NASM - The Netwide Assembler
NASM Forum => Other Discussion => Topic started by: JoeCoder on May 17, 2011, 01:21:03 PM
-
Hello,everybody
As I had just installed office 2010 in my XP, and at the same time unistalled the nasm.
But the nasm-unistall-tool had deleted the files in office directory, why ? ???
LOL dump Windows and get a real OS. Stuff like this never happens EXCEPT on Windows.
-
LOL dump Windows and get a real OS. Stuff like this never happens EXCEPT on Windows.
I don't see a need for that. Windows is an awesome OS. I use Windows on one of my computers for a uC development environment... The "OS Wars" just seems silly to me, each OS excels in different ways and I'm happy that I have the option of using windows instead of being always stuck on Linux/BSD systems, I'm even more happier when I get a reason to install DOS. :)
That being said... NASM has an installer? :P
-
Yeah, it does: nasm-x.xx.installer.exe. Seems like overkill to me, but the Windows-folk seem to expect it. Only fair, I suppose - we've got "RPM"s for the Red-Hat-folk. I never have been able to get it to work, but it's there...
Best,
Frank
-
LOL dump Windows and get a real OS. Stuff like this never happens EXCEPT on Windows.
What do you want him to get?? A stupid Mac that only have one good thing in it which is the GUI?? Or Linux the Open-Soruce??? All the commercial software products are created under windows, %80 of the most famous companies use Windows. That shows us that you are not a good programmer if you say that windows is not good ???
-
The guys who write Linux do it because they love it. The guys who write Windows won't do it if they don't get paid. Which do you think would be bettter?
Of course, I don't want to get into any "OS wars" here! :)
Best,
Frank
-
The guys who write Linux do it because they love it. The guys who write Windows won't do it if they don't get paid. Which do you think would be bettter?
Any of the BSD family ;D
-
We can't rate an Operating System just because of its history or how it was created, Windows was created by professional Microsoft Programmers/Engineers, and Linux was created by normal programmers which used normal programming languages like C and Assembly (Well Assembly is not normal, it is an advanced language), C was created by Microsoft which Linux used when created
Don't worry Frank, I won't declare an "OS War" on you :P ;)
Yours Sincerely,
Mahmoud
-
We can't rate an Operating System just because of its history or how it was created, Windows was created by professional Microsoft Programmers/Engineers, and Linux was created by normal programmers which used normal programming languages like C and Assembly (Well Assembly is not normal, it is an advanced language), C was created by Microsoft which Linux used when created
MJaoune, you are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding regarding these subjects. For example. C was not "created" by Microsoft... C predates the existence of Microsoft! Also, Linux has had much corporate (i.e. paid development) backing.
Please, at the very least, use Wikipedia to review the history of these things so you may come better prepared to these types of conversations.
-
C was created by Dennis Ritchie and some other developers, who most of them now work with Microsoft, that is why some people consider C as created by Microsoft
-
C was created by Dennis Ritchie and some other developers, who most of them now work with Microsoft, that is why some people consider C as created by Microsoft
Perhaps, but Microsoft "creating" C is incorrect and revisionist history at best.
This is still a technical forum, and people rely on us for accurate information, please dabble in facts and not conjecture.
-
C was created by Dennis Ritchie and some other developers, who most of them now work with Microsoft, that is why some people consider C as created by Microsoft
When did Dennis Ritchie work for Microsoft? He and Ken developed C when they were working at Bell Labs, then Bell Labs restructured itself a few times before turning into Alcatel/Lucent from which he retired about 4 years ago. Even if he did work for Microsoft now, that wouldn't give Microsoft claims as of "creating" C, C was created by Bell Labs (the company that was paying Dennis and Ken when they created C) lol
Of course, I don't want to get into any "OS wars" here! :)
There really is no point.. It's not like Windows, Linux, or BSD is IEC 61508 compliant like SafeRTOS :P
SafeRTOS ftw!
-
C was created by Dennis Ritchie and some other developers, who most of them now work with Microsoft, that is why some people consider C as created by Microsoft
When did Dennis Ritchie work for Microsoft?
That is the first thing I saw too, but then I saw the ambiguous blanket statement of and some other developers, who most of them now work with Microsoft.
-
(Actually, Mahmoud, I was more worried that I was going to declare "OS war" on you! :) )
MS may think they created C. They seem to feel free to ignore International Standards and follow their own.
As Mahmoud points out, these guys are professional programmers! So how come there are exploitable vulnerabilities in each new release? Just trying to keep the AV guys employed? :)
Best,
Frank
-
(My military forces are not ready at the moment :P)
I agree that Microsoft is a dirty company that wants to own everything, they always wanted to buy yahoo.com, and some other things.
Linux is a good OS, but windows is good too... :-\
-
Agreed. I'm not really sure it's "dirty" for a company to want to own everything. Most companies do! But I have a different opinion: I want 'em not to! That's the real reason I avoid MS. If we don't "exercise" our choices, they might go away!
I've never tried BSD. I've been told by others that BSD is "more secure", and that "Linux feels like it was thrown together, BSD feels like it was engineered". SafeRTOS is probably good, too. Never heard of that one - I'll check it out (later...).
Best,
Frank
-
I've never tried BSD. I've been told by others that BSD is "more secure", and that "Linux feels like it was thrown together, BSD feels like it was engineered".
The BSD family has a system-as-a-whole approach, each piece is thoughtfully integrated, including thorough documentation, where-as Linux based distributions are just the kernel/drivers with a bunch of 3rd party utilities/apps loosely thrown on top of it, perhaps with some sort of package management system and maybe some consistency in where files are located.
The upside to the BSD approach is that it is more stable of a design. The downside is that you lose the bleeding-edge effect that Linux offers with newer drivers/apps. However, you can compile kernels/drivers/apps as you see fit on either family... I've done this before to include a newer network card driver within OpenBSD, among other things across both families.
So, for BSD, I would say to focus on the concept of stability and not "security". A system is only as secure as the sysadmin(s) in charge of it. Some distributions, such as OpenBSD, come with a minimal install philosophy that is inherently secure, but you still have to exercise care in expanding it into a production server.
If you were going to plunge into BSD, especially coming from Linux, I'd say start with FreeBSD... or perhaps even derivitives such as DragonFly BSD, DesktopBSD or PC-BSD.
-
SafeRTOS is probably good, too. Never heard of that one - I'll check it out (later...).
It was actually a joke, I think I've used SafeRTOS twice since I've gotten into microcontroller programming and in both cases it was to ensure that the devices had something stable to fall back on in the event my code threw an exception (I was using SafeRTOS as a critical exception handler to safely shutdown everything). That said, it actually is really good, it's one of the few microcontroller OS's that is allowed to be used in the design of medical equipment and what they call "safety critical applications" (ie if the device fails, someone could die).
-
I hated Linux since the day I tried to install Ubuntu and Fedora, and they both keep freezing at booting >:(
-
I hated Linux since the day I tried to install Ubuntu and Fedora, and they both keep freezing at booting >:(
Try turning off ACPI for starters. There are entire guides you can find on Google to help you through the boot process. This is an annoying but necessary process as not all computer systems are designed equally.
-
Yeah. My experience with Linux was totally different! When I first got it to boot, my ethernet card didn't work. I found a place - at nasa.gov as I recall - where I could find the latest drivers (my card used "tulip.so"). I downloaded the latest "tulip.c". Fortunately, there were instructions for how to compile it - it was a very long command line to gcc! ("command lines", really) I'd never have guessed it, or found it by trial-and-error! I compiled it, put it in place, and rebooted, and... holy crap, my ethernet card worked! "Look Ma, I'm a Unix Guru!" Well, it turned out to be "beginner's luck", but it gave me a good attitude to start with. If the installer had frozen, I probably wouldn't like Linux either! Well, I'd never know if I liked it or not...
Keith says "turn off ACPI". Okay but that's still a "bug" in the installer (IMO). It should, ideally, detect this situation, and advise us, or offer to turn it off for us. In sharp contrast to Windows, Linux cordially invites us to fix these problems, if we have the skill. If we don't have the skill (usual), we are invited to get a friend to do it, or even hire somebody to do it (or just report it and hope that it'll get fixed). If Windows doesn't work like we want/need/expect, we're pretty much stuck!
