/prog/'s opinions on the google native x86 code client for web browsers
i think the general idea sounds awesome but i can totally understand why they released it as open source, any other action (ACTIVEX) would be foolish imo because it will be a BITCH to secure
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-10 5:16
I haven't heard of it before but based on your description, it's a fairly neat idea. OTOH, why x86? What are we going to do, translate it to whatever architecture we're running on?
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-10 5:25
naw, it will only work on x86 for now
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-10 5:25
>>2 Why x86
Their white paper [1] lists some reasons. Support for SSE, performance, use of segmentation as a simple and effective protection mechanism.
ubanto forums why cant i run google quake in ubanto 64
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-10 10:19
It would be better to write an x86 emulator in ECMAscript. The performance would be acceptable if you were using one of the new JIT interpreters for ECMAscript (Google Chrome, FF 3.1). And it would be more secure.
Wait, did the OP just say that making something open source makes it secure, using ActiveX as some sort of point that proprietery implementations are not.
Tell that to the dozens of malicous plugins for the open source FireFox.
What kind of nigger are you. You are on the fucking internet. Stop being a lazy mexican nigger hybrid and search for fucks sake.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-10 17:22
>>22 You are on the fucking internet.
That's a cop out response and you know it. You made the claim, YOU need to back it up. The burden of proof lies on you, dickhead.
What a douchy faggy thing to say. The burden of proof is not on me. I have no need to prove this to anyone. I am stating a fact. Your ignorance and inability to perform the simple task to correct your faggoty does not burden me with anything to prove.
Does your mother still wipe you ass for you, because you act stupid and lazy enough to make that a real possibility.
>>28
When a phd student publishes a paper, he doesn't just write:
"Oh, such and such is true. Proof? Bro, just google it lol. Lazy ass nigger."
But whatever, I'm done talking to you. Let me just say in the three years I've been browsing world4ch this is the first time I've had the displeasure of meeting someone as rude and impertinent as you.
This is not the only one. If you want to find out more, how about you take your thumb out of you ass, lick it off and look at a fucking security website like a person who isn't a complete idiot. It is not everyone else's responsibility to cure you stupidity. It is your responsibility. Be fucking accountable to yourself for once faggot.
I have a low tolerance for ignorance. I have 0 for stupidity and faggotry.
I have a low tolerance for ignorance. I have 0 for stupidity and faggotry.
wow, you must hate yourself. how can you stand being in the presence of someone so ignorant, stupid, and incredibly gay?
>>18
yes, when someone like google or microsoft releases open source code it does make it more secure because every single nerd in the world will want to take credit for having found a vulnerability in code produced by one of the largest software company in the world
when you release open source code it does not make it more secure, in fact it would be a pretty bad idea
>>48
that's true. but security through obscurity isn't the only kind of security that exists when we're talking about controlling what code is run on your computer.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 5:27
>>48
Give me a string that produces md5 746308829575e17c3331bbcb00c0898b, then I'll believe your bold claim.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 5:38
>>50
md5("Test test test") == 746308829575e17c3331bbcb00c0898b
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-11 5:52
>>50
That's obscurity. For all you know, I might generate a random string that happens to match that MD5 on my first attempt.