There is such a thing as an exploitable heap overflow. That's how a lot of exploits get around stack protection mechanisms, they will overwrite part of the heap instead or they will overwrite part of the stack for parameters for a certain function they know will be called next.
Because you know which functions will be executed after the overflow, so you can set up the parameters in a way to manipulate the soon-to-be-called functions. It's not as if buffer overflows are written without knowing anything about how the program works. On the contrary, they know exactly what code will get executed after the overflow and what effect it will have.
Mod this as a troll if you will, but I'm really just pointing out how absurd these wannabe security "experts" are.
In order to install software you need to at least be a "power user." Being a power user, security-wise, means that all the virus/worms/trojans/whatever will just as effective as they would be as administrator.
The only alternative is using a severely limited account most of the time that will frequently require switching to the power user/admin account to do any real work.
And considering that most used exploits work by using privileges that the user would NEED to have, it's pointless. What I'm saying is that the person would switch to the power user/admin account to run some executable in the first place. The user says "oh there's this executable I want to run, so I'll switch to power user mode." The exploit is a social/wetware one, not a computer/privilege one MOST OF THE TIME. Take it a step further and note that exploits in e-mail software will work regardless, since even regular users can run e-mail software.
Also, this severely limited account isn't even configured by default. Creating a specially locked down account takes considerable time, even on the "server" versions of windows. Even then, there are intrinstic limits to what you can do. Windows doesn't have good sandboxing abilities.
What are you going to do exactly? Have your regular users screen every single outgoing connection made by any and all software? Or perhaps you're going to forbid all software that's not preapproved to connect from making outgoing connections. That's REALLY going to go over well from a practical standpoint.
How well does linux support APM features on laptops in general, especially hibernation mode? Hibernation is a majro feature that I rather like as it lets you pause the state of the computer while consuming no power at all. AT LEAST it should support stand by, but that's really not sufficient.
HEy guess what, DOS will boot in less than a second on the same machine. Does that mean DOS is great? I'd like to see BeOS running some real apps, not just some feature limited browser or text editor.
[Sorry, I reposted this with proper formatting.]
Here's your answer:
Nothing, absolutely nothing. BeOS proponents and their marketing team make lots of claims, NONE of which have been substantiated. The multimedia support is complete bunk.
It takes an army of developers to keep up good multimedia support for all the graphics cards and nothing comes close to touching Windows in that regard since vendors write their own drivers.
FACT: BeOS sucks for multimedia support.
Its driver support is very limited. I've actually tried running multimedia software on it and it performed WORSE than on windows and linux significantly.
Are we to believe that the BeOS dvelopers managed to surpass every single expert in the entire world and developer SUPER SECRET ULTRA-FAST audio/mpeg decoding algorithms that are orders of magnitude faster than existing ones?
FACT: BeOS only boots faster because it has a lot of basic stuff taken out.
One can easily trim down windows or linux to make it boot just as fast or faster, but that means removing a lot of functionality.
FACT: BeOS is behind the times in the OS world.
Are we to honestly believe that a small team of developers has managed to create a revolutionary OS that's beat out what numerous developers on Windows, Linux and many other OSes have created and spent many many more man hours on? Of course not.
Their file system is utter crap. They have a 1GB memory limitation that was just recently fixed. Talk about poor design. All the "graet new features" that it actually has are features that major OSes have had for many years now. BeOS is VERY inferior and is barely catching up.
Conclusion: It's all completely unsubstantiated snake oil. Notice how BeOS relies 100% on anecdotal evidence and unbiased persons who use the OS manage to remain totally unimpressed. Why do you think there are ZERO benchmarks for BeOS? Why do you think they don't list all the UNSUPPORTED hardware on their site?
Because their OS truly does suck.
Here's your answer:
Nothing, absolutely nothing. BeOS proponents and their marketing team make lots of claims, NONE of which have been substantiated. The multimedia support is complete bunk.
It takes an army of developers to keep up good multimedia support for all the graphics cards and nothing comes close to touching Windows in that regard since vendors write their own drivers.
FACT: BeOS sucks for multimedia support.
Its driver support is very limited. I've actually tried running multimedia software on it and it performed WORSE than on windows and linux significantly.
