Linux clone of dos editor (ide) edit.exe!!!!!!!!!!!!
James Hebert
Wow.
Sam, I thought that creating a setuid root, no sources provided,
writes direct to hardware editor would be the pinacle of your
stupidity.
At least you writing it didn't hurt me or millions of other people by
writing it.
You now have a second feat competing for the slot of "stupidest thing
Sam has ever done." I never thought there'd be any contest.
You posted a Base64 encoded binary to this, a non-binary,
group. And your cross-posted it to several more!
I'm taking away your Mozilla 3.04Gold for FreeBSD and giving you
Newswatcher for MacOS. You truly are one of the fucking morons who
needs the little reminder "Are you sure you want to post? Millions of
people around the world will receive this message as a result of your
post." You are a maggot who is proud to refuse the clues heap upon
him, and your binary post represents tremendous, measurable, financial
loss to everyone who pays to suck their newsfeed over a metered link.
I know that's hard to grasp, since your mom obviously pays for your
worldlink account. You've mentioned being in school -- it's obviously
a fantastic cs department if you need to dial up to worldnet.
Tallying up Sam's fucking shit for brains points, we see:
* Thinks he's smarter than hundreds of thousands of researchers
and developers that have worked on the platform since before he
born.
* Wants a free OS, a free compiler, a free editor that he used to write
the source for this peice of shit, and free help from a worldwide
community of developers. In return he doesn't give a flying fuck if
what he writes is useful to anyone but him, and actively blocks attempts
to find something that can benefit the community at large in his work,
by not releasing the sources and writing directly to hardware that he
has.
* Posts with the mentality of a two year old, repeating phrases in all
caps several times per message in succession, punctuated with that
characteristic-of-all-worthless-fucks-on-usenet, the stream of
exc-lame-ation points.
* Posts binaries to multiple non-binary newsgroups.
* Posts anything *about* the editor to groups where it's clearly off-topic,
like comp.os.linux.setup.
I hope that in 9 years when you've gone through puberty, are out of
school, and are looking for a job, that your potential employer does a
DejaNews profile of you. It may be the only good thing to come out of
your feeble-minded presence on usenet. I can only hope that your
fingers aren't let anywhere near code that anyone I care about may
ever run.
Die.
jim
Paul Flinders
samuel <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> As this is an ungoing project -- I welcome any and all opinions
No you don't - you've made *that* perfectly clear in the past.
Matthew Vanecek
samuel wrote:
>
> The linux clone of the dos editor edit.com (qbasic ide) is nearly
Umm, let me see. Pico, vi, emacs, xemacs, now kedit, joe, jed, I'm sure
there's more. What do we need with an unlicensed rip-off of proprietary
code for a text editor, when Unix is overflowing with text editors that
DOS could never *hope* to equal?
--
Matthew Vanecek
mev000...@unt.edu <-----Please remove the NOSPAM in my Reply-To to
send me mail. I appreciate your effort! :-)
Studies in Business Computers at the University of North Texas
http://www.unt.edu/bcis
*****************************************************************
Visit my Website at http://people.unt.edu/~mev0003
*****************************************************************
For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow
except me. I'm always getting in the way of something...
Adam Stouffer
James Hebert wrote:
>
>
> I'm taking away your Mozilla 3.04Gold for FreeBSD and giving you
> Newswatcher for MacOS. You truly are one of the fucking morons who
> needs the little reminder "Are you sure you want to post?
Who gives a fuck? It shows up as an attached file. You talk like you
cant browse to another message until that 40 meg download is done.
Calm down dude. Also I wouldn't mind a nice text editor just like
EDIT. I have been waiting for someone to create a look alike.
Adam
--
_________________________
|
|
| Remove the NO-SPAM |
|
|
_________________________
Adam Stouffer
Come on, that file was like 50kb. I have seen people ramble longer
messages than 50k.
James Hebert
Adam Stouffer <te...@NO-SPAM.sgi.net> writes:
> James Hebert wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > I'm taking away your Mozilla 3.04Gold for FreeBSD and giving you
> > Newswatcher for MacOS. You truly are one of the fucking morons who
> > needs the little reminder "Are you sure you want to post?
>
>
> Who gives a fuck? It shows up as an attached file. You talk like you
> cant browse to another message until that 40 meg download is done.
> Calm down dude. Also I wouldn't mind a nice text editor just like
> EDIT. I have been waiting for someone to create a look alike.
You're an idiot. Re-read my message. I said that it caused problems
for people who pay money to suck their newsfeed across a metered link.
For them, yes, they do have to download it. And for the, yeah, their
link is busy downloading that instead of downloading posts. But,
you've probably never heard of suck, leafnode, and the like.
You apparently think that decades worth of community standards that we
call nettiquite should be ditched in favor of some sort of "c'mon man,
who cares, calm down" approach. I guess all roups are binary
groups. Can I send you some binaries you don't want?
As for it showing up as an attached file, you obviously think every
newsreader handles MIME attachments without inlining the text. Check
my X-Newsreader line, do you know what it means?
I wouldn't mind if someone wrote ActiveX for linux, or any other
loathsome thing including his setuid crock. I welcome every Free
Software (see www.gnu.org for the definition of free) project to
linux, no matter how dumb I may think it is. I don't welcome hoarders,
however. I actually have VOLUNTEERED to work on truly Free (and open)
EDIT-clone projects. It's a project with merits, we agree!
The fact that you and I would like to see a clone developed should
put you on MY side since you, I, and the rest of the people interested
in one can't get in and work on this one. He's a hoarder!
You lack the background on this particular cock-knocker, who wants
people to install setuid-root binaries that write directly to hardware
without showing them the sources, and further that he wants us to help
him with questions about writing to the lpt port though his work is
useless to us. He takes a particular pleasure in knowing that by
keeping the sources private his work may never be "perverted" into
something most people will find useful.
Get on DejaNews and read the history of his antics. I sincerely hope
you'll stop defending him at that point.
I would give you the benefit of the doubt, that you didn't know this
background, except that I detailed it in my previous message. If
you're going to defend his hoarder behavior, then I have no problem
lumping you in the "worthless peice of shit" category that I place
him.
And to Sam: What'sa matter Sammy, no ftp site will host your
hoardware? I woulda pegged you for the kind of luser who makes me fill
out some form with my name address and phone number to get your
binary. How will you ever be able to rant "yay, I have 39 people who
downloaded my editor now! ha!" Mom can't afford web space on worldnet
for you? What about your school account?
jim
Samuel Igwe
> Sam, I thought that creating a setuid root, no sources provided,
> writes direct to hardware editor would be the pinacle of your
> stupidity.
interesting!.
> You posted a Base64 encoded binary to this, a non-binary,
> group. And your cross-posted it to several more!
many of you had preconcieved notions regarding the security features and
possible usefulness of such an ascii text editor. I posted the initial
test release to locations where I thought my attackers would likely
visit.
It shall give them a chance to see for themselves, the path this program
is progressing in. In the future, perhaps they (yourself included) would
think before reaching false conclusions.
> I know that's hard to grasp, since your mom obviously pays for your
> worldlink account.
Dont be foolish!. I pay for my own account.
>You've mentioned being in school -- it's obviously
>a fantastic cs department if you need to dial up to worldnet.
The account is mine and not a service provided by the university.
> Tallying up Sam's fucking shit for brains points, we see:
>
> * Thinks he's smarter than hundreds of thousands of researchers
> and developers that have worked on the platform since before he
> born.
never have I claimed to be smarter than hundreds of thousands of
developers. This is another example of an imbecile reaching a false
conclusion. As a side note -Linux wasnt available prior to my birth.
> * Wants a free OS, a free compiler, a free editor that he used to >write
> the source for this peice of shit, and free help from a worldwide
> community of developers.
>In return he doesn't give a flying fuck if
> what he writes is useful to anyone but him, and actively blocks attempts
> to find something that can benefit the community at large in his work,
> by not releasing the sources and writing directly to hardware that he
> has.
In the future, I would advice you to curtail your use of curse words.
Anyone with half a mind should be able to complete an english sentence
without resorting to foul language.
Perhaps your IQ is a function of your shoe size.
I am under no obligation to release the source, as this program is an
original work and not a source hack of any current linux editor.
I never claimed to write an editor to benefit everyone. I am writing the
sort of editor I would like to see in linux and freebsd, with the hope
that others share a similar desire. I never claimed that this would be
successful, although I promise it will be useful to console users.
> * Posts with the mentality of a two year old, repeating phrases in all
> caps several times per message in succession, punctuated with that
> characteristic-of-all-worthless-fucks-on-usenet, the stream of
> exc-lame-ation points.
I apologize for posting in all caps. I did it out of anger. Beginning
with my initial post, was an onslaught of flames and attacks on USENET
and email.
Most of these people twisted my words and ideas around. In anger I
retaliated, by capitalizing often repeated sentences. It appeared some
of these posters where blind and could not read my initial posts
regarding the systems I am targetting.
In the future, I shall endeavor not to resort to such means. Only time
will tell.
> * Posts binaries to multiple non-binary newsgroups.
hrmm. I have already explained why this was done!. Let us close this
chapter.
> * Posts anything *about* the editor to groups where it's clearly >off-topic,
> like comp.os.linux.setup.
I would disagree. The editor may find use in such a situation.
> I hope that in 9 years when you've gone through puberty, are out of
> school, and are looking for a job, that your potential employer does a
> DejaNews profile of you. It may be the only good thing to come out of
> your feeble-minded presence on usenet. I can only hope that your
> fingers aren't let anywhere near code that anyone I care about may
> ever run.
Amusing, to say the least. If you must know I am 21 years of age. I have
gone and left puberty.
Such hostility. Hrmm. That is your business and not a concern of mine. I
just took the opportunity to show my attackers what I meanth by a near
clone of dos edit(6.0) for linux and freebsd, in the hopes it will
alleviate some of their fears of which security appears the prime most.
> Die.
As you do not possess the power over life and death, there is notting to
fear from your pathetic statement.
> jim
Anubis
--
Our os who art in cpu
Unix be thy name
Thy programs run
Thy syscalls done
In kernel as it is in user
Samuel Igwe
> And to Sam: What'sa matter Sammy, no ftp site will host your
> hoardware? I woulda pegged you for the kind of luser who makes me fill
> out some form with my name address and phone number to get your
> binary. How will you ever be able to rant "yay, I have 39 people who
> downloaded my editor now! ha!" Mom can't afford web space on worldnet
> for you? What about your school account?
>
> jim
hrmm. Actually, I needed the satisfaction I have gotten in knowing that
you are very upset and annoyed. I do have web space (though no desire
nor time to update it), but nevertheless chose this medium.
Your criticism continues to amuse me. I take consolation in the fact --
that there is notting you can about it!.
Good day
Samuel
Alexander Viro
In article <6g6rqj$b...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> * Thinks he's smarter than hundreds of thousands of researchers
>> and developers that have worked on the platform since before he
>> born.
>
>never have I claimed to be smarter than hundreds of thousands of
>developers. This is another example of an imbecile reaching a false
>conclusion. As a side note -Linux wasnt available prior to my birth.
>
1976. FYI: UNIX was available back than. And even earlier.
[snip]
>
>I am under no obligation to release the source, as this program is an
>original work and not a source hack of any current linux editor.
Yeah, right. Should I say "shareware" (aka bullshit by default)?
>> * Posts binaries to multiple non-binary newsgroups.
>
>hrmm. I have already explained why this was done!. Let us close this
>chapter.
Really? You wanted to piss off your opponents? Then I have to tell
you that you used pretty cheap trick.
>
>> * Posts anything *about* the editor to groups where it's clearly >off-topic,
>> like comp.os.linux.setup.
>
>I would disagree. The editor may find use in such a situation.
Oho! Slippety-slop... And somebody _may_ be interested in
making-money-fast, right? Watch your arguments, please.
[snip]
>I just took the opportunity to show my attackers what I meanth by a near
>clone of dos edit(6.0) for linux and freebsd, in the hopes it will
>alleviate some of their fears of which security appears the prime most.
Sorry, but your attempt failed. Why? That's pretty simple - first
concern about suid-root programs: possible buffer overruns. Second:
interaction with other parts of system. You didn't address any of those
problems in your posting. Sorry. You didn't mention those limitations of
your editor wrt networking and multitasking. As well as its interaction
with _any_ printing program. Not honest to your potential testers.
>
>> Die.
>
>As you do not possess the power over life and death, there is notting to
>fear from your pathetic statement.
>
>> jim
>
>Anubis
s/bi//
Sorry, couldn't resist. As for playing anal - do you really think that
your DOS experience is unique? Ha! Sam, dear, do you remember these nice
disassembling (and restoring C source) jokes? Lesse: 42K unstripped, 30K
stripped... BTW, do you realize that you left debug info in your binary?
See what I mean? And take into account that your binary is dynamically
linked. Thus all library calls are obvious. And no license around - so
it's perfectly legal (as if the contrary would stop _real_ DOS programmer,
right?) Plus all those nice tools - objdump, perl (hmm... what _else_ one
can ask for such job?) OK, now it's 3:42am here. I'm stuck in the middle
of debugging my own code and pretty bored. You pissed me off (not with
your arrogance - with your _lame_ arrogance). Hmm... Kinda wonder - how
large part of your code will I have tomorrow (heck, today) evening?
Cheers,
Al
PS: If you wonder why didn't I call you a lamer - a) it's obvious;
b) I'll do it when I'll post your code.
Richard Steiner
Here in alt.os.linux, samuel <SAM...@worldnet.att.net>
spake unto us, saying:
>--------------44831378560C6A3E8FA1
>Content-Type: application/x-gzip; name="Uedit_0.8.tar.gz"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Uedit_0.8.tar.gz"
While this was a smallish binary, it's generally considered much better
form to post a link to a web or ftp site. Particularly in non-binaries
newsgroups.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@skypoint.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 Warp 4 + Linux + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Byron A Jeff
Samuel,
This could be the greatest editor ever written, but there's absolutely no
chance that it'll ever be run on one of my machines. It's a binary only that
requires setuid root access? You're kidding right. That's nearly the definition
of a virus.
If it's freeware, release the source. Are get it to run without setuid
permission.
BAJ
--
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: by...@cc.gatech.edu
Jesse Weigert
James Hebert wrote:
> You're an idiot. Re-read my message. I said that it caused problems
> for people who pay money to suck their newsfeed across a metered link.
> For them, yes, they do have to download it. And for the, yeah, their
> link is busy downloading that instead of downloading posts. But,
> you've probably never heard of suck, leafnode, and the like.
>
> { Snip }
Do you see a "STOP" button on your news reader. Click it and find out
what happens. If you don't have one, then your newsreader sucks! And
also I believe that nettique says that you shouldn't scream at people who
don't know what the rules are. I think telling them nicely would be
sufficent.
--
-Jesse Weigert
jwei...@usa.net
http://mid.home.ml.org
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
-- Rich Kulawiec
Jesse Weigert
samuel wrote:
> The linux clone of the dos editor edit.com (qbasic ide) is nearly
> completed. Attached is a beta version of the program currently being
> tested. The display and input function similar to that of the dos
> editor. Former Dos users making a transition to linux will find the
> program useful for editing ascii text files.
>
> { Snip }
Cool program. You should try to get it to work without needing root
access. It becomes a HUGE security hole! From a regular user, I can _edit_
the passwd file. Delete the password field for root, and then do a su. Now
you have root access! Fun isn't it! It looks like it could become a really
nice editor. I don't know much about programming for linux, but I think you
should look in to slang or ncurses. If you can get it to work with that,
then it will probably run in a little xterm box too!
Also, make the entire filename Uedit lowercase. Linux is case sensitive, and
typing uedit doesn't work when the file is Uedit.
Keep up the good work! And please, release the sources! Place it under the
GNU free software license.
Roy Stogner
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 12:17:05 -0700, Jesse Weigert wrote:
>James Hebert wrote:
>
>> You're an idiot. Re-read my message. I said that it caused problems
>> for people who pay money to suck their newsfeed across a metered link.
>> For them, yes, they do have to download it. And for the, yeah, their
>> link is busy downloading that instead of downloading posts. But,
>> you've probably never heard of suck, leafnode, and the like.
>
>what happens.
Do you realize that Usenet posts get forwarded to hundreds of
thousands of computers automatically (this is, in fact, how Usenet
works), without someone wasting his time to individually monitor each
one?
>If you don't have one, then your newsreader sucks! And also I
>believe that nettique says that you shouldn't scream at people who
>don't know what the rules are. I think telling them nicely would be
>sufficent.
Go to DejaNews, do a search for our friend Sam, and see what you find
before you make any more incorrect assumptions. Sam has:
a) been around for quite some time; if he hasn't picked up any
netiquette it's through apathy or obstinancy, not ignorance.
b) admitted that he has web space, and that spamming Usenet is just
another way for him to piss people off.
---
Roy Stogner
Samuel Igwe
> Sorry, couldn't resist. As for playing anal - do you really think that
> your DOS experience is unique? Ha! Sam, dear, do you remember these nice
> disassembling (and restoring C source) jokes? Lesse: 42K unstripped, 30K
> stripped... BTW, do you realize that you left debug info in your binary?
> See what I mean? And take into account that your binary is dynamically
> linked. Thus all library calls are obvious. And no license around - so
> it's perfectly legal (as if the contrary would stop _real_ DOS programmer,
> right?) Plus all those nice tools - objdump, perl (hmm... what _else_ one
> can ask for such job?) OK, now it's 3:42am here. I'm stuck in the middle
> of debugging my own code and pretty bored. You pissed me off (not with
> your arrogance - with your _lame_ arrogance). Hmm... Kinda wonder - how
> large part of your code will I have tomorrow (heck, today) evening?
> Cheers,
granted, this is not dos but linux for which there are some tricks (make
that many) I have yet to learn). In dos any program can easily be
dissasembled given enough time ,patience and understanding. If the
protram is small enough this process proceeds even faster.
The only people who resort to such attempts are crackers and idiots who
can not develope nor duplicate the protgram on their own.
You make many assumptions about Uedit. That is your business. I am
fascinated that you have taken such an interest.
If you succeed -- I shall tip my hat to you. However if you fail, well
let us pray that you do not --for your own sake!!
Samuel
Frank Sweetser
Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> The only people who resort to such attempts are crackers and idiots who
> can not develope nor duplicate the protgram on their own.
and people who are concerned about running an app that the author
distributes via a news message (which might as well be anonymous),
encourages everyone to try out, won't release the source, and says it has
to be run setuid root.
last program that came close was the bliss 'virus'...
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.res.wpi.net RH 5.0 kernel 2.0.33/2.1.92p2 i586 | at public servers
Programming trees are written with the root at the top and the leaves at
the bottom. Common sense tells you this is upside down. In case you
haven't noticed, common sense has very little to do with programming.
_Practical C++ Programming_, p.369
Jesse Weigert
Brett Kosinski wrote:
>
>
> Um, I don't want to jump in here, but the previous fellow was right in that
> posting binaries in non-binary groups is *wrong*. The programs he mentioned
> - leafnode, suck, etc - are used for downloading news and setting up a local
> spool (then you don't need to be online 24/7... just download the mail at
> 2:00 in the morning). Now, when people mass-post binaries, all the people
> hosting local spools have to store these things. Moreover, with the binary
> cross-posted to many newsgroups, people with local spools may even have
> multiple copies of the binary on their HD. Now, granted, this is just one
> situation, but these are the reasons we have binary groups... so people can
> decide if they want binary postings eating up their server space. Please,
> don't assume everyone stays online and uses an NNTP newsreader, as this is
> quite often not the case.
>
> Brett.
Of course it's wrong! I didn't say it wasn't wrong. I just said that
you don't need to bite someone's head off if they do. Unless this guy
has done it many times before.
Brett Kosinski
Jesse Weigert <jwei...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
>James Hebert wrote:
>
>> You're an idiot. Re-read my message. I said that it caused problems
>> for people who pay money to suck their newsfeed across a metered link.
>> For them, yes, they do have to download it. And for the, yeah, their
>> link is busy downloading that instead of downloading posts. But,
>> you've probably never heard of suck, leafnode, and the like.
>>
>
> Do you see a "STOP" button on your news reader. Click it and find out
>also I believe that nettique says that you shouldn't scream at people who
>don't know what the rules are. I think telling them nicely would be
>sufficent.
Um, I don't want to jump in here, but the previous fellow was right in that
Samuel Igwe
Frank Sweetser wrote:
>
> and people who are concerned about running an app that the author
> distributes via a news message (which might as well be anonymous),
> encourages everyone to try out, won't release the source, and says it has
> to be run setuid root.
>
> last program that came close was the bliss 'virus'...
>
a few people on these newsgroups have tried the editor. I have recieved
some flames and a few praises. Why dont you just ask those who have had
an opportunity to run the program if its indeed a virus, or if it makes
any attempt to destroy or render their system(s) useless.
I believe the golden rule states "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto to you".
I would never knownling write code to cause destruction -- as I would
not want such done to me. Trust me when I tell you that I spent time
testing this test release prior to uploading it.
Chances are more than likely that I would not be uploading anymore. As I
stated before, I needed the opportunity to clear up a few misconceptions
regarding this project.
Samuel
SAM...@worldnet.att.net
--
The world is coming to an end, repent and return those library books!!!
Sani
Samuel Igwe wrote in message <6ga05r$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>not want such done to me. Trust me when I tell you that I spent time
Why should any one trust you
>Chances are more than likely that I would not be uploading anymore. As I
>stated before, I needed the opportunity to clear up a few misconceptions
>regarding this project.
Release the source code and your intentions / misconceptions will be clear!
Tarique
Alexander Viro
In article <6g982f$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, couldn't resist. As for playing anal - do you really think that
>> your DOS experience is unique? Ha! Sam, dear, do you remember these nice
>> disassembling (and restoring C source) jokes? Lesse: 42K unstripped, 30K
>> stripped... BTW, do you realize that you left debug info in your binary?
>> See what I mean? And take into account that your binary is dynamically
>> linked. Thus all library calls are obvious. And no license around - so
>> it's perfectly legal (as if the contrary would stop _real_ DOS programmer,
>> right?) Plus all those nice tools - objdump, perl (hmm... what _else_ one
>> can ask for such job?) OK, now it's 3:42am here. I'm stuck in the middle
>> of debugging my own code and pretty bored. You pissed me off (not with
>> your arrogance - with your _lame_ arrogance). Hmm... Kinda wonder - how
>> large part of your code will I have tomorrow (heck, today) evening?
>> Cheers,
>
>granted, this is not dos but linux for which there are some tricks (make
>that many) I have yet to learn). In dos any program can easily be
>dissasembled given enough time ,patience and understanding. If the
>protram is small enough this process proceeds even faster.
Learn Perl. And BTW, I didn't speak about pure disassembling -
what I'm going to reconstruct is C source. Assembler variant wasn't a
problem - I have it right now (i.e. with names of variables/functions
instead of addresses, commands separated from data (a-la in dense switch),
no extra labels, etc.) It's readable, but that's not what I want.
>
>The only people who resort to such attempts are crackers and idiots who
>can not develope nor duplicate the protgram on their own.
Oh, really? No thanks. I don't want to steal your code - if you
want I can send you a DOS editor/IDE (in C, written in '91-93 (mainly),
clone of old Borland ones (like in TC-2.0 and TP-5.0)). Written from
scratch, BTW. Two authors - I and Serge Ivanov. GPL'ed. Easy to extend
(hint: make your func_uedit_menu() data-driven. And separate levels
clearly. Depth of nested switches and whiles shouldn't reach 4, damnit!)
As for "resorting to such attempts" - what did you want? You
admitted that you wanted to piss us off. Well, you did it. Now have the
guts to face the consequences. I have a development work, don't worry
about that. But I can put it aside for several days to deal with you and
your arrogance.
>
>You make many assumptions about Uedit. That is your business. I am
>fascinated that you have taken such an interest.
I'm happy. Now, please sort out the following: a) in the first
switch in func_uedit_menu() case 0x9B is unreachable (c&0x7f can't be
0x9f); b) in func_select_file_from_directory() you managed to produce the
mess that I can't reproduce (i.e. can't force the compiler to produce such
code) right after the read() (there's only one call). You produced the
the following:
%eax=read(0,&c,1);
if (%eax<=0) goto l1;
%al=c;
if (!(%al&0x80)) goto l2;
l1: %eax=0;
l2: switch(%al) {
...
case 0xc7:
...
case 0xcf:
...
Notice that these cases are unreachable. BTW, how did you manage to force
poor compiler to produce _that_ mix of chars and ints?
>
>If you succeed -- I shall tip my hat to you. However if you fail, well
>let us pray that you do not --for your own sake!!
I'm scared shitless. Current status: as I already said I have a
complete assembler variant (more or less the same as the output of gcc -S)
_and_ I reconstructed your structures. From that point the work is pretty
straightforward. I have the C for main(), func_uedit_menu(),
func_file_submenu(), func_file_select_from_directory(). BTW, that's the
largest functions there. For the last one I can't reproduce one point (see
above). Other are OK. Plus I reconstructed func_get_asciicode() and
func_get_scancode(). Enough for tonight - I spent last 3 hours trying to
screw gcc up (see above). I think I'll finish the thing tomorrow.
Comments: I don't understand WTF did you raise such cry about
the sources. What's the point? OK, you keep the buffer as double-linked
list of lines, 256 bytes each. Hardly a new idea. BTW, it makes loading of
large files pretty painful. Then, horizontal scrolling is realized in
pretty harsh way. Plus lots of hardwired values - width of the screen, for
one. Menu system isn't flexible. Keyboard input - barf. Sorry, but you
didn't need the raw input for _that_. Then, your editor isn't 8bit clean -
see the main loop for details. Damnit, gather all keyborad input into one
function, make some kind of queue and produce the _integer_ values for the
control keys instead of mapping them onto high half of ASCII. US != Earth.
Overall: brute force and ignorance par excellence. It's not that bad by
itself, but considering the level of flame that you generated in c.o.l.d.a
I expected something waay more interesting.
OK, more on that when I'll have the rest of sources. Right now
I'm going to sleep a bit.
Bye,
Al
James Hebert
Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> I would never knownling write code to cause destruction -- as I would
> not want such done to me. Trust me when I tell you that I spent time
> testing this test release prior to uploading it.
>
> Chances are more than likely that I would not be uploading anymore. As I
> stated before, I needed the opportunity to clear up a few misconceptions
> regarding this project.
OTOH you have previously expressed the opinion that you feel no
responsibily, nor remorse, if your software hurts someone who didn't
read the docs. You have said something like "they deserve what they
get." (Well, I think it actually had something to do with hellfire and
damnation raining down upon them. You took a particular pleasure in
detailing it, as I recall. Lotsa caps and eclamation marks involved
too, but we know to expect that by now.)
So, misconceptions aside, you're a pretty ignorant, arrogant, and
callous guy. The misconception you cleared up is that for people who
missed the earlier thread, they now know what a cock you are. You've
already said you posted it to piss people off; nice try putting
another spin on it now.
As far as testing it before you released it, how did you miss the
ability to edit the password file (as someone has posted here)? I
thought you said you give up root in a hurry...
Jim
who doesn't test software for hoarders who don't give a shit if its
useful to others
mumford
A while ago, Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> barfed:
>> Sam, I thought that creating a setuid root, no sources provided,
>> writes direct to hardware editor would be the pinacle of your
>> stupidity.
>
>interesting!.
While I do not agree with his language, I agree with his sentiment. Write
your editor, just keep it to yourself, no one else (who has any interest in
security) is interested.
>> You posted a Base64 encoded binary to this, a non-binary,
>> group. And your cross-posted it to several more!
>
>many of you had preconcieved notions regarding the security features and
>possible usefulness of such an ascii text editor. I posted the initial
>test release to locations where I thought my attackers would likely
>visit.
Let's examine this statement. He accuses us of having preconcieved notions
of the insecurity of this program, but refuses to release the source (as is
the standard in the free Un*x world).
You're the one with the misconceptions of security.
A warning to the Lurkers: If you are even the *slightest* bit concerned
with the security of your Linux system, do not run this editor. It does
not come with source (and therefore can not be checked for secuirty by
the Linux community at large), requires root privileges (and therefore
can completely hose your system, either by accident or by design), and
disables useful multitasking on your system (multiple tasks can still
run while the editor is going, but you can't switch to another console
and start a new task). This editor is the polar opposite of what people
consider an even poorly secure program should be.
>It shall give them a chance to see for themselves, the path this program
>is progressing in. In the future, perhaps they (yourself included) would
>think before reaching false conclusions.
No one wants to see for themselves. No one cares. You're wasting USENET
resources against USENET posted rules (no binaries in a non-binary group).
Visit the news.* groups if you need a refresher.
>> I know that's hard to grasp, since your mom obviously pays for your
>> worldlink account.
>
>Dont be foolish!. I pay for my own account.
You don't pay for mine.
>>You've mentioned being in school -- it's obviously
>>a fantastic cs department if you need to dial up to worldnet.
>
>The account is mine and not a service provided by the university.
A university would cancel your account for this (no kidding, I worked at a
university where the higher-ups would have me either term or suspend an
account for crap like posting binaries to a non-binary group).
>> Tallying up Sam's fucking shit for brains points, we see:
>>
>> * Thinks he's smarter than hundreds of thousands of researchers
>> and developers that have worked on the platform since before he
>> born.
>
>never have I claimed to be smarter than hundreds of thousands of
>developers. This is another example of an imbecile reaching a false
>conclusion. As a side note -Linux wasnt available prior to my birth.
No, but Unix was... well before your birth. And even then, the people
writing for Unix were smart enough to a) write it in a portable language,
b) write it in a method that does not require excessive privileges to
accomplish a simple feat, c) write it in a manner that does not turn
the multi-tasking system they tried so hard to create into a uni-tasking
system of a decade ago, d) not be closed minded.
>> * Wants a free OS, a free compiler, a free editor that he used to >write
>> the source for this peice of shit, and free help from a worldwide
>> community of developers.
>>In return he doesn't give a flying fuck if
>> what he writes is useful to anyone but him, and actively blocks attempts
>> to find something that can benefit the community at large in his work,
>> by not releasing the sources and writing directly to hardware that he
>> has.
>
>In the future, I would advice you to curtail your use of curse words.
>Anyone with half a mind should be able to complete an english sentence
>without resorting to foul language.
Your statement only demonstrates that even the "half a mind" require-
ment is not necessary.
>Perhaps your IQ is a function of your shoe size.
That's taking the moral high-ground.
>I am under no obligation to release the source, as this program is an
>original work and not a source hack of any current linux editor.
Please, do us all a favor and not release the binaries, either.
>I never claimed to write an editor to benefit everyone. I am writing the
>sort of editor I would like to see in linux and freebsd, with the hope
>that others share a similar desire. I never claimed that this would be
>successful, although I promise it will be useful to console users.
You are writing an editor for the benefit of you alone. No one else will
find this editor useful. Some may tinker with it for a few days, but when
they find they aren't able to switch consoles or print or do any *work*
while leaving the editor open (as developers love to do) they'll switch
to something useful.
It will never go out with any distribution, since distributions usually pay
attention to security issues in USENET, or require the source to evaluate
security issues themselves, or a trusted entintity (Netscape) for binary-only.
>> * Posts with the mentality of a two year old, repeating phrases in all
>> caps several times per message in succession, punctuated with that
>> characteristic-of-all-worthless-fucks-on-usenet, the stream of
>> exc-lame-ation points.
>
>I apologize for posting in all caps. I did it out of anger. Beginning
>with my initial post, was an onslaught of flames and attacks on USENET
>and email.
Then perhaps you should take all of this onslaught as a hint.
>Most of these people twisted my words and ideas around. In anger I
>retaliated, by capitalizing often repeated sentences. It appeared some
>of these posters where blind and could not read my initial posts
>regarding the systems I am targetting.
Twisted words and ideas around? Lemme see if I have a twisted idea of
what you're doing:
Writing an editor that will only be useful to the linux x86 community.
Not to the sparc/alpha/m68k/!(x86) linux community, not to the *BSD
community, not to the Solaris/SunOS community, not to the HP-UX, DG/UX
or Unixware communities. not to any community except your own computer.
Writing an editor that requires excessive privileges unlike every other
editor I've ever used.
Writing an editor that completely locks the user out form multitasking
(cannot switch consoles). Again, unlike every other editor I've ever
used.
Writing an editor that is extremely hardware dependant.
Chalking all of this up to 'fast'... so what, your editor is fast? It's
like having an Indy car in a parking lot full of speed bumps. Sure you
can get the engine up to 15,000+ RPM, but you'll still only being going
5mph for reasons that are well beyond your control... unless you make
your editor part of the kernel (hey, go ahead, we still won't use it).
You have it in your head that we are twisted for thinking you're wasting
your time (and ours). You are just wrong, and this is not a matter of
opinion. You are the twisted one. Go back and read all the documentation
you can regarding the free software standard that GNU and Linux strive
for. You'll find that you are twisted, either in your execution in
bringing software to the Linux community, or in your conception that
such software should even belong in the Linux community (instead of
a commercial Unix community--even they would probabl shun it, however).
>In the future, I shall endeavor not to resort to such means. Only time
>will tell.
Take it one step further: in the future, don't post.
>> * Posts binaries to multiple non-binary newsgroups.
>
>hrmm. I have already explained why this was done!. Let us close this
>chapter.
No one cares why you've done it. Until you pay for my network connections,
don't do it again.
>> * Posts anything *about* the editor to groups where it's clearly >off-topic,
>> like comp.os.linux.setup.
>
>I would disagree. The editor may find use in such a situation.
No, comp.os.linux.setup is for configuring/building linux systems. Comments
about your editor, if it belongs anywhere, belongs in c.o.l.development.* and
possibly c.o.l.misc. Binaries of your editor belong in /dev/null
>> I hope that in 9 years when you've gone through puberty, are out of
>> school, and are looking for a job, that your potential employer does a
>> DejaNews profile of you. It may be the only good thing to come out of
>> your feeble-minded presence on usenet. I can only hope that your
>> fingers aren't let anywhere near code that anyone I care about may
>> ever run.
>
>Amusing, to say the least. If you must know I am 21 years of age. I have
>gone and left puberty.
21 years old? You should have grown out of your selfish "I'll-write-it-
the-way-I-want-and-expect-everyone-to-use-it-and-announce-it-any-damn-way-
I-see-fit-because-the-universe-revolves-around-my-anus" phase 5 years ago
when you stopped lookin for warez and calling us 1am3rz, d00d.
>Such hostility. Hrmm. That is your business and not a concern of mine. I
>just took the opportunity to show my attackers what I meanth by a near
>clone of dos edit(6.0) for linux and freebsd, in the hopes it will
>alleviate some of their fears of which security appears the prime most.
Such hostility only comes about because you won't respond to reasonable
argument with anything but closed-mindedness.
>> Die.
>
>As you do not possess the power over life and death, there is notting to
>fear from your pathetic statement.
Except that you might post again.
--
Glenn Lamb - mum...@netcom.com. Finger for my PGP Key.
Email to me must have my address in either the To: or Cc: field. All other
mail will be bounced automatically as spam.
PGPprint = E3 0F DE CC 94 72 D1 1A 2D 2E A9 08 6B A0 CD 82
mumford
A while ago, Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> begot:
>
>> Sorry, couldn't resist. As for playing anal - do you really think that
>> your DOS experience is unique? Ha! Sam, dear, do you remember these nice
>> disassembling (and restoring C source) jokes? Lesse: 42K unstripped, 30K
>> stripped... BTW, do you realize that you left debug info in your binary?
>> See what I mean? And take into account that your binary is dynamically
>> linked. Thus all library calls are obvious. And no license around - so
>> it's perfectly legal (as if the contrary would stop _real_ DOS programmer,
>> right?) Plus all those nice tools - objdump, perl (hmm... what _else_ one
>> can ask for such job?) OK, now it's 3:42am here. I'm stuck in the middle
>> of debugging my own code and pretty bored. You pissed me off (not with
>> your arrogance - with your _lame_ arrogance). Hmm... Kinda wonder - how
>> large part of your code will I have tomorrow (heck, today) evening?
>> Cheers,
>
>granted, this is not dos but linux for which there are some tricks (make
>that many) I have yet to learn). In dos any program can easily be
>dissasembled given enough time ,patience and understanding. If the
>protram is small enough this process proceeds even faster.
Some tricks? yeah, like not writing for DOS under Linux.
>The only people who resort to such attempts are crackers and idiots who
>can not develope nor duplicate the protgram on their own.
Or people who are tired of you and trying to shut you up.
>You make many assumptions about Uedit. That is your business. I am
>fascinated that you have taken such an interest.
Excellent.. I see you decided to name your editor after what I called it
a month or two ago... the Useless Editor!
Dave Pearson
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 03:15:52 +0000, Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> hrmm. Actually, I needed the satisfaction I have gotten in knowing that
> you are very upset and annoyed. I do have web space (though no desire nor
> time to update it), but nevertheless chose this medium.
You think it is fine to abuse people's net connections just so you can feel
some bizarre form of satisfaction? Why?
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
Free software, including........| dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Dave Pearson
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 03:08:20 +0000, Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > You posted a Base64 encoded binary to this, a non-binary, group. And
> > your cross-posted it to several more!
>
> many of you had preconcieved notions regarding the security features and
> possible usefulness of such an ascii text editor. I posted the initial
> test release to locations where I thought my attackers would likely visit.
Without the source code, how is anyone supposed to check any of this? Why
don't you do what most other people who add to the pool of Linux (to be
"context sensitive", obviously, most of the software people run on Linux
isn't "Linux software", the same can't be said for your offering) and make a
release, with LSM and all, to someplace like sunsite, ensuring that you
include the source so people can build it on their own and can contribute
any changes back to you?
> never have I claimed to be smarter than hundreds of thousands of
> developers.
I'd suggest that this comes close:
"In an attempt to maintain portability (an often overhyped concept)"
This would be the same "overhyped concept" that gave you all the tools you
used to make your editor. Would you prefer that they'd thought it was
"overhyped"?
> This is another example of an imbecile reaching a false conclusion.
And what would you say about the conclusion that portability is a "overhyped
concept"?
> I never claimed to write an editor to benefit everyone. I am writing the
> sort of editor I would like to see in linux and freebsd, with the hope
> that others share a similar desire. I never claimed that this would be
> successful, although I promise it will be useful to console users.
That would be console users who don't want to use the console to full
benefit?
> Such hostility. Hrmm. That is your business and not a concern of mine. I
> just took the opportunity to show my attackers what I meanth by a near
> clone of dos edit(6.0) for linux and freebsd, in the hopes it will
> alleviate some of their fears of which security appears the prime most.
But you didn't do that did you? The very method and form in which you chose
to release your work is, in itself, a security risk to start with. Hardly a
very credible start is it?
Dave Pearson
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 12:17:05 -0700, Jesse Weigert <jwei...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
> Do you see a "STOP" button on your news reader. Click it and find out
> what happens. If you don't have one, then your newsreader sucks!
Err, some people use news readers to read news, not web browsers. The above
statement makes me think you don't know much about how usenet postings make
it to yours and other peoples machines.
Dave Pearson
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 19:49:37 -0400, Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> granted, this is not dos but linux for which there are some tricks (make
> that many) I have yet to learn). In dos any program can easily be
> dissasembled given enough time ,patience and understanding. If the protram
> is small enough this process proceeds even faster.
>
> The only people who resort to such attempts are crackers and idiots who
> can not develope nor duplicate the protgram on their own.
You release an editor, without source code, that requires root privs, via
usenet, in the hope that people can see it isn't a security risk. Then, when
someone attempts to check this assertion, you insult them?
What on Earth are you on?
Andy Jefferson
Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Chances are more than likely that I would not be uploading anymore.
Hallelujah ...
Perhaps try posting a *message* to comp.os.linux.announce next time if you
really want to be taken seriously. It allows people to download your binary
when and if *they* want to, rather than throwing your binary in their face.
--
Andy Jefferson
gippah
James Hebert wrote:
> As far as testing it before you released it, how did you miss the
> ability to edit the password file (as someone has posted here)? I
> thought you said you give up root in a hurry...
His editor is made for a single-user, single-task system. That's why it
wont work with anything else, and that's why it's wide open as far as
security goes. That's why he keeps saying "dos" all the time, I guess.
Basically he's a total idiot.
--
----
Remove your finger from my email address to send me a message.
Adam Stouffer
Dave Pearson wrote:
>
>
> You think it is fine to abuse people's net connections just so you can feel
> some bizarre form of satisfaction? Why?
>
I think its kinda funny. Download pc-anywhere and tell it to scan for
hosts, its amazing how many people dont use passwords.
Adam
--
_________________________
|
|
| Remove the NO-SPAM |
|
|
_________________________
Adam Stouffer
Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 12:17:05 -0700, Jesse Weigert <jwei...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
>
> > Do you see a "STOP" button on your news reader. Click it and find out
> > what happens. If you don't have one, then your newsreader sucks!
>
> Err, some people use news readers to read news, not web browsers. The above
> statement makes me think you don't know much about how usenet postings make
> it to yours and other peoples machines.
>
You still usin pine or something?
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "S" == Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
S> Why dont you just ask those
S> who have had an opportunity to run the program if its indeed a
S> virus, or if it makes any attempt to destroy or render their
S> system(s) useless.
Because it could be waiting for the next Friday the 13th, or
something. Please, go read a book or something.
S> I believe the golden rule states "Do unto others as you would have
S> them do unto to you".
And since you emailed me unsolicited binaries, you're telling me I can
email you unsolicited binaries? Looks like it's time for me to
compile Khoros....
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
You never learn anything by doing it right.
Michael D. Brown
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Adam Stouffer wrote:
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 12:17:05 -0700, Jesse Weigert <jwei...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you see a "STOP" button on your news reader. Click it and find out
> > > what happens. If you don't have one, then your newsreader sucks!
> >
> > Err, some people use news readers to read news, not web browsers. The above
> > statement makes me think you don't know much about how usenet postings make
> > it to yours and other peoples machines.
> >
>
> You still usin pine or something?
>
Well yes actually I am...sorry Netscape is not usable on a text only
terminal (which is what I have to use when I'm not at my computer).
David E. Fox
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998, Jesse Weigert wrote:
>Of course it's wrong! I didn't say it wasn't wrong. I just said that
>you don't need to bite someone's head off if they do. Unless this guy
>has done it many times before.
Especially since the original posting (binary) was only 464 lines. That's not
very much, compared to a lot of the large binaries that get posted in other
groups.
>--
>-Jesse Weigert
> jwei...@usa.net
> http://mid.home.ml.org
> Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
> -- Rich Kulawiec
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Fox Tax Thanks for letting me
df...@belvdere.vip.best.com the change magnetic patterns
ro...@belvedere.sbay.org churches on your hard disk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith M. Lucas
In article <3527D8B1...@nospam.usa.net>,
Jesse Weigert <jwei...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
>James Hebert wrote:
>
>> You're an idiot. Re-read my message. I said that it caused problems
>> for people who pay money to suck their newsfeed across a metered link.
>> For them, yes, they do have to download it. And for the, yeah, their
>> link is busy downloading that instead of downloading posts. But,
>> you've probably never heard of suck, leafnode, and the like.
>>
>> { Snip }
>
>what happens.
So you're volunteering to spend the night sat at my news box watching
incoming articles and nuking all the ones posted by idiots are you ?
Because I'm asleep when the cheap phone call time that I use is
available.
>If you don't have one, then your newsreader sucks!
What newsreader ? -- Please learn about the differences between
newsserver software and newsreader software before making comments
like this.
>And
>also I believe that nettique says that you shouldn't scream at people who
>don't know what the rules are.
It also says that people who don't know what the rules are should not
post until they do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sillywizATexcessionDOTdemonDOTcoDOTuk"It's not a personality..it's a bulldozer"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
assassinate president plutonium nuclear amnesty international airliner heroin
-------------------------- Include triggers, make life hard for the spooks. ---
Jon Plews
Adam Stouffer <te...@NO-SPAM.sgi.net> wrote in article
<352961...@NO-SPAM.sgi.net>...
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 12:17:05 -0700, Jesse Weigert
<jwei...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you see a "STOP" button on your news reader. Click it and
find out
> > > what happens. If you don't have one, then your newsreader sucks!
> >
> > Err, some people use news readers to read news, not web browsers.
The above
> > statement makes me think you don't know much about how usenet
postings make
> > it to yours and other peoples machines.
> >
>
> You still usin pine or something?
>
It really doesn't matter what he's using. The point is there are more
ways of retreiving and viewing news than the '"STOP" button' poster
realises.
Jon.
Dave Pearson
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 23:06:16 GMT, Adam Stouffer <te...@NO-SPAM.sgi.net> wrote:
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 12:17:05 -0700, Jesse Weigert <jwei...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you see a "STOP" button on your news reader. Click it and find out
> > > what happens. If you don't have one, then your newsreader sucks!
> >
> > Err, some people use news readers to read news, not web browsers. The above
> > statement makes me think you don't know much about how usenet postings make
> > it to yours and other peoples machines.
>
> You still usin pine or something?
Never used pine in my life. However, that isn't the point (not that I can
see your point). No matter what news reader you use, no matter if it has a
stop "button" or not, any given posting has to have made it onto the news
server you are connected to. In my case (and, I assume, many peoples cases)
the news server I read news off of is also my own machine. To save on phone
costs I only take groups I want to read and non of them are binary groups.
royj...@hotmail.com
In article <6g6rqj$b...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I never claimed to write an editor to benefit everyone. I am writing the
> sort of editor I would like to see in linux and freebsd, with the hope
> that others share a similar desire. I never claimed that this would be
> successful, although I promise it will be useful to console users.
I think you've written an editor of very limited usefulness because of the
fact that when I run the editor I am limited to a single console session where
the editor is running and no ability to do anything else, except possibly
print something.
When I am writing a program, I tend to have many open sessions at the same
time. I have a session to edit the specific file I am making changes to, as
well as sessions open to look at compiler error messages, other source files
that I am changing at the same time, running the program, etc, etc.
Your program prevents me from doing this without printing everything out to
paper, which I consider wasteful.
You have written this editor to use standard vga modes, which is fine as far
as it being able to run on any of the commonly available Intel PCs, but you
limit the screen to 24 or 25 lines of text by doing this (maybe 43 lines if
that's a standard VGA mode). I run editor sessions with 60 or more lines on a
screen, running in X with resolutions like 1280x1024 or 1200x1600 so that I
can see more of the source files at one time.
I cannot do this with an editor that is limited to standard VGA mode.
Many years ago, I worked on mainframe systems wehere I was limited to a
single session, unless I had multiple userids on the system. I also used DOS
which limited me to a single session. Now that I have used multiple sessions,
I would never go back to a system that only allowed a single active session.
Even Microsoft doesn't limit you to a single session in any of their current
operating systems.
I use vi and emacs, which are both capable of running in console sessions.
They do not lock the console so I can only run the editor in a single session,
and they do not require setuid root capabilities. Your editor, which does only
a fraction of what these editors are capable of should not require being
setuid root either. There are just too many opportunities on a multiuser
system for someone to abuse a setuid program. Reputable commercial vendors do
not arbitrarily make setuid root programs for just this reason.
I have no problem with an editor that is a dos editor clone, just one that
tries to limit how I use my system for arbitrary reasons.
Roy
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Samuel Igwe
> > hrmm. Actually, I needed the satisfaction I have gotten in knowing that
> > you are very upset and annoyed. I do have web space (though no desire nor
> > time to update it), but nevertheless chose this medium.
>
> some bizarre form of satisfaction? Why?
The answer to that is an emphatic No!. I simply dealth with the author
(of that original post) in the way he was dealing with me.
Re-read his post (after filtering out the myriads of foul words he has
chosen) and you will understand why I chose that reply.
Stop this foolish attempt to control the net, it does not belong to you,
further more my post is definitely small in comparison to some of the
filth that is placed on newsgroups like these on many occasions.
Its likely that this is the last time such at thing will be done,
nonetheless I feel no guilt in having done it. Reread my original post
on why I chose this medium.
Samuel
Dave Pearson
[If you are going to CC: a posting via email please mark the email as a CC]
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 10:04:06 +0000, Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > hrmm. Actually, I needed the satisfaction I have gotten in knowing
> > > that you are very upset and annoyed. I do have web space (though no
> > > desire nor time to update it), but nevertheless chose this medium.
> >
> > You think it is fine to abuse people's net connections just so you can
> > feel some bizarre form of satisfaction? Why?
>
> The answer to that is an emphatic No!. I simply dealth with the author (of
> that original post) in the way he was dealing with me.
Eh? You started the thread by cross posting a binary file to a number of
non-binary discussion groups. You stated (above) that you did this because
you "needed the satisfaction" of "knowing that you (one poster) are very
upset and annoyed". So, you saw fit to abuse Usenet just so you could at one
person.
Do you honestly think this is rational behavior?
> Re-read his post (after filtering out the myriads of foul words he has
> chosen) and you will understand why I chose that reply.
Your Usenet abuse wasn't a reply, it was the initial posting of a
binary. Keep up.
> Stop this foolish attempt to control the net, it does not belong to you,
The standard cry of someone who has abused Usenet. Given that the groups in
question are explicitly non-binary, ask yourself this, who is *really*
trying to "control the net"? The people who point out your error or the
person who makes a binary post, claiming that they did it to get at one
person (in response to a post that person had yet to make).
> further more my post is definitely small in comparison to some of the
> filth that is placed on newsgroups like these on many occasions.
Another standard cry of someone who abuses Usenet.
> Its likely that this is the last time such at thing will be done,
I'd hope so. You might also want to check the AUP of your ISP, many ISPs
will disable your account for posting binary files to a non-binary group.
> nonetheless I feel no guilt in having done it. Reread my original post on
> why I chose this medium.
Even if you'd given something close to a good reason (which you didn't) it
would not change anything. Binary files do not belong in a non-binary Usenet
group. Posting the binary of an application that disables the functionality
of the OS's interface, without source, which requires root access, in the
hope that people will see that the application is secure is just out and out
lunacy.
mumford
>> > you are very upset and annoyed. I do have web space (though no desire nor
>> > time to update it), but nevertheless chose this medium.
>>
>> You think it is fine to abuse people's net connections just so you can feel
>> some bizarre form of satisfaction? Why?
>
>The answer to that is an emphatic No!. I simply dealth with the author
>(of that original post) in the way he was dealing with me.
>
>chosen) and you will understand why I chose that reply.
>
>
>filth that is placed on newsgroups like these on many occasions.
Excuse me, you don't control the net either. There is, however, a posted
set of rules that have been agreed upon by those who do control USENET.
Be sure to read them before you open your mouth (and insert your foot)
again. If you break the rules, expect to be flamed.
James Youngman
>>>>> "David" == David E Fox <df...@belvedere.sbay.org> writes:
David> Especially since the original posting (binary) was only 464
David> lines. That's not very much, compared to a lot of the large
David> binaries that get posted in other groups.
Yes but there are many people like myself who pay per second for their
(offline) newsfeed who deliberately and by choice subscribe only to a
limited set of newsgroups, specifically not getting a feed of the
binaries newsgroups for reasons of limited funds.
That's why there are newsgroups where binaries should not be posted.
Equally of course, there are those where they are welcome and some
where *only* binaries are welcome.
Followups redirected to avoid more bandwidth wastage.
James Youngman
>>>>> "Samuel" == Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Samuel> Stop this foolish attempt to control the net, it does not
Samuel> belong to you, further more my post is definitely small in
Samuel> comparison to some of the filth that is placed on newsgroups
Samuel> like these on many occasions.
Yes, and those posts, like yours, are contrary to the Usenet
Netiquette guidelines. Please review them.
Joe Pfeiffer
Jesse Weigert <jwei...@nospam.usa.net> writes:
>
> Cool program. You should try to get it to work without needing root
> access. It becomes a HUGE security hole! From a regular user, I can _edit_
> the passwd file. Delete the password field for root, and then do a su. Now
> you have root access! Fun isn't it! It looks like it could become a really
> nice editor. I don't know much about programming for linux, but I think you
> should look in to slang or ncurses. If you can get it to work with that,
> then it will probably run in a little xterm box too!
>
> Keep up the good work! And please, release the sources! Place it under the
> GNU free software license.
I'd say you either came in very late on this ``discussion,'' or you
have one of the most finely honed, subtle senses of humor I've ever
come across.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Shankar Unni
sam wrote:
> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
> of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
Sam, you dingbat, the problem is not with the idea of an editor that
looks like EDIT.COM, it's with the idea of an editor that goes way out
of its way to be stupid and dangerous on a multiuser system.
(Like running as root, grabbing control of the console, and doing other
nonsensical things that do *NOTHING* for your efficiency, and basically
plant a big bomb on your system with a big red button that says "PUSH
ME".)
Do your editor so that it uses some standard curses-like package, and
the world will thank you. Honestly.
Hell, you can be extra unfriendly if you want and simply have it put out
ANSI escape sequences directly to move around on the screen, and part of
the world will still thank you, since ANSI terminal emulators are
readily available.
But don't make an SUID program that screws around with the console..
--
Shankar Unni sha...@cup.hp.com
HP Performance Delivery Lab (ex-CLL) +1 (408) 447-2851
Dave Sracic
sam wrote:
> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
> of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
Because vi is more powerful, faster, doesn't need root access, and is
ported to virtually every unix system under the sun.
> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
> long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
> (console programs mostly).
Damn you have been brainwashed by gates. Does the phrase "exponential
growth" mean anything to you? Linux not sticking around on i386...
yeah... that's about as accurate as the guy that said air travel isn't
practicle and that xrays are a hoax...
If you don't like using this incredibly useless OS, go back to your MAC,
and stop posting your binarys!
> The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
> thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to mind. Honestly I cannot
> fathom the use this.
>
> I would appreciate someone (without criticism or foul language)
> ----------------------------------
> explaining the above uses of terminal emulations etc etc.
Ever heard of Telnet?
> This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my
> idea of how programs and the underlying os should interact. I have never
> felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the
> os and interact with the hardware.
THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO FOR SOMETHING LIKE A TEXT EDITOR!
It's done that way intentionally so 2bit hacks like yourself can't go
around and screw up your system! Source is freely available (on decent
apps that is...) so you can see how to access hardware if you want.
Therefor, you're not limited by a thing - other than your own
creativity... or in your case, stupidity.
> I give you my word, Once I am able to set aside the time(and once I have
> learned/discovered the underlying secrets of linux/freebsd) I promise
> you that if necessary I will attempt to reengineer the code to conform
> to my wishes-- if that is at all possible.
Oh, so you're going to conform to your wishes. That's a comfort. Kind
of like an enema with a 9 iron I imagine.
> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
> wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> one console -- a single display in front of the individual.
Why would you want to take a step back 10 years?!?
> The concept
> of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> processor running in protected mode. gone would be useless terminal
> emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted access
> to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
> think of.
Ah, now I see the light. The future is a bright, shiny, non-networked
computer that allows 1 user to do 1 thing at a time, and is buggy as all
hell because any schmuck can access the hardware - root or not. Can we
say Dos 2.0? Apple 2E? Hell, Atari 2600?
> A few others on IRC are actually discussing the above idea. I just
> wonder if its at all plausible.
Sure, but nobody's ever going to waste time trying!
> well
> Thanks for your time all the same!
>
> Samuel
>
> Our os who arth in Cpu
> Unix be thy name
> thy programs run
> thy syscalls done
> in kernel as it is in user!
> Amen
That's lame.
Karl Garrison
Shankar Unni wrote:
>
> sam wrote:
>
> > why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
> > of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
>
> looks like EDIT.COM, it's with the idea of an editor that goes way out
> of its way to be stupid and dangerous on a multiuser system.
>
> (Like running as root, grabbing control of the console, and doing other
> nonsensical things that do *NOTHING* for your efficiency, and basically
> plant a big bomb on your system with a big red button that says "PUSH
> ME".)
>
> Do your editor so that it uses some standard curses-like package, and
> the world will thank you. Honestly.
>
> Hell, you can be extra unfriendly if you want and simply have it put out
> ANSI escape sequences directly to move around on the screen, and part of
> the world will still thank you, since ANSI terminal emulators are
> readily available.
>
> But don't make an SUID program that screws around with the console..
Another possibility for programmers who are used to DOS development
would be libconio ... which emulates (via ncurses) all the functions in
the conio.h header file found on DOS compilers, like text colors, cursor
positioning, text "windows" and the like. It's on Sunsite.
--
Karl Garrison
kar...@eznet.net
mat...@mattshouse.com
OK, guys, let's knock it off.
Samuel, you seem a reasonable man. I assume that you have learned something
from this experience. There is an certain etiquette involved with posting to
these groups. I'm sorry that you had to learn it the hard way. Worse still
was the cross-posting.
Jim, you are no better. You assumed that Samuel was very young, yet you used
foul and disgusting language on several occassions. Perhaps you should read
the part of your post that dealt with prospective employers scanning USENET.
You come off as psychotic and prone to tantrems.
Let's move on.
Matthew
In article <6g6rqj$b...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Samuel Igwe <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Sam, I thought that creating a setuid root, no sources provided,
> > writes direct to hardware editor would be the pinacle of your
> > stupidity.
>
> interesting!.
>
> > You posted a Base64 encoded binary to this, a non-binary,
> > group. And your cross-posted it to several more!
>
> many of you had preconcieved notions regarding the security features and
> possible usefulness of such an ascii text editor. I posted the initial
> test release to locations where I thought my attackers would likely
> visit.
>
> It shall give them a chance to see for themselves, the path this program
> is progressing in. In the future, perhaps they (yourself included) would
> think before reaching false conclusions.
>
> > I know that's hard to grasp, since your mom obviously pays for your
> > worldlink account.
>
> Dont be foolish!. I pay for my own account.
>
> >You've mentioned being in school -- it's obviously
> >a fantastic cs department if you need to dial up to worldnet.
>
> The account is mine and not a service provided by the university.
>
> > Tallying up Sam's fucking shit for brains points, we see:
> >
> > * Thinks he's smarter than hundreds of thousands of researchers
> > and developers that have worked on the platform since before he
> > born.
>
> never have I claimed to be smarter than hundreds of thousands of
> developers. This is another example of an imbecile reaching a false
> conclusion. As a side note -Linux wasnt available prior to my birth.
>
> > * Wants a free OS, a free compiler, a free editor that he used to >write
> > the source for this peice of shit, and free help from a worldwide
> > community of developers.
> >In return he doesn't give a flying fuck if
> > what he writes is useful to anyone but him, and actively blocks attempts
> > to find something that can benefit the community at large in his work,
> > by not releasing the sources and writing directly to hardware that he
> > has.
>
> In the future, I would advice you to curtail your use of curse words.
> Anyone with half a mind should be able to complete an english sentence
> without resorting to foul language.
>
> Perhaps your IQ is a function of your shoe size.
>
> I am under no obligation to release the source, as this program is an
> original work and not a source hack of any current linux editor.
>
> I never claimed to write an editor to benefit everyone. I am writing the
> sort of editor I would like to see in linux and freebsd, with the hope
> that others share a similar desire. I never claimed that this would be
> successful, although I promise it will be useful to console users.
>
> > * Posts with the mentality of a two year old, repeating phrases in all
> > caps several times per message in succession, punctuated with that
> > characteristic-of-all-worthless-fucks-on-usenet, the stream of
> > exc-lame-ation points.
>
> I apologize for posting in all caps. I did it out of anger. Beginning
> with my initial post, was an onslaught of flames and attacks on USENET
> and email.
>
> Most of these people twisted my words and ideas around. In anger I
> retaliated, by capitalizing often repeated sentences. It appeared some
> of these posters where blind and could not read my initial posts
> regarding the systems I am targetting.
>
> In the future, I shall endeavor not to resort to such means. Only time
> will tell.
>
> > * Posts binaries to multiple non-binary newsgroups.
>
> hrmm. I have already explained why this was done!. Let us close this
> chapter.
>
> > * Posts anything *about* the editor to groups where it's clearly >off-
topic,
> > like comp.os.linux.setup.
>
> I would disagree. The editor may find use in such a situation.
>
> > I hope that in 9 years when you've gone through puberty, are out of
> > school, and are looking for a job, that your potential employer does a
> > DejaNews profile of you. It may be the only good thing to come out of
> > your feeble-minded presence on usenet. I can only hope that your
> > fingers aren't let anywhere near code that anyone I care about may
> > ever run.
>
> Amusing, to say the least. If you must know I am 21 years of age. I have
> gone and left puberty.
>
> Such hostility. Hrmm. That is your business and not a concern of mine. I
> just took the opportunity to show my attackers what I meanth by a near
> clone of dos edit(6.0) for linux and freebsd, in the hopes it will
> alleviate some of their fears of which security appears the prime most.
>
> > Die.
>
> As you do not possess the power over life and death, there is notting to
> fear from your pathetic statement.
>
> > jim
>
> Anubis
>
> --
> Our os who art in cpu
> Unix be thy name
> Thy programs run
> Thy syscalls done
> In kernel as it is in user
Red Hat Linux User
sam wrote:
> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
> of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
>
> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
> long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
> (console programs mostly). Its amazing that one cannot run a decent
> visual program without having to engage xwindows. Freebsd for example
> (to my knowledge -- please correct if i am wrong) does not even have a
> graphics viewer/editor for the console. If you want any color on your
> system you Must run xwindows. xwindows with it myriads of overhead.
>
> The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
> thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to mind. Honestly I cannot
> fathom the use this.
>
> I would appreciate someone (without criticism or foul language)
> ----------------------------------
> explaining the above uses of terminal emulations etc etc.
>
> This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my
> idea of how programs and the underlying os should interact. I have never
> felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the
> os and interact with the hardware.
>
> I give you my word, Once I am able to set aside the time(and once I have
> learned/discovered the underlying secrets of linux/freebsd) I promise
> you that if necessary I will attempt to reengineer the code to conform
> to my wishes-- if that is at all possible.
>
> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
> wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
> of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> processor running in protected mode. gone would be useless terminal
> emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted access
> to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
> think of.
>
> A few others on IRC are actually discussing the above idea. I just
> wonder if its at all plausible.
It's called DR-OpenDOS. Check http://www.caldera.com
It's exactly what you described... oh, except you can task-switch
if desired in DR-OD. Maybe that would disqualify it for your use.
Frank Sweetser
sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
> of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
>
> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
> long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
it's not the fact that it's a dos-like editor, but like you say, unix isn't
limited to x86 hardware, but his program is.
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.res.wpi.net RH 5.0 kernel 2.0.33/2.1.93 i586 | at public servers
We come to bury DOS, not to praise it.
(Paul Vojta, vo...@math.berkeley.edu, paraphrasing a quote of Shakespeare)
sam
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>ou have root access! Fun isn't it! It looks like it could become a really
> > nice editor. I don't know much about programming for linux, but I think you
> > should look in to slang or ncurses. If you can get it to work with that,
> > then it will probably run in a little xterm box too!
> >
> > Keep up the good work! And please, release the sources! Place it under the
> > GNU free software license.
>
> I'd say you either came in very late on this ``discussion,'' or you
> have one of the most finely honed, subtle senses of humor I've ever
> come across.
> --
>
why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
well
Thanks for your time all the same!
Samuel
Our os who arth in Cpu
Unix be thy name
thy programs run
thy syscalls done
in kernel as it is in user!
Amen
Erik de Castro Lopo
sam wrote:
>
> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
> wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
> of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> processor running in protected mode.
If this is what you want, why are you using Linux? Why not use a 32 bit
DOS extender. There is even a GNU version of a 32 bit DOS extender at:
Linux is the wrong platform for what you want to do and only a FOOL
would continue to use an inappropriate tool (in this case Linux) for a
specific task if a better tool (in this case a DOS/32 bit extender)
exists.
I look forward to your absense from ALL linux related newsgroups.
Erik
Daniel Robert Franklin
sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
>of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
I think the problem is not the editor itself, it is the need for SUID
root. Get rid of this and people are much more likely to run your
program. I have no preconceived idea of who you are or what your motives
are but there is *NO WAY* I will be running an unknown binary SUID root
on my machine. Who knows what it may (intentionally or accidentally) do.
a) make it non-suid root
b) release the source code (well, that would be nice at least)
c) some people have said it doesn't let you switch consoles. This is bad.
d) don't post the binary to every newsgroup. Post a URL next time.
Note: I don't mean to criticise your contribution. I just want to
(politely) suggest some improvements.
>Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
>long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
>(console programs mostly). Its amazing that one cannot run a decent
>visual program without having to engage xwindows. Freebsd for example
>(to my knowledge -- please correct if i am wrong) does not even have a
>graphics viewer/editor for the console. If you want any color on your
>system you Must run xwindows. xwindows with it myriads of overhead.
Linux has svgalib (and GGI is being developed). What more do you want?
Here are a some svgalib programs that I know of:
Quake, Quake II, Doom (all of these can be run in the console),
Maelstrom, zgv, sabre (flight simulator)...
>The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
>thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to mind. Honestly I cannot
>fathom the use this.
Well, you aren't correct about this with respect to Linux at least.
>I would appreciate someone (without criticism or foul language)
> ----------------------------------
>explaining the above uses of terminal emulations etc etc.
What do you mean by "terminal emulations"? If you mean "Linux supports a
myriad of terminal types", then this is because there is a huge number of
different terminal types out there. Any Unix will have this feature. A
program should, if designed to be run anyware but on the console, support
a wide range of terminal types - it may end up running on some of them!
If it only needs to run on the console, then fine, you can do that too.
Have a look at RHIDE for an interesting example of how to do that. Other
good terminal applications include mc and (x)wpe.
>This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my
>idea of how programs and the underlying os should interact. I have never
>felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd.
