Windows Source Code 'Littered with Profanity'

[jutl]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3485545.stm

This BBC article on the Windows 2000/NT source code leak contains the surprising assertion that the code sections in question are 'littered with profanity'. Has anyone grabbed these from P2P yet, and if so could they post here what exactly this profanity is? I'm assuming it's in comments, rather than in variable or classnames - but who knows?

class Cunt { /* ... */ };
class BigHairyCunt : public Cunt { ... };

[Timmay]

Downloading it now. Although it's around a gig, so it'll take a while...

[terrorist]

......more likely to be:  Mother fucker it's crashed/no I don't have the cunting drivers/well how am i going to get the fucking things of the sodding CDR if its the CD drive i'm trying to install you bitch/.........

[jutl]

Downloading it now. Although it's around a gig, so it'll take a while...

Bloody hell - more than i thought then... Thanks for the info though.

It's just been pointed out to me that the Windows source has been available to a good few people outside Microsoft for a good while now, under their Source Release Program:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/may01/05-03csm.asp

Surely this code can't have been laced with obscenities - wouldn't we have heard about it by now?

[gazzyk1ns]

That first article Jutl linked to said

The Windows 2000 code is a 203MB chunk that expands to about 600MB - enough to fill one CD.

Maybe MS are just underplaying it, I odn't know... wouldn't have thought so though? hehe hopefully you're not downloading the outtakes from Goatse man's earlier attempts at the famous picture, or something!

[jutl]

Hmm - http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9906.1/0252.html

It seems that the Linux kernel is packed with swears.

[Timmay]

Hmm, well I've cancelled it now. On Kazaa, there were literally hundreds of files, all claiming to be the leaked source code. Most are fake I weckon, so no point wasting my bandwidth - especially as that article reckons it's between 200 and 600Mb.

[Purple Tentacle]

The company I used to work for designed the Thunderbirds website, where kids could type in their name, and print off a Thunderbirds badge with their name on it.


We got a very indignant email from a "concerned mother" that a "bad swear word" had been printed out from the website, although she prudily refused to tell us what it was.

So I spent an immensely fun hour searching the HTML code on the website for every swearword I could think of. (including pissflaps)

There were no swear words, it turns out the dozy bitch had failed to consider that her son could have written his name as "David Shit" and printed it out, and blamed us.

It seemed to me a bit like trying to sue alphabetti spaghetti for being able to spell "Suck my shiny elephant penis" with their product.



Anyway, what's in this code then?

[gazzyk1ns]

Hehe maybe most spams now will be titled "Windoez200 sorsecode!!!!!!!!!11" to entice us, instead of something Paris Hilton related? It's funny how the "hook" evolves, isn't it, I remember when just "Pamela Anderson" was enough, then came Britney... ahhhh the good old days, they don't make them like they used to, etc etc..

[Phil]

Slashdot have an article on this, and a number of people have submitted some of the occasions where "fuck" and "bug" are included in comments.

However the best bit seems to be:


[from drivers/usb/spca50x.c, a usb camera driver]

/*
 * Function compares two strings.
 * Return offset in pussy where prick ends if "prick" may penetrate
 * int "pussy" like prick into pussy, -1 otherwise.
 */
static inline int match(const char* prick, const char* pussy, int len2)
{
               int len1 = strlen(prick); //length of male string
               int i; //just an index variable
               const char* tmp; //temporary pointer for my own pleasure // We skip all spaces and tabs
               for (i = 0; i len2)
                               return -1; //Fuck off, no fucking

               if (!strncmp(prick, tmp, len1))
                               return i + len1;

               return -1;
}

[Des Nilsen]

I supose there's always a reason for things like this - the code being difficult to decipher perhaps, I really don't know. But something like that, the unlikeliness of these words cropping up et cetera.

But alongside those old MS niggles (apparently racist terminology turning up) I can't help but think of the programmers as total sadcases; as if they put that stuff in for fun.

Ho-hum.

-

[Phil]

You shouldn't be making the source code hard to understand unless there is a very good reason, such as the source is obtainable from the distributed product. Java suffers from this, in that Java classes can be decompiled (although comments are lost) to obtain the source. In cases like this, you would run an obfuscation tool over a copy of the source code before compiling. Then if someone decompiled the product, the source would be (slightly) more difficult to understand.

Maybe a disgruntled programmer put that method in. Or, like you say Nilsen, a total sadcase.

[MojoJojo]

It's just been pointed out to me that the Windows source has been available to a good few people outside Microsoft for a good while now, under their Source Release Program:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/may01/05-03csm.asp

Surely this code can't have been laced with obscenities - wouldn't we have heard about it by now?

Only certain, carefully controlled sections of windows code has been released.
Microsoft always claimed it was essential for large portions of it to be kept secret for seurity reasons. Which makes them look a bit stupid now.

Lots of the code has been shared with specific companies which Microsoft has outsourced to though... But obscenities in this case probably less of a problem.

Lots of people have been looking for an apparently infamous "weenies" description of Netscape... not been found now low.