Are we to believe that the BeOS dvelopers managed to surpass every single expert in the entire world and developer SUPER SECRET ULTRA-FAST audio/mpeg decoding algorithms that are orders of magnitude faster than existing ones?
FACT: BeOS only boots faster because it has a lot of basic stuff taken out.
One can easily trim down windows or linux to make it boot just as fast or faster, but that means removing a lot of functionality.
FACT: BeOS is behind the times in the OS world.
Are we to honestly believe that a small team of developers has managed to create a revolutionary OS that's beat out what numerous developers on Windows, Linux and many other OSes have created and spent many many more man hours on? Of course not.
Their file system is utter crap. They have a 1GB memory limitation that was just recently fixed. Talk about poor design. All the "graet new features" that it actually has are features that major OSes have had for many years now. BeOS is VERY inferior and is barely catching up.
Conclusion: It's all completely unsubstantiated snake oil. Notice how BeOS relies 100% on anecdotal evidence and unbiased persons who use the OS manage to remain totally unimpressed. Why do you think there are ZERO benchmarks for BeOS? Why do you think they don't list all the UNSUPPORTED hardware on their site?
Because their OS truly does suck.
How much do you want to bet that once you start piling on the drivers and applications that boot time goes to shit? I can configure a linux system to boot in 10 seconds by taking out a lot of shit, it doesn't mean much though.
That's complete and utter bullshit. I've heard claims like this and NEVER seen them substantiated even once. What you're suggesting would mean that BeOS has some super magical ULTRA SPECIAL fast multimedia decoding algorithms that no one else in the entire world has even come close to creating.
Those tests weren't all that great. bzip2 is great at text compression for example, but not good at other stuff. It makes no sense to test it on binary files. I've seen ACE better than RAR in some tests, results vary.
Also, I didn't see 7-zip or a lot of the lesser known formats tested.
Because RAR doesn't provide the best compression. There are other, newer forms that are better. See 7-zip, bzip2, gzip (in some cases), ACE, etc... Who is living in the stone age now?
ctags only parses part of C++, it's not complete. Mostly it's just a C parser witha little bit tacked on.
Yes and I don't like it. Perhaps my bias has come through in my previous reply. I find my productivity with vim much higher than with vc++ and intellisense/code completion. This is the real problem with my previous post actually - not being upfront and saying "I find vc++ code-completion annoying and counter-productive IMHO for these reasons."
So then you admit that it's NOT an equivalent after all, it might help to mention that. You ARE biased and you're actually defending something which you admit has less functionality.
Used to be but I'm not a sharecropper any more.
Glad to see you don't like the other extra functionality too. It's nice to see someone follow the "less is better philosophy." I think I'll start arguing that ed is even better because it has less functionality than vim.
Not true.
That doesn't disprove what I said. It only parses a small portion of C++ on top of what was already supported for C
Well, sure. But then I already have a full language parser for c++. It's called g++. I don't need another one built into my editor when I have a set of tools that does what I need to be productive.
This is completely missing the point. Why are you comparing a compiler to auto-completion? You need a full parser to have fully supported auto-completion like VA does.
Tsk tsk - manners. People are more receptive without personal attacks. You could have pointed out where I was wrong without any labelling or guesses as to my motivations and experience.
No way, you admitted you were biased here and you made an intentionally misleading comment and only afterwards admited that vim has less functionality.
Yes you can if you a) set up Vim properly and b) use ctags and TList whenever you can.
Uncheck.
ctags only recognizes a limited set of language constructs.
Beacause Visual Assist is aware of the syntax of C/C++/VB/C#... and acts accordingly.
Check.
Uncheck, vim just does simple pattern matching, it doesn't actually understand the language.
For example, it can diffrentiate between local can globalr variables.
Check.
Uncheck, it can't parse C++.
When you use it with existing libraries with source (like Boost for example), it will parse the whole thing and now Suggestion lists and spell checker will be aware of the new functions, methods and classes.
Check.
Uncheck, see above.
So you can't simulate it with just a hand made syntax file, as suggestion lists and spell checker are project dependant.
ctags and Tlist are set up to be automatic on my copy of vim.
Uncheck, neither of those provides this kind of functionality, especially not for C++.
It also learns from the patterns you use more often in your code and sorts the suggestions in a way that the probability that you'd need to scroll down the list of the suggestions becomes lower and lower.
