Windows 2000 Source Code

[Mr. Peabody]

Amid rumors of scandals and leaks of source code, one I'll celebrate the most, the leak of Windows 2000 source code yesterday.

http://www.baltimoremd.com/content/win2000source.html

Oh wait, it made the gossip columns already.

http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?i...&category=main

[Grifter]

I'd be very surprised if 50% of this forum doesn't posses it by now.

[bascule]

I'd be very surprised if 50% of this forum doesn't posses it by now.

And grepped it for XXX, FIXME, and swear words...

./private/windbg64/debugger/tl/remote/shell/windbgrm.c: // The user fucked up
./private/shell/win16/commctrl/ctl3d.c: // Some ugly shit goin' on here!
./private/shell/comctl32/monthcal.c: // TODO: this is bullshit. make it more efficient...

[d3thStaR]

And grepped it for XXX, FIXME, and swear words...

Yep... there are plenty of them... it just shows the stellar quality of programming that goes into this system.

[ck3k]

further proof of microsoft's short commings. I find it quiet funny that this pro. level code that goes into the worlds most widly used os is filled with this stuff.

[Grifter]

further proof of microsoft's short commings. I find it quiet funny that this pro. level code that goes into the worlds most widly used os is filled with this stuff.

I don't see the use of swear words in the code as any further proof of shortcomings. Honestly, look at some of your own code and tell me that a comment here or there doesn't have a swear or two in them. Does that make you a poor coder? No, it makes you a potty mouth.

They never expected anyone to see it. And even so, I would expect a few to slip through.

[astcell]

We all whine that Windows code is bloated, I wonder how much of it is this sort of language.

[Grifter]

We all whine that Windows code is bloated, I wonder how much of it is this sort of language.

None.


.

[IcEbLAze]

Think about it, Windows 2000 and NT 4 have been out for quite a while... sure they may find some exploits, but honestly, I think there more worried about there precious "Intellectual property" being used to make free OS's or porting stuff over completely to other OS's.

[skroo]

Think about it, Windows 2000 and NT 4 have been out for quite a while... sure they may find some exploits, but honestly, I think there more worried about there precious "Intellectual property" being used to make free OS's or porting stuff over completely to other OS's.

What I'd like to see come of this would be someone creating a *nix library for the NT API - the idea of being able to run critical Windows apps on a stable *nix platform is very appealing.

[Gadsden]

What I'd like to see come of this would be someone creating a *nix library for the NT API - the idea of being able to run critical Windows apps on a stable *nix platform is very appealing.

I agree.. that would be VERY nice.. BUT I can see microsoft using the DMCA in every way possible to smash that. You think SCO bitched a fit because their "code" ended up in linux, wait until that happens to M$. I figure they already have the lawyers in the bullpen warming up. I am supprised they have not gone after the P2P networks already to try to stop it..

[skroo]

I agree.. that would be VERY nice..

Especially for the undocumented parts. It'd be really nice to, say, be able to run Exchange on fBSD.

BUT I can see microsoft using the DMCA in every way possible to smash that. You think SCO bitched a fit because their "code" ended up in linux, wait until that happens to M$.

Agreed, and I'd expect them to freak. But remember how Compaq built the first clone PC BIOS: there were two teams, working separately. One team did the disassembly and natural-language documentation of each function; another team wrote the code to implement those functions but was never allowed to see the disassembly - they could only read the plain-English description of how it worked.

It seems reasonable that a similar approach could be taken, thus avoiding the whole 'code replication' issue (thinking about it, I could see IBM going for a project like this and having the resources to do it - ah, the irony, given their past OS development relationships with Microsoft). Option two: the source is already available, so rewrite it using the original as a guideline - of course, you then run into the code replication issue.

One other thing to consider is that the API has been at least partly-documented in print in the past, and that tools for monitoring and playing with the API have been around forever. It'd have to be proven that if a libntapi.so did surface sometime in the future that it was created from the leaked source directly, and not as a part of a from-scratch implementation based on available documentation and methodologies.

I figure they already have the lawyers in the bullpen warming up. I am supprised they have not gone after the P2P networks already to try to stop it..

I'm guessing that whatever was leaked was probably of sufficiently minimal concern: NT4 is about to EOL; SP1 for Win2K is obsolete and probably doesn't give enough away about the OS itself to warrant enforcement since we already know what the fixes were. Besides, MS can see how successful the RIAA were in trying to prosecute people downloading music; it's a pointless fight, and even with as much money as they have they don't want to throw it down a sinkhole.

What they may end up doing is going directly after the company that facilitated the leak, and suing the hell out of them. It wouldn't be surprising to see them negotiate a complete buyout in favour of legal action, either.

Also, we've all heard the rumours of Digital's intellectual property from VMS appearing in NT and 2000; if this is indeed the case and proved by the source, could Compaq end up suing MS into the stone age along the lines of what SCO hopes to accomplish with IBM? Are MS' lawyers deliberately not bringing legal action to avoid drawing attention to their own company's unethical and illegal actions?

[Gadsden]

Also, we've all heard the rumours of Digital's intellectual property from VMS appearing in NT and 2000; if this is indeed the case and proved by the source, could Compaq end up suing MS into the stone age along the lines of what SCO hopes to accomplish with IBM? Are MS' lawyers deliberately not bringing legal action to avoid drawing attention to their own company's unethical and illegal actions?

That is an interesting point I did not think about.. I wonder how many copyright violations and GPL'ed code is in there? Of course, MS can just say they code is "tainted" since being in the wild, and anyone could have added that. It will be interesting to see what the total fallout from this will be..

[Joey2cool]

My personal favorites -

private/windows/media/avi/msrle/rle.c: // lets do some majic shit so the compiler generates "good" code.
private/shell/shell32/copy.c: // Whoever wrote this code needs to come to my office for a good old ass-kicking.
private/shell/comdlg32/fileopen.c: // this way we can assert that we have covered our ass.

[jesse]

windows is now my favorite open source OS.