# Why Security Pros Use Macs



## aryayush (May 16, 2007)

Why do I insist on using a Mac as my primary work machine? More specifically, why an Intel Core2-based MacBook Pro?

*img441.imageshack.us/img441/5163/01425sz1i12848900ik4.jpg​
It's probably not the reason that you think. 

Security professionals need not hide behind the argument that avoiding Microsoft Products is the end-all solution to a secure computing environment. Security Professionals have much better reasons, and those were amplified when I talked to other folks at CEIC 2007 over the last few days. I was astounded at the number of Mac laptops that were present. It was easily twice the number from last year. 

Here are the reasons:

1) In today's current environment of Windows-specific malware, yes hanging your hat in the OS X corner makes sense. You are less of a target. The malware bad boys are writing their code for Windows. Whether this is because OS X is so secure, or because the miscreants want to capitalize on market share to make their bucks, the argument that using OS X as your primary OS is a smart one today. Security Professionals want to practice what they preach, and this is a pretty decent way of doing so.

Read more...


I don't see how any sane and rational human being (and this requirement automatically sieves out certain members of this forum) could possibly have a differing opinion on any point in this article.


----------



## gxsaurav (May 16, 2007)

Lets disect the post a bit.



> 1) In today's current environment of Windows-specific malware, yes hanging your hat in the OS X corner makes sense. You are less of a target. The malware bad boys are writing their code for Windows. Whether this is because OS X is so secure, or because the miscreants want to capitalize on market share to make their bucks, the argument that using OS X as your primary OS is a smart one today. Security Professionals want to practice what they preach, and this is a pretty decent way of doing so.



Yup, we all know that . Macs are secure just cos they got less number of users & malwares are not targeting this low population. Didn't hackers recently proved that Mac can be hacked.



> 2) No other platform allows you boot OS X legally for security research and testing. OS X has a rising marketshare, and it *is* relevant to anyone doing forensic work. At CEIC there was an entire presentation on OS X forensics, and it was packed. That same presentation was packed last year. Hmmmm.



Yup, the only legal way it to buy a Macintosh cos El Jobso wants you to use it on his company's computer not just any equal performing computer which you can buy out there dirt cheap. Also it depends on what application you use.



> 3) Parallels. ..................



Isn't this available for Windows since.,...umm VMWare




> 4) None of that "Genuine Software Checking Crap". Man, Microsoft really annoyed me with their Genuine Advantage crap. Every time I changed hardware components on my forensic machines, that damn GA would insist that I call MS



Microsoft has no way to find out whether you are using a legit Windows OS or not. Apple has a legit way, it runs only on Apple hardware so to run MacOS X legaly you need to buy a new computer. Why do you guys always forget to mention that ?


> Virtual unlimited abundance of software.  Want to run EnCase or FTK or WebInspect?  Power up your Parallels image.



Again, did someone forgot to mention that Windows has been doing this since...umm VMWare 



> My student discount puts a nice dent in the price tag.



Speaks about itself



> Try it - you might be surprised. When I whip out that Apple remote control and start clicking through my Keynote slides I usually have to remind the folks in the room to watch the slides and NOT my remote control. (true story)



cool, I think this guy didn't see Acer Ferrari, Sony VAIO, Asus Lambhorgini laptops out there


----------



## kumarmohit (May 16, 2007)

Erm, If this guy is a security 'pro' how come he got a student discount. Mr Jobs I am studying 2 courses in parallel and do some freelancing too. If you can provide a 'student' discount to a security pro, plaese oblige me by sending an Octa-core MacPro with 2 Apple 30 inch cinema displays, A black Mac Book 13 inch (Already have 15 inch laptop, so cut the MacBook Pro) and drop a 80Gig iPod in too. @ mini discount of 100%


----------



## aryayush (May 16, 2007)

He explains why he is eligible for student discounts. The least you could have done was actually read the article before posting something.


----------



## gxsaurav (May 16, 2007)

Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Autodesk all provide student license however it is subcidiced by the college you are in. Like Vancuvar film institute, if you study there you get student license of Photoshop & 3Ds Max, Shake, Final cut at really cheap prices.


----------



## Desi-Tek.com (May 16, 2007)

mac  is secure because it is built on bsd kernel with mod and it will always remain secure  and 1 more important point it implement FAP file access permission. So again in case if mac will get infected with virus it will need root permission to create any disaster which i don't think any body will give  . FAP is missing in windows and recently introduced in vista but still it has long way to go


----------



## kumarmohit (May 16, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> He explains why he is eligible for student discounts. The least you could have done was actually read the article before posting something.



My mistake, I thought you only gottaa be a student to get the discount!!!


----------



## aryayush (May 16, 2007)

This post alone makes you a thousand times better than the second poster in this thread. Having the decency to admit that you made a mistake is a great character trait.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 16, 2007)

as GX said , Mac is only secure coz less people use it n hackers target windows . say if Mac share rises to 90% then the situation would be the other way round 

Also , *an Opearting System is as secure as the usr using it*


----------



## aryayush (May 16, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> as GX said , Mac is only secure coz less people use it n hackers target windows . say if Mac share rises to 90% then the situation would be the other way round


Doesn't change the fact that it _is_ secure, reasons be damned.



			
				Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> Also , *an Opearting System is as secure as the usr using it*


Correction: Windows "is as secure as the usr using it". You can use Mac OS X as you wish to, visit any website, download any file - you'll always be secure.


----------



## zyberboy (May 16, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> say if Mac share rises to 90% then the situation would be the other way round


Yeah


----------



## eddie (May 16, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> Correction: Windows "is as secure as the usr using it". *You can use Mac OS X as you wish to, visit any website, download any file - you'll always be secure.*


 *www.fileupyours.com/files/94923/hah.gif *www.fileupyours.com/files/94923/jok.gif


----------



## eggman (May 16, 2007)

Damn!!!Even viruses don't like Macs.....even they  hate it.
I had my last hope on viruses........poor mac


----------



## kirangp (May 16, 2007)

*I am using Windows Vista as I wish to, visit any website, download any file - I am always secure and I am sure of that*


----------



## gxsaurav (May 17, 2007)

> Damn!!!Even viruses don't like Macs.....even they  hate it.
> I had my last hope on viruses........poor mac


:ROFL:



> I am using Windows Vista as I wish to, visit any website, download any file - I am always secure and I am sure of that


You are not the only one bro. No AV here, just a firewall & ad muncher.


----------



## Sukhdeep Singh (May 17, 2007)

> Lets disect the post a bit.
> 
> 
> > 1) In today's current environment of Windows-specific malware, yes hanging your hat in the OS X corner makes sense. You are less of a target. The malware bad boys are writing their code for Windows. Whether this is because OS X is so secure, or because the miscreants want to capitalize on market share to make their bucks, the argument that using OS X as your primary OS is a smart one today. Security Professionals want to practice what they preach, and this is a pretty decent way of doing so.
> ...



