flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

flat assembler > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 163, 164, 165 ... 170, 171, 172  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
list of books for you all to read,

What's the most influential book of the past 20 years?
https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/influential-books?essay=Iyengar
Post 03 Nov 2018, 12:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1318
revolution wrote:
By "soul" I would think of it as the inner voice, created by the brain; thus it is merely a function of the brain processes, not actually anything physical.. So "forcing it out" is merely stopping the brain from generating the voice/soul. In theory one could generate many inner voices/souls if one wants to.

What I doubt is that a "soul" can come from some external source. Or that someone's "soul" could move to another place.
What happens to your "inner voice" if you get replicated at the atom level? Obviously you have a current understanding of "you". You can experience and feel it.

When the clone appears, I assume you still feel "yourself" and won't feel or experience what the clone does (so to you, it will be just like any other human).

What happens if you die when the clone happens (the classic teleportation thing)? Do you stop feeling anything or do you somehow now start to "experience" the clone's viewpoint? (which would mean normal teleportation actually)

Have you ever asked yourself these questions? Razz
Post 03 Nov 2018, 13:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
the clone thing is one probably complex and mind disturbing idea,

we are in the assumption we could clone the working us like how we clone vdi or vhd, well, they could continue and without realizing they bring shifted from one machine to another machine,

would double clone generate exact random number if that is the first thing to do after they are put online?

even if you add one file or directory in vdi, vhd, i don't think it would instantly aware unless there is background task scanning and indexing running,

i think merging memories is another story,
Post 03 Nov 2018, 14:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
https://www.c0ffee.net/blog/openbsd-on-a-laptop/

gonna give openbsd another try,
Post 03 Nov 2018, 18:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
i got a random thought like this past few days,

what if, what if, the whole events that happened on earth, are, trivial, it becomes trivial the moment we passed away, the realization kicks in,

and it actually happened already before this and now,

eg, when we are small, kid, we probably cried because of toys, friends, love, or etc events, we felt hurt, and probably we fight because of 1 dollar, or etc,

my point is, at this moment, when you reviewing back those events, you felt those events as funny, and probably you will react in a totally different way by now,

you felt those events are totally insignificant by now,

gundam mobiles robots that you purchased, all your animes, comics,

all your toys, and etc, everything,

we probably felt like they worth less and less as time going,

and what if,

we will again have such feeling, the moment we passed away?

it means, all the arguments on earth, ideas, and etc, are worth less as changes commit, all our kids, sons, daughters, buildings, monies, prototypes, software, hardware, bitcoins,

like those windows 10 1503 version codes, like linux 0.01 kernel sources, dos sources, and everything,

~

and if we reflect upon these,

probably there is much less point to fight or emotion by events on earth,

~

but there are cons in using such attitude,

it could means, you don't even bother to regret, felt guilty for all the harms, destruction, all the exploitation one did to have changes happened, etc,

but is there a point to be choosy here? idk, maybe zero point,

after all, when that changes or realization kicks in, there is no point to reverse,

like how we so less and less appreciate 1 dollar, 5 dollar or 10 dollar, compare to when we are small,
Post 03 Nov 2018, 22:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1318
sleepsleep wrote:
i got a random thought like this past few days,

what if, what if, the whole events that happened on earth, are, trivial, it becomes trivial the moment we passed away, the realization kicks in,
What if... we're in a simulation created by "God" (which is just a human) trying to screen out the bad guys (who end up in "Hell") from the good guys for a recruitment campaign he's running?

Maybe in the outside world, the entire lifetime we experience here passes in about 5 minutes or so.
Post 04 Nov 2018, 12:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
i somehow thought about simulation after you mentioned,

i think i came to this conclusion,

simulation would mean, things must capable to be halted, and transferable,

but another idea caught my conclusion,

let say you want to transfer liquid from point a to point b, they are not halted yet they are transferable,

but for sure, conscious not inside liquid blood,

~

in another idea,

why we couldn't use magnet to control something magnetized object inserted into our body, eg, the cancer area or anything point that need to be cleaned?

or maybe to clear main blood vessels?
a 2 mm metal balls? Laughing
Post 04 Nov 2018, 23:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2018/11/05/announcing-net-standard-2-1/
Quote:
.NET Framework is the implementation of .NET that’s installed on over one billion machines and thus needs to remain as compatible as possible. Because of this, it moves at a slower pace than .NET Core. Even security and bug fixes can cause breaks in applications because applications depend on the previous behavior. We will make sure that .NET Framework always supports the latest networking protocols, security standards, and Windows features.

