In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron Quark
<qadronhuark@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:59:31 +0200
<87lko8t2jw.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> __/ [ yttrx ] on Monday 25 September 2006 14:58 \__
>>
>>> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795
>>
>> Ta for that.
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | However, not everything is so rosy. Some of the modules are clearly
>> | suffering from the hacks upon hacks mentioned earlier. As someone who
>> | struggled immensely trying to get the MSInet control working not long
>> | after this code was released, it's a relief to see that the inet code
>> | is as bad as I thought.
>> `----
>>
>> And people still wonder why 60% of the Vista codebase must be
>> rewritten...
>
> God you're a wanker Roy. Talk about selective snipping. Absolutely
> pathetic. I think the only thing people still wonder is why you're such
> an obsessive nutcase and why you seem so oblivious to the risks of
> posting lies and misquotes in order to potentially damage a trading
> company while using the resources of an academic establishment.
>
> For the readers : here are some OTHER quotes :-
>
> ,----
> | Microsoft programmers also take their duty to warn others seriously.
> |
> | While surprisingly informal, there are limits to how far the programmers
> | go. There are no derogatory references to Microsoft or Windows
> | themselves. Bill Gates is never mentioned. There are no racist or
> | homophobic slurs.
> |
> | the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and
> | procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very
> | detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i"
> | redundancy.
> |
> | It's been widely rumored for a while that Microsoft relies on stolen
> | open source code. The rumor has faced widespread skepticism
> | too. Microsoft has hundreds of millions of lines of code, most of it
> | highly specialized. Hardly any of that could benefit from stealing: it
> | hardly seems worth the legal risk. It's true that early versions of the
> | TCP-IP stack were (legally) taken from BSD: but that was a long time
> | ago, when Microsoft was much smaller.
> |
> |
> | Searching the code for "linux" and "GPL" finds no references. "BSD"
> | finds only a couple of references to BSD-convention strings. "GNU" finds
> | a lot of references to a GNUmakefile in private\genx\shell, which in
> | turn mentions a "mode for Emacs." This is apparently legitimate: simply
> | using a makefile does not apply the makefile's copyright to the
> | resulting code.
> |
> |
> | Therefore, a superficial look at the code finds no evidence that
> | Microsoft has violated the GPL or stolen other open source code. Closer
> | examination might turn something up.
> |
> | The security risks from this code appear to be low. Microsoft do appear
> | to be checking for buffer overruns in the obvious places. The amount of
> | networking code here is small enough for Microsoft to easily check for
> | any vulnerabilities that might be revealed: it's the big applications
> | that pose more of a risk. This code is also nearly four years old: any
> | obvious problems should be patched by now.
> `----
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> ,----[ Windows code: comments snippet ]
>> | Curse words: there are a dozen or so "fucks" and "shits", and hundreds
>> | of "craps". Some dissatisfaction with the compiler is expressed in
>> | private\shell\shell32\util.cpp:
>> |
>> | // the fucking alpha cpp compiler seems to fuck up the goddam type
>> | "LPITEMIDLIST", so to work
>> | // around the fucking peice of shit compiler we pass the last param as
>> | an void *instead of a LPITEMIDLIST
>> `----
>>
>> Hey, yttrx, did you use to develop for Microsoft??
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Roy
>
> Have a browse of the Linux source. There is better than that.
Better? Or worse?
Try locating "Splunge!" in the source, for example.
There are also a lot of occurrences of the term 'fsck',
a euphemism for sexual escapades (as well as a useful
tool). There is also, however, the standard Scandinavian
(?) variant, with a 'u', in a number of files, as well as
the masked variant with a '*', and of course terms such as
'fack', which is basically noise in this context. There
is even at least one suggestion that the operation be done
delicately with a powered wood cutting implement, as well
as several requests for more than one helping.
Most of these are apparently complaining about various
defects in hardware or BIOS/firmware.
This is to be compared of course with the Windows Vista
source code thus far made available to the general public,
which has no swear words, euphemisms, or indeed anything
of content at all, and thus passes the "can be read by
the Pope" test.
Which variant is more useful?
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