Exactly, and same applies to linux


----------



## praka123 (May 17, 2007)

UNIXen are inherently better and secure.
*Linux a Virus Target?*

   In an article on vnunet.com, two executives of anti-virus firms opined that Linux would be the next virus target.  Here are excerpts from the article:  
"Of course we will see more and more attacks on Windows, but Linux will be a target because its use is becoming more widespread," said Raimond Genes, European president for antivirus at Trend Micro. "It is a stable OS, but it's not a secure OS."  Jack Clarke, European product manager at McAfee, said: "In fact it's probably easier to write a virus for Linux because it's open source and the code is available. So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS becomes more common and popular." ​  I will be charitable and call these statements "myths" or "misperceptions" rather than other nastier but perhaps more accurate terms.  Let's examine and debunk the myths.  
*Myth: Widespread use equals widespread abuse*

  This myth goes as follows:  Product X (Windows, Outlook, whatever) has more security problems because it is far more widely used than Product Y (Linux, Mutt, whatever).  
In fact, the Apache Web server is far more widely used than Microsoft's IIS (Source: Netcraft), but has suffered far fewer security problems (Source: defacement archives).  
*Update*:  I have had several comments saying that this survey reveals that Windows _computers_ account for about 50% of Web servers, but that Apache runs more _web sites_.  Some people claim that under this metric, therefore, IIS is more widely used than Apache. Even if I accept these figures, the fact is that the defacement archives show Windows defacements outnumbering non-Windows defacements 62 to 38. From this, I still conclude that the number of vulnerabilities in a piece of software does not necessarily correlate with its popularity.  
*Myth: Linux is not a secure OS*

  In fact, no commodity OS is "secure".  Security is a process, not a product, as dozens of security experts keep reminding us.  Linux does, however, have important security enhancements compared to consumer-level Windows operating systems:  File permissions and separate user accounts can greatly mitigate the damage caused by malicious software.  If all of the security features built-into Linux are properly configured and enabled, Linux is a highly secure system.  
For those who need even more security, the U.S. National Security Agency provides a Security Enhanced Linux distribution which contains advanced security features beyond anything found in Microsoft operating systems.  
*Myth: It is easier to write viruses if you have the OS source code*

  I would suggest just the opposite:  If source code is widely-available, many organizations with an interest in security (such as the NSA, for example) can audit the code, correct security problems, and feed these corrections back to the main code tree.  
Why is it that tens of thousands of viruses exist for closed-source systems like Windows (with several of them actively propagating around the Internet as you read this), while only a handful of pathetic "proof-of-concept" viruses have been written for Linux, and none has propagated to any extent?  
Why is it that open-source Apache has a far better security record than closed-source IIS?  
*Why Linux viruses are unlikely*

  In order for an e-mail virus to propagate, it must be able to:  

Enter the target machine
Execute on the target machine
Propagate itself
  Linux makes steps 2 and 3 very difficult.  
*Social Engineering to Enable Execution*

  Under Windows, a file is marked as "executable" based on its filename extension (.exe, .com, .scr, etc.)  Encoding metadata (like file type) into the file name is a very bad idea and has horrendous security consequences. Encoding metadata in this way allows for the simple-minded social-engineering attacks we see on windows:  "Click here for a cool screensaver!!!"  
Such an attack under Linux would go like this:  "Save this file; open up a shell; enable execute permissions on the file by typing 'chmod a+x filename', and then run it by typing './filename'."  
Obviously, the Linux permissions system makes such a social-engineering attack very difficult.  
*Software Flaws to Enable Execution*

  Another means by which viruses can execute are by exploiting bugs in e-mail client software.  Both Outlook and the various Linux mail clients have had their share of bugs, and this is indeed a risk, even on Linux.  However, because of the overwhelming uniformity of Windows desktops, a virus which exploits a software bug in Outlook is far more likely to propagate than one which exploits a software bug on a Linux e-mail client.  This is simply because of the huge array of Linux e-mail clients in use.  At any given time, only a small portion of all Linux users are vulnerable to e-mail client bugs.  
*Virus Propagation*

  To propagate itself, an e-mail virus must re-mail itself to others. On Windows/Outlook, this is simple, because there is a uniform, well-known interface for obtaining address lists and sending e-mail.  On Linux, this is harder.  There is no uniform way for a virus to read your address book, so a Linux virus would have to work harder to propagate itself.  
*Linux in the Future*

  There is a trend under Linux to build complex, rich desktop environments which allow rich interaction between programs.  These environments could, if not designed correctly, increase the chances for viruses to execute and propagate.  So far, however, the designers of these environments seem to be following sensible design and security procedures.  No-one, for example, has built a Linux e-mail client which automatically executes an attachment with just one mouse click.  
*Challenge to Anti-Virus Companies is Over*

  My anti-virus challenge, which had been running since 5 December 2001, is now (7 May 2002) over.  No-one managed to meet the challenge, although one person came close.  
*The Challengers*

  There were five entries in the anti-virus challenge:  

Entry 1
Entry 2
Entry 3
Entry 4
Entry 5 (This one came close)
But seriously...
    Copyright © 2001 David F. Skoll *www.roaringpenguin.com/about/articles/anti-virus.php  


I'd like all windows fanboys to read below article:
 "Remote shell trojan". In order to be infected by it you must run a binary infected by it, as root. Most binary Linux software is typically signed by the vendors that produce it, and a quick check of the signature would reveal if the package were changed or not. In addition this "Remote shell trojan" cannot replicate across networks, it cannot send itself out as an email attachment, or hunt for and infect network shares. On the other hand the Code Red worm will infect any NT or 2000 machine that has a default configuration without sufficient security updates (estimates run from 300,000 machines and up were infected by Code Red). While the number of UNIX, and Linux viruses will of course increase, but I doubt we will see the explosion that the Windows world has been suffering in recent years. The argument that "the increasing popularity of Linux (and UNIX in general) will mean more viruses" is correct but only in a limited way. The general usage habits and layout of the system will defeat the majority of viruses quite effectively.

*www.seifried.org/security/index.php/UNIX_and_Viruses


----------



## deepak.krishnan (May 17, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> Why do I insist on using a Mac as my primary work machine?


bcoz hackers and virus writers are not at all interested in Macs


----------



## aryayush (May 17, 2007)

Yeah, and that's great news for me and all Mac users. We couldn't be happier.


----------



## i_am_crack (May 17, 2007)

@praka123.....Good Presentation..I liked the way you put it.....

eBRo


----------



## blackpearl (May 17, 2007)

@aryayush: 
What's your problem dude? If you like mac, fine. Just use it. Why do you have to keep singing in praise? Nobody likes such people, you know that.

There are only 3-4 mac users here and the rest windows users and they like their OS too. Have you seen any Windows users doing what you are doing?


----------



## praka123 (May 17, 2007)

deepak.krishnan said:
			
		

> bcoz hackers and virus writers are not at all interested in Macs


 I cant get ur point.pls read:
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=500801&postcount=17
^^ the explanation is easy to get isnt it?

MAC OS X is a UNIX(freebsd base).right?.UNIX is secure.infact very much secure than DOS or Windows inherently.now dont hear the false point FUDed by the fanboys `de Windows here.dont make conclusions without actual experiance.
there are people who uses Linux,bsd's,mac's and many other OS who are satisified.Yes,the popularity of UNIX are growing esp Linux.even if popularity of UNIX os's increases Viruses or any other craps cannot procreate themselves in UNIX like architecture.
this is not to offend you.but just to make known the facts rather than the FUD spreaded by win fanboys here.


----------



## iMav (May 17, 2007)

linux and mac are as vulnerable as windows .... its a globally accepted fact by mac experts also tht if hackers train their eyes on a mac or linux it will also face the same wrath as windows does


----------



## praka123 (May 17, 2007)

^^ ranting or whining eh? ::got his ears closed with araldite:: 
Digest the facts dude,rather than FUD ing eh?I know u guys the trio pioneering in FUDing MAC and Linux.Pathetic U guys


----------



## gxsaurav (May 17, 2007)

> ^^ ranting or whining eh? ::got his ears closed with araldite::
> Digest the facts dude,rather than FUD ing eh?I know u guys the trio pioneering in FUDing MAC and Linux.Pathetic U guys



In one of the other threads, isn't it you prakka spreading FUD about Microsoft & DRM


----------



## iMav (May 17, 2007)

not in 1 of the other threads .... every other thread


----------



## praka123 (May 17, 2007)

Yes DRM is infested in MS Vista.god knows what else they got inside closed source os to loot critical datas of poor users signed their fcuking EULA.why ur lieing?I am saying truth only.
arent u the trio who are spreading nonsense in this forum creating troubles for MAC and Linux users?I have gon through ur threads..this is pure FUD u guys are doing.and where is the admin @fatbeing.sir,please go through the threads created and run by imav,gx_saurav especially.


