Free?

[Chante]

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j8hp8a$2nei$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Am 28.10.2011 05:31, schrieb Chante:
>> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>> Am 26.10.2011 23:52, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:51:11 -0400, Daniel Gibson
>>>> <metalcaedes at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 26.10.2011 23:38, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a
>>>>>> machine than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>> I guess it depends on the machine but I imagine it isn't so hard to
>>>>> dismantle a machine to find out how it works? (But I have no
>>>>> experience with that, it's just a guess)
>>>>> Reverse Engineering software can be pretty hard if the author made
>>>>> it deliberately hard, like Skype.
>>>>
>>>> If you have no idea how a material is built, such as a new kind of
>>>> glass, you have to guess.
>>>
>>> Ok, for materials it's probably hard, but there is a possibility of
>>> chemical analysis and stuff like that.
>>> But I guess for things like e.g. car engines it may be easier 
>>> (besides
>>> maybe special/new materials used).
>>
>> It's not worth it. If a company is relying on a competitor's engines 
>> to
>> develop it's own, it's effectively out of the business of engineering
>> (it's just then a manufacturer of other company's products perhaps).
>> Competitive analyis is fine, but a company cannot be in the engine
>> business without the required engineering prowess required for that.
>>
>
> I don't know.
> I guess you could claim the same thing about companies who have to 
> steal code from other companies instead of writing it themselves.

Well isn't that within the realm of what I said?

>
> So what's the difference between "competitive analysis" and "looking at 
> foreign code" anyway?

Looking at source code is just discovering how to do it. Meaning the one 
doing the looking has no capability: the proverbial "freerider" 
("freeloader"?). Evaluating a competitor's software application program 
for features and usage, etc. is what I'd put in the realm of "competitive 
analysis".

In the engine company I used to work for, once in five years I remember 
having to dyno-test a competitor's engine (the company I worked for had 
it purchased for us) to evaluate what the thing actually did in regards 
to torque and horsepower. We didn't do much with it at all except for 
those kinds of things, for dyno cell time was limited and was better put 
to use on our own engines than a competitors. They did the same things 
with ours for sure. "Finding the coca-cola formula" of the engine though? 
What's the point? (Surely the concept of "what's the point?" is lost on 
the "freerider").

> How can you be sure that your engineers don't copy ideas from 
> competitors engines?
>

What's to copy? The engine block color? The chrome valve covers? We had 
engineers going to the same advanced training, and supporting the same 
curriculums at universities and such as the competitors, and there aren't 
that many secrets. And even "the secrets", aren't important. What about 
"the silver bullet" though, you ask? Anyone wanting source code, should 
simply go work for the company producing the products, because those have 
already admitted they are incapable of producing anything out of the 
ordinary on their own. I think that because source code gets transformed 
into a binary executable, people want it because of it's ellusiveness. 
Give it to them, and they will be dissastisfied and need more "fix". It's 
never enough, because there is nothing really there. Ignore a girl, and 
she'll be attracted to you (Tha is, IF, you "have" another girl... 
loners/losers need not apply). Fall for her though, then the baddest boy 
on the block will be bangin' her while you can just go find "God" or 
something and "leave me alone already! (when she finds out that the 70k 
'vette came from engineering rather than sales jobs)". Grass is 
greener... where?

Let's "get to the crux" of what you asked though, and enough with my 
banter. You used the words: "engineers" and "copy". Tell me, do find any 
oxymoronishness, to using those two words in the same sentence?