Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!nelson From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: [Stolen] Macintosh ROM Sources Message-ID: Date: 15 Jun 89 19:11:46 GMT References: <3819@tank.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu Reply-To: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu Distribution: usa Organization: Clarkson University, Postdam NY Lines: 28 In-reply-to: ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu's message of 13 Jun 89 20:14:20 GMT In article <3819@tank.uchicago.edu> ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: In article <14758.2494DD71@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>, Chris.Parson@f54.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Parson) writes... > I don't understand the furor! MacNosy ( by Jasik Designs ) has >been able to disassemble the Mac ROMs for years! So the code has >been availible for years. Big deal. It's a big deal because disassembly <> source code. Source code is _much_ more informative. It's like having a copy of a book in English and in a foreign language (which you don't speak). The same information is there, but it's much easier to understand in one version than the other. I've disassembled quite a lot of software, on the order of 100K of executable code. I estimate that the amount of work needed to produce a compilable source of an executable is approximately equal to the amount of work required to write it in the first place. If I were producing a Macintosh clone, I would have two sets of people working on it, one disassembling the existing code, and another rewriting it from scratch. The two teams would communicate only by a third party, and a lab notebook would be kept of all communications. Further, I wouldn't bother to try to save space as the original Mac team did. Better to reduce your profit with an extra ROM and get the clone out the door. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) A person who seeks peace using weapons will never find it. [Thanks, Clayton.]