Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #381780 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-02-05 01:09 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-02-05 23:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 133 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 01:09 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 05:58 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 22:49 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 07:03 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 23:51 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 23:52 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2024-02-05 08:36 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-05 18:23 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-05 18:32 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 20:53 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 20:53 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 09:44 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 01:03 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 13:41 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 13:08 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 23:23 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 08:54 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 08:59 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 10:47 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 11:04 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 14:21 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 14:24 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:30 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 15:36 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 18:05 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 18:26 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 19:53 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 21:38 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 00:29 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:37 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 22:52 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 01:13 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 02:09 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 03:07 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 14:17 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 16:02 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 00:48 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 08:53 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-10 21:55 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 13:01 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:37 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 12:10 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 13:24 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 13:03 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 13:17 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 16:52 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 17:17 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-09 14:50 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 12:44 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 14:49 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 16:13 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 08:21 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 14:01 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-07 13:21 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 13:42 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 16:17 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 21:34 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 16:21 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-08 13:26 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 10:04 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 14:51 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 15:30 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 15:45 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:44 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 00:33 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 01:30 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 01:38 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 02:21 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 03:07 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:45 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 12:15 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 13:29 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 12:55 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 09:02 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 16:09 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-08 16:28 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 17:13 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 17:53 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-05 19:02 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 23:28 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-05 23:40 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 01:46 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 09:54 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 16:03 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 16:06 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 09:50 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 01:01 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 23:24 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 08:56 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-07 12:09 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 15:03 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 16:25 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:49 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 13:04 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-07 23:37 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 08:52 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-09 15:55 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 15:29 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-09 16:52 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 17:22 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 07:18 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-10 17:11 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 21:23 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-11 14:01 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 21:41 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 02:18 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 09:30 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 09:04 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 23:24 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 01:46 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 02:50 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 11:08 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-08 13:10 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 17:48 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-08 21:30 +0200
