From: Brian <!mail@0spam.0r9> Subject: MS Windows Source Code Leak Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:21:47 -0500 Lines: 14 Organization: Multinode Organization User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID: <hq1h0c.6t5.ln@multinode.dhs.org> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: d207-6-69-56.bchsia.telus.net 207.6.69.56 Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu! newshub.sdsu.edu!cyclone.bc.net!msrtrans!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl! tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl!multinode.dhs.org!nobody Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:4336 http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=17509 -- Regards, Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu! news.glorb.com!prodigy.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED! 53ab2750!not-for-mail X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.85.86.48 From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> Subject: Re: MS Windows Source Code Leak Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com References: <hq1h0c.6t5.ln@multinode.dhs.org> Lines: 27 User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID: <qQ_Wb.473552$JQ1.314923@pd7tw1no> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:15:34 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1076656534 24.71.223.147 (Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:15:34 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:15:34 MST Organization: Shaw Residential Internet Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:4337 Brian wrote: > http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=17509 Well, it appears Microsoft has denied the leak. I also know no responsible open source coder will come within a million miles of the alledged Microsoft source code. First of all, it is inferior to open source, second, if anything like it shows up in any open source project it will be easy to track back to the thief, and third, it would be wrong. However, I would love to have some independent group parse the Microsoft source code for open source technology. It has always been my belief that Microsoft has stolen code from the open source community BECAUSE that is the kind of company Microsoft is. Lastly, I would like another independent group to analyze some of the "secret" protocols in order to enable better interoperability by open source projects. There would be no code stolen, just an analysis of all the technology Microsoft uses to lock out competition and lock in customers. Best regards, The Other Brian Linux Mystic open sorcerer
Reply-To: "Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]" <publ...@mvps.org> From: "Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]" <publ...@mvps.org> References: <hq1h0c.6t5.ln@multinode.dhs.org> <qQ_Wb.473552$JQ1.314923@pd7tw1no> Subject: Re: MS Windows Source Code Leak Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:35:39 -0600 Lines: 41 Organization: Microsoft MVP X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1209 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: <O9O8Dck8DHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-64-109-31-106.dsl.mdsnwi.ameritech.net 64.109.31.106 Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu! newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl! TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:4344 Hi Brian (br...@stanley-park.com), in the newsgroups you posted: || Brian wrote: ||| http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=17509 || || Well, it appears Microsoft has denied the leak. huh?! http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/Feb04/02-12windowssource.asp || I also know no responsible open source coder will come within a || million miles of the alledged Microsoft source code. First of all, || it is inferior to open source, second, if anything like it shows up || in any open source project it will be easy to track back to the || thief, and third, it would be wrong. You already know it is inferior? Have you already read through the 40 million lines of code? || Lastly, I would like another independent group to analyze some of the || "secret" protocols in order to enable better interoperability by open || source projects. There would be no code stolen, just an analysis of || all the technology Microsoft uses to lock out competition and lock || in customers. How do they do that with their code? AFAIK, I have no problem using competing products with or on Microsoft Windows. -- Brian Kvalheim Microsoft Office Publisher MVP Official Publisher MVP Site: http://www.kvalheim.org This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu! elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED! 53ab2750!not-for-mail X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.85.86.48 From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> Subject: Re: MS Windows Source Code Leak Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com References: <hq1h0c.6t5.ln@multinode.dhs.org> <qQ_Wb.473552$JQ1.314923@pd7tw1no> <O9O8Dck8DHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> Lines: 65 User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID: <oB7Xb.489478$ts4.58988@pd7tw3no> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:13:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1076692436 24.71.223.147 (Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:13:56 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:13:56 MST Organization: Shaw Residential Internet Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:4346 Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP] wrote: > Hi Brian (br...@stanley-park.com), > in the newsgroups > you posted: > || Brian wrote: > ||| http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=17509 > || > || Well, it appears Microsoft has denied the leak. > huh?! > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/Feb04/02-12windowssource.asp Well, I have to admit that Microsoft now admits the leak after initially denying it. Who do I blame for that? > || I also know no responsible open source coder will come within a > || million miles of the alledged Microsoft source code. First of all, > || it is inferior to open source, second, if anything like it shows up > || in any open source project it will be easy to track back to the > || thief, and third, it would be wrong. > You already know it is inferior? Have you already read through the 40 > million lines of code? I know it is inferior because it is a security nightmare, unstable under load, slow and hardware specific. > || Lastly, I would like another independent group to analyze some of the > || "secret" protocols in order to enable better interoperability by open > || source projects. There would be no code stolen, just an analysis of > || all the technology Microsoft uses to lock out competition and lock > || in customers. > How do they do that with their code? AFAIK, I have no problem using > competing products with or on Microsoft Windows. Well, how about all the specific details of NTFS that will allow a Linux OS to read & WRITE without corrupting it's integrity. How about some specifics on all the protocols in Active Directory that will allow a Linux box running Samba to fully interoperate. Many open source projects are working to reverse engineer many of these undocumented protocols so as to offer users *CHOICE* and open source *OPTIONS* - something Microsoft HATES. You see, if a company has a choice of paying thousands of dollars for buggy insecure Windows and lousy service or getting solid tight open source for free; guess which way they go? I would also like to see how much open source code has found it's way into the Microsoft's proprietary codebase - perhaps we could make Windows open source by proving Microsoft has violated the GPL. 8^) Best regards Brian, The Other Other Brian, Linux Mystic open sorcerer
Reply-To: "Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]" <publ...@mvps.org> From: "Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]" <publ...@mvps.org> References: <hq1h0c.6t5.ln@multinode.dhs.org> <qQ_Wb.473552$JQ1.314923@pd7tw1no> <O9O8Dck8DHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> <oB7Xb.489478$ts4.58988@pd7tw3no> Subject: Re: MS Windows Source Code Leak Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:38:29 -0600 Lines: 58 Organization: Microsoft MVP X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1209 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: <u4Insgl8DHA.2412@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-64-109-31-106.dsl.mdsnwi.ameritech.net 64.109.31.106 Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu! msrtrans!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:4347 Hi Brian (br...@stanley-park.com), in the newsgroups you posted: || Well, I have to admit that Microsoft now admits the leak after || initially denying it. I can't find a single source using Goonix search engine that shows an MS representative denying this claim. Can you provide a link? || Who do I blame for that? Probably the source. I can't seem to find an MS source denying this. I do know that MS came out with a unconfirmed statement until they futher investigated the claims, which they have done. || I know it is inferior because it is a security nightmare, unstable || under load, slow and hardware specific. So you have not read it. Ok, thanks :-) || Well, how about all the specific details of NTFS that will allow a || Linux OS to read & WRITE without corrupting it's integrity. How || about some specifics on all the protocols in Active Directory that || will allow a Linux box running Samba to fully interoperate. Why would you care? Your goal is for a *nix society, not a monopolistic Windows OS. If Windows were open source or not, you still wouldn't want it on any of your systems because it is a Microsoft product. || Many open source projects are working to reverse engineer many of || these undocumented protocols so as to offer users *CHOICE* and open || source *OPTIONS* - something Microsoft HATES. Best of luck to them. || You see, if a company has a choice of paying thousands of dollars || for buggy insecure Windows and lousy service or getting solid tight || open source for free; guess which way they go? Apparently Microsoft still. || I would also like to see how much open source code has found it's || way into the Microsoft's proprietary codebase - perhaps we could || make Windows open source by proving Microsoft has violated the GPL. But I thought it was OPEN source :-) -- Brian Kvalheim Microsoft Office Publisher MVP Official Publisher MVP Site: http://www.kvalheim.org This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu! elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED! 53ab2750!not-for-mail X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.85.86.48 From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> Subject: Re: MS Windows Source Code Leak Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com References: <hq1h0c.6t5.ln@multinode.dhs.org> <qQ_Wb.473552$JQ1.314923@pd7tw1no> <O9O8Dck8DHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> <oB7Xb.489478$ts4.58988@pd7tw3no> <u4Insgl8DHA.2412@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> Lines: 118 User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID: <Q19Xb.488586$X%5.414161@pd7tw2no> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:52:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1076698352 24.71.223.147 (Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:52:32 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:52:32 MST Organization: Shaw Residential Internet Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:4349 Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP] wrote: > Hi Brian (br...@stanley-park.com), > in the newsgroups > you posted: > || Well, I have to admit that Microsoft now admits the leak after > || initially denying it. > I can't find a single source using Goonix search engine that shows an MS > representative denying this claim. Can you provide a link? > || Who do I blame for that? I believe it was eweek.com that first reported Microsoft's denial - but they have since changed the text of the story acknowledging Microsoft's admitting to the leak. > Probably the source. I can't seem to find an MS source denying this. I do > know that MS came out with a unconfirmed statement until they further > investigated the claims, which they have done. > || I know it is inferior because it is a security nightmare, unstable > || under load, slow and hardware specific. > So you have not read it. Ok, thanks :-) I haven't done any serious coding in 10 years however reading Microsoft's sacred scripts would be the kiss of death for an open source developer. > || Well, how about all the specific details of NTFS that will allow a > || Linux OS to read & WRITE without corrupting it's integrity. How > || about some specifics on all the protocols in Active Directory that > || will allow a Linux box running Samba to fully interoperate. > Why would you care? Your goal is for a *nix society, not a monopolistic > Windows OS. If Windows were open source or not, you still wouldn't want it > on any of your systems because it is a Microsoft product. No, I wouldn't want Windows on any systems I administer. I do acknowledge that a heterogeneous IT society is the most secure and serves the best interests of the corporate and consuming public. It is Microsoft that is resisting such an evolution, not open source. > || Many open source projects are working to reverse engineer many of > || these undocumented protocols so as to offer users *CHOICE* and open > || source *OPTIONS* - something Microsoft HATES. > Best of luck to them. They do very well,. The Samba project can now replace an NT Domain Controller and is actually easier to administer. They are working on Active Directory and are enjoying some success. > || You see, if a company has a choice of paying thousands of dollars > || for buggy insecure Windows and lousy service or getting solid tight > || open source for free; guess which way they go? > Apparently Microsoft still. Not really. Microsoft still has momentum on it's side but it's mindshare is actually shrinking. Microsoft is now reacting to open source, something we have never seen before. The creation of XP Lite is ingenious but a fatal move on the part of Microsoft. It is interesting to note that such a project was considered impossible by Microsoft during the DOJ trial. Guess they were just lying, again. > || I would also like to see how much open source code has found it's > || way into the Microsoft's proprietary codebase - perhaps we could > || make Windows open source by proving Microsoft has violated the GPL. > But I thought it was OPEN source :-) Sure it is. You can download, compile, change, add to, subtract from and do just about anything you want with open source technology. However, once you distribute open source code, even if it is hidden deep within another software project, you must license the new product as open source as well. If you don't obey the conditions of the GPL, you either have to remove the open source code OR you must cease distribution. Microsoft knows this and that is why they hate the GPL - there is no way they can beat it! Microsoft's past attempts to disrupt Linux in the market place, like when they invested in Corel and then Corel decided to cease development of their Linux distro, have all met with failure (including the recently funded attack on Linux by SCO). Microsoft is a corrupt organization and it's captains are disconnected from reality - do you remember how Chairman Bill stated Microsoft had developed a superior patch system that was faster than Linux? Are you aware of what a farce that is? How about Microsoft's "Trusted Computing"? Even trivial things like Steve "Dancing Monkey Boy" Balmer making those comments about the number of security issues in RedHat 6.1 compared to Windows 2003 Server!