Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:44 In article <era48m$tvp$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <er9i65$8qk_006(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <er7blr$ijh$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <er6sft$8ss_009(a)s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <er4gcr$1ln$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>In article <er45hl$pkf$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >>>>>jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>On 2007-02-15, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The DOS mind set was to only do one thing at a time. Some bits of later >>>>>>> versions looked like multitasking was intended but abandoned. Even very >>>>>>> later versions save registers into code space instead of onto the stack. >>>>>> >>>>>>I read that there was a multitasking dos released by Microsoft in >>>>>>Europe. and then there's Deskview and I think Digital Research had >>>>>>a go at multitasking dos too. >>>>>> >>>>>>I played with something called multidos (I think it) was shareware or >>>>>>freeware and faked multitasking somehow. >>>>> >>>>>If you call two tasks "multi", >>>> >>>>I don't :-). >>> >>>I could do 3 too. >>> >>>It just takes a little more coding. >> >>My point is that it should not take more coding to add and/or >>subtract. To have to do coding in order to add one is a crock. >>None of our old customers would have accepted this. We certainly >>did not have the resources to code every time we needed to run >>an extra task. > >The tasker in question was a special purpose bit of code. I could have >made it so that a variable number of tasks with variable priorities could >be done but this would have been more of a coding effort. The tasker did >exactly what was needed. > >[....] >>>Yes, but the two tasker served its purpose quite nicely. I created only >>>the tool I needed for the purpose not a general OS. >> >>Sure. I understand what you did. :-) Now think about all the >>different kinds of hardware, formats, software, etc. and the >>fact that each person's individual system are all different from >>any other system in the world, past and future. > >I didn't care about that. The tasker in question was for a single >purpose. I could write one with all the requirements you suggest but why >would I bother. I can just install Linux and be done with it. Honey, the people who wrote the Linux code did have to care about that. Just because you don't need to know this knowledge can not imply that nobody doesn't need to know this knowledge. > > > >>You can't force everybody to code every time they want to do >>something extra. > >I don't want to force others to do something. I didn't care one bit about >what they did. It didn't and still doesn't matter. The tasking under DOS >did exactly what I needed done. Everyone else can go fish. This attitude will never allow you to do OS type programming. My POV is from the OS development side; yours is clearly not. As long as you remember this difference, you might understand more of what I write :-). /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:45 In article <9sdht29e6j0v7ga66egoukf3ekppo43vt5(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Feb 07 12:53:29 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> >>As it happens, I do know. > > > We do not believe you. Are you really trying to speak for everybody participating in this thread? You will be wrong if you do. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:46 In article <era1en$tvp$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <er9ick$8qk_008(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <er91e0$ji1$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >> jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > >[..... [BP+N] addressing ....] > >>>> Snort. Don't you just love that "appropriate values of N"? >>>> It implies you have to check it each and every time. >>> >>>means you have to make room on the stack (where BP offsets >>>are typically used) for the counter. >> >>Now think. You either have to use software to check out of >>range or have hardware that will cough at you when you >>do go out of range. > >It is usually software that does it at compile time. Oh, good grief!!!! NOOOO! Never. All a compiler can do is range-check the static stuff. It can never range check the values that change as a result of execution. > If you are writing >in assembly, you allocate the space and assign the symbols once and then >use them in each place. Unless you do something veery stupid, there is no >need to run time check such stuff. Son, you are not paranoid enough. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:48 In article <MPG.2042782f10ec82d8989fb6(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <era1en$tvp$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >says... >> In article <er9ick$8qk_008(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >In article <er91e0$ji1$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >> > jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >> >> [..... [BP+N] addressing ....] >> >> >>> Snort. Don't you just love that "appropriate values of N"? >> >>> It implies you have to check it each and every time. >> >> >> >>means you have to make room on the stack (where BP offsets >> >>are typically used) for the counter. >> > >> >Now think. You either have to use software to check out of >> >range or have hardware that will cough at you when you >> >do go out of range. >> >> It is usually software that does it at compile time. If you are writing >> in assembly, you allocate the space and assign the symbols once and then >> use them in each place. Unless you do something veery stupid, there is no >> need to run time check such stuff. >> >You've never heard of a "buffer overflow"? He has. I just told him last week. > You aren't a Windows >programmer, by chance, are you? I wonder if this lack of knowledge has to do with the compiling, linking and execution done in one lump step? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Feb 2007 09:51
In article <erak31$its$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <MPG.2042782f10ec82d8989fb6(a)news.individual.net>, >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>In article <era1en$tvp$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>says... >>> In article <er9ick$8qk_008(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >In article <er91e0$ji1$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >>> > jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>> >>> [..... [BP+N] addressing ....] >>> >>> >>> Snort. Don't you just love that "appropriate values of N"? >>> >>> It implies you have to check it each and every time. >>> >> >>> >>means you have to make room on the stack (where BP offsets >>> >>are typically used) for the counter. >>> > >>> >Now think. You either have to use software to check out of >>> >range or have hardware that will cough at you when you >>> >do go out of range. >>> >>> It is usually software that does it at compile time. If you are writing >>> in assembly, you allocate the space and assign the symbols once and then >>> use them in each place. Unless you do something veery stupid, there is no >>> need to run time check such stuff. >>> >>You've never heard of a "buffer overflow"? You aren't a Windows >>programmer, by chance, are you? > > :) >You don't get buffer overflows from [BP+N] type instructions. These are >used to address single values on the stack. It is the [BP+SI] type of >instructions that Windows blows it on. It is rare when N does not have to be calculated. Somebody, at some point in time, has to assign a value to N. By its very nature, it is a value that changed over time; in the olden days, this used to be called a variable. [emoticon begins to reassess assumptions] Do people not know what variables are these days? krw? /BAH |