----------



## gxsaurav (May 17, 2007)

> Yes DRM is infested in MS Vista.god knows what else they got inside closed source os to loot critical datas of poor users signed their fcuking EULA.why ur lieing?I am saying truth only.




MS looting my super secret recepie. how the hell are they doing it?


----------



## iMav (May 17, 2007)

preading nonsense in this forum ... hey arya have we said anything wrong ... all that we pointed out was correct even u know that may be the way we said it can be questioned but we arent spreading lies ... and hey praka MS is not providing DRM content ... if u r against DRM curse the content providers  and can u tell wht effect has DRM had on u ? im using vista, gx is using, vishal is using, anand is using none of them have said that DRM has caused any problems to them no user on the net has said tht DRM has caused them problems but its u OSS users hijacking MS threads ... fatbeing go thru his FUDs also in all MS threads ...

and arya i think u can help us out here we havent said anything that not there in mac what we have said is what is true as i said the way we said can be questioned ...

security users use mac ... and we have a OSS user talking about DRM  and then saying we are doing something wrong


----------



## i_am_crack (May 17, 2007)

Some guy gives the funda of something and the other pop that here and there are N numbers of guys fight of justice.....

God Save you people...

Long Live users......


----------



## kumarmohit (May 17, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> Yes DRM is infested in MS Vista.god knows what else they got inside closed source os to loot critical datas of poor users signed their fcuking EULA.why ur lieing?I am saying truth only.


 
Just wondering, the code of linux kernel becomes official when Linus Torvalds and his committee clears it, right!!!

The Kernel itself has like a million lines of code, Did you go thru every single line of code of every single app, daemon or server running on your PC to ensure that linux was not sending info to Torvalds and his bunch or Redhat etc.

Its impossible to go through it for everyone, right and moreover they will never do it because they have reputation @ stake.

Similarly, MS also has reputation @ stake and moreover their main revenue comes from sales not support like FOSS companies so they will not do it either, and that is why the law requires a document called privacy policy, breach of which has serious consequences.

Rest assued dude, and please do a bit research before accusing anyone.


----------



## eddie (May 17, 2007)

kumarmohit said:
			
		

> The Kernel itself has like a million lines of code, Did you go thru every single line of code of every single app, daemon or server running on your PC to *ensure that linux was not sending info to Torvalds and his bunch or Redhat etc.*


Have you completely lost it? Kernel by itself cannot do anything and cannot send any information to any place. Kernel is just that...kernel. To get anything else working...you need to have such patches in both...kernel as well as user space program. What you are suggesting is that Torvalds patches the kernel with some privacy invading patches and then ties up with a user space program to get your info.

If for a moment we believe the absolute absurdity you just mentioned; then also to get any patch into kernel tree, people need to go through a proper channel and the channel is linux tracker. You need to first up your patch for any and everyone's review and once that has happened then only the patch goes into the tree. As far as user space program is concerned, almost all the programs maintain similar bug trackers for patch evaluation and if some program does not do it...then it is usually so small that you can review the whole source by yourself. Do you see how difficult it is to execute your conspiracy theory? Ignorance is reaching new levels every day on this forum...





> Similarly, MS also has reputation @ stake and moreover their main revenue comes from sales not support like FOSS companies so they will not do it either, and *that is why the law requires a document called privacy policy,* breach of which has serious consequences.


Windows has a privacy policy? Mind linking us to Windows Vista's copy of this document? I couldn't find while googling.





> Rest assued dude, and *please do a bit research before accusing anyone.*


 Yup...the conspiracy story you just tried to feed us was backed with solid reasoning and elaborate research. You are so awesome!!!


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 17, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> *Windows has a privacy policy? Mind linking us to Windows Vista's copy of this document? I couldn't find while googling*


 *www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/vistartm_full.mspx  
*www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/privacy/default_ie.mspx  



			
				Windows Vista Privacy Statement said:
			
		

> Windows Vista Privacy Statement
> 
> For information about prior releases of Windows Vista, selected software that is part of the operating system, or related services, please refer to Privacy Statements for additional features and services on the right.
> 
> ...


 *Do some research before making false claims El Mooo*


			
				kumarmohit said:
			
		

> Just wondering, the code of linux kernel becomes official when Linus Torvalds and his committee clears it, right!!!
> 
> The Kernel itself has like a million lines of code, Did you go thru every single line of code of every single app, daemon or server running on your PC to ensure that linux was not sending info to Torvalds and his bunch or Redhat etc.
> 
> ...


 Couldn't agree more


----------



## kumarmohit (May 17, 2007)

@eddie

I am just saying that the no. of checks and balances like those exist @ Linux also exist at Microsoft and Apple, Then we also have ITsecurity companies like secunia who keep an eye on what softwares do and are ready to ring the alarm in case of trouble.

I am not refering to only Kernel sending info, I am refering to every single, *app, server or daemon*. Apps at least do run in user space so they can send info. If I run a modified version of Apache it can easily drop some info of site statistics to some one who modified the source code.

So this is as much possible with windows as is with linux and macOS if I have a copy which was acquired from a malicious source.

And the privacy policy of Microsoft in general is applicable to windows, unless there is a product/service specific policy like that of a website. Like the one above.

Anyway, I was not blaming/accusing Linus Torvalds or FOSS community (considering that I am related to ReactOS, FOSS product which will rival MS more directly than Linux) I am just trying to make people stop speculating and making ridiculous accusations. (Both of which are impossible in a free country)


----------



## aryayush (May 17, 2007)

blackpearl said:
			
		

> @aryayush:
> What's your problem dude? If you like mac, fine. Just use it. Why do you have to keep singing in praise? Nobody likes such people, you know that.
> 
> There are only 3-4 mac users here and the rest windows users and they like their OS too. Have you seen any Windows users doing what you are doing?


You haven't! 

WOW! Congratulations man! Do you use some special keyboard and stuff? How do you manage to type all this! Cool!


Uh oh - watch you head, there is a wall... duck... ouch! That must've hurt.


----------



## iMav (May 17, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> You haven't!


 no windows user brags about his OS they just point out to the fact that Windows is as good as any other OS out there  and when we point out certain 'shortcomings' (flaws & shortcomings are 2 different things) mac users join hands with the mods and OSS users try to pprove that windows users are worth less and then the mods lock the thread ....


----------



## eddie (May 17, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> Do some research before making false *claims* El Mooo


 Do you know the meaning of the word "claims" or is it that lack of knowledge of English language has become a common problem with Windows users in this forum? Can you tell me which "claims" I made in my previous post...forget about them being false. Sheesh...

Also did you just post the privacy policy or did you read it as well? Here...this is an excerpt from the page you linked us to





> The personal information we collect from you will be used by Microsoft and its controlled subsidiaries and affiliates to provide the service(s) or carry out the transaction(s) you have requested or authorized, and may also be used to request additional information on feedback that you provide about the product or service that you are using; to provide important notifications regarding the software; to improve the product or service, for example bug and survey form inquiries; or to provide you with advance notice of events or to tell you about new product releases.


Read and understand the meaning of that statement. It clearly suggests that Microsoft can collect your personal information and they can share it with their affiliates. Do you understand what that means? It means that they can share the collected info to companies who pay them and become their partners in providing some services. I can become an affiliate by paying them and get access to information collected from your Windows install. If you don't understand what that means then I pity you.

