 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's pretty cool.
http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/working-at-microsoft-day-to-day-coding/
Not unexpected, except for the bit that all the developers have all of the
Windows source code available. I'm rather surprised it hasn't leaked
already, if it has been the case for that long.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not unexpected, except for the bit that all the developers have all of
> the Windows source code available. I'm rather surprised it hasn't leaked
> already, if it has been the case for that long.
Maybe they modify some random part of the code for each person who
checks it out - so if it ever got leaked they know who stole it :-)
But seriously, this is totally the opposite of the company I work for,
where it seems to be to hide everything from everyone unless they have a
real good reason for wanting to see it and a few random managers agree
that you can see it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 09:07 AM, scott wrote:
>> Not unexpected, except for the bit that all the developers have all of
>> the Windows source code available. I'm rather surprised it hasn't leaked
>> already, if it has been the case for that long.
>
> Maybe they modify some random part of the code for each person who
> checks it out - so if it ever got leaked they know who stole it :-)
I was thinking maybe they inserted a faulty gene for the synthesis of
lysine, so if the code ever escaped into the wild it would slip into a
coma and die...
> But seriously, this is totally the opposite of the company I work for,
> where it seems to be to hide everything from everyone unless they have a
> real good reason for wanting to see it and a few random managers agree
> that you can see it.
Don't you just love the way this stuff is totally secret, but to access
it you just need the approval of a bunch of people arbitrarily chosen at
random?
It's like the story Feynmen told of an army general who's stuff was so
secret that he had to get a specialist safe craned in... but he didn't
bother to change the default combination. (??!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 02:25 AM, Darren New wrote:
> That's pretty cool.
The idea of a computer having 8GB of RAM is strange and foreign to me.
Much less a mere desktop PC. It's also news to me that it's even
*possible* to have more than two monitors. (I'm still trying to figure
out why you'd want two in the first place...)
[Also, I hadn't looked at this recently, but apparently SSDs are now
available in capacities that might actually be useful. I.e., more than a
piffling 8GB. Still bloody expensive though.]
I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
Also links to some interesting stuff about source control. I'm presuming
it's talking about the traditional, centralised kind, rather than the
new-fangled "distributed version control", where every repository is a
branch.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2011 4:09 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I was thinking maybe they inserted a faulty gene for the synthesis of
> lysine, so if the code ever escaped into the wild it would slip into a
> coma and die...
Oh, crap. Wrong codon. That one actually causes the velociraptor to lose
its feathers!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2011 4:49 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
> longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
>
Oh, please.... The soft synth program I've been playing around with
takes about 10-15min to compile. Our flagship CAD and engineering app
where I work takes a good 30-45min to do a full build.
> Also links to some interesting stuff about source control. I'm presuming
> it's talking about the traditional, centralised kind, rather than the
> new-fangled "distributed version control", where every repository is a
> branch.
The RCS he talks about is remarkably similar to how Accurev (the RCS we
use) works. The only thing I think we're missing is the ability to run
automated tasks when an item is checked in.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 11:35 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 2/28/2011 4:09 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> I was thinking maybe they inserted a faulty gene for the synthesis of
>> lysine, so if the code ever escaped into the wild it would slip into a
>> coma and die...
>
> Oh, crap. Wrong codon. That one actually causes the velociraptor to lose
> its feathers!
And be 8 feet tall instead of 3 feet?
And for that matter, apparently reptiles (and indeed, most vertebrates)
don't synthesize lysine *anyway*...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
>> longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
>
> Oh, please.... The soft synth program I've been playing around with
> takes about 10-15min to compile. Our flagship CAD and engineering app
> where I work takes a good 30-45min to do a full build.
How huge is it? o_O
>> Also links to some interesting stuff about source control. I'm presuming
>> it's talking about the traditional, centralised kind, rather than the
>> new-fangled "distributed version control", where every repository is a
>> branch.
>
> The RCS he talks about is remarkably similar to how Accurev (the RCS we
> use) works. The only thing I think we're missing is the ability to run
> automated tasks when an item is checked in.
Well, you can script that from outside. (That is, you have a check-in
tool that runs whatever tests you want, and then executes the actual RCS
command to check stuff in.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The idea of a computer having 8GB of RAM is strange and foreign to me.
> Much less a mere desktop PC.
I guess that's because you've never worked anywhere where they upgrade
the hardware every 2 years :-)
BTW 8GB of RAM is about the same price as filling up your car with petrol!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 12:02 PM, scott wrote:
> BTW 8GB of RAM is about the same price as filling up your car with petrol!
Gosh! You must have a big petrol tank. My 8 GB of DDR3 850 cost 260 GBP
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