"Patterns you use" indicates it's just doing pattern matching, not understanding the language.
I don't really need this since typing is faster than taking one hand off and using the mouse to find a suggestion. Besides, I prefer predictable behaviour rather than intelligent guesses behind the scenes.
Visual Assist is highly predictable, you're talking out of your ass here.
Spell-checker nows the name of the local variables, included functions and namespaces so even before running the compiler, you know that you have not miss-spelled that function call.
There is more to code completion than variable and function names.
Correct - Visual Assist is a plugin for Visual Studio and vim is a powerful extensible text editor. Seriously, vim is phenomenally powerful - especially at doing all the things you seem to think it's deficient at. You can move around code like lightning (by far the most common action of any programming), jump to and from function, class and macro definitions with a single key, and with plugins like TList and integrated debuggers, it becomes a very fine IDE as well.
It is grossly inferior to VC++ + Visual Assist.
1. Do you actually code in C++? 2. Have you actually used intellisense/visual assist (code compleition)? 3. Do you realize there is more to code completion than recognition of function and vairable names? 4. Ever heard of a C++ template? 5. Are you aware of the other features provided in VC++?
My guess is that the answer to all the above is no. I really hate it when Slashdoters who defend OSS automatically get moded up even if their information is wrong or misleading. You've obviously never used intellisense nor VC++ (or you've barely used them).
ctags, for the most part, processes just C language constructs. Even then I'm betting it's rather limited in what it does. In order to do visual assist style code completion you NEED to have a full language parser for C++. ctags has no such thing.
You are blowing smoke out of your ass. Unless you've actually used Visual C++ and Visual Assist don't bother commenting.
That vim auto-completion stuff is *extremely* primitive. It's just autocompletion of keywords basically. VC++/VA have full blown language based auto-completion. That means they actually have a complete parser for the C++ language, which is by no means an easy thing to do. A "syntax file" is just matching regular expressions (a glorified grep) and isn't doing any real parsing of the language. So please, please unless you've used the auto-completion feature don't talk about it.
The closest thing I've seen is something in emacs and even that sucks balls. Let me give an exmaple. AC will go through all of the source and header files you're using and parse them. Because of this it can auto-complete CODE, not just KEYWORDS.
EX:
template class A { int foo; char bar; T meowface; crap moo; };...imagine there is a different definition of A that just accepts one template parameter
int main(void) {
A[autocomplete kicks in and shows you definition(s) for class A i.e. template A]
so I start typing A blue;
then later I can do
blue. and it shows me the members I can access, their protection, inherented shit blah blah
return 0; }
Sorry, that's the best I can explain it quickly
There's also a debugging feature in C++ called something like edit as you go. You can basically edit code WHILE you're debugging and it will recompile it and insert it into the program while it's at a break point. THere are other features too.
The only other software, commercial or OSS that I've seen do this is Apple's newest development studio thing.
Why is this a "smart move"? Why do you automatically assume that linux is this great messiah for embedded systems? That's completely dumb and this shows your clear bias.
Frankly, I'd rather use VxWorks, which has been around a lot longer, been more closely scrutinized and better developed for embedded systems. When you're talking about multi-billion dollar projects like the Mars Rover stuff, I don't want a fuck up just because some pipsqueak who has no real incentive to rigorously harden embedded linux fucked something up.
Also, I hope you, the linux zealot, realize that VxWorks is based on FreeBSD. So apparently you think that linux is this magical beacon of open source that is superior to all the rest. Good job on making a comment that is pure zealotry and has absolutely no basis in reality.
What "new opportunities" are they serving anyway? What "customers needs" HAVEN'T they been serving? It's because of their great product quality of VXWORKS (with excellent embedded debugging capabilities) that NASA was able to fix a bug on their Mars Rover system that would have otherwise completely blew the multi-billion dollar mission. That sounds like serving their customers needs pretty damn well.
Why was this moded up as 4, interesting? It's just a blind praise for linux. If someone said this about Windows it'd be moded down as a Microsft market droid. Just change "linux" to "microsoft windows" and it's no different than a microsoft ad.
