WMF patch is now available

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Jupiter Jones, Jan 5, 2006.

  1. Jupiter Jones

    Tom Scales Guest

    Hex notation has no letters greater than F. It's one higher in the regular
    alphabet
     
    Tom Scales, Jan 8, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jupiter Jones

    Phred Guest

    This is something I don't understand. I've never programmed in C, so
    I've no idea why anyone would program without "protecting" buffers
    somehow. It just seems insane to me that you would overlook what, to
    me, seems as basic as the times table. So why do they do it?

    What "benefits" do programmers derive by allowing the possibility of
    buffer overflow? Is it something to do with speed? Simplicity?
    Source code size/transparency? Or is it just perversity?
    How would the wider "user community" know whether MS's coding
    practices were good or bad? Where do they get to see the source code
    to enable a judgement? Could they make a credible judgement if they
    did see it?

    I suspect that, for Joe Blowand his mates, program glitches,
    inconsistencies, and vulnerabilities, are just things that happen and
    are unavoidable due to "the complexity" of it all.

    Cheers, Phred.
     
    Phred, Jan 9, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jupiter Jones

    User N Guest

    For amusement. Oh the joy of tracking down stray pointers and
    out of bounds indexing.
     
    User N, Jan 9, 2006
    #23
  4. Jupiter Jones

    Phred Guest

    It's clearly time I got into this C programming! ;-)

    Cheers, Phred.
     
    Phred, Jan 9, 2006
    #24
  5. Jupiter Jones

    Rod Speed Guest

    They dont, its complete bullshit.
    It is easier to code just hoping for the best.

    Or they forced it on MS by demanding that the OS be able to run
    their current apps and didnt require them to replace everything.

    OS/2 1.x flopped essentially because it required that, all new everything.

    Win 3.x flew because it provided decent backwards compat with dos.

    OS/2 2.x did attempt decent backwards
    compat and flew like a lead ballon anyway.

    XP basically runs most Win9x apps without too many problems.
    Yeah, that line is completely silly.
    Its more that they arent too keen on all new apps for the new OS.
    Thats inevitably going to produce compromises, particularly if you
    want to allow the badly coded apps to still run fine.

    No point in trying to tell the end user that the app they like is a steaming
    turd, they'll mostly assume you are lying even when that is accurate.
     
    Rod Speed, Jan 9, 2006
    #25
  6. Simple, it's easier to write code that assumes no problems will ever
    happen than to program defensively, check all return values, and look
    for errors.
    Speed of coding, time to market, the fiddly stuff is boring and hard
    to get right. New features and functionality are exciting, bugfixes
    and clean, modular, reusable code are boring and hard to sell.
    Unfortunately, they'd know when the product was demonstrated to be
    full of buffer overflow and other vulnerabilities. Now what?
     
    William P.N. Smith, Jan 10, 2006
    #26
  7. Alex Flaherty, Jan 11, 2006
    #27
  8. Sparky Spartacus, Jan 12, 2006
    #28
  9. Jupiter Jones

    Ben Myers Guest

    Whoops! I meant ASCII... Ben Myers

     
    Ben Myers, Jan 13, 2006
    #29
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.