Slashdot Mirror
Will Microsoft Open Windows Source Code? (No!)
mTor writes, "Cnet.com is reporting in this story that Microsoft is willing to open the source to Windows to settle its case with government. " Personally I think this would be pretty sweet. It'd definitely be a boost for projects like WINE. Wonder what license they would use? *grin*. CT : several folks sent us this Yahoo story where Bill denies the cnet story linked above.
This would be a great thing for some people (although fragmenting Windows even more would be a pain in the ass), but think about this : A great deal of Windows code doesn't belong to Microsoft.
MS has NDAs with hundreds of companies, ranging from Apple (Sorenson codec, anyone?) to Intel to Unisys. Hell, I think I've heard there's some Berkely code in Windows that's legally undisclosable.
If they disclosed only what they had written, you'd have a pretty incomplete picture, which may or may not be useful.
Just something to think about.
Gates knows that open source hackers wouldn't be able to resist looking at Win source. So MS dumps miles of poorly documented spagetti code on them, resulting in real open source projects being delayed for years due to Win source induced trauma.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Dammit, I'm tired of this "Take over the world" mentality. I don't particularly care if linux has 2% or 20% of market share.
Maybe not, but I bet you would care if Linux suffered massive brain drain, developer migration to another OS.
You want drivers for that brand new GeForce 65535? Sorry, there's no interest. And you can forget about the vendor releasing one anytime soon--there's nothing in it for them to make a few scattered hackers happy.
You want DSL? Sorry, your ISP only allows Windows. Linux is only used by hackers and frankly, we don't want to provide tech support.
You want the latest release of Debian on CD? Sorry, Cheapbytes went out of business because everyone uses Windows now. Not to mention that Debain is losing package maintainers left and right, the maintained package count is down to a record low of 522.
Exaggerated maybe, but my point is that though market share is nice if we want corporate interest, but much more important for the free software community is mind share.
Companies can already license Windows source code. We did it at Unisys for our CMP group. They need to hack away at NT4/Win2k to get it to support Dynamic Partitioning (where memory, hard drives, processors, etc. can be moved to other OSs running at the same time on the same system), multi-processor support with linear performance increases, and other main frame like features. The big drawback to their current license is that you can not work on another OS for five years. Ouch. There are several other restrictive aspects of the non-disclosure agreement but this one is the toughest to swallow. It is the one that MS would have to give up to satisfy the goverment.
-- soldack
Up until now, Microsoft has called everything the OS. Will this change? Will IE suddenly be merely an application?
More importantly, what about the dev tools? If "Windows" is open, but COM is not, this doesn't really mean much.
The cake is a pie
Bloomberg originally ran this story, saying that Bill Gates said he would ``do our absolute best to achieve it" (meaning a settlement). The interpreted that to mean opening up the Windows source code, and ran the story. Here is the links where Bloomberg admits that Microsoft completely denies this story. contains
Dammit, I'm tired of this "Take over the world" mentality. I don't particularly care if linux has 2% or 20% of market share. I just like to use linux because as a developer, it kicks tremendous ass. Windows, on the other hand, might kick ass if you spent several thousand dollars on development tools, but it still wouldn't be as cool as linux.
For 99% of people, the computer is to get something done. If you can get your job done, and work with other people, then who cares what OS you're using? Just use the one you like most! For me, that happens to be Linux.
So basically, who cares if a bunch of hackers improve Windows? If it was GPL'd today, it would probably take 2 years of hacking at least before it even approached linux in terms of stability.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
They interpreted this to mean 'opening up the Windows source code'...
After the on-camera portion of the interview was completed, Gates was asked whether the company would be willing to open the Windows source code in order to settle the case, and Gates said ``yes.'' He then added, smiling, ``if that's all it took.''
please Please PLEASE do not confuse "I can read the source code for Product Foo" with "Product Foo is Open Source". I can read the source code for Java, but I'd be in a world of pain if I did anything with it that Sun didn't like. Especially if I wanted to sell it.
ABC News is re porting that Microsoft is denying Gates ever said this. From the article: "Microsoft Corp. strongly denied that Chairman Bill Gates had told Bloomberg Television in an interview that he would be willing to open the Windows operating system source code antitrust suit with the U.S. Justice Department. "Bill did not make any of the comments attributed to him about the settlement," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said. "The comments they said Bill made are just not true."
We're talking about ridiculous amounts of code here. IF it was open sourced most people/"hackers" wouldn't even be able to compile it. It would take a huge amount of concerted effort to release a *fixed* Windows.
The problem with this in my mind is that the majority of Winusers are very apathetic towards their OS. They don't get bug fixes, hell a lot of them don't even know what that means. If Windows code is released it's available for the scrutiny of people who want to do damage. These people.....should they exist and find/take advantage of the weaknesses in Windows code could take out a lot of users at the knees.
I hear a lot of people say that security through obscurity doesn't work but in this case I have to insist that when you take away the obscurity you show all of the flaws. It really hasn't seemed that hard thus far to find security problems.....imagine it multiplied on this scale.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
It turns out that MS is NOT offering to open source Windows. I got this from MSN Investor, a site that requires a login, so I'm posting the relevant part of the artcile here:
Microsoft denies Gates offered to open Windows code
February 17, 2000 08:38 PM
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp.MSFT on Thursday strongly denied that Chairman Bill Gates had told Bloomberg Television in an interview that he would be willing to open the Windows operating system source code to competitors to settle an antitrust suit with the U.S. Justice Department.
"Bill did not make any of the comments attributed to him about the settlement," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said. "The comments they said Bill made are just not true."
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
--Dr. Seuss
What happens if Windows goes Open Source, an entire legion of pissed off Win32 hackers goes to work on it and it becomes stable and secure, and starts winning back market share from Linux?
Another good question: Would this be a bad thing? Real competition would probably improve Windows AND Linux.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
When people ask if I am ever going to cut my hair short (My hair is currently below my shoulders, and growing), I respond by saying 'I'll cut my hair when Microsoft goes open source!'.
This is not good. Nope. Not good at all.
JB
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]