MOD THIS COMMENT DOWN, This guy doesn't understand the difference between SSL and SSH
SSH doesn't use certificates. Certificates are what makes SSL superior to SSH. Certificates make things MORE secure not less. Why ou think it's just a money making scheme is beyond me. Yes, there are CAs and yes they get paid, but that's unavoidable with a certificate based system. Furthermore, if you're using this as part of your own system inside a corporation or some other organizaton, you don't need to pay for certs at all.
You are just spouting ignorance here promoting a less secure certificateless method over a more secure one. Not just that, but you FAIL TO REALIZE that OpenPGP includes trust metrics and people signing keys, which is a similar concept to certificates. SSH has no such thing.
Who said ANYTHING about file extensions? Ever since its inception Windows NT and all of its derivatives have had ACLs. I'm not sure how mime-types and umask come into this. Mime-types have nothing to do with the kernel/OS and umask is just about the default bitmask for file permissions. I don't even know what the hell you're referring to by an "ex-bit." And what does it say that windows has something STANDARD and SECURE installed by DEFAULT that linux doesn't? I love the double standard you're playing here.
I find it hard to believe anything works well in WINE, let alone Photoshop. I tried mIRC, a simple IRC client and not only did it not render it properly, the GUI rendering was choppy and incredibly slow. It may run the executable itself fast (which I'm not even sure of), but the interface rendering stuff is god awful slow and unacceptable.
Linux is good for scientific apps? I'm sorry, but linux is a lot more limited in the availability and quality of scientific software. You can do all the rest of the stuff in windows, aside from the licensing of windows itself. You can get all the same software for windows, for FREE, including all the dev tools. You can also configure windows with even more fine grained permissions than with linux unless you're using selinux.
Re:Many fields left where Linux is unsuitable
on
Cooking With Linux
·
· Score: 0
MOD this comment down, seriously. Just because software is available, doesn't mean it's good. I can come up with plenty examples of lower quality software. If anyone is spreading FUD, it's this irrational zealot here. As has been pointed out, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about--people have ALREADY given good counter-examples.
Slashdot Mirror
There is such a thing as an exploitable heap overflow. That's how a lot of exploits get around stack protection mechanisms, they will overwrite part of the heap instead or they will overwrite part of the stack for parameters for a certain function they know will be called next.
Because you know which functions will be executed after the overflow, so you can set up the parameters in a way to manipulate the soon-to-be-called functions. It's not as if buffer overflows are written without knowing anything about how the program works. On the contrary, they know exactly what code will get executed after the overflow and what effect it will have.
Mod this as a troll if you will, but I'm really just pointing out how absurd these wannabe security "experts" are.
In order to install software you need to at least be a "power user." Being a power user, security-wise, means that all the virus/worms/trojans/whatever will just as effective as they would be as administrator.
The only alternative is using a severely limited account most of the time that will frequently require switching to the power user/admin account to do any real work.
And considering that most used exploits work by using privileges that the user would NEED to have, it's pointless. What I'm saying is that the person would switch to the power user/admin account to run some executable in the first place. The user says "oh there's this executable I want to run, so I'll switch to power user mode." The exploit is a social/wetware one, not a computer/privilege one MOST OF THE TIME. Take it a step further and note that exploits in e-mail software will work regardless, since even regular users can run e-mail software.
Also, this severely limited account isn't even configured by default. Creating a specially locked down account takes considerable time, even on the "server" versions of windows. Even then, there are intrinstic limits to what you can do. Windows doesn't have good sandboxing abilities.
What are you going to do exactly? Have your regular users screen every single outgoing connection made by any and all software? Or perhaps you're going to forbid all software that's not preapproved to connect from making outgoing connections. That's REALLY going to go over well from a practical standpoint.
How well does linux support APM features on laptops in general, especially hibernation mode? Hibernation is a majro feature that I rather like as it lets you pause the state of the computer while consuming no power at all. AT LEAST it should support stand by, but that's really not sufficient.
HEy guess what, DOS will boot in less than a second on the same machine. Does that mean DOS is great? I'd like to see BeOS running some real apps, not just some feature limited browser or text editor.
