Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: Betov on 7 Oct 2007 08:33 santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fea1pr$j5n$1(a)aioe.org: > as for stability, I found no > difference between Linux and Windows NT. They are both very hard to > crash and are very stable. > > You and Betov seem to have the gift of crashing Linux everytime you put > your finger on it? :)) The intellectual dishonesty of the Linuxes defenders is always impressive. Well, i will not tell what i would hate to have to tell... :)) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 7 Oct 2007 08:41 Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:470899B0.A5E19847 @unibwm.de: > Try to execute a binary you generated with Linux ten years ago. > In Windows I can execute DOS programs written twenty years ago > (and I hope MS will be forced by the user base to also include > 16 bit support in 64 bit Windows). For me Linux becomes an > alternative to Windows (as a desktop system) only if: > > 1. There is a version where they can guarantee that any BINARY > written for this version can be executed on any newer release > (for at least ten years). Seconded 100%. But there might be a change, also, on that point. I am not sure of it (I did not verified), but the ".deb" Format of the Ubuntu stuffs, seems to be Code-Only. Also, the fact of having Ubuntu compromising with commercial SoftWare could as well be have an interresting counter-effect, contributing to fix the scaring "backward un-compatiblities" encounted in Linuxes: Once commercial Softs would come into the game, they could no more "break it all", without shooting themselves into the feet. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 7 Oct 2007 08:49 "sevag.krikorian" <sevag.krikorian(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:1191739582.552991.40780(a)o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > If single-source was so > superior, you would see a lot more use of it :]]]]] Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: santosh on 7 Oct 2007 09:04 Betov wrote: > Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:470899B0.A5E19847 > @unibwm.de: > >> Try to execute a binary you generated with Linux ten years ago. >> In Windows I can execute DOS programs written twenty years ago >> (and I hope MS will be forced by the user base to also include >> 16 bit support in 64 bit Windows). For me Linux becomes an >> alternative to Windows (as a desktop system) only if: >> >> 1. There is a version where they can guarantee that any BINARY >> written for this version can be executed on any newer release >> (for at least ten years). > > Seconded 100%. But there might be a change, also, on that point. > I am not sure of it (I did not verified), but the ".deb" Format > of the Ubuntu stuffs, seems to be Code-Only. It's just a package format like ZIP. It can contain source too. BTW, Linux _can_ run very old a.out binaries. a.out was the first executable format for Linux, (and lots of UNIXes), and was replaced by ELF with version 1.2. But if you compile your kernel with a.out support added, then you can still run these old executables. What's more Linux can run DOS files from the early 80s through DOSEmu. Can Windows run ELF or a.out? :) <snip>
From: Betov on 7 Oct 2007 09:10
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> �crivait news:fea506$sob$1(a)aioe.org: > But, hutch-- wasn't concerned?... And, hutch-- claims he was somehow > able to receive permission to do what the well renowned RH couldn't > receive permission to do? Most interesting. ;) What is the most funny to me, is the second shot of the joke: HLA being nothing but a front-end, the more this front-end is expecting from its own back-end, the more it achieves into the final question: "What is this front-end doing?". If it is just reversing the members of an Instruction and obfuscating Assembly with an absurd notation, why all of this stuff? The reality is that master Pdf never wanted to consider NASM *because* it is LGPL. Nothing else. Later, he made up his durty mind that there was no way out of compromising with the GPL, and he choosed to (painfully, relatively and partially) assume NASM also, in a will of universality. Showing at the very same time that his so called "NASM limitations" were nothing but smoke curtains, like everything he does. For anyone having noticed the impressive usage of NASM Macros, as done by "C-Guy", in the times of LuxAsm, this is 100% clear. As for Hutch, redistributing illegaly MASM, these two bastards working hand in hand, at their respective quest of fame, and reciprocal acknowlegments, it is self-evident that, if Hutch had any legal rights on MASM, Master Pdf would have got them as well. Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |