ELF loading
in [ASM]
|
From: Betov on 30 Aug 2007 12:28 //\\\\o//\\\\annabee <w(a)w.w.w> �crivait news:op.txvsu012in6out(a)fasdfasdfasdfas: > Sorry for asking stupid questions.... > But I dont understand this at all. :)) Don't ask me. As said aside the download: "At your own risk" This is not my cup of tea, you know. Wolfgang or Herbert should be the guys. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Evenbit on 30 Aug 2007 12:34 On Aug 30, 10:35 am, Frank Kotler <fbkot...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > Evenbit wrote: > > ... > > > Would "WindowsAsm" also be considered a "misappropriation?" > > Probably. See: Lindows. Not the same thing! Lindows was an OS competing with an OS with a similar name -- that is why they got into trouble. Microsoft has always been delighted when other (non-OS) products used the name (as oposed to being written for OS/2, for instance). Remember titles like WinFAX? Nathan.
From: highdoe on 30 Aug 2007 12:39 > > Innovations don't care of the real world. > > :) > > Betov. > You're right. The other day I had a revelation. The "Application" that would save system administrators lots of time but who cares if this innovation would be useful for the community. I'll keep it for me and few friends. Normal, isn't it ? Or better... I found a way to use COM and be more readable in assembly but at last it runs more slowly but the design is very innovative. Then I'll defend my point 'till the end that it is "THE" way to use COM in assembly even if all peoples around are saying that it is not usable in the real life. It is innovative so it is better than anything else. Right ? I hope you were not too drunk to see the sarcasm, Brother.
From: Betov on 30 Aug 2007 12:40 "rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> �crivait news:1188489576.259909.87970(a)m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com: >> 1) Using FASM and claiming that you had wrote an Assembler. > > And, what pray tell, is your issue with that? Other than the fact that > you don't like HLA and you have to come up with *something* to > complain about? Using FASM? Nothing at all, clown. FASM has been written with this idea in mind. So, i have absolutely nothing to say about this point. Fact is that you claim having written an Assembler, whereas you never wrote any. And this is another story. > This is really no different than you claiming you have written an IDE > (including a symbolic debugger) having "stolen" the symbolic debugger > from someone else. No, clown. When Ludwig wrote the RosAsm's Debugger, he wrote it for RosAsm, and i never claimed that i had written a Debugger (Oh! _Yes_, i wrote the one that was there before, but the actual one is so much better and so much different that i count my poor contribution for nope). Now, would i use, say, OllyDg, i would never say that i have written a Debugger. > What I do with my own branch of FASM is really irrelevant. Oh! _Yes_, clown. This is the most "relevant" point. I must admit that this is the most beautiful swindling you ever did. Congratulations. Even when you explain what you did to your minions, what you did, they do not understand. Quite frankly, here, i admire you. Really *very* impressive. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 30 Aug 2007 13:00
Evenbit <nbaker2328(a)charter.net> �crivait news:1188491649.137830.9290@ 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: >> > Would "WindowsAsm" also be considered a "misappropriation?" >> >> Probably. See: Lindows. > > Not the same thing! Lindows was an OS competing with an OS with a > similar name -- that is why they got into trouble. They got so deep into trouble, that MicroSoft gave them 20 millions dollars. I also want 20 millions dollars for stepping back to SpAsm, and for feeling in such a trouble. :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |