Considering they document their build process very carefully, I can only imagine they wound up standardizing on that library a long time ago and keep using it to this day.
Yes, even if there is any recent open source alternative to build 16-bit code, selecting the 20 years old compiler binaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_C++) for which it can be easiest to be sure they haven't changed (there's still enough CD's around produced at that time, I believe I still have one too) is a damn good decision.
Hmm... 20 year older binaries? Anyone ever read "Reflections on Trusting Trust"? Perhaps they don't trust newer code from MS? Think about it, MS can't backdoor an old binary.
Comments
Just a slightly off-topic question, but WTF does TC require VC 1.52 for?
It's the easiest way to build C or C++ targeting 16-bit real mode with a Windows host/toolchain, and they use it to compile a boot loader.
It's the last version that can produce 16-bit code?
Considering they document their build process very carefully, I can only imagine they wound up standardizing on that library a long time ago and keep using it to this day.
Yes, even if there is any recent open source alternative to build 16-bit code, selecting the 20 years old compiler binaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_C++) for which it can be easiest to be sure they haven't changed (there's still enough CD's around produced at that time, I believe I still have one too) is a damn good decision.
"Reflections on trusting trust" is 30 years old. 20 year old binaries should still be more trustable than newer ones though, I suppose.
Truecrypt didn't exist in 1993.
Hmm... 20 year older binaries? Anyone ever read "Reflections on Trusting Trust"? Perhaps they don't trust newer code from MS? Think about it, MS can't backdoor an old binary.