Linux x86 Program Start Up
dbp-consulting.com
dbp-consulting.com
(The whole ELF/dynamic linking system is another thing that has always seemed overly complex to me, compared to PE/DLLs.)
Do you mean that the windows equivalent of _start is nested less deeply and with more reasonable naming conventions?
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5016434
[1] http://linux.die.net/man/2/execve
man pages are your friend ;P
(I think they assume if you are doing this level of debugging, you are familiar with the typical linux sys calls, and/or know where to look-up more information about them)
There probably should have just been a "run" call, which started a subprocess given the indicated executable. Some UNIX-like operating systems have that. It has the nice property that it scales to clusters; there's no reason a subprocess can't run on another machine. QNX, for example, supports that.
The several different flavors of exec are just convenience functions that lead to an execve syscall (execl* makes the vector out of some of its args; exec*p searches the path first, etc). Maybe you're thinking of vfork (a restricted fork), which seems to have gone away about when copy-on-write came in.
Some time ago, I would have just assumed you were an emacs user, but these days there's a much larger diversity of people on the internet, who get offended by very many things.
We prefer “firefighter.”
The author should write whatever he pleases. But I believe it would be proper to use a language directed to a broader audience when writing a public blog post. I also believe that the author was trying to be funny and had no bad intents what so ever, but either way these tiny things matter if we ever want to see diversity in our field.
I would also like to add that your argumentation is quite unpleasant to me. I read it as you believe that diversity is this annoying thing that destroys the good ol' "all dude internet". Would you care to clarify what you meant?
Tomorrow I'll write "real hackers use vi" and someone who has never programmed and has no interest in it will correct me that they're offended - they like the article, but don't self-identify as a hacker, so my usage would offend them. That's fine, I can use other words and people can only get offended at a finite set of them, but I do need to be told where my mistake is.
So you're saying that men (read: dudes) can't be offended by this, also? That insults me.
Seriously though: "real men" phrases are often used in a serious way to try to police men's behaviour (you probably know this already, but anyway). So I, as a man, often feel queasy about "real men" quips. But real men aren't supposed to feel uneasy about such things, so I don't know.. ;)
I don't personally feel uneasy about this: it feels like satire that plays on the old trope of "real men do <thing that is hard, often unnecessarily so>", and all over "trivial" things like text editors. I can see how some people might be offended by the phrase, though. I'm just talking for myself here.
(I hope no vi users were offended by this post.)
Clarifucation: She is a true knight, not a toy, and embodies all the knightly virtues. This included "hoher muot", of which there isn't enough of going round of that.