[Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Don't play russian roulette with the site by linking to this alleged leak.]
Note that this is the smaller 2.7GB leak, the full 40+GB leak can be found elsewhere. Not that I downloaded it, of course.
My bad, I mixed up the two identical comments.
This is probably the most interesting part, though. The rest included older versions of windows, older versions of dos, and bill gates conspiracy videos.
Has anyone completed a download and perused it? Does it seem legit? Any files/executables we should be weary of?
I’ve heard that a few people on /g/ downloaded and built it. An interesting revelation was that both GNU Make and GCC were used in the build process, even back in the Balmer-ara.
GCC surprises me. Did the poster figure out which components used it vs MSVC?
XP hasn’t been supported for many years. If you’re still running it in production you’re living on the edge.
living on the edge
living on the edge
No, back then it was still Internet Explorer.
I don’t know if you replied to the wrong comment or something, but I really don’t understand what you’re talking about. Haven’t mentioned anything about running XP in production or anything like that…
Why should you be weary (sic) of components in an OS that’s deprecated?
You’re making the assumption that the leaked package really contains the components in an OS that’s deprecated. I’m not making that assumption, as it wouldn’t be the first time that someone has used a leak story as a vehicle for distributing real malware that runs on modern computers.
Plus, even if the leak is real (or partially real) and the source code is being distributed, that doesn’t mean someone hasn’t added malicious stuff to it. That’s why I asked 1) does it seem legit, and 2) is there anything we should be weary of (e.g. the real source code is there, but there’s also an executable in the package that hasn’t been examined/vetted yet; hence, we can’t trust that it’s related to the leaked source code, so don’t run it)
So, no, you don’t need to be weary of components in an OS that’s deprecated. You need to be weary because there may be more than meets the eye with what’s being distributed
Thanks for clarifying! I agree 100%, I just missed the context.
I’ve flagged the 2 comments linking to the purported code as off-topic for partly that reason.
While it hasn’t been supported. There are still multi-million dollar industrial machines that are running XP or older. The cost to upgrade those machine far out weighs the security risks to the company. So while Microsoft’s support of it is deprecated. The use of it isn’t.
As a rule of thumb, literally anything related to Windows gets an extra step of verification from me. It’s the most targeted platform for any sort of malware, and people will do practically anything to get malicious code running on someone’s machine. When I worked at my tech shop in college, I saw more than a few people running custom “flavors” of Windows, which may quickly become a thing with the source allegedly available.
Looking forward to some good bugs in e.g., 16 bit compat mode :)
May be 2020 Microsoft will open source it :P
It’s a good joke because it’s plausible :)
Joke’s aside, at this point that could have serious implications for both microsoft and apple. To this day, I am not convinced that present day workstation operative systems offers are much better than what Windows XP could offer. I am including OSX and popular linux distros. Microsoft spend more than a decade pushing users away from it.
If it were to be made open source, it could be turned into a serious product with a strong value offer.
I think this leak will expose the bad code quality of the windows os and will lead to windows’ further demise :D I’m very excited to see in-depth analyses and may be Microsoft may just surprise me.
The Windows 2000 source was leaked years ago. IIRC, the users of kuro5hin actually thought it was good quality, with extreme compatibility requirements dragging it down.
People at Microsoft aren’t stupid, as much as Unix programmers like to think.
People examining the code in 4chan threads seem to agree, the code looks to be of a decent quality. Some acummulated 4chan findings can be found here(warning - it’s 4chan, even if there is no nsfw content on that board).
Here’s an archived version, in case anyone wants to peruse after the thread is pruned.
Do you have a link for that? I think thatd an interesting read. I believe many proprietary software is of bad code quality. That has nothing to with stupidity, but with the corporate culture and business requirements.
Getting all license holders to agree to open source would be tricky. It’s been a while since I looked at the Windows license screen for XP but I suspect MS paid for licenses for a number of applications and libraries.
Yeah, Citrix source permeates anything to do with multiple users, and IE started out life as a licensed program. Getting rid of licensing accessories is easy, but core components, not so much.
[Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Removing ranty troll comment.]
Burn it? The last decent version of windows? Whatever for‽
The last good version of Windows was 2000. Consumers were still on 95/98/ME, so the NT line was still a boring robust operating system. No need for dumbed down UIs (yes, I know that you could switch to 2000 look & feel on XP), activation shenanigans, and all the stuff that came after (UI experiments, telemetry). Windows 2000’s only failure is only supporting i386 and not i386, Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC like NT 4.0 did ;).
No one has a consistent metric for the last good version of Windows, leading me to believe “last good version of Windows” is completely subjective.
Are you saying there are folks who think Vista was the greatest? :)
I used Vista back in the day and it was a breath of fresh air from dealing with the problems XP had BITD (constant malware, installs decaying, etc)
Vista was sorely underrated due to buggy drivers written by OEMs who were not used to the new driver model. By the time Win7 came out the drivers were mostly stable, but Vista got stuck with the bad reputation.
Well, that and UAC was rather aggressive at first.
That and OEMs were selling 2004’s bottom barrel sludge new into 2008, because XP meant they could get away with it.
I’d been a Mac user for some years by that point but my x61s came with a 32bit Vista License, in comparison to the 64bit build it was like night and day.
It took the best of a day to patch the install up to date with severe disk churn. 64bit build on the same config did not suffer this problem.
Vista after SP1 was okay, but on introduction it had quite a few issues.
Another issue is that a lot of manufacturers underspec’d their laptops for Vista and that they were dog slow. Windows 7 usually ran smoother on the same laptops. I also liked the Windows 7 UI more; it took the Vista UI and polished it, similar to how Windows 10 polished Windows 8 (I guess? I never used Windows 10 much).
I actually quite liked Vista at the end of its lifetime. I can’t say that I used it long enough to run into the typical “old Windows” issues like cruft and a bloated registry, but it ran perfectly fine for me in 2010 and I found the UAC implementation to be fine. Granted, many people hate having a few extra dialog boxes to click through before running a game :)
I’m wondering if anything there can help developers of projects like ReactOS.
Please, for any well-meaning people, if you’ve looked at this do not contaminate the ReactOS folks.
My understanding is they work very hard to have clean reversing efforts, and that exposure to something like this–even a whiff–would taint that work in perhaps legally-significant ways.
Well, of course I didn’t mean: copy as much as you can. But maybe there’re some parts of the system which were really tricky to figure out. Like side-effects caused by bugs in original Windows which ended up being features. Obviously I didn’t want to get ReactOS devs into trouble :(
No, of course not–I didn’t mean to imply you did.
I just feel for those folks because screening new devs just got a lot harder.
I believe they have had this problem already.
I’m curious, do you have insight into how APIs are tested by the ReactOS team? Is everything done clean-room using specs, or do they run React on a network with Windows machines to test things like workgroups and Active Directory? I would assume that falls into fair use, but I’m no expert.
Finally some good news.
Good to know that Microsoft finally went open source … not intentionally but still.
The ReacOS developers could not be more happy I think - to have ready to use/read reference instead of doing time consuming reverse engineering :)
The source code is still under copyright even if it was leaked, so that would seem ill advised at best.
Emulator and clone OS developers tend to run like the plague from this kind of thing.
I’m not sure ReactOS developers want to provoke more accusations like this: ReactOS ‘a ripoff of the Windows Research Kernel’, claims Microsoft kernel engineer
ReactOS people once halted the development for over a year to make sure there is no ill-gotten code in their repository, where code obtained by disassembling any Microsoft binary was considered just as illegal as leaked source code.
They take the “cleanroom” part very seriously.
Anyway, Windows XP API/ABI support in ReactOS is already very good. The real difficulty with using ReactOS as a free Windows alternative is that it doesn’t support anything beyond the Windows XP ABI, while all new software is now built with the Vista/7 ABI in mind. No modern toolchain, free or non-free, has an option to target WinXP anymore.