on 11/13/2003 05:07 PM Matan Ziv-Av said the following:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Ilan Finci wrote:
The company I work with is creating executable code we give to potential
clients to test.
The code comes as either an executable or a shared library (with a given
API the client use to connect it to
Indeed! that's a really good Linux advocacy.
Now we need an Israeli version of such a document ...
Only an Institutional effort can bring such a huge document.
Is it one of the goals of the project Mimshal Zamin ??
Oren Maurer
Ilan Finci wrote:
on 11/13/2003 05:07 PM Matan Ziv-Av said the following:
This is off topic, as has already been said, but I must add that if
the company tries to hide a patented algorithm, the best thing to do
is to dissolve the company immediately.
Sorry if you see it off topic, I thought
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003, Ilan Finci wrote about [OT???]Re: protecting one's IP [CLOSED
TOPIC]:
And as to dissolve the company - why? Can we protect _OUR_ algorithms???
we don't use OTHERS patented algorithms but _OURS_.
Check out your favorite dictionary or encyclopedia what a patent means,
or
On Sunday 16 November 2003 10:20, Ilan Finci wrote:
on 11/13/2003 05:07 PM Matan Ziv-Av said the following:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Ilan Finci wrote:
The company I work with is creating executable code we give to
potential clients to test.
The code comes as either an executable or a shared
Ilan Finci [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on 11/13/2003 05:07 PM Matan Ziv-Av said the following:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Ilan Finci wrote:
The company I work with is creating executable code we give to
potential clients to test.
The code comes as either an executable or a shared library
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:57:23PM +0200, Kfir Lavi wrote:
Hi,
I have vfat file system that i mount with utf8 and it works good with
mozilla ( i see hebrew ).
use uxterm
If you ever need to see output in a non-unicode charset use luit
running
Saturday 15 November 2003 21:26, :
Since I am working on a loptop with only 14 screen its much more
efficient to go over the headers list and only open the messages I
actually want to read (its also more secure this way and faster for imap
connections).
For that you can install a small
, 13 2003, 21:13,Micha Feigin:
Since I am working on a loptop with only 14 screen its much more
efficient to go over the headers list and only open the messages I
actually want to read (its also more secure this way and faster for imap
connections).
about secure I dont think you are
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:17:53AM +0200, Kfir Lavi wrote:
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:57:23PM +0200, Kfir Lavi wrote:
Hi,
I have vfat file system that i mount with utf8 and it works good with
mozilla ( i see hebrew ).
use uxterm
If you ever need to
Actually, Ilan has a point here.
1. His salesmanship skills could use a small upgrade - by presenting the
argument of avoiding MS-Windows in the first place, he'd get more
cooperation than flames.
2. If Linus allows use of closed code Kernel modules with Linux and they
probably are
16 2003, 12:13,Tzafrir Cohen:
You can use mlterm, xiterm (xterm with Sun's i18n code), konsole or
gnome-terminal if you want bidi support.
mlterm has a useful feature of being able to disable the bidi support.
Also Konsole, and it has/will have gui configuration for it in 3.2.
--
Omer Zak wrote:
Actually, Ilan has a point here.
1. His salesmanship skills could use a small upgrade - by presenting the
argument of avoiding MS-Windows in the first place, he'd get more
cooperation than flames.
2. If Linus allows use of closed code Kernel modules with Linux and they
Hi Everyone,
Does Knoppix have build-in antivirus? I want to run it to clean our Laptop disk that
have Boot Sector Virus on his NTFS (winXP).
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Walla! Mail, Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Walla!
I changed the Subject line to emphasize the point which I tried to make.
There were actually three separate issues:
1. Is it on-topic to ask about obfuscating code meant to run under Linux?
2. Is it wise to obfuscate code meant to run under Linux?
3. How to actually obfuscate code meant to run
Quoting Ilan Finci [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
The company I work with is creating executable code we give to potential
clients to test.
The are 2 methods that I am thinking right now.
One method is is to use some external plugin, like the one from Aladin.
You can just encrypt your library.
Hi all,
Anyone can recommend or warn against usage of a (preferably Open Source,
otherwise customizable) lint-like tool, for static checking of C++ and/or C#
code?
Thanks,
Shachar Tal
Verint Systems
This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may
be privileged and
On Sunday 16 November 2003 12:51, Omer Zak wrote:
Actually, Ilan has a point here.
1. His salesmanship skills could use a small upgrade - by presenting the
argument of avoiding MS-Windows in the first place, he'd get more
cooperation than flames.
I don't think so. I couldn't care less
Me and a friend have looked such a thing up and down the net
for quite a while but so far haven't found anything. The only
thing we found that gives such a funcionality is PC-Lint for
windows, which is proprietary (and saved my previous workplace
its money's worth tenfold in amount of work time).
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2003 12:51, Omer Zak wrote:
[... snipped ...]
2. If Linus allows use of closed code Kernel modules with Linux and they
probably are obfuscation champions of the Linux world, then Ilan
should be entitled to ask about the
16 2003, 15:42,[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anyone can recommend or warn against usage of a (preferably Open Source,
otherwise customizable) lint-like tool, for static checking of C++ and/or
C# code?
--
Oded
::..
Shai-hulud is a good garbage collector [..]
-- F. Herbert (Children of
16 2003, 15:42,[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So take this response and one negative-ack. I'd be glad
to hear otherwise.
Anyone can recommend or warn against usage of a (preferably Open Source,
otherwise customizable) lint-like tool, for static checking of C++ and/or
C# code?
