81–90 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These .wav files might be made by person who works under Microsoft contract, not necessarily directly employed by Microsoft.
Which, of course, makes it perfectly acceptable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I interned at Microsoft in late 2000's. The sales engineers had an "anti oss" budget. Many of these guys still work at Microsoft today, now "hearts" open source and linux...
They have no choice, Linux already won big time on the server, so the only way was to embrace it in a way that would bring them money. And they succeeded big time. Now most young developers don't remember all the dirty tactics used year after year by MS to kill all competition, whether commercial or open source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the attitude more interesting.. on one side we have Linux embedded in Windows, more Linux VMs on Azure than Windows Server, MS employees proudly brandishing shirts with 'I heart Linux' and 'I heart OSS' and on the other side we have Windows Kernal developers saying their ideas were stolen. Maybe it's a sign of the relationship between Azure and Windows teams?
I interned at Microsoft in late 2000's. The sales engineers had an "anti oss" budget. Many of these guys still work at Microsoft today, now "hearts" open source and linux...
Multiple people I know stopped attending LFNW that year, and will not return. Hopefully other conferences like SeaGL don't fall for the Microsoft embrace scam, as it injured LFNW pretty badly.
Thanks for the link, o for a bunch of new followers on Quora today and was wondering why :) There are lots of good answers in this thread. In particular, someone took the time to look at the code, and that person wrote it only took them minutes to find similarities that make my opinion difficult to dismiss. About the lack of documentation, consider that only a tiny fraction of the kernel’s internals surface in the DD…
Thanks for the link, o for a bunch of new followers on Quora today and was wondering why :) There are lots of good answers in this thread. In particular, someone took the time to look at the code, and that person wrote it only took them minutes to find similarities that make my opinion difficult to dismiss. About the lack of documentation, consider that only a tiny fraction of the kernel’s internals surface in the DD…
Uh-oh. Someone didn't check with MS LCA before posting this. Bad move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also many of the .wav files in Windows 98SE were edited with a pirated version of Sony's Soundforge, the metadata in the media files contained the Soundforge cracker's name.
These .wav files might be made by person who works under Microsoft contract, not necessarily directly employed by Microsoft.
It would be interesting to see this engineer's statements tested in court. Microsoft are highly motivated to protect their source code so there would have to be a reason why they haven't. ReactOS is definitely NOT a mosquito to an elephant in violation terms if this engineers comments have validity. I'm thinking patents, copyrights etc. The fact that Microsoft haven't acted for all this time is by itself evidence tha…
I find the attitude more interesting.. on one side we have Linux embedded in Windows, more Linux VMs on Azure than Windows Server, MS employees proudly brandishing shirts with 'I heart Linux' and 'I heart OSS' and on the other side we have Windows Kernal developers saying their ideas were stolen. Maybe it's a sign of the relationship between Azure and Windows teams?
Windows Kernel. To me best knowledge, Windows was never ported to Commodore 64 ;-)
I remember reading that even inside Microsoft, internal structures had to remain backwards-compatible because external, "very important" programs relied on them (violating the public API of course). I can't remember the source, unfortunately.
Now it would be interesting which aspects can affect compatibility and thus be part of a normal reverse engineering on the ReactOS side. For example, C usually does not remember structure names after compilation -- but "usually" is not always and depends on compilers, macros, and whatever somebody invented. The most interesting findings would of course be names that have absolutely no effect post-compilation AND were never published.
> If any of the presumed authors wants to chime in and explain the similitudes, I’m happy to change my mind, but be ready to answer some though questions about the origins your coding and naming styles, and all the design choices that you made and why you ended up architecting and writing things the way you say you did ;-)
On the internet, the burden of proof is on the accused.
Comments like these are eerily similar to what Microsoft had been saying for years about Linux - at best they had been infringing on patents but I seem to also recall accusations of the kernel containing proprietary Windows source code. This is just one individuals opinion but I would be really interested in seeing them provide more specifics - especially given the amount of MS source that has leaked/been open source…
Thanks for the link, o for a bunch of new followers on Quora today and was wondering why :) There are lots of good answers in this thread. In particular, someone took the time to look at the code, and that person wrote it only took them minutes to find similarities that make my opinion difficult to dismiss. About the lack of documentation, consider that only a tiny fraction of the kernel’s internals surface in the DD…
Uh-oh. Someone didn't check with MS LCA before posting this. Bad move.