/prog/ - Linux sucks

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 10:47

I'm copying 200 GB to Truecrypt partition and it freezes system every two minutes. Who wrote IO? Some moron, apperantly.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-21 22:27

>>39
take some lessons in trolling from the GC guy. you still have a lot to learn, you fagawan.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-21 23:21

>>41
Wtf man? I'm the GC guy and it's not trolling. GC is shit. That's a fact.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-21 23:41

>>42
Wtf
No.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-22 22:42

Windows



int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPWSTR lpCmdLine, int nShowCmd) {

...

Linux



  sprintf(byte_84C2620, "lib%s.so.%d", a4, a5);

  result = sub_8204AA0("/etc/ld.so.conf", (int)byte_84C2620, 1, Debug);

  if ( !result || !*(_BYTE *)result )

  {

    sprintf(byte_84C2620, "/usr/lib/lib%s.so.%d", a4, a5);

    if ( enumDlls(byte_84C2620, Debug)

      || (sprintf(byte_84C2620, "/lib/lib%s.so.%d", a4, a5), enumDlls(byte_84C2620, Debug))

      || (sprintf(byte_84C2620, "/usr/lib32/lib%s.so.%d", a4, a5), enumDlls(byte_84C2620, Debug))

      || (sprintf(byte_84C2620, "/lib32/lib%s.so.%d", a1, a4, a5), enumDlls(byte_84C2620, Debug)) )

      return (int)byte_84C2620;

    sprintf(byte_84C2620, "/lib32/lib%s.so", a4);

    result = sub_8204AA0("/etc/ld.so.conf", (int)byte_84C2620, 1, Debug);

    if ( !result || !*(_BYTE *)result )

    {

      sprintf(byte_84C2620, "/usr/lib/lib%s.so", a4);

      if ( !enumDlls(byte_84C2620, Debug) )

      {

        sprintf(byte_84C2620, "/lib/lib%s.so", a4);

        if ( !enumDlls(byte_84C2620, Debug) )

        {

          sprintf(byte_84C2620, "/usr/lib32/lib%s.so", a4);

          if ( !enumDlls(byte_84C2620, Debug) )

          {

            sprintf(byte_84C2620, "/lib32/lib%s.so", a4);

            if ( !enumDlls(byte_84C2620, Debug) )

              return 0;

              ...

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-22 22:56

>>44
And guess how it determines the right DLLs to load: it freads first 5-bytes from it's own ELF file, then compares them to the ones of each DLL. Truly a Linux quality solution to portability!

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:03

>>44
a function signature for main() as defined by the official microsoft development resources

Okay. Not pretty, but it's defined, so okay.

some bullshit code probably copied from the binutils sources and/or some thirdparty shite
... And what exactly is your point here?

Are you seriously trying to use random code to bash Linux?
If that's the case, 0/10

Now hush! /proggles/ isn't the place to spread your autism like you spread peanutbutter over your dick everytime you masturbate

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:08

>>46
I'm guessing >>44's linux example was an entrypoint decompile of the loader.

Windows' WinMain function isn't exactly an entrypoint, and DLL loading isn't even performed by the application (it can be, but by default the OS loads the imported libraries in a well documented way).

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:21

>>46
That looks like generated code. I don't think anyone cares... you're probably being trolled.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:32

>>46
some bullshit code probably copied from the binutils sources and/or some thirdparty shite
Nope. It's a custom code made for Linux port of Majesty video game. And of course it fails to run on my distro, while Windows version of Majesty runs fine on all versions of Windows, because it doesnt have to parse the fucking /etc/ld.so.conf!

That is why Linux has no games.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:34

>>47
DLL loading isn't even performed by the application
In case of Linux, it's performed by application, to make it portable (every Linux distro keeps DLLs in its own folder).

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:38

>>49
Linux port of Majesty video game
Sorry to read that, but I can absolutely guarantee you that this is in absolutely NO way the standard way to port a game to Linux, let alone to any platform whatsoever.

Whoever ported it just didn't have any fucking clue what he/she did.

That is why Linux has no games.
That is bullshit. Linux has only very few games because Linux isn't nearly as popular as gaming platform as Windows. That, and only that, is the reason Linux has only few games.

There are plenty of examples of well ported games, like UT2004, Postal2, RTCW, Prey, and just about any game ported by icculus.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:39

>>48
That looks like generated code.
The code was produced by IDA.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:41

>>51
Linux isn't nearly as popular as gaming platform as Windows...
...because Linux sucks. The platform is bad for both - users and programmes.

>There are plenty of examples of well ported games, like UT2004, Postal2, RTCW, Prey
They probably wont run on modern distribution, because format /etc/ld.so.conf changes.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:43

>>51
Sorry to read that, but I can absolutely guarantee you that this is in absolutely NO way the standard way to port a game to Linux...
Beause Linux has no well defined standard.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:52

Anyone can check himself
http://demofiles.linuxgamepublishing.com/majesty/

That code located at 0x08204CE5.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:03

>>54
Beause Linux has no well defined standard

Oh, but Windows does? And I suppose Apple does too?

... wait, they don't!

No, there is no 'how to port shit to other platforms' standard, because porting differs from software to software. What you probably tried to refer to is the programming part - and that too, differs from software to software.