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 20:39 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 13:39 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 14:18 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-08 22:29 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 14:43 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 09:12 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-04 23:36 -0800
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 14:52 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-05 22:58 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-02-05 18:01 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 08:29 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 01:35 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 02:26 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 10:47 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2024-02-05 11:03 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 13:15 +0100
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-05 14:09 +0000
Re: What I've learned in comp.lang.c Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 23:29 +0000
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-05 23:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uprrm7$ghpq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381867 |
On 05/02/2024 23:28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:02:09 +0200, Michael S wrote: > >> Windows by itself is not a measurable slowdown, but antivirus is, and >> until now I didn't find a way to get antivirus-free Windows at work. > > But if you don’t have antivirus on your build machine, the sad fact of > development on Windows is that there are viruses that will insinuate > themselves into the build products. Reflections on Trusting Trust?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-06 01:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20240206014614.000001f7@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #381867 |
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 23:28:04 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:02:09 +0200, Michael S wrote: > > > Windows by itself is not a measurable slowdown, but antivirus is, > > and until now I didn't find a way to get antivirus-free Windows at > > work. > > But if you don’t have antivirus on your build machine, the sad fact > of development on Windows is that there are viruses that will > insinuate themselves into the build products. No, if I use Windpws there are no danger of viruses like these. Besides, it's not like antivirus could have helped against viruses if I was stupid enough to catch them. To the opposite, I suspect that presence of antivirus increases attak surface.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-06 09:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <upss44$qb8m$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381874 |
On 06/02/2024 00:46, Michael S wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 23:28:04 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:02:09 +0200, Michael S wrote: >> >>> Windows by itself is not a measurable slowdown, but antivirus is, >>> and until now I didn't find a way to get antivirus-free Windows at >>> work. >> >> But if you don’t have antivirus on your build machine, the sad fact >> of development on Windows is that there are viruses that will >> insinuate themselves into the build products. > > No, if I use Windpws there are no danger of viruses like these. > Besides, it's not like antivirus could have helped against viruses if > I was stupid enough to catch them. To the opposite, I suspect that > presence of antivirus increases attak surface. > My experience is that antivirus programs rarely catch anything unless the user is very gullible, or very unlucky. I have seen antivirus programs block valid programs with false positives more often than I have seen them catch actual malware. (And that's company wide, not just my machines.) There is no major antivirus software that has not killed at least some Windows machines by false-positive blocking of critical Windows components. And yes, there have been many successful attacks and hacks that get into Windows machines via flaws in the massively over-complicated "security" software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-05 16:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <uprt0d$gjeh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381867 |
On 2/5/2024 3:28 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:02:09 +0200, Michael S wrote: > >> Windows by itself is not a measurable slowdown, but antivirus is, and >> until now I didn't find a way to get antivirus-free Windows at work. > > But if you don’t have antivirus on your build machine, the sad fact of > development on Windows is that there are viruses that will insinuate > themselves into the build products. There can be viruses hidden in source code for public domain code... Build it and they will come! ;^o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-05 16:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <uprt59$gjeh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381876 |
On 2/5/2024 4:03 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 2/5/2024 3:28 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:02:09 +0200, Michael S wrote: >> >>> Windows by itself is not a measurable slowdown, but antivirus is, and >>> until now I didn't find a way to get antivirus-free Windows at work. >> >> But if you don’t have antivirus on your build machine, the sad fact of >> development on Windows is that there are viruses that will insinuate >> themselves into the build products. > > There can be viruses hidden in source code for public domain code... > Build it and they will come! ;^o Other viruses can be build, not infected... Run it, BAM!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-06 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <upsrrq$qb8m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381867 |
On 06/02/2024 00:28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:02:09 +0200, Michael S wrote: > >> Windows by itself is not a measurable slowdown, but antivirus is, and >> until now I didn't find a way to get antivirus-free Windows at work. > > But if you don’t have antivirus on your build machine, the sad fact of > development on Windows is that there are viruses that will insinuate > themselves into the build products. Nonsense. Well, /almost/ nonsense. When thinking about security, you should not rule out anything entirely. And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people that have to work with embedded Windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-06 01:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upssha$qfe4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381904 |
On 2/6/2024 12:50 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 06/02/2024 00:28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:02:09 +0200, Michael S wrote: >> >>> Windows by itself is not a measurable slowdown, but antivirus is, and >>> until now I didn't find a way to get antivirus-free Windows at work. >> >> But if you don’t have antivirus on your build machine, the sad fact of >> development on Windows is that there are viruses that will insinuate >> themselves into the build products. > > Nonsense. Well, /almost/ nonsense. When thinking about security, you > should not rule out anything entirely. > > And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people that have > to work with embedded Windows. > ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-06 23:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upuf3o$13gvv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381904 |
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:50:02 +0100, David Brown wrote: > And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people that have > to work with embedded Windows. I thought this has pretty much gone away, pushed aside by Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 08:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <upvd2v$1bcum$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381936 |
On 07/02/2024 00:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:50:02 +0100, David Brown wrote: > >> And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people that have >> to work with embedded Windows. > > I thought this has pretty much gone away, pushed aside by Linux. It was never common in the first place, and yes, it is almost entirely non-existent now. I'm sure there are a few legacy products still produced that use some kind of embedded Windows, but few more than that - which is what I was hinting at in my post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 12:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20240207120950.00000225@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #381949 |
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 08:56:15 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 07/02/2024 00:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:50:02 +0100, David Brown wrote: > > > >> And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people that > >> have to work with embedded Windows. > > > > I thought this has pretty much gone away, pushed aside by Linux. > > It was never common in the first place, and yes, it is almost > entirely non-existent now. I'm sure there are a few legacy products > still produced that use some kind of embedded Windows, but few more > than that > - which is what I was hinting at in my post. > Is there any digital oscilloscope that is not Windows under the hood? How about medical equipment? The first question is mostly rhetorical, the second is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 15:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq02j2$1erim$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381956 |
On 07/02/2024 11:09, Michael S wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 08:56:15 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 07/02/2024 00:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:50:02 +0100, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people that >>>> have to work with embedded Windows. >>> >>> I thought this has pretty much gone away, pushed aside by Linux. >> >> It was never common in the first place, and yes, it is almost >> entirely non-existent now. I'm sure there are a few legacy products >> still produced that use some kind of embedded Windows, but few more >> than that >> - which is what I was hinting at in my post. >> > > Is there any digital oscilloscope that is not Windows under the hood? Yes, most that I know of. (There are some older ones that are Windows, and high-end ones almost never used Windows.) > How about medical equipment? A great deal. > The first question is mostly rhetorical, the second is not. > It used to be more common to have embedded Windows. Embedded Linux, and RTOS's with GUI's (using, for example, QT) have long ago taken over. There are some hold-outs, of course - no company wants to re-do their systems and software if they can avoid it, and if they made the bad bet to use embedded Windows before, they may stick to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <daOwN.308693$7sbb.250916@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #381949 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >On 07/02/2024 00:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:50:02 +0100, David Brown wrote: >> >>> And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people that have >>> to work with embedded Windows. >> >> I thought this has pretty much gone away, pushed aside by Linux. > >It was never common in the first place, and yes, it is almost entirely >non-existent now. I'm sure there are a few legacy products still >produced that use some kind of embedded Windows, but few more than that >- which is what I was hinting at in my post. Wind river is still popular, I believe, but the linux kernel + busybox is probably the most common.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 21:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq0qdg$1j1v4$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381997 |
On 07/02/2024 17:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 07/02/2024 00:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:50:02 +0100, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people that have >>>> to work with embedded Windows. >>> >>> I thought this has pretty much gone away, pushed aside by Linux. >> >> It was never common in the first place, and yes, it is almost entirely >> non-existent now. I'm sure there are a few legacy products still >> produced that use some kind of embedded Windows, but few more than that >> - which is what I was hinting at in my post. > > Wind river is still popular, I believe, but the linux kernel + busybox is > probably the most common. VxWorks, you mean? Yes, that is still used in what might be called "big" embedded systems. There are other RTOS's that have been common for embedded systems with screens (and no one would bother with embedded Windows without a screen!), including QNX, Integrity, eCOS, and Nucleus. (There are many small RTOS's, but they are competing in a different field.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 13:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <uq0r8i$1jcpi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382022 |
