[HN Gopher] Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker ___________________________________________________________________ Show HN: Windows 2000 on Docker Author : hectorm Score : 257 points Date : 2021-11-14 15:14 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | tm11zz wrote: | Inside the image for those interested: | https://contains.dev/hectormolinero/qemu-win2000 | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I'd like to use or build something like this for vintage gaming. | gravypod wrote: | I wish there was an easy way to mux display usage to containers | sor hat things like these wouldn't need to run an RDP server for | you to access the and we could have `--display window=640x480` or | `--monitor /dev/....`. | NexRebular wrote: | I've been using Apache Guacamole to have central access to | KVM/bhyve-inside-a-container (or rather inside a zone) servers | running on SmartOS. | | However, I'm not using RDP at the moment as there is also VNC- | access available as default that Guacamole connects to. | racecar789 wrote: | Did anyone frequently run into ntoskrnl errors that prevented | Windows 2000 from booting? I ran into that error every six months | but to be fair a number of the incidents happened after a power | failure with no UPS. | djbusby wrote: | Was it the IDE reg tweak to fix it? (Search mergeide.reg or | something). That was a common issue when hardware swapped. | chris_wot wrote: | (comment is a little off-topic, feel free to downvote) | | I'm curious how ReactOS stacks up to Windows 2000. | hectorm wrote: | I have a similar image with ReactOS if you want to compare :) | | https://github.com/hectorm/docker-qemu-reactos | chris_wot wrote: | Oh nice!!!! | argsv wrote: | I just ran this on a Fedora machine and connected to Windows | using rdesktop. It works and it's amazing. I like it. The | Internet will surely be confused today with a surge of traffic | from Internet Explorer 5. Incidentally, google.com still loads | and allows searching; bing.com does not load. | coderdecoder wrote: | Nice trip down the memory lane :D. Works great on POP_OS | (didn't uninstall my desktop). | voakbasda wrote: | The fact that bing.com does not load using their own browser | speaks volumes about Microsoft. | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | What volumes does it speak about microsoft? | qbasic_forever wrote: | I think it's ironic. Microsoft since the dawn of time has | been known for backwards compatibility in Windows. They | would go out of their way to ensure random 16 bit apps with | bugs and major issues continued to work through years of | major upgrades to Windows. Raymond Chen has written | countless stories of the hacks upon hacks they had to keep | running through the years: http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/i | mages/9780321440303/samplech... So now to see it all | abandoned as Microsoft is pulled into the age of web | applications is kind of amusing. | djbusby wrote: | And just recently on here I was talking about how MS is | known for backwards compat but we actually observe Linux | doing it better | rbanffy wrote: | While breaking backwards compatibility with user space | apps is frowned upon, I can't imagine Linus approving | adding old bugs so that buggy programs can still work. | bdcravens wrote: | Yes, it says that they are moving forward and not targeting | browsers that are EOL. | schwartzworld wrote: | Using their own outdated, unsupported browser? Why should | they develop websites against a 22 year old browser version? | tinus_hn wrote: | I realize that it probably doesn't pay, but it wouldn't be | that difficult to implement just a form to type queries and | a basic html result page that works without javascript. | rbanffy wrote: | It certainly wouldn't. Forms have been with us for a very | long time and I've done it more times than I can | remember. | heyoni wrote: | On the one hand, it's a sign of technical prowess to be | able to accommodate browsers going that far back. | | On the other, it's kind of embarrassing not to have a | barebones version of your website load in case an old | browser is detected. IE5 had Ajax after all, what more does | a search box really need? The answer? Endless tracking and | cookies and phoning home. God forbid someone uses a browser | we can't use to collect infinite metrics. | | Makes me wonder, does bing work with lynx? | rbanffy wrote: | Lynx is not outdated. It's actively maintained and | updated. Last release is a couple months old. | xxpor wrote: | What're the most recent tls features IE5 supports? Does it even | work with non-sha1 certs? | iforgotpassword wrote: | Google looks at your user agent and doesn't redirect to https | if it's an old browser. | speedgoose wrote: | Isn't this a security vulnerability? | Narretz wrote: | For who? For Google? Or for the client? The server's | security shouldn't be dependent on https | speedgoose wrote: | Both. If you can stop a https redirect by rewriting the | user agent header, it can be used to track the Google | searches for example. HSTS would help if the browser did | connect to the https website recently, but it looks like | a security vulnerability to me. | | I just realized after writing this comment that if you | can rewrite http headers, you can also stop the redirect | so perhaps it doesn't matter. | toast0 wrote: | For IE5, there's two distinct obstacles to serving https. | | 1) It's unlikely to accept any x.509 certificates you can | get issued under today's CA/B guidelines; and I'm also | not sure how many CAs from then are still valid, either | because they had too small of keys or they expired | | 2) I'm not sure if ie5 supports TLS 1.0 and if it does, | it's probably not by default, because that how things | were back then. | | Given these conditions an https handshake is highly | likely to fail, and as the server operator there's no way | to provide useful information to the user in that case. | If they go to your http site and you redirect them to a | handshake error that you know they were going to see... | That's not useful. You could be secure and not provide | service... but then again, your redirect could be MITMed | cause http. Or you could provide a useful service with no | security. | | This is a choice, not a vulnerability. | | This doesn't open up any new way to attack a modern | client. Modern clients would have google.com HSTS | preloaded and not use http at all. But even if that's not | available, a MITM that fiddles with the User-Agent to | avoid getting a redirect could have fetched the search | results via https and proxied them back via http, as long | as the client made an http request. | | Edit to add: if you could get a cert IE5 would accept, it | likely wouldn't be acceptable by modern clients, so you'd | need to distinguish clients from the TLS handshake | (although, I guess it really is an SSL handshake for | ie5?). There's no client identifier in there, but you can | certainly tell the difference between modern and ancient; | it gets trickier to tell the difference between ancient | and pretty old or pretty old and trying to do a fallback | handshake. | userbinator wrote: | It wouldn't be surprising if they did that so people | could download a newer browser (such as Chrome...) which | would itself be signed anyway. | duskwuff wrote: | In modern browsers, google.com is in the HSTS preload | list, so the browser won't even make an initial request | over HTTP. | ehPReth wrote: | Only www.google.com and other subdomains are preloaded | unfortunately.. I'm having trouble quickly googling the | reason (is that irony?) but from memory a Googler said | that they had a lot of internal stuff hosted above | google.com they couldn't make https (HVAC controllers and | such?) | | You can see the full HSTS list here I believe: https://so | urce.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:n... | PeterisP wrote: | Perhaps, but all the vulnerability is in using IE5; | there's nothing the site can do to make an IE5-compatible | connection secure. | IronWolve wrote: | I really liked how stable W2k was as a workstation. I could run a | bunch of terminals, programs and hardly ever had a crash. Nothing | is worse working an outage or deployment and POOF there goes your | desktop. | | This was also around the time you could even run bbwin and | themes, and tweak it some for fun. Pretty sure cygwin was also | around. | manbart wrote: | Windows Server with the Desktop Experience enabled (plus a few | other tweaks: https://www.windowsworkstation.com/win2016-2019/) | is much better than Windows 10/11 IMO. Way less bullshit that | way | flatiron wrote: | Cygwin was very much around. I went to college in 2001 and was | forced to use w2k and lived in Cygwin as a result. | rbanffy wrote: | Cygwin was a wonderful thing. It wasn't fast, but integrated | the Linux side with the Windows side much better than WSL2 | does (at the expense of binary compatibility). It allowed me | to develop server apps for Linux on a corporate sanctioned | Windows box and deploy them to the real servers (mostly Linux | with some Solaris). | grepfru_it wrote: | Questions about this implementation's legality? Liability? | Security? | | https://github.com/hectorm/docker-qemu-win2000/blob/master/D... | | Makes me think this is done as a POC, but definitely fork a local | copy as you can just swap that line out with your local copy of a | Win2k ISO | hectorm wrote: | Effectively this is done