Well, don't use it then. It's not compulsory.
>Its paintaking to bypass the os and interact with the hardware.
You aren't supposed to. You should go through the OS or at least through
some kind of standard Linux library. You can use svgalib or X or GGI or
whatever to do that. I don't know about *BSD.
>I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os.
Linux is not DOS-like at all - it is multitasking, multiuser... it is not
DOS.
>I
>wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
>one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
>of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
>or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
>through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
>processor running in protected mode.
You could get rid of the other VCs by editing /etc/inittab. You can
remove password protection for root, and have no other users on the
machine. You could disable most of the daemons. The question is "why"?
Why turn Linux into some kind of crippled DOS clone? Why not just get
OpenDOS?
>gone would be useless terminal
>emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted access
>to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
>think of.
I can't understand how you can consider these things useless? And what does
SVGAlib not do that you so urgently require?
Hardware access is restricted for good reasons. If you really need
hardware access, you can do it via either the kernel or a setuid root
binary. However, this is rarely necessary and should be avoided if at all
possible due to security and stability concerns.
>A few others on IRC are actually discussing the above idea. I just
>wonder if its at all plausible.
It is not plausible. It is not desirable. If I wanted a games console I
would buy a games console. Don't waste your time.
- Daniel
--
******************************************************************************
* Daniel Franklin - 4th Year Electrical Engineering Student
* dr...@uow.edu.au
******************************************************************************
sam
Shankar Unni wrote:
>
> sam wrote:
>
> > of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
>
> looks like EDIT.COM, it's with the idea of an editor that goes way out
> of its way to be stupid and dangerous on a multiuser system.
>
> (Like running as root, grabbing control of the console, and doing other
> nonsensical things that do *NOTHING* for your efficiency, and basically
> plant a big bomb on your system with a big red button that says "PUSH
> ME".)
>
> Do your editor so that it uses some standard curses-like package, and
> the world will thank you. Honestly.
>
> Hell, you can be extra unfriendly if you want and simply have it put out
> ANSI escape sequences directly to move around on the screen, and part of
> the world will still thank you, since ANSI terminal emulators are
> readily available.
>
> But don't make an SUID program that screws around with the console..
>
I tire explaining this. For (hopefully) the last time,
I have no intention of using ncurses. It lacks too many features that my
textmode library makes available. Trust me, if I thought ncurses where
the least bit better than my textmode library, I would not have spent a
month writing it.
I revel in speed. I would willingly sacrifise the ability of a program
to run on many systems in favor of an opportunity to run superb on one
system. That is the sort of individual I am. computer systems are
different, the underlying hardware is different, microprocessor
architecture is different, thus it makes absolutely no sense trying to
get equal performance from two seperate (and often unrelated as far as
hardware is concerned) systems, in terms of software.
curses is useless. It is a bloated,weak,limited and an inefficient
library. Communicating with the hardware allows me greater control over
the system. I am better able to predict the outcome of my program.
Placing a wrapper or layer atop ncurses does not hide the filth
underneath.
I have already said the above before in earlier posts. Please do not
view this as arrogant or an attempt to force or assert my opinions above
others. These are my opinions and represent what I would like to see in
this environment.
I am not in this game to be praised. If I wanted praise and recognition,
I would be writing xwindows apps and conforming to the norm. On the
other hand, I am hoping to attract others who share a similar vision. I
have gotten in contact with a few, hopefully others may join our cause.
There has got to be a way to transform freebsd(chosen in favor of linux
for its less restricting code) into or more in line with what a 32 bit
dos os should be.
Samuel
--
sam
I have already considered extenders, not a worthy option. I think
linux/freebsd needs to be recoded. They are wonderful os's so its best
to start from there, reshape the foundation.
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
> sam wrote:
> >
> > I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
> > wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> > one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
> > of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> > or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> > through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> > processor running in protected mode.
>
> If this is what you want, why are you using Linux? Why not use a 32 bit
> DOS extender. There is even a GNU version of a 32 bit DOS extender at:
>
> http://www.delorie.com/djgpp
>
> Linux is the wrong platform for what you want to do and only a FOOL
> would continue to use an inappropriate tool (in this case Linux) for a
> specific task if a better tool (in this case a DOS/32 bit extender)
> exists.
>
> I look forward to your absense from ALL linux related newsgroups.
>
> Erik
--
sam
a library on top of ncurses does not change the fact that the programmer
is still interacting with the display/console using ncurses.
Samuel
Karl Garrison wrote:
>
> Shankar Unni wrote:
>
> Another possibility for programmers who are used to DOS development
> would be libconio ... which emulates (via ncurses) all the functions in
> the conio.h header file found on DOS compilers, like text colors, cursor
> positioning, text "windows" and the like. It's on Sunsite.
>
> --
> Karl Garrison
> kar...@eznet.net
--
sam
Thank you very much!. I will look into that once I get back from work
tommorow. Can you shed more light on Dr-OpenDos.
1. Do you use it?
2. How did you come to learn of it?
3. How would you rate it?
4. what are its pros?
5. Any cons?
6. What sort individual would you recommend it to?
7. are there development tools??
8. what sort of hardware does it run on?
9. most importantly -- how would you rate it overall (your personal
observation) in comparison to current os's in x86 environment??
10. anything more you wish to add?
thank you once more for your aid. I will definitely look into this more
closely. thanks!
Samuel
> It's called DR-OpenDOS. Check http://www.caldera.com
> It's exactly what you described... oh, except you can task-switch
> if desired in DR-OD. Maybe that would disqualify it for your use.
--
mumford
A while ago, Frank Sweetser <rasm...@WPI.EDU> begot:
>sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
>> of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
>>
>> long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
>
>limited to x86 hardware, but his program is.
Just in case you are confused (I believe so from your use of 'his program'),
you are replying to the program's author.
mumford
A while ago, sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> begot:
>Shankar Unni wrote:
>>
>> sam wrote:
>>
>> > of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
>>
>> looks like EDIT.COM, it's with the idea of an editor that goes way out
>> of its way to be stupid and dangerous on a multiuser system.
>>
>> (Like running as root, grabbing control of the console, and doing other
>> nonsensical things that do *NOTHING* for your efficiency, and basically
>> plant a big bomb on your system with a big red button that says "PUSH
>> ME".)
>>
>> Do your editor so that it uses some standard curses-like package, and
>> the world will thank you. Honestly.
>>
>> Hell, you can be extra unfriendly if you want and simply have it put out
>> ANSI escape sequences directly to move around on the screen, and part of
>> the world will still thank you, since ANSI terminal emulators are
>> readily available.
>>
>> But don't make an SUID program that screws around with the console..
>>
>> --
>> Shankar Unni sha...@cup.hp.com
>> HP Performance Delivery Lab (ex-CLL) +1 (408) 447-2851
>
>I tire explaining this. For (hopefully) the last time,
>I have no intention of using ncurses. It lacks too many features that my
>textmode library makes available. Trust me, if I thought ncurses where
>the least bit better than my textmode library, I would not have spent a
>month writing it.
We tire of explaining this. If a library doesn't have something you
need, you fix the library. You don't whine about it and circumvent a
standard to write a program that is completely useless. You don't write
a library that is so tuned to your particular set up that it probably
won't even work on the same computer with a different kernel.
>I revel in speed. I would willingly sacrifise the ability of a program
>to run on many systems in favor of an opportunity to run superb on one
>system. That is the sort of individual I am. computer systems are
>different, the underlying hardware is different, microprocessor
>architecture is different, thus it makes absolutely no sense trying to
>get equal performance from two seperate (and often unrelated as far as
>hardware is concerned) systems, in terms of software.
You don't revel in speed, you revel in waste. An editor that eats CPU
cycles like my cats go through hamsters is a waste. My CPU is much
better spent doing the other dozen or things I'm doing at the time.
You obviously don't need that yourself since you've chosen to lock out
multitasking.
>curses is useless. It is a bloated,weak,limited and an inefficient
>library. Communicating with the hardware allows me greater control over
>the system. I am better able to predict the outcome of my program.
>Placing a wrapper or layer atop ncurses does not hide the filth
>underneath.
You forget to put qualifiers around everything you say:
>curses is useless <TO ME>
You don't speak for the large majority of UNIX.
>I have already said the above before in earlier posts. Please do not
>view this as arrogant or an attempt to force or assert my opinions above
>others. These are my opinions and represent what I would like to see in
>this environment.
You are arrogant. And what's worse, you are arrogant and don't think you
are. You are a mini-Gates. You produce severly crippled and broken
software, swearing about how it's better than anything out there ("my
editor is faster, damn it!" so? it's still broken), and then whine
about being treated unfairly when people try to educate you. And then
whine like a martyr when people start attacking you when it becomes
obvious to them you won't listen.
There are already one too many Bill Gates in this world.
>I am not in this game to be praised. If I wanted praise and recognition,
>I would be writing xwindows apps and conforming to the norm. On the
>other hand, I am hoping to attract others who share a similar vision. I
>have gotten in contact with a few, hopefully others may join our cause.
You should be glad you're not looking for praise... that way you won't
be let down.
You toss around the word 'conforming' as if it were a dirty word. A
program that conforms is a program that is useful. Where does that
leave your program?
Hopefully you will not attract anyone who shares a similar vision.
The UNIX community needs all the real programmers it can get. We
don't need any others writing crap like you are.
>There has got to be a way to transform freebsd(chosen in favor of linux
>for its less restricting code) into or more in line with what a 32 bit
>dos os should be.
32 bit DOS os? Blasphemy. For this, I would accuse you of being a
troll, but I doubt you have the intelligence to formulate this entire
scheme.
DOS's are disk operating systems, they only drive disks (which is why
games and spreadsheets and everything else under MS-DOS needed to have
seperate drivers loaded for accessing CD-ROM's, Video Cards, Sound
Cards, Network Cards, etc etc etc). FreeBSD/Linux/Unix drive all of
the hardware, and are thus obviously (it should be obvious even to
you) not DOS's.
Let's see if I have your mindset straight:
Your Useless Editor should:
1) Not allow multitasking
2) Hog the CPU
3) only work in an extremely limited number of environments
4) contain drivers for everything it needs to use
Sounds a lot like an MS-DOS program to me. I outgrew DOS 4 years ago
when I first installed Linux.
sam
Daniel Robert Franklin wrote:
>
> sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
> >of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
>
> root. Get rid of this and people are much more likely to run your
> (politely) suggest some improvements.
noted.
> Linux has svgalib (and GGI is being developed). What more do you want?
> Here are a some svgalib programs that I know of:
>
> Quake, Quake II, Doom (all of these can be run in the console),
> Maelstrom, zgv, sabre (flight simulator)...
svgalib does not support text modes(please correct me if I am wrong).
zgv is a wonderful and well written program. Why such things exist in
linux and not in freebsd is beyond me. Console programs are very
efficient and powerful.
> >The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
> >thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to mind. Honestly I cannot
> >fathom the use this.
>
> Well, you aren't correct about this with respect to Linux at least.
> What do you mean by "terminal emulations"? If you mean "Linux supports a
> myriad of terminal types", then this is because there is a huge number of
> different terminal types out there. Any Unix will have this feature. A
> program should, if designed to be run anyware but on the console, support
> a wide range of terminal types - it may end up running on some of them!
> If it only needs to run on the console, then fine, you can do that too.
> Have a look at RHIDE for an interesting example of how to do that. Other
> good terminal applications include mc and (x)wpe.
well written and concise explaination. I have seen Rhide -- its sort of
bloated in comparison to what it does. Its also pretty slow. Maybe thats
just me. I doubt anything fast and efficient maybe achieved with
ncurses. consider this my personal opinion only.
> >Its paintaking to bypass the os and interact with the hardware.
>
> You aren't supposed to. You should go through the OS or at least through
> some kind of standard Linux library. You can use svgalib or X or GGI or
> whatever to do that. I don't know about *BSD.
Bsd has no such -- much to my sorrow!. I am considering porting my dos
graphics library over to linux and freebsd much as I have done with the
text mode library.
> >one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
> >of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> >or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> >through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> >processor running in protected mode.
>
> You could get rid of the other VCs by editing /etc/inittab. You can
> remove password protection for root, and have no other users on the
> machine. You could disable most of the daemons. The question is "why"?
> Why turn Linux into some kind of crippled DOS clone? Why not just get
> OpenDOS?
someone mentioned open dos. I am yet to look into it. Definetly on the
agenda tommorow afternoon.
>Hardware access is restricted for good reasons. If you really need
> hardware access, you can do it via either the kernel or a setuid root
> binary. However, this is rarely necessary and should be avoided if at all
> possible due to security and stability concerns.
>
> >A few others on IRC are actually discussing the above idea. I just
> >wonder if its at all plausible.
>
> It is not plausible. It is not desirable. If I wanted a games console I
> would buy a games console. Don't waste your time.
I am was thaught that anything (withing reasonable bounds) is possible
once one puts their mind to it. Devoted programmers (aspiring) with the
right tools should be able to craft powerful programs.
this is the fifth honest,and well written post (lacking foul language
and or criticism) I have seen on this NG on this subject. my thanks for
your time.
Samuel
sam
> Because vi is more powerful, faster, doesn't need root access, and is
> ported to virtually every unix system under the sun.
i doubt you have ever used anything outside of vi(m)!
> If you don't like using this incredibly useless OS, go back to your MAC,
> and stop posting your binarys!
I dont nor have I ever owned a mac. I have used them on a few occasions.
> THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO FOR SOMETHING LIKE A TEXT EDITOR!
> It's done that way intentionally so 2bit hacks like yourself can't go
> around and screw up your system! Source is freely available (on decent
> apps that is...) so you can see how to access hardware if you want.
> Therefor, you're not limited by a thing - other than your own
> creativity... or in your case, stupidity.
access to hardware as defined by slang and ncurses.?? I dont think so.
How do you know that the editor in question screws up the system. Dont
be so quick to reach such conclusions.
> Oh, so you're going to conform to your wishes. That's a comfort. Kind
> of like an enema with a 9 iron I imagine.
enema, are you sure you did not mean enemy??
Henrik Österberg
this is all very well... i won't go in to details about your post (not my
field), but does this seem like 'Linux setup' to you?
sam wrote: I tire explaining this. For (hopefully) the last time,
> I have no intention of using ncurses. It lacks too many features that my
> textmode library makes available. Trust me, if I thought ncurses where
> the least bit better than my textmode library, I would not have spent a
> month writing it.
<snip>
David M. Cook
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 01:24:44 +0000, sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
>of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
No, of course not. That's why there are editors like FTE, which is not
setuid root and is open source software:
http://ixtas.fri.uni-lj.si/~markom/fte/index.html
It's a *very* fast editor with lots of powerful features.
Dave Cook
Paul D. Smith
s> freebsd(chosen in favor of linux for its less restricting code)
By "less restricting code" I assume you mean that the FreeBSD system is
under the BSD license, while the Linux system (or at least major parts
of it) are under the GPL. Rest assured that you can place your code
under any license you like, regardless of how the OS is licensed. This
should not be a consideration.
If you want to use FreeBSD instead, go for it. It's a fine operating
system. But please don't do so out of a mistaken belief.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psm...@baynetworks.com> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions--Bay Networks takes no responsibility for them.
David Z. Maze
(This was on way too many groups to start with. Followups set to
comp.os.linux.development.apps, where this discussion started.)
sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
s> Many of the programs are just plain useless (console programs
s> mostly). Its amazing that one cannot run a decent visual program
s> without having to engage xwindows.
First comment: compare/contrast with Micro$oft. You can't do anything
without invoking Windoze these days, which is at least as bloated as X
without a lot of the useful functionality.
s> If you want any color on your system you Must run
s> xwindows. xwindows with it myriads of overhead.
Yes, but look at where X has come from and what it can do. X offers a
_standardized_ way to access any video hardware. I think X11R6 is
about 3-4 years old, and X11R4-5 code still runs reasonably well on
X11R6 servers.
Originally, X was the graphical environment for MIT's Project Athena.
Athena is still around. Everybody still uses X on Athena. It's kind
of nice to be able to use the exact same code on the Athena Suns and
SGI machines, as well as my personal Linux box. It's nice to be able
to use the exact same code to be able to run the program on one
machine and have the output come up on another, with an entirely
different processor and different display hardware.
Consider this: some video manufacturer creates a video card with
blazingly fast 2-d graphics. The problem: it needs to totally do away
with the traditional framebuffer video access. With something like X
sitting between programs and hardware, installing the new card and a
new X server suddenly makes every X program update its display
faster.