[Sorry, I reposted this with proper formatting.] Here's your answer: Nothing, absolutely nothing. BeOS proponents and their marketing team make lots of claims, NONE of which have been substantiated. The multimedia support is complete bunk. It takes an army of developers to keep up good multimedia support for all the graphics cards and nothing comes close to touching Windows in that regard since vendors write their own drivers. FACT: BeOS sucks for multimedia support. Its driver support is very limited. I've actually tried running multimedia software on it and it performed WORSE than on windows and linux significantly. Are we to believe that the BeOS dvelopers managed to surpass every single expert in the entire world and developer SUPER SECRET ULTRA-FAST audio/mpeg decoding algorithms that are orders of magnitude faster than existing ones? FACT: BeOS only boots faster because it has a lot of basic stuff taken out. One can easily trim down windows or linux to make it boot just as fast or faster, but that means removing a lot of functionality. FACT: BeOS is behind the times in the OS world. Are we to honestly believe that a small team of developers has managed to create a revolutionary OS that's beat out what numerous developers on Windows, Linux and many other OSes have created and spent many many more man hours on? Of course not. Their file system is utter crap. They have a 1GB memory limitation that was just recently fixed. Talk about poor design. All the "graet new features" that it actually has are features that major OSes have had for many years now. BeOS is VERY inferior and is barely catching up. Conclusion: It's all completely unsubstantiated snake oil. Notice how BeOS relies 100% on anecdotal evidence and unbiased persons who use the OS manage to remain totally unimpressed. Why do you think there are ZERO benchmarks for BeOS? Why do you think they don't list all the UNSUPPORTED hardware on their site? Because their OS truly does suck.
Here's your answer: Nothing, absolutely nothing. BeOS proponents and their marketing team make lots of claims, NONE of which have been substantiated. The multimedia support is complete bunk. It takes an army of developers to keep up good multimedia support for all the graphics cards and nothing comes close to touching Windows in that regard since vendors write their own drivers. FACT: BeOS sucks for multimedia support. Its driver support is very limited. I've actually tried running multimedia software on it and it performed WORSE than on windows and linux significantly. Are we to believe that the BeOS dvelopers managed to surpass every single expert in the entire world and developer SUPER SECRET ULTRA-FAST audio/mpeg decoding algorithms that are orders of magnitude faster than existing ones? FACT: BeOS only boots faster because it has a lot of basic stuff taken out. One can easily trim down windows or linux to make it boot just as fast or faster, but that means removing a lot of functionality. FACT: BeOS is behind the times in the OS world. Are we to honestly believe that a small team of developers has managed to create a revolutionary OS that's beat out what numerous developers on Windows, Linux and many other OSes have created and spent many many more man hours on? Of course not. Their file system is utter crap. They have a 1GB memory limitation that was just recently fixed. Talk about poor design. All the "graet new features" that it actually has are features that major OSes have had for many years now. BeOS is VERY inferior and is barely catching up. Conclusion: It's all completely unsubstantiated snake oil. Notice how BeOS relies 100% on anecdotal evidence and unbiased persons who use the OS manage to remain totally unimpressed. Why do you think there are ZERO benchmarks for BeOS? Why do you think they don't list all the UNSUPPORTED hardware on their site? Because their OS truly does suck.
How much do you want to bet that once you start piling on the drivers and applications that boot time goes to shit? I can configure a linux system to boot in 10 seconds by taking out a lot of shit, it doesn't mean much though.
That's complete and utter bullshit. I've heard claims like this and NEVER seen them substantiated even once. What you're suggesting would mean that BeOS has some super magical ULTRA SPECIAL fast multimedia decoding algorithms that no one else in the entire world has even come close to creating.
Those tests weren't all that great. bzip2 is great at text compression for example, but not good at other stuff. It makes no sense to test it on binary files. I've seen ACE better than RAR in some tests, results vary. Also, I didn't see 7-zip or a lot of the lesser known formats tested.
Because RAR doesn't provide the best compression. There are other, newer forms that are better. See 7-zip, bzip2, gzip (in some cases), ACE, etc... Who is living in the stone age now?
ctags can parse C++ just fine.
ctags only parses part of C++, it's not complete. Mostly it's just a C parser witha little bit tacked on.
Yes and I don't like it. Perhaps my bias has come through in my previous reply. I find my productivity with vim much higher than with vc++ and intellisense/code completion. This is the real problem with my previous post actually - not being upfront and saying "I find vc++ code-completion annoying and counter-productive IMHO for these reasons."
