a master key can use any lock. there is no reason why such things should not exist. u know. for support. Otherwise, through bugs.
a less paranoid view:
MS had a similar one on azure at some point where you could get some 'master key' to access _all tenants_ (it wasnt an actual key but the effect was identical to what you observed. non existing key with all access. (luckily in that specific case it was a benign researcher)
In all of those places loose means something that isn't tight and lose something that you've displaced.
I think it would be correct to say people display varying command of the English language, which to me has never been a problem - as long as I can understand what you mean, it's all fine.
DOS didn't have certain protections because the hardware it targeted did not have those protections. For UNIX on the same machines, they also had no such protections. On 8086 there were no CPU rings, no virtual memory and no other features to help there.
Memory isolation is enforced by the MMU. This is not software.
Maybe you were confused with Linux, which came later, and landed in a soft x32 bed with CPU rings and Page Tables/VirtualMemory. ("Protected Mode", named for that reason...)
That being said, OpenClaw is criminally bad, but as such, fits well in our current AI/LLM ecosystem.
> DOS didn't have certain protections because the hardware it targeted did not have those protections. For UNIX on the same machines, they also had no such protections. On 8086 there were no CPU rings, no virtual memory and no other features to help there.
Those arrived with the 386 (286? Don't remember but 386 for sure) and DOS was well alive late into the 386 and even late in the 486 days.
> For UNIX on the same machines, they also had no such protections.
I was already running Linux on my 486 before Windows 95 arrived. Linux and DOS. One had those protections, the other didn't.
You could run the 286 in Protected Mode, which offered those features. The problem was that DOS programs needed to run in backwards-compatible Real Mode, and switching between them meant resetting the CPU. You could implement a competent OS for the 286 (Coherent, Minix, Xenix, OS/2 1.x), but it wouldn't be able to run DOS programs - though OS/2 1.x managed to swap between one DOS session and all of its OS/2 sessions.
With the 386, you could run multiple virtualized Real Mode CPUs, which enabled OS/2 2.x to preemptively multitask DOS sessions. Windows 3.x on a 386 or higher could also multitask DOS sessions, just much less reliably.
I agree that DOS was offered well past when it should have been, but there were alternatives even in the 1980s - Netware, OS/2, commercial UNIX like XENIX and SCO.
Windows 95 was still based on DOS, and didn't offer a lot in the way of isolation or other security features. Win98 and ME were similar. It wasn't until all Windows versions used the NT kernel (XP being the first consumer-focused release) that this changed.
I mean, why would Microsoft program said protections into DOS when NT existed by 93?
Simply put there was no putting said protections in to DOS for a few reasons. Backwards compatibility being a huge one. That and memory in most computers was tiny, getting Linux running on most of them would have been difficult.
i think his point still holds but yours is true too.
win 3.1 had protected mode. but windows 95 which was dos based did not. 98 i think got protected mode? not 100% sure on that. i know in windows 2000 it was still horrible broken...
The "no food in other countries" is because of failed/corrupt governments, not because people use AI to generate cat pictures in the West. The economy is not a "fixed pie" that needs to be allocated among people of the world.
Just look at Cuba, which could be a very rich country and one of the prime tourist destinations of the world.
you cannot earn billions a year and not be cheating your users out of their money. its that simple. they dont care for people, otherwise they wouldnt be putting so much effort in making them poor.
thanks for the down vote. i am not cynical though. how many billion dollar companies claim 109% detection rates and bullet proof security. i worked at one of these companies as they bought another and suffered through trying to make broken promises a reality. (they did it partly, an epic achievement. amazing engineers.) its a broken game.
you are addicted to dopamine. think carefully and take good care of yourself
the dragon book is how to write a production grade thing i guess. it has all the interesting concepts very elaborated on which is great but it dives quickly into things that can clutter a project if its just for fun..
It’s academic and comprehensive, that’s the issue. It’s not about writing a production grade compiler, though, in my humble opinion. There are more things to learn for that, unfortunately… is just a pretty big topic with lots of stuff to learn.
MS had a similar one on azure at some point where you could get some 'master key' to access _all tenants_ (it wasnt an actual key but the effect was identical to what you observed. non existing key with all access. (luckily in that specific case it was a benign researcher)
reply