Now that I've actually read the atticle;) a few difficulties spring to mind. No mention is made of how the code is to be supplied, (dead trees, a source tree for the final build of each release of each type of Windows), or how its to be analysed.
The article mentions the code for Windows XP embedded, but AFAIK, this case covers windows as far back as the Win95 CodeBase - millions of lines of code.
It'll take years to find anything from this - unless Microsoft provide expert assistance - and can that expertise be trusted?
Also, I'd expect Microsoft to demand some kind of confidentiality, so that the exact documented details proving or disproving the integration of Office or IE don't become public.
I see massive dificulties.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that I've actually read the atticle ;) a few difficulties spring to mind. No mention is made of how the code is to be supplied, (dead trees, a source tree for the final build of each release of each type of Windows), or how its to be analysed.
The article mentions the code for Windows XP embedded, but AFAIK, this case covers windows as far back as the Win95 CodeBase - millions of lines of code.
It'll take years to find anything from this - unless Microsoft provide expert assistance - and can that expertise be trusted?
Also, I'd expect Microsoft to demand some kind of confidentiality, so that the exact documented details proving or disproving the integration of Office or IE don't become public.
I see massive dificulties.
Amazing. Can Mickeysoft appeal against that? I expect they'll be as obstructve as possible, supplying code with no documentation etc.
http://www.arstechnica.com is still up. Forgot the URL last time. Sorry!
ArsTechnica is still there - at least the site is.