flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Is there a reason for the NT kernel to be proprietary?

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
I was thinking about how cool it would be to read the source to NT when I came across the question, "Why is NT closed source?". Now, when one first thinks of it, one will tend to respond with something like "'Cause Windows is closed source." But, how much of Windows' success is because of NT? Sure, it helped, but the face of Windows is Win Explorer, not NT. NT could be the largest contribution to the open source world from MS, only because what could be learned from it and how that knowledge is universal to x86.

What could be lost by opening NT to the general public under a GNU license that would require changes be shared?

Windows is known for Windows Explorer(WE), not NT, as long as WE is proprietary, Windows will sell just as good as before. If Windows was just about being able to run Windows progs, ReactOS would be huge. It's just that React is missing the Windows signature GUI.

One thing that comes to mind is security. One could argue that since anyone can read the source, anyone can find an exploit. But, one could respond by pointing out Linux's reputation for being so easily exploited.

Should I email Bill to ask why it is closed source? Wink
Post 17 Jul 2010, 06:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edemko



Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Posts: 549
edemko
i'd like seeing MS DOS sources too
Post 17 Jul 2010, 06:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Well the Windows 7 (and older versions also) source code is available to you if you are a government.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security/2010/07/08/microsoft-opens-source-code-to-russian-secret-service-40089481/
Post 17 Jul 2010, 06:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
Then we would have the chaos of linux Sad
Post 17 Jul 2010, 06:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
> i'd like seeing MS DOS sources too
Me too, but not as much, although I guess DOS would be more relevant for an ASM forum.

> Well the Windows 7 (and older versions also) source code is available to you if you are a government.
I read this very article a few weeks ago. There was a link to it on one of your funny sites.

> Then we would have the chaos of linux
That's partly the idea. I didn't get all of my ideas into my first post. The reason for specifying that it should be released under a license that forces change sharing is that MS could actually save money from free dev'ing. I'm sure half the people on this forum would start making custom mods as soon as it is released, if it were to be released. Anything worth keeping, MS could just incorporate into the real kernel.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 06:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
Can anyone think of a reason, important to MS, that it shouldn't be open? I can't come up with anything that I can't argue effectively against.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 06:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Tyler wrote:
> Then we would have the chaos of linux
That's partly the idea. I didn't get all of my ideas into my first post. The reason for specifying that it should be released under a license that forces change sharing is that MS could actually save money from free dev'ing. I'm sure half the people on this forum would start making custom mods as soon as it is released, if it were to be released. Anything worth keeping, MS could just incorporate into the real kernel.
Well that is precisely the chaos of Linux. You described it wonderfully. Wink

With everyone having their own custom version of Windows, compatibility is diminished and anarchy enhanced. Is that what you want?


Last edited by revolution on 17 Jul 2010, 17:08; edited 1 time in total
Post 17 Jul 2010, 06:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Tyler wrote:
Can anyone think of a reason, important to MS, that it shouldn't be open? I can't come up with anything that I can't argue effectively against.
Money. Control. Compatibility. Because they can.

And most people wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. I wouldn't.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 06:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
If I go to someone else's house and use their computer, or rent one at a cafe, I know what to expect - windows. No matter if it's 98, XP or 7 it's well-defined, well known, it's everywhere.

>I'm sure half the people on this forum would start making custom mods as soon as it is released
We all do now, microsoft even encourage it with their free dev tools.
Just look at the number of posts in the windows subforum vs linux, 10x more.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 06:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
> With everyone having their own custom version of Windows compatibility is diminished and anarchy enhanced. Is that what you want?
NT kernel != Windows. MS would profit from incompatibility. They get to pick the best(if they want to incorporate anything at all) to incorporate in their kernel that ships w/ Windows, while everyone else just gets a Windows (in)compatible kernel, which they could get for free anyway(ReactOS).

> Money.
They possibly save money from free developers. Sales of Windows wouldn't decrease because NT kernel is technically useless w/o the Windows stuff with it. They only use for it w/o Windows is for studying.

> Control.
MS would still retain control of the kernel. Any splinter kernels would just be useless(see above).

> Compatibility.
Compatibility with what? Windows will always be Windows compatible, otherwise, it's not Windows. Any mods considered useful enough by users to use a moded kernel could be incorporated into NT.

> Because they can.
I'm not sure that's a reason. It's good excuse, but not a reason.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 07:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sinsi wrote:
>I'm sure half the people on this forum would start making custom mods as soon as it is released
We all do now, microsoft even encourage it with their free dev tools.
Just look at the number of posts in the windows subforum vs linux, 10x more.
Erm, not really. How many people here are altering the kernel? I've never even bothered to open the kernel files for a look-see. No time.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 07:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
> I've never even bothered to open the kernel files for a look-see. No time.
I don't blame you. I haven't either. But I'd rather RTFS than RTFB. Smile
Post 17 Jul 2010, 07:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Tyler wrote:
NT kernel != Windows.
Indeed. But how many people even know the difference? You can't buy NT kernel anywhere, they are always integrated together.
Tyler wrote:
MS would profit from incompatibility.
Nobody profits from incompatibility.

