How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux

This is a discussion on How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux ; Hadron wrote: > Peter Köhlmann writes: > >>> You seem to have missed the point or are telling lies. The date is >>> immaterial. >> >> It is not. Anyone who now is around 35 for example will probably not ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 11 19 20 21 22 LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 422

Thread: How simple are newbies anyway?

  1. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Hadron wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >


    < snip >

    >>> You seem to have missed the point or are telling lies. The date is
    >>> immaterial.

    >>
    >> It is not. Anyone who now is around 35 for example will probably not even
    >> heard of, much less /seen/ a Z80 Macro assembler, for example (I have
    >> written one myself, BTW. Including support for all of the +500
    >> undocumented opcodes and support for the additional instructions of the
    >> Hitachi 64180)

    >
    > For zarks sake. This is NOT THE POINT.


    It is. The date and/or the age of the poster is very important to consider
    here. Especially when you accuse someone of lying. Lying is "knowingly
    telling something which is not true". You can't by defintion lie if you
    don't know that it is wrong what you say. In that case you are simply
    wrong, and thats it.

    Naturally you prefer to accuse people of lying left and right

    >
    > The point in contention is this:
    >
    > ,----
    > | >>>> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do
    > | >>>> not have more syntax and structural features than neat binary
    > | >>>> opcodes and data.
    > `----
    >
    > That. Nothing more. Nothing less.


    That is *still* *your* own "interpretion" of what was written.
    Given your extreme reading comprehension problems it is not anywhere near a
    point. Much less a "point in contention".
    If you want to make a point, quote what actually was written, not your
    gibberish of it

    You are doing *again* a Snot Glasser here, carefully avoiding what was
    actually written but providing your very own bull**** version of it

    < snip >
    --
    Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow


  2. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    "Peter Khlmann" stated in post
    48df94a6$0$6599$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 9/28/08 7:28 AM:

    >> For zarks sake. This is NOT THE POINT.

    >
    > It is. The date and/or the age of the poster is very important to consider
    > here. Especially when you accuse someone of lying. Lying is "knowingly
    > telling something which is not true". You can't by defintion lie if you
    > don't know that it is wrong what you say. In that case you are simply
    > wrong, and thats it.
    >
    > Naturally you prefer to accuse people of lying left and right


    Look at how often you accuse *me* of lying... and *never* produce a quote
    and message-id to support your claims.

    You repeatedly make such accusations but you can never support them. Heck,
    look at how many times you have accused me of posting as Rekruled. You
    simply lie and lie and lie and hope people will give you a pass.


    --
    .... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
    experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  3. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets) snotted:

    > "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    > 48df94a6$0$6599$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 9/28/08 7:28 AM:
    >
    >>> For zarks sake. This is NOT THE POINT.

    >>
    >> It is. The date and/or the age of the poster is very important to
    >> consider here. Especially when you accuse someone of lying. Lying is
    >> "knowingly telling something which is not true". You can't by defintion
    >> lie if you don't know that it is wrong what you say. In that case you are
    >> simply wrong, and thats it.
    >>
    >> Naturally you prefer to accuse people of lying left and right

    >
    > Look at how often you accuse *me* of lying


    Poor Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets/Michael Glasser.
    Your extremely poor reading comprehension abilities again let you put your
    bull**** into a thread which has nothing to do with your continuous lying.

    Just go away, CSMA is in need of a liar like you much more than COLA
    --
    Only two things are infinite,
    the Universe and Stupidity.
    And I'm not quite sure about the former.
    - Albert Einstein


  4. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >>

    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >>>> You seem to have missed the point or are telling lies. The date is
    >>>> immaterial.
    >>>
    >>> It is not. Anyone who now is around 35 for example will probably not even
    >>> heard of, much less /seen/ a Z80 Macro assembler, for example (I have
    >>> written one myself, BTW. Including support for all of the +500
    >>> undocumented opcodes and support for the additional instructions of the
    >>> Hitachi 64180)

    >>
    >> For zarks sake. This is NOT THE POINT.