Portability is a valuable concept even within the x86 world.
s> The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or
s> emulations thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to
s> mind. Honestly I cannot fathom the use this.
s>
s> I would appreciate someone (without criticism or foul language)
s> ----------------------------------
s> explaining the above uses of terminal emulations etc etc.
What's a better portable way to display arbitrary text at arbitrary
locations on the screen? Besides, terminal emulation gets around a
host of problems, including arbitrarily sized text screens and
bitmapped console displays. The particular terminal mode that is
chosen is largely historical, though I haven't found any glaring flaws
in the vt100 model.
Additionally, if you actually _have_ a VT220 that you want to hook up
to your machine... :-)
s> This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my
s> idea of how programs and the underlying os should interact. I have never
s> felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the
s> os and interact with the hardware.
As a program in user space, it's not your role to interact with the
hardware. Ideally, you'd see a model like this:
+-------------------------+
| User programs |
+-------------------------+
| libc/other libraries |
+-------------------------+
| kernel |
+-------------------------+
| hardware |
+-------------------------+
User programs talk to libc, which manages interactions with the kernel
and other programs. Want to display something on the screen? Use
printf(), or maybe the ncurses library. Those in turn talk to the
kernel terminal driver, which takes responsibility for displaying
things on the screen. What happens if the terminal isn't really the
screen? So characters get sent over a serial port or to another
program instead. As far as your code is concerned, *it doesn't
matter*. Breaking these abstraction barriers causes your code to
lose functionality provided by the kernel.
s> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os.
That's not what Linux is at all. DOS is just what it says, "disk
operating system" -- little more than a filesystem abstraction. Linux
tries to abstract around all of the hardware. Video right now is the
only major hardware device that doesn't have good kernel support, but
the GGI project is trying to fix this (IMO, TRTTD).
s> I wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles
s> with just one console -- a single display in front of the
s> individual.
Why do you want to do this? Virtual consoles are really an optional
feature; if you don't want to use more than one VC, you never have to
switch away from the one you start on. Why break things for the
people who _do_ extensively use virtual consoles?
s> The concept of multiusers replaced with one single user.
My computer at home (home home, not college home) is unfortunately a
Windoze box. At one point in time, there were four different people
using it. I'd change something, thinking that it would only affect my
login, but then another user would start complaining that things
didn't quite seem to work the same way any more. In Linux, most
programs have system-wide defaults but also allow per-user
customizations: just because I change my window manager doesn't mean
that your login is affected at all. Having multiple users is a
worthwhile convenience for anybody who might have more than one person
ever log in on their machine.
Under Un*x, many daemons have their own users as well. This means
that a malicious user can't view your system password file over the
World Wide Web, and that a malfunctioning binary can't accidentally
nuke your filesystem. In DOS, this is entirely possible because
programs' access to hardware isn't restricted. Having non-root users
is a safety feature.
s> Applications that run with or near the power of root and
s> interact directly with the hardware through a library.
See my last paragraph for the virtues of non-root programs. "interact
directly with the hardware through a library" seems to be an oxymoron;
are programs twiddling I/O bits directly, or going through some
intermediary that deals? The former is the DOS model, the latter,
Linux's.
s> gone would be useless terminal emulations, multiusers,restrictive
s> keyboard interfaces,restricted access to underlying hardware and
s> and other useless features I have yet to think of.
Even if you find a particular feature "useless", other people might
find it valuable. I've covered terminal emulation, multiple users,
and restricted hardware access. Which "restrictive keyboard
interfaces" specifically are you referring to? Looking just at
editors here: I'm editor-bilingual. Yes, so vi has a really obscure
keymap, but it's _fast_ once you figure it out. Emacs' keymap isn't
any less obscure than a typical Windoze application's. The same
functionality is there, just bound to different keys.
The one feature of Linux that I've found immensely useful is having
multiple virtual consoles. In one, I'm downloading software. But
that takes a while, so I switch to another VC and start reading mail.
In the middle of this, I want to look at a web page, so I fire up Lynx
on a third VC. Then I want to go back to reading my mail, so I go
back to the second VC, and it's right there where I left it. Need to
install software as root? I can do that on another VC without
disturbing my other work.
s> A few others on IRC are actually discussing the above idea. I just
s> wonder if its at all plausible.
Well, it's definitely _conceivable_ that you could do such a thing.
I'm just completely unclear on why you'd _want_ to.
--
_____________________________
/ \ "The cat's been in the box for over
| David Maze | 20 years. Nobody's feeding it. The
| dm...@mit.edu | cat is dead."
| http://donut.mit.edu/dmaze/ | -- Grant, on Schroedinger's Cat
\_____________________________/
Paul D. Smith
%% sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
s> I revel in speed. I would willingly sacrifise the ability of a program
s> to run on many systems in favor of an opportunity to run superb on one
s> system.
Hell, everyone loves speed.
The question is, just how much darn speed do you need for a text editor?
Esp. a do-nothing editor like EDIT? I mean, once it's fast enough to
accept input faster than any human can possibly type, why do you need it
to be faster?
You can easily get this much speed using the curses library. Existing
editors, using curses, can do this without breaking a sweat.
You may think curses is poorly implemented: if all you want is something
that runs on the console of an Intel-based PC, then it definitely has a
lot of bloat you don't care about.
Nevertheless, it's still faster than you can possibly need, so why
bother re-implementing it, with something that is less generally useful?
However, that's not the point here. If you want to reimplement curses,
and you've got nothing better to do, fine, go for it. That's not what
people are upset about.
What people are upset by is the attitude evinced in the second paragraph
below.
s> That is the sort of individual I am. computer systems are
s> different, the underlying hardware is different, microprocessor
s> architecture is different, thus it makes absolutely no sense trying to
s> get equal performance from two seperate (and often unrelated as far as
s> hardware is concerned) systems, in terms of software.
s> There has got to be a way to transform freebsd(chosen in favor of
s> linux for its less restricting code) into or more in line with what
s> a 32 bit dos os should be.
No, there isn't.
Let me repeat that: No, there isn't.
There _isn't_.
Look, you yourself explain that you think trying to get equal
performance on different hardware is nonsensical. Simply replace that
sentiment with equal functionality on different operating systems.
DOS is _barely_ an operating system. All it really is is a program
launcher. There's no ability for multiprocessing (really), no virtual
memory, no networking, no multi-user support, no filesystem permissions
(barely even a filesystem!), etc. etc.
UNIX was designed from the beginning to be a multi-processing system,
which implies protected memory, and protecting shared resources (like
disks, printers, keyboards, monitors, etc.) It was designed from the
beginning to support multiple users. It was designed from very early
days to embed networking.
UNIX was NOT designed to be "a 32 bit DOS OS".
And again:
UNIX was NOT designed to be "a 32 bit DOS OS".
One more time:
UNIX was not _designed_ to be "a 32 bit DOS OS".
When you try to make it into that, you're simply butting heads with 25+
years of purposeful design and evolution. It won't work. It
_shouldn't_ work. You're going the wrong way.
Trying to turn UNIX into a 32 bit DOS just doesn't make sense. It's
like saying there should be a way to turn a Lear jet into a tricycle
(well, OK, a go-kart, since you want a 32-bit DOS :). When you say you
want to do it, everyone looks at you funny and says "uh... WHY?"
Erik de Castro Lopo
sam wrote:
>
> I have already considered extenders, not a worthy option. I think
> linux/freebsd needs to be recoded.
You are a NUT!
you previously wrote:
>>> The concept
>>> of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
>>> or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
>>> through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
>>> processor running in protected mode. gone would be useless terminal
>>> emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted access
>>> to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
>>> think of.
If you remove these things its no longer unix.
and now write:
>
> They are wonderful os's so its best
> to start from there, reshape the foundation.
Feel free. Its no longer Linux or unix, so find somewhere else to post.
Go Away Troll. I look forward to NEVER hearing from you again in ANY
*nix newsgroup.
Erik
Jeremy Crabtree
sam wrote:
>
> I have already considered extenders, not a worthy option. I think
> to start from there, reshape the foundation.
<translate sourcelang="SamSpeak" destlang="English">
I think Linux is great except that it isn't DOS. Let's recode it into DOS.
Yeah, that would be cool
</translate>
For the last time, LINUX IS NOT DOS! Do *NOT* try to make it into DOS. There is
a reason it was designed the way it was. It is intended to be multi-platform for
one thing; thus it runs on Sparcs and Macs and PCs...It is intended to be
multiuse for another...(I won't explain multi-user if you don't get it)...Sorry
to be so unusually rude, but blatant stupidity deserves a harsh response...
[btw, comp.os.linux.setup snipped]
>
> Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> >
> > sam wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
> > > wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> > > one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
> > > of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> > > or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> > > through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> > > processor running in protected mode.
> >
> > If this is what you want, why are you using Linux? Why not use a 32 bit
> > DOS extender. There is even a GNU version of a 32 bit DOS extender at:
> >
> > http://www.delorie.com/djgpp
> >
> > Linux is the wrong platform for what you want to do and only a FOOL
> > would continue to use an inappropriate tool (in this case Linux) for a
> > specific task if a better tool (in this case a DOS/32 bit extender)
> > exists.
> >
> > I look forward to your absense from ALL linux related newsgroups.
> >
--
Living Giant because I just Might Be,
Jeremy Crabtree
Vive Macintosh, all hail OS/2, Long live the Amiga, UNIX forever, umm, and all
the other systems I didn't mention. We all compute differently, get over it.
Michal Vitecek
> sam wrote:
> >
> > I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
> > wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> > one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
> > of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> > or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> > through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> > processor running in protected mode.
>
> If this is what you want, why are you using Linux? Why not use a 32 bit
> DOS extender. There is even a GNU version of a 32 bit DOS extender at:
>
> http://www.delorie.com/djgpp
>
> Linux is the wrong platform for what you want to do and only a FOOL
> would continue to use an inappropriate tool (in this case Linux) for a
> specific task if a better tool (in this case a DOS/32 bit extender)
> exists.
>
> I look forward to your absense from ALL linux related newsgroups.
>
>
hi ;)
i wonder how it's possible that u even replied to that person - it's a
shame so many ppl are brainwashed by m$ crappy products. they are not used
to think. they're hopeless. i'd ignore such lame ppl.
i hope linux will keep its users to have some brain in their heads ;)
see u ;)
fuf
------------------------------ na IRC -------------------------------------
BillGates [bga...@www.microsoft.com] has joined #LINUX
...
mode/#linux [+b BillGates!*@*] by DoDad
BillGates was kicked off #linux by DoDad (banned: We see enough of Bill
Gates already.)
Jeremy Crabtree
sam wrote:
>
> > Because vi is more powerful, faster, doesn't need root access, and is
> > ported to virtually every unix system under the sun.
>
> i doubt you have ever used anything outside of vi(m)!
I doubt *you* have ever used vi, otherwise you might actually understand how
powerful it is.
>
>
> > If you don't like using this incredibly useless OS, go back to your MAC,
> > and stop posting your binarys!
>
> I dont nor have I ever owned a mac. I have used them on a few occasions.
>
> > THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO FOR SOMETHING LIKE A TEXT EDITOR!
> > It's done that way intentionally so 2bit hacks like yourself can't go
> > around and screw up your system! Source is freely available (on decent
> > apps that is...) so you can see how to access hardware if you want.
> > Therefor, you're not limited by a thing - other than your own
> > creativity... or in your case, stupidity.
>
> access to hardware as defined by slang and ncurses.?? I dont think so.
No! You're not supposed to access the hardware directly. You're *supposed* to
use the common libraries. If you're so bent on direct access to hardware(and,
apparently, single-tasking) go buy yourself a fresh copy of MS-DOS 6.22 or
something and then delete Linux from your computer.
>
> How do you know that the editor in question screws up the system. Dont
> be so quick to reach such conclusions.
Since the editor in question is a set-uid root program, I doubt many people will
be brave enough to risk it.
>
> > Oh, so you're going to conform to your wishes. That's a comfort. Kind
> > of like an enema with a 9 iron I imagine.
>
> enema, are you sure you did not mean enemy??
No, he meant enema.
[comp.os.linux.setup removed from cross-posting list]
royj...@hotmail.com
In article <6gemcr$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
> (console programs mostly). Its amazing that one cannot run a decent
> visual program without having to engage xwindows. Freebsd for example
> (to my knowledge -- please correct if i am wrong) does not even have a
> system you Must run xwindows. xwindows with it myriads of overhead.
I think Unix will exist on x86 hardware far further into the future than DOS
will. DOS on a Pentium class machine is a joke. The only case where DOS made
sense in recent times was in games, and even then games needing high
performance write heir own extenders to get DOS out of the way and go directly
to the hardware.
Now it seems the games trend is Windows95, so the need for DOS is even less.
I run X, and see nothing wrong with the performance. I even ran it on a 25mhz
386 machine with 8MB of memory and had reasonable performance for the time.
The only time I thought performance was a problem was running on a souped up
PS/2 model 80, and that was more a problem with hard drive performance than
anything else.
DOS might make sense on a 386/25 with 4MB of memory, but for most cases,
those days are long gone. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense on anything
newer.
If you're such a proponent of Unix as your tagline suggests, I suggest you
learn how to use it's features rather than hack it into a stupid DOS clone.
> Samuel
>
> Our os who arth in Cpu
> Unix be thy name
> thy programs run
> thy syscalls done
> in kernel as it is in user!
> Amen
>
Roy
DOS: Dog Operating System
Jon Plews
sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6gemcr$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
[ snip ]
> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
> wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with
just
> one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The
concept
> of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run
with
> or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the
x86
> processor running in protected mode. gone would be useless terminal
> emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted
access
> to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
> think of.
>
I don't think you really understand much about Linux/Unix. You can do
exactly what you want already:
- one console -- only start one then
- single user -- run in single user mode then
- root powers -- remove root password and don't add any users
- interact with hw -- write the library to do it
You will then have crippled the OS into the state you want. Go ahead
and develop that operating system, but don't expect much interest in
it and don't expect any help doing it.
BTW, I've got a question for you--Why (other than you like programming
DOS) do you want to do this?
Jon Plews.
James Hebert
sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> I have already considered extenders, not a worthy option. I think
> linux/freebsd needs to be recoded. They are wonderful os's so its best
> to start from there, reshape the foundation.
*big sigh of relief*
Glad to know you'll be occupied for the next millenium putzing with this.
Please don't post a binary of your OS to this group when you're done.
You're going to hate working with GPL'd code. You have to let people
see what code you've written. Waaaah.
I can't tell you how glad I am you've declared the need to REWRITE linux
from the ground up. Now there should finally be no question in everyone's
mind what a completely arrogant clueless DOS lamer you are. Do you
hope to get a job one day working with software? I hope your employer
does that DejaNews Author Profile!
I gotta remember to dig out that binary posting and send it off to the
guys at att.net to complain about your behavior. Think I'll dig up the
followups where you explain how it was intentional and that you knew
it would piss people off, and how you understood the concept of a
non-binary group before doing that.
Wow, a post without the word fuck in it. Woops, damn.
jim
Red Hat Linux User
sam wrote:
>
> Thank you very much!. I will look into that once I get back from work
> tommorow. Can you shed more light on Dr-OpenDos.
>
> 1. Do you use it?
> 2. How did you come to learn of it?
Probably from the Arachne list-serve. I don't really remember.
> 3. How would you rate it?
Way better than MS-DOS
> 4. what are its pros?
MUCH better memory management than MS-DOS, online help manual
> 5. Any cons?
> 6. What sort individual would you recommend it to?
Anyone who wants a better DOS.
> 7. are there development tools??
> 8. what sort of hardware does it run on?
Any machine that runs DOS
> 9. most importantly -- how would you rate it overall (your personal
> observation) in comparison to current os's in x86 environment??
The developer of DR-DOS died. The software was, I believe, sold to
Novell, who modified it, and then sold it to Caldera, who then also
continued its development. My personal observation is that it's a
product fitting the quality of those names.
> 10. anything more you wish to add?
It's free for personal use, commercial use licensed at a very
reasonable cost.
Brian Wheeler
In article <6gevlq$n...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Shankar Unni wrote:
>>
>> sam wrote:
>>
>> > why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
>> > of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
>>
>> looks like EDIT.COM, it's with the idea of an editor that goes way out
>> of its way to be stupid and dangerous on a multiuser system.
>>
>> (Like running as root, grabbing control of the console, and doing other
>> nonsensical things that do *NOTHING* for your efficiency, and basically
>> plant a big bomb on your system with a big red button that says "PUSH
>> ME".)
>>
>> Do your editor so that it uses some standard curses-like package, and
>> the world will thank you. Honestly.
