On 12/01/2018, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote: > > I don't think the definitions of free software and open source > anticipated a form of obfuscation so powerful that a simple computer > program couldn't de-obfuscate it. Probably because they didn't > anticipate success to the point where a commercial company would devote > five or ten top notch programmer salaries to creating and maintaining > the obfuscation method.[1] >
While I clearly declare that I do not dispute your point about SystemD's code, your claim that its code is obfuscated, can only be viewed as an opinion without actual references to its code. You, as a critic, have also to explain why and how code is obfuscated. The limited number of times I read, trying to modify, SystemD's code, there weren't any obvious code obfuscations. The part that I successfully, compiled and actually used is libsystemd0. I immediatedly understood that the first part of functions was checking whether SystemD was installed exiting the function immediately in the event it wasn't installed. Together with easy to replace functions I also found other functions that required more thought, but I cannot say that I found any deliberate code obfuscation. I investigated my system to find which functions from libsystemd0 were required for my installation to work using nm and ldd. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng