On Wednesday 15 November 2006 3:00 pm, L. Rahyen wrote:
> On Wednesday November 15 2006 19:25, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > In this case we should perhaps try to detect such applications and mark
> > them executable accordingly.
> >
> > (Like... "does any section has exec flag? if not ... make all of
Hi folks,
in my last patch to NTLM, I manually flip a bit in the code ntlm_auth returns
so NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_ALWAYS_SIGN is negotiated. I decided to really fix that
for Samba, as my Win2k box always sets that bit. The Samba team wants me to
check if this also happens in Win2k3, too. I don't hav
AFAIK by default Windows XP enables the no-exec protection only for
"essential Windows programs and services". I couldn't find what that
means but it's described as if it is a fixed list of Windows system
binaries. The protection can enabled for all programs (except for a list
provided by the
Dimi Paun wrote:
>
> On Thu, November 16, 2006 12:42 pm, Andrew Talbot wrote:
>> As I understand it, declaring them static means that the storage will be
>> assigned and initialised at compile time, rather than run time, since the
>> size and contents are already known.
>
> Correct. However, if
Ulrich Czekalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +if (ctx && (hwnd = WindowFromDC(ctx->hdc)) != 0)
> +{
> +roothwnd = GetAncestor(hwnd, GA_ROOT);
> +
> +if (roothwnd != hwnd)
> +{
> +GetClientRect(roothwnd, &rootrc);
> +rheight = rootrc.bottom -
Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried the XnView example on my Windows XP and it just started the
> program without any questions or messageboxes.
Does your XP box have no-exec protection? Could you investigate a bit
more what the behavior is WRT stack, heap, executable sections,
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:38:27AM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think this is a classic case of forcing programmer indecision on the
> > user. Most users will not be able to answer such a question properly,
> > so they'll end up clicking ye
On Wed, November 15, 2006 5:02 pm, Andrew Talbot wrote:
> - static const WCHAR szProperty[] = {
> + static WCHAR szProperty[] = { '{','D','0','F','C','A','4','2','0',
If they aren't constant, shouldn't they be non-static too?
--
Dimi Paun http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel> >
La
Hi,
I am facing a performance issue in CRichEditCtrl under Wine. My
application reads data from a *.dat file and displays it in the
CRichEdit editor. When I try to open large data files, it takes a lot
of time(around 4-5 minutes) to open the file.
I checked the code and found that, in Wine, the
On Thu, November 16, 2006 12:42 pm, Andrew Talbot wrote:
> As I understand it, declaring them static means that the storage will be
> assigned and initialised at compile time, rather than run time, since the
> size and contents are already known.
Correct. However, if they aren't constant, it mean
Dimi Paun wrote:
>
> On Wed, November 15, 2006 5:02 pm, Andrew Talbot wrote:
>> - static const WCHAR szProperty[] = {
>> + static WCHAR szProperty[] = { '{','D','0','F','C','A','4','2','0',
>
> If they aren't constant, shouldn't they be non-static too?
>
Hi Dimi,
As I understand it, declari
On Thu, November 16, 2006 6:52 am, Dan Kegel wrote:
> One of these days, we probably want the wiki, appdb, and bugzilla to
> all output a sitemap so they can be searched better,
> I think. 'Course, someone will have to do it in their
> copious free time, so who knows when it'll happen...
OK, sou
arcpad ( http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcpad/ )
is a popular mobile app for doing map-related tasks.
The developers' blog now mentions that the app runs under Wine:
http://arcpadteam.blogspot.com/2006/11/arcpad-works-in-linux.html
but only with native msxml3.
- Dan
On 1/30/06, Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Maybe the wine wiki could publish a machine-readable sitemap; see
> http://www.xml-sitemaps.com/
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/sitemaps/docs/en/about.html
This seems like a good idea, but unless someone
Hey,
Paul Vriens wrote:
> we have quite a few places in the code where we do:
>
> WCHAR param[any-value];
>
> len = sizeof(param) / sizeof(WCHAR);
And there lies the next potential bug. If somebody changes the type of
param this will result in a wrong length. For this reason the Linux
Kernel guy
Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you can't determine the right answer automagically, I don't see the
> point in bugging the user for it, as they're not going to know any
> better.
The real question is "do you care enough about security to not want
broken apps to run?". That's obvio
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
My impression from reading MSDN is that Windows pops up a message box
too, but I don't have a way of confirming this. And I'm not convinced
that "make everything work and ignore security" is the right default,
we all know how well this worked for Windows.
Sure, don't
Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this is a classic case of forcing programmer indecision on the
> user. Most users will not be able to answer such a question properly,
> so they'll end up clicking yes anyway.
>
> Microsoft has done the correct thing by not forcing this on the
18 matches
Mail list logo
