On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:01:03 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:24:05 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:12:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> How many friends and acquaintances of yours run Linux? I mean, besides
>>> people you might have because of your Linux affiliation?
>>
>> Dunno about him, but for myself, several.
>>
>> Rob and his wife.
>> About six people I know through them.
>> Clayton and his wife.
>> My lady.
>> Her sister.
>> At least three people from work, on an at least occasional basis.
>> Roddy.
>>
>> Okay, that's a bakers dozen regular users, and three or four occasional
>> users, plus me, and I've probably overlooked several.
>
> Ok. How many of those were not converted by you? That's not me moving the
> goalposts, I'm just curious.

One could argue that my lady's sister was, but that's a bit dicey - she
hated Windows with a passion before I'd ever met her, she just didn't know
what the alternatives were. The lady herself had installed Ubuntu before
I'd even met her. Couple folks from work were looking for viable
alternatives, or simply something new to try, so at most my involvement
was "here's a CD, knock yourself out".

Rob arguably got me into Linux in the first place; at least, he and I had
a long history together of trying different things and comparing results -
DesqView, OS/2, later Linux. The rest were all long-time Linux users
before I ever met them, or at least before I'd discussed the subject with
them (I'd known Roddy for years, but never discussed Linux until he
mentioned he was running DeadRat.)

So, all in all, I didn't "convert" any of them; they were already
converts, if not _to_ Linux, then at least _away from_ Windows, mostly
before I ever even knew them.

Or one could argue I converted several - her sister and the folks at work,
at least - because while they wanted something different, they didn't know
what alternatives were available until I pointed them at Linux.

Meanwhile I'm having a discussion with the Uberboss here at work... he's
interested in the possibility of migrating existing Windows machines over
to Linux. If that goes through, there will be an uncertain number of
people using it on the desktop (not sure how many people we actually have)
plus, presumably, some more servers migrated.

[snips]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:42:10 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

>>> free() -- some implementations don't check the pointer carefully enough.
>>
>> What's to check? It's either something previously allocated, NULL, or a
>> coding error - and no return value to report error. Could use errno, I
>> suppose.
>
> AIUI, some old implementations bombed in interesting ways when passed a
> pointer not previously returned by malloc()/calloc().

Some still do.

> Presumably
> the spec for this function assumes "undefined behavior" in that case.

Doesn't _assume_ it - defines it.

The free function causes the space pointed to by ptr to
be deallocated, that is, made available for further
allocation. If ptr is a null pointer, no action occurs.
Otherwise, if the argument does not match a pointer earlier
returned by the calloc, malloc, or realloc function, or if
the space has been deallocated by a call to free or realloc,
the behavior is undefined.


>> Ick. %d and sizeof? No. sizeof returns an unsigned integer value. In
>> C99, there's actually a format specifier for this, in C90 there isn't,
>> so canonical is to cast to unsigned long and use %lu. However, that
>> aside...
>
> Well, I can certainly replace it with %u if you like. :-)

Not %u, %lu - and cast to unsigned long.

>>> which is not really what it should be but never mind; sizeof(char *)
>>> is 4 on my system (some might have 8 if they're 64-bit) so it's what
>>> one should expect in C/C++.
>>
>> No, it is what one expects for certain implementations.
>
> Well, the reason is why it shouldn't be what it is returning is mostly
> because the third line should arguably be 31 4, with the compiler
> issuing a diagnostic about a type mismatch.

No, it shouldn't. The third line is from call2, printing the size of
parameter n1, which is a pointer - thus it is the size of a pointer, which
in this case is 4.

> OK. So how does a function determine whether *++p is a valid operation,
> if p is passed in?

Exemplar:

void func( char *p )
{
*p++ = 3;
}

int main(void)
{
char buff[32] = {0};
func(buff);
return 0;
}

The question, then, is how does func know whether the line *p++ = 3 is
valid? Of course it is; p is a non-const pointer to a non-const type,
func is free to modify it as it likes. Even to do p = malloc(100); if it
likes.

> [1] Punt!
> [2] A hidden parameter is added to indicate the bounds of the pointer.
>
> C/C++ takes the first route

Say what? C does nothing of the sort. Neither does C++. A specific
implementation might, but there's no way conforming code can tell; if you
want the size passed in, pass it in yourself.

