What programmes? (wasRe:Article laden with errors.
on
Apache 2.0 vs. IIS
·
· Score: 1
Could you please tell me, what exactly programmes
do need the IIS?
On my W2k Pro there are only these in the IIS
folder (Control Planel->Software->...Windoze
Components).
But I remarked there is very few to configure
there...
Just the compiler toolchain is GNU, and Sendmail,
though I don't know why - nowhere in the files
there's a comment about it being GPL, neither
it is linked to a GPL'ed lib, or am I wrong?
Why has this been modded down? please tell me...
Disclaimer: writing this on Lynx2-8-4 OpenSSL-0.9.6c
Multiprocessing?Re:Microkernels are a stupid idea.
on
Hurd: H2 CD Images
·
· Score: 1
I glanced over the link you provided and wonder myself,
whether the synchronisation not automatically has to
be done when splitting $Application (including the OS)
onto multiple processing units?
Even think of 3D accelerating gfx cards; active ISDN
(I know few haven't been seen recently - mine is ISA-8).
What to do when it comes to 64-CPU systems? On a highly
loaded server with multiple multi-threaded server
processes even multi{ple,threaded} fs servers seem not
far away from reality.
The impact the report notes concentrates on the computer
architecture which is in use today, but slightly being
replaced by different approaches.
Remember, Linux is A current kernel for the GNU system,
whereas other kernels (Minix;-) and Hurd) are being
designed yet.
Currently MS-DOS (7.1 which is what I own) has
support for way larger partitions with FAT28,
only annoying that the largest file is
2'147'483'647 bytes in size.
Hurt may evolve, too.
NT is an operating system, microkernel, running
as services:
- drivers
- GUI (since between 3.x and 4.x)
- a Win32 server
- a POSIX server
- a OS/2v1 server
Yup, you can even code native NT applications!
(M$ got bashed by IBM when they got that the NT
API, called then "NT OS/2", is mostly the Win16
API on 32 bit, with "Nt" prefixing the names,
but here you go. Win32 is different, though.)
No, GNU/Hurd.
The packages were designed for the GNU operating system, which first ran under the Linux kernel, and now runs under the Hurd kernel which is the designated native kernel of the GNU operating system.
I don't talk about "keywords", I'm speaking of
the language as a whole.
And yes, this _includes_ the host systems'
pecularities (is this spelled correctly?) as,
for example, libc, libstdc++, the interrupts,
the BSD syscall numbers, etc.
But the underlying structure of C++ is way
different than that of C: one is actually
supposed to do fancy things with classes,
and tempted to do overloading and this
template thingies I never really grokked,
as opposed to C, whose intention is to be as
simple as possible.
Assembly language is much complexer than C,
but it has purity of its own, as - I now
specifically speak of IA-16 and IA-32 - there
are no explicit control structures aside from
jumps (goto in C) and loops (in C coded as
for(a=max;a=0;--a){}).
I really like assembly _because_ of the preference
of the jmp statements. I always look for it in
higher-level languages, too, as one actually even
can produce structured code with jmp/goto statements,
if you're a bit careful. The linux kernel includes
several occurences of goto, if I may cite this,
in order to make the code more readable.
In my opinion the advanced features of C++, but
more so the advanced spirit of C++, make the
language less easy to read.
Ok, let explain me, I got my first computer when
I was 8.5 years old, and quickly learned DOS,
then GW-BASIC which I fully grokked at age of 10.
You may know the handbook, it even includes an
example of how to include asm code into programmes.
Mine has a typo and I knew it, though I never
really learned assembly before the age of 14.
English is not my native language, and I started
learning it in school at the age of 12, nearly
four years after getting a computer (without
graphical interfaces, btw).
Then I learned Turbo Pascal 6, including its model
of object-orientated programming. After I grokked
it, I started, again, a try to understand C. As
my English got better and I bought a Linux book
(with CD), I could start. Now I know bits about it,
but C++ has so different approaches than C and
"Object Pascal" that I never got far in, and
eventually dumped it.
Perl I also dislike, PHP is much nicer.
This short excerpt (I'm not even 20 at the moment
I write this) may explain my opinions to the
reader (and probably excuse me).
Yes, you read right, I learned ASM before C. And
I am still learning.
I've discovered Gnutella and found it cool,
finally Dragonball GT Episodes (which won't
ever be available in my country in near
future - about the next fifty years).
Way better than napster which I once tried
as I had heard of.
It's a pity that OpenBSD doesn't support this...
except for Kerberized and/or ssl'ed CIFS/SMB
it seems the finest solution (and any non-Windoze
CIFS/SMB client is a PITA).
