flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Which Linux?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
The point is for users to make their own decisions on what is run. ~/local/ would have precedence over /usr/local/ so that if a user wanted, for example, a different version of GCC to be default, they could just put it in their ~/local/. If they want a different version of nautilus, than is installed by root, then ~/local/ would be the place to put it.

I was going to use it to put TIGCC and Fasm in, or anything else that aren't supported by the package management system. The idea arose from the fact that I think that anything installed by root for the system should be installed to /usr/local/ rather than /usr/bin/ like Debian, descendants, and possibly others do. FreeBSD was the first I found that did install to /usr/local/, I liked that. And since most things are installed with a package manager, it seems messy to bypass it and install things from source without the knowledge of the package manager, in the directory it uses to install stuff in. So, where do you put stuff that you compile from source?

I don't mean to replace /usr/local, I mean to supplement it with a standard place for users to be able to install without affecting the whole system.

How do you expect the binaries to get infected without the user first running a malicious program?
Post 24 Jan 2011, 22:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Tyler wrote:
The point is for users to make their own decisions on what is run. ~/local/ would have precedence over /usr/local/ so that if a user wanted, for example, a different version of GCC to be default, they could just put it in their ~/local/.

I understand that very well, but you're not getting what I mean. The problem is not whether you can have this directory or not, the problem is how many everyday-use applications you are going to store in it and what you are going to do about possible infection or accidental corruption/deletion. I don't think there is much you can do...

By the way, this directory - ~/bin - already exists in your path. It just doesn't have precedence (for obvious reasons) over the system directories, but still, you could easily move it.

Besides, you can already have two versions of the same software installed in the same write-protected system directory. Only the name differs. So (theoretically) you could also have a modified version of some software alongside the original, as long as all names are set up correctly to reflect the changes.

Tyler wrote:
If they want a different version of nautilus, than is installed by root, then ~/local/ would be the place to put it.

Okay for one or two applications, but just don't overdo it and put half your system there.

Tyler wrote:
FreeBSD was the first I found that did install to /usr/local/

The reason lies in the design: *BSD are complete OSs (1. kernel+native user base + 2. optional third-party applications), while GNU/Linux distros are Linux kernels bundled with third-party applications encompassing the entire system, from the boot manager to the (X-based) terminal emulator.

Tyler wrote:
And since most things are installed with a package manager, it seems messy to bypass it and install things from source without the knowledge of the package manager, in the directory it uses to install stuff in. So, where do you put stuff that you compile from source?

It depends what you mean by that. Using the port system is technically still "compil[ing] from source".
But even if you manually fetch and uncompress tar.gz or similar archives from the official website/SourceForge/etc., modify what needs to be modified (i.e. port the software), configure build-time options if any, build the sources and install the result in the usual directories, your application will still run perfectly fine.
The only thing is that you'll be unable to remove it using the system's tools, which is normal since you didn't install it using the system's tools to begin with and therefore it wasn't properly "registered".

Tyler wrote:
I don't mean to replace /usr/local, I mean to supplement it with a standard place for users to be able to install without affecting the whole system.

It isn't "affecting the whole system" in any way if none else but you runs the application. It's only taking up space on one partition that would otherwise be allocated on another. Or not even another, depending on your partitioning scheme. So...

Tyler wrote:
How do you expect the binaries to get infected without the user first running a malicious program?

Malicious code being run (as perfectly legit code) on your (perfectly legit) browser? I'm not even talking about design flaws, bugs and vulnerabilities making the whole process even easier.
Oh, how about PDF vulnerabilities in Adobe and Fixit code?
The possibilities are limitless. Code is written by humans. Don't expect either to be flawless. Ever.
Post 25 Jan 2011, 00:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
Quote:

It depends what you mean by that. Using the port system is technically still "compil[ing] from source".
But even if you manually fetch and uncompress tar.gz or similar archives from the official website/SourceForge/etc., modify what needs to be modified (i.e. port the software), configure build-time options if any, build the sources and install them in the usual directories, your application will still run perfectly fine.
The only thing is that you'll be unable to remove it using the system's tools, which is normal since you didn't install it using the system's tools to begin with and therefore it wasn't properly "registered".

