Windows XP Source Code Leaked (gizmodo.com.au) 193
Artem S. Tashkinov writes: Gizmodo Australia reports: On Thursday, users on 4chan posted what they claimed was the source code of Windows XP. Posting an image of a screenshot allegedly of the source code in front of Window's XP iconic Bliss background, one user wrote 'sooooo Windows XP Source code leaked'. Another Redditor helpfully has uploaded the code as a torrent, assisting in its spread. While there is no confirmation that this code is definitely Windows XP, independent researchers have begun to pick through the source code and believe it stands up to scrutiny.
The Windows XP source code is not the only code which might have leaked. A screenshot of the torrent files contains files and folders named, Xbox, Windows Research Kernel, MS DOS 6.0, Windows NT 3.5 and 4 source code, Windows Embedded and CE and many others. If true, that could spell a disaster for Microsoft because large chunks of Windows XP source code are still used in Windows 10, and as for Open Source, this leak could become a boom for Wine development because Microsoft is notorious for having a great number of internal APIs and various hacks in their APIs which make it difficult to reimplement them properly.
The Windows XP source code is not the only code which might have leaked. A screenshot of the torrent files contains files and folders named, Xbox, Windows Research Kernel, MS DOS 6.0, Windows NT 3.5 and 4 source code, Windows Embedded and CE and many others. If true, that could spell a disaster for Microsoft because large chunks of Windows XP source code are still used in Windows 10, and as for Open Source, this leak could become a boom for Wine development because Microsoft is notorious for having a great number of internal APIs and various hacks in their APIs which make it difficult to reimplement them properly.
Great, (Score:4, Interesting)
we can finally have a working wine.
Re:Great, (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure about that, this could end up being a poison pill. Microsoft could allege that any reverse engineered code was derived from the original source code. If Microsoft wants to be seen as friendly to the open source community, they're going to need to open source whatever code was apart of this disclosure or at least agree to not sue anyone for reverse engineered implementations. This significantly damages the ReactOS project, probably killing it dead. In theory, this could be an intentional act by Microsoft to damage various open source projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft can allege all they like. Without direct proof they can't do shit.
Re:Great, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why haven't they done it already then?
Re: (Score:3)
You can't allege that leaked source code was used to develop new code, if there isn't any leaked source code.
But now there is leaked source code, so anything created on or after today could potentially be a target for legal harassment.
=Smidge=
Re: Great, (Score:2)
Re:Great, (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure about that these would be civil suits you realize. Microsoft has deep pockets to do what Caldera tried to do to IBM and Novel. They can sit and litigate every little file, and unusual data structure. That ties up a lot of lawyer, court, and discovery time. Gets expensive fast. The sort of expensive that cause OSS products without the wealth patron like IBM to just fold up. I don't how deep CodeWeavers pockets go but probably not Microsoft litigants deep.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
One month later and WINE suddenly has 100% compatibility...
Re:Great, (Score:5, Informative)
Are you sure about that, this could end up being a poison pill. Microsoft could allege that any reverse engineered code was derived from the original source code. If Microsoft wants to be seen as friendly to the open source community, they're going to need to open source whatever code was apart of this disclosure or at least agree to not sue anyone for reverse engineered implementations. This significantly damages the ReactOS project, probably killing it dead. In theory, this could be an intentional act by Microsoft to damage various open source projects.
You probably should have disclaimed that with a "IANAL" because you clearly do not understand how this works. It is perfectly legal to reverse engineer [wikipedia.org] your competition's products. What is not legal is to use that reverse engineering effort to develop your own competing project and there is a very simple workaround. You have one team reverse engineer the product and draft a specification based on that effort. You have a second team perform the implementation. This has been done for decades. They can also go the route of relocating their project to a country that simply does not care where the material came from. This is very common in open source projects that may be subject to the DMCA - they ensure that all of their infrastructure and contributors are not bound by the DMCA and go on as if the law never existed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Great, (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL but hiring a third party to reverse engineer and write you a spec is not illegal. Most of what is needed are not algorithms but interfaces and architectural behavior. Once you have a clean room spec the implementation can move forward.
It's too bad if this third party decides to use some stolen code. That's a copyright violation. And entirely the third party's problem. Business relationships are usually insulating like that. We have numerous scandals of contractors using illegal practices and rarely is the original company found at fault. The key is you don't want to ever know for certain that your business partner is doing something shady. Don't have emails or voicemails that can show up in discovery.
P.S. not only am I not a lawyer. I am not YOUR lawyer.
Re:Great, (Score:5, Informative)
Also IANAL, but there's nothing illegal about looking at leaked code and writing up a detailed description of the ABI. The person who gave you that code might have violated copyright, but you didn't.
Unfortunately, that doesn't insulate you from a never ending train of civil suits alleging essentially "you didn't say Mother May I" and "I didn't say Simon Says". And it's more expensive than most people can bear even if they win every single time.
Consider the crazy SCO lawsuit. Even when the plaintiff was reduced to just a CEO and a Lawyer with no hope of ever resuming business, the shambling zombie continued to be a time and money suck for 10 years. Even to this day, the rotting remains occasionally quiver as if trying to get back up. Even the revelation that they didn't actually own the copyright to the code they were suing over couldn't kill it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, you also probably should have disclaimed that with an "IANAL" as well, because that strategy only works if you can prove the second team has never seen the source code, and now that the source code is public information, Microsoft can easily argue that any person writing new code snuck a peek at the original source code. The coder writing new code would for all intents and purposes need to try to prove a negative.
https://www.amc.com/shows/halt... [amc.com]
Re:Great, (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, you also probably should have disclaimed that with an "IANAL" as well, because that strategy only works if you can prove the second team has never seen the source code, and now that the source code is public information, Microsoft can easily argue that any person writing new code snuck a peek at the original source code. The coder writing new code would for all intents and purposes need to try to prove a negative.
https://www.amc.com/shows/halt... [amc.com]
I don't know how your legal system works but in an MS lawsuit the plaintiff would most certainly have to prove that not only did the defendant do something wrong but that what they did somehow caused harm to the plaintiff. If you don't ever download the leaked code and you don't have any of the code samples on your machine how can MS ever prove that you saw the code? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever on the face of it because any clean room spec implementation would be impossible by that same token. The source code exists ergo it is possible that one of the clean room developers saw it. That's just absurd. Microsoft would have to prove that they saw the source code and used it as a reference, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing illegal about using reverse engineering to develop a competing product (unless patents are involved, and your 'workaround' does not work in that case). The 'two teams' method is used when members of the first team (the ones who know how it should work) have been 'tainted' by exposure to the original source. This may happen, for instance, in the case of a joint development effort that ended. If they were to write the code, and should happen to create code identical to the original, it can
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft could allege that any reverse engineered code was derived from the original source code.
That's not how that works. APIs are not copyrightable, and thus the ability to copy their functionality is not something they can suddenly claim is infringing simply because someone could see how it worked in source code rather than reverse engineer it.
this could be an intentional act by Microsoft to damage various open source projects.
I think the 5G is getting to you. Best go burn down your local tower.
Re:Great, (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you happen to be Oracle who think API's are copyrightable.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how that works. APIs are not copyrightable, and thus the ability to copy their functionality is not something they can suddenly claim is infringing simply because someone could see how it worked in source code rather than reverse engineer it.
Unfortunately reality doesn't agree with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how that works. APIs are not copyrightable, and thus the ability to copy their functionality is not something they can suddenly claim is infringing simply because someone could see how it worked in source code rather than reverse engineer it.
Really? You might want to ask Oracle about that...
Re:Great, (Score:5, Interesting)
That's actually exactly how this works, at least in the US. In fact, this was one of the main points of the case Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F. 2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) [copyright.gov]
Re:Great, (Score:5, Insightful)
I seriously doubt MS gives a shit about Wine, they probably recognize it does their platform more good than harm - or has any meaningful effect on their bottom line at all. This is a company that long ago stopped putting all its eggs in how much money selling Windows licenses can make them. I expect rebuttals only from the folks who are in a spacetime bubble stuck at 20 years ago.
Re:Great, (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure about that, this could end up being a poison pill. Microsoft could allege that any reverse engineered code was derived from the original source code. ... This significantly damages the ReactOS project, probably killing it dead.
And how does this happen, when the Windows 2000 source code leak didn't have these repercussions back in 2004?
Also, does Microsoft even care about ReactOS? It's a nice little project and all, but hardly a threat to Windows 10 or Azure.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly that. Codeweaver, for example, expressly states new hires must have no Microsoft source code experience. Their code MUST look different and be a clean room implementations. Else Microsoft could sue them and prove their code has been reverse engineered.
And Wine and DXVK are very important pieces of steam play which are very important to Linux gaming.
It will be harder to find developers "clean" of that knowledge.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah Microsoft are *terrified* of ReactOS, an archaic & permanently alpha state OS used by 5 developers and their friend. Jesus, get a grip.
