Jim Hague wrote:
>Today's food for thought. You have obtained the entire
>source for, say, W2k and O2k. What do you do with it?
Chesty wrote:
>Fix some bugs and send patch back to MS? maybe not :)
I wrote:
>Actually, I'd prolly browse some of it when really really
>bored, looking for programming errors (and finding many)
John Wiltshire wrote:
>My understanding of the hack was:
>
>They didn't get NT/9x/Office source. They got "new unreleased projects"
>(probably .NET stuff by the sound of it).
True, but that wasn't the question that Jim posted.
>If they did get NT source, I really doubt they could find bugs by inspecting
>the code. Where do you start in 50 million lines of layered calls? Hell,
>people find bugs in Linux sources that have been there for ages and that
>source code is looked at all the time.
And Chesty mentioned fixing bugs, sending patches. Hypothetically, of
course.
And in this hypothetical world where I have an Abundance Of Free Time,
my head wouldn't explode trying to comprehend the 50 million lines of
the combined W2K and O2K sources. And I'd fix the tab stops and the
braces to my satisfaction, and scrutinise every line for bugs.
ObLinux: Finally getting to write some code for a personal project (even
though I don't have the aforementioned AOFT). I'm working on a daemon
to drive an mp3stereo jukebox. The plan is for a stripped down system,
running basically a kernel with reiserfs and this daemon, plugged into a
large disk, cdrom, ethernet and an LCD display. Things that rock: CVS,
GNU libreadline, manual sections 2 and 3.
--
Sure, I subscribe to USENET, but I only get it for the articles.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
