https://github.com/necolas/normalize.css
This is an important note in normalize.css on github.
"It is recommended that you include the normalize.css file as untouched library code."
I want to understand what does it mean?
Thanks.
Related
Actually, I'm a PHP developer. I want to sell my PHP product.
So, I want to protect some major source code in PHP. But it's impossible in PHP.
I know Golang also. So, I want to to build secret algorithm in golang code and compile into binary.
Finally I want to protect my PHP major algorithm with PHP code && binary program.
My doubt is:
When I'm compiling golang source code into binary file.
Is it possible to grab golang source code from binary file ?
No, if they really really want to, they can disassemble the binary and guess what the algorithm does from the assembly, this however, applies to all languages.
If it runs, it can be disassembled and it can be broken.
There are 3 things you can do to protect your code.
You can, of course, obfuscate all the code prior to a build.
I dont knwo of any specific golang tools to do this.
Stripping symbols
But i worry about a "gifted hacker" who will decompile and try to steal my work. It has happened a few times already.
So, you want something whereby the "hacker" is defeated as it's too much work to try and re-assemble.
Stripping the symbols should be more than enough.
You can omit debug information passing the '-w' flag to the linker, and you can omit the symbol table by passing '-s'.
See go tool link in 1.5 here:
https://golang.org/cmd/link/
Device Fingerprinting
This ensures your software cannot run unless its on the same machine when the license was generated for it.
The license is stored on your server, and the fingerprint meta data is sent and check.
You can see this in action here:
https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/blob/master/client/client.go#L147
Note that in their code they are NOT generating a license against the fingerprint. This is something you would want to do as extra. You can also hash it and sign it and other fancy stuff, but thats too much detail for this post.
Of course a "hacker" can get around this IF they can decompile your code, but as i mentioned in Step 2, this can be defeated pretty well by stripping the symbols.
Obfuscation, as in step 2 helps, but most decent coders can find the place where the code is doing a check and just comment out the check and recompile.
But with no symbols its almost impossible to recompile.
Hope that helps ...
When writing a Ruby library, when is it acceptable practice to do this in one file?
module MyLib
# some definitions
end
include MyLib
I found that usually, one has to
require 'some_gem'
first, and then
include SomeGem
But I wonder, in some simpler cases, when you just want to add a bit of funcionality to the core, would it be O.K. to include the main module by default?
The require 'some_gem' / include SomeGem combo is something found mostly in scripts (as opposed to libraries). It is important, in libraries, to keep the namespaces separate -- this is the whole point of having namespaces in the first place.
Yes, it is a bad practice. If you include it, then you are choosing how people can use it. You are making the decision for them that they want it included in the global namespace. That isn't your decision to make, be a good Ruby citizen, don't change your user's environments. Allow them to choose how they want to use the code.
I encountered a preprocessor or lexical error when I tried to build my project to an archive. This did not happen on the release nor debug configuration settings on the simulator.
The message is:
lexical and preprocessor issue: 'tidy.h' file not found
The 'tidy.h' is included by CTidy.h, which is part of TouchXML library.
I found 'tidy.h' in a subfolder of 'iPhoneSimulator5.1.sdk'. To my surprise, the file is absent in 'iPhoneOS5.1.sdk'
Is it OK for me to just copy the file to the iPhoneOS5.1.sdk?
Thanks
Try commenting out the:
#include "tidy.h"
... in CTidy.h, or alternatively comment out:
#include "CTidy.h"
That is, check to see whether the header file is really necessary.
If you find that it's not, either submit a patch to the TouchXML developers, or file a bug with them, or send them an email.
It is quite common for headers to be included unnecessarily. For example I could write some code that depends on "foo.h", then delete my code, or refactor it in such a way that it doesn't need the header anymore, yet forget to delete the header inclusion as well.
How do I parse a Makefile in Doxygen . My dir contains *.c and *.h files which it parses correctly. But I am not sure how I can get it to parse Makefile correctly. Is there a special plugin for GNU makefile parsing that I can use.
I could not not file any info on this.
Thanks for help in advance.
I would find it extremely useful if DoxyGen could parse a makefile.
The makefile is central to the build process and would be a very good place to
include an introduction to appear on the main page.
I tried to include it by calling it Makefile.mk and asking doxygen to include the .mk
extension in the input files list.
One of the difficulties which I would foresee is that the comments start with #,
and, as far as I know, there is no multi-line comment block available for make.
I guess this would mean that a revision to doxygen would be needed to support this operation.
I pretty sure that this would be a really useful enhancement to DoxyGen which many people would find useful.
One thing i came across for shell scripts which also does not supported by doxygen. here is the solution link. But even for Makefile/Dockerfile which does not have any real extensions for doxygen to parse. I would recommended to have some unified solution with doxygen.
A project I'm building is attempting to include a library, but for the life of me I can't find out the call to include it is coming from. It's trying to include atlthunk.lib, which is supposed to be included through a #pragma comment in atlbase.h, but there's no such comment in my atlbase.h.
I read about someone else who had this problem, but circumvented it by "excluding the lib forcefully". I realise this isn't a stable solution, but could someone tell me how one goes about forcefully excluding a library?
It's a project setting under
Linker/Input - Ignore Specific Default Libraries
Put the library to ignore there.
Here is a screenshot to help you along: