I'd like to use or build something like this for vintage gaming.
Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
91–100 of 196 posts
Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. People often forget that early releases of XP was basically just a re-skinned 2000 but with a few tweaks for games and fonts. The problem was those skins ended up doubling the memory and CPU requirements. In fact XP was a pretty bloated OS on hardware from 2002. It wasn’t until much later into the life of XP when hardware caught up and newer service packs added enough to the OS to really differentiate it fro…
I preferred XP with the classic theme, some of its utils were improved.
Which utils?
I think XP introduced the “switch user” option. But I couldn’t find much in XP to justify the additional drain on memory and CPU. However I might not have needed the same utils you came to prefer (Every user is different).
Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google looks at your user agent and doesn't redirect to https if it's an old browser.
Isn't this a security vulnerability?
For IE5, there's two distinct obstacles to serving https.
1) It's unlikely to accept any x.509 certificates you can get issued under today's CA/B guidelines; and I'm also not sure how many CAs from then are still valid, either because they had too small of keys or they expired
2) I'm not sure if ie5 supports TLS 1.0 and if it does, it's probably not by default, because that how things were back then.
Given these conditions an https handshake is highly likely to fail, and as the server operator there's no way to provide useful information to the user in that case. If they go to your http site and you redirect them to a handshake error that you know they were going to see... That's not useful. You could be secure and not provide service... but then again, your redirect could be MITMed cause http. Or you could provide a useful service with no security.
This is a choice, not a vulnerability.
This doesn't open up any new way to attack a modern client. Modern clients would have google.com HSTS preloaded and not use http at all. But even if that's not available, a MITM that fiddles with the User-Agent to avoid getting a redirect could have fetched the search results via https and proxied them back via http, as long as the client made an http request.
Edit to add: if you could get a cert IE5 would accept, it likely wouldn't be acceptable by modern clients, so you'd need to distinguish clients from the TLS handshake (although, I guess it really is an SSL handshake for ie5?). There's no client identifier in there, but you can certainly tell the difference between modern and ancient; it gets trickier to tell the difference between ancient and pretty old or pretty old and trying to do a fallback handshake.
Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, Linux powers quite literally billions of devices
And a hundred million isn't enough to be real?
It is a joke to say that it is not a real OS.
But if you want to argue: You could say that a 'real OS' must be 'mostly POSIX-compliant' [1]. That way most other OS (Linux, MacOS, iOS) but not Windows would be included in your definition of a 'real OS' ;-)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Mostly_POSIX-compliant
Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
And a hundred million isn't enough to be real?
It is a joke to say that it is not a real OS. But if you want to argue: You could say that a 'real OS' must be 'mostly POSIX-compliant' [1]. That way most other OS (Linux, MacOS, iOS) but not Windows would be included in your definition of a 'real OS' ;-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Mostly_POSIX-compliant
I wouldn’t get why POSIX is the only way to design an OS.
Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
#96Is booting windows in a vm something noteworthy in 2021?
I was searching for your question. I agree I don't know why this is in the first page... Maybe some people [1] are right when they say most of HN's audience is interested in business and technology, but not technical themselves.
Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
#97Truly great OS. The pinnacle. Rock solid. Just look at that perfectly consistent UI. Everything afterwards is bloat and UI BS.
Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
#98Docker can run Win 2000, but older versions of Win 10 can't run Docker. There must be some irony here.
Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
And a hundred million isn't enough to be real?
It is a joke to say that it is not a real OS. But if you want to argue: You could say that a 'real OS' must be 'mostly POSIX-compliant' [1]. That way most other OS (Linux, MacOS, iOS) but not Windows would be included in your definition of a 'real OS' ;-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Mostly_POSIX-compliant
Windows is mostly posix compliant as it had a POSIX subsystem until 2000, then it had Windows Services for UNIX/Interix and now days has Windows Subsystem for Linux.
Re: Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker
#100I really liked how stable W2k was as a workstation. I could run a bunch of terminals, programs and hardly ever had a crash. Nothing is worse working an outage or deployment and POOF there goes your desktop. This was also around the time you could even run bbwin and themes, and tweak it some for fun. Pretty sure cygwin was also around.
Windows Server with the Desktop Experience enabled (plus a few other tweaks: https://www.windowsworkstation.com/win2016-2019/) is much better than Windows 10/11 IMO. Way less bullshit that way