On 2/7/2024 12:49 PM, David Brown wrote: > On 07/02/2024 17:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> On 07/02/2024 00:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:50:02 +0100, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>> And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people that >>>>> have >>>>> to work with embedded Windows. >>>> >>>> I thought this has pretty much gone away, pushed aside by Linux. >>> >>> It was never common in the first place, and yes, it is almost entirely >>> non-existent now. I'm sure there are a few legacy products still >>> produced that use some kind of embedded Windows, but few more than that >>> - which is what I was hinting at in my post. >> >> Wind river is still popular, I believe, but the linux kernel + busybox is >> probably the most common. > > VxWorks, you mean? Yes, that is still used in what might be called > "big" embedded systems. There are other RTOS's that have been common > for embedded systems with screens (and no one would bother with embedded > Windows without a screen!), including QNX, Integrity, eCOS, and Nucleus. > > (There are many small RTOS's, but they are competing in a different field.) > Fwiw, I think the last one I used was quadros a long time ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-07 23:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20240207233706.000068fd@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #382022 |
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 21:49:52 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 07/02/2024 17:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: > > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 07/02/2024 00:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:50:02 +0100, David Brown wrote: > >>> > >>>> And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people > >>>> that have to work with embedded Windows. > >>> > >>> I thought this has pretty much gone away, pushed aside by Linux. > >> > >> It was never common in the first place, and yes, it is almost > >> entirely non-existent now. I'm sure there are a few legacy > >> products still produced that use some kind of embedded Windows, > >> but few more than that > >> - which is what I was hinting at in my post. > > > > Wind river is still popular, I believe, but the linux kernel + > > busybox is probably the most common. > > VxWorks, you mean? Yes, that is still used in what might be called > "big" embedded systems. There are other RTOS's that have been common > for embedded systems with screens (and no one would bother with > embedded Windows without a screen!), Then our company and me personally are no-ones 1.5 times. The first time it was WinCE on small Arm-based board that served as Ethernet interface and control plane controller for big boards that was an important building blocks for very expensive industrial equipment. Equipment as whole was not ours, we were sub-contractor for this particular piece. This instance of Windows never ever had display or keyboard. We still make few boards per year more than 15 years later. The second one was/is [part of] our own product, a regular Windows Embedded, starting with XP, then 7, then 10. It runs on SBC that functions as a host of Compact PCI frame with various I/O boards mostly of our own making. SBC does both control plane and partial data plane processing and handles Ethernet communication with the rest of the system. It's completely different industry, the system as a whole not nearly as expensive as the first one, but still expensive enough for this particular computer to be small part of the total cost. The system does have connectors for display, keyboard and mouse. Ssometimes it is handy to connect them during manufacturing testing. But they are never connected in fully assembled product. However since they exist, with relation to this system I count myself as half-no-one rather than full no-one. > including QNX, Integrity, eCOS, > and Nucleus. > > (There are many small RTOS's, but they are competing in a different > field.) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 08:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq217c$1sep3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382031 |
On 07/02/2024 22:37, Michael S wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 21:49:52 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 07/02/2024 17:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>>> On 07/02/2024 00:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:50:02 +0100, David Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> And of course there are those two or three unfortunate people >>>>>> that have to work with embedded Windows. >>>>> >>>>> I thought this has pretty much gone away, pushed aside by Linux. >>>> >>>> It was never common in the first place, and yes, it is almost >>>> entirely non-existent now. I'm sure there are a few legacy >>>> products still produced that use some kind of embedded Windows, >>>> but few more than that >>>> - which is what I was hinting at in my post. >>> >>> Wind river is still popular, I believe, but the linux kernel + >>> busybox is probably the most common. >> >> VxWorks, you mean? Yes, that is still used in what might be called >> "big" embedded systems. There are other RTOS's that have been common >> for embedded systems with screens (and no one would bother with >> embedded Windows without a screen!), > > Then our company and me personally are no-ones 1.5 times. You are just a rounding error :-) But it is interesting to hear of exceptions to the general trend. > > The first time it was WinCE on small Arm-based board that served as > Ethernet interface and control plane controller for big boards that > was an important building blocks for very expensive industrial > equipment. Equipment as whole was not ours, we were sub-contractor for > this particular piece. This instance of Windows never ever had display > or keyboard. > We still make few boards per year more than 15 years later. > > The second one was/is [part of] our own product, a regular Windows > Embedded, starting with XP, then 7, then 10. It runs on SBC that > functions as a host of Compact PCI frame with various I/O boards mostly > of our own making. SBC does both control plane and partial data plane > processing and handles Ethernet communication with the rest of the > system. It's completely different industry, the system as a whole not > nearly as expensive as the first one, but still expensive enough for > this particular computer to be small part of the total cost. > The system does have connectors for display, keyboard and mouse. > Ssometimes it is handy to connect them during manufacturing testing. But > they are never connected in fully assembled product. However since they > exist, with relation to this system I count myself as half-no-one > rather than full no-one. > >> including QNX, Integrity, eCOS, >> and Nucleus. >> >> (There are many small RTOS's, but they are competing in a different >> field.) >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 15:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20240209155524.00006022@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #382080 |
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:52:12 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > You are just a rounding error :-) > > But it is interesting to hear of exceptions to the general trend. > That is one option. Another one is you pulling your statistics out of one of your major anatomical features.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 15:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq5crl$2lqj3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382188 |