.NET Core is the open source, cross-platform, and fast-moving version of .NET. Because of its side-by-side nature it can take changes that we can’t risk applying back to .NET Framework. This means that .NET Core will get new APIs and language features over time that .NET Framework cannot. At Build we showed a demo how the file APIs are faster on .NET Core. If we put those same changes into .NET Framework we could break existing applications, and we don’t want to do that.


.net core means breaking faster, Laughing
i always thought .net core means a subset of .net framework, and less features, less problems, less codes, and consume less compare to full framework, my understand is wrong i guess,
Post 05 Nov 2018, 18:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DimonSoft



Joined: 03 Mar 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Belarus
I was often told that one of the main points of .NET was to defeat the DLL hell. Not to mention here that it didn’t solve the problem, but isn’t SxS exactly the worst of two worlds?

DLLs/.NET could have been shared by multiple applications staying a single copy. Now we take a giant stupid framework and drop its copies of different versions here and there. We’ve lost the advantages of sharing DLLs and frameworks and if we don’t need them, then we don’t need DLLs and we don’t have DLL hell in the first place. Nothing to solve here. .NET turns into a collection of algorithms that one is too lazy to write performance-wise effective implementations for and takes bloated and slow generic solutions.
Post 05 Nov 2018, 19:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16149
Location: Hyperborea
DLLs were invented to solve the problem of not having enough memory to run multiple applications. Many applications could share the same DLL in memory and leave more memory available for other things.

But since then things have changed on the hardware side. It is now mostly pointless to try and save 100kB of memory with a shared DLL because 1) 100kB is a tiny amount of memory to be worrying about when we have GB available, 2) the extra complexity for the OS to track DLL usage and linking during startup probably uses 100kB more of the RAM, and 3) it seems every app needs a different version of the DLL anyway so incompatibilities and problems are abound (that is the DLL hell thing).

Static linking is both faster for the app to load and has no DLL hell side effects. It does use up a bit more RAM but that is a small price to pay for lower complexity and no incompatibility problems IMO.

The only exception here is the OS-to-APP interface. We can't statically link the entire OS into each app. We will probably always be stuck with that kind of problem. Even the *nix way of using int 0x80/syscall is really just a slightly different way of implementing the interface and has the same problems with version incompatibilities.
Post 05 Nov 2018, 20:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 284
the search for one and only?
computing tool is only a computing tool, flex it as you please.

_________________
qiq;
Post 06 Nov 2018, 00:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
does anyone got any idea how nature the system solving this kinda dll issue?

i am into static linking too,
pros,
- no application breaking

cons,
- security issues mean each apps have to update on its own
- a little bit fat in memory and disk usage

os to app interface,

why couldn't a base stable dll and require not more updating except security patches, and let features upgrade something modular enough to be statically linking,

i think it should be okay with rolling release on features but the stable core kernel shouldn't be touch except security patches,

why couldn't the linking be based on task and logic instead of naming?

eg, to drive, the basic requirements would be, a drivable vehicle, license, fuel, engine started, seat belt on, no extra weight, handbrake status etc,

why couldn't the whole process be concept based instead of naming?
Post 06 Nov 2018, 02:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DimonSoft



Joined: 03 Mar 2010
Posts: 454
Location: Belarus
revolution wrote:
DLLs were invented to solve the problem of not having enough memory to run multiple applications. Many applications could share the same DLL in memory and leave more memory available for other things.

<…>

The only exception here is the OS-to-APP interface. We can't statically link the entire OS into each app. We will probably always be stuck with that kind of problem. Even the *nix way of using int 0x80/syscall is really just a slightly different way of implementing the interface and has the same problems with version incompatibilities.

But they had significantly less processes at the time. And .NET isn’t a part of Windows, as explicitly stated by Microsoft representatives.

I completely agree static linking is the way to go. I can’t even imagine how could the horrible idea of having terabytes of third-party libraries and frameworks in dependencies become mainstream. Except for ignorant non-professionals becoming the majority in the profession.

Back to .NET, it’s funny how they have open-sourced it but never thought of providing it as a library that a linker could have linked statically into the executable.

sleepsleep wrote:
i am into static linking too,
pros,
- no application breaking

cons,
- security issues mean each apps have to update on its own
- a little bit fat in memory and disk usage

Having multiple DLLs to update means that an attacker has a much wider choice.

Statically linking an open-source library/framework with a toolset that supports cross-procedure optimizations would often provide a slightly different machine code implementation for the same library routines thus limiting exploitability of a newly discovered attack to a very particular version of the program that uses a very particular version of the library.

If you have your library in a separate DLL, you can do nothing for your program security until the library developer updates it. And all the versions of your program that use the same version of the library are vulnerable.

