#why you no run linux/unix/bsd?

[sl33py-g4m3r]

why am I like this? lol anyone else or just me that does this?

*me to people routinely when I see their OS and network is windows* so that means the eye doctor every time I go, and maybe regular doctor too, lol

"why don't you all use linux/unix/bsd? it's more secure than windows cause no one codes viruses for it as often cause it's not as widely used"

them: "cause we want our tools to work"

so are their tools so specialized that they need specialized drivers for them and thus can't work with them under unix/bsd/linux?

it'd be more secure tho, wouldn't it?

heck from one of them I got "why don't you go to college and work in tech?" genuine question~~~

and the answer is anxiety~~~ :(

[divorce]

i want to keep tumblr because i like aesthetics

aesthetic aggregation is important because it allows for intimate relationships to develop outside of life-long domesticated-servile contracts

you transfer

love energy,

actually, when you share your aesthetic, and merge, like that

however

i don't think its possible to make organic relationships the same way it was a decade ago, no, entirely too sanitized

i highly doubt, since the algorithm that i'll ever oganically run into; actually its absurd to even finish that sentence

luckily, i became a sysadmin / programmer, in the interem period, and can actually build the tools this time around

i have an idea for an aesthetic aggregator portal place that combines dump.fm & tumblr with cellular automata, like a living pool you gaze into and everything's a ripple on a wave, man, that's like connected, woah

and i'm schemeing on it, i love lisp, when i go looking everything i want to do is available to me like channeling a spell... somebody already wrote scheme to wasm, that really shouldn't be too hard... still looking for alternate ways to chat :D hmu on xmpp it's exactly like AIM

i've tried node/npm, python, package managers... the best most satisfying one if you're going to go and install a big library, blob thing like that, is probably some flavor of emacs... for me, this is a personal preference, the fact that you 'can' do anything that rust/python/go/js can do in LISP... is enough for me, because, it is elegant, it is more pleasant to look at and easier to read, idk. loving my time with it recently and have been knocking it out of the park most days recently... the past 7 years i've been working on a top secret project, which will have a working alpha demo of the basic features by the end of next week :D

the best os rn is a freeBSD jail with guixSD GNU/linux-libre there's also hyperbola/BSD in the works you want to try to phase out the linux kernel because of all the google/microsoft shenanigans creeping in, you don't need unix/linux any more you can do all your daily driver stuff on an embedded, low power risc soc that costs under a hundo you need less overhead for embedded systems, there's microkernels like genome, and platforms like zephyr, its ok to move away idk one thing i learned its good to take a step back and look at the scope of what you're trying to achieve, try to strip away all the unneccessary parts... a mhz is 1,000,000 calculations a microsecond or whatever, when you sit down and write a piece of code how many calculations exactly do you need to do to do your business, honestly.

^these are the 3 am ramblings of a minimalist

i'm trying to find peers here on my site that's connected to the internet that's why i'm sending messages to it about my interests, pardon me, sir please send $1 to this address

[go-learn-esperanto]

I'm gonna leave some resources for you that might help you with the problems you have. Maybe it's the distribution, or drivers, or something stupid that is causing you problems.

Alternatives to the Windows apps you're using

If you really wanna use a Windows only app here's the Wine database where you'll find if the app you wanna use is compatible, if someone managed to run it, if someone has a project on GitHub to help you run it and common problems people find with the app.

Site for Linux and some other Unix based OS' distributions. Here you may see if the problem you're experiencing with your camera is a known issue with the distribution you're using. Also, if there's another distro you wanna try out.

What would we be without Reddit forums? Anyway, here we can search and ask for help.

Also: go look on Reddit for your distribution's community so you can ask there a question specific to your distribution.

And lastly, OS wikis and documentations.

The best known wiki of all is the ArchWiki, known for having 99% of the answers to anyone's problems, but check your distribution wiki or documentation first to see if there's an answer over there.

(this is Pop OS' website)

Well, I can't put more links so for other distros you search yourself. They probably have something. The Linux kernel and its distributions were built by and for the community, so there's most likely somewhere you can ask for help or that has your answer already. You just need to look it up.

What do you do if you don't know how to do something on a new program? You look it up. It's the same for Linux.

Don't tell me that your Windows never had any problems. Mine certainly does. It has more Bluetooth problems than my Ubuntu. And it has so many things I don't want and is using too much of my precious PC space.

I also have a fun recommendation for you: if you wanna have Linux and Android apps you can try FideOS. It's a ChromeOS but you can use it on another PC that isn't a Chromebook and use the Android Apps. Yes, Google has an official distribution for non Chromebooks (ChromeOS Flex) but you can't use Android apps on it. Only web and Linux. It sucks and I have no idea why Google doesn't give support 😐.

And yes, ChromeOS and Android are actually Linux. Fun fact of the day! That means that that they, despite everything, are open source, so Google HAS to allow you to share modified versions of their products since they follow the GNU licence and Google HAS to share the modifications they do to the Linux kernel.

Honestly I don't know why people are so hellbent on staying with Windows when Linux has distributions like

AmogOS

Hannah Montana Linux

Ubuntu Satanic Edition (comes with free metal music)

UWUntu (Annoyingly a really good OS and one of the funniest too. The guys who make it recommend you anime movies every time you install a new version)

[obiternihili]

i am in Immense Pain due to Health is Shit so I'm going to recount my understanding of something pointless and boring to organize my thoughts and Distract Myself from Feeling Pain and then i'm gonna post it because deleting a lot of writing even if pointless feels bad

Original computers of course were basically one program one machine. Reprogrammability came quick, but still, basically ran one program at a time, kinda like a nes.

As they grew bigger they started to make machines that could access libraries of programs at a time, the line between program and function not being that clear yet

These were eventually developed into the first operating systems by the late 50s. The 60s saw the beginnings of things like Xerox's OS as the technology tried to focus on making OSes shareable - able to be operated by multiple users at once at different terminals. Bell created Multics around this time which introduced the idea of privilege tiers for users or something, but the project was a mess because Bell was kind of a mess and some defectors created Unics, that is Unix, with similar concepts and such. The do one thing and do it well attitude was kind of born out of the Multics thing. IBM also got involved with the OS/360 stuff

Running internal networks in offices and such was the driver for early computers. Throughout the 70s saw Bell license out UNIX, Xerox license out it's OS, IBM did its thing, and competitors emerge at that level. The first GUIs started to become things making the systems more user-friendly.

The rise of home computing upset things a bit. Not a lot, but a bit. IBM launched the PC on its 8086 architecture. Microsoft entered the picture with its UNIX system, Apple launched its Xerox-derived things, popularizing the GUI desktop concept. Linus Torvalds got frustrated with Microsoft's UNIX derivative not being able to support his machine to its full potential and created a free UNIX-like OS with some tools in part written by a crazy man and made GNU/Linux. The x windowing system was ported to Linux. Microsoft dropped its UNIX derivative to work on IBM's DOS, Gates' mother was on the board for IBM I think. That led to Windows.

Other home computers of note were things like the C64. Which didn't have a whole lot in terms of the OS but basically would drop you into a live BASIC environment which was enough for what it was.

The 90s was tough and MS gradually outcompeted other OSes in part because they had such a close relationship to IBM and the most popular flavor of DOS, in part because of dick moves. Apple managed to survive somehow, but barely, mostly by providing cheap mainframes for schools and certain businesses. Commodore went on to Amiga with its own GUI and everything, I think, but failed to win a market and the rights to Amiga OS are split between like 4 companies. UNIX systems managed to be popular as server OSes, because of features going back to the early days. MS and IBM got mad about windows and led MS to rewrite its OS and created the NT family and IBM developing OS/2 that kind of went nowhere.

Apple lost a ton of market space and let go of powerpc architecture and its Xerox-descended OS for intel's 8086 derived architecture and ended up forking BSD for darwin and then OSX which is basically what macs run now. MS dominated everything and were terrible and here we are. Linux established itself as a good thing to build cross-industry shit on and later android was derived from it.

As gaming started to adopt OSes instead of just BIOS (like boot processes) launching programs you'd see the dreamcast i think working on 86 stuff just a few steps aside from MS, which made it easy to port to xbox when the dreamcast died and why xbox is the way it is. xbox is of course windows nt derived. sony adopted a bsd derivative and licensed direct x from ms. nintendo did their own stuff for the powerpc based consoles and suffered security holes for it. ds was similarly in house with arm hardware, as was the 3ds. The switch derives from the 3ds software, with some adapted BSD and android code (but not a lot). steam os i think is just arch linux

i need to map out linux also

because of how modular linux is and because no one can tell you don't do that everything is customizable basically. a really good thing about linux is the concept of a package manager which installs or manages software on the computer in a neat, organized way

the first of these was basically slack back in the 90s. other package managers started coming with fancy things like conflict resolution or dependency management. basically what makes a linux distribution is its package manager; everything is relatively superficial, since in principle you can run any desktop manager your computer can build or whatever.

there's still something to other spins. ubuntu basically forked debian's packages and features more cutting edge software, also canonical's decisions. linux mint forked ubuntu by just adding a layer of decision makers between canonical and the user.

main distros i think are arch, debian, ubuntu, mint. memes meme gentoo and it's probably the most widely supported source based os, but, like, it's a bad idea to do this in ways you can only really learn from experience. there's sabayon which simplifies gentoo but defeats the purpose by existing. redhat was one of the biggest popularizers of linux in the enterprise and other space deserves mention, fedora being the free version, suse is also there, these are fine and cool despite the unfortunate name for fedora

there's a bunch of little spin offs of arch and other distros aiming to make them simpler or provide a preconfigured gui. largely pointless but whatever, sometimes you just want a graphical installer, manjaro's there for you

[vivekhaldar]

How Unix Won

Unix has won in every conceivable way. And in true mythic style, it contains the seeds of its own eclipse. This is my subjective historical narrative of how that happened.