as a POC, don't expect any security on | a machine running Windows 2000 nowadays. | | Regarding legality, I hope that Microsoft doesn't claim any | rights, since the Windows 2000 image has been published in | WinWorld for years without issues. | grepfru_it wrote: | Careful with your claims. What is the supply chain of that | win2k iso? You could be compromised before you even begin. | | Just because it is past EOL doesn't mean you chuck all | security best practices out the window. | | "Oh well it's end of life, might as well store passwords in | plaintext" | | Microsoft still owns copyright on Win2k, so you could be met | with a cease and desist or you could be liable for | infringement. | xxpor wrote: | If you connect windows 2000 to the internet, you're | probably owned within a few minutes regardless. Similarly | for xp pre-sp2. | genezeta wrote: | I'd guess that the "don't expect any security" comment | above meant exactly that. Not that you should _forgo | security_ , but that you should _expect this to provide no | security at all_. | | Some other comments mention browsing with IE5. You should | expect that to provide no security either. | hectorm wrote: | The ISO is downloaded from WinWorld, which is a website | dedicated to archiving old software, it's certainly | community maintained but at least gets some scrutiny. I | also searched the checksum and it matches with other | sources, but as there is no longer an official Microsoft | source you can never be entirely sure. | | I've done my best to confirm the legitimacy but if anyone | has an original CD it would be awesome if they could | confirm it. | grepfru_it wrote: | My suggestion is to not embed third party urls for | infringing software.. that makes you a target. Inside | leave that variable empty and make suggestions on where | one could find the media whether it's the original or | from questionable third party websites. | | This is how popular emulators survived the 90s, they | emulate the bios but force you to find the firmware | yourself. Even if it means downloading from an unknown | source without a supply chain and running unknown code on | your computer. The emulator and author are in the clear | 0x0 wrote: | Well they seem to add vnc and netcat shell listeners to the | startup scripts so it is kind of backdoored on purpose already | outside of what's in the iso | hectorm wrote: | During the installation I add Netcat to have a bind shell, | this way you can get a CMD shell from Linux using the | "vmshell" command included in the image. | | So yes, technically it's backdoored but only for yourself :) | mysterydip wrote: | Windows 2000 was my favorite version of the OS. I kept it running | far longer than I should reasonably have. Thanks for giving me | another reason to fire it up! | qsort wrote: | I completely agree. People fondly remember XP, but Windows 2000 | was peak Windows. It almost looks like a real operating system | :) | laumars wrote: | I agree. People often forget that early releases of XP was | basically just a re-skinned 2000 but with a few tweaks for | games and fonts. The problem was those skins ended up | doubling the memory and CPU requirements. In fact XP was a | pretty bloated OS on hardware from 2002. It wasn't until much | later into the life of XP when hardware caught up and newer | service packs added enough to the OS to really differentiate | it from 2000. But for the first few years of the life of XP, | it was an embarrassment. | cesarb wrote: | People also often forget that Windows XP was the first | Windows to have WGA, which was fairly controversial. | Windows 2000 was the last Windows version you could truly | own, instead of having to beg Microsoft for permission | every time you reinstalled or replaced hardware. | johnebgd wrote: | Windows XP volume licensing still gave customers full | ownership without online activation. | | I remember a friend used magic jelly bean to pull keys | off every pc he came across to stockpile new volume keys | he could use after the initial key that went public got | banned for windows updates. | mixmastamyk wrote: | I preferred XP with the classic theme, some of its utils | were improved. | laumars wrote: | Which utils? | | I think XP introduced the "switch user" option. But I | couldn't find much in XP to justify the additional drain | on memory and CPU. However I might not have needed the | same utils you came to prefer (Every user is different). | rbanffy wrote: | I'd go even further: XP was 2000 with some UI elements and | ideas that came from Windows Me. That grouping in the | control panel only made it harder to find what you needed. | chrisseaton wrote: | Why do you think Windows isn't a real OS? It successfully | powers I'd guess hundreds