Oh and people who are about to say they don't belong to CIA or KGB...don't bother. You don't belong in a discussion that mentions the word "privacy" in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


			
				kumarmohit said:
			
		

> I am just saying that the no. of checks and balances like those exist @ Linux also exist at Microsoft and Apple, Then we also have ITsecurity companies like secunia who keep an eye on what softwares do and are ready to ring the alarm in case of trouble.


When it comes to knowing about security and privacy issues...there is a huge difference between closed source and open source programs. In case of open source programs...the truth is out there for any one and everyone to see & audit. A good looking program with horrible coding standards cannot become popular in Open Source world and will be shunned in no time at all but in case of closed source programs the same is not true. People can give you something to run while you won't even know what you are running. As far as companies like Secunia is concerned...their resources also become limited when it comes to closed source applications. They can't reach every bit of code to analyse it...and auditing becomes that much more difficult. This is an undeniable fact and doesn't need anyone's approval stamp on it.





> If I run a modified version of Apache it can easily drop some info of site statistics to some one who modified the source code.
> 
> So this is as much possible with windows as is with linux and macOS if I have a copy which was acquired *from a malicious source.*


That phrase is the key here..."malicious source". That is why security features like GPG keys and MD5sums have been included all over open source world so that if someone modifies your binary from the officially released one...you will be alerted. If someone modifies even a small part in the original source code then the resultant package (rpm, deb) will not have a matching MD5sum to what was released officially by the program developer...so that part of your skepticism is uncalled for.


----------



## iMav (May 17, 2007)

eddie read the statement again it oesnt say it automatically without ur knowledge takes info ... whenever u buy a MS product for tht matter even when i bought my ipod i was asked to fill a form (not implying anything against apple just giving example) now they also clearly state


			
				Privacy Statement said:
			
		

> you have requested or authorized, and may also be used to request additional information on feedback *that you provide*


now is that ur lack of knowledge of the english language and as u say seeesh ... most of this is based on info that u type in online forms ...  they dont come in ur pc and take info


----------



## eddie (May 17, 2007)

iMav said:
			
		

> eddie read the statement again it oesnt say it automatically without ur knowledge takes info ...


I really don't want to discuss anything with you but anyways...
This is the part that is vital in that policy





> you have requested or authorized


You authorize them do get your info as soon as your accept the policy. They don't need express permissions from you on every step...you do it once...you've done it for all times. You show me a clause of "express permissions every time" and I will accept what you are saying.


----------



## gxsaurav (May 17, 2007)

Eddie

According to the Microsoft Privasy Policy,* if you agree to send data to MS* for making the user experience better or beta testing or periodically feedback given automatically by the software *only then the data will be given to them*.

You can simply say no & not install the OS. That again depends on the users choice.


----------



## praka123 (May 17, 2007)

@eddie,pls leave this guys,they are pwned already!!! 
USE FOSS to understand its Virtue,OSS rocks!It dont grab ur private datas,GNU/Linux dont bark at u.U r controlling ur OS,not the other way which M$ does to U M$ Fusers?
U all know the site which proves that M$ collects datas from user using windows. 
*micros*ck.com/


----------



## gxsaurav (May 17, 2007)

the link said:
			
		

> November 3, 2001
> (v2.0 finished May 16, 2001; v1.0 finished June 11, 2000)
> 
> Written with Windows 9x in mind, but not limited to.


Prakka , i was having a boring day. Thanx to cheer me up  with this joke.

Umm...where was OSS in 2001 , ummm

sudo play linkin park.mp3

oh, there it was.



> ,not the other way which M$ does to U M$ Fusers?



What when where? Plz enlighten us with a feedback application written in 1996 now.


----------



## praka123 (May 17, 2007)

^^ 


			
				sourav said:
			
		

> Prakka , i was having a boring day. Thanx to cheer me up


I am prakash kerala user id changed long back to praka123  by admin.some ppl will remember me for a fight?looong back.


> Umm...where was OSS in 2001 , ummm
> 
> sudo play linkin park.mp3
> 
> oh, there it was.


 I am sure that Linux played gr8 in 2001-even back from 1997(got kde gui DE) FYI.
AND using CLI is not something BAD.
arrey!u got wrong cmd there baby!no sudo for a simple audio file play 


> What when where? Plz enlighten us with a feedback application written in 1996 now.


CAN U customize ur OS inners?everything,the flexiblity OSS OS's like Linux,freebsd gaves?Win users are getting controlled by M$ using EULA.thats it 
 Do u Agree to a small doubt of Mine?Is Microsoft Vista or XP *Closed Source?
*^^ now do u gurantee that M$ dont have any mechanisms to collect user data?prove me with WIndows OS codes,I will believe?can u do it?
FOSS mean Free,Libre,Open Source Software where each and every line of code(including Linux kernel) is audited by OSS devels and others(companies too!)
Are U going to say that Vista or XP are not at all related to previous win versions?
^^Na baba,I cant get U


----------



## eddie (May 17, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> You can simply say no & not install the OS. That again depends on the users choice.


 I am not talking about choices and I have no problem what a user wants to install or does with his system. That is not my prerogative and is not my wish either. I was just replying to a fellow user who said that Open Source Software can have the same shortcomings in privacy sector as what is present in Closed Source counterparts. Clearing that misconception is the sole motive behind my last few posts.


----------



## gxsaurav (May 17, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> * CAN U customize ur OS inners?everything*,the flexiblity OSS OS's like Linux,freebsd gaves?Win users are getting controlled by M$ using EULA.thats it
> Do u Agree to a small doubt of Mine?Is Microsoft Vista or XP *Closed Source?
> ^^ now do u gurantee that M$ dont have any mechanisms to collect user data?prove me with WIndows OS codes,*


Yup, we can. Did you hear about registry hacks etc. 

Yup, we know XP & Vista is closed source.

OMG...I never thought of this. This means my super secret recipe for weight loss is under danger. Damn you Microsoft.

Hey wait a second, isn't BSNL also listening to my Phone conversation ?

Hey hey, isn't the bike shop keeping an eye on my bike where it is going using some inbuilt GPS module

again, isn't my mom keeping an eye on me by talking to all the junk food shops i go to  

Hye, isn't Yahoo making a logs of my chats. OMG...All that flirting with my next door gal using a fake ID is going to be exposed ...nooooooooo

In simple words, you point is very lame prakka.



> I was just replying to a fellow user who said that Open Source Software can have the same shortcomings in privacy sector as what is present in Closed Source counterparts.


He wasn't wrong. Despite of having access to source code, how many users understand its meaning? If you say MS can access our computers to keep an eye on what we do, then Linux can too.


----------



## eddie (May 17, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> He wasn't wrong. Despite of having access to source code, how many users understand its meaning? If you say MS can access our computers to keep an eye on what we do, then Linux can too.


 Just because you don't understand the source code doesn't mean no one can. Have you ever seen someone compiling, installing and then running an open source trojan or virus? If one user doesn't know what the source code means...doesn't mean that thousands of developers don't know what is there in it either. Stop the madness!!!


----------



## gxsaurav (May 17, 2007)

Now where from the developers came in here? We were talking about home users, right


----------



## eddie (May 17, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Now where from the developers came in here? We were talking about home users, right


 Any code that reaches a home user goes through the close audit of thousands of developers. Go back in the thread and see my post about Linux Tracker and Project bugzillas.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 18, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Do you know the meaning of the word "claims" or is it that lack of knowledge of English language has become a common problem with Windows users in this forum? Can you tell me which "claims" I made in my previous post...forget about them being false. Sheesh...


 Accept it El Moo , you're just frustrated that i provided you with Vista's Privacy Policy which you *claimed* you could not find 


			
				gx_saurav said:
			
		

> According to the Microsoft Privasy Policy,* if you agree to send data to MS* for making the user experience better or beta testing or periodically feedback given automatically by the software *only then the data will be given to them*


 totally true Saurav , also before sending the data the app asks you to choose whether you want to send the data or not , also the data sent is mostly usage statistics(like in case of WMP) not your credit-card information eddie .





			
				praka123 said:
			
		

> *micros*ck.com/


 now wouldn't that be FUD



			
				praka123 said:
			
		

> Do u Agree to a small doubt of Mine?Is Microsoft Vista or XP *Closed Source?
> *^^ now do u gurantee that M$ dont have any mechanisms to collect user data?prove me with WIndows OS codes(


 well if you don't know *Praka* that though Windows is closed source for normal users but Ms provides free acces to it's software source code to goverment agencies so that they can check that the software is not doing nything malicious 


			
				ZDNet said:
			
		

> *Microsoft will share the source code underlying its Windows operating system with several international governments*, a move designed to address concerns about the security of the OS.


 now how's that 

Bet you'll be pi***d off n will make more *false claims*

Governments to see Windows code


----------



## eddie (May 18, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> Accept it El Moo , you're just frustrated that i provided you with Vista's Privacy Policy which you *claimed* you could not find


Some Windows users on this forum stopped frustrating me long time ago. Now I just pity them for their sheer ignorance about facts, language and things happening around them


----------



## blackpearl (May 18, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> You haven't!
> 
> WOW! Congratulations man! Do you use some special keyboard and stuff? How do you manage to type all this! Cool!
> 
> ...



I don't go about creating threads how good Windows is over mac and why Windows is this and that. Its you Mac people who can't stop bragging about your mac. 

You guys really have some psychiatric problem.


----------



## aryayush (May 18, 2007)

... and it really is none of your business.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 18, 2007)

things r getting a bit hot in here 

Let's get back to the topic

btw , *praka* doesn't seem to have read my post about Microsoft allowing Security Agencies to review Windows Source Code


----------



## eddie (May 18, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> btw , *praka* doesn't seem to have read my post about Microsoft allowing Security Agencies to review Windows Source Code


 ...and how do you know that the source code provided by them is complete and everything included in Windows? Can anyone confirm it by just looking at it? They don't even allow compiling of this source...how can you be sure that it will actually lead to working binaries? Microsoft revealed Windows's source code in full...and I married Cinderella 


> However, government users won't be allowed to make modifications to the code or *compile the source code into Windows programs* themselves, according to Microsoft.


*www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,78935,00.html

Now people just need to guess that the code will work!!!


----------



## kumarmohit (May 18, 2007)

I think that if someone who has worked programming for long, he can make intelligent guess, without needing to compile, but just by going thru it.


----------



## eddie (May 18, 2007)

kumarmohit said:
			
		

> I think that if someone who has worked programming for long, he can make intelligent guess, without needing to compile, but just by going thru it.


 Ever worked on any program before? Here is an open challenge to any programmer in here (including you...if you are one). Download the source tar ball of Pidgin instant messenger (7.2 MB) and then from this source code...ask one of your friends to just go in and delete 5 random files. That is it...any 5 files from any directory. Now try finding which 5 files that person deleted and the function of these files...without running any compile or diff operation on the source code. If you can make "intelligent guess" and find those 5 files along with their function in this minuscule instant messenger source code...then I will believe that a programmer can actually find missing files from enormous source code of Windows!

P.S. You will have to explain in here how you found those files.


----------



## iMav (May 18, 2007)

now mac and linux guys have started online challenge competitions on the forum


----------



## praka123 (May 18, 2007)

^^ pwnend U ppl are.arent U one?


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 18, 2007)

> However, government users won't be allowed to make modifications to the code or *compile the source code into Windows programs themselves*, according to Microsoft.


 Well El Moo , you didn't interpret the statement correctly , let me elaborate .

suppose some agency finds some problem in the source of windows n they want to change this , then according to this , they'll have to contact Microsoft to officially make the changes into source code n then sell it in their region , n not make changes themselves n compile it n start using it , they're allowed to mess around with the code as much as they can till they do-not distribute it or use a copy of windows with the code modified by them except for testing .


----------



## eddie (May 18, 2007)

Sigh!!! As I said earlier...knowledge of English language has taken a serious hit on this forum. Mr. "Be Sharp"...be sharp!!! Look at the "OR" between the statements!!! Do I need to explain the meaning of "OR" to you?





> make modifications to the code *or* compile the source code


Does that "OR" mean anything to you at all? I don't even remember when I was taught the difference between and/or but it must've been around 2nd or 3rd standard. I am sure you've crossed that level of education...right?


----------



## sakumar79 (May 18, 2007)

This thread is becoming a Windows vs Mac war... Waiting for a day to see if this cools down, otherwise, I am contacting the mods to lock the thread...

Arun


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 18, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Sigh!!! As I said earlier...knowledge of English language has taken a serious hit on this forum. Mr. "Be Sharp"...be sharp!!! Look at the "OR" between the statements!!! Do I need to explain the meaning of "OR" to you?Does that "OR" mean anything to you at all? I don't even remember when I was taught the difference between and/or but it must've been around 2nd or 3rd standard. I am sure you've crossed that level of education...right?


 og boy , now Don't Tell me that i'll have to take english classes from you 

btw , don't wanna comment personally , but i can surely say that i know the english language as good , if not better than you .


----------



## eddie (May 18, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> btw , don't wanna comment personally , but i can surely say that i know the english language as good , if not better than you .


 I just wish that while getting better then me at English language...you would have also learned the difference between and/or statements. That would have saved me at least two posts


----------



## kumarmohit (May 18, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Ever worked on any program before? Here is an open challenge to any programmer in here (including you...if you are one). Download the source tar ball of Pidgin instant messenger (7.2 MB) and then from this source code...ask one of your friends to just go in and delete 5 random files. That is it...any 5 files from any directory. Now try finding which 5 files that person deleted and the function of these files...without running any compile or diff operation on the source code. If you can make "intelligent guess" and find those 5 files along with their function in this minuscule instant messenger source code...then I will believe that a programmer can actually find missing files from enormous source code of Windows!
> 
> P.S. You will have to explain in here how you found those files.



Great, when had I been saying earlier, that open source or not, it its just impossible to go thru every line, I was given the argument about the checks and balances in place in Linux, now you are trying to prove the same thing to me.

Great, I am highly obliged.


----------



## eddie (May 18, 2007)

kumarmohit said:
			
		

> Great, when had I been saying earlier, that open source or not, it its just impossible to go thru every line, I was given the argument about the checks and balances in place in Linux, now you are trying to prove the same thing to me.


 Oh my god!  

Mohit...looking at your previous posts I really thought better of you but you seem to falling at levels of some other Windows users of this forum. If you can't see the difference between the audit-ability of a compilable open source program and a non-compilable source code...then I just can't discuss anything with you. On one hand you have open source code that has gone through a full community of developers with full privileges to dissect it the way you want...and on other hand you have source code that you are not even sure is complete or not. Which one can be trusted? You really really need to focus and go through all the previous posts before involving in this discussion or taking something out of context.


----------



## praka123 (May 18, 2007)

Eddie,U explained it very well.even windows! users can understand what u said.
But............
The Truth is Windows users dont want to hear it.They always feels that they are secured.hmm..mehh?


----------



## eddie (May 18, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> Eddie,U explained it very well.even windows! users can understand what u said.
> But............
> The Truth is Windows users dont want to hear it.They always feels that they are secured.hmm..mehh?


