ELF loading
in [ASM]
|
From: Betov on 27 Aug 2007 10:15 Robert Redelmeier <redelm(a)ev1.net.invalid> �crivait news:DCAAi.50981 $YL5.5175(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net: > GUIs are > "bloated" in the sense of requiring many MB of both disk and RAM. > "bugfests" since all contain more bugs than their base CLIs Probably the reason why several OSes have complete GUIs delivered on a single Floppy, isn't it? If you are not competent enough for writing a correct user interface, this is not any excuse for relying on the user to learn a Command Line. Twenty years have passed on this, and there is no way back: The user is right, and you are wrong. The user does not need you, and you need of the user for existing. Period. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: santosh on 27 Aug 2007 10:18 Betov wrote: > santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:faufng$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? Yes. For example I recently downloaded the source distribution for Emacs 22.1 and compiled and installed it. To compile I have to unzip and untar the compressed archive which is ~37 Mb. After unzipping it occupies ~140 Mb. So after compilation and install, I recompress the distribution. A saving of ~100 Mb is not insignificant.
From: CodeMonk on 27 Aug 2007 10:20 Betov wrote: > > I just went for a News Reader. Hope to find out something called > "News Reader", or "gnews", or whatever, that would make sense. > Nope. I found out a package wich is supposed to have a News Reader > inside. I download it... Half an hour... Over. Silent. Fortunatly, > i see new items in the main menu... No news reader. 6 "things" > more on disk. How to remove them? No idea. No Un-install of course. > Try "PAN" - It seems I remember it coming with Ubuntu - it works and puts a menu item under Applications-Internet. - Scott
From: rhyde on 27 Aug 2007 10:24 On Aug 27, 6:39 am, Betov <be...(a)free.fr> wrote: > "CodeMonk" <jas...(a)yahoo.com> écrivait news:4Pidna0LMOFGVU_bnZ2dnUVZ_r- > dn...(a)comcast.com: > > > > > "Betov" <be...(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? > > By looking at the productivity of the users. You have such a small sample size that any conclusions you draw are meaningless. Further, without double blind tests, your observerations are meaningless. It's like your claim that RosAsm is the "fastest of all actual assemblers" based on the benchmark that <name stolen from ReactOS>:RosAsm self-compiles itself faster than FASM compiles FRESH -- totally meaningless. As usual, you aren't even aware of the scientific method, much less how to use it to verify and substantiate your claims. hLater, Randy Hyde
From: Betov on 27 Aug 2007 10:27
Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:46D2D632.18665FE1 @unibwm.de: > if I recompile the embedded > source, will I get the same binary Of course. What else? > or can the author of the > software edit the embedded source and then not recompile it > so that the embedded source differs from the binary. No. This is not possible. A Source, in a given PE, is always the last one it was compiled with. > I don't see any sense to embed the the source within the binary. Simplicity of the management. Security. Speed of developments. > It would be more interesting to embed the source of the application > in the RosAsm binary instead of the application binary. ? > And if > RosAsm is as fast as you say, Thanks for saying that you never took any look. :( > it wouldn't matter that RosAsm > has to compile the application every time it is executed. ? Euuuuhh!... This is exactly what it does, unless nothing, at all, would have been modified in between to runs. > But > this way you always have the source and the source code debugger > available when something went wrong at execution time. ? Heard of "Exceptions" ? > RosAsm > also could determine the CPU version and if there is an instruction > in the source which isn't supported by the CPU it could emit an > error at load/compilation time instead of an crash at run time. Right. This is an interresting remark, but i never took the time of implementing this. Instead, i let it the easy-lazy way, that is, the user has to know what he is doing. This is a boring job for few results, you know... time... number of hands... Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |