On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 12:22:13PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:34:09PM +, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>On 03/11/2011 21:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> I would still prefer eschewing actively negative words like "hostile" and
>>> just
>>> neutrally stating that Window
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:34:09PM +, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 03/11/2011 21:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I would still prefer eschewing actively negative words like "hostile" and
>> just
>> neutrally stating that Windows does not use a fork/exec model and does not
>> offer
>> any easy way t
On 03/11/2011 17:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Thanks for doing that. I looks good to me, with just one exception.
+Address space layout randomization (ASLR). Starting with
+Vista, Windows implements ASLR, which means that thread stacks,
+heap, memory-mapped files, and statically-linked dlls are
On 03/11/2011 21:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I would still prefer eschewing actively negative words like "hostile" and just
neutrally stating that Windows does not use a fork/exec model and does not offer
any easy way to implement fork.
Hmm, yes, I'll fix that.
I'd also like to see specific