>>
>> Hell, you can be extra unfriendly if you want and simply have it put out
>> ANSI escape sequences directly to move around on the screen, and part of
>> the world will still thank you, since ANSI terminal emulators are
>> readily available.
>>
>> But don't make an SUID program that screws around with the console..
>>
>> --
>> Shankar Unni sha...@cup.hp.com
>> HP Performance Delivery Lab (ex-CLL) +1 (408) 447-2851
>
> I have no intention of using ncurses. It lacks too many features that my
> textmode library makes available. Trust me, if I thought ncurses where
> the least bit better than my textmode library, I would not have spent a
> month writing it.
>
> different, the underlying hardware is different, microprocessor
>
> library. Communicating with the hardware allows me greater control over
> the system. I am better able to predict the outcome of my program.
> Placing a wrapper or layer atop ncurses does not hide the filth
> underneath.
>
> view this as arrogant or an attempt to force or assert my opinions above
> others. These are my opinions and represent what I would like to see in
> this environment.
>
> I would be writing xwindows apps and conforming to the norm. On the
> other hand, I am hoping to attract others who share a similar vision. I
> have gotten in contact with a few, hopefully others may join our cause.
>
> for its less restricting code) into or more in line with what a 32 bit
> dos os should be.
>
> Samuel
>
This is a joke, right? Do you know Scott Nudds? If not, you
should look him up on the net...I have a feeling you two would get along
just fine.
In any case, its pretty obvious that you've got no experience
programming in the real world if you refuse to use _portable_ abstractions
in favor of speed in a goddamed text editor. Tell me, what's the ratio of
time spend in your program _working_ versus sitting around waiting on a
user to press a key. I bet you use polling, too, don't you? How much
CPU time is your process using while _waiting_? On a _correctly_ written
editor, it should be very nearly zero.
It also sounds like you're more interested in running on a dos clone
than on Unix. What a shame...wasting a perfectly good unix OS just to make
it look like dos.
Brian Wheeler
bdwh...@indiana.edu
gippah
sam wrote:
>
> I have already considered extenders, not a worthy option. I think
> linux/freebsd needs to be recoded. They are wonderful os's so its best
> to start from there, reshape the foundation.
Uh ... If they are wonderful OS's, why the hell should we break them?
Do you realize that almost every program running on these OS's would
have to be re-ported to the OS to work correctly? What are you smoking?
--
----
Remove your finger from my email address to send me a message.
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "S" == sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
S> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
S> of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
That's not the point. Reread the previous post.
S> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
S> long on x86 hardware.
I'm sure you do. Then explain why DOS is dead. Explain why x86 Unix
is getting bigger every year.
S> This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my
S> idea of how programs and the underlying os should interact.
I'm sure it has. Why _are_ you running on Linux anyway?
S> I have never
S> felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the
S> os and interact with the hardware.
There's a really good reason for that. We don't trust you to directly
access the hardware. We don't want you to. We like having things
like multitasking and multiple consoles. You know, little things that
have been around for decades.
S> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os.
Then you're clearly ignorant. An ounce of research would have shown
you that wasn't the case.
S> gone would be useless terminal
S> emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted access
S> to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
S> think of.
Gone would be multitasking, gone would be remote access, gone would be
portability, gone would be useful network interfaces, gone would be
the ability to use different graphics or sound hardware.
S> A few others on IRC are actually discussing the above idea. I just
S> wonder if its at all plausible.
Of course it's possible. Just write a little bootblock to throw the
CPU in protected mode, and gee, you have complete access.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
You two ought to be more careful--your love could drag on for years and years.
John Girash
sam (SAM...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: How do you know that the editor in question screws up the system. Dont
: be so quick to reach such conclusions.
That's exactly the *point*. We don't _know_ if/how the editor (or any other
unknown suid binary) is screwing up the system. And without that knowledge
there's no way to have confidence in the system's security or robustness
(either in terms of numerics or stability). And for a binary w/o source that
purposefully bypasses OS safeguards in accessing hw, it's particularly scary.
followups redirected to colda only (sorry colda folks, but this seems at
least vaguely more appropriate there than in col.setup for example).
--
"don't listen when you're told about the best days in your life Spirit of
a useless old expression, it means passing time until you die." the West
/\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\/
-- John Girash -- girash @ cfa.harvard.edu - http://skyron.harvard.edu/ --
Jens Dittmar
>>>>> sam writes:
> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the
There are some people who like the DOS editor, in real life I have met 1
at least. I know several editors on different platforms - the DOS edit is
one of the worst (lack of functionality, troublesome to handle).
> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive long
> on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless (console
> programs mostly).
For _me_, most Win- and DOS-programs are useless and I'm using Unix also
because of the much larger software base. BTW the average quality is much
better too. Maybe the tools are not so colored but they're powerful.
> The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
> thereof.
Fortunately.
> Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my idea of how programs and the
> underlying os should interact.
^^ (hard to resist... ;))
Obviously it has. :)
> I have never felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd.
So you should go back to DOS.
> Its paintaking to bypass the os and interact with the hardware.
Unix (like any real OS) is _designed_ to not let some application fiddle
around with the hardware.
> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os.
Why didn't you ask _before_ what Unix is about? They had tell you that it
is _not_a_32_bit_DOS_.
> I wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> one console -- a single display in front of the individual.
It is, but I do not like to work with only 1 terminal.
> The concept of multiusers replaced with one single user.
Do not add users!
> gone would be useless terminal emulations, multiusers,restrictive
> keyboard interfaces,restricted access to underlying hardware and and
> other useless features I have yet to think of.
Gone would be almost everything which makes Unix superior to
DOS. Honestly, I wouldn't have installed Linux if it was such a cripple.
Jens
--
"The problem might possibly be to do with the fact that asm code written
for the x86 environment is, on other platforms, about as much use as a
pork pie at a jewish wedding."
Andrew Gierth in comp.unix.programmer
James Hebert
Red Hat Linux User <stXa...@gate.net> writes:
> sam wrote:
> >
> > Thank you very much!. I will look into that once I get back from work
> > tommorow. Can you shed more light on Dr-OpenDos.
Shed light on OpenDOS (Not named Dr-OpenDOS!) somewhere else. Sammy has
succeeded in filling this group with both off topic and binary postings
for long enough. The little twerp.
Followups to comp.os.msdos.programmer, for lack of a better idea.
jim
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "S" == sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
S> How do you know that the editor in question screws up the
S> system. Dont be so quick to reach such conclusions.
You said that it disables console flipping. That sounds like screwing
up the system to me.
>> Oh, so you're going to conform to your wishes. That's a comfort.
>> Kind of like an enema with a 9 iron I imagine.
S> enema, are you sure you did not mean enemy??
No, I'm sure he meant enema. Go look it up. 8^)
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
The heart is wiser than the intellect.
Frank Sweetser
dit...@sonne.tachemie.uni-leipzig.de (Jens Dittmar) writes:
> "The problem might possibly be to do with the fact that asm code written
> for the x86 environment is, on other platforms, about as much use as a
> pork pie at a jewish wedding."
> Andrew Gierth in comp.unix.programmer
heh... another entry for the sig file
;^)
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.res.wpi.net RH 5.0 kernel 2.0.33/2.1.93 i586 | at public servers
Sam: Whaddya say, Norm?
Norm: Well, I never met a beer I didn't drink. And down it goes.
-- Cheers, Love Thy Neighbor
Joe Buck
Shankar Unni wrote:
>> But don't make an SUID program that screws around with the console..
sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I tire explaining this. For (hopefully) the last time,
>I have no intention of using ncurses....
>I revel in speed. I would willingly sacrifise the ability of a program
>to run on many systems in favor of an opportunity to run superb on one
>system. That is the sort of individual I am.
That's fine. But it seems that Linux is not the right OS for you, since
you want to access the hardware directly and aren't concerned about
multiuser operation or security. I suggest that you consider
DOS. It won't stand between you and the hardware.
--
-- Joe Buck
See my daughter: http://www.byoc.com/homepage/130481/molly.html
Boring semi-official web page:
http://www.synopsys.com/news/pubs/research/people/jbuck.html
T.E.Dickey
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> wrote:
: S> I have never
: S> felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the
: S> os and interact with the hardware.
: There's a really good reason for that. We don't trust you to directly
: access the hardware. We don't want you to. We like having things
: like multitasking and multiple consoles. You know, little things that
: have been around for decades.
This fellow is just like someone I knew (20-odd years ago, before the
present instance). The earlier one was a nuisance in the lab who was
writing a test-driver for people in his course (print a message, get a
reply, run the corresponding tests). He never did get the hang of the
system (RT-11), which could do all of the rudimentary things which we are
accustomed to seeing in MS-DOS.
On one occasion this fellow spent several days 'debugging' his program, to
find that the reason why it was occasionally missing characters (he was
polling the device registers) was that the nasty intrusive RT-11 was
getting them first. His solution: issue a RESET instruction and kill off
those interrupts.
He since graduated & the last I saw, a few years ago, is a manager at HP.
(Think of the possibilities - in a few years, this guy may contribute to
the next "Motif" ;-).
--
Thomas E. Dickey
dic...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
Dave Pearson
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 01:24:44 +0000, sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea of
> a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
For the most part I'd say that nobody has a problem with a DOS like editor
(as I've pointed out before, I can think of a number of people I know who'd
love it, but they use telnet to access their Linux boxes). What people have
a problem with is that the design of your editor is broken and it ensures
that it is of little use to most people and also severely reduces a user's
ability to use their console to the full.
> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive long
> on x86 hardware.
Let us suppose this were true, most of the software I use works on non-x86
hardware as well, so, I really couldn't care less. You, OTOH, want to lock
yourself into one hardware platform. Think about it.
> Many of the programs are just plain useless (console programs mostly).
This really doesn't make much sense at all. Even though I work in X
(currently runing KDE) I still run lots of "console" apps inside rxvt
windows. I get the best of both worlds. Even if I were running in text mode
(as I used to) I still had plenty of fast and efficient text mode
apps. mutt, slrn, emacs, jed and mc spring to mind right away. All (except
for emacs) in colour (if I so desired) and all fully portable and usable via
pretty much any access method.
> If you want any color on your system you Must run xwindows. xwindows with
> it myriads of overhead.
Let be double check this. You are saying that text mode apps don't do
colour? If this is what you are suggesting then I'd say you need to double
check your facts.
It is also worth noting that your answer to X's "myriads of overhead" is to
restrict the multasking and cross platform nature of Unix software.
> The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
> thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to mind. Honestly I cannot fathom
> the use this.
Then do a bit of reading. Step back from your current thinking for a moment
and consider the reasons. Plenty of people have given you a number of
reasons why the above method of working makes sense. So far you have simply
ignored them. The thing is, as someone who has coded for DOS for many years
(and still does), when I first got Linux I found myself in your position
(output using *ANSI*, are they MAD?) and I also felt an immediate desire to
try and get round all this silliness and do lots of "celver" stuff like
write direct to screen memory. Then, I stopped for a moment, did a little
reading, gave it some thought and realised that this DOS way of thinking was
broken.
> I would appreciate someone (without criticism or foul language) explaining
> the above uses of terminal emulations etc etc.
It has been explained to you many times. As an example, I'm sat here, at my
console, running X, my news reader (slrn, in glorious colour) is running
inside an rxvt window. Now, I might want to use your editor to compose this
posting, however, I can't because it won't work in my chosen
environment. Using something written with ncurses or slang I can compose
news on a virtual console, in an X session or via a telnet session from one
of my other boxes.
As we have seen, your reply to this is "but I don't use telnet". Sure, you
don't, but people who might want to use your offering might want/need
to. Why not take this into account?
> This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my idea
> of how programs and the underlying os should interact. I have never felt
> so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the os and
> interact with the hardware.
The reason you feel like this is because you are doing it all wrong. You are
trying to code for DOS when the OS you are using isn't DOS. There is no
wonder you are finding it hard. To make matters worse, you ignore the advice
that people give you.
> I give you my word, Once I am able to set aside the time(and once I have
> learned/discovered the underlying secrets of linux/freebsd) I promise you
> that if necessary I will attempt to reengineer the code to conform to my
> wishes-- if that is at all possible.
If you are so intent on trying to re-write DOS why don't you choose the
correct starting platform. OpenDOS and FreeDOS might be the sort of things
you are looking for. Given your desires, Unix obviously isn't for you.
> I wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> one console
Have you even bothered to check out how you can do this? Have you bothered
to look at the contents of /etc/inittab? Have you bothered to simply not
switch virtual consoles? Have you considered the fact that some DOSs are now
working *towards* "virtual consoles" (and some used to have them). Have you
ever thought about why DesqView used to be so popular?
> a single display in front of the individual.
Err, that is exactly what a virtual console is. You just get the option of
having more than one.
> The concept of multiusers replaced with one single user.
Why? If this is a problem, fire your box up in single user mode, or simply
don't create more than one user.
> Applications that run with or near the power of root and interact directly
> with the hardware through a library.
Why? What is the point? I moved most of computing time from DOS to Linux so
I *could* do all this clever stuff.
> All this and more while taking advantage of the x86 processor running in
> protected mode.
If you want to code for DOS and work in protected mode, then do it. Pop over
to http://www.delorie.com/ and download DJGPP. You can write as many
protected mode DOS apps as you feel the need to.
> gone would be useless terminal emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard
> interfaces,restricted access to underlying hardware and and other useless
> features I have yet to think of.
I do find it amusing that you find the various freedoms to be restrictive,
yet, you offer a number of severe restrictions that you think are
liberating. Sure, you might find them liberating as a programmer, you don't
need to learn, you can code exactly how you've coded before, but you place
restrictions on the user of your software (and you also place restrictions
on your learning process and your progression as a programmer).
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
Free software, including........| dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Jeremy Crabtree
sam wrote:
>
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> >ou have root access! Fun isn't it! It looks like it could become a really
> > > nice editor. I don't know much about programming for linux, but I think you
> > > should look in to slang or ncurses. If you can get it to work with that,
> > > then it will probably run in a little xterm box too!
> > >
> > > Keep up the good work! And please, release the sources! Place it under the
> > > GNU free software license.
> >
> > I'd say you either came in very late on this ``discussion,'' or you
> > have one of the most finely honed, subtle senses of humor I've ever
> > come across.
> > --
> >
>
> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
> of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
Nobody said they didn't like the idea, but your immplementation was, well, weak.
Most Linux users like to be able to actually multi-task. For example, I use wpe
on one console to edit a program and g++ on another to compile/test it.(Yes, I
know wpe does compiling, but it was blowing up far too much for my
taste...couldn't be *bad code*!?! <G>)
>
> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
> long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
> (console programs mostly). Its amazing that one cannot run a decent
> visual program without having to engage xwindows. Freebsd for example
> (to my knowledge -- please correct if i am wrong) does not even have a
> graphics viewer/editor for the console. If you want any color on your
> system you Must run xwindows. xwindows with it myriads of overhead.
How do you mean decent visual program? I have all kinds of "visual" programs
that run without X. Things ranging from Doom and XKoules to WPE.
>
> The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
> thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to mind. Honestly I cannot
> fathom the use this.
This is for compatibility and portability. If you want a VGA text console you
might look at SVGATextmode, it will give you up to 180x80 text(a bit excessive,
but 100x37 is nice)
>
> I would appreciate someone (without criticism or foul language)
> ----------------------------------
> explaining the above uses of terminal emulations etc etc.
>
> This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my
> idea of how programs and the underlying os should interact. I have never
> felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the
> os and interact with the hardware.
Yeah, it does sound like DOS fried your brain. You almost *NEVER* have to
"bypass" the OS and "interact" directly with the hardware; it makes your apps
fairly useless on anything but your hardware for one thing. For another, you
should be using Slang, NCurses, linconio, SVGALib, et. al. instead of trying to
*force* Linux to let you at the hardware.
>
> I give you my word, Once I am able to set aside the time(and once I have
> learned/discovered the underlying secrets of linux/freebsd) I promise
> you that if necessary I will attempt to reengineer the code to conform
> to my wishes-- if that is at all possible.
Go ahead and try it, *nobody* will use it. This "recoding" of the kernel would
A) Waste *your* time, B) Waste *your* energy, and C) Totally defeat the entire
concept of Linux.
>
> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
> wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
> of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> processor running in protected mode. gone would be useless terminal
> emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted access
> to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
> think of.