(Boy, did that ever come back to bite him in the ass!) In the first place, RedHat 6.1 came with over 1000 bundled applications whereas Server 2003 came with, well, not much. When RedHat reports a security issues with one of it's 1000 applications, it can be some obscure local exploit that will crash the user leaving the system up and functioning whereas when Microsoft reports an exploit (after say 6 months) that allows remote users to hack into a system and completely own it - they are kind of different. Even now, Microsoft would rather spend money lying to the general public than rewrite it's codebase to make it more secure. Perhaps it's time to change leadership within Microsoft for a more enlightened more progressive set of captains. The present executive is leading Microsoft right into the abyss. Best regards, Brian Linux Mystic open sorcerer
Reply-To: "Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]" <publ...@mvps.org> From: "Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP]" <publ...@mvps.org> References: <hq1h0c.6t5.ln@multinode.dhs.org> <qQ_Wb.473552$JQ1.314923@pd7tw1no> <O9O8Dck8DHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> <oB7Xb.489478$ts4.58988@pd7tw3no> <u4Insgl8DHA.2412@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> <Q19Xb.488586$X%5.414161@pd7tw2no> Subject: Re: MS Windows Source Code Leak Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:01:35 -0600 Lines: 26 Organization: Microsoft MVP X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1209 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: <#plCqwm8DHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-64-109-31-106.dsl.mdsnwi.ameritech.net 64.109.31.106 Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com! news.maxwell.syr.edu!c03.atl99!sjc70.webusenet.com! news.usenetserver.com!cyclone.bc.net!msrtrans!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl! TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:4350 Hi Brian (br...@stanley-park.com), in the newsgroups you posted: ||| Apparently Microsoft still. || || Not really. Microsoft still has momentum on it's side but it's || mindshare is actually shrinking. Microsoft is now reacting to open || source, something we have never seen before. The creation of XP Lite || is ingenious but a fatal move on the part of Microsoft. It is || interesting to note that such a project was considered impossible by || Microsoft during the DOJ trial. BTW, I just ordered my new Dell Inspirion 8600 which has Windows XP Professional :-). -- Brian Kvalheim Microsoft Office Publisher MVP Official Publisher MVP Site: http://www.kvalheim.org This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net! news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net! newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1! newsfeed.earthlink.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750! not-for-mail X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.85.86.48 From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> Subject: Re: MS Windows Source Code Leak Newsgroups: microsoft.public.msn.discussion Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com References: <hq1h0c.6t5.ln@multinode.dhs.org> <qQ_Wb.473552$JQ1.314923@pd7tw1no> <O9O8Dck8DHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> <oB7Xb.489478$ts4.58988@pd7tw3no> <u4Insgl8DHA.2412@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> <Q19Xb.488586$X%5.414161@pd7tw2no> <#plCqwm8DHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl> Lines: 27 User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID: <AbdXb.491304$X%5.51773@pd7tw2no> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:36:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1076715360 24.71.223.147 (Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:36:00 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:36:00 MST Organization: Shaw Residential Internet Xref: archiver1.google.com microsoft.public.msn.discussion:4352 Brian Kvalheim - [MS MVP] wrote: > BTW, I just ordered my new Dell Inspirion 8600 which has Windows XP > Professional :-). Excellent - well done. I end up building all my machines for myself. The last machine I built for me was an AMD 2500+ Barton core CPU, with 1.5 gigs DDR memory, NVidia 5200 GPU video card - 128megs, 80 gigs ATA133 HD, DVD/CD player/burner, TV tuner card, SB Live, 300 Watt power supply... blah blah blah. Cost me less than $600. I prefer AMD CPUs which Dell won't do. I will not buy any hardware from Dell because you can't get their better machines without Windows installed - stupid! Why should I pay for an operating system that I will not use? Dell has made a big deal of being a Linux supporter but they are not - Dell is just another Microsoft whore. Best regards, Brian Linux Mystic open sorcerer