ew, why should Microsoft reveal their source code? The idea of protecting the implementation of a design model is quite old. The designers of C++ built it into the language when they created .h files (available to consumers of classes) that only contained the signatures of the methods which were implemented in .cpp files (the implementation). I see no reason for Microsoft to give up their source code.
Anybody who wants a piece of the software pie, can spend the money to get thier own piece. I'm a developer, and I don't require Microsoft's source code to have a piece of the pie. It's an insult to me to say that I can write good solid code without needing to lean on Microsoft's source code as a crutch.
Also, I'd be very interested to read Bill's comments. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but that sounds very out of character for him.
poser, if they have full source, they could always compile it. Why do you suppose that a government can compile Linux source and not Windows source?
|