Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 15:38 UTC
"Since its release a few weeks ago, curious developers have been sniffing through the source code for Google's new Chrome web browser. Chrome's source is interesting for a variety of reasons: there's the new V8 JavaScript virtual machine with its boasts of near-native code performance, the WebKit rendering engine that does all the hard work of understanding and displaying web pages, and (last but not least), Chrome's secure sandbox designed to minimize the impact of any security flaws that might exist in both the browser and plugins alike. It is this secure sandbox that has piqued the curiosity of some observers, and for a reason that many may find surprising. From reading the source, it looks as though Google has reverse-engineered Windows, and that's explicitly prohibited by the Windows EULA."
Thread beginning with comment 331172
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Let the OS wars Begin!
by google_ninja on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 20:01
in reply to "RE[3]: Let the OS wars Begin!"
Member since:2006-02-05
Yeah, all I was saying is that it is a very different world when your development team is distributed and your code is under the GPL. For commercially supported frameworks developed in a non-distributed fashion, targetted at business users who do not ever want to have to re-write code to have it function on newer versions, there is a very big difference between supported and unsupported functions.
The crux of what I was trying to say was that an unsupported function for manual DEP control on vanilla windows XP without any updates is hardly proof that MS is trying to pull one over on the world.
RE[4]: Let the OS wars Begin!
by renhoek on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 23:01
in reply to "RE[3]: Let the OS wars Begin!"
Member since:2007-04-29
The user space API of the kernel is sacred, and programs written for 1.0 will still run against the 2.6.27 kernel.
uhm, no sorry. linux (kernel wise) is not backwards compatible in any way. the kernel interface even changes between minor versions. this does not really matter since all drivers are included in the kernel anyway.
libc/gtk/qt/x11 and stuff like that are quite stable and properly versioned.
but more on topic. the first time i experienced windows undocumented calls was with emm, somehow windows was able to take over emm but i was not. sucks to be the one left out.
RE[5]: Let the OS wars Begin!
by sbergman27 on Tue 23rd Sep 2008 23:11
in reply to "RE[4]: Let the OS wars Begin!"
Member since:2005-07-24
uhm, no sorry. linux (kernel wise) is not backwards compatible in any way. the kernel interface even changes between minor versions.
You are confusing the internal API (which is used by drivers and other kernel code) with the user space API. Research the matter and you will see that I am right. In fact, it is because so many people hold the same misconception that I took care to clarify the matter. Otherwise I would not have bothered.
If you still disagree, please point out a specific example for us to examine.
Edited 2008-09-23 23:13 UTC
Linux backwards compatibility
by Pfeifer on Wed 24th Sep 2008 13:04
in reply to "RE[4]: Let the OS wars Begin!"
Member since:2006-02-20
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-24
Linux devs don't do it *at all* because *everything* is open and visible. It is unclear exactly what you mean by "Linux". The user space API of the kernel is sacred, and programs written for 1.0 will still run against the 2.6.27 kernel. (Its only the kernel's internal API that changes.) If you are talking things like GTK. Well, GTK's backwards compatibility has been the subject of much discussion here. The GTK 3.0 plans are all about breaking some things, and its big news.