asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: subjective, rather than formal; but how many seconds does it take ~you~ to realize that you won't be hardening to a particular pr0n
asciilifeform: hanbot: what are you trying to build ?
asciilifeform: but not a patching guide, rather, patches were applied. but it tells you which, and you can obtain previous release tarball, apply them yourself, and compare the result.
asciilifeform: after all, egg is not the only thing that comes out of a chicken..
asciilifeform: ^ not intended to imply that ~all~ items created this way are worth using
asciilifeform: but thus far most of the software artifacts i personally see as making a computer worth using at all, were written by one (or handful) of people, and largely on stolen/embezzled employer time, and under no management whatsoever other than the 'emperor in their heads'
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: eulora, conceivably, but i don't know enough about how it was built, and precisely by whom, and to what kind of outcome, to say anything interesting
asciilifeform: could. but none of the items i'm personally familiar with in depth do
asciilifeform: as opposed to, y'know, some idler who just felt like it. (unix, c, hell, lisp)
asciilifeform: or, alternatively, example some software artifact even vaguely worth using, to intelligent folks, that was ~produced under sound management~
asciilifeform: say, example of 'good management' in that sphere that doesn't, when you scratch it, reveal itself to be a case of programming-with-human-compilers
asciilifeform: i regard it as far from proven fact that these are separable activities in software-making.
asciilifeform: thus shattering the illusion that 'everything benefits from being written by folks with day jobs' and 'open source lives well on sunshine and kisses'