of millions of devices. | IntelMiner wrote: | To be fair, Linux powers quite literally billions of | devices | rbanffy wrote: | And those Windows boxes wouldn't be able to do much | without the ones Linux powers, but that's beside the | point: Windows is an OS. It's quirky and feels weird for | the Unix crowd, but a lot of it will be oddly familiar to | the VMS elders. | chrisseaton wrote: | And a hundred million isn't enough to be real? | arendtio wrote: | It is a joke to say that it is not a real OS. | | But if you want to argue: You could say that a 'real OS' | must be 'mostly POSIX-compliant' [1]. That way most other | OS (Linux, MacOS, iOS) but not Windows would be included | in your definition of a 'real OS' ;-) | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Mostly_POSIX- | compliant | edgyquant wrote: | Windows is mostly posix compliant as it had a POSIX | subsystem until 2000, then it had Windows Services for | UNIX/Interix and now days has Windows Subsystem for | Linux. | chrisseaton wrote: | I wouldn't get why POSIX is the only way to design an OS. | rbanffy wrote: | It's not. It's an API. IBM's zOS has a POSIX-compliant | Unix subsystem and it has absolutely nothing to do with | Unix under its hood. | arendtio wrote: | It is not. | | But that way you could pretend to have an objective | definition of the term 'real OS' and exclude Windows | while including most other major OS. | authed wrote: | Same... XP was almost as good because it was basically the same | thing, except for its ugly skin. | | But even if Windows 2000 would make a come back, I would not | switch back to Microsoft because they would probably | incorporate their newest tracking methods. | city41 wrote: | You could set XP to look just like 2000. | ectopod wrote: | Not quite. They broke smooth window resizing in XP. | edwinyzh wrote: | I agree too! It's the BEST! | rbanffy wrote: | 2000 and XP/2003 were the last Windows versions I used and cared | about. It was with 2000 that I realised working with 2 200MHz | CPUs was a better experience than a single 400MHz one (at least | on Windows). | throwaway69123 wrote: | I really wish docker (not specifically but containers frameworks) | had support for graphical output. Be really cool to containerise | visual apps. | nayuki wrote: | A year or so before Windows XP brought the NT kernel to home | users, I chose to switch from Windows Me to 2000 to reap the | benefits in computer stability. I was using a business operating | system before it was cool. | _nickwhite wrote: | What a cool project. Expose that port 3389 (RDP) to the internet | & see how long before it gets cryptolocked. | rezonant wrote: | Finally! We've been waiting for Windows containers to hit feature | parity with Linux for a long time! /s | arpa wrote: | cool! I've never considered running qemu in a container. This | project is a matroska on actual windows systems, as docker | runs/used to run in VM (has WSL changed that?). So | VM->Docker->VM. You could probably also run windows-something | that supports Docker and run the same image. Oh this gives me | baaaaad ideas. Thank you, OP | NexRebular wrote: | illumos has had qemu inside a container (or zone) since I | believe 2011 when Joyent ported KVM to SmartOS. Nice to see | docker catching up already... | arpa wrote: | Did you mean linux? because docker is just an interface foe | cgroups, namespaces and chroot. | NexRebular wrote: | the docker system including all the bells and whistles. But | indeed I could've just said linux is playing catch-up in | this area too... | xxpor wrote: | WSL2 itself also runs in a VM | throwaway984393 wrote: | This is amazing! Does anyone know if KVM hardware virt works on | EC2 / ECS / Lambda / other cloud or VPS vendors? | | Also, does anyone know which versions of Windows have | restrictions on where you can run it? IIRC, recent versions | stipulate you can't just run your own copy of it virtualized | without an approved hardware vendor? Or maybe I'm crazy. I know | with MacOS the EULA states you can't run it on anything but Apple | hardware (thanks, Apple). | | If only their EULAs weren't so restrictive, it would be easy to | spin up a build+test cluster for your apps for all platforms. | Sucks that developing cross-platform is now legally/financially | more troublesome than it is technically. | comprev wrote: | A handful of PCs running pirated Win2k licenses and Small | Business Server 2003, hooked up via an eBay Cisco switch was the | start of my career in Ops. I learned so much back then! | rado wrote: | Truly great OS. The pinnacle. Rock solid. Just look at that | perfectly consistent UI. Everything afterwards is bloat and UI | BS. | noja wrote: | I love the speed and simplicity of Win2k. | | What would HNers change in Win2k to bring it up-to-date? What's | must have features does Windows 11 have that Win2k does not? | fwsgonzo wrote: | Modern desktops do multi-display and scaling better. Perhaps | also GPU-work, however I greatly prioritize low latency over | any fancy windowing. | | I wonder how the Windows 2000 desktop latency was? I remember | it felt really snappy. | pengaru wrote: | Is booting windows in a vm something noteworthy in 2021? | throwawayay02 wrote: | I was searching for your question. I agree I don't know why | this is in the first page... Maybe some people [1] are right | when they say most of HN's audience is interested in business | and technology, but not technical themselves. | | [1] http://n-gate.com/ | mardifoufs wrote: | What happened to ngate? Have they ever been on a long hiatus | like this one before? | IshKebab wrote: | I think people don't realise that Docker isn't really doing | anything here. | ranger_danger wrote: | yea I don't get it... I have docker/qemu images for every | windows version ever made, but I don't go parading them around | to everyone. they're so simple to make anyways. | nix23 wrote: | I miss W2K :( | zinekeller wrote: | > Why? | | >> "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they | could, that they didn't stop to think if they should." - Dr. Ian | Malcolm | | I like this "Why?" "Why not?" attitude. Surprised though that a | whole operating system, kernel and all, is dockerised though, | especially that the impression of Docker to me is that it is | normally everything but the kernel. | | Edit: I didn't read the QEMU in the name. I won't be surprised if | this is a full software emulation though (instead of the now- | common hardware-assisted virtualisation). | als0 wrote: | KVM is being passed to the Docker container, so it is using | hardware-assisted virtualisation. Of course, certain things | like the BIOS and peripherals will be fully handled in software | by QEMU. | user3939382 wrote: | I thought that quote was so funny, I actually laughed out loud. | I've definitely dug into technical challenges way deeper than | necessary merely because it felt like a challenge and I wanted | the feeling of beating/solving it. | flatiron wrote: | You could spend 15 minutes and modify the dockerfile to | accept an autoboot executable and it would actually be | useful! | tatref wrote: | Seems like this runs qemu inside the container. | xaduha wrote: | Yeah, pretty run-of-the-mill as far as similar projects go. | Maybe a tad over-complicated to put it mildly. | | I've done something like this except not with KVM, but with | headless Xorg+PulseAudio+Wine to have Hearthstone with sound | over RDP. | | Did it run? Yes. Did it run like crap? Absolutely! | FpUser wrote: | Windows 2000 running in VM in Docker. Might as well skip the | docker stage as it does not really add anything. | | Otherwise sweet memories. I used Win 2K as a workstation at the | time. Loved it. | [deleted] | NabiDev wrote: | But, Why? | UI_at_80x24 wrote: | Because a project like this is the exact ethos that HN thrives | on and the niche that 'Hacker' community exists to fill. | | I would love to see 100 of these a day. | crehn wrote: | Why not? It's fun. | jagger27 wrote: | I like to boot up old operating systems for UI design | inspiration. Software really felt different back then. This | sort of "pointless" project saves me a lot of hassle! | IshKebab wrote: | Is it that hard to do directly using QEMU? | https://wiki.qemu.org/Windows2000 | z3t4 wrote: | so it runs Ubuntu which fires up a virtual machine that runs | windows. Why not run the VM directly without Ubuntu !? (and | without Docker) | hectorm wrote: | You can of course set this up manually outside Docker, I | provide this image so that you can easily have a preconfigured | installation with VNC, RDP, bind shell and a Samba server. | moffkalast wrote: | Docker can run Win 2000, but older versions of Win 10 can't run | Docker. There must be some irony here. | tiernano wrote: | Someone posted that 2k was the last nt edition without bloat... I | think that was wrong (plus comment seems to have been deleted). | 2k3, 2k8, 2k8r2, 2k12, 2k12r2, 2016 and 2019 all have no bloat or | random crap... 2022 is mostly the same.... And comes with | (chrome) edge too... Since the xp days I have always skipped the | home/pro/workstation editions of windows and used server... Gave | more features I needed, like hyper v, and felt more stable... | Plus less crap... | pacifika wrote: | How is the compatibility with everyday applications? | tiernano wrote: | I haven't found any app that doesn't run on windows server | that does on win desktop. I don't game, so never tired | games... Wsl on 2019 was limited to v1, but