Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool
Jan writes "Microsoft has
open sourced the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool by releasing it under the GPLv2 license. The code is now available on CodePlex, Microsoft's Open Source software project hosting repository, over at wudt.codeplex.com. The actual installer for the tool is now again available for download at the Microsoft Store (2.59MB). (Microsoft previously took responsiblity for the violation.)"
It's good that Microsoft took responsibility for this, kudos to them.
FTFA:
In November 2009, Microsoft pulled the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool from the Microsoft Store website after a report indicated that it incorporated open source code in a way that violated the GPL. A week later, Microsoft confirmed that the tool violates the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license. The problem wasn't just that Microsoft used open source code in the tool, but that it also released the tool under a closed source license, so Redmond decided to rerelease the tool under the GPL. Another week later, Microsoft pushed back its schedule a bit, blaming testing and localization for the delay.
This is PROOF that Microsoft KNOWS they are producing bad code. They put something out there, and then when they had to open source the code, they were all like "Well now everyone will see how bad our coding is, better take a week to fix it up before releasing it to the public!"
I took a quick look at the article and I have no idea what this tool is supposed to do. I couldn't even venture a guess. So some tool that I know nothing about and have no idea what it does now has the source code available for it. I think the term "underwhelmed" would apply. What exactly is a USB/DVD download tool?
Is it me or does the icon for this story (cartoon character standing) look phallic with a hand around it's side? I'm not normally looking for phallic symbols, but that's what I originally thought the icon was... someone jerkin off. I figured it was related to the story being M$.
It's a tool to download Windows 7 into a USB drive, hence it's a tool FOR Windows 7. Shortening it to "Windows 7 Tool" is just common English usage -- that's just like saying a drive for reading CD-ROMs is a CD-ROM drive. Get over it.
Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
For a company that believes so strongly in the inviolability of Software licensing, it's nice to see them practice what they preach when it comes to the rights of others. Fair play to Microsoft for meeting it's requirements, and score one for the GPL and Open Source.
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
First the SEGA logo brazenly appeared on a Nintendo console
Now it's Microsoft publishing GPL licenced-code. TWICE (the other being their contribution to the kernel)
Pigs expected to fly next week.
I love the conspiracy theories posted here. This truly is more entertaining, and dramatic, then anything on prime time television.
Ciao
The bigger news is not that Microsoft open sourced the tool after their GPL violation (that was inevitable). The news here is that Microsoft kept the open source tool instead of replacing it with one of their own. Microsoft has open sourced portions of their code before, that really isn't newsworthy. Keeping an open source tool that will be used to deploy their crown jewel operating system by millions of people - that's newsworthy.
It's been, what, a month since they were informed of the lapse, and less than that since they acknowledged the error?
Show a reasonable amount of patience.
I can't help but notice the "finally" in the title.
Really slashdot, can't you post any MS related story without personal bias?
1) What programs do people here like for applying .ISO images to USB drives in Windows? Is this one "locked" to Windows 7 ISOs or can I use it to, say, put Puppy Linux onto a USB drive? I tried to install this one to find out but it's telling me "This application requires the Image Mastering API v2" and I don't want to put too much effort into this if it isn't for general use.
2) Anyone know how to do the same thing in OS X? I tried using Disc Utility but it will only let me a) burn ISOs to CDs or b) apply Apple .DMGs to drives. I tried mounting the ISO and using that as a source to create a DMG and that worked, but then when I went to apply that DMG to a disk it gave up at the last minute. (Sorry, that machine is at home, I don't know the exact error message. It basically said "Sorry, can't" after I clicked 'restore'.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
For a company that believes so strongly in the inviolability of Software licensing, it's nice to see them practice what they preach when it comes to the rights of others. Fair play to Microsoft for meeting it's requirements, and score one for the GPL and Open Source.
Yes, it is good that Microsoft did the Right Thing here and opened the code under the GNU GPL. But color me pessimistic. I'm somewhat concerned that in a few months, we'll hear lots of hay being made from this - and it won't be good for F/OSS.
Microsoft is trying to kill Linux and pretty much all "Free / Open Source" software. One wedge they have continued to use is "the viral nature of the GNU GPL is evil", spreading misinformation like "if you use GNU GPL tools to build your software, you will need to publish the source code of your software under the GNU GPL."