I'm using the name "Unix" to include the entire family of operating systems descended from it, or that have been heavily influenced by it. That includes Linux, SunOS, Solaris, BSD, Mac OS X, and many, many others.

Both major mobile OSs, Android and iOS, have Unix roots. Their billions of users dwarf those using clunky things like laptops and desktops, but even there, Windows is only the non-Unix viable OS. Almost everything running server-side in giant datacenters is Linux.

How did Unix win?

It was built by programmers, for programmers. If you read the early papers describing Unix, you will see how the key abstractions (hierarchical filesystems, permissions, processes, interactive shells, pipes) have lasted conceptually unsullied for decades. That could only have happened if it exerted such a force field over geek minds that they propagated it.

The majority of it was written not in assembly language, but in C, a higher-level language, hence making it portable. This enabled relatively easy ports to a wide variety of hardware.

A freak historical accident. AT&T Labs, where it was developed, was forbidden under its anti-trust settlement from commercializing products unrelated to its core telecom business. Hence, Unix was licensed very cheaply to universities, including UC Berkeley, which subsequently built one of the more influential branches of the Unix family tree—BSD. Apparently, AT&T classified Unix as industrial waste for tax purposes when licensing it!

Unix spread through academia, and those students spread it through corporations after they graduated. It's a strategy that has been used by every major tech company, only in this case it was organic.

And then came the Internet, and the whole universe of daemons, tools, protocols, and utilities that undergirded it was built natively on Unix. That wasn't a huge surprise because a lot of the people that built the Net were Unix natives. BSD open-sourced its TCP/IP stack, kicking off its wide adoption outside the military.

By the late 90s and early 2000s, Linux started taking over the server-side. It has become the ultimate virtuous cycle in open source. When picking a new kernel one is virtually forced to go with Linux because of the huge community and massive engineering that has gone into solidifying it. That's probably why Android picked Linux even though it was running on the other end of the hardware spectrum.

So how and why would we move past Unix?

Unix, which got standardized into the POSIX spec, has accreted a tremendous amount of complexity over the decades. The POSIX spec is 3000 pages long. Linux now has nearly 400 system calls. What started as a clean, pure, minimal and elegant set of system abstractions has become a complex beast.

The very idea of the OS providing general-purpose abstractions with wide applicability is being challenged. When Unix was created, IO was orders of magnitude slower than CPU. There were enough CPU cycles to burn to provide these high-level abstractions, like a complex hierarchical filesystem. Now IO can easily saturate CPU. At least on the server side, folks just want to get the fastest performance out of their hardware. That's leading to the rise of frameworks like SPDK and DPDK that bypass heavy OS abstractions for storage and networking in favor of applications directly accessing the raw hardware, and rolling whatever abstraction they do need on their own.

The entire ecosystem in which an OS exists is changing. Application-level experiences are hermetic and make the underlying OS more or less irrelevant. Just look at Android or iOS or ChromeOS. Programming to a virtual machine (like the Java VM) makes programmers much more invested in their PL/runtime than the OS.

The above two points raise an interesting question: what does a modern operating system want? Look, for example, at Fuchsia, which is going in the direction of a microkernel with capabilities, that pushes most drivers and OS services out to userspace. These are ideas that have been floating in academic OS research for decades, but could never gain real mainstream acceptance because of the high barrier to making a viable real-world OS. This is the effect Rob Pike was talking about in his "Systems Research is Irrelevant" talk. But the prior two trends are finally dislodging the iron grip of Unix, and OSs are becoming interesting again!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

#1yrago Oh for fuck's sake, not this fucking bullshit again (cryptography edition)

America, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and Australia are in a surveillance alliance called The Five Eyes, through which they share much of their illegally harvested surveillance data.

In a recently released Statement of Principles on Access to Evidence and Encryption, the Five Eyes powers have demanded, again, that strong cryptography be abolished and replaced with defective cryptography so that they can spy on bad guys.

They defend this by saying "Privacy is not absolute."

But of course, working crypto isn't just how we stay private from governments (though god knows all five of the Five Eyes have, in very recent times, proven themselves to be catastrophically unsuited to collect, analyze and act on all of our private and most intimate conversations). It's how we make sure that no one can break into the data from our voting machines, or push lethal fake firmware updates to our pacemakers, or steal all the money from all of the banks, or steal all of the kompromat on all 22,000,000 US military and government employees and contractors who've sought security clearance.

Also, this is bullshit.

Because it won't work.

Here's the text of my go-to post about why this is so fucking stupid. I just can't be bothered anymore. Jesus fucking christ. Seriously? Are we still fucking talking about this? Seriously? Come on, SERIOUSLY?

It’s impossible to overstate how bonkers the idea of sabotaging cryptography is to people who understand information security. If you want to secure your sensitive data either at rest – on your hard drive, in the cloud, on that phone you left on the train last week and never saw again – or on the wire, when you’re sending it to your doctor or your bank or to your work colleagues, you have to use good cryptography. Use deliberately compromised cryptography, that has a back door that only the “good guys” are supposed to have the keys to, and you have effectively no security. You might as well skywrite it as encrypt it with pre-broken, sabotaged encryption.

There are two reasons why this is so. First, there is the question of whether encryption can be made secure while still maintaining a “master key” for the authorities’ use. As lawyer/computer scientist Jonathan Mayer explained, adding the complexity of master keys to our technology will “introduce unquantifiable security risks”. It’s hard enough getting the security systems that protect our homes, finances, health and privacy to be airtight – making them airtight except when the authorities don’t want them to be is impossible.

What these leaders thinks they're saying is, "We will command all the software creators we can reach to introduce back-doors into their tools for us." There are enormous problems with this: there's no back door that only lets good guys go through it. If your Whatsapp or Google Hangouts has a deliberately introduced flaw in it, then foreign spies, criminals, crooked police (like those who fed sensitive information to the tabloids who were implicated in the hacking scandal -- and like the high-level police who secretly worked for organised crime for years), and criminals will eventually discover this vulnerability. They -- and not just the security services -- will be able to use it to intercept all of our communications. That includes things like the pictures of your kids in your bath that you send to your parents to the trade secrets you send to your co-workers.

But this is just for starters. These officials don't understand technology very well, so they doesn't actually know what they're asking for.

For this proposal to work, they will need to stop Britons, Canadians, Americans, Kiwis and Australians from installing software that comes from software creators who are out of their jurisdiction. The very best in secure communications are already free/open source projects, maintained by thousands of independent programmers around the world. They are widely available, and thanks to things like cryptographic signing, it is possible to download these packages from any server in the world (not just big ones like Github) and verify, with a very high degree of confidence, that the software you've downloaded hasn't been tampered with.

Australia is not alone here. The regime they proposes is already in place in countries like Syria, Russia, and Iran (for the record, none of these countries have had much luck with it). There are two means by which authoritarian governments have attempted to restrict the use of secure technology: by network filtering and by technology mandates.

Australian governments have already shown that they believes they can order the nation's ISPs to block access to certain websites (again, for the record, this hasn't worked very well). The next step is to order Chinese-style filtering using deep packet inspection, to try and distinguish traffic and block forbidden programs. This is a formidable technical challenge. Intrinsic to core Internet protocols like IPv4/6, TCP and UDP is the potential to "tunnel" one protocol inside another. This makes the project of figuring out whether a given packet is on the white-list or the black-list transcendentally hard, especially if you want to minimise the number of "good" sessions you accidentally blackhole.

More ambitious is a mandate over which code operating systems in the 5 Eyes nations are allowed to execute. This is very hard. We do have, in Apple's Ios platform and various games consoles, a regime where a single company uses countermeasures to ensure that only software it has blessed can run on the devices it sells to us. These companies could, indeed, be compelled (by an act of Parliament) to block secure software. Even there, you'd have to contend with the fact that other states are unlikely to follow suit, and that means that anyone who bought her Iphone in Paris or Mexico could come to the 5 Eyes countries with all their secure software intact and send messages "we cannot read."

But there is the problem of more open platforms, like GNU/Linux variants, BSD and other unixes, Mac OS X, and all the non-mobile versions of Windows. All of these operating systems are already designed to allow users to execute any code they want to run. The commercial operators -- Apple and Microsoft -- might conceivably be compelled by Parliament to change their operating systems to block secure software in the future, but that doesn't do anything to stop people from using all the PCs now in existence to run code that the PM wants to ban.

More difficult is the world of free/open operating systems like GNU/Linux and BSD. These operating systems are the gold standard for servers, and widely used on desktop computers (especially by the engineers and administrators who run the nation's IT). There is no legal or technical mechanism by which code that is designed to be modified by its users can co-exist with a rule that says that code must treat its users as adversaries and seek to prevent them from running prohibited code.

This, then, is what the Five Eyes are proposing:

* All 5 Eyes citizens' communications must be easy for criminals, voyeurs and foreign spies to intercept

* Any firms within reach of a 5 Eyes government must be banned from producing secure software

* All major code repositories, such as Github and Sourceforge, must be blocked in the 5 Eyes

* Search engines must not answer queries about web-pages that carry secure software

* Virtually all academic security work in the 5 Eyes must cease -- security research must only take place in proprietary research environments where there is no onus to publish one's findings, such as industry R&D and the security services

* All packets in and out of 5 Eyes countries, and within those countries, must be subject to Chinese-style deep-packet inspection and any packets that appear to originate from secure software must be dropped

* Existing walled gardens (like Ios and games consoles) must be ordered to ban their users from installing secure software

* Anyone visiting a 5 Eyes country from abroad must have their smartphones held at the border until they leave

* Proprietary operating system vendors (Microsoft and Apple) must be ordered to redesign their operating systems as walled gardens that only allow users to run software from an app store, which will not sell or give secure software to Britons

* Free/open source operating systems -- that power the energy, banking, ecommerce, and infrastructure sectors -- must be banned outright

The Five Eyes officials will say that they doesn't want to do any of this. They'll say that they can implement weaker versions of it -- say, only blocking some "notorious" sites that carry secure software. But anything less than the programme above will have no material effect on the ability of criminals to carry on perfectly secret conversations that "we cannot read". If any commodity PC or jailbroken phone can run any of the world's most popular communications applications, then "bad guys" will just use them. Jailbreaking an OS isn't hard. Downloading an app isn't hard. Stopping people from running code they want to run is -- and what's more, it puts the every 5 Eyes nation -- individuals and industry -- in terrible jeopardy.

That’s a technical argument, and it’s a good one, but you don’t have to be a cryptographer to understand the second problem with back doors: the security services are really bad at overseeing their own behaviour.

Once these same people have a back door that gives them access to everything that encryption protects, from the digital locks on your home or office to the information needed to clean out your bank account or read all your email, there will be lots more people who’ll want to subvert the vast cohort that is authorised to use the back door, and the incentives for betraying our trust will be much more lavish than anything a tabloid reporter could afford.

If you want a preview of what a back door looks like, just look at the US Transportation Security Administration’s “master keys” for the locks on our luggage. Since 2003, the TSA has required all locked baggage travelling within, or transiting through, the USA to be equipped with Travelsentry locks, which have been designed to allow anyone with a widely held master key to open them.

What happened after Travelsentry went into effect? Stuff started going missing from bags. Lots and lots of stuff. A CNN investigation into thefts from bags checked in US airports found thousands of incidents of theft committed by TSA workers and baggage handlers. And though “aggressive investigation work” has cut back on theft at some airports, insider thieves are still operating with impunity throughout the country, even managing to smuggle stolen goods off the airfield in airports where all employees are searched on their way in and out of their work areas.

The US system is rigged to create a halo of buck-passing unaccountability. When my family picked up our bags from our Easter holiday in the US, we discovered that the TSA had smashed the locks off my nearly new, unlocked, Travelsentry-approved bag, taping it shut after confirming it had nothing dangerous in it, and leaving it “completely destroyed” in the words of the official BA damage report. British Airways has sensibly declared the damage to be not their problem, as they had nothing to do with destroying the bag. The TSA directed me to a form that generated an illiterate reply from a government subcontractor, sent from a do-not-reply email address, advising that “TSA is not liable for any damage to locks or bags that are required to be opened by force for security purposes” (the same note had an appendix warning me that I should treat this communication as confidential). I’ve yet to have any other communications from the TSA.

Making it possible for the state to open your locks in secret means that anyone who works for the state, or anyone who can bribe or coerce anyone who works for the state, can have the run of your life. Cryptographic locks don’t just protect our mundane communications: cryptography is the reason why thieves can’t impersonate your fob to your car’s keyless ignition system; it’s the reason you can bank online; and it’s the basis for all trust and security in the 21st century.

In her Dimbleby lecture, Martha Lane Fox recalled Aaron Swartz’s words: “It’s not OK not to understand the internet anymore.” That goes double for cryptography: any politician caught spouting off about back doors is unfit for office anywhere but Hogwarts, which is also the only educational institution whose computer science department believes in “golden keys” that only let the right sort of people break your encryption.

https://boingboing.net/2018/09/04/illegal-math.html

[anshumantiwari123]

7 Reasons to Build Command Line Utilities in C# and Python

The command line still has its place in today’s world, and it’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Instead of dismissing the command line, embrace it, as you’ll be surprised how much easier it can make your life if you know how to use it well. In this article I’m going to tell you 7 reasons why you should learn how to build C# and Python command line utilities because you’ll need them throughout your development career.

 1) C# and Python are powerful languages

 The first reason is that both languages support several different operating systems - Windows, Linux, Unix/BSD variants (including MacOS). The second reason is because they're dynamically typed. A third benefit of using either language is that they support  mobile app development company object-oriented programming as well as functional programming paradigms. The fourth benefit is the fact that both languages provide garbage collection which means you don't need to worry about memory management within your code - an especially helpful feature when writing small command line utilities. Another reason why you might want to choose either language for building CLI tools is the fact that both support exceptions and have strong exception handling capabilities - allowing your programs to gracefully recover from errors without crashing.

 2) They are easy to learn

Command line utilities are incredibly useful for automating processes, running tasks on remote systems, and for other advanced tasks. Building them is surprisingly easy, as both C# and Python are great languages for creating command line utilities. In this section, we'll take a look at why both of these languages make it so easy to build command line utilities.

 First, both C# and Python are easy to learn. Even if you have no previous experience with either language, the syntax of both languages is straightforward and relatively simple to understand. With a few tutorials, you can have the basics of either language down in no time. 

 Second, the development environments for both languages are well-supported and feature-rich. Visual Studio is the go-to IDE for C#, while PyCharm is a great choice for Python. Both IDEs come with a wealth of features to help streamline your development process, including debugging tools, code completion, and other helpful features. 

 Third, both languages also come with a variety of libraries that make building command line utilities easier. For instance, the .NET Core framework for C# includes a library specifically for building command line utilities. On the other hand, Python comes with the argparse library which makes it easy to parse command line arguments. 

 Finally, both languages also have extensive online resources available to help you learn and develop in them. For example, there are dozens of tutorials and blogs available to help you get started with either language. Plus, there are plenty of online communities where you can ask questions and get support from other developers. 

In short, C# and Python are great choices for building command line utilities because they are easy to learn, have great development environments and libraries, and have plenty of online resources available to help you along the way.

 3) They are widely used

Command Line Utilities are an essential tool for developers. They are widely used by engineers to simplify the process of developing, testing, and debugging applications. Command Line Utilities can automate tedious tasks, save time, and increase productivity.

 C# and Python are two popular programming languages that can be used to create powerful Command Line Utilities. C# is a statically typed language with strong type safety, meaning it allows developers to write code quickly and accurately without worrying about unexpected results. Python is a dynamically typed language with greater flexibility and ease of use. 

 The wide range of libraries and frameworks available for both C# and Python make creating Command Line Utilities faster and easier than ever before. These tools provide developers with access to pre-made functions and components, so they can spend less time developing from scratch and more time building out the actual application.

 C# and Python are also compatible with a range of operating systems, including Windows, macOS, and Linux. This makes them ideal for creating Command Line Utilities that can be used on any platform. Plus, since these languages are widely used, developers can easily find help online when they get stuck.

 4) They are open source

The beauty of building command line utilities in C# and Python is that both languages are open source. This means that the source code is freely available for anyone to use, modify, and redistribute. This provides a lot of flexibility when it comes to creating custom tools or integrating existing utilities into larger applications. 

 Open source also encourages collaboration, allowing developers to work together to create and maintain tools that benefit the entire community. Furthermore, open source solutions often come with more detailed documentation and support, making it easier to find help when you need it. With open source tools, you can focus more on your development project rather than having to spend time worrying about licensing costs and restrictions.

 5) They have a large community

Having a large community is one of the most important aspects when it comes to developing command line utilities in C# and Python. Communities are an invaluable resource for developers of all experience levels, as they provide a platform to ask questions, discuss best practices, and find solutions to common problems. 

 The C# and Python communities are incredibly active, with members from all over the world contributing to help out others in need. There are dedicated forums, IRC channels, StackOverflow questions, and even conferences and meetups dedicated to C# and Python development. These large, passionate communities provide a wealth of knowledge and experience for developers who want to learn more about building command line utilities. 

 In addition to having an active community, C# and Python also benefit from having large ecosystems of libraries and frameworks available. Popular libraries like NLog and log4net make it easy to create logging functionality, while powerful frameworks like Flask and Nancy can help you build powerful web applications. With so many resources available, it’s easy to find the tools you need to build a great command line utility. 

 6) They are supported by Microsoft

 One of the biggest advantages of using C# and Python to build Command Line Utilities is that they are supported by Microsoft. This means that developers can take advantage of the robust development tools available from the Microsoft platform, such as Visual Studio Code, to create powerful command line applications. Additionally, developers can use the .NET and Python frameworks to develop reliable command line tools. This ensures that your tools will be compatible with different platforms and operating systems. With the help of Microsoft's documentation and support, you can quickly become a master of building command line tools.

 7) Some Other Benefits

Both C# and Python are considered to be relatively easy     to learn and understand, making them great choices for developers of any     skill level. 

C# and Python are both known for their readability,     which makes them great for quickly building command line applications.

C# and Python are both highly flexible languages,     meaning that developers can build command line applications for a variety     of different platforms.

When it comes to speed, C# and Python both offer     developers plenty of options. C# is known for its blazing fast     performance, while Python offers a slightly slower but still efficient     approach.

With C# and Python, developers can create almost     anything they set their minds to. From mobile apps to machine learning     algorithms, the sky's the limit when it comes to these two languages.

Both C# and Python are open source languages, which     means that developers can freely modify and improve them without having to     worry about licensing costs or restrictions.

Both C# and Python are  mobile application development company secure languages that offer     developers plenty of options when it comes to protecting their     applications from potential threats. 

When compared to other popular languages, both C# and     Python tend to be relatively affordable choices for developers. 

Final Thoughts

As you can see, there are plenty of great reasons to consider using C# and Python for building command line utilities. With their ease of use, readability, flexibility, speed, popularity, versatility, open source nature, security, and cost effectiveness, it's no wonder why these two languages are so popular among developers today.

[ofnahas]

Mac os x 10.0 shell 2.0

#MAC OS X 10.0 SHELL 2.0 MAC OS X#

#MAC OS X 10.0 SHELL 2.0 INSTALL#

Its icon looks like (surprise) a terminal. app suffix on all applications is hidden from view in the GUI) may be found in the directory /Applications/Utilities. OS X includes an application, Terminal.app, that provides unfettered command-line access to the entire unix underpinnings of the operating system. The Terminal Application and Alternatives

#MAC OS X 10.0 SHELL 2.0 INSTALL#

Fortunately, it is easy to install X11 on OS X, so you can have the best of both worlds. This section gives an overview of the main points.Īpple's native windowing system is not X11. It may be incredibly cumbersome to do so, but it is almost always possible, an important point to consider when writing shell scripts to automate routine tasks.Īpple has a a filesystem structure rather different from what one finds with canonical unix systems. This is an important point, because it entails that any operation carried out in the GUI interface in OS X can, at least in principle (and almost always in practice), be carried out on the unix command line. Fortunately, Apple also provides easy access to the unix command line environment for users who require it.Īpple's OS X operating system does not simply provide access to unix commands. But between these extremes lies the need for command-line access to carry out scientific (and other) computing tasks. It also provides an intuitive, elegant and simplified mechanism for carrying out complex system administrative tasks whose command-line equivalents are often obscure to all but the most seasoned unix veteran. The OS X Aqua GUI interface shields the naive and routine users, who are mainly concerned with running applications such as Microsoft Word, Adobe Photoshop and so on, from the complexity of the underlying unix operating system.

#MAC OS X 10.0 SHELL 2.0 MAC OS X#

The whole of Mac OS X is thus a superset of unix the Aqua graphical user interface (GUI) of OS X provides an aesthetically pleasing and functionally elegant mechanism by which the user can control the computer via the underlying unix operating system using mouse clicks in application windows rather than typing cryptic unix commands. Unlike Cygwin, a unix emulator that can be grafted onto the Microsoft Windows operating system, Darwin is the fundamental core of the Mac OS X operating system. The flavor of unix on Apple computers running Mac OS X is called Darwin, and it is closely related to BSD, from which it has evolved. There are many varieties, or "flavors," of unix, including Irix, Solaris, BSD, GNU/Linux and so on, each of which has its own peculiarities in terms of file system structure and occasionally command syntax, but they all tend to be quite similar and function according to the same principles. Scientific computing is typically carried out on computers equipped with the unix operating system. 8.4 Launching an X-windows based unix program fails.8.3 Running X11 programs that require 256 colors or 8-bit display.8.1 Terminal.app starts and immediately launches a unix command.7.5 Shell Scripting and scripting languages:.7.3 Books and tutorials specific to Mac OS X Unix:.7 Some Useful Unix Links to Help You Get Started.6.5 Why zsh Should Be the Default Shell on OS X.4 The Terminal Application and Alternatives.

[privacygreys]

Mac texmaker

#Mac texmaker how to

#Mac texmaker pdf

#Mac texmaker free

#Mac texmaker mac

#Mac texmaker mac

In the last 12 years, I have tried TeXLive (on Windows / Mac / Ubuntu / Arch), MacTeX and MiKTeX and more than a dozen editors, and settled with TeXLive + TeXStudio on all platforms because there were no flaws present in other variants. Two weeks ago, I had to remove MiKTeX from my colleague’s computer because it was not installing a package that was not present in the local distribution (and biber could not be run or reinstalled at all) because she had to turn her thesis in the next day in TeXLive, everything was working as smoothly as it gets. MiKTeX is unofficial, and sometimes breaks on Windows-quite rarely, but seriously enough to bring your work to a halt. Besides that-and I cannot emphasise it enough-in 4 years, I have encountered many cryptic errors that were MiKTeX-specific on various colleagues’ computers that could not be replicated in TeXLive or Overleaf (that is using TeXLive). TeXMaker is becoming a thing of the past-compared to it, TeXStudio provides more features (in small things like dark theme support, or document parsing for better structure view, or better paragraph rewrapping etc.) and is being more actively developed. Zum einen ist er schlanker und schneller als Kile zum anderen ist er auf allen drei wichtigsten Betriebssystemen (Unix, macOS, Windows) verfgbar. An incomplete uninstallation of a program may cause problems, which is why thorough removal of programs is recommended.I would actually suggest two equivalent alternatives. There could be other causes why users may not be able to uninstall Texmaker.

Another process is preventing the program from being uninstalled. Texmaker lets you put together document collections of several things.In the LaTeX menu, select >include/file to add aTeX file.There will be a structure view for the file.If Texmaker clicks on his name, the file will open in the recipient’s account.

Due to an error, not all of the files were successfully uninstalled.

A file required for the uninstallation to complete could not be run.

The program’s built-in uninstaller does not start or does not operate properly.

Possible problems that can arise during uninstallation of Texmaker

Removing process running for a long time and does not come to the end.

Some traces of the program can still can be found on the computer.

There are more than 25 alternatives to Texmaker for a variety of platforms, including Windows, Linux, Mac, Online / Web-based and BSD.

#Mac texmaker free

After removing the program, some of its related processes still run on the computer. Texmaker is described as free LaTeX editor, that integrates many tools needed to develop documents with LaTeX, in just one application and is a very popular LaTeX Editor in the education & reference category.The program is not listed in the Windows Settings or Control Panel.The program is regarded by the user and/or some websites as a potentially malicious.The program is being re-installed (uninstalled and installed again afterwards).The program is not as good as the user expected.The program crashes or hangs periodically/frequently.The program is not compatible with other installed applications.These are the main reasons why Texmaker is uninstalled by users: Some experience issues during uninstallation, whereas other encounter problems after the program is removed. Texmaker is a free, modern and cross-platform LaTeX editor for Linux, macOS and Windows systems that integrates many tools needed to develop documents with.

#Mac texmaker how to

It seems that there are many users who have difficulty uninstalling programs like Texmaker from their systems. Fail to remove TeXMaker 5.0.2 from your Mac Dont know how to detect its leftovers You will find the proper steps to uninstall TeXMaker 5.0.2 for Mac in. What usually makes people to uninstall Texmaker Just follow the simple instructions, and you will uninstall the program in no time. If you are looking for an effective way to uninstall Texmaker this guide will help you to accomplish that! Texmaker supports Linux, macOS and Windows systems and integrates many tools needed to develop documents with LaTeX.ĭo you have problems when you try to remove Texmaker from your PC?

#Mac texmaker pdf

Texmaker is a cross-platform open-source LaTeX editor with an integrated PDF viewer.

[tasawuk2]

What are the reasons to select Golang Development Services?

Golang is a well-known programming language was created with the intention of creating software that is easy and effective. It is also reliable and long-lasting. It is particularly appropriate for projects that involve networked networks distributed, IoT clouds, IoT and other sophisticated back-end technologies. It’s also suitable for projects where light alternative web frameworks are utilized.

 Why Choose Golang Programming for Your Web Development

A friendly language

Golang programming is simple to master, and programmers are able to write high-quality code for your project quickly. Machine code natively is used within the Golang language

 Easy Cross Compiling: Golang lets you cross-compile your application to run it on multiple machines. Go combines all dependencies, libraries, and modules into one binary that is built on the operating system that is used during it’s static linking.

Increase Speed: It’s extremely easy to type, and it is even quicker in compiling into machine code. Golang software is designed to support multi-tasking and are able to handle many tasks at the same time.

Cross-platform: All of them that are included, such as Linux, Windows, BSD, Unix, and others in addition to their numerous variants and platforms, is all compatible with Golang. This makes development of cross-platform software much easier and faster.

Scalable Projects: The flexibility and adaptability of Golang can will allow you to expand your project, leading to outstanding results. There’s no need to switch to a different programming language to accommodate growth in the near future.

Extensive Libraries: Developers using Golang can access an extensive library network. These libraries are able to be used to develop interesting and unique capabilities for the software you are developing.

Codism Top Golang Development Services

 Golang web development company

Enhancing Machine Learning and AI Coding by using Golang

Golang Support and Maintenance

Golang Web Development

Custom Golang Development

Golang Micro-services Development

Why Codism for Golang Web/App Development?

 24*7 Support

Experienced Team

Dedicated On-Demand Developers

Timely Delivery

Transparency

We value the confidentiality and privacy of our clients.

We are Trustworthy Golang Development services company

Hire Golang Developers From Codism.

You can save up to 50% off maintenance, development and support expenses through hiring Golang Developers via Codism.

 Do you want to make use of Golang? Golang program language develop an application for business that is cloud-based?

 Codism is a committed Golang programmers to support diverse industries and to meet their requirements for projects.

 Our team of dedicated engineers employs an Agile method to ensure seamless communication and total transparency in the business projects you are working on.

 Therefore, based on the needs of your business, you can hire our talented and dedicated Golang engineers for hourly or full-time.

 Contact us for a Golang Developers in Your Web Development Project.

To know more: https://codism.io/what-are-the-reasons-to-select-golang-development-services/

[sl33py-g4m3r]

excited to be using linux on my big screen computer~~

a cool thing I've noticed is that linux I think takes up significantly less space than windows ever did. and I'm just running the cinnamon desktop~~!!

out of the 256 gb of space on the initial OS drive, I've got 217 gb left. windows I forgot how much it left me with tho...