think that got to | v2 on 2022... Docker works, all dev tools work... Yea, all | good! | R0b0t1 wrote: | The issue is hardware. Most gaming hardware does not have | server qualified drivers which may mean you can't use your | hardware. Issues normally with WiFi cards and GPUs, most | other things will work. No chance of running Windows Server | on a laptop. | | The qualification is to prevent random crashes; it's not | really needed, but it is hard to impossible to disable last | I checked. | tiernano wrote: | Never had an issue with drivers... Was running nvidia | cards and the standard nvidia drivers worked without | issue... Also did manage to run win2003 on a laptop at | one stage... Can't remember if drivers for wifi worked... | The machine was hard wired in... | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | Everything after 2008R2 is significantly more bloated. I still | interact with a few 2008R2 VMs at work and every time I log on | to one I'm actually a little freaked out by how much more | responsive it is. | snazz wrote: | I've also used Server 2019 on a desktop and it's pretty solid. | A couple of pointers: | | - If you're considered a "student" by any means, you probably | have access to an institutional email address that gives you | access to Azure for Students. Through the Azure site, you can | download an ISO for any LTSC edition of Windows Server | (including Datacenter) and get a valid license key. This is a | great way of saving money and avoiding sketchy key resellers. | | - Driver support is basic out of the box. The PC I used for | Windows Server has an AMD graphics card, which normally comes | with GPU drivers as soon as you install a consumer version of | Windows. This doesn't happen automatically with Windows Server. | When you download the GPU drivers from AMD, the installer will | detect that you're running Server and error out, but you can | tell Device Manager to install drivers from your C:\AMD folder | and it will work fine (minus the fancy GUI control panel, which | is arguably bloatware itself). Something similar should work | for Nvidia cards. | | - Normal Win32 applications work great (I used Chrome, Office, | IntelliJ, and a number of other everyday apps and they worked | perfectly). However, you don't have access to the Windows | Store, so installing UWP applications that aren't part of the | base system (i.e., anything other than Settings, pretty much) | is a pain. | R0b0t1 wrote: | Driver support isn't a given. There's lots of normal hardware | which may never be server qualified. You can make a desktop | that will run server fine, but it's kind of a Linux | situation; you can't pick random parts and assume they'll | work. | chronogram wrote: | I have yet to run into this problem, do you have any | examples? I don't have any exotic hardware outside of the | ThinkPad X220 dock which nowadays only works with Linux. | rbanffy wrote: | Thinkpads are a good bet for Linux compatibility because | they are very popular with Red Hat and Ubuntu kernel | developers. They'll do whatever it takes to make Linux | run well on their machines. | chronogram wrote: | In a sense yes, but like my current Latitude 7xxx and | those original Thinkpad Xxx it's just paying for a | premium product and getting premium hardware and premium | chips inside so I get hardware that staffs a development | team that makes good drivers and that has manufacturers | that staffs a development team good enough to put it on | fwupd. | geofft wrote: | There's a fairly active community of folks gaming on the | major public cloud providers, which only provide images for | Windows Server, but games work just fine. In fact, NVIDIA | provides an official gaming AMI based on Windows Server: | https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-xrrke4dwueqv6 | kreeben wrote: | Way back in the day I played Max Payne on a Win2k server and | it worked great. Couldn't make the OS crash even if I tried. | Best MS OS ever. | Crontab wrote: | I was always a fan of NT4, personally speaking. | iforgotpassword wrote: | Me too. While I think 2k was peak when it comes to a usable, | lean desktop os, to me, NT4 was the first Windows NT that was | "complete" and usable, the "we're done" milestone. Can't find | the proper expression for it really, but it just has a | special place in my IT heart. | rbanffy wrote: | NT4 blue screened on me when I was demoing IIS process | separation. It was an auditorium full of very technical | people, who mostly already knew me from one place or another. | Fortunately, I was quite good as a stand up comedian. | | I felt vindicated when 98 did the same with billg at COMDEX | (or was it CES?). | | NT4 had an architectural flaw that was introduced to make | some people happier - many device drivers started to run in | kernel space and their bugs were able to crash the whole | machine, unlike 3.5, where a crashed driver could be | reloaded. | gfodor wrote: | Best MS OS, they should have just maintained this for the last 20 | years. | hn_throwaway_69 wrote: | This brings back great memories. Windows 2000 sparked my interest | in computing. | | I was in elementary school and was obsessed with the 'Log on to' | dropdown box on Windows login screens, and how you could use the | same credentials on any PC. | | Somehow I managed to salvage an old computer and source myself a | copy of the ISO and managed to setup an ADDS domain controller | and join my mother's laptop to the domain. | | I went and asked the IT guy for advice on doing a multi forest | configuration and I think it blew his mind. Why did I want multi | forest? Guess I was preoccupied with whether or not I could, and | didn't stop to think if I should. : ) | xattt wrote: | Some of the most interesting pursuits in my "youthful" | computing experience was looking into how to make things work | that were meant for large-scape deployment work for personal | use. I had a Dell Inspiron 600m laptop (circa 2003, RIP 1 year | after due to bad soldering on the mainboard) which came with a | Smart Card reader. At one point in time, the holy grail would | have been making it work for password-less login on Windows XP. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | > Why did I want multi forest? Guess I was preoccupied with | whether or not I could, and didn't stop to think if I should. : | ) | | Good news; you belong on Hacker News:) | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | Are we sure that's "good" news? | djbusby wrote: | Absolutely. | | One of us, one of us, gabba gabba hey! | cagataygurturk wrote: | I am happy to hear that I was not the only nerd interested in | enterprise software during middle school years. You know, while | my friends were waiting the latest games, I would wait for the | next Service Pack of Windows 2000. Constant exploration of AD, | firewalls, networking, purely for curiosity and fun. | | Now those friends ask me how to get an IT job by the way :) | t0mas88 wrote: | Same here, I experimented with win 2k server as a domain | controller and also installed Red Hat with Samba for doing | mostly the same. Not because it was useful at home, but because | 13 year old me wanted to underhand how it worked and had lots | of time. | | The windows domain thing was a bit magical, but in the end an | old PC with Red Hat and later Debian became a useful home | server and router. I think I was quite lucky that my father had | a background in IT so we did some things together in early | Linux exploration. He hadn't used it before either but did use | Unix in the early days. | [deleted] | tomc1985 wrote: | Yup. This exact thing pretty much lead me to a network admin | job during college. I had friends that got hired as admins in | high school, by the high school, and I was super jealous. The | pay sucked but it was a humble start to my career in tech. | | God now I am getting nostalgic for the huge network drive | shared by the entire school. That shit was _wild_ | tsumnia wrote: | > This brings back great memories. Windows 2000 sparked my | interest in computing. | | Same, I remember being so resistant to porting to XP. AND funny | enough, when I finally made the shift, it was the first time I | ever wiped a hard drive, losing all my precious pirated MP3s. | mikehollinger wrote: | > Somehow I managed to salvage an old computer and source | myself a copy of the ISO and managed to setup an ADDS domain | controller and join my mother's laptop to the domain. | | Ha. That brings me back as well. I installed (pirated) Windows | 2000 Advanced Server onto a Compaq that I won. I ran my own | active directory which let me share printers to my mom's laptop | (an iBook at the time), and our other PC. It was total | overkill, but I deeply enjoyed tinkering with each and every | setting to see what it did, discovering the registry and seeing | what all of -that- did, breaking things, fixing things... and | now here we are. :-) | | I miss that feeling. :-) | hn_throwaway_69 wrote: | Eerily similar to me! Minus winning the computer, would have | begged someone instead! | | My mother wasn't very happy with my experiments with group | policy, which included adding the secure attention sequence | (control alt delete) to her login screen. And various | lockdowns of the start menu and Windows Explorer :) | | Overkill is an apt description. | unglaublich wrote: | In general: https://hub.docker.com/r/tianon/qemu ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-14 23:00 UTC)