So then you admit that it's NOT an equivalent after all, it might help to mention that. You ARE biased and you're actually defending something which you admit has less functionality.
Used to be but I'm not a sharecropper any more.
Glad to see you don't like the other extra functionality too. It's nice to see someone follow the "less is better philosophy." I think I'll start arguing that ed is even better because it has less functionality than vim.
Not true.
That doesn't disprove what I said. It only parses a small portion of C++ on top of what was already supported for C
Well, sure. But then I already have a full language parser for c++. It's called g++. I don't need another one built into my editor when I have a set of tools that does what I need to be productive.
This is completely missing the point. Why are you comparing a compiler to auto-completion? You need a full parser to have fully supported auto-completion like VA does.
Tsk tsk - manners. People are more receptive without personal attacks. You could have pointed out where I was wrong without any labelling or guesses as to my motivations and experience.
No way, you admitted you were biased here and you made an intentionally misleading comment and only afterwards admited that vim has less functionality.
Yes you can if you a) set up Vim properly and b) use ctags and TList whenever you can.
Uncheck.
ctags only recognizes a limited set of language constructs.
Beacause Visual Assist is aware of the syntax of C/C++/VB/C#... and acts accordingly.
Check.
Uncheck, vim just does simple pattern matching, it doesn't actually understand the language.
For example, it can diffrentiate between local can globalr variables.
Check.
Uncheck, it can't parse C++.
When you use it with existing libraries with source (like Boost for example), it will parse the whole thing and now Suggestion lists and spell checker will be aware of the new functions, methods and classes.
Check.
Uncheck, see above.
So you can't simulate it with just a hand made syntax file, as suggestion lists and spell checker are project dependant.
ctags and Tlist are set up to be automatic on my copy of vim.
Uncheck, neither of those provides this kind of functionality, especially not for C++.
It also learns from the patterns you use more often in your code and sorts the suggestions in a way that the probability that you'd need to scroll down the list of the suggestions becomes lower and lower.
"Patterns you use" indicates it's just doing pattern matching, not understanding the language.
I don't really need this since typing is faster than taking one hand off and using the mouse to find a suggestion. Besides, I prefer predictable behaviour rather than intelligent guesses behind the scenes.
Visual Assist is highly predictable, you're talking out of your ass here.
Spell-checker nows the name of the local variables, included functions and namespaces so even before running the compiler, you know that you have not miss-spelled that function call.
There is more to code completion than variable and function names.
Correct - Visual Assist is a plugin for Visual Studio and vim is a powerful extensible text editor. Seriously, vim is phenomenally powerful - especially at doing all the things you seem to think it's deficient at. You can move around code like lightning (by far the most common action of any programming), jump to and from function, class and macro definitions with a single key, and with plugins like TList and integrated debuggers, it becomes a very fine IDE as well.
It is grossly inferior to VC++ + Visual Assist.
1. Do you actually code in C++?
2. Have you actually used intellisense/visual assist (code compleition)?
3. Do you realize there is more to code completion than recognition of function and vairable names?
4. Ever heard of a C++ template?
5. Are you aware of the other features provided in VC++?
My guess is that the answer to all the above is no. I really hate it when Slashdoters who defend OSS automatically get moded up even if their information is wrong or misleading. You've obviously never used intellisense nor VC++ (or you've barely used them).
ctags, for the most part, processes just C language constructs. Even then I'm betting it's rather limited in what it does. In order to do visual assist style code completion you NEED to have a full language parser for C++. ctags has no such thing.
Unnnngh, people who talk out of their ass.
You are blowing smoke out of your ass. Unless you've actually used Visual C++ and Visual Assist don't bother commenting.
...imagine there is a different definition of A that just accepts one template parameter
That vim auto-completion stuff is *extremely* primitive. It's just autocompletion of keywords basically. VC++/VA have full blown language based auto-completion. That means they actually have a complete parser for the C++ language, which is by no means an easy thing to do. A "syntax file" is just matching regular expressions (a glorified grep) and isn't doing any real parsing of the language. So please, please unless you've used the auto-completion feature don't talk about it.
The closest thing I've seen is something in emacs and even that sucks balls. Let me give an exmaple. AC will go through all of the source and header files you're using and parse them. Because of this it can auto-complete CODE, not just KEYWORDS.
