Is that on Piratebay?

On topic:

Quoting Sun UK's chief open-source officer, Simon Phipps:

After all, Windows is built on open-source software. If you search through the binary of Windows for the phrase "Regents of Berkley University", you'll find that loads of their code is open source that they got from the BSD license.

Really? Loads? I thought it was only a networking thing that they copied years ago, but ditched in XP or Vista...

Dunno - is a quote from a recent interview.

Just checked it (in both ansi and unicode). In WinXP in C:\windows there is only one file that contains word "berkley" and that's nls302en.lex (no, there is nothing about "reagents"). words about "berkley reagents" are part of BSD license, which is often written within comment block at the beginning of source files. Because it's within comment, there is no way it'll make it to binary after compilation. So even if half of windows system uses BSD-licensed components, it won't be possible to find that out by searching for word "berkley".

@ErV:

That's "regents", not "reagents" - reagents are chemicals that you plan to react with something. And that's "Berkley", not "Berkly".

The quote is strange though - the "open source" code in WinDuhs is definitely a minority if you can find any left. Of course WinDuhs had to conform somewhat to what the rest of the world expected of BSD sockets and to some extent, the POSIX specification. But I'd be surprised if MS didn't almost completely rewrite the network code. I remember looking at the 'sockets 2' code a long time ago and I only saw little bits and pieces of the original BSD code.

It is a quote from 'Suns open-source officer'.I'd expect some spin there.What he didn't say was what version of windows he was refering to.
These days it is more important to read what isn't there then the actual statements.

I didn't expect anybody to go out and search for code in actual windows versions as this is obviously a propaganda statement on Sun's part.
For that reason I did include who said it and didn't link the article.

I admit "reagents" was a typo, but where did you see "Berkly" in my post?

I suspect that they are using libpng and libjpeg in certain D3DX functions (D3DXCreateTextureFromFile, etc.), maybe in some other places, but I have no proof for that.

I must be going blind; I could swear I saw "Berkly". Then again maybe I'm just going senile and forgetting some letters.

Well, I can't say for sure if the windowing system is integrated or not in Windows, but it appears to be. Now how exactly would separating the X from the kernel be a good thing? (For Desktop use). If anything, that is a bad thing.

Linux GUI was, and still feels, sluggish at best. I will only use Gnome and KDE as examples because they are the most used ones and are the ones the majority of new users will stick with. Moving a simple Window in Gnome does not feel nearly as responsive than any version of Windows. Why? Because they are not integrated to the kernel. In fact, both Gnome and KDE are made to be crossplatform.

When you plug a device in Windows, it loads the drivers, it looks for drivers and a balloon tells me that the device is ready to use. I plug a device in Linux and gnome does not do a thing. If I check the logs, Linux almost always identifies an USB device greatly. It might even work without loading modules, but Gnome and KDE are just there, doing nothing, because they are not listening to the kernel messages.

So yes, separating things in Windows would be great for a server, saving resources, etc. For a Desktop user, I think that would make Windows as broken as Linux is for the Desktop.

When I plug my USB memory in Gnome pops up a nice icon, and a window showing me the files. Fedora 7. Ubuntu, too.

I think it's easy to see that you're a Windows proponent. That's fine with me. You don't seem to like Linux much these days. To each his own. But I've also noticed you have been throwing some nonsensical stuff out there too, appearing to me to be trash talking Linux, or to perhaps start flame wars. E.g. the paragraph I quoted above. What's the deal?

KDE also throws up a window asking what I want to do - mount, open, play, etc etc in the exact same way that Windows does. And even if it didn't, I'm plugging it in for a reason - I want to read, play, print or whatever with it. So I will plug in the device and attempt to use it. In Windows, if I'm lucky that will happen, otherwise I have to load or reload drivers or plug/unplug the device and so on.

This is an argument I recall from when I started using Linux. The great thing about Linux is that when X falls over (that should be "if" though) all you lose is your desktop. You get thrown to a command line and can diagnose the problem. In Windows, when X fails, it takes down the whole box. This is why, when IE fails it knocks out your desktop. All apps on Windows are bound to each other to make them faster - increasing the risk of losing everything after a minor failure. In Linux the apps are not bound to each other, sacrificing a small amount of speed for more security and less danger of trashing your system.

Mega Man X - for someone who has been around for a while, that was the worst bit of FUD I have ever seen.

Come one guys, don't take me too seriously on the general section. After all, the General is basically useless. All we have here is flamewar, people believing that killing Bill Gates is fine, discussing American politics even though this is an International forum. Heck, some even believe that the hippie Stallman makes a good point sometimes. To do not mention that how many drop by just to recommend Slackware...

Slackware cured my haemmorhoids.

Laugh if you must but I CAN RIDE A BIKE AGAIN!

I feel the same way and got castrated at times by sensitive members. Like unspawn said once, General is the "cesspool" of this site. No one should take anything seriously in this forum but for some reason they still do.