I've never installed from a .tar.gz because I was worried there was no way to uninstall everything they install. Surely, when you install with them, they create config files in places and possibly documentation, making it harder than just going to /usr/bin and rm-ing the executable when you want to uninstall. Do the makefiles usually have a uninstall target, if they do, how effective are they at removing everything they install?
Post 25 Jan 2011, 00:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Well, I haven't installed applications that way for many years and nowadays I do the whole thing (minus the actual installation) for testing purposes only.
But they are supposed to remove everything they have created, and they usually do. If you really feel paranoid, you can check after them. There are only few standard directories where things could be stored anyway.

Of course, once the setup is done, applications can only create temporary or configuration files in such places as /tmp or $HOME and can't fill the entire system with crap.
Post 25 Jan 2011, 01:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
running freebsd with openbox.... look so great and minimal like crunchbang...... Smile fbpanel Wink i like !!
just facing some problem with this broadcom wifi... phewwww....
Post 31 Jan 2011, 23:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
FUCK linux, linux is bloat, have an unlogical file systeme hierarchy, full of bugs, full of uneeded updates, and is not able to load a text file i created with fasm.

linux is a pure chit, really a pure chit.

it is a brainfuck product coded from teenage minded people who believe they are smarter than everybody, and proud to troll every days about the LINUX is BeTTER than WINdow$.

linux is a pure chit.

Quote:

could not open the file /media/0EED-3826/le code assembleur/claviermap.txt using the XXXX encoding.

this file was generated using fasm, opens very well with every text editors under windows, but linux is so smart that it cannot read it.


KILLL KILLL


and linux cannot be used to code in asm. it is a pure waste of time to use this system.

i will try to install 98 on the netbook, because i am really bored by this system who always warn me for things and others, who always ask me to choose the encoding for a text file, who always open a tab when i insert a usb pen, who takes minutes to startup... and so on.
Post 01 Feb 2011, 12:22
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: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
edfed: I thought Linux doesn't have file extension associations? *.txt means nothing to the Linux shell, right? You still have to state which binary program (the text editor) you want to use to open the .txt file.
Post 01 Feb 2011, 12:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
still made, it ask me, what to do with the file, i tell him, open it with gedit, and then, surprise, gedit unable to read the text file.

but openoffice writer was able... that's what i dislike in linux. linux i dumb, made by dumb programmers who believe they are the smartest people of the world, just try to chat with them and you will be ready to go to psychiatric hospital.

needs everything to make a world, but franckly, don't need them at all.

now, i have two goals:
kill windows AND kill linux Very Happy
Post 01 Feb 2011, 13:39
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: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
edfed wrote:
kill windows AND kill linux Very Happy
What is left? MAC?
Post 01 Feb 2011, 13:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Czerno



Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 8
Czerno
edfed wrote:

could not open the file /media/0EED-3826/le code assembleur/claviermap.txt using the XXXX encoding.this file was generated using fasm, opens very well with every text editors under windows, but linux is so smart that it cannot read it.


Really ? Maybe you should learn to avoid white-space characters in file names.
Or if you're truly unable to do without the stupid white spaces, could learn how to use such (ridiculous) names in Linux ? (Yes, Linux is able to access the oddly named file, you have to do your homework again)

edfed wrote:
FUCK linux, linux is bloat,
linux is a pure chit, really a pure chit.
it is a brainfuck product coded from teenage minded people who believe
KILLL KILLL


Yeah sure! Reading your prose leaves little doubt as to who is "teenage minded" / "brainfucked" !


