Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Simultaneous reverse engineering by the hundredsSimultaneous reverse engineering by the hundredsPosted Apr 21, 2005 14:07 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462)In reply to: Simultaneous reverse engineering by the hundreds by cworth Parent article: How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Am I missing something or are you all thinking that Larry McVoy thought that using port 5000 and the extremely cunning bk:// protocol would be enough legal and practical protection against reverse engineering BitKeeper?! And that Tridge argued with OSDL and Larry about *this* kind of reverse engineering? Come on. ;-)
(Log in to post comments)
Simultaneous reverse engineering by the hundreds Posted Apr 21, 2005 18:06 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] The evidence would seem to point to it being the case, so yes.Given the ease with which this feat was accomplished, can it even be called "reverse engineering"?
Simultaneous reverse engineering by the hundreds Posted Apr 22, 2005 11:31 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] The relation between BitKeeper and SCCS has been known for ages. Using telnet instead of another program to connect to a remote port is standard practice, nothing fancy about that.So if Tridge only wanted to show what he has been accused of, BitMover must be crazy. If the reverse engineering accusation goes a little further than telnetting to the BitKeeper port, Tridge must be crazy. Strange in any case. Or I am crazy. ;-)
|
|||||||||||||