| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
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 |
 |
Opinion: Microsoft open-source NT: Linux's nemesis? | |
|
||
| Time: 08:35 EST/13:35 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Munir Kotadia: Microsoft has killed off Windows NT, but it should now release its source code to the open-source community in order to fight off the challenge from Linux On 30 June, 2003, Microsoft withdrew support for Windows New Technology (NT). Windows NT users no longer have the right to download updates to Internet Explorer and will not get a patch when new security vulnerabilities are discovered in this version of Microsoft's operating system. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 173 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:50:48 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 7/3/2003 9:02:28 AM |
| Although that would be nice and might actually put a nail in Linux' coffin, it's not likely. NT, although technically dead, still lives on in its progeny (2000 and XP), to give such insight and access to the code this soon, openly, would be a mistake. Perhaps after Longhorn and the new file system... |
| #2 By 5912 (62.192.124.170) at 7/3/2003 9:14:22 AM |
| It's not likely that MS will be willing to do this. An 'open source NT' would damage the new Window-brands more than it would hurt Linux. It would be very easy for (smaler) companies that are currently using NT NOT to migrate to 2000 or 2003 and choose an improved and more secure 'OS-NT' instead. |
| #3 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 7/3/2003 10:05:13 AM |
|
stubear: I'm glad you are smart enough that you don't have to resort to name calling.
-- To comment on the story, I believe this writer doesn't understand that the core of Win2K and up are based on NT technology. Opening the source to NT would therefore also impact any OS's based upon its kernel and technology. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, July 03, 2003 at 10:09. |
| #4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/3/2003 11:03:52 AM |
|
I see this kind of thing happening in another 5-10 years or so. I see companies like Microsoft opening up the 3.1 and/or 95/98/ME code base, perhaps.
Definately not NT, though. There is still too much NT code in 2000/XP/2003 for them to do that. One other point: WTF is up with this silly notion that "Linux is nibbling away at Windows' user base". That is such a false notion. Linux sales are stagnant if not declining and various user surveys or censuses do not show Linux going anywhere (stagnant at like 0.2% of the computer-using population). This is just more "If I write enough falsehoods, they will eventually become true" journalism. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/3/2003 11:11:14 AM |
|
The author also doesn't understand that NT doesn't stand for New Technology:
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=37757 |
| #6 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 7/3/2003 11:19:37 AM |
| bluvg doesn't understand that although the original meaning of NT might not have been New Technology it is now the accepted acronym. |
| #7 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 7/3/2003 11:21:10 AM |
|
Hmm... perhaps the Linux community would (again) not be able to resist the temptation to steal other people's source code and then Microsoft could file suit, just like SCO.
:-) |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/3/2003 11:23:47 AM |
| And purely as a piece of journalism, it is a bit disturbing that all the links to support the article come from zdnet.com themselves--"Of course it's true--look at this link... where I said so." |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/3/2003 11:29:35 AM |
| tgnb, just because it's "accepted" doesn't mean it's correct. Just because people use the word "ain't" doesn't make it accepted speech. |
| #10 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 7/3/2003 11:31:42 AM |
|
RMD: Are you trying to say that the "Linux Community" couldn't resist and stole SCO code? Please provide us with some proof that this is actually what happened. If you have no proof then I would suggest you retract your statement. IMO comments like that make you an MS zealot. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, July 03, 2003 at 11:34. |
| #11 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 7/3/2003 11:33:29 AM |
| bluevg you are correct in that being "accepted" doesn't make it correct. However as it is commonly accepted you are nitpicking on a part of the story that doesn't need to be nitpicked on. There are plenty of bigger issues with that story. |
| #12 By 16302 (64.201.211.161) at 7/3/2003 11:35:36 AM |
|
The author has absolutely no understanding of the source code behind all of Microsoft's operating systems, and also shows a lack of understanding of business and market behaviours.
It is a sad day when editorial control is lost completely.... I really wish that editors of technical journals (and associated websites) were held accountable to journalistic standards. I am getting tired of reading articles written by what appears to be unexperienced individuals with no credentials or even a basic understanding of what they are writing about. ActiveWin - wake up! Please excersise more judgement on what is newsworthy on your site. Without this judgment, you will start to lose your higher-value readers. |
| #13 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 7/3/2003 11:50:34 AM |
|
RE: #3 By CooCooCaChoo (50 Posts) at 7/3/2003 9:15:04 AM
SP4 isn't that rock solid. I upgraded a machine here that had to have sfc /purge cache run on it to get the event viewer running properly again. It worked before SP4, didn't after until sfc. |
| #14 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/3/2003 11:59:03 AM |
|
ShanTheMan - I suspect if people had any technical savvy they could make more of a living by deploying technology than writing about it in a journal. As such, most of your tech journalists are rejects from the industry.
