ELF loading
in [ASM]
|
From: Jim Carlock on 28 Aug 2007 02:51 Betov wrote: > Again, *NO*. This does not exist under Ubuntu. Frank Kotler replied: : You're right! From the link Robert posted: : : -------------- : By default, the root account password is locked in Ubuntu. This means : that you cannot login as root directly or use the su command to become : the root user... : --------------- <snip>...</snip> : Makes it a totally unacceptable distro, in my book. Cancel my order for : a Dell with Ubuntu. (I still like the idea of encouraging vendors to : preinstall Linux... Y'know, I'm in danger of becoming a Slackware bigot! : Not Ubuntu, in any case) "santosh" wrote... : Aren't you reacting a bit too strongly? Surely a Linux distribution aimed : at "Joe Windows User", does a good thing by disabling the root account : by default? Advanced Linux users can always re-enable it, like I did, the : first thing after installation. That's a bit better than what Microsoft does with their Operating Systems... MS installs a blank administrative pw that can be accessed by booting up into safe mode (at least on XP and Win2K they did that). And there's a couple other ways to hack into a system if one knows an administrative password on another system. It's been a while since I've used such a hack (forgot some passwords and needed to get back into a system). One technique involves configuring the screen saver to run the cmd.exe prompt. Once the screen saver activates itself, you have full administrative control without logging in. The screen saver can run without Windows being fully booted. <shrug> And if NetBIOS runs... it's like anyone on the Internet can get your pw. No big deal. Alot of folks still use blank passwords or less than 6 digits, and I'll guess that such pw amount to the address stamped on the side of the house, a birthday or something silly and simple, like a 4 digit pin that they use on their bank cards. How do you re-enable the Linux root? Surely you're not going to make us look for it, are you? <g> -- Jim Carlock Swimming Pools, Spas And Custom Designed Water Structures http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/
From: Betov on 28 Aug 2007 03:11 "sevag.krikorian" <sevag.krikorian(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:1188255809.893350.122180(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > It's useless because it is basically a chronological listing of labels > in the source. It is a logical-flow list of the Code Labels. > It is no help for somebody trying to quickly locate a > specific label or a specific *kind* of label. It does not list anything but Code Labels, in normal mode. It can also list any Label (including Data), in Bookmark mode. > You can make it more useful by having it sorted alphabetically and > even more useful by providing options to sort by types of labels such > as macros, procedures, data, idata, etc. A tree cannot be sorted alphabetically. This makes no sense. About having options for macros, procs, data,... Sorry, but nobody ever implemented that. The Right-Click features are way more "usefull" - as you say -, than the TreeView, anyway, and if the TreeView is still inside, this is because a couple of users love using it. Also, i have no real reason for removing this old toy, that i do not use personally, as long as it may please some. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Jim Carlock on 28 Aug 2007 03:51 On Aug 27, 6:48 am, Robert Redelmeier <red...(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote: > Personal observation. GUI users are more divorced from the > 'operation of the machine and seem to have more trouble grasping the > abstractions of machine state and instructions. Admittedly over a > small number and uncorrected for time/interest. Randy would have > a much better opinion on this subject. The GUI makes some special interface considerations. OLE/ActiveX is a really beautiful technology, for both programmers and end-users, in that it makes things a breeze to work with (providing things are named and implemented properly). I tend to use the xcopy command on all windows systems, to copy files from folder to another. Then I use a Window to delete the folder that I moved from. Why? Because all the tools I know of for file verification are ALL command-line tools. That way I insure the successful copying of files. However, cut-and-paste works great on a Windows system for moving files from one folder to another on the same drive, because only a table pointer gets updated (whether the file system is NTFS or FAT or FAT32) but moving to another disk drive, command-line copying works more successfully (and perhaps just as quick, it seems to depend upon the how fast the video card writes to the screen). Is there anything like ActiveX on a Linux system, where the OS recognizes a data source and can convert from one data source to another transparently? Type libraries and objects? That's the ONLY thing Windows might have that is possibly holding Linux back (for instance, can you drag a picture to a pic- editing program?). All the talk about the KDE and Gnome reminds me of an old Windows competitive OS... GEOS was the name I think. America Online bought the company out shortly after I stopped beta testing AOL (and the original AIM) for DOS. Or was it GeoWorks? Lotus 123 was owned by the Lotus company, dBase was owned by Ashton-Tate. And I owned a 286-12MHz that out- performed 486DX systems (all because the video card worked as fast as the cheap Packard Bell 486 computers I compared it against). Those were the days of BBS (Tomcat was a common BBS at the time) and the days of Excalibur, Delphi and CompuServe. Then along came the Internet... Perhaps I've gone too much off topic here. :-) It's just that all the talk here reminded me of GEOS. I think GeoWorks was something to compete with Microsoft Works (I never used it, but I did notice that America Online used some GEOS software in the making of some of their software at one point). -- Jim Carlock North Carolina Swimming Pool And Spa Builders http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/
From: Betov on 28 Aug 2007 13:18 CodeMonk <jascwa(a)yahoo.com> �crivait news:QCYAi.67473$pu2.9437 @bignews1.bellsouth.net: >> PS. RosAsm does not need of LoadLibrary nor GetProcAddress >> for calling any DLL Function. >> > > Doing so being possible was my point. In either case, do you have an > alternative method in RosAsm to access DLL functions? ? Not sure i understand your question. The normal way (call 'DllName.FunctionName') is not enough? Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: CodeMonk on 28 Aug 2007 13:18
Betov wrote: > > Which "deficiency"? > The one where if there is some functionality I need, that you don't provide, then I can utilize the notion of wrapping a useful static library into a DLL and use it whether you like it or not :) - Scott |