Slashdot Mirror
Windows Source Code Proposal Confirmed
ChipX86 writes: "We've all heard the rumors about Microsoft proposing to open source Windows. Now it appears to be confirmed. This article on MSNBC says that Microsoft would '... provide open, timely and complete access to the parts of the Windows operating system code used by independent software companies to design their software applications to run on Windows.'" From the sound of it, this seems like more of a delay tactic than a straight proposal, but interesting nonetheless. (How open is "open," by the way? What about "Timely"?)
Hey maybe if they really let us see their code then us aspiring programmers can use that, along with their documentation, instead of this book that has become the staple of undergraduate computer science studies:
Writing Solid Code : Microsoft's Techniques for Developing Bug-Free C Programs, Code Ser.
Whatever it takes. :)
I think far more important that "opening the source" is if Microsoft were to refrain from their embrace-then-add approach to Internet standards, and silly patents.
By the way, just bought a new notebook today. Time to re-read the old slashdot thread about how the Australian guy got Compaq to refund his Microsoft tax.
Bullshit. If they didn't work they wouldn't be illegal in the US. Of COURSE it is a good business model to have CISCO-Sized-Corp fund you under the table while you sell Wholly-Incompatible-Product at 20% of production cost, in order to run all your competitors out of business and raise the price of entry to outrageous costs in one swoop, after which you grab the monopoly reap the rewards for years (with little worry of government intervention). The only reason a keiretsu ever fails is because it's not the only keiretsu.
Microsoft Corp. is drafting a counterproposal to the government's breakup plan that involves limits on its business practices, such as giving computer makers more flexibility to alter Windows software and offering versions of Windows without access to the company's Internet browser ...
...
To me it sounds like there are just planning on giving the general public access to some of their API for the windows operating system, that developers mainly had access to.
If they were to truly "open source" parts of their code for windows like they seem to be hinting at, do you really think they are going to accept changes by third party programmers and hobbyists?
It almost sounds like the government declassifying worthless documents on sensitive issues, they say they've released some good stuff to get the public off their backs, and it's mainly just worthless junk.
I guess time will soon tell
Fuck Ajit Pai
You're implying it's safe now... :) The only way to make Win9x halfway safe on a network is to install black ice defender or something similar.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
.
Moderate this up, it's what I would have posted anyhow. :)
:)
How would the WINE project cope with an NDA? They release lots of source and documentation for all to see. Hopefully the legal muscle in this case will stop Microsoft from unfairly restricting their Windows API info this time...
If WINE did improve markedly as a result, maybe I could run that copy of "Microsoft Visual J++ 6.0 Professional Edition" I won the other day. But as it stands, I'd rather just return it for the money. If I can get $549 for it, I'll be one happy computer geek. Sorry, WINE, I want the money!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
hm. My VERY LARGE software company, was doing a project that used DCOM extensively. The end result was a big piece of poo. Several critical things were broken, and we tracked down the problems to DCOM - asked MS to fix them, and got the blow-off.
So we learned a valuable lesson - and ripped out DCOM and implemented our own code to cover those functions. One year later, we finally have a shippable product. Luckily, our company is big enough and robust enough to handle that kind of crap. But our smaller competitors (and others) may not be so lucky. Perhaps there are secret tricks to these DCOM APIs that only MS Engineers are privy to - but they're going to have to face the fact that their broken protocol is NOT going to be adopted, if it can't be made to work. I just wish more 3rd party software vendors would realize that using Microsoft (or any proprietary) APIs is a trap that should be avoided at all costs.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Open Source or not, I fail to see why Microsoft won't at least make the entire source code freely distributable now. For research purposes only, if you will (In fact, they do this already for selected people in selected universities).
... nothing wrong with that, as demonstrated with technologies like Linux. The problem being that Microsoft can be a little slow at time at releasing advisories/patches when notified of things like this...
Microsoft technology is powering about 99% of the world's PCs. They have the public in their grasp. They have enough legal muscle to stop a third party from writing a Windows lookalike and trying to rip them off.
So I'm not quite sure what they would *lose* by a source code release. In terms of public affairs, they would suddenly become this benefactor "doing things no company has done before" (you know what PR spin is like).
The only thing that would worry me would be the security aspect. Security experts would track down those bugs very quickly
I really doubt Microsoft will Open Source their software. They may disclose their source, but I feel that it is still going to be on a restrictive licesnse. The sad thing is, MS will probably use it as an argument: "We have Open Sourced MS-XYZ." and since monet people dont truely understand the definition of Open Source.
--Brett
Do you think it might be possible to sprinkle some magic pixie dust on JWZ and magically turn him into something other than a self-righteous ass?
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Correction: not all Libertarians are corporate 'greed is good' types. What you're describing is Objectivism, a 'me me me me me' school of thought pioneered by Ayn Rand. Objectivism could be considered a subset of Libertarianism. There are many, many Libertarians, myself included, who believe that Microsoft has defintely acted in an unacceptable way and needs to be reined in.
And if you still have any doubt, you can read this article by Eric Raymond about Why Libertarians Should Not Love Bill Gates.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
If MS were split, you would only have two microsofts. Especially if they are split into an OS and an apps division, in which case the two would never compete with each other either.
In my view the perfect solution would be one similar to what happened with intel. AMD now offers better quality than intel, giving intel an incentive to improve it's product, and Cyrix offers a product at a far lower price, giving intel an incentive to keep their prices down.
A similar solution would be to force MS to license windows to at least five competitors. If OEM vendors could choose between (for instance) MS windows, IBM windows, Oracle windows, Corel windows etc, all of thesee companies would have an incentive to offer the best possible windows at the lowest possible price, which would effectively remove the harm to consumers, which is the main reason for anti monopoly laws.
The flip side to that is that it will inhibit innovation. Not only is IE faster than Netscape, but having it integrated right into the shell is tremendously convenient. I used to be a die-hard Netscape fan who wouldn't touch IE just on principal - then one day I woke up and smelt the Folgers. IE is faster, and above all, really tightly integrated with the OS. From a philosophical standpoint, this is devious, but pragmatically, it's fscking great. Way, way easier than firing up a new browser everytime I want to peek at some page.
I'm not advocating that Microsoft get off scot-free. Like everyone here I think they are monopolist assholes on an order not seen since the days of Rockefeller. But at the same time that seamless integration of software and OS has proved tremendously convenient for me and millions of others out there - and maybe you too. Breaking their monopoly will be an interesting affair since the consumer loses no matter how you slice it - either they stay together and we lose innovation from other companies, or they split and we lose the convenience of having a tightly bound OS and software. For sure, the situation is not as cut-and-dried as most people here make it out to be - which is basically, "split them at all costs, we'll all be better off." Not so!
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Not to sound like an MS booster, but I've thought the Gov. should butt out of the whole thing from the beginning - especially as far as a break up goes. A breakup of MS would be bad for a lot of reasons.
1> US Economy. Despite their monopoly status, MS has been good for the US of A.
2> Global Economy. Again despite the monopoly they've been good for foreign economy.
Notes on 1 & 2. Sure, they have stifled competition, but they have also provided a standard base for companies to base their software on. Buggy though it be. The MS OS has become much like the electric service, or phone company - but they are the utility that runs most of today's desktops like it or not.
I should think that more people would be ticked off by the impudence of the USG to interfere in a company w/o regard to the rather global effects it may have.
3> Will make MS OS less stable than it already is.
You think there are problems now? Just wait till it all gets split up. Sure, Open Source claims not to have the problems, cause you can just look at the source and fix it. But, in my experience, 9 out of 10 times a software install on Windows just works. That's what the end user wants. They don't want to have to futz about with RPMs, and getting the 5 or 6 that they need to get things running. Right now OSS is about where MS was in terms of libraries back with Win95 was just out. Between Win3.1, 95, NT 3.51, and NT 4.0, there were so many flavors of dlls running around, it was a PITA. Kinda like the CLIB problems and other versioning issues on Linux today.
4> Interoperability will decrease. That is the greatest strength of the Winblows platform. The fact that all the apps work pretty well together. It's what, despite the crashes, and bugs, allows people to get stuff done.
Such as it is, at times I think OSS, and all the Zulu's rattling their spears on shields for MSes downfall miss the point. The end user is what matters. And cruddy tho it be, MS meets those needs - handily.
This breakup will have far reaching effects that won't be positive.
My solution would have been simply to mandate a peer review council. The Gov. could step out at that point, and not waste tax dollars.
This would force a certain level of cooperation amongst the providers of software, which has become an increasingly important resource in the day-to-day business of typical companies - from the largest to the smallest.
I sort of envisioned that companies like Sun, RedHat, AOL, MS, Oracle, etc. would commit a resource (or 2 or 3 or 4) to this council. When new products are introduced by the companies, they have to put the API up for review. I really don't usually care too much what goes on under the hood (more on that later) - just so long as the interfaces work as advertised. Members (the direct resources commited to this task) would sign NDAs, and have full access to the source code to verify the stability of the API.
If for instance in the source, they find that there are 5 or 6 methods on an object that don't seem to be documented, they can raise this issue. It could be that the methods are reserved for future use, and contain incomplete code. Perfectly legitimate reasons. Within a month or so, the entire "council" could simply vote on whether the API up for review was produced in good faith.
While I support Open Source, I also support a company being able to make a buck off of software. I don't think software should necessarily be "free" (as in beer). And, since I remain unconvinced that people will not simply steal source code if the source is opened to a commercial product, but remain firmly convinced that people are without conscience in matters of money - It's are hard proposition for a corporation to even open the source up to a purchaser even for $$$.
However, I feel that it is vitally important that software be able to work together, and that no artificial walls be erected. Thus, the API, and your right that it be complete, is very important. Especially if you've paid for information that you believe to be complete.
- Woodie
Then theres explorer, some api's, how about directx, humm, keep window media asf closed..
Also since the Browser isnt part of the OS We dont need to include it.
Oh look you want to be Windows Certified, thats another fee...
Has anyone every seen how big Microsoft really is?
They have games, hardware, os, apps, programing utils, handheld devices, mobile devices, consumor units, bluetooth, ms certifications, dreamcast... (opps)
I hope the DOJ is smarter than that.
-Brook Harty
aka IronWolve
I have never seen a more complete fabrication. (any other MSNBC story ever run to five sections?)
The media are usually pretty lame but this piece reads more like it came more from MS legal department than NBC.
Its a desperate attempt to do what shouldn't be done anyway.
The ONLY way to get rid of the problem is to concede the x86 platform to M$ and NAIL THEM THERE.
No M$ on Merced/Itanium, PPC, Alpha, nowhere else, ever.. No FUTURE. Then watch the smart investors go elsewhere...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
My first choice would be splitting MS into a systems company and an applications company
Microsoft has willfully committed crimes, and continues to do so.
A slap on the wrist will merely confirm their belief that any penalties for doing so are not so onerous as to make it not worth behaving that way.
Splitting them into two companies will merely reward the wrongdoers with financial riches.
Microsoft must be immediately dissolved, and it's assets sold at auction.
All source code for all applications they have ever written should be placed under GPL, and the copyrights assigned to Richard Stallman.
The microsoft.com domain should be assigned to the EFF, with them directed by court order to maintain a web site at that address containing all the relevant court documents for all time.
All other domains with Microsoft in their title should be required to change their names. It is acceptable that they still have "ms", such as MSNBC, but only if they find a title where the MS means something else.
Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and a host of others should be jailed. Not some country-club vacation, actual real jail with the other organized crime lords.
--
This is in 1(c)(ii): In the case of such Intellectual Property that is related to the Internet browser, the license shall not grant the Operating System Business any right to develop, license, or distribute modified or derivative versions of the Internet browser. Basically, the proposal says that _only_ the raw OS gets split off, meaning that we have MS as today, except without owning Windows. The only blooper I've seen is that MS might sacrifice the OS business and develop an identical department... didn't see anything in the proposal against that.
Sure MS has monopolistic practices, but no more than the baby bells or the cable companies.
And by this you're justifying them how? Two wrongs do not make a right. IMHO, cable companies should be next to be legislated, if not actually prosecuted for their business practices.
All addressed in section 3(a). Section 3 contains the interim restrictions, which contain a lot of the meat of the proposal, and will continue to apply to the OS business.
However, the main reason Office is so succesful is MS basically gives it away to the OEMs.
Is it just me or does this ring of RedHat's business model? If they can keep it up, sure, why not. But I doubt it'll be that easy.
People use IE because Netscape sucks.
People use IE because it comes preinstalled, and can't be removed easily. And, most people have other things to do than finding the netscape download link (really, did Netscape deliberately obfuscate the route to the download page?)
MS only made Java better.
MS broke the standard, as specified in the license they signed. This not only breaks Java's standard, but is an actual contract breach. If they wished to 'enhance' it, as you say, they were free to develop an independent toolkit for Windows use, as long as the core API was standards-compliant.
Go read the Findings of Fact, and the Government proposal. Some of the stuff in the Findings is just mind-boggling, and definitely not what I'd consider fair or sound business practices.
---
Paranoia is simply reality on a finer scale.
If Linux would be equipped with a client for win32 (like the client for netware) it would be ok.
;) hahhaha :) that really made my day.
:) I should have said "Microsoft Toady".
No, you just don't get it. Linux is already a perfectly good SMB client - but has greater ambitions - Linux is a great SMB server too, and is also reportedly a darn good NT-replacement domain server (though I haven't tried it myself). If as a MS camp follower that doesn't scare you, then you just don't understand the situation.
Course if you're a user you should be nothing but pleased, because who wouldn't mind having a domain server that costs nothing and doesn't needed to be rebooted once/fortnight?
You apparantly are not well informed and believe that if a person just knows something about win32 he's a microsoft employee
Oh yes, how clever of you.
"Where do you want to go, Toady?"
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
And it doesn't scare me at all that Linux apparantly has this goal, because it hasn't nor is it able to replace NT... The problem with you and your fellow advocates is: you don't understand the people you're talking to.
With all due respect, it seems to be you who doesn't understand. Check this out.
This attitude also says to me I never HOPE to be called a Linux User if the loud mouth zealots keep their attitude.
Well then you can make it your mission to do your part to correct this bad behavior and I'll do my part to clue you in on which way the wind is blowing.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Microsoft insists that Web integration is so tightly integrated into Windows 98 that there is no way to remove it. Well, look what I found: 98 Lite is a setup utility that helps you strip out all the garbage (like web integration) from Win98. So much for "tightly integrated".
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
Bzzt! Wrong... this case is about Microsoft's illegal business practises, as exemplified by their leveraging the Windows monopoly to crush a browser competitor, and to control the PC desktop operating system market through unfair pricing, exclusivity in contracts and threatened denial of supply of a monopoly product.
The remedy must address future ability to carry out such activities, not just the products that have already been used for such activities.
Who could? Certainly not Microsoft if they were required by law to keep all their source open. Possibly some other company but that'd be Microsoft's problem. Guess that's a good reason for them to use the GPL but hey I don't care as long as the source is available to me. I fail to see what point you were trying to make though.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
To avoid being split up the government should force Microsoft to opensource all it's software under a true opensource license (GPL, LGPL, BSD) for say ten years. Of course they should till require the extra anti-trust rules so that M$ doesn't try to pressure others out of the game. That'd be fairly intereesting if M$ was required under law to open a Mozilla-like project for all it's software with absolutely no closed development being done in a for-release product. ie R&D could keep its source hidden, but if they sold or gave the program to anyone then the source must be posted to the Open Gates web site for everyone to see and add to. I'd also bar M$ from buying any opensource software companies so that they couldn't eat the competition over the next 10 years and then when they could close source again just kill all the competions funding.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Don't look at the windows source Marian!!!!
Keep your eyes SHUT!!!
I would like to see the source to see just how convoluted it is. I do wonder if they did (because they had to) open the source if the comments would be in there, or, if they would have been stripped?
I really wonder if there are some "incriminating" comments in there like:
/*
* Ok, this routine causes netscape to hang
* 1 out of every 3 times
*/
/* detects if lotus 1-2-3 is installed, if it is
* when the EXE runs it polls the crash function
* to see if it GPF's this time.
*/
Probably not that blatant, but you never know.
I would like to read the code much more for the comments than the code itself. Its like when you grep the Linux source for the words "fuck" and "shit" you actually come up with some funny comments.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
That's what I was afraid of.
Uh, yardbird? What's a yardbird? I was just making that up.
The average joe on the street doesn't know anything about Open Source, and is waiting for the organization with the most advertising bucks to tell them what it means.
There is also a belief, and one that seems quite common amongst the avaerage jo on the street, that if it's a Microsoft product, it must be the best one.
If Microsoft's Marketing goons do their stuff just right, we may end up with an army of end-users who think that Microsoft invented Open Source.
Suddenly, there'll be another way (in the public's eyes) that "that linux thing" is playing catch-up with Windows - just another reason not to use it...
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Under the proposal, Microsoft would be required to provide open, timely and complete access to the parts of the Windows operating system code used by independent software companies to design their software applications to run on Windows. Sounds like the Win32 API to me. Would certainly provide a hell of a boost to Wine...
you mean the master of writing bugs !?
From the sounds of it, it looks more like they are going to fully open up their APIs, not the source code. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen MS give out their source code even to developers. (Heck, even Intel doesn't have the full source code for Win64!)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
You don't think the DOJ has learned from these tactics? Quoting from the Proposed Final Judgement:
Note that those four conditions are OR'ed, which means no later than anyone at MS has used them, and when you're within 90 days of a final release of a new version of Windows, 5 days after they've changed (whether anyone's used them or not).
Sounds like a good definition of "timely" to me.
-Esme
dude i think you're way off! Because this is Microsoft they probably would just release the source to it's API. And all they're doing is allowing people to see the source not copy or modify it. So it isn't true open source in the first place.
Plus releasing Windows source code could give open source a bad name. Because Microsoft wouldn't have the benefit of public feedback and bug fixes, releasing the source would only encourage scriptkiddies to start exploiting the bugs and security problems in windows. Then Joe Schmoe will think shit since opening windows source create more viruses and security exploites then everything else that released it's source code is a security hazard.
hehe... the use of 'void main()' is the best part!
--
--
We apologise for the inconvenience.
Here's my proposal:
Make Microsoft release the source to all their products(Where disclosure agreements allow it). Use a modified GPL, where only Microsoft is allowed to distribute binaries compiled directly from those sources. In other words, everyone can see how it's done, only Microsoft can release "Windows." Everyone else gets to integrate MS code into their software, thus ensuring competition.
Does this mean the whole thing or just little useless snippets while Windows remains relatively closed?
You feel left out? At least you got an iluvyou virus... I didn't get any... nobody loves me...
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
I think you're wrong. Joe Schmore doesn't give a rats ass what's on his computer. If he hears that Microsoft opened up parts of their source code, he'll just shrug it off, as he would if his toaster manufacturer opened up their specifications. Joe just wants to read his e-mail and view his porn sites, he doesn't want to install new OSes and learn more about the one he's using. The only way to get Joe Schmoe to use another OS is if the OS came preinstalled with his Compaq - just like his Windows was.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Don't split M$ into an OS company and an Apps company, split it into Multiple OS companies and multiple Apps companies.
Each on competing with the other, selling different versions of Windows etc, lots of different Word Processors, and they're not allowed to talk to each other.
"It runs slower (see Netscape vs. IE)"
Netscape starts slower, but my guess is that this is because IE is essentially loaded into memory at startup and is there ALL THE TIME (presumably this brilliant innovative element of software design is of some or other benefit to consumers, or whatever MS wants you to believe.)
But in my experience, Netscape runs quite a bit faster than IE. Just the other day I installed NN, and opened both IE and NN each with two windows onto the same pages. IE was *much* slower at both displaying the pages and "alt-tabbing" between the windows. IE's redrawing of the display was not only noticeable slower (Celeron 333 w128MB RAM) but also had ugly flickery overdraw effects (the type of effects you see on games that don't use back-buffers.) NN did not suffer from those problems.
This wasn't the new Mozilla-based NN either, it was still the old one (4.7 I think)
NN is also much faster at opening up new windows than IE. Try it out.
I guess the main reason I mostly still use IE is that it gets installed with Windows. And since we all know how often a Windows user (and in particular a Windows developer) has to reinstall Windows, its more convenient to use IE.
At least you got an iluvyou virus... I didn't get any... nobody loves me...
Well that makes me feel better. I got one.
Mind you, it came to me via a mailing list. Still, I'm counting it as a score.
John Carney.
Now if they're expecting to improve their software by open sourcing it then I'm afraid they're going to be very dissapointed. Windows being in a much, much worst state then the original Netscape has to be rewritten from scratch :o
There's less than a snowballs chance in Hell that MS is going to release the information about all of their insider OS hooks that they keep for themselves.
If MS really wanted to push Windows app development forward they would publish information on all of the little built-in OS hooks they have.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
they're not teaching Microsoft how to write an OS, but MS is complaining that the DOJ wants windows to only be an OS. i personally find this hilarious: microsoft bitching and moaning because someone wants their software to do its job and NOTHING ELSE.
strange things are afoot at the Circle K...
By "Open", they mean they'll provide an ActiveX Control, DirectOS (formerly known as DOS), to include in your visual basic projects. Hence, you'll have complete direct access to the operating system.
The only thing that let's a windows installation remain on my harddisk is the existence of drivers for hardware I have. Those would really be interesting to see open sourced, so we can all port them to FreeBSD :) But they're probably not written by MS anyways, but by the hardware manufacturers, so I seem out of luck anyways.
