Locked? As in with a padlock? I could see source code being erased and just compiled binaries left but those can be decompiled. There is no way to "lock" code, just ask Sony, Nintendo or any other publisher...
locked as in no push access to the repository. obviously the devs have a local version of the code, but they cant make any changes to the source code while "locked"
Locked by magical fairy dust, gotcha. Maybe they should wipe the lock with a cloth?
The Stupid is strong with this one...
... and to clarify your explanation, locked means no pushes from local repositories to the remote master meaning they can't merge any changes into the centralized master repository (assumes Git, of course).
"Read-only" meaning cannot be changed... as in its encoded on punch cards and making new punch cards is too hard cause we lost the technology? Do you work for Nasa?
I actually appreciated assembly back in the day. Used to screw around with the old H cards and Direct TV. It was straight forward once you get your head around it.
just compiled binaries left but those can be decompiled.
The term you're looking for is reverse engineered. And no, that doesn't give you the source code, if it did, everyone would have all software companies intellectual property.
You say potato I say potatoe. All languages are just abstractions, it doesn't matter whether its machine language or c#... Why do you think Office is now a server side app? Why the big push for "cloud" computing? Software as a service is impossible to enforce unless its server side. There is no locking code. All Twitter is, is a glorified forum sorted by user and pushed to their own custom "RSS" reader - The Twitter App. I.e. Twitter is worth 44 billion for its userbase and name, not its "intellectual property." If you would like to know more, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJVGd7cBGuQ - I DECOMPILED a Sonic game... here's how
Yeah some software is a lot easier to reverse engineer, like a video game.
There are tools for decompiling executable code, but the results are not usually very useful.
A lot of information is thrown away when compiling. Things like function and variable names are pretty important for a human to understand what code does, but the computer doesn't need it so the compiler throws them away.
Also the structure of the code is not necessarily preserved. The compiler may have inlined functions (basically copying the code from one function into another instead of calling it), macros will have been expanded, there's all sorts of things the compiler might move around in order to optimise the code.
So while a decompiler might be able to turn that assembly into valid C code, it might look nothing like the original and won't be much easier for someone to understand than looking directly at the assembly.
Locked? As in with a padlock? I could see source code being erased and just compiled binaries left but those can be decompiled. There is no way to "lock" code, just ask Sony, Nintendo or any other publisher...
locked as in no push access to the repository. obviously the devs have a local version of the code, but they cant make any changes to the source code while "locked"
The Stupid is strong with this one...
... and to clarify your explanation, locked means no pushes from local repositories to the remote master meaning they can't merge any changes into the centralized master repository (assumes Git, of course).
Locked by magical fairy dust, gotcha. Maybe they should wipe the lock with a cloth?
you might want to just not talk about things you have no clue about.
They mean the code is read-only now. Non-techy people call that "locked."
"Read-only" meaning cannot be changed... as in its encoded on punch cards and making new punch cards is too hard cause we lost the technology? Do you work for Nasa?
Decomplied into assembly, but even that isn't going to be exact. More like an interpretation than anything.
Decompile tools have come a long ways, besides no one needs their original variable names and function names. Code is code.
I actually appreciated assembly back in the day. Used to screw around with the old H cards and Direct TV. It was straight forward once you get your head around it.
The term you're looking for is reverse engineered. And no, that doesn't give you the source code, if it did, everyone would have all software companies intellectual property.
Q posted a link to reverse engineer software with the 8kun logo but in red.
I forgot the name, I am sure I have it somewhere stashed on a SSD drive.
Yeah I remember that. No anons figured out what it was for tho and what Q was saying to use it on
You say potato I say potatoe. All languages are just abstractions, it doesn't matter whether its machine language or c#... Why do you think Office is now a server side app? Why the big push for "cloud" computing? Software as a service is impossible to enforce unless its server side. There is no locking code. All Twitter is, is a glorified forum sorted by user and pushed to their own custom "RSS" reader - The Twitter App. I.e. Twitter is worth 44 billion for its userbase and name, not its "intellectual property." If you would like to know more, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJVGd7cBGuQ - I DECOMPILED a Sonic game... here's how
Yeah some software is a lot easier to reverse engineer, like a video game.
There are tools for decompiling executable code, but the results are not usually very useful.
A lot of information is thrown away when compiling. Things like function and variable names are pretty important for a human to understand what code does, but the computer doesn't need it so the compiler throws them away.
Also the structure of the code is not necessarily preserved. The compiler may have inlined functions (basically copying the code from one function into another instead of calling it), macros will have been expanded, there's all sorts of things the compiler might move around in order to optimise the code.
So while a decompiler might be able to turn that assembly into valid C code, it might look nothing like the original and won't be much easier for someone to understand than looking directly at the assembly.