Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?

From: Herbert Kleebauer (klee_at_unibwm.de)
Date: 12/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:25:37 +0100

Phil Carmody wrote:
> Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> writes:

> > Yes, it can drop a .com file as easily as any other file.
> > But the big difference is, that it can't execute the .com
> > file.
>
> *gag* *choke*.
>
> What the ***?
>
> It can execute the .com file as easily as a command.com or cmd.exe batch file can.

Is this true for any new Linux distribution. I'm still using
kernel 1.18 (which is continuously running since more than
10 years now as a WWW/FTP server on a 486dx2), which (as far
as I know) don't direct support DOS com files (you need to
install the optional DOSEMU packet). I'm a little bit surprised,
that new versions of Linux don't only use the executable bit
in the directory but also use the file extension to determine
the type of executable file format.

 
> > And that's all we are discussing here all the time:
> > the advantage of the com executable file format (a sequence
> > of processor instructions without any header).
>
> But what you've just done is make a comparison between how batch files
> can launch com files, and how bash supposedly can't launch com files.
> I.e. you've just been making a shell comparison, and then insisted
> that you're making a binary format comparison. Now do you see why
> I repeatedly claim that you're a moving target? You don't even appear
> to know what you yourself are arguing.

I never changed my point of view. I always said exactly the same.
You are trying to attack this point of view from any side, but
without success. Here my initial statement at the beginning of
this thread:

  Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:16:40 +0100
  You are right, this isn't practical. And here is the great advantage
  of DOS batch programs compared to unix shell scripts, you don't have
  to include the source code, you can direct include processor instructions.
  This is possible because the com file format doesn't have any header
  but is nothing than a pure sequence of processor instructions.

 
> Bash scripts can drop and launch .com files as easily as DOS batch files can.
> End of story.

Still can't believe that you can execute DOS com files in
Linux with only the kernel and shell present. Maybe somebody
else can confirm this. If not, I will have to install a actual
version of Linux when I'm back at work next year.

Loading