Except for the "close" comment I ACK this.
Get a good disassembler (I'd recomment looking
for it at crack/warez sites, there are many
freeware tools) if you get the "core dump"
problems (I'd rather say GPF).
please don't get me wrong, but actually the
language is called "assembly" and the compiler
"assembler".
Assembly surely is fine, and even today you can
write native {DOS, Win32, NT native, UN*X}
applications fully in it - or even sedecimal
machine language, but no one tends to do it, even
if one can. The effort isn't worth it.
But you can, for example, as I do, code important
parts of you code in (portable !!) assembly, the
other parts in C. The C files I compile with gcc
(BSD and Linux) or BC++ (Win32), the assembly
files with nasm (http://nasm.2y.net/), with a
%ifdef for the cases ELF, A.OUT/BSD and OMF
differ (the object formats).
I can bind those object files to libraries (.a,
.so,.dll,.lib) or compile them to executables,
and they yield me funtionality at speed never
seen.
I recommend the newsgroup comp.lang.assembler.x86
for a start, _if_ you really want to code in asm.
But I do not recommend to do so if you didn't
understand coding in before, and for a NT sysadmin
I'd rather recommend php (or perl, but I dislike
it), or, as another poster told, python which I
didn't use yet.
This should give you a first shot.
On the other hand, these languages, as well as,
e.g., VBA, do not have typical programming language
structures such as type checking, so, if you want
to start "real" programming, download BC++ 5.5
(http://www.borland.com/) - there's a free download
edition, command line tools only, and start coding
in C. Mostly I'd recomment command line code for
a start, as GUI programming is way more difficult.
I personally dislike C++, for example because it
is too complex - noone can hold the whole of the
language definition in back-mind as I can easily
do with C or some assembly environment.
Of course there is also cygwin32, and my programmes
would compile no differently under it than they
do under BC++.
If you still want to do assembly, don't use MASM.
If you want, use TASM, but if you CAN, use NASM.
There's a linker (VALX) that can even produce
Win32 executables at http://members.tripod.com/~ladsoft/
included in the C compiler package, but here I
take ilink32 of the BC++ package for stability
reasons.
You can even write your own import libraries
under NASM if the provided packages are too
complicated (I do).
Google for "win32 nasm" and you will find some
more sites, or "win32 assembly".
Puh, this's a long and partially-OT post, but I
hope this will help you.
Also you can activate (in advanced setup) a full
download, which exactly is what I've done for IE6.
Not that I'd need IE for browsing, but I have my
box to be available for the cstrike scene, too.
My primary browser is lynx2-8-4 by the way. Opera is broken (even more than Konqueror, except for memory issues).
Hehe... seems as Win31 will be supported longer
(although not significantly) than Win95:)
I ever knew, and it's in someones sig:
Win9x - A 32-bit extension for a 16-bit GUI
written for an 8 bit OS originally designed
for a 4-bit microprocessor purchased by a
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
Hacking is different...
on
Hacker U.
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
call it cracking.
Sorry if there's a zero-body post, but I hit
the return button while still in Subject line.
It's called cracking, and not hacking, for
certain reasons which all are outlined in the
Jargon file at http://www.ccil.org/jargon/
and for which its author has my full ACK.
I didn't grep the posts for this, but why not
just using the alternate nameserver space?
PacificRoot, e.g., provides these:
--/etc/resolv.conf
lookup file bind
nameserver 208.179.42.162
nameserver 204.107.129.2
-- end-of-snippet
Please don't mod me redundant. Many people browse with "newest first". Thanks.
You suck.
You are biased.
We aren't behind in bugfixes.
How often comes that, on bugtraq for example,
an exploit is published, hitting any major Linux
distro and FreeBSD?
NetBSD - we aren't hit because we don't have this new functionality.
OpenBSD - yes we knew of that two years ago but fixed it while removing buffer overflow vulnerability there (points at the source, where, the bugfix applied, it still exists) and converting to KNF.
For the outsider:
(K)ernel (N)ormal (F)orm.
man 9 style
Slashdot Mirror
Could you please tell me, what exactly programmes
do need the IIS?
On my W2k Pro there are only these in the IIS
folder (Control Planel->Software->...Windoze
Components).
But I remarked there is very few to configure
there...
Samba actually _has_ a good and working graphical
configuration tool. It's called lynx.
$ lynx http://localhost:901/
In combination with SWAT, of course.
By the way, be sure to use the firewall to block
incoming SWAT to the local network!