Re: Great, (Score:3)
Until MS triumphantly finishes years of work for Windows 11, of which only 23% consists of hacks and internal APIs to not make Wine work.
Re:Great, (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, no! Someone stole the golden turd!
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely not.
Just like the "Nintendo Leaks" , at best someone who isn't part of an emulator project can pick through it and identify the bits that cause problems and then slip that description under the door to someone working on the emulator. The same for Wine/ReactOS.
While it's certainly an interesting thing, it's also not really that valuable except to people looking for exploits. In which case as soon as it gets to someone who is actually knowledgeable and not just a bunch of script kiddie's, someone
So, where are the GPL violations? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's going to be interesting, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's going to be interesting, isn't it?
Yup... I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be a significant issue discovered here... Which if it turns out to be true, then the mighty M$ may end up putting the source into the public domain and be done with it.
At which point, they will start rapidly rewriting all the code they can in their current products. It's OK, they can afford it I think.
Re:So, where are the GPL violations? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's going to be interesting, isn't it?
Yup... I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be a significant issue discovered here... Which if it turns out to be true, then the mighty M$ may end up putting the source into the public domain and be done with it.
Leaked or not, the code is still copyright. By somebody, if not by Microsoft. So no, I don't see this going into the public domain.
What I see as more likely is that MS will release what it can under a license that will protect its interests, even though the code is now visible. If MS has GPL code in its products, then it may (a) rewrite the offending code (as you suggested); or (b) welcome a showdown on the legal strength of the license. Companies in similar situations have opted for (a) up to now.
Re: (Score:3)
Which if it turns out to be true, then the mighty M$ may end up putting the source into the public domain and be done with it.
It would mean that Microsoft would have to cease further distribution of Windows XP. That's probably not a big deal.
Potentially there are damages possible. That's complicated. I don't know of any examples where an GPL project successfully claimed damages for a violation. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were discreet settlements.
Many eyeballs out of MS have seen source, legally (Score:5, Insightful)
That's going to be interesting, isn't it?
Most likely, no, not at all. Researchers, professors and students, have had access to MS Windows (NT onward) source code for a long time. Microsoft grants access to certain researchers looking into things that also interests Microsoft. They have to keep the source secure but are free to publish their work. And Microsoft gets the right to incorporate their work if they care too.
In short many eyeballs have been on the Windows source code outside of Microsoft, and that's just the legal eyeballs.
Re:Many eyeballs out of MS have seen source, legal (Score:5, Funny)
That's going to be interesting, isn't it?
Most likely, no, not at all. Researchers, professors and students, have had access to MS Windows (NT onward) source code for a long time. Microsoft grants access to certain researchers looking into things that also interests Microsoft. They have to keep the source secure but are free to publish their work. And Microsoft gets the right to incorporate their work if they care too.
In short many eyeballs have been on the Windows source code outside of Microsoft, and that's just the legal eyeballs.
So, basically no one I would trust to tell the truth. Or indeed with any vested interest in telling the truth. Just report it and pocket the hush money.
Well you could wait for the QAnon report on the source. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
lol, I'm so in love with the way you morons see the world, it sounds intoxicating
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the people with access to the source are most likely paying for that access
The professors and student researchers were not paying Microsoft. To be fair, Microsoft had to like your research to get access.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would they bother when they could use BSD code? Didn't they already use it for ftp.exe back in the NT days?
BSD - taxpayer funded, so yes free to all, no bias (Score:3)
Why would they bother when they could use BSD code? Didn't they already use it for ftp.exe back in the NT days?
That's a fair point; it's easy to forget all those BSD mugs working away for the world's richest companies for free.
BSD was mostly developed by the taxpayers via the Regents of the University of California. So yes it should be free to all taxpayers without bias. Plus numerous corporations either support BSD devs or contribute themselves.
The gift that keeps on giving (Score:3, Insightful)
That explains a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that explains the stable, functional parts that aren't directly linked to windows update and occasionally fuck your machine.
Re:The gift that keeps on giving (Score:5, Insightful)
That explains a lot.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Windows XP saw a lot of real world use over a number of years; sure, it had problems, but there's also probably a good amount of code essentially proven to be solid and reliable, so why wouldn't they want to leave well enough alone when possible?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
XP was tolerated because there was no alternative for a lot of people. Mac OS only worked on Macs and Linux was pretty awful for non-techies in 2001.
Nowadays, in no small part due to many things being web based and cross platform frameworks making software more widely available, Linux is a great alternative as a desktop OS.
