MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-09-04 |
| FROM | Billy
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: Advocacy vs. Zealotry vs. Who Cares?!?
|
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 12:34:41PM -0400, Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 12:24:59PM -0400, Billy wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:09:52AM -0400, Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how this is MSFT's fault.
> > > That's actually easy to answer.
> > 5 yard penalty: incomplete quoting of context.
> > (WHAT is MSFT's fault, again?)
>
> There are no yards in Baseball...
>
> The response it to the security faults of the MS foundation Class.
English is the lingua franca of the 'net. I'm afraid I must insist that
you use it.
> > On the windows OS everything works as a single process without kernel
> > specific file permisions on any of the systems foundation libraries.
> > I can't extract a coherent technical argument from this sentence.
> > I tried. What are "kernel-specific file permissions" ?
>
> The kernel in Linux assigns and allocates resources according to user
> permisions and ALL processes must have a UID and an EUID attached to them.
Right.
> In windows there is only 1 process and everything is a thread.
Wrong.
> I've looked at this very closely in the last 3 weeks, especially in regard
> to porting GTK programs and C programs to Windows. It's a huge problem.
> everything in windows runs as Windows.
Wow, you're wrong! What a surprise!
http://www.dadadada.net/XPprocesses.png
When Billy speaks, he speaks the truth.
> > > So when you start a new program in Windows, becomes
> > > a thread of the core OS,
> > >
> > Stop this FUD!
>
> It's not fud. It's a fact. See the gtk porting website.
Why don't you give me a link to exactly what you're talking about?
I already GAVE a link to prove MY assertion that there are bona-fide
processes on Windows as first-class execution contexts.
> > No, this is hardly true of all or most software.
> >
> Actually it is. Even Visual Basic applications which leverage heavely
> the MSFT installs new DLL's and replaces old ones willie nillie.
Yeah, people get away with murder writing apps on Windows.
There are so many bad Windows programmers.
This isn't a fundamental weakness of Windows, is it?
It may be a problem with Microsoft's developer tools.
I don't know.. I just don't write programs like that.
> and XP. All processes are considered threads by the operating system. This
> makes the process context slightly lighter than the traditional
> heavyweight process model used in UNIX-like operating systems. As a
> consequence of this everything-is-a-thread model, however, everything
> sits in global memory address space. With the correct permissions and
> the correct address, one program could twiddle another program's bits.
This is total nonsense! Who wrote this?
> Another consequence of this is data structures created by the kernel don't
> sit at any fixed address. This means it is up to the user program to lock
> down the associated memory before using any global data structures, such
> as graphic contexts. You also must remember to unlock these structures
> once you are done with them, or they may help cause memory fragmentation.
This is fine. The alternative is memory fragmentation, as he said. I
don't think Linux is any different in this regard. In fact, I can't
think of an instance where you even GET ACCESS to any kernel structures
in Linux. So this is really not an apples-to-apples comparison.
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
