It does make me think of a post from the old site --==- not sure how relevant it be, but there seems to be a point somewhere here ... i'll have to dig up the post, i think iv'e probably got it saved somewhere ...
the basic gist was though -=-
A lecture/talk given by Mr Ken Thomson, --- on his experiences with during the early days of UNIX development ---
They applied a very simple smirf on their compiler, well ... simple for them at least that is
They designed a code unit whose purpose it was to replicate itself. But only in response to the certain recognitions. It was designed to recognise the "login" program, and also to recognise the compiler it self -=- on a source level. Once installed and compiled it became a kind of "built-in" function. Then the source for that could be removed from the main tree -=- and no one else would be the wiser -=- it is art (grin) -=- the pure simplicity of concept -=- (ouch.png)
The idea of course was to create a secret account, that was able to bypass the permission/security levels that would other wise bloke access. As a means of getting things done. After all, it was their project. And being locked out is not very helpful for the person who is actually trying to write the thing in the first place --- the pass-word was "kt" (grin) ... simple enough i suppose.
development <--> screwups <--> gotta get the work done --> makes sense
But --- as the the post pointed out, and as did Mr Thompson himself ... the code __was__ designed to perpetuate itself. And with a lose definition, qualifies as viral
A needed emergency way in, but they also wanted to hide it from collaborators, especially people from other companies -=- like ,,, general electric for one.
As Mr KT said (grin) ... I would never work for a company that has me for an employee (hehehe) ...
But -=- the point there, should be obvious -=- i'm kinda hoping so
What do you think about the "intel" Linux compiler -- !
Seems it benches out a bit in front of gcc ? hmmm -- does it ?, and what does that mean any way.
A bloke did write to the mag claiming a 10 hour saving on what used to take him 30 hours -=- hmmm, not sure if i'm prepared to believe that really, no offence to the mag, -=- i don't think i believe anything i read in mags .. besides, if it ain't on teletubs --- well, then i might believe it -=- ... maybe (grin)
Can a program ,, one that has the purpose of creating binary executables -=- that is ... executables, but also ... image and sound files, can a closed source expression actually be trusted in that context... !
One could always go and ask Darls opinion -=- but i think i can figure what that might just be
Just some Thoughts
spell edi (1):
(it was a frameup boss ... (grin) )