I observe that some people say, "Linux works great! Even my grandmother uses it!", but other people have endless trouble with it. I would expect "Windows Wienies" (present company not included) to have trouble with it, but I'm talking about guys who have written (and sold, in some cases) their own OS, and know quite well what they're doing! I conclude that "it's not for everybody". This may be due to hardware differences, but I think Linux just doesn't like some people! Most days, Linux likes me! :)
Best,
Frank
-
LOOOL :D Finally after replying my previous reply I went to try Fedora on a USB instead on a CD, AND IT WORKED!!! HAHAHAHAHA REALLY?!?!? Without any problem in the drives!! ;D ;D ;D :-* :-X :D
CONGRATULATE ME :D
-
Congratulations, Mahmoud! Now you're in a position to evaluate whether you like Linux or Windows better. You may still prefer Windows, but you've got a choice. It is this "choice" that I really think is "better", not any particular OS. Now you can decide not only "Where would you like to go today?" but also "How would you like to get there?"! :)
Best,
Frank
-
I develop software for both Windows and Linux. You will find that development goes much faster if you use a VM ( I personally use Oracle VirtualBox - http://www.virtualbox.org (http://www.virtualbox.org) ).
That way you do not have to reboot the entire machine each time you want to switch OSes and you get the benefit of running two ( or more! ) operating systems simultaneously.
Plus, it's a great way to experiment with your own personal kernels, boot loaders, etc...
-
I observe that some people say, "Linux works great! Even my grandmother uses it!", but other people have endless trouble with it. I would expect "Windows Wienies" (present company not included) to have trouble with it, but I'm talking about guys who have written (and sold, in some cases) their own OS, and know quite well what they're doing! I conclude that "it's not for everybody". This may be due to hardware differences, but I think Linux just doesn't like some people! Most days, Linux likes me! :)
I still can't run any of the candy distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc) on my desktop. The problem is simply that they no longer support my older setup. The candy distros are designed to contain the bleeding edge software which support the newest hardware, that said they become so massive that the installers won't even run on the older systems. This is one of the reasons that, when I'm on linux, I use Slackware or Gentoo. They are streamlined and "just work" on whatever system I've put them on.
-
Oh, dear. I was planning to upgrade soon, too (been "planning" this for several years - my hardware and software are seriously obsolete!). I was thinking of trying Ubuntu - an African word meaning "one ring to rule them all" (joke - it really means "human", I'm told).
I've been running Slackware distros. I read someplace, "if you've got a friend running some distro, that's the best distro for you". I don't have a "real world" friend running Linux, but the son of a friend was running Slackware (actually, he told me that BSD was better), so I tried Slackware and it "just worked", so I've stuck with it...
In a perfect world, an installer would detect what it's up against and do something appropriate. In the world we actually live in, not so much... We just have to cope, as best we can.
Fortunately, it doesn't cost any money to try different things (Windows excepted), but the investment of time can be considerable! Rob's suggestion of a VM is a good one. I have doubts that my "valuable antique" hardware will run a VM (at reasonable speed), but I haven't actually tried it...
Best,
Frank
-
my hardware and software are seriously obsolete
fedora 15 was released the other day and it uses the very latest the free software world has to offer. have a look at the system requirements it'd run on quite old hardware
http://fedoraproject.org/
if your computer can't run that then what about lubuntu (light ubuntu) it only needs 256mb of memory to install and when its up and running it can run on as little as 128mb
http://lubuntu.net/
i personally use debian, its a bit harder to set up than ubuntu but i prefer the longer gaps between new releases
btw any assembly language programmer can install and admin a linux distro ;)
-
if your computer can't run that then what about lubuntu (light ubuntu) it only needs 256mb of memory to install and when its up and running it can run on as little as 128mb
http://lubuntu.net/
I can trump that: Tiny Core Linux (http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/welcome.html) :)
-
Congratulations, Mahmoud! Now you're in a position to evaluate whether you like Linux or Windows better
Well Linux is very good for a programmer :P
if your computer can't run that then what about lubuntu (light ubuntu) it only needs 256mb of memory to install and when its up and running it can run on as little as 128mb
I have 2 GB of RAM, and 2.6 GHz Intel Processor, Fedora works well, but Ubuntu has some issues with my Ati Card
-
spam removed.
-
Ashley, do not spam. Your reply has been moderated.