Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 291 posts

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#241

Post by anticensor »

tinus_hn wrote: post #201
axelriet wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s my personal opinion and it’s based on my lecture of ReactOS code at the time I downloaded it (circa when I wrote my reply on Quora). I think anyone who can read C code can reach similar conclusions just by eyeballing the code in ReactOS and the code from the leaked Research Kernel, that can be found for example on GitHub. As a matter fact, someone on this thread did just that and it did not take that person very…

I presume you quit working on Windows after you read the ReactOS source code, offered to you under the GPL license only? Or is Microsoft planning to release it under a compatible license?

Plot twist: Microsoft employee goes out of his way to force Microsoft to open-source Windows

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#242

Post by michaelmrose »

axelriet wrote: post #234
michaelmrose wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find an opinion hard to credit when exact proof is sitting their on an open source repo everyone has access to and a closed source repo only you have access to. You make a theoretically compelling argument like the "hack" you describe above and then leave out the only part that really matters where you prove it. It is entirely likely that you are simultaneously entirely correct and entirely unable to prove it due t…

It appears you did not read what I wrote. The similarities are out there for anyone to see, there is plenty of leaked Windows code floating around including on GitHub, and I did not need anything else to form my opinion.

This was flagged for some reason. Please don't flag comments that don't violate community standards just because you don't like the author.

I have no intention of reading through millions of lines of code from a legally questionable source to make your point for you.

How about you do so and post an in depth analysis?

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#243

Post by close04 »

simias wrote: post #156
axelriet wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft does not release the kernel’s private symbols, trust me on that. But yes there was some leaks in the past, small portions of NT4 and W2K were leaked, I think I link to a Google query pointing to articles discussing the leaks in the Quora reply.

Are you arguing that MS mistakenly releasing a version of Windows with debug symbols didn't happen or that it constitutes a leak and isn't fair game? Because the former is fairly well documented and the latter doesn't seem right in the context of this discussion. If MS themselves messed up and published the symbols through an official channel that's fair game IMO. Although obviously IANAL etc... I'm talking from an e…

> Are you arguing that MS mistakenly releasing a version of Windows with debug symbols didn't happen or that it constitutes a leak and isn't fair game?

I think he's saying that even having access to leaked or accidentally released originals is not implicit permission to use it freely. Otherwise any piece of software that was ever legitimately released would be fair game, just throw it at a decompiler and profit.

If you're making a clean room design having so many similarities to the original is unlikely to happen accidentally.

Anybody implementing a clean room design should theoretically have no prior knowledge of the original's inner workings. The specs are written by one person, checked to not include any of the original material by a second one, before being passed to a third to be implemented.

From far enough a piece of wire and an isolation transformer do the same thing. The secret sauce is in that isolation, you can't just shunt it and pretend it's the same.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#244

Post by javagram »

codewiz wrote: post #105
d1zzy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, EULA is a contract and has been successfully tested in court against reverse engineering: https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd

For the contract portion of the EULA to be enforceable, you have to get the user to explicitly and willingly agree to it. Tricking the user with a shrink-wrap license ("by opening this package you have agreed...") would not hold in court. Asking users to click "I Agree" in installers also has dubious value due to the widespread practice of clicking these buttons to proceed without really reading the contract; their t…

> Tricking the user with a shrink-wrap license ("by opening this package you have agreed...") would not hold in court.

Your claims are legally dubious at best. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract

“One line of cases follows ProCD v. Zeidenberg which held such contracts enforceable (see, e.g., Bowers v. Baystate Technologies[2]) and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., which found the contracts at hand unenforceable (e.g., Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.[3]), but did not comment on shrink wrap contracts as a whole.”