Re: (Score:3)
%windir%\System32\Tasks\Microsoft\Windows\UpdateOrchestrator
Rename/remove anything called Reboot
Make a new folder called "Reboot"
Now it can update, but it won't restart automatically
https://www.joe0.com/2019/10/1... [joe0.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That explains a lot.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Windows XP saw a lot of real world use over a number of years; sure, it had problems, but there's also probably a good amount of code essentially proven to be solid and reliable, so why wouldn't they want to leave well enough alone when possible?
If Microsoft was relying on security-through-obscurity in this WXP code, and it is present in W10, then yes, it could spell disaster.
Making the code visible may in fact be what breaks it.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be awful if they were finally forced to fix these bugs.
It is broke, but can't fix it (Score:2)
One thing that has been important to Microsoft is backward compatibility - a Windows program I wrote 22 years ago still works. Contrast iOS and Android.
XP *is* broken, very. Yet Microsoft chooses not to fix it. Both for backward compatibility and because fixing things costs time and money in the short term.
Something we're dealing with right now is that while TLS 1.2 was released in 2008, Windows still uses 1.0 and 1.1 for important functionality. TLS 1.2 still isn't enabled in Windows by default, over
Re:The gift that keeps on giving (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft were to have completely rewritten Windows 10 from scratch, people here would complain it was "change for the sake of change" and therefore bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 10 would seem to be the worst of both worlds. Change for the sake of change sitting on top of layers of cruft.
Re: (Score:3)
Reading some comments elsewhere it seems this torrent was floating around in hacker circles for a long time and someone finally leaked it.
Re: (Score:3)
That explains a lot.
Microsoft is a slave to legacy. They have to maintain compatibility above all else for as long as they possibly can. That means they keep the same code base that works for a LONG time.
Re:The gift that keeps on giving (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why Windows remains the dominant operating system on the market: Users have a very reasonable guarantee that their applications will continue to work.
Re:The gift that keeps on giving (Score:4, Informative)
I'm no expert but probably only IBM mainframes have a better track record.
I dunno, if the code works. (Score:3)
I'm currently working on a system that has 25+ year old C code way deep down inside. It works fine, all the bugs are well documented and dealt with, so why replace it?
Re:I dunno, if the code works. (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, Chrome was written from the very beginning to use a separate process for each tab. Firefox had a very mature codebase at the time and has spent more than a decade attempting to adapt their own code to also use a separate process for each tab but it's proven incredibly difficult because adding support for it breaks almost every aspect of the browser and requires a complete shift in the foundation of the code. Therefore, the more competition you have, especially against apps/systems written from scratch, the harder it will be to adapt all of your existing code to offer features that competitors offer using their own fresh approach. That doesn't necessarily mean that you should rewrite your app/system from scratch, but it certainly adds a challenge of adapting all of your legacy code to offer something close to comparable.
Re: (Score:2)
Wine isn't going to touch this with a 10ft pole (Score:2)
Re:Wine isn't going to touch this with a 10ft pole (Score:5, Interesting)
If Microsoft proprietary code turns up in Wine, they're proper fucked - criminal and civil liability to the tune of the GDP of the entire observable universe.
That's not how this works. They'll use the source code to discover the API's so they can engineer software that talks to them.
Re: (Score:3)
This was basically settled with Compaq v. IBM. One team reverses & documents, one team implements, and a third team ("Chinese Wall") only talks to the other teams.
There can only be communication about how it works, no direct knowledge of code. As soon as one implementor sees the code, everything is destroyed.
I seem to recall Compaq had different access-controlled offices too. For WINE it might be more difficult as access control is harder online. One slip-up could ruin everything.
Re: (Score:2)
This was basically settled with Compaq v. IBM.
Nope. In that case they copied the code and made their own version of the BIOS. This isn't about copying the code, its about learning how to talk to the code.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how this works. They'll use the source code to discover the API's so they can engineer software that talks to them.
You had me until the word "they"
Its inevitable. Dont be blind.
Re:Wine isn't going to touch this with a 10ft pole (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wine isn't going to touch this with a 10ft pole (Score:4, Informative)
Wine has clean room guidelines (https://wiki.winehq.org/Clean_Room_Guidelines) which specifically forbid looking at Microsoft code (leaked or otherwise - e.g. Windows Research Kernel).
In many cases I suspect the code would not be all that useful anyway - some of Wine’s glitches and foibles arise simply because of differences between Linux/macOS and Windows that can’t easily be accommodated. And an unknown user who suddenly dumped a load of code without otherwise building up their experience with Wine and so on would be looked upon very suspiciously.