On 09/02/2024 14:55, Michael S wrote: > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:52:12 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >> You are just a rounding error :-) >> >> But it is interesting to hear of exceptions to the general trend. >> > > That is one option. > Another one is you pulling your statistics out of one of your major > anatomical features. > You do know that embedded Windows - "WinCE" - had its last version release in 2013, and ended extended support last year? It's share of the market (whatever market you choose) was never particularly significant despite significant effort from MS, which is why they dropped it. Clearly my comment about "two or three unfortunate people" was not meant as a serious statistic. And of course people also make systems that can be classified as "embedded", but with a desktop (or even server) version of Windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 16:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20240209165245.00007533@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #382193 |
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 15:29:09 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 09/02/2024 14:55, Michael S wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:52:12 +0100 > > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> > >> You are just a rounding error :-) > >> > >> But it is interesting to hear of exceptions to the general trend. > >> > > > > That is one option. > > Another one is you pulling your statistics out of one of your major > > anatomical features. > > > > You do know that embedded Windows - "WinCE" - had its last version > release in 2013, and ended extended support last year? It's share of > the market (whatever market you choose) was never particularly > significant despite significant effort from MS, which is why they > dropped it. > > Clearly my comment about "two or three unfortunate people" was not > meant as a serious statistic. > > And of course people also make systems that can be classified as > "embedded", but with a desktop (or even server) version of Windows. > Do you know that there were two families of Windows OSes intended for use in embedded devices that used completely different kernels and were similar only by sharing [significant] part of the user-level API? One is discontinued. I'd guess, because the CE kernel was designed for a single core and nowadays even on the low end multiple cores are common. Discontinued, but still available. Another one, based on NT family of kernels, is doing similarly to how it did for the last couple of decades. The major blow that could kill it in the future is a relatively recent requirement that all 64-bit kernel drivers should be not just crypto-signed (that was always a case) but signed by Microsoft's test lab, which means that it's not just costs money, but also requires bureaucratic procedures. But that's what could kill it in the future rather than already happening.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 17:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq5jgu$2n0g2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382194 |
On 09/02/2024 15:52, Michael S wrote: > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 15:29:09 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 09/02/2024 14:55, Michael S wrote: >>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:52:12 +0100 >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> >>>> You are just a rounding error :-) >>>> >>>> But it is interesting to hear of exceptions to the general trend. >>>> >>> >>> That is one option. >>> Another one is you pulling your statistics out of one of your major >>> anatomical features. >>> >> >> You do know that embedded Windows - "WinCE" - had its last version >> release in 2013, and ended extended support last year? It's share of >> the market (whatever market you choose) was never particularly >> significant despite significant effort from MS, which is why they >> dropped it. >> >> Clearly my comment about "two or three unfortunate people" was not >> meant as a serious statistic. >> >> And of course people also make systems that can be classified as >> "embedded", but with a desktop (or even server) version of Windows. >> > > Do you know that there were two families of Windows OSes intended for > use in embedded devices that used completely different kernels and were > similar only by sharing [significant] part of the user-level API? One > is discontinued. I'd guess, because the CE kernel was designed for a > single core and nowadays even on the low end multiple cores are common. > Discontinued, but still available. > Another one, based on NT family of kernels, is doing similarly to how > it did for the last couple of decades. > That's the line that started as "Windows NT 4.0 Embedded", and is now at "Windows 10 IoT", with a new naming convention every couple of years along the way? AFAIK - and I admit I don't know a lot here, so correct me if I'm wrong - these are just normal Windows versions with a few restrictions and a licensing model better suited to things like kiosks and point-of-sale systems. I count these as desktop versions of Windows, not an embedded OS, as they generally run on what is basically a normal (if small) PC. But if you count these sorts of things as "embedded", then I agree there are a large number of embedded Windows systems around. The market share in this area is, however, dropping significantly as it is taken by Linux - especially in the guise of Android. (And again, the total unit numbers are negligible compared to the unit numbers for microcontroller systems.) > The major blow that could kill it in the future is a relatively recent > requirement that all 64-bit kernel drivers should be not just > crypto-signed (that was always a case) but signed by Microsoft's test > lab, which means that it's not just costs money, but also requires > bureaucratic procedures. It's that kind of thing that makes Linux /so/ much easier for developers. If MS testing could be viewed as an indication of quality, reliability, compatibility or security (as in the Apple world), then there would be value in it for some people. > But that's what could kill it in the future rather than already > happening. > Cryto-signing and the work and effort involved even for simple drivers has already pushed smaller customers away. It's one thing to pay the time, money and developer resources for this nonsense when you are shipping cash registers to Walmart's, but it's another matter if you are producing mere hundreds or even a few thousands of systems. My company is primarily an electronics manufacturing company for third-party designs (as well as development services), and I can only ever remember one customer being interested in any sort of embedded Windows system. But we have lots of them using embedded Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web