Please, why is this offtopic?
It's as ontopic as the danish comment,
and the question itself.
Zeh Zahlzeichen
Aber bitte _nicht_ "Raute" sagen, same danger
to exchange them where one can't as pound/hash
in English.
Just the compiler toolchain is GNU, and Sendmail,
though I don't know why - nowhere in the files
there's a comment about it being GPL, neither
it is linked to a GPL'ed lib, or am I wrong?
Maybe as it was with "GNU" Common Lisp...
I dont know where CNN is (I even dont know what
CNN is) nor do I know where the user lives.
Sorry, but I'm no Englishman...
At midnight, ok. But which timezone?
It'd be more helpful if you'd included a link.
I can't guess an URI at this point...
Why has this been modded down? please tell me...
Disclaimer: writing this on Lynx2-8-4 OpenSSL-0.9.6c
I glanced over the link you provided and wonder myself,
;-) and Hurd) are being
whether the synchronisation not automatically has to
be done when splitting $Application (including the OS)
onto multiple processing units?
Even think of 3D accelerating gfx cards; active ISDN
(I know few haven't been seen recently - mine is ISA-8).
What to do when it comes to 64-CPU systems? On a highly
loaded server with multiple multi-threaded server
processes even multi{ple,threaded} fs servers seem not
far away from reality.
The impact the report notes concentrates on the computer
architecture which is in use today, but slightly being
replaced by different approaches.
Remember, Linux is A current kernel for the GNU system,
whereas other kernels (Minix
designed yet.
Currently MS-DOS (7.1 which is what I own) has
support for way larger partitions with FAT28,
only annoying that the largest file is
2'147'483'647 bytes in size.
Hurt may evolve, too.
Disclaimer: I am not a GNU user.
Still, Winxx is wrong.
You mean Win9x.
NT is an operating system, microkernel, running
as services:
- drivers
- GUI (since between 3.x and 4.x)
- a Win32 server
- a POSIX server
- a OS/2v1 server
Yup, you can even code native NT applications!
(M$ got bashed by IBM when they got that the NT
API, called then "NT OS/2", is mostly the Win16
API on 32 bit, with "Nt" prefixing the names,
but here you go. Win32 is different, though.)
No, GNU/Hurd.
The packages were designed for the GNU operating system, which first ran under the Linux kernel, and now runs under the Hurd kernel which is the designated native kernel of the GNU operating system.
I don't talk about "keywords", I'm speaking of
the language as a whole.
And yes, this _includes_ the host systems'
pecularities (is this spelled correctly?) as,
for example, libc, libstdc++, the interrupts,
the BSD syscall numbers, etc.
But the underlying structure of C++ is way
different than that of C: one is actually
supposed to do fancy things with classes,
and tempted to do overloading and this
template thingies I never really grokked,
as opposed to C, whose intention is to be as
simple as possible.
Assembly language is much complexer than C,
but it has purity of its own, as - I now
specifically speak of IA-16 and IA-32 - there
are no explicit control structures aside from
jumps (goto in C) and loops (in C coded as
for(a=max;a=0;--a){}).
I really like assembly _because_ of the preference
of the jmp statements. I always look for it in
higher-level languages, too, as one actually even
can produce structured code with jmp/goto statements,
if you're a bit careful. The linux kernel includes
several occurences of goto, if I may cite this,
in order to make the code more readable.
In my opinion the advanced features of C++, but
more so the advanced spirit of C++, make the
language less easy to read.
Ok, let explain me, I got my first computer when
I was 8.5 years old, and quickly learned DOS,
then GW-BASIC which I fully grokked at age of 10.
You may know the handbook, it even includes an
example of how to include asm code into programmes.
Mine has a typo and I knew it, though I never
really learned assembly before the age of 14.
English is not my native language, and I started
learning it in school at the age of 12, nearly
four years after getting a computer (without
graphical interfaces, btw).
Then I learned Turbo Pascal 6, including its model
of object-orientated programming. After I grokked
it, I started, again, a try to understand C. As
my English got better and I bought a Linux book
(with CD), I could start. Now I know bits about it,
but C++ has so different approaches than C and
"Object Pascal" that I never got far in, and
eventually dumped it.
Perl I also dislike, PHP is much nicer.
This short excerpt (I'm not even 20 at the moment
I write this) may explain my opinions to the
reader (and probably excuse me).
Yes, you read right, I learned ASM before C. And
I am still learning.
I've discovered Gnutella and found it cool,
finally Dragonball GT Episodes (which won't
ever be available in my country in near
future - about the next fifty years).
