The point is that Reflector does not produce the original source code. This is because it is interpreting IL op codes from a file and producing logically equivalent source code. Just because the original source code and the reverse engineered source code are logically equivalent does not mean they are the same. In fact they are likely not to be the same and thus Reflector does not make the original source code open source.
You're forgetting that Reflector interprets the IL and produces source code equivalents of that. You don't get critical information that helps you understand how the code works and what its purpose is like comments and variable names.
You're also not taking into account that the assembler/compiler may perform optimizations and potentially restructure the IL to make it perform better but not necessarily resemble the original algorithm.
For example if you compile an assembly with a line of source code like:
string s = "abc" + "def" + "ghi";
Reflector will disassemble it into something equivalent to:
string var1 = "abcdefghi";
I'm not saying Reflector isn't useful. You can certainly use it to prove that your build department didn't apply a patch correctly or to troubleshoot a third party assembly that you don't have the source code for. Reflector does not make the original source code open source though.
If MS is going to do what it wants to anyway regardless of the selections the user makes in the OS, they may as well not even provide configuration options.
It sounds like any selection you make in Windows is interpreted as a suggestion anyway.
OS: Thanks for selecting X, we've selected Y for you anyway because we think it's better for you.
For those of that do want a choice, we can switch to a different OS. I know as soon as major game support comes to Linux, I'm done with Windows.
WinMerge may actually be my favorite developer tool. I use it as a replacement to TortoiseDiff that comes with TortoiseSVN. I always liked being able to use ALT+arrow keys to quickly navigate down and selectively merge changes with ease. Being able to compare directories is also a great feature.
Why does the *AA always move to the default assumption that internet distribution of content == EVIL?
I would argue that Youtube and other services like it are very similar if not the same as a television channel. Instead of trying to police Youtube for copyright infringement, why not collaborate on a similar business model as television? The video service would pay for some type of broadcast fee presumably via advertising revenue just like television. For videos that are more popular the advertising space costs more along the same lines as advertising during the Super Bowl being premium.
Why can't the *AA see that these services are not evil but rather a huge business opportunity?
According to some, "the internet is a series of tubes."
So you know the increased bandwidth will definitely help because "if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled. And if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material";)
Yup, their priorities are definitely out of whack especially considering that there are people who have implemented backwards compatibility much better than Microsoft and did it for free.
At least not in the near future.
For the most part companies who have workstations running SQL 2000 to access environments with servers running SQL Server 2000 are not likely to upgrade to Windows Vista anyway. There isn't really anything in Vista compared to Windows XP that justifies a company to allocate budget money to upgrade all of their workstations from XP to Vista. Microsoft will probably have to use some strong arm tactic like discontinuing updates for Windows XP.
It will be a long time before most companies upgrade to Vista. In fact, most companies that get Vista along with their new machines will probably downgrade the Vista license to XP anyway.
I just don't see why this is a big deal at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that Reflector does not produce the original source code. This is because it is interpreting IL op codes from a file and producing logically equivalent source code. Just because the original source code and the reverse engineered source code are logically equivalent does not mean they are the same. In fact they are likely not to be the same and thus Reflector does not make the original source code open source.
You're forgetting that Reflector interprets the IL and produces source code equivalents of that. You don't get critical information that helps you understand how the code works and what its purpose is like comments and variable names.
You're also not taking into account that the assembler/compiler may perform optimizations and potentially restructure the IL to make it perform better but not necessarily resemble the original algorithm.
For example if you compile an assembly with a line of source code like:
string s = "abc" + "def" + "ghi";
Reflector will disassemble it into something equivalent to:
string var1 = "abcdefghi";
I'm not saying Reflector isn't useful. You can certainly use it to prove that your build department didn't apply a patch correctly or to troubleshoot a third party assembly that you don't have the source code for. Reflector does not make the original source code open source though.
Capital-F Fools? No, no, no. We're the Fools of capital-F! Capital-F fools... hah.
If MS is going to do what it wants to anyway regardless of the selections the user makes in the OS, they may as well not even provide configuration options.
It sounds like any selection you make in Windows is interpreted as a suggestion anyway.
OS: Thanks for selecting X, we've selected Y for you anyway because we think it's better for you.
For those of that do want a choice, we can switch to a different OS. I know as soon as major game support comes to Linux, I'm done with Windows.
WinMerge may actually be my favorite developer tool. I use it as a replacement to TortoiseDiff that comes with TortoiseSVN. I always liked being able to use ALT+arrow keys to quickly navigate down and selectively merge changes with ease. Being able to compare directories is also a great feature.
http://winmerge.org/index.php
Still the best mail client around. :)
Can't wait to read this on my new Commodore gaming PC:
"Mischievous glak elves broke into your storage shed and stole half your food."
Why does the *AA always move to the default assumption that internet distribution of content == EVIL?
I would argue that Youtube and other services like it are very similar if not the same as a television channel. Instead of trying to police Youtube for copyright infringement, why not collaborate on a similar business model as television? The video service would pay for some type of broadcast fee presumably via advertising revenue just like television. For videos that are more popular the advertising space costs more along the same lines as advertising during the Super Bowl being premium.
Why can't the *AA see that these services are not evil but rather a huge business opportunity?
According to some, "the internet is a series of tubes."
So you know the increased bandwidth will definitely help because "if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled. And if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material" ;)
frickin' rotating, solar-powered skyscraper, okay?
Yup, their priorities are definitely out of whack especially considering that there are people who have implemented backwards compatibility much better than Microsoft and did it for free.
dosboxAt least not in the near future. For the most part companies who have workstations running SQL 2000 to access environments with servers running SQL Server 2000 are not likely to upgrade to Windows Vista anyway. There isn't really anything in Vista compared to Windows XP that justifies a company to allocate budget money to upgrade all of their workstations from XP to Vista. Microsoft will probably have to use some strong arm tactic like discontinuing updates for Windows XP. It will be a long time before most companies upgrade to Vista. In fact, most companies that get Vista along with their new machines will probably downgrade the Vista license to XP anyway. I just don't see why this is a big deal at all.
There certainly has been an admin kit for prior versions, at least for IE6 anyway. Not sure why this hasn't been thought of before.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/ie/r