Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:39:01 -0500 From: Sergey Babkin <babkin@bellatlantic.net> To: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT Message-ID: <3A44FF55.527988B3@bellatlantic.net> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001220192150.01f42450@mail.etinc.com> <5.0.0.25.0.20001221120837.022ab0a0@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dennis wrote: > > Source is more of a "hassle", binary loads right up. the SNMP package is a > great example. Doing it from source is a nightmare. Missing includes, wrong > paths. compile failures. The package loads right up and Im running. This is an example of why the build environment must be considered part of the source code. Look at commercial Linux distributions for more examples. > Reverse engineering is a myth. The result is so inferior to high-level > language source code as to not be a concern, plus its illegal so it cant be > marketed. Apparently you never did reverse engineering. When I did such things I got the code de-compiled (manually) back to the C language. It's a bit boring but not too much work even for the RISC machines (and mauch easier for IA-32 than for RISC). And it's legal to do outside US for the purpose of learning the interfaces. (I believe that it should be made legal in US too). -SB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A44FF55.527988B3>