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#245

Post by Udo »

jeditobe wrote: post #218
Udo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an utterly insufficient answer to the allegation that you copied internal data structures entirely from the NT kernel, including (why?) their names. Brushing this off as a free "PR campaign" only works if those NT programmers simply made everything up. That's possible, because we as the general public have no way of knowing. But it's hard to ignore that there are just two possible scenarios here, nothing in b…

Well, now please re-read your statement Do you understand that internal data structures entirely from the NT kernel, including (why?) their names != verbatim code from NT in your source The program code is logic first of all. For the similarities of names and structures itself - the answer is in this already mentioned video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D9ExVc0G10&t=9m53s from the 9:53 moment of time. TL:DW there…

Never having had access to the NT kernel source, I don't actually know how deep these similarities go. When MS kernel engineers say those are not only superficial, I'm inclined to believe that until ReactOS have at least conducted an investigation.

It's a serious allegation that deserves more than a casual brush-off and some condescending statements about publicly available debug symbols. If MS is really full of shit, as I hope they are, they should be held accountable with more than a shrug and a smile. If ReactOS does contain copied code (and yes, that does include data structures as well as instructions), well then that should have consequences as well.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#246

Post by Udo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #198
Udo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an utterly insufficient answer to the allegation that you copied internal data structures entirely from the NT kernel, including (why?) their names. Brushing this off as a free "PR campaign" only works if those NT programmers simply made everything up. That's possible, because we as the general public have no way of knowing. But it's hard to ignore that there are just two possible scenarios here, nothing in b…

> This is an utterly insufficient answer to the allegation that you copied internal data structures entirely from the NT kernel It's quite sufficient when you consider that, unless the allegation is made in a court of law, it's in ReactOS’s interest for it to be perceived as plausible. Being perceived as either an actual (if unauthorized) fork of Windows or as something that a Microsoft insider could reasonably mista…

I don't disagree with your assessment from a PR point of view, I guess I was just hoping the open source community would hold itself and others to higher standards. Being technically not provably guilty in a court of law is not exactly the peak of virtuousness.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#247

Post by mkl »

StudentStuff wrote: post #219
mkl wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get that idea about New Zealand copyright? Code is copyrightable here, see e.g. [1] or [2]. And it's not about belief, but definition. Copyright and patents are human inventions defined by countries' laws (which is why different countries have different rules: different definitions). In NZ, as in many countries, "Computer software follows the rules for literary work" ([2] again). [1] http://www.burgess.…

New Zealand abolished patents for software, that is what I was thinking of: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/29...

It was more that we clarified what was and wasn't patentable, as I don't think software was exactly patentable before that either; its patentability and the ability to enforce said patents were ambiguous. Patents on software are not quite completely banned, either, as, from your link's linked source, "Processes will still be patentable if the computer program is merely a way of implementing a patentable process."

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#248

Post by amaccuish »

repolfx wrote: post #209

I took a quick look at the structure of the WRK and ReactOS, as the MS developer suggested. I can see what he means. The first thing we observe is that the directory structure is basically identical. Yes, NT kernel subsystems are identified with short codes like "Ke" or "Ex". It's plausible that someone with a lot of NT knowledge would end up creating top level directories with these exact names, as is true of the WR…

> But it seems kind of unlikely: the Wine sources do not show this pattern.

Wine is not an NT kernel. Wine deals with the Win32 api, not the kernel.

> Looking at the code of the identically named KeBalanceSetManager function, we can see that not only is the function prototype identical, but the order in which it does things is also identical. First it changes a thread priority, then it schedules a periodic timer callback.

When trying to build an OS that is binary compatible with another, including the low-level like kernel drivers, surely it's expected that the prototypes be the same?

> The loop does nothing, just sits blocking in a loop forever. Why does this code in ReactOS exist if it does nothing?

Perhaps because the ReactOS kernel is note feature-complete, it's Alpha, so that part hasn't been implemented?

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#250

Post by segfaultbuserr »

littlestymaar wrote: post #185
Anarch157a wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be enough to get an injunction and prohibit the software from being distributed in the US, which would deny a very important market for the developers.

Indeed, but as the world becomes less and less centered around the US, this effect will probably disappear soon: if a product is originally developed for China, not being able to sell it in the US isn't an issue.

> if a product is originally developed for China, not being able to sell it in the US isn't an issue.

If it's a commercial product or an academic research project under national grant, it may be the case.

But for free and open source project, banning U.S. developers from participating is (still) suicidal.

Post reply on HN