    >
    > It is. The date and/or the age of the poster is very important to consider
    > here. Especially when you accuse someone of lying. Lying is "knowingly
    > telling something which is not true". You can't by defintion lie if you
    > don't know that it is wrong what you say. In that case you are simply
    > wrong, and thats it.
    >
    > Naturally you prefer to accuse people of lying left and right


    Oh you cantankerous fool.

    He is making the claims. They are blatantly false. He is lying or
    making things up I dont mind which you choose to believe. I tend to
    think "making tings up" as he always does.

    How you can support his ridiculous claims is beyond me.

    You can not be "wrong" about something so elementary if you know the
    slightest bit about what you are talking about.

    And he clearly does not.

    And therefore he is making things up and is full of hot air as I said
    earlier.

    Note it is you (above) I accuse of missing the point OR telling lies.

    And lets face it sausage breath, you never accused people of lying eh?

    *chuckle*


  5. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    "Peter Khlmann" stated in post
    48df997b$0$6614$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 9/28/08 7:49 AM:

    ....
    >> Look at how often you accuse *me* of lying

    >
    > Poor Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets/Michael Glasser.
    > Your extremely poor reading comprehension abilities again let you put your
    > bull**** into a thread which has nothing to do with your continuous lying.
    >
    > Just go away, CSMA is in need of a liar like you much more than COLA


    Before your snippage:

    -----
    Look at how often you accuse *me* of lying... and *never*
    produce a quote and message-id to support your claims.

    You repeatedly make such accusations but you can never
    support them. Heck, look at how many times you have accused
    me of posting as Rekruled. You simply lie and lie and lie
    and hope people will give you a pass.
    -----

    You whine about others snipping. Yet you do it.

    You also cross post and set follow ups to other groups because you are a
    scared little boy, afraid people will see responses to your BS.

    --
    The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.


  6. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    "Hadron" stated in post
    gbo9vb$cou$1@registered.motzarella.org on 9/28/08 9:05 AM:

    > Peter Khlmann writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Peter Khlmann writes:
    >>>

    >>
    >> < snip >
    >>
    >>>>> You seem to have missed the point or are telling lies. The date is
    >>>>> immaterial.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is not. Anyone who now is around 35 for example will probably not even
    >>>> heard of, much less /seen/ a Z80 Macro assembler, for example (I have
    >>>> written one myself, BTW. Including support for all of the +500
    >>>> undocumented opcodes and support for the additional instructions of the
    >>>> Hitachi 64180)
    >>>
    >>> For zarks sake. This is NOT THE POINT.

    >>
    >> It is. The date and/or the age of the poster is very important to consider
    >> here. Especially when you accuse someone of lying. Lying is "knowingly
    >> telling something which is not true". You can't by defintion lie if you
    >> don't know that it is wrong what you say. In that case you are simply
    >> wrong, and thats it.
    >>
    >> Naturally you prefer to accuse people of lying left and right

    >
    > Oh you cantankerous fool.
    >
    > He is making the claims. They are blatantly false. He is lying or
    > making things up I dont mind which you choose to believe. I tend to
    > think "making tings up" as he always does.
    >
    > How you can support his ridiculous claims is beyond me.
    >
    > You can not be "wrong" about something so elementary if you know the
    > slightest bit about what you are talking about.
    >
    > And he clearly does not.
    >
    > And therefore he is making things up and is full of hot air as I said
    > earlier.
    >
    > Note it is you (above) I accuse of missing the point OR telling lies.
    >
    > And lets face it sausage breath, you never accused people of lying eh?
    >
    > *chuckle*
    >

    Notice Peter's response to me in this thread - he snipped information he
    could not deal with and then set followups to another group hoping that I
    would not notice and his lies would not be pointed out *again* in COLA.

    As is his norm, of course, he failed. He is a scared little boy who cannot
    support his accusations and does the very acts he whines about others
    doing...