Could be a disaster for Wine development, rather (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 10, and as for Open Source, this leak could become a boom for Wine development
If the Wine developers know what they are doing, they will steer clear from reading leaked source code.
Obtaining sudden unexplained knowledge from the sources could later result in allegations to having read and incorporated non-literally copied code and trade secrets that were from materials leaked illegally... Its toxic and dangerous to touch that stuff, unless Microsoft responds to the leak by releasing the code as open source to encourage that others identify bugs and submit fixes.
The more likely result however, is teams of investigators and lawyers going out to try and find where leaked code might have reached, and trying to get all misappropriated copies destroyed.
That... and Microsoft will now have an excuse to re-write a whole bunch of OS code.. perhaps rewriting the old C++ code in C# or Rust, or Javascript, or something...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there's a tried and true method of executing this, as demonstrated by Phoenix Software with the IBM PC BIOS: one team looks at the code and writes a functional specification based on it and the other team (the actual Wine developers in this case) implement this specification.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't matter. You can't taint facts with copyright law. Sure, possessing/distributing the source code could be risky or even prosecuted, but work created from the derived spec would still be clear.
Re: (Score:3)
Obtaining sudden unexplained knowledge from the sources could later result in allegations to having read and incorporated non-literally copied code and trade secrets that were from materials leaked illegally...
An act that isn't remotely illegal. You can't apply "trade secrets" to functionality implemented in an API. You can at best apply copyright to verbatim code.
Re:Could be a disaster for Wine development, rathe (Score:4, Insightful)
Obtaining sudden unexplained knowledge from the sources could later result in allegations to having read and incorporated non-literally copied code and trade secrets that were from materials leaked illegally...
An act that isn't remotely illegal. You can't apply "trade secrets" to functionality implemented in an API. You can at best apply copyright to verbatim code.
If the reverse engineer even unknowingly relies on knowledge of the copyrighted source code to implement the open version of the API, it can be alleged that the implementation is now a derivative work. Even if the argument doesn't hold up at the end of the day, it will be enough to support a protracted trial that would bankrupt just about any free software project.
Any contributor to WINE should steer clear of these files, with the possible exception of header files, but those were probably available as part of SDKs anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
If the reverse engineer even unknowingly relies on knowledge of the copyrighted source code to implement the open version of the API, it can be alleged that the implementation is now a derivative work. Even if the argument doesn't hold up at the end of the day, it will be enough to support a protracted trial that would bankrupt just about any free software project.
See Oracle v. Google
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK Microsoft has already considered writing many low level parts of the OS in another language (I think I saw Rust mentioned somewhere). Also I guess some parts nowadays are written in C#.
Anyway, C++ is evolving reasonably fast these days (official releases of the standard every 3 years) and is adding many improvements. That negates somewhat the need to rewrite
Re:Could be a disaster for Wine development, rathe (Score:4, Informative)
Virtual machines have a pretty substantial run-time overhead penalty, so it's not a panacea. Plus, you need a valid Windows license, which defeats the purpose if the idea is to avoid paying a Microsoft tax.
Thanks to Valve's Proton [wikipedia.org], which is based on Wine, a lot of previously Windows-only games found on Steam now work natively on Linux, with good run-time performance, and no need for user tinkering.
Or it could be a disaster for WINE development (Score:2)
Right now WINE not going "poof" do to copyright infringement action pretty much comes down to it being clean room. If any of this code ever slips its way into the project it might spell real trouble. Talk about 'viral'
Re: (Score:2)
Let's fork WINE. We'll have a version that runs XP perfectly and a version that doesn't get sued by Microsoft.
Unrelated to Wine (Score:5, Informative)
Wine has a clear policy of not going near MS source code.
Boon (Score:5, Informative)
Oh no! There's an outbreak of Windows XP! ... (Score:3)
... Quick! Contain it, before it infects your computer! We're all gonna die!
What "disaster" (Score:2)
What "disaster"? How could this possibly harm Microsoft?
No one is going to compete with them commercially based on this information. What harm is there in some geeks learning a few undocumented APIs? That they may now better understand, how something works — or implement their own app or widget better is good for Microsoft, as it makes their OS more attractive.
One could suspect, Microso
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft have arranged for the leak deliberately
Kind of like a movie that is tanking at the box office, then somehow an unencrypted digital version is put into public files and gets huge headlines?
