<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://chaos.social/@manawyrm" class="u-url mention">@<span>manawyrm</span></a></span> exactly...</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> because people actually need to use it… 🫣😹</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://chaos.social/@mega" class="u-url mention">@<span>mega</span></a></span> the interesting conceptual difference is that windbg is built by people who need to get things done and gdb is free and open source software</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://chaos.social/@mega" class="u-url mention">@<span>mega</span></a></span> the gdb and lldb UIs are both actively hostile to my attempts to use them</p><p>gdb&#39;s approach to customization (embedding python scripts in the binary? they&#39;re not even position independent?? you have to add them to your trusted path list because they&#39;re fucking python scripts???) is also clearly worse than NatVis</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> like is it just &quot;more comfortable&quot; usability-wise? Is there some interesting conceptual difference?</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span></p><p>Can you help me understand what are we missing from the gdb/lldb world? (other than having a UI instead of insisting on shit IDE integration and cmdline usage)</p><p>IIRC I&#39;ve only used wingdb for extracting info from a minidump. I&#39;ve never debugged a live process 😅</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> I was briefly hopeful that it was free software 😩</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span><br />Can&#39;t you just run it in wine?</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> at least before win11, which now apparently officially requires secure boot(?) and hence MS signatures, kernel drivers are often signed by third party developer certificates and microsoft has never actually seen those drivers. their idea of “signing” is a bit.. useless? without secure boot as least.</p>