At 3/28/16 04:33 PM, egg82 wrote: I need this in my life :D

But happens if you accidentally type fick?

At 3/28/16 06:03 PM, Diki wrote: But happens if you accidentally type fick?

I believe it just deletes your entire filesystem because you can't even spell "fuck" correctly and thus don't deserve to be under Linux's guiding light :P

At 3/28/16 10:05 PM, egg82 wrote: I believe it just deletes your entire filesystem because you can't even spell "fuck" correctly and thus don't deserve to be under Linux's guiding light :P

I was looking for a package in the repositories under "fick" but didn't find anything. That's the best I got :(

This absolutely blew my mind. This is perfect for things like gov't jobs that usually require two separate computers on two distinct networks. Also for malware analysis and package/application development/testing.
It even runs Windows because fuck you that's why.

Ooooh shiiit. I think I can just about retire with the bucks I'm raking in from a shitty game I made twelve years ago:

At 3/31/16 09:35 AM, Diki wrote: Ooooh shiiit. I think I can just about retire with the bucks I'm raking in from a shitty game I made twelve years ago:

I created my YT channel about three years ago and I've made ~$15 from it so far.
Woo, rich!

Oh, good. Now there's a quick and entertaining video on how video games are made.
(Actually the video is pretty damn good. I might start referencing it here on the forums)

I don't understand viruses/malware that intentionally destroys your computer. Wouldn't it be better to remain unnoticed and simply do data mining/keylogging for personal accounts and information potentially for years until the computer is retired?

I dunno. Just my two cents.

Maybe some people just want to watch the world burn

What the fuck is this website

At 4/1/16 01:34 AM, MSGhero wrote: What the fuck is this website

Apparently my personal blog where I talk to myself.

Nobody loves me :(

(Or maybe it's just that I don't have much in the way of helpful things to say. That could be it.)

.. Or are you talking about the slot machine at the top of the page which I just discovered upon writing this reply?
I like it.

Okay. Three things I've learned tonight:

1. "sudo dpkg --add-architecture i386 && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get -y upgrade" gives you a completely hosed system.
2. Disabling the root account and running "sudo usermod -G www-data user" on your ONLY user also gives you a hosed system.
3. Re-installing Debian-based OSes with encrypted filesystems at 3 AM sucks and you make a lot of mistakes.

At 4/1/16 05:17 AM, egg82 wrote: Okay. Three things I've learned tonight:

1. "sudo dpkg --add-architecture i386 && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get -y upgrade" gives you a completely hosed system.
2. Disabling the root account and running "sudo usermod -G www-data user" on your ONLY user also gives you a hosed system.
3. Re-installing Debian-based OSes with encrypted filesystems at 3 AM sucks and you make a lot of mistakes.

I literally ran "sudo chmod -R o-rwx /" yesterday and hadn't setup a root password.

> sudo helppls
/bin/sh Permission denied.

I'm good at Linux.

At 4/1/16 09:08 AM, Sam wrote: I'm good at Linux.

You should definitely totes run this:

sudo rm -rf /

Don't actually run that. You'll regret it.

the bash shell is coming for windows

i don't know what this means as i'm just a filthy peasant but it's big news

At 4/1/16 11:30 AM, Gimmick wrote: the bash shell is coming for windows

i don't know what this means as i'm just a filthy peasant but it's big news

It means that, if implemented properly, a lot of Windows users will unintentionally screw themselves.

At 4/1/16 11:30 AM, Gimmick wrote: the bash shell is coming for windows

i don't know what this means as i'm just a filthy peasant but it's big news

ConEmu plus MinGW is basically that, anyway (for most stuff you're likely to do).

I also hope you're still not actually using command prompt; if so, you should get ConEmu. (Command prompt is useless garbage.)

At 4/1/16 11:30 AM, Gimmick wrote: the bash shell is coming for windows

i don't know what this means as i'm just a filthy peasant but it's big news

Me too. I don't see myself using the command line more because of this, although it's really cool that they're doing this. I also have no idea why people use the command line in the first place, aside from using PowerShell to mass rename files or updating haxelibs...

or doing python homework

At 4/2/16 02:14 AM, MSGhero wrote: I also have no idea why people use the command line in the first place

Ping something.
Execute Python/Ruby/Perl/JS scripts.
Run CLI programs, such as CLOC.
Flush your DNS.
Compile something with GCC/G++.
SSH into a server.
Quickly partition a disk.
Append something to PATH without having to navigate through a series of windows (or use the crappy UI).