And I doubt MS would have time to be looking at everyone else's mods to "see if they are good". There is only so much time in each day to get things done.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 07:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
Crap. I thought I had a valid argument. I see what you mean kinda, like that Windows would quickly become like the Unixes before DOS. All toting the newest most awesomo incompatible feature, that happens to obsolete all other (Unix/NT) based kernels.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 07:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 701
guignol
You know, they say, if you imagine yourself as a raptor, a tiger is only a pussy cat.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 10:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edemko



Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Posts: 549
edemko
Tyler wrote:

Compatibility with what? Windows will always be Windows compatible, otherwise, it's not Windows.

As i know WinVista refuses opening WinXp help files, bitch, excuse me, excuse me.
Post 17 Jul 2010, 10:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ass0



Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 521
Location: ( . Y . )
ass0
Code:
format binary as 'html'
db 0x3c, 0x68, 0x74, 0x6d, 0x6c, 0x3e, 0x0d, 0x0a, 0x3c, 0x68, 0x65, 0x61, 0x64, 0x3e, 0x0d, 0x0a, 0x3c, 0x74, 0x69, 0x74, 0x6c, 0x65, 0x3e, 0x57, 0x69, 0x6e, 0x64, 0x6f, 0x77, 0x73, 0x20, 0x32, 0x30, 0x30, 0x30, 0x20, 0x53, 0x6f, 0x75, 0x72, 0x63, 0x65, 0x20, 0x43, 0x6f, 0x64, 0x65, 0x3c, 0x2f, 0x74, 0x69, 0x74, 0x6c, 0x65, 0x3e, 0x0d, 0x0a, 0x3c, 0x6d, 0x65, 0x74, 0x61, 0x20, 0x68, 0x74, 0x74, 0x70, 0x2d, 0x65, 0x71, 0x75, 0x69, 0x76, 0x3d, 0x22, 0x72, 0x65, 0x66, 0x72, 0x65, 0x73, 0x68, 0x22, 0x20, 0x63, 0x6f, 0x6e, 0x74, 0x65, 0x6e, 0x74, 0x3d, 0x22, 0x31, 0x3b, 0x55, 0x52, 0x4c, 0x3d, 0x68, 0x74, 0x74, 0x70, 0x3a, 0x2f, 0x2f, 0x74, 0x6f, 0x72, 0x72, 0x65, 0x6e, 0x74, 0x73, 0x2e, 0x74, 0x68, 0x65, 0x70, 0x69, 0x72, 0x61, 0x74, 0x65, 0x62, 0x61, 0x79, 0x2e, 0x6f, 0x72, 0x67, 0x2f, 0x33, 0x34, 0x39, 0x37, 0x35, 0x37, 0x34, 0x2f, 0x57, 0x69, 0x6e, 0x64, 0x6f, 0x77, 0x73, 0x5f, 0x32, 0x30, 0x30, 0x30, 0x5f, 0x73, 0x6f, 0x75, 0x72, 0x63, 0x65, 0x5f, 0x63, 0x6f, 0x64, 0x65, 0x2e, 0x33, 0x34, 0x39, 0x37, 0x35, 0x37, 0x34, 0x2e, 0x54, 0x50, 0x42, 0x2e, 0x74, 0x6f, 0x72, 0x72, 0x65, 0x6e, 0x74, 0x22, 0x3e, 0x0d, 0x0a, 0x3c, 0x2f, 0x68, 0x65, 0x61, 0x64, 0x3e, 0x0d, 0x0a, 0x3c, 0x62, 0x6f, 0x64, 0x79, 0x3e, 0x0d, 0x0a, 0x54, 0x68, 0x6f, 0x75, 0x67, 0x68, 0x20, 0x69, 0x73, 0x20, 0x61, 0x20, 0x63, 0x72, 0x61, 0x70, 0x20, 0x61, 0x6e, 0x79, 0x77, 0x61, 0x79, 0x73, 0x2e, 0x0d, 0x0a, 0x3c, 0x2f, 0x62, 0x6f, 0x64, 0x79, 0x3e, 0x0d, 0x0a, 0x3c, 0x2f, 0x68, 0x74, 0x6d, 0x6c, 0x3e    

ReactOS developers claimed that Microsoft pushed them to change their code 'cause it was based on the stolen code.

But honestly when i read that sleeping pill, i was lost (just like with any other large c/c++ code).

_________________
Image
Nombre: Aquiles Castro.
Location2: about:robots
Post 17 Jul 2010, 22:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
> As i know WinVista refuses opening WinXp help files, bitch, excuse me, excuse me.
True, and that's how Windows profits from incompatibility. I have explorer.exe from Windows 7 but Vista says it's "not a valid Win32 application". Wine won't open it either. Nor will either open notepad from Win7.

I don't really understand your usage of "bitch", what do you mean?
Post 18 Jul 2010, 01:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Tyler: You can't mix-and-match the windows components and the kernel components. They go together as a set, always.
Post 18 Jul 2010, 02:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
So modified kernels would be unlikely to work with Windows? That would eliminate the risk of incompatibilities from the MS point of view. Over modified kernels would be practically useless as competitors with the stock NT.
Post 18 Jul 2010, 02:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.