Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 31st Mar 2010 21:59 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Permalink for comment 416554
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-17
It's a let down that this is not the case. There is nothing naive about having access to source. Just because the access is available doesn't mean the target audience has to be everyone. It could merely be stored in the Library of Congress under confidentiality clauses for something like 10 years. It would have made the progression of software with every revelation of source much more competitive in regards to performance, especially pushing programmers to do more at the binary level. It might even have fractured the hardware base in a good way, where there were many more options available to the public.
Edited 2010-04-02 06:18 UTC