If you use your car to transport drugs the government will confiscate your car. If you have joint in the ash tray at home the government will confiscate your house. If you rent your house and the renters do drugs the government will confiscate your house. If you break the law using your personal property the government will confiscate the said property. MS broke the law using their property. The government has a right to confiscate their property.
Unless you were protesting when they were confiscating houses, cars, and boats of drug users and dealers you have no right to complain now.
War is necrophilia.
Excuse me for pointing out the blatantly obvious in your post, but none of the APIs you mentioned are used by the Apps team and none of them would require disclosure in a OS/Apps chinese wall.
Remember that applications are written to Win32 and not to the raw NT API hence NTCreateProcessToken(), Subsystem APIs and NTLM RPCs are not part of this.
Also, I've implemented authentication using NTLM over a socket quite happily using the published APIs. Your claim that Netscape cannot do this either implies that the guys at Netscape are fools or they have an alternate agenda. Look at the sample program in MSDN!!
I hate to say it but your post was ill informed, inaccurate and bordering on an outright lie.
John Wiltshire
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Jeremy,
I agree with what you are saying, but fail to see how Huusker's original point that the split between OS and Apps is going to remedy any of the issues he raised with *SYSTEM* level APIs.
The simple fact is that it won't.
I'm not denying any of the point's you've made, simply saying that none of them affect the fact that an OS/Apps split is not going to solve any of the hassles that system level interoperability requirements need. This is not going to give the Samba team the Kerberos specs, the full NT RPC specs or anything like that - read what the DOJ wrote and you'll see that only API specs between OS and Apps are required to be disclosed.
So, I say that you have a good point and the DOJ solution makes no difference.
Regards,
John Wiltshire
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
but geez... i have end-users calling up *all the time* with illegal operations, GPFs in sol. would you really want to play with that code?
s /Q234/4/30.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
s /Q237/9/00.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
of course, it's probably caused by these links...
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
Solitaire & AIM 2.0...
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
Solitaire & TraySaver...
personally, if MS is going to "stay together and we lose innovation from other companies", i'd rather go with the odds that other companies will be able to develop for themselves better alternatives with no restrictions. as silly as it sounds, i have to get myself to see beyond the ms cloud, seeing what *could* be, rather than just a challenge to the existing Desktop OS Structure. i think it's worth the risk. bugger all the "Disasterous Consequences" that are claimed to come from MS' breakup.
This article was published on M$NBC - are they really going to say anything bad about themselves????
The virus will just sit there like a dumb shit unless you have Windows Scripting Host installed. I don't think this is an option with NT, so you can't be infected by it. Scripting Host is the real key to the thing. It will mess up your system even if you don't have Outlook installed, all it needs Outlook for is to propagate to everyone in your address book.
I like the basic part of your idea, it provides for healthy competition, which is good for the consumer. The only problem I see with it is that it includes Windows. Windows is a classic example of a software project that has grown beyond the ability of the developers to control. They have what, 30 million lines of code in their latest incarnation? Considering the sheer amount of code in the thing, it is surprising it does anything at all. My solution would be to force Microsoft to source out an old version of their OS (really old, I would say no later than DOS 6.22) to a few companies like you suggested, or maybe just go all out and GPL the thing. Keeping it to a few companies is probably better, as compatibility could become a nightmare with 20 different versions of the OS out there. Then the companies would be interested in producing the best version of the OS, so theirs would sell better. This might be unrealistic, but I think some guidelines should be set out that the companies must follow when programming their OS:
1: It must be stable. This should be the top priority.
2: It must be reasonably secure. Security holes happen in the best projects (look at Linux, it is a security nightmare, though not as bad as Windows, at least you can lock down a Linux install without too much trouble), but careless bugs must not be present.
3: API's must be available and well documented. Ideally, header files and compilers should be available with the OS, as an option during installation. If the companies do not want to distribute this with the OS, then they should make a development kit available at a price individuals can easily afford (under $100).
4: Standard system calls should be present. By this I mean UNIX system calls. These are the only standard ones. This goes along with the API thing, but if these are available, then UNIX software can be built easily on the new OS.
5: The user interface must be:
A) reasonably consistent across the different versions.
B) difficult and full of cryptic commands. This isn't a typographical error or anything. From past experience, I have seen that it must be impossible for someone to create an interface that is both easy to use and stable. I know it can be done, but I also know that when left to these companies, it won't. As stability is more important than ease of use, ease of use must be sacrificed.
C) tasteful. This is really a matter of personal preference, but it will pretty much take care of itself if item B is upheld.
6: This kind of goes along with the tasteful UI, and it really isn't that important, but the OS shouldn't have a stupid name. The name "Windows" is stupid. Make the name cryptic like the interface and it will be fine. Basically, it should not be immediately apparent what the name means when you look at it.
You might ask why I think things should be cryptic and difficult to use. It is because ever since computers have become easy to use and accessible to the masses, they have turned into cheap, flimsy, unreliable shit. Because of this, I think computers shouldn't be accessible for the masses to play with. I think that they should be available to anyone who wants one, but the consumer should actually have to learn how to use the damn thing (god forbid). Also, cheap (less than $2000, hell, less than $3500!) PC's should NOT be available. That way computers will again be regarded as a tool to accomplish some meaningful task, not a toy to play games on. Hell, let's get the hardware makers to go back to the 486 and start again, maybe they won't let the retards in Marketing royally fuck things up this time. Well, it can't be all Marketing's fault. Some idiot had to design the ATX spec for power supplies and motherboards and implement it, for example.
Anyway, this rant is well off-topic by now, so I'll just shut up now. And, while you are at it, might as well moderate me down to -8, Troll/Flamebait.
It's mostly written in C++, you can tell if you disassemble it (I never did this, that would be a violation of the license agreement :) ). There are parts that are coded in x86 assembler (probably for speed). The funny part is that when you disassemble it, a large portion of it is just comments that say basically "if you can see this you are in violation of the license agreement".
While we're going back to DOS, let's go back to the 486, and see if the hardware manufacturers can do things better this time. Maybe we can get rid of some embarrassing things like Plug-n-Play (I actually WANT to configure my hardware with jumpers!).
P.S. I'm really not joking.
That was really really funny. Thanks for cheering me up.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Ok, they could have a six month period where various security experts can audit the source. Not too tough really. This team could even release the source bit by bit, as it had been audited.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Yeah, cos we all run Lynx as root, don't we? Sorry, d'y'care to provide a reference to such an exploit?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
They could release a binary patch, and some time later the fixed source only. Of course, that doesn't help people who don't patch their copy of Windows. But that problem will always be there anyway.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Many people in Hong Kong end up millionaires
And what exactly is that supposed to prove? Many people in the United States end up millionaires. Your logic astounds.
--GnrcMan--
Yes, Yes, Yes. This is the ONE thing Judge Jackson agreed with Microsoft on -- that integrating the web browser with the desktop has been for the benefit of the consumer. And I'm willing to put my money on this prediction: as soon as Mozilla's next-generation layout engine is ready, we *will* see work to bring browser-desktop integration to the Linux desktop as well.
Basically -- this I will get flamed for -- I don't even see a need for competition on the browser market. Ensuring the viability of multiple browser vendors shouldn't be the first priority of the government. Instead, ensuring standards compliancy in browsers should be.
If Microsoft was forced to distribute a fully W3C standards compliant web browser with every Windows sold and have a standard Java implementation to boot, that would immediately erode much of Microsoft's artificial barrier-to-entry on the desktop market. Here are some of the specific consequences for this single act:
And if that isn't in the consumers' best interest, I don't know what is.
Marko Karppinen
Well, whatever they release this can only be good. I think this is the natural outgrowth of the DOJ case, that no matter how limp-wristed the actual punishment on Microsoft is, MS will need to fight a PR battle to get back into the computer-using public's good faith. If this encourages a little more good behavior on their part then wonderful.
but I for one would still like to see more standards. Forget breaking MS into parts or releasing source, if there were open standards for Office-style documents, if MS complied with HTML 4, if there was some way of making a "standard" way of Intel based OSs to work, then competition could easily occur.<BR><BR>
and this current idea of breaking MS into "Windows" and "Office etc." is mind-numbingly stupid. Windows and Office can stand on their own. The real abuses of power come from MS using these products to push things such as Internet Explorer which could never be profitable on their own, killing out competitors in the same market who have to survive on their efforts.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
The language of the offer is the bad thing.
They will release it in a timely manner.
They will release parts of it.
Two very large backdoors.
"Timely" -- "We got it out as fast as we could! It took 3 years of hard work and we've released windows2002 in the meantime but we released it."
"Parts" -- "No, you don't need to know what functions a, b, c, and f are for. Trust us. Office uses it but they shouldn't."
With this deal Microsoft would still be able to wield the same power it has been throwing around with reckless abandon for the last several years. It is a PR attempt; I highly doubt is was made with a good faith intention.
Here is an interesting little quote from the article:
The remedy plan, which is being drafted by Microsoft attorneys, appears to fall somewhat short of what the company offered the government in out-of-court settlement talks before Jackson's verdict.
Seeing as how this is *less* then what Microsoft offered before in an out of court settlement, it seems clear that the DOJ doesn't expect them to just walk off that easy. Otherwise they would have accepted the stricter proposals (whatever they may be) that Microsoft offered before.
So basically this probably isn't going to happen. It still seems most likely that the company will be broken up, seeing that there is pretty strong support for it (17 states for, 2 states against). Even if that doesn't happen, the sentence is going to be a lot stricter then open "part of" the OS and play nicer.
Spyky
This baffles me. In the MSNBC article, MS stated that a breakup would essentially bring windows development to a standstill. This is -- (from a consumer's point of view... it's the number of toppings on the sunday, not the quality of the milk... sundries such as "integrated internet blah" get people to fork over the cash, as we've seen) -- entirely correct. I realize that's what some people *want*, but bear with my train of logic here for a moment.
The phrase "operating system" has become rather amorfous to say the least -- and this bleeds over into the GNU/Linux vs Linux debate. When we talk about the "windows operating system," we obviously mean more than just the kernel. We're talking about the entire desktop enviornment at the very least. And that's where things start to get a little fuzzy.
Desktop enviornments contain applications. What kind of hard and fast rules do we put on those applications? notepad (or vi) can be bundled, but word (or emacs) can't? What about wordpad (dunno, pico or something)?
Yes, low level functionality can be cleaned up, but OS (in the windows sense of the word) "improvements" consist almost exclusively of piling on the goodies -- which are applications. The linux distros compete almost exclusively on this basis. Even the kernel itself -- I mean, honestly I see more reason to integrate a browser into a desktop shell than to integrate a http server into the kernel.
So let's do some serious thinking as to what "operating system" entails (realistically, here people) prior to calling for a breakup. Also worthy of consideration is that this definition of "operating system" will be written into law.