Which explains why they've been so easily bamboozled by the Linux crowd. Open Source - Companies tend to only consider open sourcing their software when it no longer has any value. NT4 still has value carried forward through 2000 and XP, so this is unlikely. You might see them open sourcing DOS one of these days, though. |
| #15 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/3/2003 12:02:31 PM |
| tgnb, true... there are definitely greater issues with the article. |
| #16 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/3/2003 12:29:28 PM |
| bluesky, that's money they would be saving by not giving it to Microsoft, most likely. And it's probably a good reason why Microsoft is very unlikely to do it. |
| #17 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/3/2003 2:30:03 PM |
|
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1123241,00.asp
3rd paragraph: "'SCO reaffirms our position that portions of the Unix System V code are found in Linux. In addition, significant portions of derivative works of Unix System V code are found in Linux,' he said. " I remember reading another story where they said that the formatting and comments of specific sections of the Linux kernel match identically with the System V code and do not match the style and formatting of the code surrounding those sections. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/3/2003 2:36:02 PM |
|
bluesky - Brazil, unfortunately, has a long history of doing things, with the best of intentions in mind, that have turned into collosal economic and financial disasters for the country. Generally speaking, Brasil isn't a country that many would consider it a wise idea to emulate.
You should take a look back at some of the other ways the govt has tried to manipulate the computer industry. The Market reserve, the computer taxes... Brazil also has the highest rate of software piracy in South America. |
| #19 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/3/2003 4:30:04 PM |
|
There's an interesting premise in this article--one that, if it happened as suggested, would really expose a lack of faith among the Open Source flock. The premise is that developers would flock to NT and make it their own:
"...there are thousands of developers out there who would love to have the opportunity to turn the ageing OS into a masterpiece." But why would they be so happy to switch to a system that they railed against for so long as being an unreliable, insecure piece of junk? A system that they've called fundamentally flawed? Wouldn't this be an acknowledgement of the value and worthwhile ideas present in software from the "evil empire"? Unless they're liars, they'd want nothing to do with Microsoft code. |
| #20 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/3/2003 6:13:19 PM |
| Mr. Dee, have you tried booting in "VGA" mode (essentially NT 4's Safe Mode)? If you can boot in that, you very likely have a bad driver. |
| #21 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/3/2003 8:43:05 PM |
|
Yeah, throw the drive in a 2nd system as slave and backup the files, and then do a reinstall after reformating the drive.
I don't know why it'd be locking up, but this business about errors with the floppy drive and cdrom concerns me. Perhaps the computer has gone bad? parker - He'd be getting a blue screen right away as the OS couldn't read any files. |
| #22 By 16451 (65.19.17.194) at 7/3/2003 10:58:15 PM |
|
#31 This can occur if a shared resouce, such as your sound card, it being hung by a higher priority process. Try temporarially removing your sound card (assuming you have one, that is). This post was edited by RH7.3 on Thursday, July 03, 2003 at 22:58. |
| #23 By 7826 (68.100.63.48) at 7/4/2003 1:23:36 AM |
|
#30,
That piece of code won't work. Obviously you lacked basic knowledge of Windows programming:) |
| #24 By 9589 (66.57.63.97) at 7/5/2003 6:59:38 AM |
|
Mr. Dee have you thought about actually buying another computer? I mean it is almost laughable that you are using a 133Mhz CPU computer. If I don't miss my guess, that predates Windows NT 4.0!
By the way, you stated, "I simply upgraded over the present installation . . ." That is not a clean install and is not recommended by Microsoft. A clean install would mean wiping the drive and starting over. Nevertheless, barring a clean install, the "classic" method for getting around a Windows NT 4.0 failure is to install to a different folder and then straighten out the problem on the oriignal install and booting back to it. If all is well, wipe out the newly installed Windows NT 4.0 folder and adjust the "boot.ini" file accordingly. For a couple of hundred bucks you could have saved your self this grief, time and trouble, and bought new hardware and be running the superb Windows XP operating system. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 173 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:50:48 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