Way better than napster which I once tried
as I had heard of.
Submit this story to ESR. This is nearly as good
as the story of Mel, the real programmer.
I've been amused a lot since I've read this!
Very good link, anyone mod this up!
It's a pity that OpenBSD doesn't support this...
except for Kerberized and/or ssl'ed CIFS/SMB
it seems the finest solution (and any non-Windoze
CIFS/SMB client is a PITA).
Sorry but I got Latin at 5th grade, English later.
Persecute seems more correct, eh?
Except for the "close" comment I ACK this.
Get a good disassembler (I'd recomment looking
for it at crack/warez sites, there are many
freeware tools) if you get the "core dump"
problems (I'd rather say GPF).
please don't get me wrong, but actually the
.dll, .lib) or compile them to executables,
language is called "assembly" and the compiler
"assembler".
Assembly surely is fine, and even today you can
write native {DOS, Win32, NT native, UN*X}
applications fully in it - or even sedecimal
machine language, but no one tends to do it, even
if one can. The effort isn't worth it.
But you can, for example, as I do, code important
parts of you code in (portable !!) assembly, the
other parts in C. The C files I compile with gcc
(BSD and Linux) or BC++ (Win32), the assembly
files with nasm (http://nasm.2y.net/), with a
%ifdef for the cases ELF, A.OUT/BSD and OMF
differ (the object formats).
I can bind those object files to libraries (.a,
.so,
and they yield me funtionality at speed never
seen.
I recommend the newsgroup comp.lang.assembler.x86
for a start, _if_ you really want to code in asm.
But I do not recommend to do so if you didn't
understand coding in before, and for a NT sysadmin
I'd rather recommend php (or perl, but I dislike
it), or, as another poster told, python which I
didn't use yet.
This should give you a first shot.
On the other hand, these languages, as well as,
e.g., VBA, do not have typical programming language
structures such as type checking, so, if you want
to start "real" programming, download BC++ 5.5
(http://www.borland.com/) - there's a free download
edition, command line tools only, and start coding
in C. Mostly I'd recomment command line code for
a start, as GUI programming is way more difficult.
I personally dislike C++, for example because it
is too complex - noone can hold the whole of the
language definition in back-mind as I can easily
do with C or some assembly environment.
Of course there is also cygwin32, and my programmes
would compile no differently under it than they
do under BC++.
If you still want to do assembly, don't use MASM.
If you want, use TASM, but if you CAN, use NASM.
There's a linker (VALX) that can even produce
Win32 executables at http://members.tripod.com/~ladsoft/
included in the C compiler package, but here I
take ilink32 of the BC++ package for stability
reasons.
You can even write your own import libraries
under NASM if the provided packages are too
complicated (I do).
Google for "win32 nasm" and you will find some
more sites, or "win32 assembly".
Puh, this's a long and partially-OT post, but I
hope this will help you.
%systemroot%\\Windows Update Setup Files\\*
Also you can activate (in advanced setup) a full
download, which exactly is what I've done for IE6.
Not that I'd need IE for browsing, but I have my
box to be available for the cstrike scene, too.
My primary browser is lynx2-8-4 by the way. Opera is broken (even more than Konqueror, except for memory issues).
Hehe... seems as Win31 will be supported longer :)
(although not significantly) than Win95
I ever knew, and it's in someones sig:
Win9x - A 32-bit extension for a 16-bit GUI
written for an 8 bit OS originally designed
for a 4-bit microprocessor purchased by a
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
call it cracking.
Sorry if there's a zero-body post, but I hit
the return button while still in Subject line.
It's called cracking, and not hacking, for
certain reasons which all are outlined in the
Jargon file at http://www.ccil.org/jargon/
and for which its author has my full ACK.
I didn't grep the posts for this, but why not /etc/resolv.conf
just using the alternate nameserver space?
PacificRoot, e.g., provides these:
--
lookup file bind
nameserver 208.179.42.162
nameserver 204.107.129.2
-- end-of-snippet
Please don't mod me redundant. Many people browse with "newest first". Thanks.
You suck.
You are biased.
We aren't behind in bugfixes.
How often comes that, on bugtraq for example,
an exploit is published, hitting any major Linux
distro and FreeBSD?
NetBSD - we aren't hit because we don't have this new functionality.
OpenBSD - yes we knew of that two years ago but fixed it while removing buffer overflow vulnerability there (points at the source, where, the bugfix applied, it still exists) and converting to KNF.
For the outsider:
(K)ernel (N)ormal (F)orm.
man 9 style