So you wonder if its possible to make Linux into 32-bit DOS? Why? Why would you
want to? I too entered the Linux world half-expecting something like a 32-bit
DOS...I did not find a 32-bit DOS, I found a Unix-like powerhouse of an OS that,
to date, I have crashed once(sort of crashed, I had to hard boot when I filled
to much RAM and locked down), has a most excellent windowing system(thoug, I
could think of some things that could be added), and seems to handle ALL of my
hardware better
(Doom is much faster, too ;)
>
> A few others on IRC are actually discussing the above idea. I just
> wonder if its at all plausible.
Why don't you people just dump your Linux installations and use DR-DOS(formerly
OpenDOS, formerly Novell DOS(?), formerly DR-DOS) instead, I believe it is
32-bit, and I think it would do what you are trying to do, and with a lot less
wasted time than if you tried to "recode" the Linux kernel (which, btw is
copyrighted by Linus himself, so if you completely recoded it, it would no
longer *be* Linux)
>
> well
> Thanks for your time all the same!
[.sig snipped]
James Youngman
>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> writes:
>>>>> "S" == sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Alan> Gone would be multitasking, gone would be remote access, gone would be
Alan> portability, gone would be useful network interfaces, gone would be
Alan> the ability to use different graphics or sound hardware.
S> A few others on IRC are actually discussing the above idea. I just
S> wonder if its at all plausible.
Alan> Of course it's possible. Just write a little bootblock to throw the
Alan> CPU in protected mode, and gee, you have complete access.
If you want to do that you only need one source file -- start2.S from
the FreeBSD distribution. Pretty easy to do, in fact. Try it.
Dave Pearson
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 04:03:07 +0000, sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I tire explaining this. For (hopefully) the last time, I have no intention
> of using ncurses. It lacks too many features that my textmode library
> makes available. Trust me, if I thought ncurses where the least bit better
> than my textmode library, I would not have spent a month writing it.
If you really feel that ncurses is lacking something why don't you give
something back to the pool of free software you have utilised and see if you
can't add something to the library? I'd be suprised if there is anything you
can add, but, who knows, you could surprise everybody.
> I revel in speed. I would willingly sacrifise the ability of a program to
> run on many systems in favor of an opportunity to run superb on one
> system.
Just how much speed does a text editor need?
> curses is useless.
How so?
> It is a bloated
In what way?
> weak
How so?
> limited
In what way?
> and an inefficient library.
If you think you know the inefficiencies, why you don't address them and
correct them?
> Communicating with the hardware allows me greater control over the
> system.
This is the problem isn't it? Why on earth should a text editor have
"control over the system". *I* wan't control over the system, the software
itself should simply do what I want it to do and not interfere with my
ability to do other things at the same time.
Michael D. Brown
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, sam wrote:
> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
> of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
>
> long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
> (console programs mostly). Its amazing that one cannot run a decent
> visual program without having to engage xwindows. Freebsd for example
> (to my knowledge -- please correct if i am wrong) does not even have a
> graphics viewer/editor for the console. If you want any color on your
> system you Must run xwindows. xwindows with it myriads of overhead.
WRONG! If you want to use color on your system just use SVGALIB or
something similar. It has everything you need for console programs with
graphic interfaces (how do you think doom, quake, and various other
programs were made for the linux console.) If you really want to learn
about it send me a message...I'm teaching myself how to program console
graphics and maybe I can help you.
As if windows 95/nt doesn't have a huge overhead? Goodness, Win95 and NT
are so inefficient in terms of system resources! I mean with Linux I can
run gimp, povray and netscape and not worry (not to mention a background
http, ftp, and mud server running). If you try doing something similar in
Win95, may lady luck be with you because you will really need her.
> The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
> thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to mind. Honestly I cannot
> fathom the use this.
>
> I would appreciate someone (without criticism or foul language)
> ----------------------------------
> explaining the above uses of terminal emulations etc etc.
>
> This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my
> idea of how programs and the underlying os should interact. I have never
> felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the
> os and interact with the hardware.
if you want to take advantage of svga modes, you have to switch into it.
This means using Xwindows or programming your own interface. Why not take
advantage of what you have available to you.
>
> I give you my word, Once I am able to set aside the time(and once I have
> learned/discovered the underlying secrets of linux/freebsd) I promise
> you that if necessary I will attempt to reengineer the code to conform
> to my wishes-- if that is at all possible.
>
> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
> wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
> of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> processor running in protected mode. gone would be useless terminal
> emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted access
> to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
> think of.
So you want to clone dos on linux...how funny seeing that dos is a single
user clone of unix. Why would you want to lock yourself into one console
when you have multiple consoles available to you? That's one of the
features of Unix that makes it superior to dos...I mean one can have one
console for editing, another for debugging, another for email and another
for Xwindows...
That's another vast improvement of unix over dos/windows combinations, a
user can switch from Xwindows to console WITHOUT restarting, his/her
computer. One reason people are balking at your program is that it can
only be used at the console. This is not desirable for most. For
example, I'm writing this post across campus in pine (which includes it's
own editor)...if I had to use your editor, I would have to wait until I
got back to my room. Take advantage of what you have...what you're doing
sounds like using c++ to compile a c program...Take advantage of the added
features. I know you still want to program dos style...but try adjusting
your technique so you can take advantage of what linux has to offer.
Truly,
Michael
Michael D. Brown
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, sam wrote:
> > THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO FOR SOMETHING LIKE A TEXT EDITOR!
> > It's done that way intentionally so 2bit hacks like yourself can't go
> > around and screw up your system! Source is freely available (on decent
> > apps that is...) so you can see how to access hardware if you want.
> > Therefor, you're not limited by a thing - other than your own
> > creativity... or in your case, stupidity.
>
> access to hardware as defined by slang and ncurses.?? I dont think so.
Slang and ncurses are not the only graphics libraries available...try
svgalib or GGI. SVGAlib was used to make doom, quake and other games like
it (Abuse) on unix and then port over to dos.
> How do you know that the editor in question screws up the system. Dont
> be so quick to reach such conclusions.
We define screw up as locking the system so that if the program should
happen to crash for some reason, we are helpless to do anything about it.
Did you even do anything to catch ctrl-c? Did you fork off the program so
that the parent can pass keypresses along to the child? These are ways to
make your program safe under linux. I know you're used to rebooting your
computer four or five times an hour in dos, but an average linux machine
can go months without being rebooted.
>
> > Oh, so you're going to conform to your wishes. That's a comfort. Kind
> > of like an enema with a 9 iron I imagine.
>
> enema, are you sure you did not mean enemy??
No he means an enema as in an operation in which a probe is shot up your
anus in order to clean out your colon.
Truly,
Michael
Roy Stogner
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:22:45 GMT, Dave Pearson <da...@hagbard.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 04:03:07 +0000, sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> I revel in speed. I would willingly sacrifise the ability of a program to
>> run on many systems in favor of an opportunity to run superb on one
>> system.
>
>Just how much speed does a text editor need?
I think part of the problem is that Sam has developed the idiotic idea
that if an editor is 2 times as fast (to exaggerate the point), it is
2 times as good. In the real world, if an editor is 2 times as fast,
that just means it responds in 2 milliseconds instead of 4
milliseconds...
---
Roy Stogner
Daniel Kiracofe
<Snip>
> I would never knownling write code to cause destruction -- as I would
> not want such done to me. Trust me when I tell you that I spent time
> testing this test release prior to uploading it.
>
> Chances are more than likely that I would not be uploading anymore. As I
> stated before, I needed the opportunity to clear up a few misconceptions
> regarding this project.
You want to clear up a few misconceptions, eh? Well, spamming binaries
onto non-binary groups was definitely not the way to go... you just
pissed off thousands of people that might otherwise have actually
thought about trying your program out (although thousands is probably
overly optimistic wrt a setuid root no-source program)...
--
/* Daniel */
WWW: http://users.gurulink.com/drk
Linux Consultation Specializing in TCP/IP Networking and Web Caching
"Fear is only afraid of the absence of itself" - Mediocrates
Daniel Kiracofe
> why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
> of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
It's not. I'd love a decent EDIT clone. Your attempt is simply
indecent...
> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
> long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
> (console programs mostly). Its amazing that one cannot run a decent
> visual program without having to engage xwindows. Freebsd for example
> (to my knowledge -- please correct if i am wrong) does not even have a
> graphics viewer/editor for the console. If you want any color on your
> system you Must run xwindows. xwindows with it myriads of overhead.
I think you are wrong. Unix is flourishing on x86. The x86 platform
offers lots of processor power for little $$$. The graphics are a bit
lacking compared to nice SGI, but the cost difference makes up for it,
IMHO. Linux/Intel is probably the most cost-effective platform for an
internet server...
> The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
> thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to mind. Honestly I cannot
> fathom the use this.
Flexibility. (almost) any terminal that you can buy can work with Unix
because it has support for them. (Almost) nothing with work with M$
OS's because they don't support them...
> This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my
> idea of how programs and the underlying os should interact. I have never
> felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the
> os and interact with the hardware.
I have never felt so limited as I am in DOS/Windows. It's painstaking
to bypass the OS in Un*X because the OS wasn't meant to be bypassed.
It's a feature, not a bug...
> I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
A 32 bit doslike OS does not exist. Who would want one anyway?
> wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
> one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
> of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
> or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
> through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
> processor running in protected mode. gone would be useless terminal
> emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted access
> to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
> think of.
<cringe> Why would you want to do this? That takes away 99% of the
useful features of Unix. I think you'd be better off writing your own
OS. Make your own 32 bit DOS if you like. You might take a lot at the
sources to Caldera OpenDOS to get started...
gippah
Adam Stouffer wrote:
>
> Jeremy Crabtree wrote:
> >
> >
> > For the last time, LINUX IS NOT DOS! Do *NOT* try to make it into DOS. There is
> > a reason it was designed the way it was. It is intended to be multi-platform for
> > one thing; thus it runs on Sparcs and Macs and PCs...It is intended to be
> > multiuse for another...(I won't explain multi-user if you don't get it)...Sorry
> > to be so unusually rude, but blatant stupidity deserves a harsh response...
> >
>
> How often does the average home user need a multi user OS?
When you're talking about unix (and clones), multi-user is synonymous
with multi-task -- they're both handled the same way by the OS. So the
answer to your question is that everyone needs it and they need it
almost all the time.
gippah
Adam Stouffer wrote:
> Big deal, he likes dos. Why does your average dos user need 10 people
> telnetted to his machine running software?
Very true. But think about it for just a second. This editor *FORCES*
the system into being a single-task system. If Master Samwise doesn't
want to use multiple consoles, he can simply not use them -- but he's
trying to force that ideology onto the rest of the world by making his
programs disable these consoles altogether. The *ONLY* reason for that
is to force his preferences onto the rest of us.
And you're right -- DOS doesn't need 10 people telnetted in. (Although
if the OS was able to, you can bet your bottom dollar that people would
use it that way). But Linux isn't DOS. He should spend more time
broadening his programming abilities to work with Linux rather than
crippling Linux to fit with his programming abilities.
Most of us are spoiled by the fact that we can edit multiple documents,
use cut-and-paste between them, be researching a topic in one place
while writing about it in another, write code while testing it in
another window, you name it. Most of us, now that we have these things,
would never go back to DOS, even Win95 users would have a hard time
stomaching DOS these days.
If the author of this editor wants a single-tasking system, there are
many ways to make it that way, and he could do so by still writing an
editor that everyone could use on the system that they have chosen to
setup for themselves.
gippah
Adam Stouffer wrote:
>
> All I want is a frickin text editor that looks like EDIT from dos
> and doesn't require me to fire up X. I dont care about macros and
> all that other crap. Just gimme save, save as, close, and search.
vi. pico.
They don't look like EDIT, but who cares? They're just as easy.
Frank Sweetser
Adam Stouffer <te...@NO-SPAM.sgi.net> writes:
> > Please don't post a binary of your OS to this group when you're done.
> >
> > You're going to hate working with GPL'd code. You have to let people
> > see what code you've written. Waaaah.
> >
> > I can't tell you how glad I am you've declared the need to REWRITE linux
> > from the ground up.
>
> Why not? Sometimes its good to start over fresh. Like beOS is.
and hurd. and plan9. and look where they are (though, I admit, hurd may
still redeem itself...) interesting you should mention be, though, as it
seems it's using some bootloader code from the linux kernel... ;)
> > Now there should finally be no question in everyone's
> > mind what a completely arrogant clueless DOS lamer you are.
>
> Big deal, he likes dos. Why does your average dos user need 10 people
> telnetted to his machine running software?
then your average dos should should be running dos. i, on the other hand,
typically have two or three logins going, and log in remotely more often
than locally, thanks to the school lan.
paramount.res.wpi.net RH 5.0 kernel 2.0.33/2.1.92 i586 | at public servers
The nice thing about Windows is - It does not just crash, it displays a
dialog box and lets you press 'OK' first.
(Arno Schaefer's .sig)
Leslie Mikesell
In article <6gemcr$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
sam <SAM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>why is it so hard to believe that someone would actually like the idea
>of a dos - like editor in linux/freebsd?
Most people running unix enjoy the ability to have many windows or
at least virtual consoles so you don't have to stop your long
running jobs to do something as simple as editing a file. It
is no surprise that no one likes the idea of giving that up.
If you don't have any real work to do on your computer why don't
you get Netscape and browse the net so you'll have something to
do that needs it's own window most of the time.
>Please do not take this the wrong way, but I doubt unix will survive
>long on x86 hardware. Many of the programs are just plain useless
>(console programs mostly).
Huh? This from a person who just wrote a text editor? The text
tools on unix are just fine.
>Its amazing that one cannot run a decent
>visual program without having to engage xwindows. Freebsd for example
>(to my knowledge -- please correct if i am wrong) does not even have a
>graphics viewer/editor for the console. If you want any color on your
>system you Must run xwindows. xwindows with it myriads of overhead.
What is your obsession against X? If you want more than text
and are prepared to throw away the speed and piping capability
of text based programs it is the way to go. You don't have to
give up the ability to run remote programs or have multiple
unrelated windows open at once.
>The concept of vga displays are replaced with terminal or emulations
>thereof. Con25,vt100,vt200,scoansi come to mind. Honestly I cannot
>fathom the use this.
History did not originate with the vga display, nor will it end
there. Many of the unix text mode tools were written with
hardcopy terminals in mind (teletype, etc.) and video terminals
connected by serial ports came along later, along with the
ability to randomly access the cursor postion with a variety
of in-band codes. For the brief portion of unix history that
vga with direct memory access has been available as one of
its i/o devices it has been accomodated in text mode through
terminal emulation and in graphic mode with X servers.
>I would appreciate someone (without criticism or foul language)
> ----------------------------------
>explaining the above uses of terminal emulations etc etc.
Perhaps if you had a unix box that did not have an attached
console you might understand.
>This is plain preposterous. Perhaps Dos has set (once and for all) my
>idea of how programs and the underlying os should interact. I have never
>felt so limited as I am in linux/freebsd. Its paintaking to bypass the
>os and interact with the hardware.
Buy yourself a second machine and a couple of ethernet cards. Then
perhaps you will see the limitation of only being able to run
programs on the machine in front of you.
>I give you my word, Once I am able to set aside the time(and once I have
>learned/discovered the underlying secrets of linux/freebsd) I promise
>you that if necessary I will attempt to reengineer the code to conform
>to my wishes-- if that is at all possible.
Sure, just delete all of the useful parts except the ability to
blast pixels to the screen.
>I guess I entered this environment, hoping for a 32 bit doslike os. I
>wonder if its at all possible to replace the virtual consoles with just
>one console -- a single display in front of the individual. The concept
>of multiusers replaced with one single user. Applications that run with
>or near the power of root and interact directly with the hardware
>through a library. All this and more while taking advantage of the x86
>processor running in protected mode. gone would be useless terminal
>emulations, multiusers,restrictive keyboard interfaces,restricted access
>to underlying hardware and and other useless features I have yet to
>think of.
>
>A few others on IRC are actually discussing the above idea. I just
>wonder if its at all plausible.
Of course - and you'll gain the same speed you might get by paying
about $20 more for your CPU (and you can reduce that by half every
year) and give up everything you need as soon as you have more than
one user and machine involved.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Adam Stouffer
gippah wrote:
>
> sam wrote:
> >
> > I have already considered extenders, not a worthy option. I think
> > linux/freebsd needs to be recoded. They are wonderful os's so its best
> > to start from there, reshape the foundation.
>
> Uh ... If they are wonderful OS's, why the hell should we break them?
> Do you realize that almost every program running on these OS's would
> have to be re-ported to the OS to work correctly? What are you smoking?
>
Look what M$ is doing. NT4 can't even read fat32 partitions.
--
_________________________
|
|
| Remove the NO-SPAM |
|
|
_________________________