And now my friends, to bed.
-- r . m o s q u i t o --
This would be a Good Thing if the offer actually conveyed some meaning. They would open the source code of some "parts" of the system. Which parts ? How would they choose those parts ? To whom would that source code be available ? What license ?
For the time being sof/hardware company CAN get the source code by paying big $$ to MS. It would be easy for them to stick to that offer without actually changing their policy.
I agree that it'd be stupid to say that this annoucement is evil just because it's from Microsoft. But it's so imprecise that it isn't possible to say that it's good until they tell us what they'd really be doing with that source code.
I may point out a few things to you.
1. He does appear to be a radical Libertarian. However, this does not make all Libertarian's dumb, impractical, ignorant, and jerks. I myself tend to lean toward a Libertarian point of view, not quite as radical as he, but leftist nevertheless. Try to make a rational point instead of making useless and insulting generalizations.
2. Second, I agree with you. Many radical Libertarians have this delusion that corporations left unchecked will make the world a better place. Correct, greed does NOT have this effect.
3. Nit-pick, yes. Communism is the total opposite of Libertarianism. Communism is the government control and pubic ownership of everything in the interest of the people, a communal living of sorts. Whereas Libertarianism is government totally hands off and private ownership.
The most successful society will not be a total ideal of any particular group, but will be a blend and hybrid of several. Try not to be such a flamer, and be a bit more open minded, eh?
The old adage applies here: "It's not what you have, it's how you use it."
No one cared about Standard Oil, AT&T having a monopoly. But when they started abusing that position and discouraging competition. That is when it becomes time to take action. Standard Oil controlled the oil, AT&T controlled the phone lines. Both companies used these resources as a leverage to keep their position comfortable. Microsoft controls something a bit less tangible. Marketshare. With which comes the standards and the protocols. If anyone wants to compete with Microsoft, they have to play by their rules, and if they don't. Microsoft has plenty of tricks to keep them under control.
Linux zealotry and idealism aside. I don't think anyone would complain if Linux had 100% marketshare, because the standards are in the control of someone other than the controlling body. They are public domain and if Linus decided to pervert things to his choosing, such as has been done in Windows, then there would still be plenty of avenues to circumvent these decisions.
And I think you are taking things for granted. Do you really think that $40 from the autos in America is even close to building and maintaining the millions and millions of miles of publicly owned roads in this country. I don't claim it to be a perfect system, but I think we are better off than many people would like to admit.
The multiple distros is also what keeps them honest. It's called competition and choice. If Red Hat decides they want to start doing something like making MS Office 2000 for Linux integrated into its distro. If you don't like it, what do you? You go get a copy of Debian or SuSE, or you reprogram stuff to your liking, assuming you possess that knowledge. If Microsoft integrates MS Office 2000 into Windows. What choice do you have? None. I think the multiple distro model is quite beneficial and will be here to stay. Not to mention it provides variations on the same operating system. Red Hat is a nice general distro, Corel makes a good desktop setup, SuSE is quite easy to install, et al. That way you can pick the one that fits you best, and still be compatible with all the rest.
I do agree that I wish the government would spend our money better. But that's the way things happen. I'm fairly content with they way things are being done. The government provides a lot of money for research. And much of this research is put to very good use. It's not just wasted money. I'm pretty sure the research was more along the lines of genetic causes of obesity, not just overeating and poor excercise habits. Think about it. I'll let you know when I'm ready to start the revolution.
And if by making good marketing decisions, you really meant to say leveraging their monopoly and discouraging competition.
And if by making a very user friendly product, you really meant an nice user interface on a closed kernel that has become bloated and unwieldy over time, with sparse configurability and general poor OS design, but that's another thread entirely.
Then I'd agree with you. Thank you for your time.
I have this, ummm, friend...yeah...who uses windows. How would one go about turning off the Windows Scripting on my computer. Did I say "my?" I meant "his."
- --
And for those of you geeks who think that you are cute, I already fell for the "c:\deltree *.*" joke....I didn't think it was funny.
-----------------------------------------
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
Microsoft claims that they can not remove Internet Explorer from windows because it would cripple the entire operating system. This is false. I don't think it would be very hard to remove IE from windows. Back when I had early versions of Windows95, you didn't need IE. Sure, it came with a browser, but it wasn't integrated into windows. What they've done with IE 4 and 5 is replaced the Shell (pretty much the equivalent of a window manager in X) with Internet Explorer. Windows Explorer, their file manager uses IE to browse files. So I guess what they've done is turned IE into this huge bloated app that can control many parts of the operating system. In a nutshell, they turned IE into Windows, not Windows into IE.
Microsoft "Could" get rid of IE, if they wanted to. I've seen a few sites on the net that show you how to remove IE. They are not very hard to find if you can use a search engine.
For "timely" read "Whenever we feel like getting around to it".
does the phrase "complete access to the parts of the Windows operating system code used by independent software companies to design their software" really mean anything?
This sounds to me like legalese for "Just to make you happy we'll show you source for everything you already know, so we can pretend to be open source. If we've hidden it from you before, you'll still never see it, but we're open source now so you should like us anyway."
Do you really think Stallman wants copyrights on Windows code? Would kinda hurt his reputation wouldn't it? :)
Open source (or some approximation) of Windows seems like it would tend to further entrench Windows. Yeah, maybe WINE can improve, but fast enough to keep up with MicroSoft's latest? Perhaps Office will have less of an advantage, but I suspect it will be too little too late.
--
The shareholder is always right.
That API was removed (see bugzilla bug 29079), so you'll need to find another undocumented API next time you want to crash Windows. Don't worry, it won't be that difficult.
--
The shareholder is always right.
So what happens when they find out that a Windows 98 box can be caused to execute arbitrary code remotely by sending it some bogus TCP/IP packets? Is the fixed code released without any indication that it had been changed? Does MS put a fix on windowsupdate.microsoft.com at the same time the fixed code is released?
--
The shareholder is always right.
Don't bother arguing with him. He's a libertarian. And libertarians are not only dumb and unpractical, they're ignorant and jerks.
"Hi, I'm a libertarian! I'm so stupid that I believe that greedy corporate bastards can fix the entire world. The government should play no or little role in the economy and our private lives other than things like law enforcement! And that's good, because if you follow my suggestions, we'll need a lot of law enforcement. Unfortunately, all those cops won't mean anything because they'll be bribed by rich people and corporations to run the country as they wish. I think greedy corporate suits should run the whole country! HAVEN'T YOU EVER HEARD OF TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS, YOU COMMIE?! They work! Just look at the fact that corporations are making more money than ever, the stock market is at record levels, and the number of people living under the poverty line, especially in urban areas, is still the same. Oops, I conveniently forgot that fact. Look at the fact that personal debt is going down and the income gap is actually becoming lower. Wait, I just checked and that's not true. Personal debt is going way up and the income gap keeps widening and widening and widening. Anyways, who cares, it's doesn't matter. I'm a rich greedy asshole and I don't want to pay my taxes, so we need libertarianism! We really should make the United States more like Hong Kong capitalism. Who cares if an excess of capitalism and a lack of government oversight leads to economically-based assasinations, organized crime, and large corporations running the entire country. We'd be free from the government, dammit! And that's what we all want! The opportunity not to pay our taxes because we're all a bunch of cheapskates and don't care for helping our fellow man through things like healthcare programs and free education. Who cares if large international conglomerates run the country? It's better than the government running it! Capitalism is the answer to everything! Greed helps make society better! Hail Ayn Rand, our god!
Thank you for listening to my rant you commie bastard. Now go back to Russia."
^^^ The above was a (very accurate) imitation of a libertarian, and should be construed as being much the opposite of my own views.
If you read much further than the preamble to the enumerated powers, you will see a very specific list of things that can be done, e.g. Congress may regulate interstate commerce.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Why GPL?
Why should the license be a license that says do whatever RMS wants?
Why not REALLY FREE.
Um, no it could do that. Just like you could if you felt like it strip down windows (take out the shell etc).
But does it ever ship like that? No.
Forcing microsoft to limit the feature set in Windows so other lamer OSs can catch up is just so stupid.
They can do what ever the hell they want with their OS damn it.
Watch this.. Remember the MS philosophy of "Embrace and extend". They will start claiming that this is "Open Source" in the truest sense, and by means of massive advertising to Ofcourse the article doesn't mention anything about open source.
Beat that MS.
I think they did, it's called IE5.
This "exciting technology" (COM) has been the power of windows for YEARS. Nice to see everyone is starting to copy it (without any nod to microsoft i might add).
Microsoft documents Win32 for Windows developers.
Microsoft isn't out there to help competitors reverse engineer their work.
Jealous?
Microsoft have the largest online developer support database, and also have the best developer subsription and network system.
I'm saying that don't NEED to document everything about how windows works (eg. explain to everyone how to write windows)...but just how to write windows applications.
Your thought that Microsoft want to be the only ones who write windows software is just so lame. Microsoft and Windows are successfull cause they've manage to evanlegise enough developers.
And comparing software to gas tanks exploding?
Reality check...everyone who's anyone knows that Software Engineering is something that's not well understood, and is far from perfect. I suggest you take a course in Software Engineering.
Code for MFC, ATL and the C runtimes is already available for free btw.
- what gives microsoft the right to 'contend' anything? To say the two are integrated are like saying Qbasic.exe & Edit.com are integrated. It would take all of a few seconds to remove the code for the browser completely. To "Hide" the software simply means that microsoft will have IE located on the programs menu when you load windows instead of automatically putting it on the desktop. Or it will appear when you set internet options under control panel.
well actually it is a bit like qbasic and edit. is it qbasic that uses edit or edit that uses qbasic?
Essentially a lot of Windows now days uses HTML based interfaces. The windows HELP system (which is used by non-microsoft software as well) uses HTML, and many of the "next generation" controls and interfaces for Windows will use DHTML (this allows easy skinning and further seperates the interface from the code logic).
Removing IE from Windows would render many Windows services useless - eg. they would stop working. It would be like forcing Microsoft to remove Windows Common Controls from windows so that GTK for Windows can compete.
What Microsoft is saying now is, hey, we don't give a shit about the webbrowser as a simple browser anymore, we just want to use HTML interfaces in Windows (as are many other companies). So if you're worried about us forcing people to use IE to access the web, then we'll hide all the ways they can do that. But normal windows apps that use HTML interfaces will still be able to work.
I don't think you realise how much Windows, and new Windows software are actually using HTMl based interfaces, even applications like WinAMP have their own webbrowser (based on MS's Webbrowser ActiveX Conotrol - eg. IE).
> posessions and investments) of Microsoft, should it be forced to split.
Umm, no. That will/would be quite explicitly barred by the judgement. The breakup proposed already has all the language, requrements, and teeth necessary to prevent that.
The descriptions we've seen about how internal company procedures, work, and communications was excruciatingly examined/recorded/archived for years afterwards in the Bell breakup shows us how impossible it would be to do what you describe without it being detected.
What? You thought you'd outsmarted a few hundred lawyers? :) It's damn rare that a human thinks of something that hasn't been thought of by someone else :(
lovely insight! beautiful... And let me throw in my 2 cents...
I think that MicroCrap should be split up into 3 (count them THREE) companies:
1. Operating Systems
2. Applications
3. Window Managers ("shells" as MS likes to call them)
Afterall, it's obvious that Microsoft thinks that a bulky bloated ugly nasty memory hog of a window manager constitutes a solid OS... Well, they would actually have a solid OS (in my opinion) if they took the Win2k kernel, opened up the API and some of the more important source, and created a framework on which to build a window manager. That is, provided you want or need one... Hell, I think they should open up their entire kernel source, but that'll never happen, because then someone ELSE could do what I have just proposed and make a better product than microsoft using their own software... But MS are experienced in doing that to other people (i.e. xerox / apple / ibm / whoevertheystoleqdosfrom).
Well, I'm done for the day...
"The last decade witnessed the largest turnaround in American manufacturing since the last world war. No longer does American companies settle for inferior products. Look at the cars that Chysler makes today and compare it to the junk it made 14 years ago. Lee Iccoa did make his mark by the emphasis on quality, and many American companies followed suit."
I am sorry but the stock-market economy with its obsession with short-term profits (as opposed to market economy) does not seem to bode well for quality - whether it is cars or software. Management is under enormous pressure to deliver something as quickly as possible. Time to market is everything, quality is a distant factor.
Also, I beg to differ on the competitiveness of American economy. Sure it is doing much better than 20 years ago, but is still has a long way to go. Through annoyingly intense marketing, goods are sold to consumers who don't know any better. Those in the know buy imports (hence the huge trade deficit)
If you read the latest (just published)J.D. Power Initial Quality Report for automobiles, Chrysler-made (excluding the Daimler side) cars are nowhere to be seen. If I were the CEO of Chrysler, instead of giving myself yet another ridiculously enormous bonus, I would be hard at work to resolve the quality issues before the hard times come (and they will).
-- Jacek
The Run dialog box in explorer is hidden. To this day, there is no export for it from any shared library, and is still often evoked by creating a function pointer to the address and calling it.
The Shutdown dialog is another one
Have you looked at the documentation for ShellExecuteEx and ExitWindowsEx? These do pretty much everything that can be achieved through the Run or Shutdown dialogs.
If you really are a "shell developer," wouldn't you want to write your own UI to present these options to the users, making use of the functionality that the underlying APIs provide? Or is this so-called shell you're working on merely just another bit of eye candy that in no way brings forth any innovations in how the user interacts with the computer?
Likely this is just part of their plan to devise their own punishment before the DOJ slaps them. Of course it will be called Windows Open Source 2000 and we will actually see it in 2003..... I wonder if anyone is going to go for this nonsense and also if anyone really wants to see this code. It could make millions break down and cry while the rest laugh. Will they remove those naughty messages and things that have caused them so much pain in the past?
Hey, you think your house is cool?
Umm... the possibility of Microsoft opening up the source to "Windows without
Explorer code".... now that's cool! Let's see that
can only mean that the magnanomous Bill will give us the source for *Windows 3.1*
while he continues to dominate the desktop with Explorer enhanced Windows,
saying "Look what good guys we are, we cooperated and gave you what you
wanted *the source to Windows*"
What kind of technology leveling deal is this suppost to be. Near as I can see,
Windows without Explorer code (AKA Windows 3.1) would only help the WINE
project iron out a few bugs. No one in their right mind believes that this is a
technological leveling move from Microsoft and it certainly doesn't change the
state we, the computing community find our selves in now,
Either way, I for one am finished with the bloated/buggy wares that eminate from
Castle Microsoft, thank you very much.
Gordzilla
(one happy linux user)
Windows Scripting Host comes with ie5 on ALL platforms. IE, win95, 98, NT, etc.
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
You are wrong. The fallacy in your argument is 'then I can do with it whatever I want' That is simply not true. Take this example: I have in my pocket a $10 bill. It is very clearly my personal property. However, that doesn't mean that I can make a copy of that bill and use it to buy beer. Or, more accurately, I can make copies of it and might get away with it for a while, but I am clearly in violation of the law and should expect to pay a penalty when/if I am caught.
First of all, counterfeiting is a crime whether you try to pass the bills or not. Second, why is it that in your mind the beer propietor would not accept a counterfeit bill (one that he could use himself elsewhere), yet hundreds of people would be willing to pay $3 for a counterfeit copy of MS Office?
Anyway, we could argue examples all night, but my post was in response to the statement: "Private ownership OF PROPERTY is *NOT COMPATIBLE* with "ownership" of information." My point is that, far from being incompatible concepts, ownership of information as property has been with us a long time. I would certainly consider the money in my checking account to be my property, yet it exists only as information in bank computers.
Without good guides from the engineers themselves, or really good and extremely dedicated (not to mention with tons of time on their hands) people wading through it forever and writing some guides themselves...
I dunno...IMHO, the downfall of most Open Source attempts is the sheer complexity of getting even a little involved in big projects. Yes, it's all well and good to release an Open Source driver for some graphics card for Linux, but really doing big overhauls of something?
Whether people want to admit it or not, size and complexity is daunting. I don't know about you guys, but I for one would not want to wade into the Win2k source, for example, blindly without some vague notions of principles at the least...
Soooo.. You are suggesting that Windows is produced by aliens. Microsoft is just a front set up by the Aliens. Furthermore, the Gov't is becoming wary of letting alien code run the planet, and is thus trying to reintroduce terrestial code(Linux)?
Stop the brainwash
this post has flamebate written all over it.
apparently this person is not too familiar with windows or else they would not publicly call it "stable" or "secure". especially among slashdot readers. the only funny thing about the post is how clueless the writer is.
What they might do is license it under something like the LGPL, which looks fairly respectable. It's what some "open source competitive software" uses, right?
That way they can opensource very small parts of whatever libraries or whathaveyous that they feel like (Freecell, the Paperclip, Microsoft Briefcase, the Channels thing, etc.), then keep the rest linked to it as binaries while distributing the source for these few components, and then they're (quote)"GNU Open Source Software,... really!"
And if they follow my idea, I guess they'll just be innovating.
Nicholas
disclaimer: opinions contained therein are not neccessarily those of my employer.
Then again who cares? Windows is dead. I can't immagine how they will escape the "I Love You" worm dissaster, or the slow performance that is the legacy of their anti competitive past. There is just better software available. The trickle will soon be a mudslide.
MS already has a licensing policy, where companies can get a hold of their source code. It is expensive, hard to get into, hard to get parts of the code, and above all, requires non-disclosure.
I think that even if they, by some miracle, allow OpenSource projects to get the source (and I doubt that will happen, as the source will be accompanied by an NDA, almost for sure), they will not allow you to actually copy their source into yours.
This means that, best case, you will be able to disect what the undoced APIs do, and then rewrite them, but not copy a nifty and quick blitter routine into your code.
Why does it matter if windows is open source? It still would cost money. Then the license would probably be tightened to make it even more restrictive... And MS would lose all the security they have now through obscurity... It would probably be a mess for a while. Plain open source doesn't give us our freedom, while something like the gpl does. While it may be a step, I don't think it will do any good at all. Can someone tell me why people are dying to have this happen?
not nice to see the thing fall down at least
twice a day.
Not that Netscape performs any better...
--
when everyone gives everything,
when everyone gives everything, then everyone everything will get
God help us all...
Indeed, there's even a USENET law about it...
Didn't you read the post? Copyright is a charity from government (taken from citizens).
Criminal contracts such as those can legally be broken -- in fact, breaking them is mandated by law. If the Mafia agrees to run your competition out of business thus giving you an artificial monopoly much like the government does via copyright, but the Mafia doesn't do it, tough luck! Balls to you!
Same thing, different words. "Promot[ing] science and the useful arts" is intended only as a social benefit. EXACTLY MY POINT. Copyright is granted to provide incentive to do a public service. SO WHEN COPYRIGHT ENDS UP BEING USED TO DO A PUBLIC DISSERVICE, IT NO LONGER HAS ANY REASON TO EXIST.Why should we provide incentive for people to do disservice? Generally we provide disincentive for people to do disservice. Indeed, that is what most consider the primary purpose of law enforcement.
By intentionally making products more "crappy", in order to hurt competitors. Microsoft should only compete by making its own products better, not by making its competitors products incompatible at the sacrifice of its own products. We have no reason to provide Microsoft with incentive to make its competitors products incompatible at the sacrifice of its own products. We should provide Microsoft only with incentive to make the highest quality products it can make. Let me clue you in on something. Private ownership OF PROPERTY is *NOT COMPATIBLE* with "ownership" of information. If I own this MS Windows CD, and I own this PC, and I own this CDR drive, and I own these 400 CDRs -- if all of this is my own personal private property -- then I can do with it whatever I want, including copy MS Windows to the 400 CDs and sell them for $3 each over the internet. The two concepts are simply irreconcilable.(Let's say I *don't* own the MS Windows CD, but rather it is licensed to me. I *do* own my hard drive; so instead of using a licensed CD, I merely download MS Windows from an FTP site somewhere (the connection to which I also own), thus producing a copy of MS Windows on the hard drive that I do own.)
Since MS is essentially working off a government grant, which of course must be funded by citizens (the government produces almost none of its own wealth), MS should be held accountable to the government, and to citizens. Microsoft is on the dole; it's being payed exclusively through violations of the free market, because the free market offers little incentive for public goods like creating information. As such, it has absolutely no right to complain if it's yanked off the dole and forced to fend for itself on the free market -- that is, the market without copyrights, patents, or other government subsidies and artificial monopolies secured through government force -- and if the government wants to make MS produce better work for the artificial rights it is granted, that's exactly the government's business to do. MS is still left with the option to close up shop and try the free market, where the only way to own MS Windows is to own every copy.
Copyright restrictions can't be compared to general property ownership, which is restricted only so far as it is used to infringe on others' property ownership, or used violently (even then, it's not the property ownership that is restricted, but rather the actions of the owner). Now there are of course exceptions to property ownership (like taxes, gun control, drug prohibition, tarrifs, etc); my point isn't that there aren't, or that there shouldn't be -- only that copyright is one of them, and should be treated as such.
> note: by "fascist" I mean someone who wants to maintain the illusion of private ownership, but in reality have government make all the decisions in the best interests of the people
The problem is, that's not what "fascist" means.
> Regarding the usenet law ("first person to call their opponent a nazi loses"), I didn't call him a nazi
Heh, that's really inconsequential. The principle is the same.
> First of all, counterfeiting is a crime whether you try to pass the bills or not.
