|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
01:00 EST/06:00 GMT | News Source:
ActiveWin.com |
Posted By: Todd Richardson |
ActiveWin.com has confirmed yesterday’s article at NeoWin.net regarding the source codes of Windows 2000 and Windows NT being released onto the web. The files are large, weighing in at 204 MB for the compressed Windows 2000 code and 240 for the compressed Windows NT source code. Uncompressed, the Windows 2000 file takes up about 630 MB. The Washington Post estimates the total code for Windows 2000 comprises roughly 40 gigabytes. For a company that has been so protective of its code, though, any leak is devastating.
It is hard to say just what effect this will have on the IT industry. Some extremists have gone as far as predict the fall of Windows dominance. They say that crackers will be able to design viruses that will do much more harm, since they would be able to better manipulate the OS and that they would be able to create many new viruses since they can find vulnerabilities more easily. This could create havoc for businesses, since Windows 2000 is still widely used in such an environment. Consumers, however, would have less to fear as Windows 2000 is not meant for general use and most home users are on the newer Windows XP. Windows XP, however, is built on top of Windows 2000. It is unknown if Windows 2000 code that leaked was also used in Windows XP.
We’ll bring you more news as we get it.
|
|
#1 By
3339 (64.160.58.135)
at
2/12/2004 5:08:13 PM
|
"DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!! DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!"
Ummm, parker, the source code for Windows 2000 and NT 4 are in the wild... Your pathetic little diversion about a minor OS project isn't really going to distract anyone from this monumental event.
|
#2 By
1658 (24.15.133.255)
at
2/12/2004 5:25:58 PM
|
And your pathetic little assumption that this totally unverified news story is 100% true, and that is to be considered a monumental event is just as superficial as anything anyone else may have posted.
The day I see something constructive come from one of your posts, or TechLarry's posts for that matter, I think I'll fart camels.
I work for the company and I can tell you that thus far, no one on the campus that my team has talked to has any idea where the hell this story came from. That's not saying that it isn't true, however, let's just hold our wads and commentary shall we until we get some hard evidence?
Don't bother flaming back, I won't read it and certainly won't respond.
|
#3 By
3339 (64.160.58.135)
at
2/12/2004 5:31:39 PM
|
Oooo, poor aamendala! I can tell you I'm looking at the code right now. Look's real. Run around the campus if you want. Fart camels if you want. Hold your wad if you want.
This is MONUMENTAL!
(You can read that too if you want.)
This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 17:33.
|
#4 By
11888 (64.230.11.31)
at
2/12/2004 5:40:07 PM
|
lol, how did TechLarry get dragged into this?
|
#5 By
3339 (64.160.58.135)
at
2/12/2004 5:52:39 PM
|
I don't think I'm in trouble.
I think Microsoft is in trouble.
|
#6 By
11888 (64.230.11.31)
at
2/12/2004 6:20:25 PM
|
It was probably TechLarry who put it in there! DAMN HIM!
|
#7 By
531 (66.190.60.156)
at
2/12/2004 6:29:20 PM
|
There's also:
tcp-ip tutorial.eml
mobileq-apache.eml
letter to children - 2.eml
and
apache_install.eml
um... I kinda doubt this.
|
#8 By
665 (64.126.80.41)
at
2/12/2004 6:49:56 PM
|
jpursell, I don't think MS Piracy team is going to go after each user who obtains the code, so you shouldn't get all high and mighty... it makes you look a little silly. They will go after the person or persons who released the code.
|
#9 By
1868 (141.133.156.217)
at
2/12/2004 7:19:33 PM
|
Black Friday for the IT industry...OMG
|
#10 By
3339 (64.160.58.135)
at
2/12/2004 7:27:38 PM
|
Yes, I do. Go ahead and report me, jpursell.
Zeo, it's Thursday.
This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 19:30.
|
#11 By
3339 (64.160.58.135)
at
2/12/2004 7:47:12 PM
|
No, I'm not.
|
#12 By
12071 (203.185.215.149)
at
2/12/2004 8:00:51 PM
|
#2 Do you do ANYTHING other than close your eyes and start running around and yelling that everyone should be looking somewhere else instead?
#12 " I will be happy to report you."
Get a life. Nothing happened in regards to all the users that have the leaked MS DOS v6.22 source code.
Anyways, let's first see if this is indeed true or not, there's a whole list of directories and files which look a little odd, but it is possible that they are left overs from the early NT days. Only the developers know if those files are real or not. aamendala - since you work (and admit it) for MS, maybe you can shed some light on this. Does this look real? Do the filenames at least look valid?
|
#13 By
3653 (209.149.57.116)
at
2/12/2004 8:01:58 PM
|
This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use.
|
#14 By
3339 (64.160.58.135)
at
2/12/2004 8:19:52 PM
|
That's DAMN clever, mooresa!
DAMN clever!
(On a side note, I'd love to meet a b!tch as foul-mouthed as me!)
This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 20:23.
|
#15 By
3339 (64.160.58.135)
at
2/12/2004 8:37:31 PM
|
This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use.
|
#16 By
531 (66.190.60.156)
at
2/12/2004 9:40:41 PM
|
From what I know, only a very few people have access to the source without those special tools you mentioned. Certainly, everyone in the Shared Source program is going in through a secured viewer.
As far as C# goes, there wouldn't be any in WinNT/Win2k.
|
#17 By
2459 (24.175.137.164)
at
2/12/2004 9:51:25 PM
|
C# wouldn't be included with NT/2k sources. Longhorn is the first OS to use managed code extensively. NT/2k and previous are C/C++.
Speaking of source access, I remember an MS employee saying you needed a smartcard for VPN access. You definitely need one for building (and I believe Workstation) access. With the build system MS uses, I don't think one person (except maybe some select execs) can access the full source. This could be authentic, but I wonder how it was obtained. In any case, according to eWeek, it isn't the full source.
|
#19 By
531 (66.190.60.156)
at
2/13/2004 2:05:15 AM
|
It's a no-win situation for Microsoft, tripix. If the Linux community finds it, they will have been right all along. If they don't they'll say that it's in the part of the code that wasn't leaked. That's how these conspiracy theory wackos work.
|
#20 By
5912 (82.74.70.225)
at
2/13/2004 4:42:44 AM
|
#25
It would more likely be ordinary C++
|
#21 By
2459 (24.175.137.164)
at
2/13/2004 1:36:17 PM
|
Server 2k3 and XP are C/C++
C# is dependent upon the .NET Framework which was only included with Server 2k3. Even though the Framework was included, the majority of OS code is still C/C++. Longhorn marks the shift to managed code for the OS.
|
|
|
|
|