-
Delicious Poison:
The difference between a nerd and a geek? Well a nerd does not wear Spider Man butt huggers. -
*shrug* I don't really see this as being a problem. Their implementation will remain Windows-only, and likely will actually go some way towards shoring up a lot of the current problems seen with Windows' security. Besides, it's not like this is the first time another OS has co-opted the *BSD stack - BeOS did it, OSX did it... Big deal if Redmond does it.Originally posted by klepto
I have to admit, though, having read through the piece I see no mention of it being *BSD-based. What was your source on this? -
It was more of a friendly jab. I do love BSD myself. It's well known that Microsoft has used BSD's code for their TCP/IP stack in previous Windows releases.Delicious Poison:
The difference between a nerd and a geek? Well a nerd does not wear Spider Man butt huggers.Comment
-
Why am I not seeing "BSD" anywhere on that page?45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B0
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B1
[ redacted ]Comment
-
Is the dude wearing the CG cap look like a cartoon Nulltone or is that just me.Did Everquest teach you that?Comment
-
They ripped their *first* TCP/IP stack from BSD too.Originally posted by skroo
I don't mean to crap in your cornflakes but you're not keeping up with the action around the collective wrt the "unix" environment.
Lookie here:
http://www.redmondmag.com/columns/ar...torialsID=1008
Search for this "Unix/Linux Interoperability"
Are you old enough to remember when they were going to interop with NetWare?
That's all I'm gonna say, for now.That's my story and I'm sticking to it.Comment
-
Why is everyone assuming this was taken from BSD? And even if it was, what BSD? FreeBSD?
Considering how it claims to integrate with the Windows driver architecture (i.e. allowing offloading of TCP processing onto the network card and so forth) I would guess it's an in-house implementation.45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B0
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B1
[ redacted ]Comment
-
Back in the late 90's, there were a number of DoS attacks against many OS with TCP/IP stacks and suites of protocols and some included packet fragmentation and reassebly leading to illegal oversized and undersized packets. ("WinNuke", Land, "Ping of Death", teardrop, boink, bonk, etc.) One or more of these seemed to cause DoS in some Unix-style OS as well as windows.
Accusations were made [and allegations were presented] that MS was stealing TCP/IP stack source code from OpenSource and Berkeley licensed OS. MS Said they weren't, and that the failure was just a coincidence. (Not all DoS against windows worked against other *nix OS, and not all DoS against *nix OS Worked against windows.)
I do not recall any evidence beyond accusation being provided to show code theft was the cause, but that does not mean it has not been provided.
If you have a link showing where MS Employees claimed there was source code theft, or evidence beyond accusation was provided, I'd be interested in looking at it.
Related:
http://attrition.org/security/denial/
http://www.saintcorporation.com/cgi-...erability/landComment
-
Did you bother reading my reply? I was talking about a *WINDOWS* fork, lady.Originally posted by ndex
No. I'm nine years old and think the first PlayStation is way old-school.Are you old enough to remember when they were going to interop with NetWare?Comment
-
Hum in 1990 Windows had no implementation of IP... It kinda started in 95 with the release of Windows 95...
And anyway... why c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts ?? wtf!/* NO COMMENT */Comment
-
I think the first was Windows for WorkGroups 3.1 in 1992, unless you count TrumpetWinsock. ;-)Originally posted by dataworm
Obligatory Hack:
If you installed Windows 3.11 and upgraded from that to Windows 95, you ended up having a Windows 95 box (plain and simple.)
However, if you installed Windows for WorkGroups 3.11 and then installed the Windows 95 upgrade, I seem to recall you had at least one extra option in networking:
The [option] to enable routing across interfaces in that Windows 95.
Recent MS OS Timeline
[Added:]
This may have required the instance of Windows for Workgroups to have Routing between interfaces enabled before the upgrade. It may also be the case that after windows 95 is installed, if the option is unchecked, it is removed from the GUI Network Control panel.Comment
-
It started in Win 3.11 with the release of the first TCP/IP support in the windows OS, right around the time of NT, which stood for "New Technology". You'll notice that the splash screen for Win2K says something to the effect of 'Built on NT Technology'.Originally posted by dataworm
The question "what proof" begs the question of whether you know anyone who's read the sources for Windows and could tell you if it was stolen.That's my story and I'm sticking to it.Comment
-
New Technology Technology?Originally posted by ndexComment
-
Yeah, we had a discussion about this "NT Technology" and other expansions like "ATM Machine" and "DNS Service" (when the S referred to "Server" instead of "Service") "PIN Number" and "LCD Display" (etc.)Originally posted by astcellComment
-
"New Technology" was what they rewrote the acronym into, but that's not what it originally stood for:Originally posted by ndex
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/...r2k3_gold1.asp
"Originally, we were targeting NT to the Intel i860 (code-named 'N-Ten)', a RISC processor that was horribly behind schedule. Because we didn't have any i860 machines in-house to test on, we used an i860 simulator. That's why we called it NT, because it worked on the 'N-Ten.'"
-Mark Lucovsky, Distinguished Engineer, Windows Server Architect45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B0
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B1
[ redacted ]Comment
Tweet
Comment