There's plenty of reasons for using a CLI.

At 3/24/16 04:00 PM, Diki wrote: The standard library is pretty robust, especially with C++11. What functions did you have to write to do things that aren't available in the STL?

One thing I verbally said "Really..?" to, was the inability to split a string on a delimiter. I think aside from that, I just felt I was writing more lines of code to achieve things. I suppose that's the nature of lower-level languages.

Personally, I hate function names like "stod". And some of the error messages are cryptic. The C++11 for loops are nice, though.

I still don't understand why I need a header file and a cpp file.

At 4/1/16 11:30 AM, Gimmick wrote: the bash shell is coming for windows

Hopefully they'll fix the max length on paths that's been plaguing Node modules while they're at it!

At 4/3/16 09:06 PM, Sam wrote: Hopefully they'll fix the max length on paths that's been plaguing Node modules while they're at it!

I'm tempted to troll the shit out of anyone who asks for things like that.
"Yeah, just type 'rm -rf C:\' and it'll fix everything for you"

I mean, I wouldn't, but I guarantee that's going to be a new thing that goes around with the release.

There's so many different ways to accidentally hose yourself with bash it's not even funny.
Like I said before, if it's implemented properly we'll see a lot of fucked Windows systems.

At 4/3/16 09:52 PM, egg82 wrote: Like I said before, if it's implemented properly we'll see a lot of fucked Windows systems.

I feel like if you're even aware enough to think about considering touching bash on Windows, you know not to run dumbass random code.

At 4/3/16 10:18 PM, MSGhero wrote: I feel like if you're even aware enough to think about considering touching bash on Windows, you know not to run dumbass random code.

If it's integrated, then the common user might me tricked into installing it.
Otherwise, you'd be surprised at how many ways you can screw your system over just using a few basic bash commands (especially since you can use Ubuntu's package management with this)
Just see my above post. Completely hosed my system twice using two different commands. That's just the tip of the "oh fuck, what did I do?" iceberg.

If you're wondering, the "usermod" command hosed me because I removed my account from the sudo group.
Normally if you want to add an existing user you write in: "sudo usermod -a -G group user" which is this:
usermod - command
-a - append
-G - group(s)
group - the group to add
user - the user to add to

I forgot to include the "-a" which, instead of adding my user to an existing group, simply replaced all of my groups (including sudo, which is the only thing allowing me root access since I disabled the root account) with that one.

Two keyboard keys (or lack thereof) hosed my system using purely bash commands.

So, I decided I'd lend some of my gbit connection to archive.org and help them back up Google Code.
(you basically download and run a vm, it's pretty simple)

I noticed one of my workers was downloading a large file and discovered someone put a bunch of Prison Break avi and mkv files on gcode.

.. Am I technically pirating these, then?
I'm confused now.

If I get a DMCA from Centurylink I'm gonna throw a fit.

At 4/3/16 11:38 PM, egg82 wrote: .. Am I technically pirating these, then?
I'm confused now.

If I get a DMCA from Centurylink I'm gonna throw a fit.

That's kinda hilarious.

At 4/3/16 09:06 PM, Sam wrote: One thing I verbally said "Really..?" to, was the inability to split a string on a delimiter. I think aside from that, I just felt I was writing more lines of code to achieve things. I suppose that's the nature of lower-level languages.

Yeah, it is a bit lame that specific function doesn't exist, but it's still pretty trivial to implement:

void split_string(
    std::vector<std::string>& destination,
    const std::string& source,
    const std::string& delim)
{
    if (source.size() < delim.size()) {
        destination.push_back(source);
    } else {
        std::string buffer;
        const char* itr = source.c_str();

        while (*itr) {
            if (memcmp(itr, delim.c_str(), delim.size()) == 0) {
                destination.push_back(buffer);
                buffer.clear();
                std::size_t temp = delim.size();
                while (temp-- && *itr++); /* Move itr past current match. */
            } else {
                buffer += *itr++;
            }
        }

        destination.push_back(buffer);
    }
}

And even simpler if you only want to split by a single character:

void split(
    const std::string& source,
    char delim,
    std::vector<std::string>& destination)
 {
    std::stringstream stream(source);
    std::string item;

    while (std::getline(stream, item, delim)) {
        destination.push_back(item);
    }
}

But, for the most part, anything you're likely to do is in the STL.