So it's not a big stretch to think that in a few months, we'll hear Microsoft (probably Ballmer himself) say "Look, see how Linux & the GNU GPL is viral & evil, even we [Microsoft] had to publish the source code to an important tool." They'll surely omit details like "we copied GNU GPL code into ours, we were dumb" or "we weren't paying attention to what our subcontractors were doing". The spin will be "Linux and GNU are bad."
I'd love to be proven wrong.
Other reasons to stop calling it the "Windows 7 Tool" include the similarity between:
"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool" and
"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Too!"
I spent the first 30 seconds in shocked disbelief as I tried to remember anything else they've open sourced.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Microsoft's been doing this a lot lately (a lot being relative to their past conduct).
It's good that they're doing good and paying down their negative karma, but sometimes I wonder if people are deliberately infecting their sources with GPL'ed code just to make them cough it up once it gets published. A windows 7 tool getting fingered for a GPL violation so quickly makes me think that the exposure had a bit of inside help.
Time will tell.
Kudos to Microsoft though if their efforts are sincere.
Microsoft released a GPL'd program and many hours later, they still exist, and all of civilazation has not crumbled! If you were to believe the BSD-tards and closed source advocates, this release of code should have caused the next great extinction event.
I can't be assed to read through all the comments here. Has anybody made the i-thought-the-headline-read-ms-open-sources-windows-7-joke yet? If not, please insert it [here] and laugh. thx
GPL: For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their righ
I downloaded code (which is in .exe format) and i can't open it. Wine says:
atis@atis-desktop-work-duo:~/Desktop$ wine ./Windows7-USB-DVD-Download-Tool-Installer-en-US.exe
fixme:advapi:DecryptFileA "C:\\windows\\temp\\IXP000.TMP\\" 00000000
Access denied
I've been waiting a LONG time for this, and FINALLY !! it has arrived !! I am greatful and thankful to Microsoft and its team of crack developers, programmers, and coffee girls for FINALLY giving this to us o-so-deserving humans.
Hip! Hip! Horray !!
Hip! Hip! Horray !!
Yippie !!
"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Too!" And I wondered whether anyone would care if they did.
...yet the sky is not falling?
Microsoft did the right thing, they shouldn't be bashed for it. Consider the following:
You're standing in line thinking that the guy next to you, Steve, is a pretty normal guy; perhaps you don't like him a lot, but he seems to keep to himself. Suddenly Steve turns to you and junk-kicks you right up in your man business. When you come to several minutes later, Steve apologizes profusely. Apparently there was a mix-up which unfortunately resulted in your swollen nuts. Wanting to make things right, Steve allows you to junk-kick him in his man business.
I think it is safe to say Microsoft is doing the right thing allowing you to junk-kick their man business.
Totally Misleading!!
Firefox rss (live bookmarks) chops out the "tool" and so you just read "Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7"
(Off course no sane person would believe that.. but.. anyway)
...and FOSS being the sane choice for the most hostile company towards it doesn't qualify as success? Do I need to remind you of their past EEE and FUD strategies against it?
The strategy against Xandros on the ASUS Eee PC amounted to slashing the price for an OEM Windows XP Home license on the smallest laptops and keeping it around long into the Vista era. Or what am I missing?
There are two kinds of people who don't like copyright (as a general concept) (1) Those so prolifically and amazingly creative that they put very little value in any one thing they create, and (2) Those who are so incredibly lazy or uncreative that to get anything they have to rely on others to do it for them.
People in category (1) are incredibly rare. Lots of people THINK they're in (1), but most of them just produce a hell of a lot of useless crap, kindal like that Shampoo guy. I've never encountered anyone like this. A lot of writers create way more than they publish, but most of them will admit that the stuff they didn't publish wasn't very good, so they're really not in category (1).
People in caregory (2) are shamless wastes of carbon, leeching off everyone else because they're too stupid or lazy to do anything for themselves, and they don't want to work to earn money so they can PAY for the stuff other people create. They're the kinds of leaches that inevitably make socialism fail, sucking the system dry at the expense of everyone else who IS willing to work and contribute to society. This actually accounts for the vast majority of people who whine on and on about how copyright is EVIL. WRONG. Current US copyright LAW is evil. And people should be entitled to far more "fair use" than they have. But a proper and fair system of copyright enhances productivity for everone, because moderately creative people are encouraged to create more, because they can profit from it.
That leaves category (3), which is the rest of us people who are at least moderately creative. We have to work HARD to create something, and we're not happy when fools in category (2) decide to shamelessly rip us off. Say I create something. If I hadn't, then you wouldn't have it. You, worthless brat, are not entitled to it. If I hadn't worked on it, maybe someone else would have. Maybe not. Either way, we put time, money, and other resources into creating this thing, and I am as entitled to recouping and profiting from my investment as much as I am entitled to ask you to pay for a physical object I just built if you want to have it.
Money, BTW, isn't the only form of compensation that people want. When I compose a scientific conference paper, I am putting the knowledge into the public domain. But thereafter, if someone else uses my idea, they are required to cite my work. They cannot claim it as their own. The knowledge is in the public domain, but the mindshare is mine. I get credited for making my invention or discovery and doing all of the work and research necessary to prove that my idea is worthwhile.
What makes the GPL brilliant as a copyright license is that it allows people to both share information (which is very important), and also profit from it. If I put the GPL on something, I can release the source code so that others can learn from it, and if it's wrong, they can fix it. But if someone wants to just COPY what I worked so hard to create, then they have to follow the rules. If they embed it in another product, either they have to contribute knowledge to the world just as I did, or they can PAY me for a commercial license.
What's really evil about proprietary software, for instance, is not so much that they don't release the source code. It's that you pay money for something without any guarantee that what you're getting is any good, and if it IS broken, you are completely screwed. I've bought commercial software before. Some of it was really good and worth the money I spent. Some of it made me want to claw the eyes of of the scheisters who cheated me out of my money. In general, having the source code is the only way to permanently guarantee that you get your money's worth out of software you purchased.
Keep in mind that most people like Free Software not for the sake of freedom but because they don't want to pay for it. Again, LEECHES. They take and take but never give anything back to the community. Stop fooling yourselves into thinking most people use Linux
As opposed almost everyone fussing about "teh M$" and nuances of "freedom", I decided to take a look as see this professionalism.
The first, the first, line I read had a pre-processor no-no. Here:
#define ReleaseStr(pwz) if (pwz) { StrFree(pwz); }
You can read all about it here: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/misc-technical-issues.html#faq-39.4
Here's how it doesn't work:
if ( something )
ReleaseStr(pwz)
else
foobar;
So there. The code might look professional. It might but it doesn't mean that it is.
what is that very faint oinking sound I am hearing. OMG I see pigs fly in the distance!
dd
That's the most straightforward answer right there. It's already installed as part of OSX, and it only takes a few seconds to learn how to use it.
I find this the strangest part of the whole thing actually. They where forced to open source it because of the GPL lines in there but they could just as well made them available under a BSD license. That would make way more sense from Microsoft's perspective I say.
Dyslexics are teople poo
Most of the extensions to the .Net framework. Libraries, samples, and other tools within .Net. They've also pushed source viewing into Visual Studio for the entire .Net framework directly. Most notibly ASP.Net MVC is available under MS-PL (a very BSD-style license).
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
The motivation of Microsoft doesn't matter because their actions are all we are privy to. Let their behavior encourage the other GPL violators to "do the right thing" and also see that GPL-licensed software can co-exist with other-licensed software; one just need follow the terms of the licenses.
IANAP, but is there anything useful to the community in the GPL'ed code released by Microsoft? It seems like a useful utility and there are FOSS ways to make USB/thumb drives bootable.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
You lost bitch.
they released something open source with their name attached to it?
Wouldn't it be cool if Microsoft did the "Right Thing" so many times that people came to eventually forget their past offenses, that people came to trust them, and had good feelings about buying their software and supporting them. Wouldn't that be great ?
What ?
I can dream can't I ?
PS I think that it WOULD be cool. Sigh . . ., maybe someday.
Snafu cleared up and Microsoft didn't act evil about it, so nothing really to do here. Next article please.
On a related note, the author of ImageMaster took his code off Codeplex, and has not as of yet announced an alternative site for it. Has anyone seen Imagemaster, or know where the source can be obtained?
--- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
I see you like the play of devil's advocate.