Only for expediency (if you're right). It's certainly not in line with private property rights if it is.
> Second, why is it that in your mind the beer propietor would not accept a counterfeit bill (one that he could use himself elsewhere)
If he would knowingly accept it, that would just be like him paying (in beer) someone to make him fake money. I doubt he would want that, but so what if he did? What's your point? He wouldn't be being robbed, and he wouldn't be robbing anyone else if he didn't try to fraudulently pass on the counterfeit bill.
> yet hundreds of people would be willing to pay $3 for a counterfeit copy of MS Office?
In what way are warez'd copies "counterfeit"? How can a *product* be counterfeit? The closest non-contract/money equivalent of a counterfeit I can think of is a box that says "television" on the outside but has a brick on the inside. Money and contracts are meant as documentation of a promises -- if no promise actually exists, they are worthless; unusable. MS Windows is *a product*, and it can be used. It doesn't need to be redeemed by whoever's made the promise.
> My point is that, far from being incompatible concepts, ownership of information as property has been with us a long time.
So have taxes, yet they are incompatible with private property. I'm not saying I'm against taxes, or for absolute private property... But arguing FOR taxes on the basis of private property rights is absurd. So is arguing FOR copyright on the basis of private property.
(Taxes have "been with us" for a long time too, but no matter how long they remain, they will always be, as they were in the first place, incompatible with private property.)
> I would certainly consider the money in my checking account to be my property, yet it exists only as information in bank computers.
What a clueless thing to say!
Information creation is a public work, like building roads, cleaning up pollution, etc. The government makes sure public works get done by either forcing people to do them or taxing citizens and paying people to do them. Copyright works a little differently; it grants special monopoly privilege to them. The monopoly is artificial, because it exists only at the force of a government and, like taxes, precludes peaceful use of one's own property.
Please see The Libertarian Case against Intellectual Property Rights and Ben Tucker on Copyright
As requested: stop! ;-) Look again at the quote, at its precise wording. It says "...used by independent software developers" [emphasis mine]. As long as Microsoft isn't split up, the people who write Office are not independent, so it does not prevent M$ app writers from getting access to advantageous undocumented interfaces.
I'm sure the proposal is full of Clintonisms. One that stands out immediately from the original post is the qualification "used by independent software vendors," i.e. you won't get the undocumented hooks that Microsoft app writers have access to. Come on, folks (and DOJ); the Romans called it punica fides, "Carthaginian trustworthiness," and Microsoft has demonstrated it copiously in the past.
...be hazardous to your health. You know what's going to happen if someone attempts to compile that buggy source code, the same thing that happened during the great soda commercial. Splode!!!
(Click on Splode Soda on the following page to see the commercial, Quicktime required)
English: Fry's 30 day money back guarentee
Timely? Depends on what timely means...Open? Depends on that too...I did not have sexual relations with that woman...oh, well, it depends on how you define sexual relations.
OK, so I'm a texan and my dad was born here too. He also has a degree in history, so he tends to accreate historical trivia the way I just seem to always end up with more cat-5 cable than I started the job with... I don't know if this is true, but from what I've heard of the people involved it certainly seems plausible.
Seems after the original Brown v. Topeka Board of Education case with it's "all due speed" bit, Witchita Falls was being, er, Veeeeeerrrrrrry Deliberate in proceeding. (Or, as my dad put it, "they'd done about fuck all" to follow the ruling. ;) ). Witchita Falls also has a large US military presence (an army and air force base IIRC). Maybe had, I don't know if their bases survived the base closings of the 90s.
LBJ was widely renowned to be, well, not to put too fine a point on it, a real son of a bitch when he wanted his way about something. Which, aside from the vietnam fiasco, was probably a good thing for the country (thank God he was a good old Southern Liberal Yellow Dog Democrat (i.e. "we'd vote for a yeller dawg if it was on the democratic ticket")). LBJ really wanted schools to be integrated.
According to the story, it comes to be about midnight, and Mayor Dicksmack of WF, being the small-minded wastoid pit viper that he is, is long abed with his wife, look all good little conservative piggies. The phone rings, waking them both up.
Operator:Please hold for the President of the United States.
Mayor:?!?
LBJ: How you doin', Mr. Mayor?
Mayor: Ah, pretty good Mr. President.
LBJ: How is the economy doing there in Witchita?
Mayor: Uh, pretty good...
LBJ: Those military boys spending all their paychecks around town doesn't hurt, I imagine.
Mayor: No, no, of course not.
(At this point it should be pointed out that while the military bases were not the sole economic activity in the city, if they pulled out because LBJ had a chat with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, WF's economy would take a dive right into the shitter.)
LBJ: (yelled, and LBJ was a big man with big lungs) Schools! Integration! Tomorrow! *click*
And the next day, the WF school district integrated. :^)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Who is actually going to read this code anyhow. I mean if there are millions of lines of code no one could forseeably actually make sense out of this big "Microsoft Mess". I think I'll leave the Windows source code alone, I have better things to do then to spend countless hours trying to make sense out of a overly bloated code base like Windows.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
I think yu made a joke, and I am too tight to get it, but I spent all day Thursday cleaning up after ILOVEYOU
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
We've all read (okay, skimmed....err just clicked OK on) MS licences. Of course, their "source" or API will be the same way. The code will be licenced up the ass and require a "nominal" licence fee (pronouced: small fortune) to view / use. I wouldn't doubt if (1) Only "MS-Approved" vendors are allowed to see the source / API, and (2) those approved vendors will have to adhere to Non-disclosure agreements. The more things change.....
woohoo !! finally someone who knows the Yardbirds ... ehh .. this is a little off-topic, isn't it? oh well ....
a little while ago in a Dutch newspaper (Volkskracht) I read about a "foundation for preventing computer virusses to become extinct" ..
Do you really think this will make Joe Enduser is really going to care more about Open Source because Microsoft might use it? I haven't overheard any conversations in the supermarket recently about the Microsoft Foundation Classes or Visual Studio. Because these are topics that are only important to coders.
Open Source is not going to suddenly become interesting to the average person just because Microsoft uses it. It doesn't affect them, because they won't be involved. People know about applications like Excel and PowerPoint because they use them (or are exposed to them). Unless Joe Enduser starts coding, Open Source is just some technical programming thing to him--and once he starts coding, he becomes part of the group for which technical programming things are important.
Oh, and it just sounds like they might open their APIs, which isn't Open Source (but would be a good thing regardless).
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I used the word 'whine' in the context of 'general speak', not to target at you personally nor your texts. You asked for a clue, I tried to enlighten you with a bit of information why the windows platform is organised the way it is organised and how it should be used. The 'whine' comment was there to state that the arguments about win32 and the 'mistery of the hidden api's' are plain whining. With win32 you can build what you want, use it, be productive.
:)
The samba issue is an NT domain issue: a user has to be logged in on a Domain so it gets a Security token that it can use to access other resources within the domain. If you use a Sambaserver and you don't have an NT domain server, you can't use the domain security model (I think that's clear), so that's why there has to be a domain server to use samba.
Huusker just wants to use functions in the layers below win32, because he thinks it's better. Well it's not. Win32 is designed to make the layers underneath a black box. If there is functionality in layers below win32 and win32 doesn't provide this functionality it's OR because the functionality is there for layers below win32 OR it's a designflaw. Because win32 is not a new api, and revisions/updates are done regularly, a designflaw (especially undocumented flaws!) are very rare.
But I'll take my win32 elsewhere, you asked for information but you can't stand the answer. So all I can do is wishing you good luck with clib
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
O boy.
:) Yes and personally I'd prefer that that domain server be running Linux or BSD, which is perfectly possible, and in fact widely done. This works well but there are a few inoperability issues caused solely by Microsoft's hiding of API information, and intentional creation of complex buggy interfaces just to make it harder to create compatible products. Which of course hurts the consumer in a number of ways including make the software more bug-prone and limiting their choice to a single, abusive supplier and an overpriced product.
;) (or was it libc?)) to illustrate Linux has it's own problems with API's :)
:)
;) hahhaha :) that really made my day.
Bull. As said: you don't need hidden api crap to operate ok. Novell can do it, they provide an own client. This is the right way to do it. you refer to mixed environments with BSD and Linux and win32 clients? Well, how do those win32 log in to those UNIX networks and carry their security token with them to other servers like Linux powered Samba servers? If Linux would be equipped with a client for win32 (like the client for netware) it would be ok. But that's the other way around. However it's not microsoft's problem when there's no client for win32 that supports a serverside OS.
I'm not a microsoft employee, I own my own business. I ment Clib (as in C's standard library
hahaha and stop telling me what's gnu's all about. Back in university I already refused to use gnu tools and used Sun's own. I'm a convinced Microsoftie and true Linux advocates like you make me realize every day I made the right decision
I'm not babbling here to try to convince you you're on the wrong platform. There is no such thing as being on the wrong platform. I just try to enlighten people who are misinformed or don't have all the info at hand to make the right decision. You apparantly are not well informed and believe that if a person just knows something about win32 he's a microsoft employee
Frans Bouma, BsC.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
I don't get it? :) What is it I don't understand? Linux wants to be an NT domainserver? why? I mean, NT's structure is totally different than Linux' structure: the security model, the internal behaviour focussed on security, networking and security etc. Linux and other unices should be used as unix systems the way it's designed: a central computer where everybody works on. NT is not based on that idea. It's focussed on a set of servers where everybody works on. That's different. You can't force one into the workingmethod of the other. Period.
And it doesn't scare me at all that Linux apparantly has this goal, because it hasn't nor is it able to replace NT. For both operating systems there is place in the market, for both OS-es there are people who think it's the right choice for their situation: OR central focussed computing OR distributed computing.
The problem with you and your fellow advocates is: you don't understand the people you're talking to. I mean: I worked for years with Unix, I've a linux system here today. I understand what's all about, but I also understand what's all about in win32 land. There you go wrong. Now I'm a toady it seems. The attitude you show is AND lacking knowledge how real life IT works AND lacking knowledge about other systems in the world AND lacking respect for other people. This attitude also says to me I never HOPE to be called a Linux User if the loud mouth zealots keep their attitude. Have a nice day.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Actually, I think it was one of two things. Microsoft is walking a very fine line between doing what the court tells them while the trial is going on, and making sure they don't put something in there that has the potential to cripple their appeals by accident. (Sorta like DeCSS. Why argue it now that the MPAA Lawyers made sure that the source was a matter of public record?) The long and the short of it is, Microsoft won't be giving a realistic remedy to the court, and in the long run, once Judge Jackson makes his choice of remedy, all it will do is determine what will and won't be favored once all the appeals run out. Microsoft is fighting for its life right now; they're not going to bow down and submit at this early a stage in the game.
You thought that this sig was what you think that I thought you wanted me to think. I think.