"Screenshot of source code" doesn't make sense to me. I've never seen source code but I expect it is a bloatware of text that goes on an on. And just a portion doesn't seem valuable because what other portions of the total code that is referenced or subroutine (if such a thing is still done?).
I still have three XP machines in use for personal stuff (intern
Re: (Score:3)
The disaster is there is a lot of code in Windows that goes back all the way to NT4 and maybe even before that. Not just things like cmd.exe but things that are running as "local_system" and listening on network sockets; like those print spooler vulnerabilities that were published earlier this year.
While people have no doubt fuzzed the crap out of windows that only reveals so much, and where it does turn you on to potential attack vector it does not always mean its clear or simple to turn it into something
NSAKey (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's find out what the real story is behind NSAKey. Nobody believes Microsoft.
problem.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...it's not possible to use the actual code in open source projects as it's illegal and would get the project in legal trouble."
A cynic might suggest there will have to be an exception for parts of the XP code that were ripped off from open source projects in the first place.
Another aspect (Score:2)
Closed source code is also a very sensitive material because it might (I mean surely) contain copypasted code from open source projects.
Would have been BSD code so not a problem (Score:2)
Closed source code is also a very sensitive material because it might (I mean surely) contain copypasted code from open source projects.
Well that would have been BSD code so its not a problem, ex networking. At least for the legacy NT code, Linux was not terribly interesting back then.
Don't worry guys (Score:2)
Same source code leak from 2008 (Score:2)
This is the same source code leak from 2008! Old news
Already Decompiled (Score:3)
We've had the Windows 95 source for ages (Score:2)
The source for Win 95 has been around for ages. Can't wait to do a diff. Wonder if the do_nothing_loops() are optimized?
https://fsinfo.noone.org/~abe/... [noone.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 95 was a quarter century ago...
Wine development? No. (Score:3)
No it couldn't. FOSS projects are unable to used leak code, assets, or documentation because those things are still proprietary. They might be able to go off of write-ups by people who looked at the leaked information. I'm not sure about the legality of that. But they absolutely can't make direct use of Microsoft's leaked IP, that's very much illegal and would get them in a lot of trouble very quickly.
A leak, or Cleaver Microsoft Marketing? (Score:2)
Microsoft has been pushing open source really hard the last few years.
The wrongly named WSL: "Windows Subsystem for Linux" along with their seat on the Linux Foundation I think is a hint as to where Microsoft plans to take Windows.
I think within the next 8-10 years, the NT kernel is going to be replaced with a modified Linux kernel that can handle NT Kernel system calls. Explorer will be re-written for linux, and backwards compatibility will be maintained, except, now Windows developers can use Linux APIs t
Windows XP needs an official send off by Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't want to open source it then they should licence it out to a responsible company like ArcaOS was for OS/2. Now Microsoft is committed to Windows 10 as a perpetual service all previous Windows need a home somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Windows XP needs an official send off by Micros (Score:5, Interesting)
"Windows XP is almost 20 years old, it has been out of support for six years and won't even boot on modern EFI only motherboards. Most use is among retro gamers and businesses with legacy code. Microsoft needs to get Windows XP out of the legal limbo it is in right now as there is no way to get a legitimate new licence."
Getting a license for XP is difficult but not impossible. Any retail license box can be legally transferred, and they're out there on the 2ndary markets.
And while OEM licenses aren't transferable to new hardware, if the hardware the license is attached to still works, you can just buy the whole PC and use it.
The problem I have right now is activation. I have retail XP licenses+product keys that I've been using with virtual machines for over a decade (to bridge modern networks to MSDOS with Netbios+Netbeui).
With the last VM install I did, I actually couldn't get XP activated. Online activation is offline, and even the phone backup method-- which is tedious but still worked the last time I did it a couple years ago, also rejected it.
There are hacks and stuff and that might be ok for the retro gamer crowd that's not an ideal option to say the least.
And we've got 100s of thousands in industrial manufacturing hardware that run just fine with MSDOS+netbeui that may go another decade or more yet. That I'm not willing to scrap over windows XP activation issues.
This had happened before (Score:3)
For those to young to remember, this is all happened before [neowin.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 10 is XP with a new control panel. If you take out all the useless XAML/UWP based Windows Store non-sense, it's just XP.
Re: (Score:2)
XP is good for running old games. Why would anyone run old games? Maybe you didn't beat them when they were new, people are busy you know.
Academic researchers also had access (Score:2)
who cares, you could already pay for access...
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/enterprise-source-licensing-program.aspx
And academic researchers could get access if Microsoft thinks their research is interesting.