为什么没有.Net链接器？ [英] Why no .Net linker?

问题描述

连接器已经存在了.......为什么我们不能将.Net框架的所有需要​​部分链接到一个EXE中？

虽然应用程序会有点大，但这将消除微软修复的可能性。打破应用程序和新的.Net

版本打破旧版本。并且，您不必担心最终用户安装的.Net（如果有）的最终版本。


您的应用程序将会功能与预期一样，除非基本的改变

是针对操作系统的（并且这是每种语言都容易受到的影响）。


我会选择一个更大的应用程序，可以在更小的EXE上实现更大的覆盖范围，每天只需限制
。


Jim Hubbard

Linkers have been around forever.......why can''t we link all needed portions
of the .Net framework into a single EXE?

Although the apps would be a bit larger, this would eliminate the
possibility of Microsoft "fixes" breaking applications and of new .Net
versions breaking older ones. And, you wouldn''t have to worry about which
version of .Net (if any) the end user had installed.

Your app would then function just as expected unless fundamental changes
were made to the OS (and that''s something every language is susceptible to).

I would opt for a larger app with greater reach over a smaller EXE with
limited reach any day.

Jim Hubbard

推荐答案

Jim Hubbard" <再*** @ groups.please>在消息中写道

新闻：FI ******************** @ giganews.com ...

Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:FI********************@giganews.com...

Linkers永远存在.......为什么我们不能将所有需要的.Net框架部分链接到一个EXE中？


CAS如何在这样的计划中运作？看看我的文章
http://codingsanity.blogspot.com/200...about-net.html 了解更多详情

。

虽然应用程序会是稍大一点，这将消除微软修复的可能性。打破应用程序和新的.Net
版本打破旧版本。并且，您不必担心最终用户安装的.Net版本（如果有的话）。

您的应用程序将按预期运行，除非基本更改<对操作系统进行了操作（这是每种语言都容易受到影响的事情）。

我会选择一个更大的应用程序，在更小的EXE上具有更大的覆盖范围<任何一天都有限的到达。

Jim Hubbard

Linkers have been around forever.......why can''t we link all needed
portions of the .Net framework into a single EXE?
And how would CAS operate in such a scheme? Have a look at my article
http://codingsanity.blogspot.com/200...about-net.html for a
bit more detail.
Although the apps would be a bit larger, this would eliminate the
possibility of Microsoft "fixes" breaking applications and of new .Net
versions breaking older ones. And, you wouldn''t have to worry about which
version of .Net (if any) the end user had installed.

Your app would then function just as expected unless fundamental changes
were made to the OS (and that''s something every language is susceptible
to).

I would opt for a larger app with greater reach over a smaller EXE with
limited reach any day.

Jim Hubbard

" Sean Hederman" <我们*** @ blogentry.com>在消息中写道

news：d2 ********** @ ctb-nnrp2.saix.net ...

"Sean Hederman" <us***@blogentry.com> wrote in message
news:d2**********@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...

Jim Hubbard" <再*** @ groups.please>在消息中写道
新闻：FI ******************** @ giganews.com ...

Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:FI********************@giganews.com...

连接器已经永远存在.......为什么我们不能将.Net框架中所有需要的部分链接到一个EXE中？

Linkers have been around forever.......why can''t we link all needed
portions of the .Net framework into a single EXE?

CAS如何在这样的操作中运行？一个计划？看看我的文章
http://codingsanity.blogspot.com/200...about-net.html 更多细节。

也许你是对的.....我在开机时睡了整个安全的东西

camp，所以我不能在这里抛出任何真正的论据.....除了说

我还没有看到我与之合作的公司的任何人.Net

（一些非常大的公司，如Qwest Communications应用程序构建和

在Innotrac托管）利用签名。


如果我创建一个未签名的应用程序并将该sucker抛入由Wise或InstallShield构建的设置

，无限制地访问客户

机器。我现在已经完成了几次。


也许这不是微软的方式。但事情确实如此。

完成。


所以，CAS对我来说真的没什么意义。


让我们假设一段代码被签名了一分钟。 CAS可以是

能够验证签名是否符合Verisign所说的关于签署它的

公司的任何内容，但是坏公司可以获得签名和Verisign

没有判断签名应用程序可以做什么 - 它只是

用数据验证签名（真实或制作）它已存档。


由用户决定公司是否值得信赖（好）

或不信任（坏）。


除了微软试图扩大沙盒之外，我不认为CAS是什么。

JAVA的想法。它不是故障安全的，并且仍然高度依赖于

用户 - 这意味着用户仍然允许不安全的用户。代码运行，

就像他们运行所有这些免费一样他们现在下载的垃圾。


很多安全工作 - 对于普通用户和程序员来说

有关 - 恕我直言。


但是，再一次，我自己也在睡觉。他们确实应该在告诉我们如何构建.Net应用程序后放置它。然后，也许

我们的思想可能已经得到了如何建立.Net应用程序足够长的时间来关注保护他们的b $ b。


就像教他的儿子一样，他想要做的就是在车轮和驾驶之后获得
。当然声音震动了他的耳朵.....但是他没听到任何声音。


Jim Hubbard

Perhaps you are right.....I slept through the whole security thing at boot
camp, so I''m not able to toss up any real arguments here.....except to say
that I have yet to see anyone at the companies I have worked at with .Net
(some pretty big companies like Qwest Communications applications built and
hosted at Innotrac) utilize signing at all.

If I create an unsigned application and throw that sucker into a setup built
by Wise or InstallShield, it has unrestricted access to the customers
machine. I''ve done it a few times now.

Perhaps this isn''t the "Microsoft way" but it sure is how things are getting
done.

So, CAS really means nothing to me.

Let''s suppose for a minute that a piece of code is "signed". CAS may be
able to verify that the signature matches whatever Verisign says about the
company that signed it, but "bad" companies can get signatures and Verisign
doesn''t pass judgment on what can be done with the signed apps - it just
verifies the signature with the data (real or made-up) that it has on file.

It is still up to the user to decide whether a company is trusted ("good")
or untrusted ("bad").

I don''t see CAS as anything but Microsoft''s attempt to expand the "sandbox"
idea of JAVA. It is not failsafe, and is still highly dependent on the
user - which means that the users will still allow "unsafe" code to run,
just like they run all of that "FREE" crap they download now.

Lot''s of work for not much safety - as far as the common user and programmer
is concerned - IMHO.

But, again, I slept through that security stuff myself. They really
should''ve placed it AFTER telling us how to build a .Net app. Then, maybe
our minds could''ve gotten off of how to build .Net apps long enough to care
about protecting them.

It''s like teaching your son about car safety when all he wants to do is get
behind the wheel and drive. Sure the sound vibrations hit his ears.....but
he didn''t hear a thing.

Jim Hubbard

神圣的废话！我是92岁！

Jim Hubbard

Holy crap! I''m a 92!

Jim Hubbard

这篇关于为什么没有.Net链接器？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！