Why is the stack marked as executable? This is no longer 1995.
[deleted]
Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
111–120 of 556 posts
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't? Those are either free space, or held by handle by a running process, so you just leave them be and assume they will be released sooner or later. Worst case you defragment on boot. https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/68523/find-and-remo... This is how it works on UNIX. Generally better then apps randomly failing because a file(name) is held open somewhere by something.
> You don't? Those are either free space, or held by handle by a running process, so you just leave them be and assume they will be released sooner or later. Well that's what I was getting at, it would suck to not be able to move around file blocks just because a process is using the file. That "sooner or later" might well be "until the next reboot". The current strategy makes it possible to live-shrink and live-defr…
I'm yet to want to defrag my computer and worrying about still open deleted files.
I face builds failing because I have a terminal open in a build output directory or a textfile in an editor open is far more often, and annoys me more. (or being unable to replace a running service binary of a service being developed/tested, needing to stop the service, replace it, and start again. Or failing log rotations because a logfile is open in a Notepad. Or...)
Also see my link for a solution on unix, where you can indeed fix this problem, or simply kill the process holding the file. I didn't need to defrag my computer in the last 20 years, neither on Linux, nor on Windows, but hey, it makes me happy that my daily work is hindered for this hypothetical possibility. (which could and is solved in other OSs with appropriate APIs for the job)
Also the original post is about Windows installers... don't get me started on the topic (or windows services), please.
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#113Windows IS an anti-pattern change my mind
[deleted]
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#114Their Teams uninstaller isn't quite as good - it just doesn't uninstall all the crap that the Teams malware has left behind. I still have a stray MS Teams audio device left on my macOS machine.
[deleted]
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#115I love the reference to the Arthur C Clark quote (It's weird that this comment was upvoted twice, now down voted twice) This is the quote I'm referring to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws It's the third of his 3 laws
[deleted]
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#116Windows IS an anti-pattern change my mind
Any Microsoft code is indistinguishable from malware
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#117You can't rely on JScript being present unfortunately. It can be disabled.
[deleted]
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#118You can't rely on JScript being present unfortunately. It can be disabled.
What can you rely on then?
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
The upshot of a gated garden is that it is walled and gated. The downside is that it is walled and gated.
I don't feel gated at all by my linux installation. If I want I can customize everything, but at least I don't have to deal with a thousand installers and update processes on a day by day basis.
I love dnf and apt, but I dread attempting to uninstall anything using them.
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#120On a tangent to the title: We meet again Mr WIX.
[deleted]