If I remember correctly, code for mini apps like MSpaint and Wordpad has been shipped with their Platform SDK and MSDN package for some time.

I figured it'd be a really big deal about the missing NT code, but there really hasn't been much mention of it on the news sites. I guess no one really cares because windows is such a poorley programmed os, no project could really benefit from it.

I could guess that it was released intentionally to persaude some to make the next purchace. There are as many people out there that use a computer that would be more scared off by a bit of configuring/programing Linux then having a neighbour or local tech to instal the next 'secure' Windoze o/s.

Think about this: With AMD64 and windows being created as a new 64bit o/s their 'latest' o/s in production will have to be scrapped. What of the lost revenues there? Perhaps they weighed the loss to *nix and those Staying with it .._Again_ and feel that there is some favor there. Especially if the leak was from elsewhere.

Someone mentioned a few times (or someones..) that to see the code could be.. a way for M$ to look at Linux. I think that is true to some extent. But Linux is already Open. All M$ would have to do is look at it. Still that could reduce wine and similar projects, or atleast stall them.

I kina like the sugestions of looking at it and being dumbified. (nice word, eh?) heh.. ..It could happen.

Another suggestion was to help fix it. (Windoze).. Blah.. Why would anyone want to fix it? A rock through it's panes would only make it leak less as the rock would get stuck!..

Besides. Then you could be sued for having the propietary source.. after all you would have to see it to fix it; and to see it you must have it; and having it without the concent of M$ is illegal.

..curiosity on the other hand.. Yeah. I would like to look.

Pandora's Box.. anyone?

MS canot look at linux code (form what i hear all MS "programers"*zombies* are baned from looking at anyhitng that has a gpl leisenze , probly cuse if tehy did somone could sue MS and in the worst case MS would have to make all of its source that uses the gpl'ed code free for anyone to use and see under the gpl,

so think about that if ya want to look the the MS source, if you did they have a good standing spot to sue you and get any project you contributed to

Pretty much the case I think for looking at their code.

Didn't think about the GPL.. M$ used any of the Linux code it could be viewed freely. But then how would one know? With out seeing M$ code?

According to The Register the first exploit has been released which has come directly from a bug found in the leaked source code.

The first of many, I suspect.

Just give 'em time.

Not that any is realy needed.

im still angry that they are blaming linux.

Aparently, acording to M$, mainsoft, a unix devleoper for windows and unix/linux interoperability had a machine on there network for a while, and that machine is the one that got hold of the source code.

They just dont want to admit how shit windows 2003 server is and how easy it is for people to get in.

It shouldn't matter what the os is for the machine(s) handling a problem.. *snicker* ....er yeah.. ..just because it is one brand x doesn't meant that brand x machine or software is bad. or that it is insecure.. Oh God.. ..ahem.. but that the person implementing the machine's privacy/etc. should be accountable.

Then again.

What would be said if this 600+ Mb of code was on a 'secured' M$ os at the time it was copied or ..what would be a better word then relinqushed? ..anyways, if it was the case that it were M$ instead of *nix I bet there would be little to no emphasis on that.

Reguardless of os or machine.. it is up to the system administrator to ensure security policy privace.. blabla.. is done correctly.

Perhaps some hacker (melicous or otherwise) must have been lucky in breaching M$..

What kina crap is that? A luck breach? Inside leak more likely. Or just plain stupidity! If I read (and remeber correctly) wasn't the machine NOT secured and connected to the net? Or disposed of without the information being removed? Humm.. just plain stupid!

(edit a couple spelling mistakes.. )