GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Windows 2000 & Windows NT 4 Source Code Leaks!

Jeremiad · 02-14-2004, 12:51 AM

Isn't everything bad news, Jimboc? It usually is for me.

I think the source code leaks were absolutely intentional. As we have already witnessed from the release of ME, XP, and XP Pro, M$ has profited immensely by simply releasing a new package that will solve everyones' problems simply by inserting a CD which you can purchase from any local computer store. They even implemented a Windows Update feature, which allows you to be able to get recent "patches" or "fixes" for their software that can help you to stay "secure".

From a financial perspective, it's smart. Microsoft will update the newest version first, and very slowly work their way down, pushing upgrade sales all that much better. Of course, a lot of companies and even individuals spend a lot of time through research and development to make their system tight, efficient, and secure, and they are hesitant to start from scratch with something that is going to be totally different, as even M$ systems typically are.

I have a legitimate copy of every release of Windows since 3.0, and have worked more extensively with each one to ensure reliability and security. Typical users can protect themselves pretty reasonably with updates and patches from M$ (as most "hackers" aren't interested in your useless shit anyway), but there are some very impressive differences between M$ and open source.

True, M$ is huge, and available in every sophisticated country in the world, with retail packages in more than 50 languages. Anyone who knows how to eject a CD-ROM drive and click a mouse can install it and use it. Advantage: M$.

Variations of Linux and BSD packages are available for free all over the world, but you need to find them, and then you need to learn how to work them. RedHat is an easily installed package, but if you don't know how to secure it, you are just as open as a Windows box. BSD is just as susceptible, but has the slight advantage of being less known.

Myself, I prefer UNiX variations for servers, as I don't need to wait for M$ to release a patch before I can fix a problem. There is no pointy-clicky options, which can prove to make for a lot of research and development, and often I have to find problems and solutions on my own, but what do I expect for free? It still allows me to have better control over anything and everything that I host from my servers, and I can modify any source code without fear of being sued.

Bottom line, you can pay a company like M$ for their software, and hope that they can solve your problems, or you can learn to do it for yourself. Both are rewarding. I still recommend that even if you don't want to learn that shit, you can pay someone to do it for you.

Ironically, M$N servers are BSD. So are their update servers, and mail servers like h0tma1l.

Kinda ironic, huh Ren?

Jere.

02-14-2004, 12:51 AM
Jeremiad Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 50	Isn't everything bad news, Jimboc? It usually is for me. I think the source code leaks were absolutely intentional. As we have already witnessed from the release of ME, XP, and XP Pro, M$ has profited immensely by simply releasing a new package that will solve everyones' problems simply by inserting a CD which you can purchase from any local computer store. They even implemented a Windows Update feature, which allows you to be able to get recent "patches" or "fixes" for their software that can help you to stay "secure". From a financial perspective, it's smart. Microsoft will update the newest version first, and very slowly work their way down, pushing upgrade sales all that much better. Of course, a lot of companies and even individuals spend a lot of time through research and development to make their system tight, efficient, and secure, and they are hesitant to start from scratch with something that is going to be totally different, as even M$ systems typically are. I have a legitimate copy of every release of Windows since 3.0, and have worked more extensively with each one to ensure reliability and security. Typical users can protect themselves pretty reasonably with updates and patches from M$ (as most "hackers" aren't interested in your useless shit anyway), but there are some very impressive differences between M$ and open source. True, M$ is huge, and available in every sophisticated country in the world, with retail packages in more than 50 languages. Anyone who knows how to eject a CD-ROM drive and click a mouse can install it and use it. Advantage: M$. Variations of Linux and BSD packages are available for free all over the world, but you need to find them, and then you need to learn how to work them. RedHat is an easily installed package, but if you don't know how to secure it, you are just as open as a Windows box. BSD is just as susceptible, but has the slight advantage of being less known. Myself, I prefer UNiX variations for servers, as I don't need to wait for M$ to release a patch before I can fix a problem. There is no pointy-clicky options, which can prove to make for a lot of research and development, and often I have to find problems and solutions on my own, but what do I expect for free? It still allows me to have better control over anything and everything that I host from my servers, and I can modify any source code without fear of being sued. Bottom line, you can pay a company like M$ for their software, and hope that they can solve your problems, or you can learn to do it for yourself. Both are rewarding. I still recommend that even if you don't want to learn that shit, you can pay someone to do it for you. Ironically, M$N servers are BSD. So are their update servers, and mail servers like h0tma1l. Kinda ironic, huh Ren? Jere.