Me and a friend
Hmm, thanks for the pointer.
Still costs a fortune, but at least there is something available
if we'll really need it.
The valgrind stuff seems to address a completly different set of
programming errors, I don't think it can completly replace static
source code analysis.
Oded Arbel wrote:
16
Has anyone on the list installed/upgraded to MDK 9.2? If so, any comments,
problems, suggestions?
TIA
--
Shlomo Solomon
http://come.to/shlomo.solomon
Sent by KMail (KDE 3.1) on LINUX Mandrake 9.1
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to
On Sunday 16 November 2003 15:35, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2003 12:51, Omer Zak wrote:
Actually, Ilan has a point here.
1. His salesmanship skills could use a small upgrade - by presenting the
argument of avoiding MS-Windows in the first place, he'd get more
On Sunday 16 November 2003 16:38, Omer Zak wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2003 12:51, Omer Zak wrote:
[... snipped ...]
2. If Linus allows use of closed code Kernel modules with Linux and
they probably are obfuscation champions of the Linux
16 2003, 18:45,Shlomo Solomon:
Has anyone on the list installed/upgraded to MDK 9.2? If so, any comments,
problems, suggestions?
I've put it on my laptop.
works fine.
LVM support in DiskDrake (had it on 9.1, but it had some problems. now it
works).
good power managment, ACPI finally
Micha Feigin wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2003 16:38, Omer Zak wrote:
I don't think the question was stupid. If anyone earned the 'stupid'
label in this story it is those managers, who caused the need for the
question in the first place.
This is because I learned some things from the
On Sunday 16 November 2003 19:46, Micha Feigin wrote:
Allowing binary only modules has its advantages ...
... This approach opens up the chance for more hardware support for
linux...
This is very shortsighted point of view. If most of the Linux developers
would think so, we could have in a few
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote:
Hi all,
Anyone can recommend or warn against usage of a (preferably Open Source,
otherwise customizable) lint-like tool, for static checking of C++ and/or C#
code?
There's Splint:
http://www.splint.org/
It is useful for C and C++. I tried it and
I use 9.2 for over a month. Overall, it feels more
robust than 9.1. I no longer experience any freezes,
crashes etc. There are no major new features, but the
increased stability and maturity is a great bonus.
If you have LG CD-ROM, make sure you read the errata
linked from Mandrake's site and
Look at:
http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone know what the backend of the Debian Bug Tracking System
(http://bugs.debuan.org) is? For some reason I cannot find this out,
though I am pretty sure it must be OSS ;-)
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
To
Tal, Shachar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyone can recommend or warn against usage of a (preferably Open Source,
otherwise customizable) lint-like tool, for static checking of C++ and/or C#
code?
I found out from experience that switching all sorts of warnings and
checks in gcc/g++ will take
Did you try to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
Or check http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/ ?
Good luck.
I'd like to hear the answer to your question.
Regards,
Lior Kaplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.Guides.co.il
Come to write at the forums: http://www.guides.co.il/forums
- Original Message
Reminder: to master the art of distinguishing between Reply and Reply to all
Guy
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:46, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Now, what would have happend if this was a run of the mill closed source
security firm?
Closed source firms rarely use CVS (if ever). Big projects usually
Thanks, but I have to place the compliment where its due: this is Plone
out of the box. I didn't even install (objectis is a hosting service).
So, I don't deserve much credit yet.
But I have added a few content areas, and hopefully the content will
grow. I've configured it (I think...) so that
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:22:56AM -0800, Dovix wrote:
I use 9.2 for over a month. Overall, it feels more
robust than 9.1. I no longer experience any freezes,
crashes etc. There are no major new features, but the
increased stability and maturity is a great bonus.
If you have LG CD-ROM, make
On Monday 17 November 2003 03:34, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:22:56AM -0800, Dovix wrote:
I use 9.2 for over a month. Overall, it feels more
robust than 9.1. I no longer experience any freezes,
crashes etc. There are no major new features, but the
increased stability
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:11:08PM +0200, Oron Peled wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2003 19:46, Micha Feigin wrote:
Allowing binary only modules has its advantages ...
... This approach opens up the chance for more hardware support for
linux...
This is very shortsighted point of view. If
* Oleg Goldshmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031117 00:09]:
Does anyone know what the backend of the Debian Bug Tracking System
(http://bugs.debuan.org) is? For some reason I cannot find this out,
though I am pretty sure it must be OSS ;-)
The application is called debbugs:
$ apt-cache show debbugs
Guy Teverovsky wrote:
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:46, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Now, what would have happend if this was a run of the mill closed source
security firm?
Closed source firms rarely use CVS (if ever).
Hmm - you must have better info about closed source companies than I do.
-Original Message-
From: Shachar Shemesh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:51 AM
To: Guy Teverovsky
Cc: Linux-IL mailing list
Subject: Re: Fw: What's wrong with this code?
Guy Teverovsky wrote:
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:46, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Tal, Shachar wrote:
While agreeing with most of your post, I can testify to previously working
for a company with a state-of-the-art ClearCase implementation. Each RD
team has it's own branch to work on, and only the integration team merged
files from these branches to our /main branch.
Would you
-Original Message-
From: Shachar Shemesh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:38 AM
To: Tal, Shachar
Cc: Guy Teverovsky; Linux-IL mailing list
Subject: Re: Fw: What's wrong with this code?
Tal, Shachar wrote:
While agreeing with most of your post, I
45 matches
Mail list logo