    --
    Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
    walnut paneling and an all leather interior.




  7. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets) snotted:

    > "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    > 48df997b$0$6614$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 9/28/08 7:49 AM:
    >
    > ...
    >>> Look at how often you accuse *me* of lying

    >>
    >> Poor Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets/Michael Glasser.
    >> Your extremely poor reading comprehension abilities again let you put
    >> your bull**** into a thread which has nothing to do with your continuous
    >> lying.
    >>
    >> Just go away, CSMA is in need of a liar like you much more than COLA

    >
    > Before your snippage:
    >
    > -----
    > Look at how often you accuse *me* of lying... and *never*
    > produce a quote and message-id to support your claims.
    >
    > You repeatedly make such accusations but you can never
    > support them. Heck, look at how many times you have accused
    > me of posting as Rekruled. You simply lie and lie and lie
    > and hope people will give you a pass.
    > -----
    >
    > You whine about others snipping. Yet you do it.
    >
    > You also cross post and set follow ups to other groups because you are a
    > scared little boy, afraid people will see responses to your BS.
    >


    Idiotic whiner. It is *me* who decides what part of your cretinous bull****
    to answer and what not. And I snip usually what I don't "discuss" with
    cretins like you, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets/Michael Glasser

    Now be a good lad, and lie in your idiots lair CSMA

    Feel free to tell them that you actually "run a business"
    --
    Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
    the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
    bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.


  8. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    "Peter Khlmann" stated in post
    48dfb623$0$6615$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 9/28/08 9:51 AM:

    ....
    >>>> Look at how often you accuse *me* of lying
    >>>
    >>> Poor Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets/Michael Glasser.
    >>> Your extremely poor reading comprehension abilities again let you put
    >>> your bull**** into a thread which has nothing to do with your continuous
    >>> lying.
    >>>
    >>> Just go away, CSMA is in need of a liar like you much more than COLA

    >>
    >> Before your snippage:
    >>
    >> -----
    >> Look at how often you accuse *me* of lying... and *never*
    >> produce a quote and message-id to support your claims.
    >>
    >> You repeatedly make such accusations but you can never
    >> support them. Heck, look at how many times you have accused
    >> me of posting as Rekruled. You simply lie and lie and lie
    >> and hope people will give you a pass.
    >> -----
    >>
    >> You whine about others snipping. Yet you do it.
    >>
    >> You also cross post and set follow ups to other groups because you are a
    >> scared little boy, afraid people will see responses to your BS.

    >
    > Idiotic whiner.


    Oh, I am not whining - I am merely shoving your nose in your own mess. LOL!

    And you have *no* response other than to run like the coward you are... the
    scared little bunny who cannot back up your claims. You are a little boy
    trying to pretend you are a man, but when push comes to shove you do all you
    can to stop any discussion about your absurd accusations and your intense
    hypocrisy.

    ....


    --
    The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
    limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
    great nations. - David Friedman


  9. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Hadron wrote:
    > "amicus_curious" writes:
    >
    >> As to binary code syntax and structure, I would argue that
    >> it has a very specific syntax and structure, at least for
    >> any specific processor.

    >
    > Lets assume one processor. Keep it simple for Jebb and High
    > Plains Hypocrite.


    This is uncalled for and is an example of:

    http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm

    Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll

    If anyone does anything which will interfere with the troll's
    ability to cause mayhem, they can become very nasty, posting from
    obviously incorrect variations of the name etc. insults, call
    them netcops, netnannies, homosexuals.

    >> If you are saying that the instruction sets and addressing
    >> modes vary widely from processor processor, which directly
    >> affects the assembly language associated with them, then you
    >> are correct. However assembler coding is usually done to
    >> take maximum advantage of specific features and capabilities
    >> of specific processors and anyone working on one is likely
    >> so engrossed in that processor that no concern is ever given
    >> for any other. That is what compilers are for.

    >
    > This seems to be getting out of control.


    Tell us about it, especially your lack of usenet etiquette as
    demonstrated by your disrespect toward posters.

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  10. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Hadron wrote:
    > Matt writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>>>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>>>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >>>> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >>>> features.
    >>> Err, that is exactly my point.

    >>
    >> Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    >> structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random

    >
    > "may not be easy to read"
    >
    > Good.
    >
    > We're getting somewhere.
    >
    > So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    > have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    > data.



    But you agreed with HPT that binary code has /no/ syntax or structure.


    >
    > It's farcical.
    >
    >> bits. It can be disassembled. It has syntax. You can write a parser
    >> for it.

    >
    >>
    >>> So ALL assemblers, pre 1985 or not, had MORE "syntax and structural
    >>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>>
    >>> Jesus High Plains Hypocrite , do try and keep up.
    >>>
    >>> Notice the NOT in big letters above?

    >


  11. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Matt writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Matt writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>>>>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>>>>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>>>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >>>>> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >>>>> features.
    >>>> Err, that is exactly my point.
    >>>
    >>> Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    >>> structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random

    >>
    >> "may not be easy to read"
    >>
    >> Good.
    >>
    >> We're getting somewhere.
    >>
    >> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    >> have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    >> data.

    >
    >
    > But you agreed with HPT that binary code has /no/ syntax or structure.


    This is getting like a tar pit.

    Good luck.

    If you cant follow the point that an assembler (even "pre 1985" which
    was my point) has more syntax and structure than neat binary machine
    code then there is not much point discussing it further.

  12. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Hadron" wrote in message
    news:gbqff9$3kg$4@registered.motzarella.org...

    >
    > If you cant follow the point that an assembler (even "pre 1985" which
    > was my point) has more syntax and structure than neat binary machine
    > code then there is not much point discussing it further.


    To summarize, a machine instruction has a very specific and very limited
    syntax and structure. An assembler provides a basic syntax and structure
    that matches the machine code that it is designed to generate. The benefits
    of an assembler are that it makes it easier to remember the right mnemonic
    for an operation as opposed to having to remember an arbitrary list of
    hexadecimal characters. Further, it internally computes any necessary
    address displacement or location, saving the coder a lot of manual
    calculations, and enforces a few rules regarding instruction pointer
    indexing that used to vary from one microprocessor or minicomputer to
    another. Also the bigendian/littleendian byte order phenomenon. In that
    way it certainly had a lot more syntax, even as a elementary tool, than the
    machine code itself. No doubt about it.

    When macros were added to make coding of repeititve sequences more
    convenient, that syntax and structure increased.

    But an assembly language program is still, at the instruction line level,
    one to one corollated to the machine code that it supports and a
    disassembler can retrieve the fundamental program structure automatically.


  13. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    amicus_curious wrote:

    < snip >

    > But an assembly language program is still, at the instruction line level,
    > one to one corollated to the machine code that it supports and a
    > disassembler can retrieve the fundamental program structure automatically.


    Nope. It can't. It will stumble a lot of times on data inside the code, on
    jump-tables, lots of stuff which is just binary "data" like the
    instructions itself. A disassembler will need a *lot* of human interaction
    to get the assembler code back from a binary

    You can repeat that bull**** as often as you want, and call in Snot Michael
    Glasser for support (as he knows even less of this topic), but that will
    still not make it true

    --
    "Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain."
    Friedrich Schiller


  14. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    news:48e0d216$0$6578$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >> But an assembly language program is still, at the instruction line level,
    >> one to one corollated to the machine code that it supports and a
    >> disassembler can retrieve the fundamental program structure
    >> automatically.

    >
    > Nope. It can't. It will stumble a lot of times on data inside the code, on
    > jump-tables, lots of stuff which is just binary "data" like the
    > instructions itself. A disassembler will need a *lot* of human interaction
    > to get the assembler code back from a binary
    >


    Perhaps you are still using some inferior open-source disassembler then. If
    you would like to see better, just download the free Visual Studio Express
    edition for the language of your choice and connect to an arbitrary
    executable running on your machine. Then just click Debug | Break All and
    see how the disassembly of the code at any arbitrary point is correctly
    rendered. You really should educate yourself more if you want to constantly
    chime in with your observations. You are looking very foolish most of the
    time due to your lack of understanding.



  15. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48e0d216$0$6578$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> < snip >
    >>
    >>> But an assembly language program is still, at the instruction line
    >>> level, one to one corollated to the machine code that it supports and a
    >>> disassembler can retrieve the fundamental program structure
    >>> automatically.

    >>
    >> Nope. It can't. It will stumble a lot of times on data inside the code,
    >> on jump-tables, lots of stuff which is just binary "data" like the
    >> instructions itself. A disassembler will need a *lot* of human
    >> interaction to get the assembler code back from a binary
    >>

    >
    > Perhaps you are still using some inferior open-source disassembler then.


    Bull****. As usual, you don't have the faintest clue what you are talking
    about

    > If you would like to see better, just download the free Visual Studio
    > Express edition for the language of your choice and connect to an
    > arbitrary executable running on your machine. Then just click Debug |
    > Break All and see how the disassembly of the code at any arbitrary point
    > is correctly rendered.


    That is *not* the same thing at all.
    *Debugging* code is naturally running it (under the debugger). Then it will
    follow the code.
    But it is not "disassembling" the code, getting you a nice file of assembler
    code to rerun through an assembler

    Quit mingling two entirely different concepts

    > You really should educate yourself more if you want to constantly
    > chime in with your observations. You are looking very foolish most of the
    > time due to your lack of understanding.


    The only guys looking foolish are you, Bill Weisgerber, and Snot Michael
    Glasser with his infinite capacity to get it all wrong

    --
    Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write,
    it should be hard to understand.


  16. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Khlmann belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> Perhaps you are still using some inferior open-source disassembler then.

    >
    > Bull****. As usual, you don't have the faintest clue what you are talking
    > about
    >
    >> If you would like to see better, just download the free Visual Studio
    >> Express edition for the language of your choice and connect to an
    >> arbitrary executable running on your machine. Then just click Debug |
    >> Break All and see how the disassembly of the code at any arbitrary point
    >> is correctly rendered.

    >
    > That is *not* the same thing at all.
    > *Debugging* code is naturally running it (under the debugger). Then it will
    > follow the code.
    > But it is not "disassembling" the code, getting you a nice file of assembler
    > code to rerun through an assembler
    >
    > Quit mingling two entirely different concepts
    >
    >> You really should educate yourself more if you want to constantly
    >> chime in with your observations. You are looking very foolish most of the
    >> time due to your lack of understanding.

    >
    > The only guys looking foolish are you, Bill Weisgerber, and Snot Michael
    > Glasser with his infinite capacity to get it all wrong


    That's the beauty of bull****. Only someone who understands what a
    disassembler is will know that Bill Greaseburger and "friends" don't
    know what the hell they are talking about.

    One Windows computer: $499
    One Windows operating system: $50 OEM
    One Microsoft-subsidized troll post: $0.25
    Confusing disassembly with stepping
    through debug code with symbol tables: Priceless.

    --
    People are always available for work in the past tense.

  17. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Chris Ahlstrom writes:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>> Perhaps you are still using some inferior open-source disassembler then.

    >>
    >> Bull****. As usual, you don't have the faintest clue what you are talking
    >> about
    >>
    >>> If you would like to see better, just download the free Visual Studio
    >>> Express edition for the language of your choice and connect to an
    >>> arbitrary executable running on your machine. Then just click Debug |
    >>> Break All and see how the disassembly of the code at any arbitrary point
    >>> is correctly rendered.