 I know but I really thought better of this Mohit guy. Looks like I was wrong


----------



## kumarmohit (May 19, 2007)

Fine eddie, It seemed our discussions got goofed up somewhere ... because I admit that I am too lazy to quote previous posts from entire thread.



> On one hand you have open source code that has gone through a full community of developers with full privileges to dissect it the way you want...



As far as I know, even Apple, Microsoft  etc also have a number of people who do go thru full compilable source of Windows, and if you think objectively, you might realise that all employees of these companies are not evil. 

Similarly you cannot defer on the point that some FOSS projects do run with lesser amount of people, I am not saying that they do not make effort.We in ReactOS went thru entire code audit just becoz a single developer accused of MS copied code. 

Do you think that that apple and ms with all the resouces cant hire a bunch of testers and code auditors?

(Out of context) - If I am not wrong Even the maker of SpyBot S&D allows Universities to check code even tho his code is not open source.

*Hey I think I shud cut this discussion on my part coz this thread is now as offtopic as it may have gotten.*


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

kumarmohit said:
			
		

> As far as I know, even Apple, Microsoft  etc also have a number of people who do go thru full compilable source of Windows, and if you think objectively, you might realise that all employees of these companies are not evil.


Its not about whether the developer is evil or not...it is about what a company tells its employees. You must have heard about Symantec's example?
*blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/?p=747&tag=nl.e589

Should we take it that all the developers at Symantec are evil? No. It is the orders that the company gives to its employees and makes them work in a particular way.





> Similarly you cannot defer on the point that some FOSS projects do run with lesser amount of people,


No matter how small the amount of people involved in the project...the code is out there. You can check it yourself by compiling it into working binaries...seeing what is being loaded at the run time while those binaries run and check how they behave. Such audit is not possible with closed-source software...period.





> Do you think that that apple and ms with all the resouces cant hire a bunch of testers and code auditors?


...and you think Symantec doesn't have the resources? Clearly it is not about resources.


----------



## iMav (May 19, 2007)

interesting eddie now uv started taking symantech as an example for bashing MS ... as u say sheeesh ...


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 19, 2007)

well Eddie , have you even visited Microsoft's Shared Source site to know what the license term says , well let me tell it to you .

Microsoft Has 3 Shared Source Licenses .
1.Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)


> The Ms-PL is the least restrictive of the Microsoft source code licenses. *It allows licensees to view, modify, and redistribute the source code for either commercial or non-commercial purposes*. Under the Ms-PL, licensees may change the source code and share it with others. Licensees may also charge a licensing fee for their modified work if they so wish. Microsoft uses this license most commonly for its developer tools, applications, and components.


2.Microsoft Community License (Ms-CL)


> The Ms-CL is a license that is best used for collaborative development projects. This type of license is commonly referred to as a reciprocal source code license and carries specific requirements if licensees choose to combine Ms-CL code with the licenseeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s original code. *The Ms-CL allows for both non-commercial and commercial modification and redistribution of licensed software and carries a per-file reciprocal term.*


3.Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL)


> *The Ms-RL is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of a given technology. It does not allow for modification or redistribution. *Microsoft uses this license primarily for technologies such as its development libraries.


Also Microsoft has Many other programs to let developer's gain full access to windows source code n see how it works .





> *Enterprise Source Licensing Program (ESLP)
> *The ESLP allows eligible enterprise customers access to Microsoft Windows source code for internal development and support purposes, including debugging. This enables customers to develop and support their internally deployed applications and solutions that run on Windows.
> *Government Security Program (GSP)*
> The GSP helps national governments and international organizations address the unique security concerns they face in the digital age. The GSP provides participants with the information and source code access needed to evaluate the security of Microsoft products.
> ...


In addition , Microsoft's Code Center Premium allows developers to view windows source code securely from anywhere using a browser .





> *Code Center Premium*
> Code Center Premium (CCP) is the Web-based, secure source-access mechanism for a number of Microsoft Shared Source licensing programs. CCP enables licensees to access source code securely from any location and eliminates the managerial burden of maintaining gigabytes of code.



Honestly , As *KumarMohit* , *iMav* , *Saurav* , *BlackPearl* n *I* have said repeatedly , please do some research before posting .
*Aryayush* , *Nepcker* n others r atleast informed of what they r posting you don't even seem to know what you're saying .


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> well Dumb-Headed Eddie , have you even visited Microsoft's Shared Source site to know what the license term says , well let me tell it to you .


 Oh you stupid frigging uneducated idiot...can't you read and understand simple English?





> The Ms-RL is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of a given technology. It does not allow for modification or redistribution. *Microsoft uses this license primarily for technologies such as its development libraries.*


Microsoft users this "reference-only" license for its "development libraries". Does you pea-brain interpret what that means? You can JUST LOOK AT THE SOURCE CODE OF THEIR LIBRARIES...just *LOOK* and that is what I have been saying through out my posts!!! Read you retard!

God damn...you are so stupid that if reality hit you in your head...you wouldn't understand because it would obviously be in ENGLISH!!! Honestly...you should go and kill your English teacher.

P.S. I did read the page you stupid!


----------



## gxsaurav (May 19, 2007)

shant gadadhari, frustrated by truth & pwmage eddie, shant.  

Using the MVP licence program even we can see or audit source code of any MS technology provided that we sign up & tell MS about it to get permission.


U do not belive that MS is giving us the whole real source code to see or audit. well we believe them cos we can compile & check if something does't work we can look for the missing library & ask MS for it. Period.


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> U do not belive that MS is giving us the whole real source code to see or audit. *well we believe them* cos we can compile & check if something does't work we can look for the missing library & ask MS for it. Period.


 LOL!!! Yeah and we should believe YOU!!! *www.fileupyours.com/files/94923/hah.gif

The biggest liar in this forum comes and claims something more...and we should believe it? LOL! Didn't you and zeeshan claim that Adobe uses Qt to make CS3 and then were proven as little liars? You have lost your credibility and dignity...just don't even think about making any claims...at least not in front of me.


----------



## aryayush (May 19, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> LOL!!! Yeah and we should believe YOU!!! *www.fileupyours.com/files/94923/hah.gif
> 
> The biggest liar in this forum comes and claims something more...and we should believe it?


Frankly, you must be out of your mind if you do. Thankfully, you don't.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 19, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Microsoft uses this license *primarily* for technologies such as its development libraries.


 oooh , look who's sayin when he himself can't understand simple English .

well the keyword here is *primarily* not *only* , primarily means that Microsoft uses this license for other things too , not that it uses this license *only* for it's development libraries .

Also , many of these libraries form the core of the windows OS .

Also under the Shared Source initiavties companies are allowed access to ALL of microsoft's source code provided they use it for studying windows component n core architecture . the companies can also submit code if they make changes and which they think r beneficial , this code will be reviewed by MS and if approved will be integrated into Windows .

Also under Microsoft Windows Academic Program ,  universities are also allowed to access Windows code . Heck microsoft even provides presentations , notes n other resources to help students understand the internals of Windows OS .





> Windows OS Internals Curriculum Resource Kit (CRK)
> *Provides instructor resources, including PowerPoint presentation slides,  experiments, hands-on labs, sample quizzes and assignments for introducing case studies from the Windows kernel into operating system courses*.


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> oooh , look who's sayin when he himself can't understand simple English .
> 
> well the keyword here is *primarily* not *only* , primarily means that Microsoft uses this license for other things too , not that it uses this license *only* for it's development libraries .


You are more stupid then I thought. Just because Microsoft uses "the license" on other things means that its development libraries come under some other license as well? You retard it just means that Microsoft is free to use this license on other technologies but the core development libraries come under this license only and that is the fact. Seriously...dude...did you ever go to school?





