ELF loading
in [ASM]
|
From: Betov on 27 Aug 2007 08:30 Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:46D2B055.C9984B94 @unibwm.de: > Why do you think, if Ubuntu still exist in two years, they will > still use Gnome and not KDE? ? How could i know ? I just suppose (and hope) that they will not change of GUI every now and then. What would be their interrest at doing so? Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 27 Aug 2007 08:43 Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:46D2B295.8E3CF198 @unibwm.de: > Just a question: are the executable and the embedded source > always at the same version level? What happens when you modify > the source in a way that it produces a compilation error, > can you then not save the source or is the source saved > without a binary? And what happends, with any Compiler having a downward incompatiblity? With RosAsm, along ten years of developments, the downward compatiblity has always been respected. In one or two cases, the addition of errors messages (was previously tolerating some details...), might force the user to rephrase some statement. And then? Where is the problem? Also, saving a stand-alone source is depressing [Ctrl]/[S]. I fail to see how it could help at solving any incompatibility, but, well... it is there, as well as incremental Back-Ups, Partial savings, Shared Sources managements, an all... So, admitting that having embeeded Sources inside a PE, would be a problem, i would like to know *wich* problem. As opposed i can tell you which advantages: * Security. * Good GPL model. * One mono File Management absolute simplicity: The PE. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 27 Aug 2007 08:44 santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:faufng$at2$1(a)aioe.org: > BTW, do you compress the sources in your final PE? What for? Do you compress your Sources, on your disk? Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 27 Aug 2007 08:50 santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:faugne$g77$1(a)aioe.org: > or less user friendly than Windows, (again, > practically speaking both are comparable nowadays) :) Well... By the way, which tool do you use for reading ALA? I am searching a News Reader, in their packages lists, and i do find one... for now... Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: CodeMonk on 27 Aug 2007 08:51
"Betov" <betov(a)free.fr> wrote in message news:XnF999984324A0BEbetovfreefr(a)212.27.60.37... > > _Facts_. No "opinion, on such points. Facts are that nesting > mono-files inside the executables has been a complete success. > By which set of metrics? > First it makes all managements extreemely simple and secure. Our mutual definition of secure is out of sync. > Second, we have never heard any RosAsm user saying that he > would have lost his sources. Third, this is the perfect distro > model for GPLed Apps. Fourth, there are all required features > for saving the Sources. Including incremental savings. Maybe you should just post an article on your website about how RosAsm deals with the traditional notion of sources in some detail. Traditionally, one expects source -> object -> executable. In such as article you should probably also explain the rationale that the inability to link with other objects is a benefit. If you don't provide some functionality that I need and I don't know how to code it, but someone else has put out a library which meets my needs, how does that factor into the equation. My curiosity is getting the better of me here. > So, what do have to say against? Where is the "security risk"? When I have the option of downloading the binary version or the zipped source version, I always opted for the zipped sources. Then I build it myself. If I download an executable, then I have to make sure the box has AV, Regmon, FileMon, etc. So the security risk rests in the notion that it is an executable. The fact that WannaBee has his fingerprints on RosAsm might be a matter of concern where EXE's are concerned :). > As opposed i can fairly well tell you were the security risks > are with traditional methods. Do yo need examples of programs > which Sources are lost?! I've lost exactly *one* source in my life - well only one that "actually" mattered. Even so, as far as I know, the binary is still in production. Even if it had to be rewritten, the design documents were sufficient that any C programmer could put it together in a day or so. > I am used to Linux exploring since the earlier days, mind you. Yep, I was there about 5 or 6 years ago from a hobbyist perspective. I've played with several distros this go around and settled on RHEL5 for one box and Ubuntu for the other. I'm just curious, did you get the desktop edition or the server edition? - Scott |