Bill Gates fan leaks source code for a bunch of Microsoft OSes including Windows XP

[soldier_ph]

12 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

windows Vista was really good, snappy, clean UI, and barely any issues.

 

12 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

I love Windows Vista

r/unpopularoppinion

Spoiler

XP was the best Windows for me. And this Source Code leak is pretty funny.

 

[Delicieuxz]

15 minutes ago, Nayr438 said:

If you only have "nt5src.7z" you just have one of the pieces of the archive. The full dump should look like this. With my right pane being the misc folder.

That looks like the 43 GB torrent I've seen, but with a few things added - nt5src.7z, windows_research_kernel, and changelog.txt.

 

How big is that nt5src.7z? The one I see is 2.93 (3.15) GB.

[Nayr438]

7 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That looks like the 43 GB torrent, but with a couple of things added - nt5src.7z, windows_research_kernel, and changelog.txt.

 

How big is that nt5src.7z? The one I see is 2.95 GB.

2.4GB, but yes the total dump is 43.3GB

They posted a changelog for why it's smaller, seems they didn't like cabs lol

Quote

This is because my file only has one level of compression,
while the original file had CAB files inside the 7zip file. The only change I
made was to extract the CABs, and then compress the extracted files with 7zip.

Because, f**k CABs.

 

[Delicieuxz]

12 minutes ago, Nayr438 said:

2.4GB, but yes the total dump is 43.3GB

They posted a changelog for why it's smaller, seems they didn't like cabs lol

What's the difference between the expected content value of nt5src.7z (2.93 GB) and windows_xp_source.rar (367 MB)?

 

nt5src.7z seems to be loaded with source files in its XPSP1 folder.

 

And the txt for windows_xp_source.rar says this:

Quote

Including 'windows_xp_source.rar' in this collection, even though it's password
protected. Maybe someone can crack (or guess) the password and see what's
inside. The archive is bigger than the other XP / Neptune source tree. It might
be genuine, it might not. But I'm including it just in case, since the file was
so hard to track down. Original upload date seems to have been around 2007 or
2008.

The hash key is:
$RAR3$*0*c9292efa2e495f90*044d2e5042869449c10f890c1cced438

Happy cracking!

 

[Nayr438]

49 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

What's the difference between the expected content value of nt5src.7z (2.93 GB) and windows_xp_source.rar (367 MB)?

 

nt5src.7z seems to be loaded with source files.

 

And the txt for windows_xp_source.rar says this:

 

No one knows its a mystery at this point, however they reference the size to one of the Neptune Dumps in the txt, which could mean its a much earlier dump of XP.

[ImAyaanKhan]

14 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'd love to see an Open Source version of Windows get off the ground and become exceedingly popular.

 

If only to piss off the Linux fanboys lol.

Lmfao no, we wouldn't get pissed, this would be our chance to meme windows source code

[ImAyaanKhan]

6 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

My main issue with the Linux community is their strange obsession with CLI for everything.

 

I remember when I tried to switch over to Linux. I tried to do everything I would normally do, via the GUI, like applying updates. None of it worked and any time I asked about it, I was simply told "bruh who uses GUI!?! CLI is so much better".

 

Like, literally the button to update or download drivers, when clicked, would do absolutely nothing. But type in the proper command to CLI and hey presto it works.

 

I like Linux's performance, but I hate CLI. Very specifically I love how quick Linux starts up and shuts down compared to Windows.

 

If they could just get past their obsession with CLI, I think maybe Linux would gain a lot of popularity.

Hate to be the toxic fanboy here, but for most of us, the GUI does suck. The CLI is a much more efficient way to do things, and it's not just that; linux is built around the terminal. No GUI can give you the level of control over your system that a terminal does, and control over your system is precisely one of the things that we love so much about the OS. Using a GUI to do things like install packages just wastes time, for example opening an app store and searching for an application is slower than running something like

yay -S firefox

The terminal is meant to be a powerful all in one utility, not something that we have to make GUI frontends that break easily for. The terminal is a robust and efficient way to manage things, hence why experienced users dislike GUIs

[Bombastinator]

28 minutes ago, ImAyaanKhan said:

