(no subject)
From:Date: 10/30/02
- Next message: J. Reilink: "(no subject)"
- Previous message: Steve: "Re: ZA Conceptual Question"
- In reply to: Wolfgang Schelongowski: "(no subject)"
- Next in thread: J. Reilink: "(no subject)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:42:11 +0000
spamtrap@xivic.prima.de (Wolfgang Schelongowski) writes:
>>> Where's the source, man? IOW they don't reveal to us what they really do.
>>> That's *B*A*D*.
>
>>The source is right in front of your eyes.
>
> Obviously you have no understanding of the basics of programming.
[snip]
> is an example of a part of a source. In this context the file name
> usually ends with ".c", and a compiler produces the binary from it.
Philatery will get you everywhere. So stuff off.
>>There's nothing wrong with use of the word `binary' when describing a
>>binary.
>
> I never said it was. But as long as they don't give us the source from
> which it is compiled the only way to find out what the binary really does
> is to disassemble it and ma nually decompile it. The latter is a very
> timeconsuming operation which only very few programmers can do
> successfully.
So, as I said, use your eyes, get off your fat arse and look at URLs in
front of you.
> HTH. HAD.
Priest: there's something wrong with this microphone
Congregation: and also with you!
~Tim
-- So lead me to the river |piglet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk Blood runs thicker than the water |http://spodzone.org.uk/
- Next message: J. Reilink: "(no subject)"
- Previous message: Steve: "Re: ZA Conceptual Question"
- In reply to: Wolfgang Schelongowski: "(no subject)"
- Next in thread: J. Reilink: "(no subject)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
