"Portable" C compilers?

[Guest]

I can't parse that

there are ways of seeing what is on a screen without using a camera.

good grief. I'm glad I don't live in your country. I *hope*
I don't live in your country!

Monitoring computer usage isn't fascism. Read some history.

I hadn't considered it from that angle.
If a was a proto-fascist, mob-following, domineering
paranoiac, would I let somebody use my computer at
all?

My local library has computers available for the use of the public.
They restrict what can be done with them. Is this fascism?

My ISP restricts what I can do over their network. Is that
fascism?

[This is all directed at the hypothetical school computer
administrator who outlaws the command line interface.
Not at Keith, who points out a valid flaw in my argument.]

It is, of course, reasonable and appropriate for any
organization providing equipment or services to a
population to establish groundrules for the appropriate
(ie. safe) use to which such "solutions" may be put.

ah, ok

It is also all to easy for the letter of the law to
diverge widely from the spirit even in its first
incarnation.

It sounds like some 30something blue-suit holds a
traumatic childhood memory which has burned a
single meme into his unconscious which is insulated
from the rational centers and manifests solely in
emotional bursts: COMMAND LINE BAD.

Codifying such a prejudice is exactly what the power-
hungry schizoid wishes to do.

the original Mac had no command line. A horse of a different colour.

ps. Apologies for the ranting. Entrenched stupidities rub me the wrong
way.

Nearly as irritating as the Windows Bad, Linux Good meme

 

[Richard Bos]

Exactly - Students at my school are not given 'administrator accounts'
on WinXP, and I am a student at this school. Now Borland C++ is
installed. I don't like it. When I need to write one huge source file
with a huge main function with little function breakdown,

You do not need to do that.

What you _do_ need to do is talk to your school's sysadmin, who will
drum it into your untenured head exactly why half-educated, immature
twerps should not be trusted with administrator accounts or even command
line access, ever (and that's just the teachers I was referring to -
pupils are a good deal worse yet); and then talk to your programming
teacher, who will try to explain to you why you need to learn to
organise your programming before you have the gall to complain about the
tools you've been given.

Richard

 

[CBFalconer]

You do not need to do that.

What you _do_ need to do is talk to your school's sysadmin, who
will drum it into your untenured head exactly why half-educated,
immature twerps should not be trusted with administrator accounts
or even command line access, ever (and that's just the teachers I
was referring to - pupils are a good deal worse yet); and then
talk to your programming teacher, who will try to explain to you
why you need to learn to organise your programming before you
have the gall to complain about the tools you've been given.

You are obviously too young and inexperienced to remember CP/M and
even MSDOS, which were purely command line driven systems. These
can be made absolutely secure, by simply restricting the commands
available. Breaking in then requires hard (not remote) access to
the system.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Flash Gordon said:



You are right, and you have neatly summarised my principal objection
to replies (such as one often used to see in this newsgroup and
still see from time to time) that exhort the OP to use a particular
library or compiler or other software tool. Very often, in my
experience, that's simply not *allowed* in their workplace or
studyplace, so it isn't particularly helpful advice (except to
those who have the glorious freedom to use what they like).

Well, it can be worth *asking* if you can use a specific library, tool
or whatever, and in some places (such as the company I currently work
for) it is easy to get approval if it is free and has an appropriate
license (we don't have to open-source our code). I've even gone that
route myself as a result of which some of our software has required
acknowledgements to specific people in the documentation. So I would say
that advising people that they should look at the possibility of using a
specific library or compiler is appropriate as a possible solution where
it would save a noticeable amount of work. In some cases it is even, in
my opinion, the *best* advice (e.g. if you need goo quality encryption,
using a good third-party library is better than writing your own unless
you are an expert in the field).

Each case is different and should be judged on its merrits.

 

[Flash Gordon]

You are obviously too young and inexperienced to remember CP/M and
even MSDOS, which were purely command line driven systems. These
can be made absolutely secure, by simply restricting the commands
available. Breaking in then requires hard (not remote) access to
the system.

MSDOS is not secure and does not allow for remote access. If whatever
remote access stuff you've used for MS DOS does provide any security,
then that is nothing to do with MS DOS.

In any case, that does not answer Richard's point. I've set up DOS
machines where it boots straight in to an application. I'm sure if I
wanted I could remote the command prompt completely. Not plays enough
with CP/M to comment about that though.

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer wrote:
.... snip ...

.... snip ...

In any case, that does not answer Richard's point. I've set up
DOS machines where it boots straight in to an application. I'm
sure if I wanted I could remote the command prompt completely.
Not plays enough with CP/M to comment about that though.

As far as CP/M is concerned, I have. If you want to see the
software I used lookup DOSPLUS 2.5 on my download/cpm page. Full
source. This was combined with a mechanism for passwording
executable code files.

 

[Flash Gordon]

As far as CP/M is concerned, I have. If you want to see the
software I used lookup DOSPLUS 2.5 on my download/cpm page. Full
source. This was combined with a mechanism for passwording
executable code files.

So when was DOSPLUS part of MS DOS? It wasn't on the MSDN subscriber
downloads last time I saw DOS 5 there, and not on ANY of the DIS based
machines I've ever used.
You could as easily, and as accurately, say that Elite is par of DOS, or
Windows 95, or that DOS is part of the BIOS. Hell, even saying the
security guard outside the office I used to work at was part of DOS
would be just as accurate as he would have prevented unauthorised access
to the DOS by most unauthorised users (simply by preventing them from
entering the site).

DOS has no concept of access rights. As far as DOS is concerned you can
do anything you damn well please.

Yes, I've programmed and used DOS based machines extensively.

Anyway, this is off topic, if you want to claim that facitities provided
by something other than DOS are part of MSDOS then please find an
appropriate group.

 

[Rich Webb]

Viruses and malware are a severe problem at many schools and internet
cafes, especially with 'public' or 'lab' computers. Don't expect
to be able to run your own programs.

[snip...snip...]

Jeez louise! Sounds tough. I'm kinda glad that the only worry I had WRT
data processing, back in the day, was dropping the slide rule case and
knocking the scales akilter!

 

[luser-ex-troll]

Flash Gordon wrote:
If they have set up security properly you won't be able to run programs
which are not approved. Even if they have not you could still get in to
trouble for running programs which are not approved.
No I couldn't. There isn't an issue from running a console program, as
long as command prompt doesn't appear on the monitor.
Do they have cameras aimed at your screen?
If I were you, I'd probably do something to get
in trouble just so I could justifiably call
them all fascists (at a private high school this
can be very effective).
If you aren't hurting anyone, and have no intention
of doing so, and (thanks to whatever security they
have installed) have very little likelihood of
causing any harm. They really have no right to
care one way or the other.
[...]
Really?  Who owns the computers?  If you permitted someone to use a
computer that you own, but with conditions, would you have any right
to care if they violated those conditions?

I hadn't considered it from that angle.
If a was a proto-fascist, mob-following, domineering
paranoiac, would I let somebody use my computer at
all?

Suggesting that as the reason people might be forbidden from using
non-approved software is insulting.

Indeed. But I wasn't specifically refering to forbidding
"non-approved software", but to a blanket rule
that forbids "the command line".

[This is all directed at the hypothetical school computer
administrator who outlaws the command line interface.
Not at Keith, who points out a valid flaw in my argument.]

I certainly did not talk about outlawing the command line interface. In
fact, I pointed out that a lot of the OPs issues could be dealt with by
using Borland C++ *from* the command line!

Yes but I was complaining about the situation that
the OP seemed to describe where the command line
cannot appear on the monitor. Upon rereading that
post, it may not mean what I thought it meant.

Banning the use of non-approved software is perfectly reasonable. Anyone
who does not consider it reasonable should give up the idea of any job
involving computers because for GOOD reasons it is standard practice.

Yes. Well and good. Have a Nice list. Have a Naughty list.
But the selection criteria ought not to be the sole item:
Command Line == Naughty.

I'm actually a 40something who does not often ware a suit and considers
the command line to be good.



Stop being insulting and start considering that there are serious
reasons for not wanting random software run on shared computers. Start
by considering how many trojans and viruses are out there. Then consider
how much "traded" software is infected (the answer is a lot). Then
consider the schools responsibility to protect user A (who is sensible)
from being affected by user B who obtains and uses virus/trojan ridden
software and is likely to get the school computers infected. Then
consider that it COSTS MONEY to clean up the mess when a computer gets
infected, and why should the tax payers have to foot the bill for kids
behaving studipdly and causing problems with school equipment.

Are all these viruses and trojans being run from the
command line?

In any case, all that I did here is point out that someone *could* get
in to trouble *if* it is not allowed, and that there might be security
measures preventing it.

Yes.
I should have been more clear. I do not disagree with
anything you have said. I DO disagree with the hypothetical
administrative straw-man.

lxt

 

[Albert]

[...] and then talk to your programming
teacher, who will try to explain to you why you need to learn to
organise your programming [...]

I wish I had a programming teacher.
BTW, I've just found out that Code::Blocks has been installed which has
GCC and makes creating and compiling single source files a lot easier
than Borland C++ Builder Version 6 (year 2002) Professional (Unregistered).

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


And just how is any of this relevant? The poster is using
Windows XP, if I recall correctly; do MSDOS and CP/M security
considerations shed any light either on the OP's problem or on
the C programming language?

