How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux

This is a discussion on How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux ; On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:47:54 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out > this bit o' wisdom: > >> Hadron wrote: >> >>> Chris Ahlstrom writes: >>> >>>> After takin' a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12 20 21 22
Results 421 to 422 of 422

Thread: How simple are newbies anyway?

  1. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:47:54 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

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

    >
    > Hadron likes to pretend that all of the Linux advocates here are part of a
    > "cabal", with a hierarchy of "masters" and "lap dogs", who communicate
    > surreptitiously behind the scene via e-mail, IRC, and secret blogs, with
    > coordinated activities.
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > And that part is /partly/ disassembled. You see only instructions and the
    > addresses of data, for all snippets that pass through your debugging
    > windows.
    >
    >> 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

    >
    > And try debugging a program without symbol tables.
    >
    > The lack of symbols is as crippling in debugging as it is in disassembly.
    >
    > But debugging and disassembly are /not/ the same thing. Debugging uses
    > one small part of disassembly (converting code bytes into instruction
    > mnemonics). Full disassembly also converts jump offsets to abstract
    > labels, function calls to abstract function labels, etc. But even these
    > labels don't help the reader much, and Peter has already mentioned what
    > happens when data is interspersed in the code.
    >
    > A debugger relies on a compiler or assembler to generate symbol tables so
    > that the these abstract labels become meaningful to the reader, who can
    > then much more quickly grasp where he is in the code.
    >
    >> It is a completely different concept, and /if/ you had any experience
    >> with assembler code as you claim you would have known that.

    >
    > It's just Hadron's usual gambit: pretend he knows something is wrong with
    > what you said, pompously mumble about something being wrong with it (and
    > maybe stick in a silly-ass "Oh dear me" or "LOL" as above), but never come
    > right out and say what is wrong with any level of detail.
    >
    > That way, he can seem (to himself, anyway) to be superior, without
    > actually risking saying something stupid.


    If Quack actually believes what he posts, & that he's admitted to being a
    "long term Windows user and programmer", it's no wonder windoze is such a
    screw up.

    --
    "If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't
    be posting anything right now."
    DFS - comp.os.linux.advocacy
    Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004



  2. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Chris Ahlstrom writes:

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

    >
    > Hadron likes to pretend that all of the Linux advocates here are part of
    > a "cabal", with a hierarchy of "masters" and "lap dogs", who communicate
    > surreptitiously behind the scene via e-mail, IRC, and secret blogs, with
    > coordinated activities.


    All? No. Just a few. And Peter is not one of them. It was a joke. But
    you on the other hand Liarmutt ....

    >
    >>> 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.


    Yes. Your point being?

    >
    > And that part is /partly/ disassembled. You see only instructions and
    > the addresses of data, for all snippets that pass through your debugging
    > windows.


    Your point being?

    >
    >> 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

    >
    > And try debugging a program without symbol tables.


    We are not disputing it is easier with symbol tables and souce. Jesus
    stop moving the goal posts.

    > The lack of symbols is as crippling in debugging as it is in
    > disassembly.


    Yes. Your point being?

    >
    > But debugging and disassembly are /not/ the same thing. Debugging uses
    > one small part of disassembly (converting code bytes into instruction
    > mnemonics). Full disassembly also converts jump offsets to abstract
    > labels, function calls to abstract function labels, etc. But even these
    > labels don't help the reader much, and Peter has already mentioned what
    > happens when data is interspersed in the code.


    Stop.

    I know what assembler is and am fairly certain I have done a lot more
    than you. Possibly not as much as Peter.

    The bottom line is this :

    Do you or do you NOT support Jebs claims that "post 85 assemblers have
    more syntax and structure" than machine code?

    Of course you do. Who wouldn't?

    Assembler. You know the thing that allows you all these comments and
    pseudo names for memory locations. etc etc.

    You know ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE THERE BEFORE 85 TOO.

    Get it yet Linonut? See the "post 85" thing? It is suggesting that there
    was some kind of renaissance at this time. There was not.

    It ha always been the case that an Assembler had more "syntax and
    structure" support than binary machine code.

    COLA "advocates" need to read what they are responding to before they
    start shilling clueless morons like Jeb or Willy Poaster.

    Now the other issue is you licking arse about the debugging thing. Well,
    here's a clue - they are the bits you are generally interested in....


+ Reply to Thread
Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12 20 21 22