fafalone Posted February 13, 2004 Posted February 13, 2004 Details as to origin are unclear at this point, but the source code to Windows 2000 has been leaked. This leak has been verified to most likely be the actual source by ScienceForums.net, a member of which having obtained and viewed the code. The code appears to be complete including the kernel. Based purely on speculation, the source of the leak is most likely from one of the 100 Universities around the world with a source code license for MS operating system. Nonetheless, this is a huge deal in the IT world. I for one will be switching to a different operating system since given Microsoft's security record, I'm sure holes will be found at an alarming rate. The original story was posted on Neowin.net, and of course theres a huge Slashdot thread on it. UPDATE: The source of the leak apparently came from an individual strongly connected to Microsoft in Israel whose computer was infected with a late version of the Nimda worm.
LuTze Posted February 13, 2004 Posted February 13, 2004 It's not the full source, it's around 40-ish percent of it: - http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/35547.html Still a fair chunk. Buy a Mac. OSX rocks.
fafalone Posted February 13, 2004 Author Posted February 13, 2004 The "incompleteness" is just a rumor at this point based on wild guesses about the "full code". There's really not much missing at all, Microsoft is trying to downplay it. The NT4 source even compiles completely. Having reviewed the code, I can't find anything thats really missing apart from some low-level kernel code; all the higher level stuff is there, from the explorer interface to the control panel applets to shell32.dll and regedit.
LuTze Posted February 13, 2004 Posted February 13, 2004 You've managed to review the entire NT4 code?
fafalone Posted February 13, 2004 Author Posted February 13, 2004 2000. I spent about 8 hours going through folders to see what was there yes. It's 28742 files that take up 627MB, it's pretty complete. You don't have to review all the individual files, they're all in descriptive directories.
NSX Posted February 13, 2004 Posted February 13, 2004 Is the 2000 code the same as the XP one? or at modification of it?
fafalone Posted February 14, 2004 Author Posted February 14, 2004 XP is largely based on the 2000 code, so exploits could easily effect both.
fafalone Posted February 16, 2004 Author Posted February 16, 2004 Another update... apparently this came from a company called Mainsoft, who was licensed to have the source code for porting certain features. Also, the source code apparently is compilable as the missing headers can be found in the platform SDK.
Rasori Posted February 16, 2004 Posted February 16, 2004 Great, my other computer's ethernet card finally works, then I find this out. I can't update it to XP cause it's ancient and only has 64mb of RAM. Now what?
Sayonara Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 ME is by far the worst operating system of the past 15 years. DO NOT use it. Windows 98 SE is more stable and more useful.
bloodhound Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 agree with sayo, used it for 3 years before moving straight to XP
Rakdos Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 i used ME for 4 years beofre i got XP and I never had a prolem with it
Sayonara Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 i used ME for 4 years beofre i got XP and I never had a prolem with it Yes, there is a vein of users who never had a problem with it. These are usually people who fall into one of the following categories (which can overlap, but don't necessarily have to): Never used a PC before, Don't do anything more complex than mail + office + web, Have over-powered hardware that the salesman convinced them to buy, Have no idea what to expect from an operating system. However you can take it from me, and the other millions of users and sysads who couldn't format it into oblivion fast enough, that it is an abomination.
bloodhound Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 agree with sayo, used it for 3 years before moving straight to XP obviously i meant that i used win98 se for three years and not ME. Altough ME DID bring some new stuff like system recovery.
Rakdos Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 1. Never used a PC before' date=' 2. Don't do anything more complex than mail + office + web, 3. Have over-powered hardware that the salesman convinced them to buy, 4. Have no idea what to expect from an operating system.[/quote'] 1. I have been using computers for coming on 10 of my 17 years 2. You can do a lot of other things with ME than just those i played Diablo 2 LOD Ver. 1.09 for close to 3 years on ME 3. I bulit that computer it had used parts out the ying-yang and only a Celron 667 Mhz processor and 96 Megs. of ram 4. i know exactly what to expct out of an Os like the Win 95/98/98SE/ME series
Sayonara Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 1. I have been using computers for coming on 10 of my 17 years 2. You can do a lot of other things with ME than just those i played Diablo 2 LOD Ver. 1.09 for close to 3 years on ME 3. I bulit that computer it had used parts out the ying-yang and only a Celron 667 Mhz processor and 96 Megs. of ram Then you aren't in the "usually" group. Diablo 2 is pretty straight-forward by the way. ME can have serious resource allocation problems with demanding software like Max' date=' Maya or even Ultradev. 4. i know exactly what to expct out of an Os like the Win 95/98/98SE/ME series My point is that many Win9 users don't upgrade because they are ignorant of the reasons why they should, not that they don't understand Win9.
admiral_ju00 Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 2. You can do a lot of other things with ME than just those i played Diablo 2 LOD Ver. 1.09 for close to 3 years on ME D2 eh? What char? Did you use any mods or hacks or did/do you play legit? Ladder/Hardcore/Softcore?? Not that it's a very intense game in terms of graphics or power. Hell the resolution even with their newest release(LoD) was still much too pixelish. On a side note, I played it for 1 year legit, then got bored as hell and started to hack the crap out of my chars. Then got bored with that again and now I don't even want to hear D2 or LoD, at least not for the next few years.
Rakdos Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 D2 eh? What char? Did you use any mods or hacks or did/do you play legit? Ladder/Hardcore/Softcore?? Not that it's a very intense game in terms of graphics or power. Hell the resolution even with their newest release(LoD) was still much too pixelish. On a side note' date=' I played it for 1 year legit, then got bored as hell and started to hack the crap out of my chars. Then got bored with that again and now I don't even want to hear D2 or LoD, at least not for the next few years.[/quote'] all of them. maphack. legit to an extent. 1.09 wasnt ladder and i never played hardcore.
Edward Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 Altough ME DID bring some new stuff like system recovery. The main reason it has system recovery is because it crashes so much. LOL I have been using XP for about six months and havent had many problemsyet. The olny problems have been the occasional freese when using web , adobe reader, or maya. But in general XP Has fuffiled my needs with olny a few repairable problems. Mac is the best you can get if u dont want problems. I have a really old mac that does word processing and web.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now