You can, but probably don't want to. That would require giving a
user only modem access, a specialized shell, controlling access to
all programs and disks, etc. My point is that CLI access can be
perfectly safe.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Viruses and malware are a severe problem at many schools and internet
cafes, especially with 'public' or 'lab' computers. Don't expect
to be able to run your own programs.

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.
(Really, I'm surprised none of our esteemed regs have pointed this out
already)

--
Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

 

[CBFalconer]

So when was DOSPLUS part of MS DOS? It wasn't on the MSDN
subscriber downloads last time I saw DOS 5 there, and not on ANY
of the DIS based machines I've ever used.

It never was (note the "CP/M"), but it was command line based.
CP/M had less methods of controlling access than does/did
MSDOS/Windows. The system illustrates what can be done.

.... snip ...

DOS has no concept of access rights. As far as DOS is concerned
you can do anything you damn well please.

Yes it does. It can mark files r/o. It just isn't easy. Are you
trying to say MSDOS is less capable than CP/M 2.2? And that is not
the point - the point is that command line control can be perfectly
safe.

 

[CBFalconer]

[...] and then talk to your programming teacher, who will try to
explain to you why you need to learn to organise your programming

I wish I had a programming teacher. BTW, I've just found out
that Code::Blocks has been installed which has GCC and makes
creating and compiling single source files a lot easier than
Borland C++ Builder Version 6 (year 2002) Professional
(Unregistered).

Anything that has anything called "Code::Blocks" is not C, and is
thus off topic here. It may be C++, which has its own newsgroup.
C++ is a different language.

 

[luser-ex-troll]

Off topic.  Not portable.  Cant discuss it here.  Blah, blah, blah.
(Really, I'm surprised none of our esteemed regs have pointed this out
already)

Probably because we got into enough trouble without them.
[Speaking for myself. Royal plural.]

lsr e unibus plurum c yma co We^

 

[Keith Thompson]

Anything that has anything called "Code::Blocks" is not C, and is
thus off topic here. It may be C++, which has its own newsgroup.
C++ is a different language.

And how do you know it's not C?

A moment of Googling reveals that Code::Blocks is an IDE that can be
used with a number of different compilers, including gcc. It appears
to be designed primarily for use with C++, but it can be used with C.
(I've never used it; there may be problems in using it with C that I'm
not aware of.)

 

[Keith Thompson]

You can, but probably don't want to.

Um, I can what?

That would require giving a
user only modem access, a specialized shell, controlling access to
all programs and disks, etc. My point is that CLI access can be
perfectly safe.

Ok. I must have missed the part where you actually made that point,
as well as the part where this is relevant to C.

 

[Guest]

Albert wrote:

[...]  BTW, I've just found out
that Code::Blocks has been installed which has GCC and makes
creating and compiling single source files a lot easier than
Borland C++ Builder Version 6 (year 2002) Professional
(Unregistered).

Anything that has anything called "Code::Blocks" is not C, and is
thus off topic here.  It may be C++, which has its own newsgroup.
C++ is a different language.

this from the man who's spent multiple posts explaining the security
features of DOS...

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Albert wrote:

[...]  BTW, I've just found out
that Code::Blocks has been installed which has GCC and makes
creating and compiling single source files a lot easier than
Borland C++ Builder Version 6 (year 2002) Professional
(Unregistered).

Anything that has anything called "Code::Blocks" is not C, and is
thus off topic here.  It may be C++, which has its own newsgroup.
C++ is a different language.

this from the man who's spent multiple posts explaining the security
features of DOS...

The core problem is that the dogma of the group depends on the idea that
when the regs tell the newbie that he is off-topic, that is an act of
kindness (and not one of aggression/malice). Much like the priests of
the Inquisition maintained that they were doing the Lord's work and that
their actions were acts of kindness.

Viewed in that light, there is no hypocrisy in Chuck's (or any other
regular's) position. They are free to off-topic all they want, and are
still free to sock it to the newbies when they are off-topic.

The real problem is that Chuck has taken this too far, and the other
regs (including you) are beginning to see that the end is near.

 

[CBFalconer]

Albert wrote:

[...] BTW, I've just found out
that Code::Blocks has been installed which has GCC and makes
creating and compiling single source files a lot easier than
Borland C++ Builder Version 6 (year 2002) Professional
(Unregistered).

Anything that has anything called "Code::Blocks" is not C, and is
thus off topic here. It may be C++, which has its own newsgroup.
C++ is a different language.

this from the man who's spent multiple posts explaining the
security features of DOS...

You do seem incapable of following a discussion. The point is that
CLI interfaces can be perfectly safe, and I even referred to an
illustration that does it. Since it was in another language
(assembly) and for a rare OS today (CP/M) I refrained from any
details, but announced where they could be found.