Unfortunately, this solution is a "trust me" solution. That is, we will allow access to those things that we (meaning Microsquash) deem worthy, and restrict access otherwise. Sorry, but I don't think that anyone in their right mind can trust them anymore. Saying "honor" and either "balmer" or "gates" in the same breath had better be accompanied by the phrase "they have no concept of".
that'll be sol.exe then -in a very pedantic and bored mood
umm no. Fascisim is at the opposite end of the line compared to socialism. The two extremes are communism and fascism..communism being the extreme of socialism and fascism being the extreme of centralizationism.
The reason socialism tends to be confused with centralization is that there have been no successful implementation of socialism...the problem always lies in the economy(no one *WANTS* to work)...so working gets enforced by violence by the govt..which becomes more and more centralized as time progresses and then appears/is a fascist like state.
break them up!!!
it will be good for all!!
Of course the terminology used is vague. This is media coverage of the proposal, not the proposal itself. Furthermore, it's media coverage by MSNBC, which clearly has a conflict of interest and additional motivation to water down the language in the story. Personally, I would like to see the actual proposal before deciding whether or not I like it.
You know the only reason microsoft is doing this is to make it apear that microsoft is an open sourced OS and linux has no advantage over it anymore because of this. But that "timely" and "parts" is what gets me. Think about it, they'll release what they want to release, and that's all. Possable something to be interested in, doubt it though.
Let me get this straight. MS had a monopoly, which they exploited illegally, against the interests of the consumer.
That makes MS the villain, and Windows lusers the victims.
And you're proposing punishing the criminals' victims for the all-new offense of being victims?
OK, but next time you're robbed, defrauded, mugged or whatever, I reserve the right to see you rot in jail for it. NOT
Don't be so silly and childish
TomV
Apart, perhaps, from issuing patches to prevent this very problem, under Outlook 97 issued May 99, 98 issued July 99 and 2000 issued Nov 99.
Don't blame the vendor for negligence if you can't be bothered to look for the patches, or subscribe to one of the alerting services they run. How secure is an unpatched slackware 1?
TomV
You're right, of course. And that's why Windows 2000 is 25 million or so lines of brand new code.
Which makes for a lot of bugs at first, of course, but believe me the legacy's gone (in terms of code, not functionality of course)
TomV
If not simply because it seems to be a step in the right direction as far as Windows goes. I know a lot of you hardcore Linux users out there will probably trash Microsoft for making this move (even though they were under pressure to do it), I don't see how this can really be that much of a bad thing unless I'm missing something. So what can be negative about this announcment/confirmation?
"The Internet is made of cats."
Obviously, not all the business people who made the "decision" (based on WHAT? Marketing not technology! YIKES and they want to run our governments and hospitals -- God please help us!) to use M$ software. Perhaps they are the ones who are in more need of being prosecuted, not the ones who made the "Love bug". Or maybe it's BG who should be for false advertising. AFAICS, virioids (viri, troj. horses, worms, etc) are going to happen, as information follows the same rules as biology (eats, sleeps, reproduces, etc) which I think are determined by the "totalarian rule of physics": if any thing can happen, it must! The greater issue is not the petty commercialism (gonna get rants on this, I think) -- let the courts do that, but education. Should not people learn that using M$ software is like having (unsafe) sex with a prostitute -- you give her the $$ and you get the disease.
MEA
I've seen it hit NT machines...actually, if it only affected 98 then you'd think it wouldn't have a huge impact on businesses. Not that NT is the greatest OS in the world, but it's immeasurably better than 98.
Well if they don't share the presence of some of the more useful APIs already (yes, I know, that hasn't been proven, why would they share the source code to all of them? They might open source most, but keep a few key ones for themselves.
Microsoft is a bussiness, and wether we like it or not its a very successful one. They don't make decisions based on technical facts like the readers of slashdot they are interested in the bottom line and the bottom line only. By proposing to partially opening the Windows source they are trying to prevent a breakup and keep the company going. They have no interest in the chances to better the system that open source provides. They have a non-existant record of technical innovations. There only contributions to the computer industry have been inventing new ways to rip people off.
"${*%))(!&*!@$#)!&(*&%(*!@$#__(*)___(%++^($^*)(^(
is to have microsoft give the sources to an independent (new) organisation, including all the rights and make it GPL.
If they don't do this, open source is just a PR stunt and means nothing, because they can always change parts (and not publish the changes) so it doesn't work in the same way as the open source version.
There is something called an inalienable right. Microsoft has an inalienable right to the IP it has produced. That means that you can't simply step in and take it because you don't like what they are doing. This is not an "artificial monopoly". One could argue that patents are an artificial monopoly, because they prevent other entities from producing a certain type of work, but this is certainly not the case with an actual product, and copyright monopolies, such as windows. Anyone is free to write a competitor to windows. By your argument, if I use my car in some way that does not maximize what you perceive to be social gain, then the government can come into my home, beat the crap out of me, and relieve me of my "illegal monopoly" on my car.
There are countries where there are not inalienable rights: countries such as Cuba, China and Russia. Why don't you go there and try living in a place where the government can take anything it wants from you if it thinks it will help society?
Taking away Microsoft's copyright based on the fact that what they are doing is not for a social good (note that the poster did _not_ say anything illegal) is not at all comparable to the drug confiscation laws, which, by the way, I am against. And furthermore, you are wrong as to the nature of these confiscation laws. It is not even necessary to convict the owner to confiscate their property, which is another reason I am against them. But, the fact that I was not out in the streets protesting these laws does not invalidate my right to point out how full of shit slashdot is, not does doing this make me a hypocrite, and who the fuck are you to tell me what to do? If you're such a guardian of morality, then why weren't you out protesting when the Berlin wall came down, and the capitalist exploiters moved into E. Germany? After all, the philosophy you are trying to further is socialism.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
it seems to me that when the supreme court finally got around to racially intergrating public schools, the legalleese included the term "in due time," which some schools interperted as "years from now." these schools managed to keep intergration on the bottom of their to-do lists for a very long time.
True, very true. Some schools held off integration for so long that the Supreme Court had to issue a ruling that has been dubbed "Brown 2" (Brown v. Board being the original case; the exact case name for Brown 2 escapes me). In this ruling, the Court stated that schools were to proceed "with all deliberate speed." This ruling came after people realized that schools would take advantage of such legal loopholes as the one fsck! is describing here.
To tie this information on Brown 2 into what is being discussed here, this means that it is very possible that Microsoft will take their sweet time to do whatever they are instructed to do. Legal rulings tend to be worded very vaguely, and defendants (Southern schools in the case of BvB2, MS in this case) can and do take advantage of this.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I think a shell script could be made that sends an e-mail to all persons in the .addressbook as well. You can't point & click at it in Pine, but it isn't very different.
(-% TwistedMind %-)
good, now they can make windows not suck
The only way that's going to happen is when they imbed windows as the operating system for a vacuumcleaner...
I would assume that thee parts would be the APIs, which could be VERY useful, especially for WINE, as it would make it much easier to full implement them for Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, etc. Yet annother use for this would be to improve the speed of other non-MS apps running under Windows. Besides, who knows? Some good code may actually be found.
Think --> Think Different --> Think OSS
MS is way to stupid to do this without screwing it up. They will release the code to something they don't want anyone to see. I can't wait till UCITA is in effect and MS accidently releases the source code to the "self help feature". oooops
which parts? Chicken parts
something like the old McDonald's commercials... Parts? Which parts?... Parts is parts.
If Microsoft opens up its APIs, that means that games using Direct X can have versions on other platforms. Formerly, if you used Direct X as your internet multiplayer API, since you had no idea how it worked, and since Direct X wasn't available on other platforms, there was no way to make compatible cross platform multiplayer for a game. Meaning a cross platform version was essentially not worth it.
'By Bill Gates 'n' company. . .
10 CLS
20 IF CPU > 486 THEN SLEEP 10
30 PRINT "MICROSOFT WINDOWS IS NOW BOOTING"
40 SLEEP 20
50 IF INKEY$ <> "" THEN
60 COLOR 15, 1
70 CLS
80 LOCATE 18, 3
90 PRINT "SYSTEM IS BUSY"
100 END IF
110 GOTO 40
When I get in a programming mode
Compile and run
It is so much fun
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
good, now they can make windows not suck
The root of the MS monopoly is its dominance in the OS sector. Breaking up the company into two pieces leaves the OS monopoly intact.
.nytimes.com/library/opinion/krugman/043000krug.ht ml for a more detailed discussion by Paul Krugman.
See http://partners
"Microsoft intends to propose offering a version of Windows that "hides" access to the browser in the operating system. Microsoft contends that the two products now are fully integrated and cannot be separated."
- what gives microsoft the right to 'contend' anything? To say the two are integrated are like saying Qbasic.exe & Edit.com are integrated. It would take all of a few seconds to remove the code for the browser completely. To "Hide" the software simply means that microsoft will have IE located on the programs menu when you load windows instead of automatically putting it on the desktop. Or it will appear when you set internet options under control panel.
Either way, Microsoft is BSing there way through this case from start to finish. They make the world happy by saying they will "open source" there stuff, as kaphka said, "they're talking about opening the Windows APIs, i.e. giving outside developers the same access that the Office developers have. ". This has nothing to do with Open Sourcing, it's the equivilant of Microsoft adding more crap to their start menu. They're going to advertise how configurable and easy MS Windows will be in the future; meanwhile, you'll just be developing their own drivers for them. If you can't change the Kernal, who cares what the hell you can do with a bad OS.
Then MS claims they won't actually remove there internet software, but rather make it more obscure. How obscure can anything be in windows, it will sit there and rot on your harddrive, and become corrupt as often as it ever has due to its huge size and never-been-optimized, bad spaghetti code, infinite monkeys developing, long reboot, short uptime same-as-always nature!
That's my nickle.
Ace
I am very disappointed. From an internet newspaper on a computer industry issue, the uses of "one that would sell personal computer operating systems, the brains that run PCs " and "the Windows operating system's "desktop," the area of the computer screen that is seen when programs are not running " are frankly outdated.
Notice also the use of "Microsoft used access to the applications programming interfaces in a discriminatory fashion" without any explanations.
I would have like to see Microsoft will allow the OEM to let them load anything they want inside the MBR and see how they would have explain what it is.
--- Bouh !!! ---
Plug n' play would need to be re-implemented Macintosh style, and/or not hidden. I'd love to change in the BIOS what my hardware thinks is ok, because sharing interrupts is stupid when I have enough of them not to share. My single pentium pro kept doing this when I had just enough interrupts for everything but not more... it kept sharing at least one. I had to do musical chairs with my cards... I'd rather just say to the machine in the BIOS no computer Windows 98 is a dumb fsck! use this interrupt instead. Fortunately with dual and quad boards... of which I'm the owner of the former APIC takes care of this. Andrew
Of course if I had a quarter for every pundit (PC pundits mainly) who predicted something being right I would be richer than Bill himself. PC pundits are ALWAYS wrong. Read any issue of PC Magazine and look at the subject matter they allow in their magazine. I love reading John Dvorak simply because he is funny, but given that he is the sanest of the bunch he is wrong too often as well. I usually check out his stuff followed by the jokes on the back page and then the circular filing cabinet. Andrew
It would be at least a year before anyone could dig through this stuff to make sense of it. This is a total-nonsolution to the Microsoft issue and if I were Bill Gates I would be overjoyed if this was the crux of the settlement.
