>>1420 This

>>1420 Cool it with the antisemitism

>>1415 >People who work on an open source XP can't even look at this fucking code, they have to do what is called "clean room" decompiling to make that shit. If you've ever looked at this source code, you're legally required to abstain from even contributing to a project that makes its own recreation of a Windows kernel/OS. How is looking at source code to figure out some Wangblows feature then reimplementing it in a superior programming language with nary a single line of code copypasted illegal?

>>1424 Because instead of reverse-engineering how it works and figuring out how it behaves, you are just taking the algorithm and reimplementing it. So viewing the original code taints anyone who sees it. Basically, there's an exception to copyright law and it's explicitly that you can create a compatible system as long as it's done with "no knowledge" of the original. If your code just happens to be a drop-in replacement for Microsoft's official code then that's fine, but you can't know how it works. Otherwise it's stealing. You'll see this come up in the history of IBM-compatible PCs. I'm going to link the Wikipedia article to "substantiate my claims", but I think the more interesting thing to do is to read a book on the subject, or if you're pressed for time, watch a documentary like Silicon Cowboys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design This is a fact of how copyright laws apply to code in America, and it's been this way for a long time. These leaks can only help indirectly, by someone reviewing them to set a more accurate spec.

I miss XP because you could do all sorts of stupid shit with audio streams. Probably unsafe as hell, but I liked outputting audio out of every orifice.

>>1424 It's a function reimplementaiton and there go copyright. the way you "disprove" this is by stating you had no knowledge of any internal code used to make the reimplementation. The reverse engineer thing is mostly used as a loophole to copyright. In this instance we have direct access to what we want to re implement. unfortunately because of the very nature of this code being licensed under microsoft if i was to actually open this up and look at it i'd find myself in hot water and unable to work on any related projects ever. And honestly these kinds of leaks only hurt opensource windows implementations in the long run, cause often some dumb fuck skiddy retarded looks at the code and makes a hundred commits to the project not knowing the legalize of things and then every part of the code goes sower and a whole fucking anoying internal dispute happens. every fucking time something from microsoft leaks it only hurts and lengthens development of legit projects.

>>1415 imagine caring about rules while hoping someone makes back a shitty proprietary obselete OS by retardcorp, who's sole value has never been anything more than "this software can only run on it". hmm this reminds me of UN*X

if chad sane developers wanted they would make XP back in a year working better than the original. meanwhile, we are busy doing other more interesting, important, and useful things like gassing the penguins

>>1415 Well, the OpenNT project did just that with NT4 source. And the guy still walks free, so it's possible.

>>1405 So theoretically, can someone use this source code and add in some modern fixes so it's usable as a modern OS?

>>1450 Only if you do it anonymously or don't get caught.

place your bets: ReactOS and wine new releases double in frequency

>>1466 Read the thread nerd

>>1405 MEGA is down.

>>1466 it's the opposite.

>>1415 So what's the limitations on this? Could I take a project written in java, decompile it, modify it, and redistribute that code without recompiling it first?

>>1524 Legally, no. You can't distribute the code or the binaries without permission from the copyright holder. Unless they've released it with some kind of license, the default is that they own it and all the rights to distribute until the copyright expires.

>>1525 Okay so I could use the decompiled code to reverse engineer the application and make my own implementation, but I couldn't distribute the decompiled code itself?

>>1526 If your replacement is designed using knowledge you gained from reading the code, then no, your code is now also tainted by their copyright. Does this make a lot of sense? Not really. But consider that copyright laws were written for mass media, not software, and IBM was happy to abuse a liberal interpretation of said laws to justify control over an entire ecosystem. That's why clean room design exists. What you can do is decompile it, pick it apart, write a spec of what should be available, and then hand that to someone else who independently writes code to match a spec. The spec isn't copyrighted and can't be (unless Google loses their battle with Oracle), just the code, but you taint yourself by viewing it. But there's nothing stopping you from giving someone an API to develop.

>>1533 But how could anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a developer looked at the leaked source code? Checkmate, lawyers.

>>1564 They don't need to prove anything. If they so much as get a whiff of anything they'll just destroy your life in court through legal costs.

>>1533 But how would they prove the decompiled code is in any way like the original source code? Wouldn't code be radically changed during compile?

A 4chan anon compiled Windows Server 2003. https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=0aWUEnP-t34

Will we get better NTFS support out of this?

>>1622 Is there a problem with the current state of NTFS support?

>>1622 No, because enterprise non-free drivers for Linux already exist and are the best NTFS support you could ask for. Better than Microsoft's own implementation. But they're making money off of it. What's available for free mainly suffers because of how Linux handles drivers, especially via FUSE. >>1628 Yes, but not from lack of understanding how the spec works. See above.

>>1629 Thanks for the clarification, anon.

>>1405 >>1473 Some helpful information: 2020-09-20 lacks 'nt5src.7z', which is the source code for XP and Server 2003. 2020-09-24 has that file, but also another file ('windows_xp_source.rar') which turned out to be fake. That file was also included in 2020-09-20. The reason it was included was because no one knew the password (it's 'internaldev'), and hence no one could check if the file was genuine. The uploader of the archive torrents uploaded an updated version (2020-10-04), which removed the fake RAR file: https://anonfiles.com/b1F6mbc4p3/Microsoft_leaked_source_code_archive_2020-10-04_torrent From 'torrent description.txt': You can safely remove 'windows_research_kernel', and 'misc/windows_xp_source.rar', before loading the new torrent in your torrent client. Again, if you've downloaded any of the previous versions of this torrent: You don't have to re-download the other files. Just remove the old torrent from your torrent client (without deleting the data), rename the directory to 'Microsoft leaked source code archive_2020-10-04'. Add the new torrent to your torrent client and force it to do a re-hash / re-check of the files, if it doesn't do it automatically.

Imagine if the entire source code for winbloat 10 was leaked. That would be an interesting day.

>>1687 I wish the source code for every Windows version but 8 and 10 would leak. Imagine if we got 95, 98, 2000, Vista and 7. Would be glorious. Imagine a Windows-derived desktop environment for Linux that incorporates every theme but metrosexual.

>>1695 7 would be a huge deal, but I don't know if it's likely. At least, if the XP DE could be ported to Linux, that would be really nice. Because you could have the Windows Classic environment on Linux, or Luna of course. And perhaps people who know what they're doing can build off that to implement Aero, and most of all if it's open source, you'd be able to make it more customizable than it was on Windows to begin with.

>>1718 7 would be great, but I have a feeling these are only leaking because MS isn't tracking access to their archives and nobody is referencing them anymore. Win7 still gets regular updates, as long as you're paying for them. In 5-10 years maybe we'll see it leak. Vista is nearly identical. You wouldn't want to port the XP explorer.exe directly to Linux. There's lots of WinXP skins for xfce that are plenty good.

>>1695 >I wish the source code for every Windows version but 8 and 10 would leak. <t. winbloat 8/10 user

>>1723 yeah that's kind of sad because if we had 7 now it would be really useful. And by the XP DE I mean pretty much all of it, not just a skin if that makes sense. Obviously I don't really know how all this stuff works though, but having for example the XP Control Panel would be really neat. not just a skin but its own package. XPDE or something haha

>>1723 >There's lots of WinXP skins for xfce that are plenty good. The only one that's even close to perfect is Chicago 95, all of the others have weird idiosyncrasies here and there that detract from them, and there's no gtk2 theme that can be easily ported between desktop environments that perfectly replicates the look and feel.

>>1406 drink bleach, fucktard