Perhaps the confusion comes in in regarding _what_ is passed to func.
Recall C is pass-by-value, so whatever is being passed to func is a
_value_. Not a _reference_. The value, in this case, is the address of
the buffer, which is then stored in a local pointer, p. As a local
pointer containing the _address_ of the buffer, it can be used to modify
the contents of the buffer, but it can also be used for any other valid
pointer operation, such as storing the results of a call to malloc.


--
“Real Men Love Jesus.” But wear a condom. -- Promise Keepers Motto

[snips]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:07:44 +0000, cc wrote:

>> Didn't say it did. In fact, I *explicitly* said it didn't. You *did*
>> read that bit before responding, right?
>
> I did, but you contradict yourself when you say:
>
> "It is, however, a handy refutation of the nonsense view than Windows
> is universally better, simpler, friendlier."

No, I don't. If Windows were universally better, simpler, friendlier,
then this - which occurred in Windows - could not have occurred. It did.

Is it a failing of Windows? No; it is at most a failing of the installer.
It is, however, quite sufficient to demonstrate that the oft-argued bit
about how using Windows just makes things easier is simply balderdash, as
there are more things involved than Windows itself - and that's if we
grant that Windows itself is easier.

[snips]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:22:51 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

>> Not hardly, I just dislike perl. Intensely.
>
> Personal choice, eh?

Indeed.

> I love it.

There's no accounting for taste.

> After using PHP and absolutely hating it I'm now using perl
> for all dynamic http content. It works wonderfully and is far more
> versatile.

It might work for you - hell, it generally works for me, I simply dislike
it - but as to more versatile, well... not IME. About the most one can
say is there's a lot of pre-written modules for perl available. Sort of
like there are for PHP.

Chacun a son gout and all that. I find perl code, on the whole, to be
messy, unmaintainable and enough to gag a maggot. I'm also quite sure
there is good, clean, maintainable perl code out there. I'm simply not
masochistic enough to endure the pain of wading through the slop to find
the - if you'll permit a small bon mot - perls.

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:22:51 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>>> Not hardly, I just dislike perl. Intensely.
>>
>> Personal choice, eh?
>
> Indeed.
>
>> I love it.
>
> There's no accounting for taste.

I agree.

>> After using PHP and absolutely hating it I'm now using perl
>> for all dynamic http content. It works wonderfully and is far more
>> versatile.
>
> It might work for you - hell, it generally works for me, I simply dislike
> it - but as to more versatile, well... not IME. About the most one can
> say is there's a lot of pre-written modules for perl available. Sort of
> like there are for PHP.

PHP modules? BLEEEEEEERRRRRRK!!!!!

> Chacun a son gout and all that. I find perl code, on the whole, to be
> messy, unmaintainable and enough to gag a maggot. I'm also quite sure
> there is good, clean, maintainable perl code out there. I'm simply not
> masochistic enough to endure the pain of wading through the slop to find
> the - if you'll permit a small bon mot - perls.

You sound like a perl novice.

You write perl as if you are going to maintain it forever. You keep it
modular.... you format it properly and provide liberal sprinklings of
comments....

Nothing could be easier.

--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

[snips]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:19:11 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> You write perl as if you are going to maintain it forever.

I tend to write code as though someone _else_ were going to maintain it:
it must be clear, concise, readable. Perl, PHP, C, doesn't matter.

> Nothing could be easier.

Then why is virtually all the perl code I encounter bad enough to make me
suspect perl actually causes immediate and irreversible brain damage?


--
“A great big asteroid might be a more humane way to go, methinks.” EM

On Sep 23, 5:53 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:07:44 +0000, cc wrote:
> >> Didn't say it did. In fact, I *explicitly* said it didn't. You *did*
> >> read that bit before responding, right?
>
> > I did, but you contradict yourself when you say:
>
> > "It is, however, a handy refutation of the nonsense view than Windows
> > is universally better, simpler, friendlier."
>
> No, I don't. If Windows were universally better, simpler, friendlier,
> then this - which occurred in Windows - could not have occurred. It did.


If this is a problem which could occur regardless of which OS is used,
which you admit is true, then Windows could still be universally
better, simpler, and friendlier. All OSes are equal in regards to
****ty installers and code will behave ****ty on your OS. Windows
could be universally better, simpler, and friendlier still in all
other respects (but come on, who believes that anyway). So you
contradict yourself when you say this proves Windows isn't better, but
then say it doesn't have anything to do with Windows. It can't be not
related to Windows and prove something about Windows at the same time.
They are distinct entities in this case.