As for being fat, that’s just not true. You usually pay a tiny bit for the most generic routines like memory management, basic data structures (strings, arrays, etc.) and then, as you implement more and more useful features, the increase of size is proportional to the feature complexity. Because a lot of unused routines from the library are going to be thrown out by the compiler/linker.

With a separate library you may use like 5% of its features but still have to supply the whole library with your executable. So, which way is fatter?

And again, you might not even use that vulnerable function from your library DLL, but the DLL is already in your program’s memory, ready to use by an attacker.
Post 06 Nov 2018, 06:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
anyone got a recommendation for an open source online web e-commerce framework or solution, preferably simple, not features bloated, and developed with security as part of objectives, using php or etc well supported language,

traffic i guess around 3 items purchased every hour,

or you are using one of them, please let me know your recommendation, thank you,
Post 06 Nov 2018, 13:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
DimonSoft wrote:

And .NET isn’t a part of Windows

but they limit certain .net version with compatible windows version, and we could see more and more core windows utils are coded in .net, somehow, this lead me to believe, .net will have deeper and greater role in windows os, now and in future,
Post 06 Nov 2018, 13:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1318
sleepsleep wrote:
does anyone got any idea how nature the system solving this kinda dll issue?
There's nothing bad about DLLs or dynamic linking, as long as they are designed properly. Windows system DLLs are such an example.

  • Never *remove* or change an interface, instead just *extend* the library (or write a totally new library).
  • You can change the internal implementation, and even make it a wrapper around a new & shiny library, but do *not* change the interface or contractual behavior (i.e. what it promises to apps). Add new functions instead (see windows API, CreateWindow -> CreateWindowEx)
  • Never remove a DLL, and if you do remove it, always supply it as an (optional?) download or dependency. No different than static linking: if you miss the DLL, just place it either in system32 or near the app or whatever (user choice).
You're probably asking, what's the point of DLLs if you just place them near the app? Isn't that the same thing as static linking except they're "packed" into just one file?

No. Static linking gives the user zero choice.

A DLL near the app allows the user to copy the DLL to system32, or hardlink/symlink it if he has multiple apps using the same DLL.

And again none of this WinSxS bullshit would be needed if people followed the universal shared library mantra I outlined above.

But this world is full of incompetent retards.

And just for info, DLLs are not even that bad, on Unix the situation is much worse.
Post 07 Nov 2018, 17:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16149
Location: Hyperborea
Furs wrote:
... if people followed the universal shared library ....
Unfortunately the normal computer user doesn't care (or know) about hard-linking and how to exercise DLL choice. It's the app devs that suffer the problems caused by bad DLL management by other devs. So back in the real world where people just do what feels right, and read the "rules" only as guidelines, we end up in DLL hell.

Having your app become broken by some other dev overwriting your good DLLs with incompatible versions doesn't help the user, or you. And when your app breaks guess who the user blames? Ask me, I've been there. It ain't fun trying to talk a user through identifying where and how (or even which) DLL(s) started causing the problems.

Users don't want that type of choice, they want an app that just works.
Post 07 Nov 2018, 21:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 7801
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
i think we should skip all the naming thing, i really hate how programming need to have tons of naming for identification, there got to be some better ways dealing with these,

Furs wrote:

But this world is full of incompetent retards.

or we got incompetent retards who haven't figure out how to upgrade incompetent retards?
Post 07 Nov 2018, 22:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1318
revolution wrote:
Unfortunately the normal computer user doesn't care (or know) about hard-linking and how to exercise DLL choice. It's the app devs that suffer the problems caused by bad DLL management by other devs. So back in the real world where people just do what feels right, and read the "rules" only as guidelines, we end up in DLL hell.

Having your app become broken by some other dev overwriting your good DLLs with incompatible versions doesn't help the user, or you. And when your app breaks guess who the user blames? Ask me, I've been there. It ain't fun trying to talk a user through identifying where and how (or even which) DLL(s) started causing the problems.

Users don't want that type of choice, they want an app that just works.
You're missing the point. The user doesn't have to know anything, I mean what can break if the DLL is in the app's directory?

But for savvy users, they have the choice to hardlink if they want to. Or whatever. Normal users aren't impacted...
Post 08 Nov 2018, 15:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16149
Location: Hyperborea
For "savvy" users that is lot of work they need to do to make sure everything is still compatible during each installation and update cycle. And the return on time invested is very small. With potentially lost time when some less used function in APP-A from the shared DLL in APP-B that wasn't easily tested suddenly deletes the DB. If that was me I wouldn't like to take the chance just to save 100kB. It costs me many minutes or hours to determine the DLL sharing arrangements, and saves me less than one milli-cent worth of recovered disk space.
Post 08 Nov 2018, 18:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 163, 164, 165 ... 170, 171, 172  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2018, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.