Now, kindly go back to /g/, and stop acting like you actually know what you're talking about.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:07

>>56
Oh, but Windows does?
M$ spends a good amount of $$$ to keep older apps running.

And I suppose Apple does too?
Yes. Apple does what Linux not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)

Name: MS rules! 2011-09-23 2:12

http://www.vistax64.com/vista-general/72880-win16-application-support.html
Will I be able to run Win16 (Windows 3.1) applications in Vista?
Many DOS and 16-bit Windows applications run fine
on 32-bit Vista (any edition).
My understanding - based on answers during the beta - is that backwards
compatibility remains a significant goal for the Windows team. The NTVDM and
16 bit WoW are fully functional in Vista; in fact they've been enhanced
beyond what was available in XP (corrections to interrupt vector table,
etc).

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:15

>>57
M$ spends a good amount of $$$ to keep older apps running.

They don't.

Infact, Microsoft literally tries to exterminate old software by repeatedly reimplementing basic tools (see DirectX, Windows Vista and Windows 7), that become more and more incompatible with old versions. And trust me, Microsoft does not give a shit about old software.

Windows has, other than Linux, a binary compatibility layer, that essentially never changed since Windows 3, and is what makes it possible to run old Windows programs almost without any changes.

But consider the age of Windows and Linux - compared to Windows, Linux is a really young operating system.

Yes. Apple does what Linux not.
You clearly have not the slightest clue what kind of shit you write, really.

Protip: Try to inform yourself what Rosetta really is.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:18

>>58
Many DOS and 16-bit Windows applications run fine
on 32-bit Vista

[citation needed]

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:34

>>59
Linux is a really young operating system.
Please, stop trolling!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
Initial release 27 July 1993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
created in 1992

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:35

>>60
This is a limitation of the 64 bit CPU (no VDMs in 64 bit mode),
not an explicit design decision by Windows.

Conclusion: Intel sucks.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:41

>>59
Try to inform yourself what Rosetta really is.
Rosetta does what Linux cant. Users dont care how it does. It may even turn to divine forces, to the spirit of Steve Job himself - users still wont care or notice - that is the point, users shouldnt be "informed" about all the "really is" pecularities and OS internals, because MacOSX isnt Linux and you dont have to manually patch ld.so.conf to run your app.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:52

>>61
sad attempt to save his own, already derailed thread

How cute!

>>63
tl;dr you don't know what it is but you love the sound of your own voice.

i rest my case

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:54

>>64
Enjoy your shabby parody of OS.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:54

>>63
Oh also, I was able to install and actually play your little game without patching anything.

I must be a magician!

Or maybe I'm just using a recent, actively supported Linux distribution. who knows!

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:55

>>65
[i]^butt _frustrated[i]

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:56

>>66
Yeah! And your Grandma seen Jesus.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:57

>>67
so frustrated, that forgot to close tags?

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:59

>>69
/_{_pole^cat}^{^kebabs}/

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:01

>>69
_snort ^giggle show him who's boss!

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:11

>>52
That's bad, but a port would explain it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:17

>>72
That's bad
Yes, but there are no open source disassembler for Linux to parse ELF files.

inb4 `objdump` is crap.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:20

>>73
`objdump` is crap
It also uses this retarded "Linux-notation", where DST comes after SRC. I cant name single thing about Linux, that doesnt suck.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:25

>>74
nothing works! why isn't linux more like windows! WHY IS EVERYTHING SO CONFUSING RAAAH IM SO MAAAAD AAAGHAJDHASDOLAHFOASGHFKD

Yes, we know you have problems with Linux. Try asking in a Linux forum.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:31

>>73
What are you talking about exactly?

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:34

>>76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Assembler
One source of criticism is the fact that on the x86 and x86-64 architecture it uses the AT&T assembler syntax, rather than the Intel syntax used in many other assemblers

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:35

>>75
Try asking in a Linux forum.
They banned me for no reason.

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:40

>>78
They banned me for being an asshole.

Fixed

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:45

>>79
I was polite, before they banned me.

Linux sucks

1 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 10:47

41 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-21 22:27

42 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-21 23:21

43 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-21 23:41

44 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-22 22:42

45 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-22 22:56

46 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:03

47 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:08

48 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:21

49 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:32

50 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:34

51 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:38

52 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:39

53 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:41

54 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:43

55 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:52

56 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:03

57 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:07

58 Name: MS rules! 2011-09-23 2:12

59 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:15

60 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:18

61 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:34

62 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:35

63 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:41

64 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:52

65 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:54

66 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:54

67 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:55

68 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:56

69 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:57

70 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:59

71 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:01

72 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:11

73 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:17

74 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:20

75 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:25

76 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:31

77 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:34

78 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:35

79 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:40

80 Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:45

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-20 10:47

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-21 22:27

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-21 23:21

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-21 23:41

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-22 22:42

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-22 22:56

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:03

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:21

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:32

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:38

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:39

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:41

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:43

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 1:52

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:03

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:07

Name: MS rules! 2011-09-23 2:12

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:15

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:18

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:41

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:52

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:54

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:54

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:55

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:56

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:57

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 2:59

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:01

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:11

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:17

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:20

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:25

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:31

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:40

Name: Anonymous 2011-09-23 3:45