|
-
February 20th, 2002, 05:40 PM
#1
 MicroSoft told to open Windows
I just saw this on news.bbc.co.uk
could be interesting!
J.
-
February 20th, 2002, 05:43 PM
#2
It's a start. But tell me....How would the lawyers know there isn't code that's been omitted? Or are they just taking it for granted that M$ will be honest?
Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
- Samuel Johnson
-
February 20th, 2002, 05:44 PM
#3
it will end as usual man ... M$ wins
god knows why ... 666
When the power of Love overcomes the Love of power, the world will know peace... Jimi Hendrix
-------------------------------------------------------------
I dream of giving birth to a child who will ask...... what was war?
-
February 20th, 2002, 06:04 PM
#4
if the code compiles and runs without errors the lawyers will know it's not the real thing.
J.
[glowpurple]manually editing your config files can break them. If this happens, you get to keep both pieces. [/glowpurple]
-
February 20th, 2002, 06:12 PM
#5
LMAO, there gonna give them the code for 3.1 and say that its XP
-
February 20th, 2002, 07:14 PM
#6
All kidding aside it will be interesting to see if the states can force a stripped version out. Since windows seems to depend on explorer. In interent explorer enter c:\ and access the c drive it looks just explorer.exe (without the folders button). I think a lot of the code is shared between ie and windows explorer. So to remove IE m$ would have to revert to file manager from w3.x.
Although it is possible that both files (explorer.exe and iexplor.exe) have duplicate code I think its more likely that the code is in shared DLLS.
I'd like to test the stipped version.
If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked. What\'s more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- former White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke
-
February 20th, 2002, 07:21 PM
#7
Very interesting - I'd like to have a look at that code too. I see Microsoft fighting this every step of the way, but who knows what will happen. Imagine what one could do with the code for Windows OS's???
-
February 20th, 2002, 08:02 PM
#8
Why I'll bet one could cut out all the bloat code and write something that works. Like ux.
Trappedagainbyperfectlogic.
-
February 20th, 2002, 09:04 PM
#9
AFAIK you can change the shell= entry in system.ini for Win9x machines to progman.exe (or whatever it is) so that windows boots with the Win 3.1 shell. Never tried it myself, though. I probably ought to, sometime.
[HvC]Terr: L33T Technical Proficiency
-
February 20th, 2002, 09:22 PM
#10
Originally posted here by Terr
AFAIK you can change the shell= entry in system.ini for Win9x machines to progman.exe (or whatever it is) so that windows boots with the Win 3.1 shell. Never tried it myself, though. I probably ought to, sometime.
This is also possible with WinNT 4, I have used it several times to force a box to boot with a default application, you are not forced to use progman.exe you can use netscape or whatever you want to have as a default shell.. Together with system policys this works quite well if you want to "secure" it from non tech users .
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