    >>
    >> That is *not* the same thing at all.
    >> *Debugging* code is naturally running it (under the debugger). Then it will
    >> follow the code.
    >> But it is not "disassembling" the code, getting you a nice file of assembler
    >> code to rerun through an assembler
    >>
    >> Quit mingling two entirely different concepts
    >>
    >>> You really should educate yourself more if you want to constantly
    >>> chime in with your observations. You are looking very foolish most of the
    >>> time due to your lack of understanding.

    >>
    >> The only guys looking foolish are you, Bill Weisgerber, and Snot Michael
    >> Glasser with his infinite capacity to get it all wrong

    >
    > That's the beauty of bull****. Only someone who understands what a
    > disassembler is will know that Bill Greaseburger and "friends" don't
    > know what the hell they are talking about.
    >
    > One Windows computer: $499
    > One Windows operating system: $50 OEM
    > One Microsoft-subsidized troll post: $0.25
    > Confusing disassembly with stepping
    > through debug code with symbol tables: Priceless.


    Oh dear me.

    I suspect Peter will email you privately to
    correct you.

    No one is confusing any such thing. It was just pointed out, correctly,
    that you can break ANY process and see the disassembled code with or
    without "symbol tables" ...... (LOL).

    Symbol tables were not the issue.


    --
    "Of course, by the time Gnash gets its act together, we'll
    probably all have to start all over again with Silverlight
    (or Moonlight)."
    -- The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  18. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48e0e3c0$0$17117$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:48e0d216$0$6578$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>> < snip >
    >>>
    >>>> But an assembly language program is still, at the instruction line
    >>>> level, one to one corollated to the machine code that it supports and a
    >>>> disassembler can retrieve the fundamental program structure
    >>>> automatically.
    >>>
    >>> Nope. It can't. It will stumble a lot of times on data inside the code,
    >>> on jump-tables, lots of stuff which is just binary "data" like the
    >>> instructions itself. A disassembler will need a *lot* of human
    >>> interaction to get the assembler code back from a binary
    >>>

    >>
    >> Perhaps you are still using some inferior open-source disassembler then.

    >
    > Bull****. As usual, you don't have the faintest clue what you are talking
    > about
    >

    You say that a lot, but you never seem to be able to point to anything that
    backs up your statement. You have a lot of attitude, but not much altitude
    it would seem.

    >> If you would like to see better, just download the free Visual Studio
    >> Express edition for the language of your choice and connect to an
    >> arbitrary executable running on your machine. Then just click Debug |
    >> Break All and see how the disassembly of the code at any arbitrary point
    >> is correctly rendered.

    >
    > That is *not* the same thing at all.
    > *Debugging* code is naturally running it (under the debugger). Then it
    > will
    > follow the code.
    > But it is not "disassembling" the code, getting you a nice file of
    > assembler
    > code to rerun through an assembler
    >

    Well if you cannot understand that the task of disassembly is the same
    regardless of whether the code had been running or not, then you are
    hopeless. Many here do think you are hopeless, of course, but you should
    not be going out of your way like this to prove them right.

    > Quit mingling two entirely different concepts
    >
    >> You really should educate yourself more if you want to constantly
    >> chime in with your observations. You are looking very foolish most of
    >> the
    >> time due to your lack of understanding.

    >
    > The only guys looking foolish are you, Bill Weisgerber, and Snot Michael
    > Glasser with his infinite capacity to get it all wrong
    >

    Presumably you are following the notion advanced by the Shestowicz fellow
    regarding the identities of various posters here, but you are basing your
    belief on someone as unlettered and ill-founded as yourself. That alone
    should give your pause.


  19. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:TB6Ek.39896$XT1.37827@bignews5.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Khlmann belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>> Perhaps you are still using some inferior open-source disassembler then.

    >>
    >> Bull****. As usual, you don't have the faintest clue what you are talking
    >> about
    >>
    >>> If you would like to see better, just download the free Visual Studio
    >>> Express edition for the language of your choice and connect to an
    >>> arbitrary executable running on your machine. Then just click Debug |
    >>> Break All and see how the disassembly of the code at any arbitrary point
    >>> is correctly rendered.

    >>
    >> That is *not* the same thing at all.
    >> *Debugging* code is naturally running it (under the debugger). Then it
    >> will
    >> follow the code.
    >> But it is not "disassembling" the code, getting you a nice file of
    >> assembler
    >> code to rerun through an assembler
    >>
    >> Quit mingling two entirely different concepts
    >>
    >>> You really should educate yourself more if you want to constantly
    >>> chime in with your observations. You are looking very foolish most of
    >>> the
    >>> time due to your lack of understanding.

    >>
    >> The only guys looking foolish are you, Bill Weisgerber, and Snot Michael
    >> Glasser with his infinite capacity to get it all wrong

    >
    > That's the beauty of bull****. Only someone who understands what a
    > disassembler is will know that Bill Greaseburger and "friends" don't
    > know what the hell they are talking about.
    >
    > One Windows computer: $499
    > One Windows operating system: $50 OEM
    > One Microsoft-subsidized troll post: $0.25
    > Confusing disassembly with stepping
    > through debug code with symbol tables: Priceless.
    >

    I am beginning to think that you and Kohlman are similarly inept. Naturally
    if you pick an arbitrary executable to examine there are no symbol tables
    generally available. Perhaps there are in some cases, but certainly not in
    all. And the result is similar. VS just creates arbitray symbols to
    reference if the originals are missing. But PK's silly idea was that there
    was substantial user input required to obtain a disassembly. Do you really
    agree with him?


  20. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Hadron wrote:

    > Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Perhaps you are still using some inferior open-source disassembler
    >>>> then.
    >>>
    >>> Bull****. As usual, you don't have the faintest clue what you are
    >>> talking about
    >>>
    >>>> If you would like to see better, just download the free Visual Studio
    >>>> Express edition for the language of your choice and connect to an
    >>>> arbitrary executable running on your machine. Then just click Debug |
    >>>> Break All and see how the disassembly of the code at any arbitrary
    >>>> point is correctly rendered.
    >>>
    >>> That is *not* the same thing at all.
    >>> *Debugging* code is naturally running it (under the debugger). Then it
    >>> will follow the code.
    >>> But it is not "disassembling" the code, getting you a nice file of
    >>> assembler code to rerun through an assembler
    >>>
    >>> Quit mingling two entirely different concepts
    >>>
    >>>> You really should educate yourself more if you want to constantly
    >>>> chime in with your observations. You are looking very foolish most of
    >>>> the time due to your lack of understanding.
    >>>
    >>> The only guys looking foolish are you, Bill Weisgerber, and Snot Michael
    >>> Glasser with his infinite capacity to get it all wrong

    >>
    >> That's the beauty of bull****. Only someone who understands what a
    >> disassembler is will know that Bill Greaseburger and "friends" don't
    >> know what the hell they are talking about.
    >>
    >> One Windows computer: $499
    >> One Windows operating system: $50 OEM
    >> One Microsoft-subsidized troll post: $0.25
    >> Confusing disassembly with stepping
    >> through debug code with symbol tables: Priceless.

    >
    > Oh dear me.
    >
    > I suspect Peter will email you privately to
    > correct you.


    And again you are bull****ting here. I never contact anyone here by email
    >
    > No one is confusing any such thing. It was just pointed out, correctly,
    > that you can break ANY process and see the disassembled code with or
    > without "symbol tables" ...... (LOL).


    Fine. If you are debugging, you see the *part* which was run.
    Please explain (in detail) how to know that you have run *all* of it. Be
    precise

    Idiot

    > Symbol tables were not the issue.
    >


    No. But with or without symbol tables, running a program in the debugger is
    not even close to disassembling it
    It is a completely different concept, and /if/ you had any experience with
    assembler code as you claim you would have known that.
    --
    You're genuinely bogus.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 11 19 20 21 22 LastLast