At 4/3/16 09:06 PM, Sam wrote: And some of the error messages are cryptic.

They can be, especially when working with templates, but that's just what happens with very low-level languages; the compiler can only do so much.

At 4/3/16 09:06 PM, Sam wrote: I still don't understand why I need a header file and a cpp file.

The CPP file gets compiled and the header does not, and the header is necessary for declaring what is in the CPP file so the linker can link them together in your source code. If the header didn't exist, your source code wouldn't have any of the declarations so it wouldn't know what the functions and classes are named or where to call them from.

At 4/4/16 09:28 AM, Diki wrote: Yeah, it is a bit lame that specific function doesn't exist, but it's still pretty trivial to implement:

It being trivial is kind of my argument that it should be in the standard library. Again, it's probably because I'm switching between Python which cradles you with a function for everything and C++ for this project.

At 4/3/16 09:06 PM, Sam wrote: I still don't understand why I need a header file and a cpp file.

The CPP file gets compiled and the header does not, and the header is necessary for declaring what is in the CPP file so the linker can link them together in your source code. If the header didn't exist, your source code wouldn't have any of the declarations so it wouldn't know what the functions and classes are named or where to call them from.

But I can't (from memory) see any information in the header file that couldn't be included or is already defined in the source file. Couldn't headers be generated automatically as part of a pre-compile process?

At 4/4/16 02:54 PM, Sam wrote: It being trivial is kind of my argument that it should be in the standard library. Again, it's probably because I'm switching between Python which cradles you with a function for everything and C++ for this project.

Beats me as to why the STL doesn't contain it; there really isn't any compelling reason for it on modern systems (makes sense that it wouldn't be included back in the 80s).

It might end up in C++14. Who knows?

At 4/4/16 02:54 PM, Sam wrote: But I can't (from memory) see any information in the header file that couldn't be included or is already defined in the source file.

Headers generally don't contain definitions; they're supposed to be used for declarations, except for edge-cases where you have no choice but to include the definition in your header (such as when using templates).

The header is basically the skeleton of the source file, whereas the source file is where all the meaty goodness is.

Another way to think about it is how you have to declare your member variables in a class before you can ever use them in some OO languages (e.g. ActionScrupt, C#, Java).

At 4/4/16 02:54 PM, Sam wrote: Couldn't headers be generated automatically as part of a pre-compile process?

No.

The compiler wouldn't know what is and what isn't supposed to be exposed by the header file, which could cause it to put things in the header that don't belong which could end up breaking an application. The only option it would have is to include absolutely everything that is in the source file, and if you have a function in your source file with the same name as a function in another source file, and both of those headers are automatically generated and both included somewhere else: KABLAMO! COMPILER ERROR!

When it comes down to it: the header file is there to publicly expose parts of the source file. If you put a class, function, or variable inside of a source file, and do not declare it in the header file, then absolutely nothing outside of that one single source file can ever access it. Inversely, if you do include it in the header file, then anything that includes that header file will have access to it.

At 4/4/16 03:41 PM, Diki wrote: No.

I think Sam's question is more, "How come I don't have to do this in Haxe (especially Haxe->CPP), and why can't C++ just do what higher level languages do?"

Edit: Haxe's dead code elimination doesn't compile variables, functions, and classes that I'm not using, and the analyzer even deletes local variables I'm not using. So why is C++ so dumb?

At 4/4/16 08:14 PM, MSGhero wrote: I think Sam's question is more, "How come I don't have to do this in Haxe (especially Haxe->CPP), and why can't C++ just do what higher level languages do?"

I'm pretty sure he's talking about regular C++, so what you would do in Haxe wouldn't apply, and if it is in fact the latter: I hope I don't actually need to answer that question.

At 4/4/16 08:28 PM, Diki wrote: I'm pretty sure he's talking about regular C++, so what you would do in Haxe wouldn't apply, and if it is in fact the latter: I hope I don't actually need to answer that question.

I may or may not have oversimplified.