Hate to be the toxic fanboy here, but for most of us, the GUI does suck. The CLI is a much more efficient way to do things, and it's not just that; linux is built around the terminal. No GUI can give you the level of control over your system that a terminal does, and control over your system is precisely one of the things that we love so much about the OS. Using a GUI to do things like install packages just wastes time, for example opening an app store and searching for an application is slower than running something like

yay -S firefox

The terminal is meant to be a powerful all in one utility, not something that we have to make GUI frontends that break easily for. The terminal is a robust and efficient way to manage things, hence why experienced users dislike GUIs

Way way back there was a similar editor argument. Emax vs vi.  Comes down to this:  command line is better IF you put the time in to learn the commands.  If you DONT. it sucks ass.  For people who had been coding with vi for ten years, vi really was better.

 

It’s called learning curve.  Command line is a sharper learning curve.  Full mastery will allow better control but climbing the learning curve is more of a slog.  This is one reason why MacOS has worked so hard to retain both. GUI is for people who want to get other things done and view a computer as merely a tool to do that other thing. Command line is for people who don’t. They’ve got enough issues mastering that other thing. Mastering the tool is not what they want to do.  It’s ok if they only get 90% effectiveness if they need half the time to get there. GUI design is literally ALL about reducing training time, and getting people usefully productive.  It’s generally done by leveraging previous common experience.  So delete file is shaped like a trash can and the workspace is called “the desktop”
 

An example:

One of the weirdnesses of old film cameras is when a model went out of production its sale price increased rather than decreased.  This is because for photographers have to learn to manipulate the tool instinctively. it’s got to be muscle memory.  They NEED the various levers and dials to be EXACTLY where they are and do EXACTLY the same things they always did or they have to learn it all over again.  Better to drop another Benjamin even to delay the issue.
 

Another similar example:

Canvas is a stupid thing to paint on.  600 years ago it wasn’t.  People still do it though 600 years later because if you want a given kind of brush to do a thing when you press it to the surface you NEED canvas.

 

A third example:

military arms generally suck for anything anyone would want to use a gun for as a civilian. 
Compare an AK to a match rifle.  The AK is a joke. It’s heavy, it’s inaccurate, it absolutely Hoover’s through ammo.  What it is though is cheap, simple, and good enough.   In the US military style arms rampantly outsell other types though.  Why? Because people already know how to use them.  

[ImAyaanKhan]

26 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Way way back there was a similar editor argument. Emacs vs vi.  Comes down to this:  command line is better IF you put the time in to learn the commands.

I'm going to have to cut you off here. Newbies hardly need to put any time into learning commands, all they have to do for basic usage is to look at a few tutorials and they're set. Realistically they can learn the terminal for package management initially and use a GUI for other stuff, like file management. Learning the terminal is a gradual process; you make it sound like a newbie should jump right in and learn everything at once. Some newbies do that (I did, for example, and so did some of my friends), but only those who really want to dive into linux. Some users might choose to leave their journey in the terminal at the basics, and some want to dive deeper. Either path is fine, but learning the terminal is not some arduous task like you make it out to be

[ImAyaanKhan]

Just now, epicdotexe said:

Most Linux distros come with Gnome or a lesser desktop environment

r/linuxmasterrace will flay you alive.

All jokes aside, KDE is much better than GNOME

[ImAyaanKhan]

1 minute ago, epicdotexe said:

I used to use XFCE but Gnome seems much more responsive when you have multiple 3D applications open on the same desktop.

KDE is amazingly smooth and responsive, and I personally love the customization it offers

[ImAyaanKhan]

Just now, epicdotexe said:

My graphical environment only exists for file management and opening up programs, I really don't care what it looks like. Gnome under Debian was the highest performing combination for my work (Fedora was comparably slower, Ubuntu is a dumpster fire, etc.).

Ah I see, I run Arch and I love customization, so I really care what my DE looks like. Personal preference, I guess

[StDragon]

16 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

windows Vista was really good, snappy, clean UI, and barely any issues.

 

The only issue it had that it would randomly "update" about every 6 months even when updates where off...and then it ran like shit lol... thank goodness I had a "recovery cd"  that fixed it every time.

