Windows NT4 and Windows2000 Source Code Pieces Leaked

[mikeymike]

lempkee, people who want to exploit NT4/Win2k.  People who want to write software that integrates better into the OS.  People who are just plain interested.  I'd like to get hold of the Win2k source code, then all I need to do is learn C/C++ :-)

[mikeymike]

There have been concerns about WU and privacy.  I haven't found any evidence of anything dodgy like that with WU.  The main thing that concerns me about WU is the poor detection, and resulting "your machine is up-to-date" if the detection process for some reason failed.

I think the biggest concern for MS is (if it is true), the rate of exploits will increase (not dramatically), and their reputation for security tarnished further.

[mikeymike]

I've been wondering about the SCO angle since it got discussed on Slashdot this morning, and I don't think it's much of an issue now.

Bear in mind a few things:
 * For MS to sue someone successfully for using MS IP, they need proof (identical or near identical code)
 * Any commercial company has got to be plain stupid, or so incredibly unlikely to reproduce near/identical code without prior knowledge of MS code
 * This doesn't affect the Linux community in the slightest.  The code isn't going to look even remotely similiar, unless they were stupid enough to use identical variable names or something.

Otherwise it would just be an SCO tactic.  And I very much doubt SCO will be successful, because that would mean anyone can point fingers at anyone with no proof/evidence whatsoever.

[mikeymike]

That's just the thing. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuits, SCO has ALREADY been highly successful.

Not if you measure by a yardstick of commercial success.  Which is what their intention was.  Either by being bought by IBM (which would be great for SCO stockholders), or getting business to pay for "Linux licenses".

They have had the chance to plaster FUD everywhere. They have managed to slow the adoption of Free software, and, somehow, they have even found a few sympathisers along the way.

As MS have been funding their efforts, that might well have been MS's intention.



The only flaw in your idea is that MS would get a horrendously bad reputation with everyone for what is basically trying to extort money from people that MS have no right to.  And they wouldn't succeed for the exact reasons I previously described.  No proof, unless someone blatantly plagiarises their code, which would be really dumb.

[mikeymike]

Too bad BeOS ain't around still, microsoft really screwed them outta the home computer sceen back in the day with that damn Boot Sector contract, otherwise Be might possibly be reaping a lot of attention like never before!

I think the real problem was Be just gave up.