Linux mint is nice so far~~ especially the second hard drive being password protected to mount; rather than being accessible to anyone using the computer.

installed vlc as a media player and now idk what other applications I'd need.

or if I even have enough space currently to try to get steam games working. as the terabyte hard drive is cluttered with anime and music I've saved. and where all of my data is stored separate from the os.

one thing I lost tho that I had forgotten about was my progress in cookie clicker, as I was playing through that, and i don't remember when my last backup was or how much I've lost. By the time I realized I hadn't backed it up, the install was already in progress and it was far too late.

I like cinnamon so far~~ the keyboard shortcuts to reveal all the different desktops,, even found zoom features that are really useful. I thought you had to pinch or push your fingers apart while pushing the hotkey toggle like you do on iphones to zoom in on pictures and stuff, but no. just slide your fingers from the top of the touchpad to the bottom to zoom in, and reverse to go back to small.

I never used zoom on windows; much to my detriment, lol. bad vision is bad. I'm saying it again even tho it might not be relevant here, I'm legally blind. left eye bad vision, right eye none whatsoever. I never liked on board zoom on windows and i'm not sure why... this is nice.

I'm still excited cause I've always wanted to run linux on my big screened gaming pc, but it would never boot. come to find out I was installing grub in the wrong place... needed it on dev/sda1 instead of dev/sda itself. I guess because 1 is the first part of the disk?

hopefully much less spywarey than windows~~ and more secure. I've always assumed that linux/unix/bsd were more secure than windows in general.

funny enough when I first found these types of operating systems as a teenager a long time ago, I jumped into the deep end and immediately tried FreeBSD first. then backed off and stuck with fedora, opensuse for a bit, then to the more user friendly stuff like ubuntu, and linux mint. then many years later I stopped liking what whomever makes ubuntu was doing, and switched to mint, but they still used ubuntu's base, so now I use debian based stuff.

there's my entire fore into linux from being a teenager to now, lol. also very fanboyish high school report on how linux/unix was better than windows. before I even started using linux proper. ahhhh the cringe.

sucks a bunch of corporate stuff doesn't work with linux; cause I'm always seeing like the eye doctors operating systems being windows, and I'm always like "why don't you use linux?" the reason is they want their technology and stuff to work. like it won't on linux?

positive experience and a positive rant~~~ still going to tag it as rant anyway tho~~

[a-real-answer--a-new-start]

For someone who has a very old Associates Degree in Computer Science,

You would think I was better at fixing mistakes,

Especially when you consider that I also used to get paid very well for fixing people's computers...

But that was 15-20 years ago, or about the time that they were getting the kinks ironed out of the Windows 8.1, so basically a redo of a redone OS. Blecchh!

An OS (Operating System) that you would have to pay me gobs of money to even think about using — yeahhhh, no.

I take that back: I would not even scoop up cat litter with Windows 3.1, 95, 95/NT, 98, 98 v2, Me, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10, or 11! I probably missed a couple, not including the Home, etc. versions of... well, I don't remember if that began with XP or Vista but anyway, does not matter. WHY?

I am SO GLAD YOU ASKED!

Linux (Lesson 1: it IS NOT pronounced Lye-nux or Lye-nicks...ever. No shh- ever.

It is pronounced Lynn - ix or Lynn - ux so that it would rhyme with Winnix or Winnux. Here ends Lesson 1. No charge.

You read that correctly: with the exception of a few of them, you never ever have to pay one mite, cent, or uhh, small denomination of money...you get my meaning! It is FREE!

LESSON 2: The top 100 of these types of Linux... er, wait. Lesson 1.5– every version of Linux is seriously vetted and must pass months of testing, but every Linux has the same core which is a very close to similar (without getting hit with copyright infringement laws) UNIX core, better known as a kernel. Every Version (better known as a Distribution or "Distro,") of Linux that you can rightfully call its own Operating System with the kernel being always the same (though there are various versions that are basically an improved upon in some way, the higher the number, the closer the kernel gets to today's top technology (and by Top Technology, I'm talking all of the Super Computers and Mainframes run on these same kernels of Linux, plus at least one of your appliances runs on one of the kernels. And every single one of the Billion+ Androids run on the Linux kernel) and you may fact-check all of this and are even encouraged to do so, but...

the only thing, or caveat is the Open Source Software copyLEFT because you can copy, and yes even sell your own version of the Linux kernel but it MUST stay free to examine, copy, and improve upon or change that kernel with that one being open source, or free to use, copy, etc. Cool, right?

Huh? Hundred...I said the top—Oh! Yeah, right! Sorry. Yes, okay, so! Before I mention this site, I am not involved with, and actually don't even know the owner(s), and I do not get any commission from anyone. Cool? All right: I hope I set this up right...

Ehhm, sorry. I didn't know that that would happen! I expected to be able to do something like HTML or Markdown where you can put in the link or URL and then leave it as is so everyone sees the link address as would be typed into the website address area, or you can give it a name so that is what the people see when they see whatever you set up, and it will still be blue and underlined usually. But this, I am actually rather embarrassed and disappointed by this advertisement! Whatever. Anyway this site has the top 100 most popular Distros or Distributions that are Linux based. You can even install one next to your Windows (Mac, I am unsure about) if you have the room on your C drive or whatever drive you have it on. It is worth checking out, IMHO. But please, research the one that you want first, and then you can burn it (the download, which is often a couple of Gigabytes just so you know) to a DVD or even a thumb drive. Check it out. You can even get a brief description of each one and there are several that resemble the Windows or the Mac set up to make the transition easier. Just make sure that you are aware of what you are doing and do not rush anything. That is how mistakes are made!

[leanstooneside]

REACH FOR THE STARS

- PARODY OF THE TECHSPEAK TERM POINT AND SHOOT INTERFACE DESCRIBING A WINDOWS ICONS AND MOUSE BASED INTERFACE SUCH AS IS FOUND ON THE MACINTOSH

- COMMUNITY'S RELATIONSHIP TO [10769]LINUX IT'S THE SMALLER PARTY

- LIST ARE POSTINGS OR EMAIL PERHAPS THE BEST DIVIDING LINE IS THAT IF YOU

- USAGE IS NOT YET COMMON IN THE WAY [10325]NANO AND [10326]MICRO

- FORM OF ART OSTENSIBLY INTENDED FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF COMPUTERS WHICH IS NEVERTHELESS ALMOST INEVITABLY A FAILURE

- UNIX] A [10679]DAEMON THAT IS RUN PERIODICALLY TYPICALLY ONCE A WEEK

- ACRONYM FROM THE SCENE IN THE FILM VERSION OF THE WIZARD OF OZ IN WHICH THE TRUE NATURE OF THE WIZARD IS FIRST DISCOVERED PAY

- FORM PINGFULNESS WHICH IS USED TO DESCRIBE PEOPLE

- POP MEANING GET BACK UP TO A HIGHER LEVEL THE SHOUT IS FREQUENTLY ACCOMPANIED BY AN UPTHRUST

- DESIGN DECISION TO DEFER SOLVING A PROBLEM TYPICALLY BECAUSE ONE CANNOT DEFINE WHAT IS DESIRABLE SUFFICIENTLY WELL TO FRAME

- THERE'S A PYTHON

- IT IS ALL TOO OFTEN PERFORMED BY A [10674]FIELD

- FORM IS OFTEN USED AS A NOUN

- TO REPEATEDLY CALL OR CHECK WITH SOMEONE I KEEP POLLING HIM BUT HE'S NOT ANSWERING HIS

- HACKERS THIS IS SYN

- ANY COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO BE NORMALLY DISTRIBUTED AS AN RPM

- IT'S TOO HARD TO GET THE COMPILER TO DO THAT LET'S PUNT

- PARODY OF THE TECHSPEAK TERM PLUG AND PLAY DESCRIBING A PC PERIPHERAL CARD WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE NO NEED FOR HARDWARE

- STANDARD ABUSE OF LANGUAGE PINGFULNESS CAN ALSO BE USED AS AN EXCLAMATION IN WHICH CASE IT'S A MUCH STRONGER EXCLAMATION

- 80COLUMN WIDTH OF MOST CHARACTER TERMINALS IS A LEGACY

- PYTHON'S DESIGN IS NOTABLY CLEAN ELEGANT AND WELL THOUGHT THROUGH IT

- IT IS POSSIBLE FOR SOFTWARE

- MORE SPECIFICALLY TO GIVE UP ON FIGURING OUT WHAT THE [10744]RIGHT THING IS AND RESORT TO AN INEFFICIENT HACK

- PYTHON'S RELATIONSHIP WITH PERL IS RATHER LIKE THE [10768]BSD

- JOE LUSER REPORTED A BUG IN SENDMAIL THAT CAUSES IT TO GENERATE BOGUS HEADERS THAT'S NOT A BUG

- UNIX USER UTILITIES CAN OFTEN BE IMPLEMENTED OR AT LEAST PROTOTYPED BY A SUITABLE COLLECTION OF PIPELINES AND TEMP FILE GRINDING ENCAPSULATED IN A SHELL SCRIPT THIS IS MUCH LESS

- RESULTS IN THE MACHINE'S REMAINING IN AN UNUSABLE STATE

- NOTION IS THAT ONE OF WHATEVER IT

- SOMEONE OFF AN INTERNET OR CHAT CONNECTION A PUNTER THUS IS A PERSON

- THERE IS A RELATED MAXIM

- HUFFMAN DECODER PROGRAM WAS ACTUALLY NAMED PUFF BUT THESE DAYS IT IS USUALLY PACKAGED WITH THE ENCODER

- THERE IS A WIDESPREAD MYTH

- KILOGRAM IS NOW

- IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY FOR IMPLEMENTING ON THE FLY