This goes against the spirit of the GPL.
However, in legal perspective (IANAL), I don't think it will work out like that. You see, either you accept the license (GPL) and you get to redistribute the software under the GPL license.
Or you don't accept the GPL license, in such case, copyright would still be with the original copyright holders.
Now, any works under copyright doesn't have to have been sold yet. You can always discuss the price with the copyright holder for proprietary use.
Better do it before using the code though, as you may have more bargaining power then.
The fact that you didn't, even if you didn't know, copyright still stands. The copyright holder can make you have to pull all your violating binaries / code from any distribution, which could actually cost alot by itself if infringement is big.
Price will be at market price, or whatever agreement with the copyright holder. Not sure if there are any limits to demands here.
Just because the sourcecode can be distributed under the GPL license doesn't mean it no longer have any market value. It can be relicensed under any other free or non-free license by the actual copyright holder (not those who merely redistribute under GPL), with or without monetary or other compensation.
This vibes very much with what other posters have said, that the GPL itself give value back in form of collaboration. If you don't want to collaborate with the rest of the world though, you gotta pay something else. Many companies are already using this strategy to make money off of GPLed software, selling their rights to companies who wants to do proprietary work.
Always remember: GPL == free software, GPL != free beer
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I am greatful and thankful
Maybe you should be lessful, or maybe "your" just a "looser" who doesn't know how to spell.
"1. It is not a compact format
2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.
3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)
4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database
5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:
====
"1. It is not a compact format" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).
Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)
----
"2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.
The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.
Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!
----
"3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period.
----
"4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)
----
"5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: HENCE, what I noted in my reply to your POINT #4 above...
====
"too, Too, TOO EASY"...
APK
P.S.=> I only hope you have the good sense to contact your peers, specifically those in charge of the IP
"1. It is not a compact format
2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.
3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)
4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database
5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:
====
"1. It is not a compact format" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).
Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)
----
"2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.
The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.
Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!
----
"3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period.
----
"4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)
----
"5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: HENCE, what I noted in my reply to your POINT #4 above...
====
"too, Too, TOO EASY"...
APK
P.S.=> I only hope you have the good sense to contact your peers, specifically those in charge of the IP
"1. It is not a compact format
2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.
3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)
4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database
5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:
====
"1. It is not a compact format" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).
Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)
----
"2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.
The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.
Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!
----
"3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period & SPECIFICALLY, an ASCII text file (not the types you stated), per RFC 606, 608, & 627 (nor is it a database as you seem to be alluding to above, this is how it was designed not by Microsoft, but by the folks in the *NIX world, period, via the BSD reference design which Microsoft uses for their IP stack).
----
"4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)
----
"5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpres
"1. It is not a compact format
2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.
3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)
4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database
5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:
====
"1. It is not a compact format" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).
Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)
----
"2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.
The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.
Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!
----
"3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period & SPECIFICALLY, an ASCII text file (not the types you stated), per RFC 606, 608, & 627 (nor is it a database as you seem to be alluding to above, this is how it was designed not by Microsoft, but by the folks in the *NIX world, period, via the BSD reference design which Microsoft uses for their IP stack).
----
"4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)
----
"5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpres
"1. It is not a compact format
2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.
3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)
4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database
5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:
====
"1. It is not a compact format" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).
Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)
----
"2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.
The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.
Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!
----
"3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period & SPECIFICALLY, an ASCII text file (not the types you stated), per RFC 606, 608, & 627 (nor is it a database as you seem to be alluding to above, this is how it was designed not by Microsoft, but by the folks in the *NIX world, period, via the BSD reference design which Microsoft uses for their IP stack).
----
"4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)
----
"5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpres
"1. It is not a compact format
2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.
3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)
4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database
5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:
====
"1. It is not a compact format" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller & F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).
Funny - because Windows 2000 had it & still does (as do Windows XP & Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller & faster, & a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)
----
"2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.
The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.
Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file & "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!
----
"3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period & SPECIFICALLY, an ASCII text file (not the types you stated), per RFC 606, 608, & 627 (nor is it a database as you seem to be alluding to above, this is how it was designed not by Microsoft, but by the folks in the *NIX world, period, via the BSD reference design which Microsoft uses for their IP stack).
----
"4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/
APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)
----
"5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article" - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpres