Because many outsiders will for the first time be able to see what idiots the Microsofties are. Open source and Linux code need not be stellar, but nothing beats Redmond for pure out of the box stupidity.
Lets not forget who first wrote SCO Unix. Microsoft.
This is totally untrue. What happened was that Microsoft bought a compiler from Lattice which they retrofitted for Unix, and a source code licence from AT&T, but Microsoft did NOT, I repeat did NOT, work on that source code themselves.
That source code was given to Santa Cruz, who 'developed' Xenix from that.
And I am sorry, but the very thought that the dim-witted Microsofties would have 'written' their own Unix? Sorry, but that is just too laughable.
Is this a new public service announcement paid for by Microsoft?
Open source is not less secure; security comes not from the code, but from the security model. I thought everyone abandoned the folly idea that there is 'security through obscurity' by now.
The real risks come from using code that has not been thoroughly reviewed and contains holes which can be exploited.
And if anyone can lure with what seems to be an authentic build of an official module that in fact is deliberately corrupted - what do you think programmers have been up to for the past forty years?
I don't think many people realise how easy it is to lure a bank, take out source code, recompile it with whatever additions you want, and insert it back into production. That's how the half-cent scheme took place. The trick here is to not make a move for the big money until it's really big money - and most programmers don't care enough about money, so things generally work out.
Moving from cathedral to bazaar isn't easy. This stuff has been closed all along, and although people have been able to sense what moronic code the Beast has produced, it will be first now that they'll see with their own eyes.
Linux has had the advantage of being checked, line for line, from the beginning. NT was an estimate 16 million lines of code; 2K three times that much. That's a lot of code.
I think what people will see, most for the first time, is exactly how bad the coding is in Redmond. This will cause some laughter, and some shock. I think they'll find that parts of the NT kernel were strangely well-written, coming as they did from David Cutler's 'tribe' and the DEC Prism project on which NT was based. On the other hand, I think they will find that other parts, such as the GDI, were horribly written.
And it's all good, IMHO: eEye and Guninski and others have been able to give us a bit of a picture of how bad things are there, but we'll finally be able to see with our own eyes.
I don't speak of the ethics here, but you've got to figure that whoever leaked it is one good soul. It will improve things on the net and in IT in general. It's almost like forcing MS to accept open source.
As an example, there was a mini-soap opera coffee ad series a few years back that people actually enjoyed because they wanted to see how the plot turned out.
You little boys and girls shouldn't be up that anyway. You have to go to bed early so you can be up at dawn for a new dayy of work work work and learn learn learn.
Earmuffs? Eye shades? Try curfews, or cutting the Internet and power connections at, say, 8 PM.
A friend worked on support with a large ISP in the UK. She spent six hours one day explaining to a little old lady how the Internet worked and how she would get on it. Needless to say, she was exhausted, both mentally and physically, at the end of that day's work.
The next morning she was called into her boss's office and given a brow-beating. The little old lady had called back, extremely angry, as my friend had not once explained to her that to get on the Internet, she would need something called a 'computer'.
You`ve hit the common misperception with this plan
No, I submit you have. It's not so much about the increase in cost, but about the misallocation of funds in the absolute sense - away from fundamental necessities such as medical care and better social securities.
It's no wonder the United Nations World Health Organisation ranks the US one of the three most impoverished nations in the western world in this respect.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh? It does?
any patch for MS products that do not come from MS "can't be trusted"
Interesting! For most sysadmins I know say it's the other way around!
Because many outsiders will for the first time be able to see what idiots the Microsofties are. Open source and Linux code need not be stellar, but nothing beats Redmond for pure out of the box stupidity.
No, it's the same codebase.
Yes and no - especially between these two.
I think you're forgetting the settlement between MS and DEC over Prism.
The software that builds and compiles Windows is very complex I doubt anyone could turn the source into a working system easily.
Bullshit. Just total bullshit.
I would expect the Windows code to be a BLOODY MESS
You expect intelligently, monsieur.
Lets not forget who first wrote SCO Unix. Microsoft.
This is totally untrue. What happened was that Microsoft bought a compiler from Lattice which they retrofitted for Unix, and a source code licence from AT&T, but Microsoft did NOT, I repeat did NOT, work on that source code themselves.
That source code was given to Santa Cruz, who 'developed' Xenix from that.
And I am sorry, but the very thought that the dim-witted Microsofties would have 'written' their own Unix? Sorry, but that is just too laughable.
IANAL, but from what I've read on slashdot, there's apparently at least a vague possibility the resulting code might be legal.
This is in essence what Compaq did (the PC BIOS), but whether the controls would be good enough is of course another matter entirely.
Is this a new public service announcement paid for by Microsoft?
Open source is not less secure; security comes not from the code, but from the security model. I thought everyone abandoned the folly idea that there is 'security through obscurity' by now.
The real risks come from using code that has not been thoroughly reviewed and contains holes which can be exploited.
And if anyone can lure with what seems to be an authentic build of an official module that in fact is deliberately corrupted - what do you think programmers have been up to for the past forty years?
I don't think many people realise how easy it is to lure a bank, take out source code, recompile it with whatever additions you want, and insert it back into production. That's how the half-cent scheme took place. The trick here is to not make a move for the big money until it's really big money - and most programmers don't care enough about money, so things generally work out.
Moving from cathedral to bazaar isn't easy. This stuff has been closed all along, and although people have been able to sense what moronic code the Beast has produced, it will be first now that they'll see with their own eyes.
Linux has had the advantage of being checked, line for line, from the beginning. NT was an estimate 16 million lines of code; 2K three times that much. That's a lot of code.
I think what people will see, most for the first time, is exactly how bad the coding is in Redmond. This will cause some laughter, and some shock. I think they'll find that parts of the NT kernel were strangely well-written, coming as they did from David Cutler's 'tribe' and the DEC Prism project on which NT was based. On the other hand, I think they will find that other parts, such as the GDI, were horribly written.
And it's all good, IMHO: eEye and Guninski and others have been able to give us a bit of a picture of how bad things are there, but we'll finally be able to see with our own eyes.
It won't be a pleasurable experience.
I don't speak of the ethics here, but you've got to figure that whoever leaked it is one good soul. It will improve things on the net and in IT in general. It's almost like forcing MS to accept open source.
At time of posting, Neowin is inaccessible.
The server is too busy at the moment. Please try again later.
That Microsoft ruin the neighbourhood...
Hello? Is there someone falling asleep in class?
/. and get back to work - empty those waste paper baskets and make it snappy!
Do any of you really think Mr Gates would let the browser market go if it meant a half cent to him?
Do any of you really think it was about quality - ever?
Have any of you even STARTED to read the TP Jackson papers - the Finding of Facts?
Do any of you have even a shadow of a CLUE what is going on?
Oh - someone's sister knows about Firebird. Really cool.
Or oh - Firebird just captured 95% of the browser market.
Do you REALLY think this would or could happen if the Bastard in the Pacific Northwest didn't regard it as insignificant?
OK - who are the Mozilla Foundation today? What is their budget? How many employees do they have?
Now - how big was Mosaic when it was biggest?
Starting to see my point?
And my suggestion is:
1. Wait until something really happens.
2. Stop reading talking head articles.
3. Stop hanging out at
We can also allow a certain sense of humor
Uh, careful there. Let's not overdo it. Frivolity can be treacherous.
The real problem with the Internet is that there are too many articles about the problem with the Internet.
Not to worry: most of them are not in the gene pool.
Here's a Google link with lots of info on the Nescafe Gold ad campaigns.
As an example, there was a mini-soap opera coffee ad series a few years back that people actually enjoyed because they wanted to see how the plot turned out.
Yes, the British Nescafe Gold ad series.
It's called an 'anchor tag'. It's part of something known as the 'HyperText Markup Language'.
Eric Raymond took this up YEARS ago. Just stick to standards. If you can't do it with the standards, don't do it.
You little boys and girls shouldn't be up that anyway. You have to go to bed early so you can be up at dawn for a new dayy of work work work and learn learn learn.
Earmuffs? Eye shades? Try curfews, or cutting the Internet and power connections at, say, 8 PM.
A friend worked on support with a large ISP in the UK. She spent six hours one day explaining to a little old lady how the Internet worked and how she would get on it. Needless to say, she was exhausted, both mentally and physically, at the end of that day's work.
The next morning she was called into her boss's office and given a brow-beating. The little old lady had called back, extremely angry, as my friend had not once explained to her that to get on the Internet, she would need something called a 'computer'.
It has nothing to do with tradmarks. It's got to do with patnts.
You`ve hit the common misperception with this plan
No, I submit you have. It's not so much about the increase in cost, but about the misallocation of funds in the absolute sense - away from fundamental necessities such as medical care and better social securities.
It's no wonder the United Nations World Health Organisation ranks the US one of the three most impoverished nations in the western world in this respect.