Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

justine.storage.googleapis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 309 posts

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#291

Post by scruffyherder »

jart wrote: post #218
rkv wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.blopeur.com/2020/04/08/Intel-x86-patent-never-en...

> Transmeta tried it and failed Author has clearly not heard about NexGen! They implemented a RISC architecture that code morphed x86 i586 design. They were then bought out by AMD who shortly thereafter adopted the design for their own architecture. Then Intel had no choice but to adopt NexGen architecture as well lool. We all use NexGen Architecture now. The most famous microprocessor no one's heard of. I only know…

Nexgen was great, the lack of a FPU at that moment in time however was fatal at launch.

Quake was just starting to ignite the world and pentium performance at 486 prices would have done more, but no fpu... it ran NT fine enough although my memory wants to say Microsoft detected it as a 386 so that would have cut NT 4 out of the picture.

I thought knowledge of them was more common but I guess not

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#292

Post by Ace17 »

nitrogen wrote: post #283
jart wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. I considered doing that. Then I learned about things like how MSVC 2017 would wrap the main() function of C programs with telemetry. The push for code signing, retpoline, aslr, etc. worries me too, from a software freedom standpoint, and the same goes for how difficult it's become to build native software from scratch, thanks to the shift from autotools to a whole new set of competitors like bazel, cmake…

Then I learned about things like how MSVC 2017 would wrap the main() function of C programs with telemetry. Could you provide a link to learn more? This seems bad.

Just google for "notelemetry.obj"

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#293

Post by goodcanadian »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #267
jart wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. The intention behind the post is actually very simple. I want to be able to write stdio socket programs that run at native speed, and share them with my friends online. I don't want to have conversations like here's how you install steel bank common lisp and compile tensorflow and remove the toolbar that oracle bundled in the installer. I'm also not concerned about running software on telephones since do…

What's the deal with the uncommon font of the post title? I saw it here on HN too and was wondering if it's just aestetics, of if there's something else.

It is using (abusing?) Greek letters. I actually kind of hate that as those letters don't necessarily sound anything like what they look like to English speakers. It is effectively gibberish.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#294

Post by whereistimbo »

rkv wrote: post #69
celrod wrote: post #66

> the x86_64 patents should expire this year. Apple could have probably made their own x86 chip without paying royalties. The free/open architecture that we've always dreamed of, might turn out to be the one we're already using. I've never seen anyone mention this before. Is this really in the cards? Or are all the extensions patented as well, so that a hypothetical Apple (or whoever else takes it on) x86 wouldn't be…

https://www.blopeur.com/2020/04/08/Intel-x86-patent-never-en...

2026. Six years to go.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#295

Post by mastazi »

BrandonM wrote: post #287
augustk wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Stack Overflow's "We are less than three people who code."

This comment is the top Google result for "stack overflow we are less than three people who code". It's not clear to me what you mean.

I think it refers to this[1] page with the header "We (Probably people from the "post-emoji generation" can't recognise [1] https://pics.onsizzle.com/stack-overflow-where-dev-x-https-s...

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#296

Post by trasz »

ChrisSD wrote: post #229
trasz wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FreeBSD guarantees syscall ABI stability too.

Do you have a source for that? The closest I could find suggests otherwise, but admittedly I haven't yet found a more relevant document on policy: > No compatibility for API and ABI is guaranteed from one to the next major release, though an effort is made to make the upgrade process and source code changes as untroubled as possible. https://wiki.freebsd.org/VendorInformation

It’s pretty obvious from the fact that people are routinely running jails with old userspace (eg 11.0) under newer kernels (eg 13.0). It doesn’t always work for management interfaces (so eg an old route(8) binary might be broken), but is guaranteed to work for normal user programs.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#297

Post by checkyoursudo »

Aachen wrote: post #243
dracodoc wrote: post #224

It's funny. In China there used to be a time when high school students like to use rarely used Chinese characters, which are only similar to the intentional character in shape instead of meaning. They think that's cool. This style was called brain damaged style. https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/63502990 什庅bai湜焱暒妏？举些瑺鼡哋唎ふ。du 什庅湜悩残軆？举些瑺鼡哋唎ふ。 什庅湜zhi悱炷蓅？举些瑺鼡哋唎ふ。 莓兲想埝祢巳宬儰⒈种漝惯

To be clear, "intentional" should be "intended" right? Had to read this a few times (I'm also a non-native speaker, I wonder if that makes it easier or harder for me to understand a text with meaning-altering typos/mistakes) but I think it must be this.

Intentional and intended are both adjectives. They both mean intended. They are synonyms, so they can be used mostly interchangeably. However, one or the other may be conceptually more clear in various cases. As a native English speaker, intentional character is understandable to me. I likely would have written intended character, but I don't think that intentional here is clearly incorrect.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#298

Post by zelly »

jart wrote: post #211
modeless wrote: post #16

I believe that scripts without a shebang line cannot be executed by execve. They will only run if the shell sees them before the kernel does. It's an annoying limitation of this approach and it wasn't clear to me whether this technique includes a workaround for this. Also the push for code signing everywhere is going to make this harder in the future as well. (I heard a rumor that the workaround to run unsigned execu…

Author here. I considered doing that. Then I learned about things like how MSVC 2017 would wrap the main() function of C programs with telemetry. The push for code signing, retpoline, aslr, etc. worries me too, from a software freedom standpoint, and the same goes for how difficult it's become to build native software from scratch, thanks to the shift from autotools to a whole new set of competitors like bazel, cmake…

> from a software freedom standpoint, and the same goes for how difficult it's become to build native software from scratch, thanks to the shift from autotools to a whole new set of competitors like bazel, cmake, ninja, gin, etc.

Every single one of those programs you listed is FOSS licensed.

Autotools was originally developed as a compatibility layer to compile code on proprietary UNIXes.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#299

Post by zelly »

simias wrote: post #152

It's a very cool hack and technically interesting, but I can't say that I share the author's "serious" rationale: >So I think it's really the best of times to be optimistic about systems engineering. We agree more on sharing things in common than we ever have. There are still outliers like the plans coming out of Apple and Microsoft we hear about in the news, where they've sought to pivot PCs towards ARM. [...] >If a…

The serious solution is to use Python, JVM or whatever interpreter is available on the device and use that to load/create the correct executable.

Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε

#300

Post by zelly »

marcan_42 wrote: post #63
ChrisSD wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The Win32 API (and UWP et al) is the only one that's officially stable. Kernel syscalls themselves are entirely unstable. Not even just the numbers but the calling convention and everything else. Microsoft reserves the right to add, remove or modify anything in or exposed by the NT kernel. Of course they won't do so frivolously but syscall numbers are especially prone to change with a new build of the kernel.…

Go tried to break the rules and call macOS syscalls directly (like they do on Linux, because Go is a massively NIH language so they don't use libc where they can get away with it) and it bit them hard when an OS update broke all Go apps.

Live at head goes both ways it seems
Post reply on HN