ELF loading
in [ASM]
|
From: Frank Kotler on 26 Aug 2007 20:50 Betov wrote: > santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fashvo$1gp$1(a)aioe.org: > > >>To enable the root account, which is disabled from logging in by default, >>under Ubuntu, just do, 'passwd root' > > > Again, *NO*. This does not exist under Ubuntu. M'God 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... --------------- > How do you think i actually download and install Software, > if i did not know how this point works? There is no need > of "root", which is assumed, when "sudo"ing, under Ubuntu. > A good thing, by the way... 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) Best, Frank
From: Frank Kotler on 27 Aug 2007 00:35 Jim Carlock wrote: > Just some curious questions, as I don't have a working Linux system > anywhere near me. > > Most apps inside Linux are console apps, right? Well, you could install Linux with *all* console apps - no Xwindows at all. Or if you loaded it up with X apps, you could probably outnumber console apps (if you deleted the console apps you didn't need, for sure). > And for the apps that draw their own dialogs and forms, what would > you say those run as? Are they ALL pretty much X-Windows? Pretty much, but not ALL, I'd say. Alternatives might be svgalib or the framebuffer device. A web browser Annie turned me on to - "links" - can use X, svgalib, or the framebuffer device, depending on what's available. Richard Cooper aka PJ wrote "softer", which uses ports acess to do vga graphics - mode 13h, yum! :) . X is the "uniform" way to do any graphics. > Or is > it all up in the air depending pretty much upon what the programmer > wants? It always depends on the programmer - if he wants it bad enough. > Is there a particular technology that applies moreso than any > other technology? The X Windows System. Beth pointed out that another implementation of X might be possible. If we assume that the client and server are, in fact, on the same machine, do we really need to communicate via socket calls? There may be room for improvement, but if you're shooting for the "mainstream of the fringe", go with X. Best, Frank
From: rhyde on 27 Aug 2007 00:42 On Aug 26, 2:48 pm, Betov <be...(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > Didn't you implement RosAsm's user interface > > in a way you prefer and which greatly differs from the > > preference of most assembly programmers? How ridiculously arrogant! > > From _which_ Assembly Programmer? From you, who prefer your > fancyfooool home made syntax? Who else? Where have you seen > an Assembly Programmer around, who would have some serious > criticisms to tell about RosAsm user interface? Who? Dude, as long as you define "assembly programmer" as yourself and a few RosAsm buddies of your own, of *course* all your "assembly programmers" will find <name stolen from ReactOS>:RosAsm perfectly fine. But perhaps you've not noticed that a *lot* of people around here have commented on the fact that RosAsm has a non-standard and horrible user interface? Simply calling them "not assembly programmers" for daring to suggest that RosAsm's user interface isn't good is just ignoring the criticism. Don't think for a moment, however, that the criticism doesn't exist. > > Personally, the last one i heard about, was JohnFound, years > ago. He emmitted a couple of correct remarks, that i have > considered valid, and i have modified the interface accordingly. > And then? Do you have something to say on this topic? Lots of people have commented over and over again on your bad UI. Issue #1 is that you fail to follow the Windows CUA. Fix that problem, and you'll solved 90% of the complaints people have with RosAsm's UI. > > And admitting that RosAsm would not be a good interface, what > relationship with the topic? You disquiet me, Herbert. Are > you ill? Why is Herbert's "changing the subject" any different from you changing the subject. Of course, we *know* you are ill, but that's beside the point. hLater, Randy Hyde
From: Frank Kotler on 27 Aug 2007 01:19 Betov wrote: > Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:46D198E3.D80EAFC5 > @unibwm.de: > > >>The only justification for a graphical desktop is the ability to >>have many command windows displayed simultaneously. If you >>communicate with a human, do you point on graphical pictograms >>or do you speak (write) to him. Why don't you use the same method >>when communicating with a piece of software? > > > Communicating with words (Command-Lines) implies a *Language*. > A user does not have to _learn_ any Language. ??? > Mind you, when > facing the Linux password bug, Everyone seems to assume that this was "your fault" (I wonder why). Assuming that it really was a bug - bad on Ubuntu and Dell to have let it slip out, but bugs happen. > i had to re-boot in "rescue > Mode", first. Do you want a user to even *know* what a "rescue > mod" is, and how to access this?! No. this is not his job. Then, > after the "rescue mode", i had to type in, a "bash" Command. > How do you want a *user* to know what command to type in?! > Well, fact is that i knew what to type in. Okay... assuming it's a bug... if a buggy version of Windows slipped out, would you expect Joe to be able to fix it? Would *you* be able to fix it? > Then, i had... to > exit from there. How do you want a user to know how to do that?! > Your question is so absurd that i can't believe it. A user does > not even have to *know* that "bash" _exists_. This is utterly > unacceptable to have to use it. Awww... > What would have been acceptable, when facing the bug, would have > been a Dialog, with a title saying: "Change PassWord:", Yeah, that'd be secure. :) > an Edit- > control, and the required "Abort" and "OK" buttons. Period. There > is absolutely nothing intelligent with knowing the tips&tricks, > which are nothing but reflects of the programmers failure. Well... bugs happen. If it was a bug. If *you* screwed up, Joe might screw up too, and if the system didn't respond in a way that Joe could find some way out of the mess, there's room for improvement. > OK, i cannot shout at volunteers free works, There are a couple of places where "blame" (or constructive criticism) might be applied. Maybe it's an imperfection in Ubuntu. If Shuttleworth's paying them to make Linux better, maybe it isn't free volunteers. Maybe Dell didn't do a good job installing it. I suppose they're charging you *something* for installing it. There's time involved - hopefully some "guru"s time - even if they don't pay for the OS. In either case, they'll probably hear you better if you don't shout. :) > but, saying that > the actual mess is "intelligent" is the reverse of truth. Negative IQ? Best, Frank
From: SpooK on 27 Aug 2007 01:49
Despite the root lockout (which I agree with as users should never run root when SUDO is available), I never had such issues with Ubuntu as Betov is describing. I doubt Dell did anything but the point n' click install of Ubuntu... so I have to suspect operator error. Ubuntu has been the best overall *desktop* Linux distro I have experienced yet, it "just works" for the most part. You don't have to settle with Gnome or KDE, more lightweight things like Fluxbox are installable as well. The thing that really sets Ubuntu apart is the software repository. No more having to compile *everything* from source... even with RPMs and other neat packaging systems it still gets annoying. Common programs can be simply downloaded in binary form and installed relatively quick... a big win for "Joe User". If you really want to get into Windows gaming on Linux, invest in Cedega. I still like using Gentoo as a Linux server distribution, where architecture-specific compilations become a desirable thing. Firefox destroyed the first big stumbling block, but distributions like Ubuntu are the only serious hope for FSF/OSS to have any considerable share of the desktop market. |