- ACT IS SOMETIMES CALLED PING LASHING OR PING FLOOD

- IMAGES IN WHICH MINOR LOSS OF DATA IS NOT VISIBLE TO THE HUMAN

- RIVALRY BUT THE AVERAGE QUALITY OF ITS DEVELOPERS IS GENERALLY CONCEDED TO BE RATHER HIGHER THAN IN THE LARGER COMMUNITY

- IT ORIGINATED IN THE [10424]NEWSGROUP TALK.BIZARRE THIS TERM USUALLY WRITTEN *PLONK* IS NOW

- IT IS USED INSTEAD TO DESCRIBE ANY SET

- HIS SENDMAIL.CF IS HOSED

- EFFORT THAN WRITING C EVERY TIME AND THE CAPABILITY IS CONSIDERED ONE OF UNIX'S

- IT IS THE DEFAULT

- IT'S AN INDEX

- BACKGAMMON USAGE STEMS FROM THE IDEA THAT A PSEUDOPRIME IS ALMOST AS GOOD AS A PRIME IT

- HACKERS ANY SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A RIGGED

- USENET POSSIBLY INFLUENCED BY BRITISH SLANG PLONK FOR CHEAP BOOZE OR PLONKER FOR SOMEONE BEHAVING STUPIDLY LATTER IS LIT

- UNIX] ON SYSTEMS THAT SUPPORT [10387]FINGER THE .PLAN FILE IN A USER'S HOME DIRECTORY IS DISPLAYED WHEN THE USER

- INTERNET STANDARD FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL [10526]RFC822 REQUIRES EACH MACHINE TO HAVE A POSTMASTER ADDRESS USUALLY IT IS ALIASED TO THIS PERSON

- ABORT PROCEDURE FOR A PROGRAM IS NOT KNOWN OR WHEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THE SYSTEM

- IT WAS DESIGNED TO FIT IN THE CURRENCY TRAYS USED FOR THAT ERA'S LARGER DOLLAR BILLS

- PSYTONS ARE GENERATED BY OBSERVERS WHICH IS WHY DEMOS

- ANY COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT IS CONSIDERED A FULL APPLICATION

- IT IMPLIES THAT THERE IS SOME COMMON MESSAGE

- IBM PUNCHED CARD SO IS THE SIZE

- FORM TO DUMP THE GRAPH IN IS WE'LL

- COLOR IS YELLOW COMPARE

- CONFIGURATION VIA DIP SWITCHES AND WHICH SHOULD BE WORK AS SOON AS IT IS INSERTED

- HE IS DOING SUCH MAINTENANCE OFTEN INDUCES PROBLEMS

- IN [10664]MARKETROIDSPEAK SUPERIOR IMPLIES A PRODUCT IMBUED WITH EXCLUSIVE MAGIC BY THE UNMATCHED BRILLIANCE OF THE COMPANY'S OWN HARDWARE

- ANY COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT IS MADE UP OF OR OTHERWISE CONTAINS [10632]PROGLETS

- WIRES EVEN WHEN AS IS FREQUENTLY THE CASE THEIR

- TERM IS AN ESOTERIC PUN

- OUTPUT FROM A PROGRAM THAT MAY NOT HAVE ANY SENSIBLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE SYSTEM THE PROGRAM IS INTENDED TO MODEL

- TERM IS NOW

- SUFFIX AS A VERB THE DIRECT OBJECT IS ALWAYS THE THING

- DISCUSSION OF SUCH TERMS IS UNDER [10408]NYBBLE

- IT IS NOW

- THEORY OF COURSE IS THAT THESE METHODS

- PCI BUS IS NOT UP TO PULLING THIS OFF RELIABLY AND PEOPLE

- WHEN A DISCUSSION GETS TO A LEVEL OF DETAIL SO DEEP THAT THE MAIN POINT OF THE DISCUSSION IS BEING LOST SOMEONE

- IT'S HIS

[shirlleycoyle]

Open-Source App Lets Anyone Create a Virtual Army of Hackintoshes

The average person probably doesn’t think of MacOS as … scalable. It’s intended as a desktop operating system, and while it’s a very functional operating system, Apple generally expects it to run on a single piece of hardware.

But as any developer or infrastructure architect can tell you, virtualization is an impressive technique that allows programmers and infrastructure pros to expand reach and scale things up far beyond a single user. And a Github project that has gotten a bit of attention in recent months aims to make MacOS scalable in ways that it has basically never been.

Its secret weapon? A serial code generator. Yes, just like the kind you sheepishly used to get out of paying for Windows XP or random pieces of shareware back in the day. But rather than generating serials for software, Docker-OSX has the ability to generate serial codes for unique pieces of MacOS hardware, and its main developer, an open-source developer and security researcher who goes by the pseudonym Sick Codes, recently released a standalone serial code generator that can replicate codes for nonexistent devices by the thousands. Just type in a command, and it will set up a CSV file full of serial codes.

“You can generate hundreds and thousands of serial numbers, just like that,” Sick Codes, who used a pseudonym due to the nature of his work, said. “And it just generates a massive list.”

Why would you want this? Easy—a valid serial code allows you to use Apple-based tools such as iMessage, iCloud, and the App Store inside of MacOS. It’s the confirmation that you’re using something seen as valid in the eyes of Apple.

Previously, this process was something of guesswork. Hackintosh users have long had this problem, but have basically had to use guesswork to figure out valid serial codes so they could use iMessage. (In my Hackintoshing endeavors, for example, I just went on the Apple website and … uh, guessed.) Sick Codes said he developed a solution to this problem after noticing that the serials for the client would get used up.

“In the Docker-OSX client, we were always in the same serials,” he said in an interview. “Obviously, no one can log into iMessage that way.”

But when he looked around to see how others were coming up with unique ways to generate product serials, he found more myth than reality. So he went through a variety of tests, uncovering a method to generate consistently reliable serial numbers, as well as a low-selling device that would be unlikely to have a lot of serial numbers in the wild—and landed on the iMac Pro.

“I actually went through, and I've got like 15 iMac Pros in my Apple account now, and it says that they're all valid for iMessage,” he said. “Obviously I was going to delete them after, but I was just testing, one by one, seeing if that's the reason why it does work.”

Beyond making it possible to use iMessage to hold a conversation in a VM, he noted that random security codes like this are actually desirable for security researchers for bug-reporting purposes. Sick Codes adds that it is also an effective tool that could be used as one part of the process for jailbreaking an iPhone.

(At one point, he speculated, possibly in jest, that he might have been the reason the iMac Pro was recently discontinued.)

An Army of Virtual Hackintoshes

On its own, the serial code thing is interesting, but the reason it exists is because MacOS is not currently designed to work at a scale fitting of Docker, a popular tool for containerization of software that can be replicated in a cloud environment. It could—with its use of the Mach kernel and roots in BSD Unix, there is nothing technically stopping it—but Apple does not encourage use of VMs in the same way that, say, Linux does.

A side effect of hacking around Apple’s decision not to directly cater to the market means that it could help making Hackintoshing dead simple.

Let’s take a step back to explain this a little bit. Hackintoshing, throughout its history, has tended to involve installing MacOS on “bare metal,” or on the system itself, for purposes of offering more machine choice or maximizing power. 

But virtualization, by its nature, allows end users to work around differences in machines by putting an abstraction layer between the system and its many elements. And virtualization is incredibly sophisticated these days. Docker-OSX relies on kernel-based virtual machines, or KVMs, Linux-based hypervisors that allow virtual machines to get very close to the Linux kernel, able to run at nearly full speed though a common open-source emulator, QEMU.

Comparable to things like Oracle’s Virtualbox or the Parallels virtualization tool on MacOS, they are very technical in the way they work, and are often managed through the command line, requiring a complex mishmash of code that can be hard to figure out. (One common challenge is getting graphics cards to work, as the main interface is already using the resource, requiring something known as a “passthrough.”)

But the benefit of KVMs is that, if you tweak them the right way, you can get nearly the full performance of the main machine, something that has made KVMs popular for, say, letting Linux users play Windows games when the desire strikes. And since they’re disk images on hard drives, backing one up is as easy as duplicating the file.

At the same time, improvements to Hackintoshing have opened up new possibilities for doing things. In the past year or so, the Clover approach of Hackintoshing (as I used in this epic piece) has given way to a new boot tool, OpenCore, and a more “vanilla” approach to Hackintoshing that leaves the operating system itself in a pure form.

The benefit of Docker-OSX is that, while command-line codes are required (and while you’ll still need to do passthrough to take advantage of a GPU), it hides much of the complicated stuff away from the end user both on the KVM side and the Hackintosh side. (And, very important for anything involving a project like this: It is incredibly well-documented, with many use cases covered.) Effectively, if you know how to install Docker, you can whip up a machine. Or a dozen. Or, depending on your workload, a thousand.

Sick Codes explained this to me by whipping up a DigitalOcean image in which he at one point put four separate installs of MacOS on the screen, each using a modest 2 gigabytes of RAM. I was able to interact with them over a VNC connection, which is basically nerd heaven if you’re a fan of virtualization.

“Why is it better than Hackintosh? It’s not Hackintosh, it’s like your own army of virtual throwaway Hackintoshes,” Sick Codes explained.

There are two areas where this approach comes particularly in handy—for programming and compiling code for Apple-based platforms such as iOS and iPad OS, which benefit from scale, and for security research, which has seen a rise in interest in recent years.

With more than 50,000 downloads—including some by known companies—and, in one case, a container so large that it won’t even fit on the Docker Hub website, Docker-OSX has proven a useful choice for installing virtual Macs at scale.

Macs in the Server Room

In a way, Apple kind of set things in motion for an open-source solution like this to emerge, in part because of the unusual (and for a time, unspoken) restrictions that it puts on virtual machines.

For years, a niche of Apple-specific cloud providers, most notably MacStadium, have emerged to help serve the market for development use cases, and rather than chopping up single machines into small chunks, as providers like DigitalOcean do, users end up renting machines for days or weeks at a time—leading to unusual situations like the company buying thousands of 2013 Mac Pros for customers six years after its release.

(MacStadium offers a cloud-based competitor to Docker-OSX, Orka.)

Apple does not sell traditional server hardware that could be better partitioned out in a server room, instead recommending Mac Minis, and with the release of Big Sur, it put in a series of guidelines in its end user license agreement that allowed for virtualization in the way that MacStadium was doing things—but not in the more traditional rent-by-the-hour form. (Competitors, such as Amazon Web Services, have also started selling virtualized Macs under this model.)

Licensing agreements aside, given the disparity between Apple’s devices and how the rest of the cloud industry doles out infrastructure, perhaps it was inevitable someone was going to make something like Docker-OSX. And again, the tool turns things that used to be a headache, like generating unique serial codes for virtual Macs, into something painless.

“If you run a [command-line] tag that says, generate unique, and then set it to true, it will just make your new Mac with a new serial number that you can use to log straight into iMessage,” Sick Codes explained. “If you keep doing that, keep logging in, you'll have like 45 Macs in your account, and they'll all be valid Macs.”

In recent years, companies like Corellium, which sells access to virtualized smartphones to developers and security researchers, have effectively built their services without worrying about EULA limitations and faced lawsuits from Apple over it. Sick Codes, generally working in the open-source community and helping to uncover technical issues, is very much in this spirit.

It’s possible that something might happen to stop the spread of fake iMac Pro serial codes in virtual machines all over the internet—as I started reporting this, MacRumors revealed that, according to an internal support document, Apple is about to redo its approach to serial numbers to make the numbers more random and harder to mimic. (Repair advocates are not happy about this.) But there’s only so much Apple could do about the machines currently on the market, given that there are so many millions of them.

But for people who want to install MacOS on a cheap box somewhere and don’t care about things like Apple Silicon, it’s now as easy as installing Linux, installing Docker, and typing in a couple of commands. Sick Codes noted that, beyond the scalability and security advantages, this opens up opportunities for users who can’t afford the “Apple tax.”

“Feels pretty wholesome knowing anyone can participate in Apple's bug bounty program now, or publish iOS and Mac apps,” Sick Codes said. “App development shouldn't be only for people who can afford it.”

Open-Source App Lets Anyone Create a Virtual Army of Hackintoshes syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Germany demands an end to working cryptography

Germany's Interior Minister Horst Seehofer -- a hardliner who has called for cameras at every "hot spot" in Germany -- has announced that he will seek a ban on working cryptography in Germany; he will insist that companies only supply insecure tools that have a backdoor that will allow the German state to decrypt messages and chats on demand.

He's said that he'll ban any service or app that does not comply with the rule.

If this sounds familiar, it should: it's basically the rule Australia enacted in December 2018. It's also been repeatedly proposed by Rod Rosenstein in his capacity as US Deputy Attorney General; and by GCHQ's Technical Director, Ian Levy.

I wrote a comprehensive explainer about this in 2017 when Theresa May proposed it. Here it is again, because honestly, the idea hasn't gotten any less stupid over two years.

Aaron Swartz once said, "It's no longer OK not to understand how the Internet works."

He was talking to law-makers, policy-makers and power-brokers, people who were, at best, half-smart about technology -- just smart enough to understand that in a connected world, every problem society has involves computers, and just stupid enough to demand that computers be altered to solve those problems.

Paging Theresa May.

Theresa May says that last night's London terror attacks mean that the internet cannot be allowed to provide a "safe space" for terrorists and therefore working cryptography must be banned in the UK.

This is a golden oldie, a classic piece of foolish political grandstanding. May's predecessor, David Cameron, repeatedly campaigned on this one, and every time he did, I wrote a long piece rebutting him. Rather than writing a new one for May, I thought I'd just dust off a pair of my Cameron-era pieces (1, 2), since every single word still applies.

Theresa May says there should be no "means of communication" which "we cannot read" -- and no doubt many in her party will agree with her, politically. But if they understood the technology, they would be shocked to their boots.

It’s impossible to overstate how bonkers the idea of sabotaging cryptography is to people who understand information security. If you want to secure your sensitive data either at rest – on your hard drive, in the cloud, on that phone you left on the train last week and never saw again – or on the wire, when you’re sending it to your doctor or your bank or to your work colleagues, you have to use good cryptography. Use deliberately compromised cryptography, that has a back door that only the “good guys” are supposed to have the keys to, and you have effectively no security. You might as well skywrite it as encrypt it with pre-broken, sabotaged encryption.

There are two reasons why this is so. First, there is the question of whether encryption can be made secure while still maintaining a “master key” for the authorities’ use. As lawyer/computer scientist Jonathan Mayer explained, adding the complexity of master keys to our technology will “introduce unquantifiable security risks”. It’s hard enough getting the security systems that protect our homes, finances, health and privacy to be airtight – making them airtight except when the authorities don’t want them to be is impossible.

What Theresa May thinks she's saying is, "We will command all the software creators we can reach to introduce back-doors into their tools for us." There are enormous problems with this: there's no back door that only lets good guys go through it. If your Whatsapp or Google Hangouts has a deliberately introduced flaw in it, then foreign spies, criminals, crooked police (like those who fed sensitive information to the tabloids who were implicated in the hacking scandal -- and like the high-level police who secretly worked for organised crime for years), and criminals will eventually discover this vulnerability. They -- and not just the security services -- will be able to use it to intercept all of our communications. That includes things like the pictures of your kids in your bath that you send to your parents to the trade secrets you send to your co-workers.

But this is just for starters. Theresa May doesn't understand technology very well, so she doesn't actually know what she's asking for.

For Theresa May's proposal to work, she will need to stop Britons from installing software that comes from software creators who are out of her jurisdiction. The very best in secure communications are already free/open source projects, maintained by thousands of independent programmers around the world. They are widely available, and thanks to things like cryptographic signing, it is possible to download these packages from any server in the world (not just big ones like Github) and verify, with a very high degree of confidence, that the software you've downloaded hasn't been tampered with.

May is not alone here. The regime she proposes is already in place in countries like Syria, Russia, and Iran (for the record, none of these countries have had much luck with it). There are two means by which authoritarian governments have attempted to restrict the use of secure technology: by network filtering and by technology mandates.

Theresa May has already shown that she believes she can order the nation's ISPs to block access to certain websites (again, for the record, this hasn't worked very well). The next step is to order Chinese-style filtering using deep packet inspection, to try and distinguish traffic and block forbidden programs. This is a formidable technical challenge. Intrinsic to core Internet protocols like IPv4/6, TCP and UDP is the potential to "tunnel" one protocol inside another. This makes the project of figuring out whether a given packet is on the white-list or the black-list transcendentally hard, especially if you want to minimise the number of "good" sessions you accidentally blackhole.

More ambitious is a mandate over which code operating systems in the UK are allowed to execute. This is very hard. We do have, in Apple's Ios platform and various games consoles, a regime where a single company uses countermeasures to ensure that only software it has blessed can run on the devices it sells to us. These companies could, indeed, be compelled (by an act of Parliament) to block secure software. Even there, you'd have to contend with the fact that other EU states and countries like the USA are unlikely to follow suit, and that means that anyone who bought her Iphone in Paris or New York could come to the UK with all their secure software intact and send messages "we cannot read."

But there is the problem of more open platforms, like GNU/Linux variants, BSD and other unixes, Mac OS X, and all the non-mobile versions of Windows. All of these operating systems are already designed to allow users to execute any code they want to run. The commercial operators -- Apple and Microsoft -- might conceivably be compelled by Parliament to change their operating systems to block secure software in the future, but that doesn't do anything to stop people from using all the PCs now in existence to run code that the PM wants to ban.

More difficult is the world of free/open operating systems like GNU/Linux and BSD. These operating systems are the gold standard for servers, and widely used on desktop computers (especially by the engineers and administrators who run the nation's IT). There is no legal or technical mechanism by which code that is designed to be modified by its users can co-exist with a rule that says that code must treat its users as adversaries and seek to prevent them from running prohibited code.

This, then, is what Theresa May is proposing:

* All Britons' communications must be easy for criminals, voyeurs and foreign spies to intercept

* Any firms within reach of the UK government must be banned from producing secure software

* All major code repositories, such as Github and Sourceforge, must be blocked

* Search engines must not answer queries about web-pages that carry secure software

* Virtually all academic security work in the UK must cease -- security research must only take place in proprietary research environments where there is no onus to publish one's findings, such as industry R&D and the security services

* All packets in and out of the country, and within the country, must be subject to Chinese-style deep-packet inspection and any packets that appear to originate from secure software must be dropped

* Existing walled gardens (like Ios and games consoles) must be ordered to ban their users from installing secure software

* Anyone visiting the country from abroad must have their smartphones held at the border until they leave

* Proprietary operating system vendors (Microsoft and Apple) must be ordered to redesign their operating systems as walled gardens that only allow users to run software from an app store, which will not sell or give secure software to Britons

* Free/open source operating systems -- that power the energy, banking, ecommerce, and infrastructure sectors -- must be banned outright

Theresa May will say that she doesn't want to do any of this. She'll say that she can implement weaker versions of it -- say, only blocking some "notorious" sites that carry secure software. But anything less than the programme above will have no material effect on the ability of criminals to carry on perfectly secret conversations that "we cannot read". If any commodity PC or jailbroken phone can run any of the world's most popular communications applications, then "bad guys" will just use them. Jailbreaking an OS isn't hard. Downloading an app isn't hard. Stopping people from running code they want to run is -- and what's more, it puts the whole nation -- individuals and industry -- in terrible jeopardy.

