Recent Posts
but perhaps that's what they've needed to convince them to cut out some of the fat and get back to focusing on quality.
I am still using a old and safe cleaner program call RegCleaner which is a freeware but no longer supported,-Terry (July 19, 2006, 10:18 PM)
And the only reason why there are more reported vulnerabilities for linux applications in the first place, is because they are easyer to spot, since it's all open source.That's not necessarily true... first of all there's (private) tools for finding exploits, appearantly some of them are pretty efficient. But even without such a tool and without source, it's not necessarily hard to find an exploit. I was chatting with a grey-hat friend of mine while he looked for holes in either AIM or Yahoo chat (can't remember which one). It took him between 30-60 minutes to find a 0-day exploit.
On linux they usually get spotted, reported, and fixed quite fast, which adds to the security.How long did the chunked-mode exploit exist in Apache before it was discovered? (Discovered by full-disclosure people, anyway
).just when i thought it was time to stop believing in the myths. oh well, back to being confused and unsure of what to believe - just as well i can't really be bothered with all this tinkering - my pc appears to working at the moment so i'll leave it well alone.Well, those were the only two items I really disagree with-nudone (July 19, 2006, 02:35 PM)
- and leaving it alone if it works is probably a good idea. I've built up my collection of tweaks over several years, and merged them in my unattended XP setup CD. Otherwise I probably couldn't be bothered (but would swear at XP often ).truth be told i'm wary of all of these executable-wrapper protection tools, and prefer using a full virtual machine tool like vwware or virtualpc.Yeah, it's more secure. Anything based on API hooking shouldn't be too hard to circumvent. BufferZone does sound a bit interesting, though, in that it uses a kernel mode filter driver instead of simple ring3 API hooking.-mouser (July 19, 2006, 09:45 AM)
Perhaps for the media portion they mean they can use QoS to allocate more bandwidth to streaming media. Increasing process priority on the player wont do this for you.True enough, and there could be some advanced in kernel-streaming drivers as well (which has nothing to do with internet streaming btw), etc. There's nothing stopping QoS on XP though, and iirc win2k supports it as well - just a matter of making the media player utilize it. Oh, and the rest of your networking equipment.-Josh (July 19, 2006, 06:00 AM)
However, users with dual-core PCs may notice a performance boost with Vista when they're multitasking, because Vista can take advantage of dual cores to run separate processes, something that XP can't do. So if you have a dual-core PC and you frequently run multiple programs simultaneously, you will lose the performance improvement that Vista can bring.Even NT4 supports multi-CPU systems. And multitasking isn't done per-process anyway, it's done per-thread.
Microsoft also claims that multimedia will run better in Vista than XP because Vista can give streaming audio and video priority over other processes so that they won't be interrupted.That sounds a bit silly as well - you can already manually (or with whatever tool) raise your media player process priority.
Idea is simple, .obj files no longer have machine code but rather the intermediate "p-code" the compiler is generating anyway, and optimizing is deferred until the link stage.-f0dder (July 18, 2006, 11:35 AM)
Which to me sounds as if it's not too far away from just-in-time compilation. I think in the future we will have more abstract machines which optimize themselves all the time; total virtualization so to say. I will have to pick up the proper technical terms so I can better explain what I mean.
The trend seems to be to generate the machine code as late as possible in the uhm "runtime/lifetime cycle" of The Code.-housetier (July 18, 2006, 12:19 PM)
Due to the way C works, it’s impossible for the compiler to inline a function defined in another source file. Both source files are compiled to binary object files independently, and these are linked.Which is wrong, considering Link-Time Code Generation (visual C++ 2003 or later). Intel's C++ compiler has had it for a while too, called something else though. Works pretty well. Idea is simple, .obj files no longer have machine code but rather the intermediate "p-code" the compiler is generating anyway, and optimizing is deferred until the link stage.
Indeed - since vmware and virtualpc can sometimes have problems with homebrewn kernels (mostly because of people doing things in somewhat "interesting" ways, though).BOCHS does full emulation of all instructions (S L O W!)-f0dder (July 17, 2006, 07:01 AM)
I have heard that about it. But I have also heard that it is of more use to someone writing their own OS, rather than someone looking to run an OS virtually in order to try one out, or for testing applications on one.-app103 (July 17, 2006, 07:23 AM)
What does "elegant" really mean, in the context of programming? Does it mean anything at all?For me, it's code that you understand on the first read-through. Well-designed classes. And sometimes, just a "gut feeling" when something is done cleverly ("clever" doesn't mean "hackish" in this content, btw!).-mrainey (July 15, 2006, 07:23 AM)
mouser, et. al. - While I agree that your examples of bad code are indeed bad, I don't condem the language for it. Just becuase you can use it to write bad code, doesn't mean you should.You're right, of course... some langauges just lend themselves very well to writing hacky code. Heck, for some languages almost only hacky code is written-rover
I havent seen a chat program that messes with a web browser, installs spyware or viruses at all. What ones have you tried? I know gaim is perfectly safe, as is trillian, miranda, aim, msn, yahoo, icq and google talk. IRC (mIRC) is also a good chat protocol/series of networks.Actually, AIM for one def. has spywhere included in the install. I am a computer technician during the summer and I know about this one because I, myself, have personally formatted an entire computer and then, reinstalled windows and put AIM on there... Wasn't long before I found things on the computer... Actually, about 5 min's. After installing and launching, I was able to view a few things that I didn't install. Hence, the fact that AIM and yahoo aren't really as safe as you think... Just because everything looks fine doesn't necessarily mean that it is... I have found that out for sure! lol!-Josh (July 13, 2006, 01:25 PM)-Renox (July 13, 2006, 11:25 PM)
(but of course, "use a struct" would be a viable option as well.)