linux in australian government

[Alex Satrapa]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:

>Make no mistake, this is not "Open Source" in any sense and we sould be
>careful to not use that term in association with this "offer" from MS.
>
Microsoft calls it "Shared Source", though I would dub it "Read-Only 
Source".

>... not build their own OS from it  i.e. even if you can inspect
>all the source, you still have no guarantee that what you see is what is
>in the binary that you run ...
>
You have no right to go editing the source either (eg: to determine if 
your suggested fix will actually work).  You can suggest possible bug 
fixes to Microsoft, who will treat them with the respect they deserve.

Can you imagine tracking down a bug in this kind of environment the way 
most people do (compile, test, modify, compile, test, modify...)?