That’s a technical argument, and it’s a good one, but you don’t have to be a cryptographer to understand the second problem with back doors: the security services are really bad at overseeing their own behaviour.

Once these same people have a back door that gives them access to everything that encryption protects, from the digital locks on your home or office to the information needed to clean out your bank account or read all your email, there will be lots more people who’ll want to subvert the vast cohort that is authorised to use the back door, and the incentives for betraying our trust will be much more lavish than anything a tabloid reporter could afford.

If you want a preview of what a back door looks like, just look at the US Transportation Security Administration’s “master keys” for the locks on our luggage. Since 2003, the TSA has required all locked baggage travelling within, or transiting through, the USA to be equipped with Travelsentry locks, which have been designed to allow anyone with a widely held master key to open them.

What happened after Travelsentry went into effect? Stuff started going missing from bags. Lots and lots of stuff. A CNN investigation into thefts from bags checked in US airports found thousands of incidents of theft committed by TSA workers and baggage handlers. And though “aggressive investigation work” has cut back on theft at some airports, insider thieves are still operating with impunity throughout the country, even managing to smuggle stolen goods off the airfield in airports where all employees are searched on their way in and out of their work areas.

The US system is rigged to create a halo of buck-passing unaccountability. When my family picked up our bags from our Easter holiday in the US, we discovered that the TSA had smashed the locks off my nearly new, unlocked, Travelsentry-approved bag, taping it shut after confirming it had nothing dangerous in it, and leaving it “completely destroyed” in the words of the official BA damage report. British Airways has sensibly declared the damage to be not their problem, as they had nothing to do with destroying the bag. The TSA directed me to a form that generated an illiterate reply from a government subcontractor, sent from a do-not-reply email address, advising that “TSA is not liable for any damage to locks or bags that are required to be opened by force for security purposes” (the same note had an appendix warning me that I should treat this communication as confidential). I’ve yet to have any other communications from the TSA.

Making it possible for the state to open your locks in secret means that anyone who works for the state, or anyone who can bribe or coerce anyone who works for the state, can have the run of your life. Cryptographic locks don’t just protect our mundane communications: cryptography is the reason why thieves can’t impersonate your fob to your car’s keyless ignition system; it’s the reason you can bank online; and it’s the basis for all trust and security in the 21st century.

In her Dimbleby lecture, Martha Lane Fox recalled Aaron Swartz’s words: “It’s not OK not to understand the internet anymore.” That goes double for cryptography: any politician caught spouting off about back doors is unfit for office anywhere but Hogwarts, which is also the only educational institution whose computer science department believes in “golden keys” that only let the right sort of people break your encryption.

(Image:

Facepalm

, Brandon Grasley, CC-BY)

https://boingboing.net/2019/05/24/koenig-canute.html

[anshumantiwari123]

7 Reasons to Build Command Line Utilities in C# and Python

The command line still has its place in today’s world, and it’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Instead of dismissing the command line, embrace it, as you’ll be surprised how much easier it can make your life if you know how to use it well. In this article I’m going to tell you 7 reasons why you should learn how to build C# and Python command line utilities because you’ll need them throughout your development career.

 1) C# and Python are powerful languages

 The first reason is that both languages support several different operating systems - Windows, Linux, Unix/BSD variants (including MacOS). The second reason is because they're dynamically typed. A third benefit of using either language is that they support object-oriented programming as well as functional programming paradigms. The fourth benefit is the fact that both languages provide garbage collection which  windows mobile app development companies means you don't need to worry about memory management within your code - an especially helpful feature when writing small command line utilities. Another reason why you might want to choose either language for building CLI tools is the fact that both support exceptions and have strong exception handling capabilities - allowing your programs to gracefully recover from errors without crashing.

 2) They are easy to learn

Command line utilities are incredibly useful for automating processes, running tasks on remote systems, and for other advanced tasks. Building them is surprisingly easy, as both C# and Python are great languages for creating command line utilities. In this section, we'll take a look at why both of these languages make it so easy to build command line utilities.

 First, both C# and Python are easy to learn. Even if you have no previous experience with either language, the syntax of both languages is straightforward and relatively simple to understand. With a few tutorials, you can have the basics of either language down in no time. 

 Second, the development environments for both languages are well-supported and feature-rich. Visual Studio is the go-to IDE for C#, while PyCharm is a great choice for Python. Both IDEs come with a wealth of features to help streamline your development process, including debugging tools, code completion, and other helpful features. 

 Third, both languages also come with a variety of libraries that make building command line utilities easier. For instance, the .NET Core framework for C# includes a library specifically for building command line utilities. On the other hand, Python comes with the argparse library which makes it easy to parse command line arguments. 

 Finally, both languages also have extensive online resources available to help you learn and develop in them. For example, there are dozens of tutorials and blogs available to help you get started with either language. Plus, there are plenty of online communities where you can ask questions and get support from other developers. 

In short, C# and Python are great choices for building command line utilities because they are easy to learn, have great development environments and libraries, and have plenty of online resources available to help you along the way.

 3) They are widely used

Command Line Utilities are an essential tool for developers. They are widely used by engineers to simplify the process of developing, testing, and debugging applications. Command Line Utilities can automate tedious tasks, save time, and increase productivity.

 C# and Python are two popular programming languages that can be used to create powerful Command Line Utilities. C# is a statically typed language with strong type safety, meaning it allows developers to write code quickly and accurately without worrying about unexpected results. Python is a dynamically typed language with greater flexibility and ease of use. 

 The wide range of libraries and frameworks available for both C# and Python make creating Command Line Utilities faster and easier than ever before. These tools provide developers with access to pre-made functions and components, so they can spend less time developing from scratch and more time building out the actual application.

 C# and Python are also compatible with a range of operating systems, including Windows, macOS, and Linux. This makes them ideal for creating Command Line Utilities that can be used on any platform. Plus, since these languages are widely used, developers can easily find help online when they get stuck.

 4) They are open source

The beauty of building command line utilities in C# and Python is that both languages are open source. This means that the source code is freely available for anyone to use, modify, and redistribute. This provides a lot of flexibility when it comes to creating custom tools or integrating existing utilities into larger applications. 

 Open source also encourages collaboration, allowing developers to work together to create and maintain tools that benefit the entire community. Furthermore, open source solutions often come with more detailed documentation and support, making it easier to find help when you need it. With open source tools, you can focus more on your development project rather than having to spend time worrying about licensing costs and restrictions.

 5) They have a large community

Having a large community is one of the most important aspects when it comes to developing command line utilities in C# and Python. Communities are an invaluable resource for developers of all experience levels, as they provide a platform to ask questions, discuss best practices, and find solutions to common problems. 

 The C# and Python communities are incredibly active, with members from all over the world contributing to help out others in need. There are dedicated forums, IRC channels, StackOverflow questions, and even conferences and meetups dedicated to C# and Python development. These large, passionate communities provide a wealth of knowledge and experience for developers who want to learn more about building command line utilities. 

 In addition to having an active community, C# and Python also benefit from having large ecosystems of libraries and frameworks available. Popular libraries like NLog and log4net make it easy to create logging functionality, while powerful frameworks like Flask and Nancy can help you build powerful web applications. With so many resources available, it’s easy to find the tools you need to build a great command line utility. 

 6) They are supported by Microsoft

 One of the biggest advantages of using C# and Python to build Command Line Utilities is that they are supported by Microsoft. This means that developers can take advantage of the robust development tools available from the Microsoft platform, such as Visual Studio Code, to create powerful command line applications. Additionally, developers can use the .NET and Python frameworks to develop reliable command line tools. This ensures that your tools will be compatible with different platforms and operating systems. With the help of Microsoft's documentation and support, you can quickly become a master of building command line tools.

 7) Some Other Benefits

Both     C# and Python are considered to be relatively easy to learn and     understand, making them great choices for developers of any skill     level. 

C#     and Python are both known for their readability, which makes them great     for quickly building command line applications.

C#     and Python are both highly flexible languages, meaning that developers can     build command line applications for a variety of different platforms.

When     it comes to speed, C# and Python both offer developers plenty of options.     C# is known for its blazing fast performance, while Python offers a slightly     slower but still efficient approach.

With     C# and Python, developers can create almost anything they set their minds     to. From mobile apps to machine learning algorithms, the sky's the limit     when it comes  php app development company in india to these two languages.

Both     C# and Python are open source languages, which means that developers can     freely modify and improve them without having to worry about licensing     costs or restrictions.

Both     C# and Python are secure languages that offer developers plenty of options     when it comes to protecting their applications from potential     threats. 

When     compared to other popular languages, both C# and Python tend to be     relatively affordable choices for developers. 

Final Thoughts

As you can see, there are plenty of great reasons to consider using C# and Python for building command line utilities. With their ease of use, readability, flexibility, speed, popularity, versatility, open source nature, security, and cost effectiveness, it's no wonder why these two languages are so popular among developers today.