Re: "Portable" C compilers?

On Mar 17, 1:42 am, Flash Gordon <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
luser-ex-troll wrote:
On Mar 16, 11:34 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
luser-ex-troll <mijo...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Mar 16, 2:01 am, Albert <albert.xtheunkno...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.
--
Flash Gordon

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
.

Relevant Pages

  • ld.so.1: fatal ImportError: ld.so.1 No such file or directory
    ... you've GOT to finnd the missing file! ... This command above should go in your rc file, eg, ~/.tcshrc, ~/.cshrc, ... If you are still having trouble, ... try section-3 below, but then you're on your own. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: "Portable" C compilers?
    ... trouble for running programs which are not approved. ... long as command prompt doesn't appear on the monitor. ... who does not consider it reasonable should give up the idea of any job involving computers because for GOOD reasons it is standard practice. ... Stop being insulting and start considering that there are serious reasons for not wanting random software run on shared computers. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: The Application Failed to Initialize properly (0xc0000022) Click Ok to Terminate the
    ... 2.It is without meaning what you use:command prompt or psexec (above ... there are many difference trouble with permissions in different points ... but if you have x64 system save ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Re: "Portable" C compilers?
    ... trouble for running programs which are not approved. ... long as command prompt doesn't appear on the monitor. ... them all fascists (at a private high school this ... care one way or the other. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Start up messed up ...
    ... Mark tried your advice:result netchwindsockreset_enter:not recognized as ... "Mark L. Ferguson" wrote: ... > the netsh command in SP2 can rebuild your Winsock. ... >> Daffodills in Trouble! ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)