EX:
template
class A {
int foo;
char bar;
T meowface;
crap moo;
};
int main(void) {
A[autocomplete kicks in and shows you definition(s) for class A i.e. template A]
so I start typing A blue;
then later I can do
blue. and it shows me the members I can access, their protection, inherented shit blah blah
return 0;
}
Sorry, that's the best I can explain it quickly
There's also a debugging feature in C++ called something like edit as you go. You can basically edit code WHILE you're debugging and it will recompile it and insert it into the program while it's at a break point. THere are other features too.
The only other software, commercial or OSS that I've seen do this is Apple's newest development studio thing.
Why is this a "smart move"? Why do you automatically assume that linux is this great messiah for embedded systems? That's completely dumb and this shows your clear bias. Frankly, I'd rather use VxWorks, which has been around a lot longer, been more closely scrutinized and better developed for embedded systems. When you're talking about multi-billion dollar projects like the Mars Rover stuff, I don't want a fuck up just because some pipsqueak who has no real incentive to rigorously harden embedded linux fucked something up. Also, I hope you, the linux zealot, realize that VxWorks is based on FreeBSD. So apparently you think that linux is this magical beacon of open source that is superior to all the rest. Good job on making a comment that is pure zealotry and has absolutely no basis in reality. What "new opportunities" are they serving anyway? What "customers needs" HAVEN'T they been serving? It's because of their great product quality of VXWORKS (with excellent embedded debugging capabilities) that NASA was able to fix a bug on their Mars Rover system that would have otherwise completely blew the multi-billion dollar mission. That sounds like serving their customers needs pretty damn well. Why was this moded up as 4, interesting? It's just a blind praise for linux. If someone said this about Windows it'd be moded down as a Microsft market droid. Just change "linux" to "microsoft windows" and it's no different than a microsoft ad.
So is cairo or more specifically cairo+GTK going to be like the *nix GDI equivalent?
Since when is linux immune to viruses? Just so you know, it's most definitely not. Most vulnerabilities exploited are user space programs anyway.
On what basis are you making that statement? There's zero reason you can't emulate the same exact thing
MOD THIS COMMENT DOWN, This guy doesn't understand the difference between SSL and SSH SSH doesn't use certificates. Certificates are what makes SSL superior to SSH. Certificates make things MORE secure not less. Why ou think it's just a money making scheme is beyond me. Yes, there are CAs and yes they get paid, but that's unavoidable with a certificate based system. Furthermore, if you're using this as part of your own system inside a corporation or some other organizaton, you don't need to pay for certs at all. You are just spouting ignorance here promoting a less secure certificateless method over a more secure one. Not just that, but you FAIL TO REALIZE that OpenPGP includes trust metrics and people signing keys, which is a similar concept to certificates. SSH has no such thing.
Astronomy software only makes up a small portion of scientific software. Try comparing practically any CAD, EDA or mathematics software.
1) You're missing the point. 2) Because I like it.
Who said ANYTHING about file extensions? Ever since its inception Windows NT and all of its derivatives have had ACLs. I'm not sure how mime-types and umask come into this. Mime-types have nothing to do with the kernel/OS and umask is just about the default bitmask for file permissions. I don't even know what the hell you're referring to by an "ex-bit." And what does it say that windows has something STANDARD and SECURE installed by DEFAULT that linux doesn't? I love the double standard you're playing here.
I find it hard to believe anything works well in WINE, let alone Photoshop. I tried mIRC, a simple IRC client and not only did it not render it properly, the GUI rendering was choppy and incredibly slow. It may run the executable itself fast (which I'm not even sure of), but the interface rendering stuff is god awful slow and unacceptable.
Linux is good for scientific apps? I'm sorry, but linux is a lot more limited in the availability and quality of scientific software. You can do all the rest of the stuff in windows, aside from the licensing of windows itself. You can get all the same software for windows, for FREE, including all the dev tools. You can also configure windows with even more fine grained permissions than with linux unless you're using selinux.
MOD this comment down, seriously. Just because software is available, doesn't mean it's good. I can come up with plenty examples of lower quality software. If anyone is spreading FUD, it's this irrational zealot here. As has been pointed out, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about--people have ALREADY given good counter-examples.