 

XP also wasn't bad! (win 98 too)

 

So what are the implications of this news, "open source" windows? I can't imagine microsoft being happy about that?

 

 

Vista was pure garbage from launch. They fixed the UAC mode later on, but the Window Update and Winsxs management was borked. Windows Server 2008 (non R2) was based off Vista. So when went to install 20+ patches at once, if anyone were to fail, it reboots to roll back all of them, then reboots again to commit changes.

 

It's gone, dead, and I thank God each and every day that nightmare is over with!

[Bombastinator]

40 minutes ago, epicdotexe said:

There are much better arguments for using Linux than 'the terminal is excellent."

 

Most Linux distros come with Gnome or a lesser desktop environment, you can install a graphical package manager, etc. There is really no need to use the terminal if you don't want to.

 

What is a good reason to use Linux is --> making the most out of your hardware. For example, I run a piece of software called LuxRender to generate images from 3D scenes I create. It is no longer in active development. On Windows, this causes a problem: with two 56 thread processors my CPUs are split into two processor groups (if you have more than 64 threads Windows splits them into "local groups" with no more than 64 threads in each, called processor groups). If I want to use both the CPUs in my machine, I would have to disable hyper-threading, losing at least 20% of my overall performance (in reality, with this application, I lose over a third, nearly half, of the performance). 

 

Contrasting this, the Linux version was not only "better compiled" (in addition to a better kernel for compute), but Linux also identifies all 112 threads as a single group. Compared to Windows, this is a performance enhancement of almost 2X. Cutting 100 hour long frame batch renders in half is not only a meaningful performance improvement, but also a massive time saver and results in huge energy savings. 

 

Anecdotally, Substance Painter is also much faster under Linux than Windows, and the Blender viewport can handle more than 5X the polygons without slowing down (~50 million triangles without dropping below 60 FPS compared to ~10 million under Windows Server 2019 on the same machine).

That’s not an argument I made.  I was replying to an ode to terminal. I don’t think terminal is better for 90% of users I think it’s worse.

[Bombastinator]

47 minutes ago, ImAyaanKhan said:

I'm going to have to cut you off here. Newbies hardly need to put any time into learning commands, all they have to do for basic usage is to look at a few tutorials and they're set. Realistically they can learn the terminal for package management initially and use a GUI for other stuff, like file management. Learning the terminal is a gradual process; you make it sound like a newbie should jump right in and learn everything at once. Some newbies do that (I did, for example, and so did some of my friends), but only those who really want to dive into linux. Some users might choose to leave their journey in the terminal at the basics, and some want to dive deeper. Either path is fine, but learning the terminal is not some arduous task like you make it out to be

No.  “Newbies” need to get their work done.  For most of them that is what a computer is for.  “Gradual” still means you can’t get anything done until you reach a minimum level of functionality.  My point is this argument is incredibly old.  Older than computers.  Older than paint in tubes. It was a known argument in the 1970s which is why xerox did gui research in the first place.

[ImAyaanKhan]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

No.  “Newbies” need to get their work done.  For most of them that is what a computer is for.  “Gradual” still means you can’t get anything done until you reach a minimum level of functionality.  My point is this argument is incredibly old.  Older than computers.  Older than paint in tubes. It was a known argument in the 1970s which is why xerox did gui research in the first place.

Did you not read a word I said? It takes 5 minutes at most, and considering this is a whole new OS they will be spending a lot of time setting stuff up. Stop expecting this to be a seamless process; one can't jump OSes in a day and be comfortable. It will take them time to adjust regardless, and the terminal is just part of it

[Bombastinator]

15 minutes ago, ImAyaanKhan said:

Did you not read a word I said? It takes 5 minutes at most, and considering this is a whole new OS they will be spending a lot of time setting stuff up. Stop expecting this to be a seamless process; one can't jump OSes in a day and be comfortable. It will take them time to adjust regardless, and the terminal is just part of it

I Did.  Did you?  It used to be ALL computers were command line only. I used computers before and after the change was made.  I used to Shepard people trying to create projects on both kinds of machines and teach people how to use them.  I can state definitively that the 5 minute statement is pure crap.  Weeks, not minutes, and some people just failed.  They couldn’t do it at all.  A gui desktop is “intuitive” (meaning looks like things they are already used to) and a person needed barely more than a few hours before they could be left alone with a GUI interface with reasonable safety.  It took orders of magnitude longer for command line interfaces, and the errors were often much much more destructive. 