Please Edfed go on, stay with us, you're amusing !
Post 01 Feb 2011, 15:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
edfed wrote:
have an unlogical file systeme hierarchy

YMMV...

edfed wrote:
could not open the file /media/0EED-3826/le code assembleur/claviermap.txt using the XXXX encoding.

Wild guess: if you're doing it from the virtual terminal/terminal emulator, you probably need to escape spaces: [...]3826/le\ code\ assembleur/clavier[...].

edfed wrote:
this file was generated using fasm, opens very well with every text editors under windows, but linux is so smart that it cannot read it.

Possibility 1: you're using a crappy editor/terminal emulator, and as an assembly buff, you undoubtedly know these applications have little to do with the system per se.
Possibility 2: you're doing it wrong.

edfed wrote:
and linux cannot be used to code in asm.

FreeBSD can alright, and I very much doubt GNU/Linux can't.


~~~~


revolution wrote:
What is left? MAC?

Kill that too. Long live edfedOS!
Post 01 Feb 2011, 16:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Coty



Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 546
Location: ␀
Coty
edfed Maybe you will be interested in BareMetal OS? http://www.returninfinity.com/baremetal.html

64bit OS in NASM with full support for SMP! Probably one of my favorate hobby OS right now... Very little or no big bloat! long live pure ASM OSes!
Post 01 Feb 2011, 16:59
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Coty wrote:
http://www.returninfinity.com/baremetal.html

64bit OS in NASM with full support for SMP!
The website mentions that YASM is needed to compile.

But I hope this is a mistake: "Read/Write support for FAT16". That somewhat limits your HDD size compatibility. Does it really only support FAT16?
Post 01 Feb 2011, 17:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Coty



Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 546
Location: ␀
Coty
revolution wrote:
The website mentions that YASM is needed to compile.
Oops! Yeah that's right!

revolution wrote:
But I hope this is a mistake: "Read/Write support for FAT16". That somewhat limits your HDD size compatibility. Does it really only support FAT16?

Sadly! Sad But other than that it is very nice, I can imagine that fat32 or better will be implemented in the near future.
Post 01 Feb 2011, 17:19
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
Linux is made by geeks, for geeks and that's why it's a fail imho.
Post 01 Feb 2011, 20:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TmX



Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 821
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
TmX
asmhack wrote:
Linux is made by geeks, for geeks and that's why it's a fail imho.


So what is your suggestion, then?
I'm looking forward to Mac OS X....

Wink
Post 03 Feb 2011, 03:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ctl3d32



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 204
Location: Brazil
ctl3d32
I'd stick with windows. I think it's great, but completely bloated to keep backward compatibility. Now that we have virtual machines, it would be great if windows gets completely rewritten from scratch. A new, cleaner and faster kernel, with an easier and more intuitive API. A new OS that would eat a lot less resource, and let the backward compatibility with the virtual machine.
Post 03 Feb 2011, 13:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ctl3d32



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 204
Location: Brazil
ctl3d32
I hate the fact that everytime a new version of windows hits the store, you have to buy a faster computer to keep up average speed when comparing to an older OS version. I'd like to see microsoft making window to run well on an relatively cheap(or old) computer, let's say a single core processor, 1Gb of memory, a cheap video card, and so on..., and improve it to make it run faster at each new version with the same machine. From time to time, update this old or cheap computer, but always a computer yeras older than the current technology.

Windows would run very well on old computers and a lot better on new ones.

It' easy to make a bloated version of windows, run it in a 8-core processor with 16GB of memory and a super video card and say "Windows is great. It boots really fast!"
Post 03 Feb 2011, 14:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
Do you know SyllableOS
It is in my "ToTry list". Smile
Post 03 Feb 2011, 14:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
i would like to see a new machine accepting win98.

i believe win98 is the best compromise between bug rate and speed.

remember that it can be shut off by brute force without any problem (what i do) and startup in less than 20 second on all my machines.

but cannot be installed on new HW because of:
DRIVERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post 03 Feb 2011, 15:03
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, 4, 5, 6  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 © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.