> Is it a failing of Windows? No; it is at most a failing of the installer.
> It is, however, quite sufficient to demonstrate that the oft-argued bit
> about how using Windows just makes things easier is simply balderdash, as
> there are more things involved than Windows itself - and that's if we
> grant that Windows itself is easier.

Please explain again how this demonstrates that Windows doesn't make
things easier if the problem is not with Windows, and the problem of a
failing installer occurs regardless of what OS you're using? It
doesn't, and it can't.

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:19:11 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> You write perl as if you are going to maintain it forever.
>
> I tend to write code as though someone _else_ were going to maintain it:
> it must be clear, concise, readable. Perl, PHP, C, doesn't matter.
>
>> Nothing could be easier.
>
> Then why is virtually all the perl code I encounter bad enough to make me
> suspect perl actually causes immediate and irreversible brain damage?

Either:

a) You've got a Perl phobia

or

b) The code was written to do a quick job.

or

c) All of the above.

--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> PHP has had chronic security problems

Could you enumerate such problems and any large scale loss of online
data, provide citations please ..

> and an attitude of not wanting to fix them.

Could you provide citations as to such an attitude, a single quote from
a single developer doesn't count as 'an attitude'. How exactly does a
programming language develop an attitude.

> This was so bad their head security guy quit in disgust because nobody was serious about security.

What security guy, what was his name .. what number of people complained
that 'nobody' was serious about security. You're being very vague here.
Telling me to go Google on it isn;t a proper answer .. ?

> How can you complain about Microsoft and then call PHP "particularly _good_"?

There is no causal relationship between crappy MICROS~1 product and the
merits or demerits of PHP ..

--

talking to fuddie is just like having a theological discussion with
Beelzebub .. ...

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> Let's repeat that: for some reason, the PHP installer has put stuff into a _document_ folder ..

What did the developer say when you pointed this out to him ..

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:56:34 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> PHP has had chronic security problems
>
> Could you enumerate such problems and any large scale loss of online
> data, provide citations please ..

I don't need to. PHP security (or lack of it) is well documented in
numerous places. Many of those problems are related to bad code by those
implementing PHP (PHP doesn't encourage good security practices), but often
times flaws in PHP have made large PHP projects insecure.

> > and an attitude of not wanting to fix them.
>
> Could you provide citations as to such an attitude, a single quote from
> a single developer doesn't count as 'an attitude'. How exactly does a
> programming language develop an attitude.

http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/82500

It does count as an attitude when that "single developer" has been the only
person interested in serious security.

>> This was so bad their head security guy quit in disgust because nobody was serious about security.
>
> What security guy, what was his name .. what number of people complained
> that 'nobody' was serious about security. You're being very vague here.
> Telling me to go Google on it isn;t a proper answer .. ?

See above.

>> How can you complain about Microsoft and then call PHP "particularly _good_"?
>
> There is no causal relationship between crappy MICROS~1 product and the
> merits or demerits of PHP ..

I think you need to lookup the meaning of the word causal. None of its
meanings have any bearing on this discussion.

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:56:34 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>>> PHP has had chronic security problems

>> Could you enumerate such problems and any large scale loss of online data, provide citations please ..

> I don't need to. ..

In other words, NO !!!

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:16:24 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:56:34 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>>> PHP has had chronic security problems
>
>>> Could you enumerate such problems and any large scale loss of online data, provide citations please ..
>
>> I don't need to. ..
>
> In other words, NO !!!

Dishonest ****.

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:16:24 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:56:34 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>>>>> PHP has had chronic security problems

>>>> Could you enumerate such problems and any large scale loss of online data, provide citations please ..

>>> I don't need to. ..
>> In other words, NO !!!

> Dishonest ****.

lookup IRONY ..

Doug Mentohl wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:16:24 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:56:34 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>>>>> PHP has had chronic security problems
>
>>>>> Could you enumerate such problems and any large scale loss of online
>>>>> data, provide citations please ..
>
>>>> I don't need to. ..
>>> In other words, NO !!!
>
>> Dishonest ****.
>
> lookup IRONY ..

It is hilarious. Erik F talking about "dishonesty"

Erik would not know honesty if it bit him right in the arse
--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.