[ACEHACK]

so no one knows the key for windows_xp_source.rar . i tried a 10mil dictionary test and a brute of 6 digit lower case, nope. if anyone cracks it, share it.

 

btw its not 40+Gb. after you extract everything ( including the zip files in the folder) + the nt5src is over  ~152Gb. and its clean, i ran it through multiple scans of kaspersky and bitdefender. only 2 html file got flagged as generic trojan. so you should be mostly ok. 

 

[Mark Kaine]

17 minutes ago, ImAyaanKhan said:

Did you not read a word I said? It takes 5 minutes at most, and considering this is a whole new OS they will be spending a lot of time setting stuff up. Stop expecting this to be a seamless process; one can't jump OSes in a day and be comfortable. It will take them time to adjust regardless, and the terminal is just part of it

part of what? certainly not of a modern OS.

 

A modern OS would be controlled by eye tracking, gestures, touch, voice... and be *intuitive*... the typewriter stuff is seriously outdated (and tedious as heck and  as such  never going to happen) 

 

ps: this is also my main point of criticism for windows btw, it's outdated, it's old and old-fashioned, and the opposite of "intuitive".

 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

part of what? certainly not of a modern OS.

 

A modern OS would be controlled by eye tracking, gestures, touch, voice... and be *intuitive*... the typewriter stuff is seriously outdated (and tedious as heck and  as such  never going to happen) 

 

ps: this is also my main point of criticism for windows btw, it's outdated, it's old and old-fashioned, and the opposite of "intuitive".

 

 

 

Windows is a copy of a copy of a copy.  Xerox invented the GUI (by dint of a buttload of research) and Apple copied it. CDE copied Apple and KDE copied CDE.  There was a gigantic lawsuit where Apple claimed windows copied Apple but microsoft won by claiming they copied kde instead. It was very much like the original msdos lawsuit.  There was an 8 bit OS (who’s name I forget. Cpm?  Not sure) and some dude wrote a book in which he made a (very poor) copy of that OS.  Microsoft claimed they didn’t copy the 8bit software they copied the book.  The man who wrote the 8bit OS eventually committed suicide.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Bombastinator

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, epicdotexe said:

Microsoft tried to push touch. Most tech companies have tried to push voice. The conclusion was that all these things are, actually, much less intuitive than a mouse and keyboard!

no the conclusion is that Microsoft and others suck at programming and are unable to innovate. Android (and iOS I guess) are the closest to something remotely being a modern OS. 

 

you only think m+kb is effective because you're used and trained to use it, it's really totally impractical compared to voice / touch , etc (I only say touch because I see some good uses for it, generally eye tracking etc would be much preferable)

 

no one (outside mobile OS) didn't even really try yet, ironically the people who could do this in theory can't because they're much too stuck in their ways of thinking and in thinking how things "should work" (in this example using an electronic typewriter to control a computer like it's the 17th century lol)

[Mark Kaine]

4 minutes ago, epicdotexe said:

Health risks of unnaturally jiggling my eyes around a 27 inch screen for 8 hours a day? 

that's a good example of how someone doesn't even get the concept, I think a similar situation arises when programmers try to make an OS that's "innovative" and uses touch etc. they simply don't know how, of course it's gonna blow hard ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

(hint: the controls for a 3d object would be exactly the same like with kb+m , you'd just have more modern input methods that are more accessible)

 

 

 

 

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

No.  “Newbies” need to get their work done.  For most of them that is what a computer is for.  “Gradual” still means you can’t get anything done until you reach a minimum level of functionality.  My point is this argument is incredibly old.  Older than computers.  Older than paint in tubes. It was a known argument in the 1970s which is why xerox did gui research in the first place.

You dont even need the terminal if you dont want to use it so pretty moot to argue about it....

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Oh I know it will.

 

I just think it would be funny if a Windows Open Source project managed to pwn Linux in popularity with the general population. Like I said, because of the fanboys.

Linux would have to be in the general population first 

[Murasaki]

holy shit