On Sep 11, 06 19:21:05 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 06:43:19PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote: > > Well, not exactly trial-and-error. > > They probably have design specs, but what is actually delivered in > > silicon is typically quite a bit off. Some things turn out not to be > > implementable, some trigger a slow path, some things are buggy. > > Ah, now that again sounds a bit more realistic.
Yes, but these design specs might even be incomplete, point to other specs that cannot be published (M$ internals), and are typically in a shape that you cannot deliver them outside (contradicting versions, maybe even had-written notes, etc.), under no circumstances. If you want to push the data out, you would have to clean up and check IP - which would cast about the same as creating them in the first place. > Yes, this is true for (almost) the whole software industry. But you can > partition the whole software industrie into two groups: The one that has so > much clue that they update their specs or at least document the problems to > prevent walking into their own trap again and the one that has not. --- From > implementation reviews I must admit that the second group might be > significantly larger... :-/ I assume so. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, SuSE labs, Zimmer 3.2.06, Tel. 74053-715 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
