts are so fanatical about it. Out of context, data can be used in horrible ways.
I think we should just flood them with bogus info. Go buy 30 galons of bleach and 50 pounds of fertilizer. The donate it to local farmers, just to throw them off.
Our society does not tolerate the use of dangerous drugs. Federal enforcement of drug control regulations is a success. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, and the people have consistently shown an inability to use it without causing death and destruction. If you have a medical reason for using alcohol, then you should be able to get a prescription for it. Otherwise, possession and sale should be treated exactly like the other dangerous drugs.
Sorry chief, but prohibition has already been tried. If you think you can just ban alcohol, there are a select several hundred pub owners that would have a word with you.
As for me, I enjoy a nice cold beer, straight from the tap. I don't drink excessively, and I do it because I enjoy the taste. And no, you cannot make non-Alcoholic brew taste like the "real thing." So take your lack of personal accountability stance and go shove it up your ass.
Someone gets drunk and kills someone in a car? Go kill em for fucks sake, but stay away from my beer because I, like many others, do not become dangerous when I drink.
Hooray indeed. I think /. could use a whole lot more couth, humor, and thought, and less... well you know as well as I do.
This is why I stay in my journal cluster much more than the front site.