Yeah, just taking a spin through the first couple pages of the 4e DMG1/PHB1, it definitely does NOT state anything even close to rule 0. In fact its tone and terminology are REALLY similar to the prefatory material of Dungeon World. It compares a D&D game to a 'Novel' or 'Movie' and very explicitly labels the DM as working with the players to make the PC's adventures 'challenging', but where they 'ultimately succeed'. The PHB is pretty entirely consistent with that. My assumption is they were written by the same person/people as a single coherent statement. While there is a passing mention of the DM as having a role in interpreting the rules, 4e doesn't explicitly grant one participant more authority than the others.I don't think the original (ie pre-Essentials) version of 4e D&D especially supported "rule zero" as I sometimes see it propounded. Nor does B/X, does it?
I even think it underwent change during the 3E era - in the original 3E PHB "rule zero" was a rule of PC building (check with your GM), not a rule about action resolution.
Interestingly, Holmes Basic doesn't speak about this issue at all. It has a VERY brief introduction, which segues into an explanation of ability scores after 2 paragraphs on "how to use this book." Preceding this is a 2 paragraph intro. Here the role of the DM is specified merely as being the one who draws up the dungeon, and that the players "don't know where anything is located in the dungeons until the game begins and they enter the first passage or room." The rest of the text indicates that they 'explore' and 'map'. The text then dives immediately into the meat of the rules, I don't think anything more is said about the DM or players and their roles in the game.
Looking at the 1e material, the 1e DMG introduces the DM's role in a writing mode which is 'person-to-person' it isn't written as 'rules text', it is written almost like a lore book, passing on established information and process which is stated as canonical. It says things like "you will know when to take upon yourself the ultimate power." and "they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it." The rest of the 1e DMG is most certainly written with the tone being that the DM is an absolute and ultimate arbiter, even going so far as to state that he should use, modify, or set aside the rules as he sees fit to suite the situation. I don't see that 'rule 0' is really explicitly stated here, it is more like an axiom of the system, just assumed, like breathable air and dice.
The 2e DMG doesn't call it 'rule 0', but there is a statement to the effect that the rules and all other aspects of the campaign are entirely the province of the DM. It is also suggested that the rules really are not something for the players to concern themselves with (this is distinguished from things like how classes work, which are in the PHB and concern the players). Again, the rules are plainly written in a way which only makes sense when we assume axiomatically that the DM has arbitrary rules and fiction authority.
I think 3.0 actually states 'rule 0' outright, but no version of classic D&D really makes sense without that, though you MIGHT interpret the text of Holmes Basic literally enough to assert that the DM's authority ONLY extends to 'the dungeon' and not to any other possible location (but no such locations are discussed beyond the assertion that beyond the dungeon entrance is "the town"). I guess you could have fun with that