> Also under the Shared Source initiavties companies are allowed access to ALL of microsoft's source code provided they use it for studying windows component n core architecture .


Yes...for "STUDYING"...not for compiling! Understand this you fool...





> Heck microsoft even provides presentations , notes n other resources to help students understand the internals of Windows OS .


...and you can compile presentations and notes into binaries? *www.fileupyours.com/files/94923/jok.gif



			
				aryayush said:
			
		

> Frankly, you must be out of your mind if you do. Thankfully, you don't.


 Oh I would rather blow my brains out before I believe any of these two liars!


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 19, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Yes...for "STUDYING"...not for compiling!


 Studying , here means doing nything you want wih the source code other than distributing it or leaking it or violating other terms limited in the License .

i would request any microsof MVP , Vishal , Saurav , Anandk , could contct MS or use their MVP status to access windows source code n give us a lead then it would be great .


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> Studying , here means doing nything you want wih the source code other than distributing it or leaking it or violating other terms limited in the License .


 Yes and I totally "BELIEVE" you


----------



## gxsaurav (May 19, 2007)

Eddie, upon the permission from MS even we MVP can access & study or audit the source code of any Microsoft Technology like IE Trident engine or DirectX HLSL. However we cannot redistribute it.

Whether you believe it or not doesn't makes any difference that Govermants can see Windows source code, & others can too upon MS permission


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 19, 2007)

*farm1.static.flickr.com/200/504297224_ff98431924_o.jpg
*farm1.static.flickr.com/221/504297232_f9c6b83124_o.jpg
*farm1.static.flickr.com/199/504297234_ba802cae59_o.jpg


			
				eddie said:
			
		

> Yes and I totally "BELIEVE" you


 You should 



			
				eddie said:
			
		

> Does you pea-brain interpret what that means?
> 
> God damn...you are so stupid that if reality hit you in your head...you wouldn't understand because it would obviously be in ENGLISH!!! Honestly...you should go and kill your English teacher.


  Wonder what's the situation now 

PS: Eddie don't tell me now that you can *debug without compiling the source code* .


----------



## Desi-Tek.com (May 19, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Ever worked on any program before? Here is an open challenge to any programmer in here (including you...if you are one). Download the source tar ball of Pidgin instant messenger (7.2 MB) and then from this source code...ask one of your friends to just go in and delete 5 random files. That is it...any 5 files from any directory. Now try finding which 5 files that person deleted and the function of these files...without running any compile or diff operation on the source code. If you can make "intelligent guess" and find those 5 files along with their function in this minuscule instant messenger source code...then I will believe that a programmer can actually find missing files from enormous source code of Windows!
> 
> P.S. You will have to explain in here how you found those files.


 is it ok if i'll  take help of my friend? 
oh just noticed u said 





> diff operation on the source code


 ah than it is very difficult


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Whether you believe it or not doesn't makes any difference that Govermants can see Windows source code, & others can too upon MS permission


 We have already discussed about governments and we really don't need to discuss "others" like you.


----------



## gxsaurav (May 19, 2007)

Eddie, you sound like a compleately pwned user . You ask for proof or how we believe them, ahm...."screenshots"


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> PS: Eddie don't tell me now that you can *debug without compiling the source code* .


 Your stupidity is so highly refined that it is hard to achieve the levels you have. I must congratulate you on reaching such high levels. You idiot look at the kind of source you are getting in 3rd Screenshot...ASP.Net *Samples*? DeviceEmulator? PowerToys??? Should I laugh in your face? That is "Windows Source Code" for you? By running debug operations on PowerToys...you will audit Windows core components? You are ultimately stupid!

I really have seen a nature's wonder in form of you...a human being living without brain! 



			
				Desi-Tek.com said:
			
		

> ah than it is very difficult


 It is impossible without diff...I can assure you that.



			
				gx_saurav said:
			
		

> You ask for proof or how we believe them, ahm...."screenshots"


 Yes screenshots with PowerToys in them...go out and play with them


----------



## gxsaurav (May 19, 2007)

Microsoft spends billions to make Windows & its technologies. How do u expect them to give it or show to any user ? Goverment can see it if they provide legal reasons. 

Licensed partners can see it to learn about Windows technologies & API to make there own product better.

Ya, in this regard Open Source is good, anyone can see the kernel source code (really?) & modify it. But here is the thing, this "anyone can modify" is the main reason linux is no where today. There is no standerdlisation


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Microsoft spends billions to make Windows & its technologies. How do u expect them to give it or show to any user ? Goverment can see it if they provide legal reasons.


..are you out of your senses? Did you even read what we have been discussing all along? While Windows users have been claiming that Microsoft is allowing the world to see...compile and debug their source code...I have just been proving them wrong. If you are agreeing with me...then what the hell are you talking about pwnage? At least understand what a group is discussing before coming in and making a complete fool of yourself.





> Licensed partners can see it to learn about Windows technologies & API to make there own product better.


That is it..."SEE"...not compile...not debug...not modify. Nothing!!!


----------



## gxsaurav (May 19, 2007)

Did you read what zeeshan just said about Licensed partners compiling & modofying & using in there product or giving back to MS


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Did you read what zeeshan just said about Licensed partners compiling & modofying & using in there product or giving back to MS


 Yes and did you by any chance see what they can compile or modify? PowerToys! Now, You tell me that Vista is running PowerToys as its kernel and I will accept your arguments.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 19, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Yes and did you by any chance see what they can compile or modify? PowerToys! Now, You tell me that Vista is running PowerToys as its kernel and I will accept your arguments.


 well the first and the second screenshot refer to access to *Windows Source Code*

Students can access Windows Source Code through the Windows Curriculum Resource Kit  

Also , *All the programms that r shown in first and second screenshot r the different types of ways to get access to Windows Source code*  

that is why i asked that did u ever visit the Shared Source Site .

i provided the third screenshot to extend that microsoft provides source of component other than Windows Source Code Too .



			
				gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Ya, in this regard Open Source is good, anyone can see the kernel source code (really?) & modify it. But here is the thing, this "anyone can modify" is the main reason linux is no where today. There is no standerdlisation


 Saurav , MS also provides access to windows kernel n whole windows source code , the first 2 screnshots show different programs n access levels to see , and modify windows source code .


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> well the first and the second screenshot refer to access to *Windows Source Code*


No they do not. They just refer to the kind of programs offered by Microsoft while 3rd screenshot proves the kind of code provided under those programs  


> Students can access Windows Source Code through the Windows Curriculum Resource Kit


You know what CRK is? 


> The CRK provides PowerPoint *presentation slides, experiments, lab descriptions, sample quizzes and assignments* for introducing case studies from the Windows kernel into operating system courses.


*www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Licensing/CurriculumResourceKit.mspx
...and that is Windows code? Just shows that you don't do what you preach. Your own so-called research is half baked 


> Also , All the programms that r shown in second screenshot r the different types of ways to get access to Windows Source code


No they are just ways to access the source code of programs mentioned in 3rd screenshot. A common user cannot get them otherwise 


> that is why i asked that did u ever visit the Shared Source Site .


This is why I asked you...did you ever go to school? 


> i provided the third screenshot to extend that microsoft provides source of component other than Windows Source Code Too .


If only they actually provided the source code for compilation


----------



## aryayush (May 19, 2007)

Whoa! Easy with the smileys, buddy! 8)


----------



## praka123 (May 19, 2007)

what I understand that M$ will not give u the win source code even if ur Bill's son!if he got any?..
even if M$ says its win source code?can u compile it to make windows vista...how can u believe closed source?
M$ cannot open its doors even for its gr8est devels.that's it.
hey hey win geeks answer!dont quote the crap as someone did.
@eddie kudos on getting this l@mers the treat they  loooong want.I know its human not to accept defeat-thats for windows creepers!FOSS is the future.


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> Whoa! Easy with the smileys, buddy! 8)


 What to do dear...the guys in here try to create an effect by using smileys in almost every line (no matter if they belong there or not). I was just trying to make them realise that it is wrong but I doubt my efforts will bring fruit 

@praka: I don't want to defeat anyone. Just wanted to clear the fact that there is a HUGE difference between audit ability of Open Source and Closed Source software.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 19, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> No they do not. They just refer to the kind of programs offered by Microsoft while 3rd screenshot proves the kind of code provided under those programs


 Oh yeah , then what's this 





> *Enterprise Source Licensing Program (ESLP)* The ESLP allows eligible enterprise customers *access to Microsoft Windows source code for internal development and support purposes, including debugging*. This enables customers to develop and support their internally deployed applications and solutions that run on Windows.


now this is plain simple english , dunno what excuse you will make this time  

In the same way , other programs too allow Access to Windows Source Code for different types of clients .


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> now this is plain simple english , dunno what excuse you will make this time


 Excuse? LOL! Here is the quote directly from ESLP page 


> With the Enterprise Source Licensing Program (ESLP) benefit, eligible customers with 1,500 or more licensed desktops can access Microsoft Windows source code for *internal development and support*. Your IT staff can use the source code to make adjustments and improvements *to systems and related applications*, enabling them to improve debugging, help maintain security, and help protect against viruses and other computer hazards.


The debugging being talked about is debugging of their "internal applications". Not of Windows Source code...time for you to improve your "research skills" and understanding? 

Here's more





> Benefits
> 
> Access to Microsoft source code through the ESLP benefits enterprise customers by:
> •	Providing insight and a deeper understanding of Windows.
> ...


EVERYTHING is related to customer's OWN SYSTEMS. Nothing related to Windows source code audit or debugging


----------



## amitava82 (May 19, 2007)

The ESLP provides a mechanism for delivering source code for released versions and service packs of Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 operating systems. (No vista)

*Use and Restrictions*

• Licensees may use the source code for the sole purpose of assisting in the support and development of internally deployed products for the Microsoft Windows platform, ongoing support of Microsoft Windows deployments, and internal security audits of the Microsoft Windows operating system.

• Source code may not be used to assist with the development of a commercially distributed product.

• Licensees may read and reference the source code but may not modify it.

• The license term is one year.

*Eligibility Requirements:*

Be a state /local (or similar) government organization in an eligible geographic market OR maintain 1,500 Windows seats (Windows 2000 or above) under one of the following:
• An Enterprise Agreement.

• A Select Agreement with Upgrade Advantage or Software Assurance.

• Enterprise customers must be headquartered in and access the source from an eligible geographic market.

• Sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement, Master Source Code Agreement and License Form.d and reference the source code but may not modify it.

from here

Well that clarifies everything... Will you fanboys give up?? Just admit the fact that you cannot access windows source code when ever or whoever wants to.. not to mention you have to pay millions of dollars to get it.

damn eddie, you are fast...


----------



## eddie (May 19, 2007)

I was about to post that. You just took away all the fun  Anyways, these are important points here





> • Licensees may *read and reference* the source code but may not modify it.
> • Sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement, Master Source Code Agreement and *License Form*


It clearly shows that you cannot do anything with the source code but "READ" it. Additionally you have to agree to the license that is applicable to Windows Library by signing a "License Form" and it has already been established in this very thread...that Microsoft's development libraries come under "Reference Only" license. So there is no question of compiling or debugging Windows source code


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 20, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> I was about to post that. You just took away all the fun  Anyways, these are important points hereIt clearly shows that you cannot do anything with the source code but "READ" it.


 I did not say that MS made windows open source . it allows companies to read , compile n debug windows code so that they can understand the internal workings of the Windows family and thus have a better understanding and can then develop software.
*farm1.static.flickr.com/201/505441697_f6c6881520_o.jpg


----------



## eddie (May 20, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> I did not say that MS made windows open source . it allows companies to read , compile n debug windows code so that they can understand the internal workings of the Windows family and thus have a better understanding and can then develop software.


 We have already established that Microsoft releases its devel libraries under Ms-Rl "Reference Only" license and every member of any program needs to accept that license by signing a form. There is no way any company can "compile" the "Windows source code" without breaking the license conditions.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 20, 2007)

Eddie , don't make such lame attempts to save yourself .
you have seen in the screenshot , MS does provide the COde to be compiled { there's a tick on debug } now if you can't even nuderstand plain simple language  then it's not my fault .

Well here's the Whole Ms-RL License for you .





> Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL)
> Published: March 8, 2007
> 
> This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
> ...


 *It doesn't even mention the word compile once*


----------



## eddie (May 20, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> Eddie , don't make such lame attempts to save yourself .


LOL!!! Good one...I actually love to see monkey acts. You are amusing me pretty well 


> you have seen in the screenshot , MS does provide the COde to be compiled { there's a tick on debug } now if you can't even nuderstand plain simple language  then it's not my fault .


Yes and we did see the code being provided for compiling in 3rd screenshot..."PowerToys"...That is Windows Kernel...right? A person who spells "understand" as "nuderstand" is trying to give me English lessons! 


> Well here's the Whole Ms-RL License for you . *It doesn't even mention the word compile once*


 Yes but it does mention this...





> *"Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form*, for the sole purposes of *debugging your products*, maintaining *your products*, or enhancing the interoperability of *your products*


Everything related to the products of the company...not Windows source code! Now do you [sarcasm]"nuderstand"[/sarcasm]?


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 20, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Yes and we did see the code being provided for compiling in 3rd screenshot..."PowerToys"...That is Windows Kernel...right?


 well you saw the second screenshot , MS does provide the windows Source code under the ESLP program n many other programs , enuf said , it's hard to get something into people who can't think with an open mind .


----------



## eddie (May 20, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> well you saw the second screenshot , MS does provide the windows Source code under the ESLP program n many other programs , enuf said , it's hard to get something into people who can't think with an open mind .


 Yes and it is even harder to get something into people who don't understand what "license" means.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 20, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Yes and it is even harder to get something into people who don't understand what "license" means.


 btw , although MS does allow it's code to be debugged , my point is that in case even if MS doesn't allow you to compile the code it isn't ny problem coz *you already have the compiled code in the form of your copy of the Operating system* , so you can understand the code and debug from the compiled windows binaries .


----------



## eddie (May 20, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> *you already have the compiled code in the form of your copy of the Operating system*


 Do you even know why this all discussion started in first place? It started because a fellow forum user was saying that Windows source code can be audited in just the way Open Source can...and I have proved that it cannot be...because you just cannot make sure whether the source is even complete or not.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (May 21, 2007)

well you CAN audit windows source code , but you have to send microsoft the changes you've made and when it is approved it will be added into the Windows Code .
Also how do you knw that the code provided to you is not complete ? If you can't trust such huge and succesful prginizations as Microsoft then who can you ?


----------



## eddie (May 21, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> well you CAN audit windows source code


Yeah...without knowing how much more is there to it.





> Also how do you knw that the code provided to you is not complete ?


I don't know and no one can know until the license restrictions are lifted and people be allowed to compile the source code to get working binaries.





> If you can't trust such huge and succesful prginizations as Microsoft then who can you ?


 Don't make me laugh...
Microsoft and trust don't come in the same sentence until the word trust is prefixed by anti and I am not alone. IIRC there was a study done a few years ago which showed that most of the IT experts didn't trust Microsoft and I don't see any reasons why the situation should change.


----------