The solution I always liked was simply to fork() MS a couple of times (not allowing any of them to keep the original name). That way, any of them that obfuscates standards will break compatibility with the others and lose. Also, each will face stiff competition to produce a quality product -- in short, they abused their monopoly, so we're taking it away.
I've also seen several posts here that seem to assume the DOJ ONLY proposed to split up Microsoft. Read it. Check that. Read the Findings of Fact, then read the DOJ proposal. They line up very squarely with one another. The DOJ proposal addresses the points of the FOF and puts checks and balances in after a split-up.
I don't think anyone in their right mind believes the microsoft proposal is locked down tight and would reverse their corporate culture. Unfortunately, I've come to believe members of the general pubilc aren't in their right minds.
The problem is that MS claims it is already exposing all of the APIs, so this will change absolutely nothing.
Norman Hawker Western Michigan University
...................
...................
...................
The original poster was only kidding; do you really believe somebody honestly believes that all of the intellectual property of Microsoft should be given to Stallman??
(...Could somebody be so sick?)
No sig for the moment.
Awww man, this is going to be funny.
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
-madd
my dream is coming, i can soon port windows 2000 to my atari 2600. It'll blue screen like the real thing...
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
What Microsoft is describing is exactly how the OS half of the company should behave after the breakup :)
I've never understood why anyone (other than MS) thinks this option has any value: the whole problem with Windows is that it needs to have its source code thrown out and started again from scratch; there's more dead wood in there than living after all these years of feature creep.
MS, on the other hand like the idea becaue they know that no one will be able to do much with the code without a couple of years of study (at which point a new version appears). I mean, Microsoft have a lot of trouble managing and understanding the source code and they wrote it!
We'd all be better off speding the time re-reading Knuth's Art of Computer Programming again than trawling though MS's lousy excuse for an OS looking for the three lines of good code.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"While I generally am leery of government interference in business, this case clearly involves blatant antitrust violations and is precisely what the Sherman Act was drafted to prevent."
If there was ONE LICK of truth to your statement ("leery of government interference in business") you would NOT of finished the sentance the way you did.
I'll be happy to see this get marked down as Flaimbait/Troll - as is usual. However it is refreshing to see this "Linux" sight show its true colors whenever there is a MSFT posting.
I would say your day is coming but with the DMCA, I'd say it already has. You deserve it.
The source code will be made available for download on a special server set up on the far side of the Andromeda Galaxy.
The server will be delivered to Andromeda by a Beowulf cluster of Iridium Satelites.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I'm curious to see which parts of the Windows code they'd be willing to open up. I'd also look closely to see when they'd have to release code for a given feature. Would it be when they ship a new release? When the beta goes out? This is the kind of thing that the DOJ decided would be impossible to enforce and prompted them to go for the breakup remedy instead.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on tv.
If you want "timely" and "open", just require that all code under development be posted on a daily basis to a website or a public cvs tree.
Anyhow, every author always says eventually the feature set is far bloated from the original feature set for the code. At that time, its probally a good idea to redesign from scratch with the new feature set in mind. It takes alot more time than just hacking new features into already broken source, but at least it would be good for the customer.
Of course its expensive. Even the linux kernel developers might want to consider such a strategy for the next development series of kernels. Call it 3.1 and make it from scratch. Yes, its clean well written code, but getting difficult to maintain.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
ONLY ALLOWING SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THEIR OPERATING SYSTEM TO BE "OPEN" ALLOW THEM TO COMPETE IN THE OPEN SOURCE COMPETITION & STALL UNTIL NEW OPERATING ABLE TO COMPETE WITH LINUX IN STABLILITY AND SECURITY -- MICROSOFT ALLOWS SOME CUSTOMIZATION WITH VBSCRIPT AND MACROS --
DEVO-X
Opening up the API for the Desktop, to improve marketing of applications made by other companies than MS, does not change anything but maybe making security problems i Windows even worse.
If MS wants to use Open Source to avoid spiltting the company, they got to get more serious. The first ting to release the source code for is their Kerberos and authentification service. They must also open the source code for OLE/COM/COM+, networking, NT Services API, and a lot of other stuff.
This will make a real difference, and competitors can make real applications that can compete with MS on Windows, and also improve the interworking with other OS's.
The proposal from MS just makes me sick, because it's just using the tricks that the bitches in TV series using for getting their way. Real programmers understand this difference, and I certanly hope that the court and judge Jackson will.
-Linus
How do you figure???? A multi-billion dollar public company getting funds from the government? Think again.
-= I know everything about nothing and nothing about everything =- [that about sums it up for this goofball]
Ya, is anyone else tired of microsoft trying to be "innovative"? Why does Microsoft always have to try and "fit in"? They just can't pull it off*@&#( Ack, this is my first and last post on the Microsoft topic, im just sick of thier BS eh. I tell ya, when I purchase my own house, the first thing to go will the the windows and gates, and bills for that matter*$&(*&(
Will they release the source code for solitaire???
Promote the General Welfare?
Websters Collegiate Dictionary:
Main Entry: 1welfare
Pronunciation: 'wel-"far, -"fer
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from the phrase wel faren to fare well
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
2 a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
Now I do not see how you can get "social ills" from that definition. If the government arbitrarily went around saying they were "promoting the general welfare" by violating the rights of private business then I would be very scared to live here. Why? How long do you think it will be before they come to YOUR house telling you what to do on every level? How long do you think it will be before YOU have to goto a government office to get permission to do ANYTHING? I use anything loosely, but we're already neck deep in this. For how many things do you need to have a permit to do stuff to YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY? Why do we need to get a tag for our cars? And why does some silly piece of metal or some little sticker cost $40? I can see the value of the tag if our cars get stolen or for identification purposes for a cop, but why $40? and why renew it every year? You know why? Revenue...they want YOUR money. All of you praise the government because they're doing this to MS, well what they are doing is illegal and unethical. The last time I checked the country was built on capitalism and free enterprise. That means NO INTERFERENCE by the governemnt. Hence PRIVATE and FREE. If microsoft dominates the OS market, well good for them, and you know what?? THEY WORKED FOR IT. Every week I work hard for my money only to have the government take an illegal portion of it. Oh, I know you'll say but its in the constitution. How many people do you know that can go in your pay check and take out money, other than yourself? The government is doing what normal citizens cant do legally, and frankly Im tired of it. You talk about MS throwing their weight around, well thats exactly what the US govt. is doing with this! I use both MS and Linux, only use MS because most of the programs and games I play arent supported under Linux. So stop whining about some company doing good, if linux really wants to take over the market, and the companies that make linux really want to make a difference then they need to come together to form one company, instead of 10 different ones, and make a linux package that has the usability and user friendliness comparable to windows. Until that happens linux wont move into the computer of a typical desktop buyer(your typical lamer). And instead of cheering on the government they should get back to some good old fashioned competition.
About taxes, I pay my taxes and Im not stupid I know the government needs revenue to run, but Im fed up with stupid spending. Case in point, recently a congressional oversight committee granted 10 million dollars to research obesity. What in the hell? They can give me 10 million dollars so I can make a 4000 page report about how people dont excercise enough or eat too much and are lazy. Also, about auto tags, thats just an example of missuse, how many times have you driven down a poorly kept street? Or do you know that other taxes pay for keeping up the roads too? What about consistency? Of course Iam against a dominant government interference, MS has earned the right, through business savy to be where they are, about monopolies tho, which if you had actually analyzed my post, was that if linux would dump the multiple distro idea and improve user friendliness in their product and use some of the business savy that MS has then windows would have a competitor! But no one has successfully done this yet. We're not talking about AT&T or Standard oil which CONTROLLED the phone lines, which CONTROLLED the oil. We're just talking about a company that made good marketing decisions, a very user friendly product and they have succeeded. They dont CONTROL the OS market. They control a MARKETSHARE. There is a difference here folks. Just because a company is doing VERY well you shouldnt punish them. And I dont mind paying taxes, buying stamps, or even buying a tag for my car. My point was about the taxes, I realize I didnt state this, but I wish the taxes and fees we do pay to our govt. was better spent, and I think you all can agree with me on that.
Wow.. windows open source... that way i can customize my blue screens...
I actually agree (except with the 486 part). Most plug and play cards, devices, etc. cause more trouble than their worth. As for dos, it was far more stable than windows, that much i'll agree, but i'll just stick with Linux thank you very much.
API's are not just what OS's offer but also what apps like Office requires in order to run (i.e. if provide emulating environment according to published requirement and the thing won't run, but run on Windows, they have to fix the spec or disclose what the apps need).
We don't need the source because we can do a better job in providing software component compatible with existing Microsoft files/programs. (e.g. Google interface to those piles of *.DOC files in the enterprise, perl to grok *.XLS files, *.DOC viewer that ignores macro etc).
Microsoft doesn't need to be broken up. There's no problem at all if they want to innovate and integrate. Just be fair and allow access to everyone to do the same. What we disdain is the unethical practice of deliberately putting secret incompatibilities to grab market share.
This should set precedent not just for Microsoft but other software/hardware products to be required to publish specs. They will be allow to use any secret means to implement them, as long as the specs are not violated. A good example is *.ps and *.pdf format. We have no problem with Adobe selling closed-source interpreter, as they always publish and give away for free the postscript/pdf manual and state that any third party is allowed to make alternative interpreter. This way if costumer want to buy Adobe interpreter it's simply because performance consideration (maybe faster, or better rendering) and not because that's the only way to make it works.
It should be required that all publicly funded activity should never store the results in proprietary format/use proprietary protocols/etc. Because if they do, the result is not publicly available. Companies can sell good implementation but consumers should be able to interchange implementations without any disruption.
DoJ, leave M$ alone! It's *my* kill!
Sounds like an inexact definition of the Win32 API to me. If this is in fact what they mean, it raises a number of very interesting questions:
If they only release those parts of the API used by "independent software companies," does that mean the secret APIs stay secret? After all, they are only used by Microsoft. (Well, there may be some others who get leaks, but they would be more accurately described as "painfully dependent software companies.")
But, if they are saying they will only publish the APIs (which they claim they already publish), how can that be considered a punishment or a remedy? What if they just republished what they have released in the past? Are they claiming that would be a remedy?
On the other hand, if they publish all the API, including the hidden parts which have only been used by their own applications division before, that would be a significant remedy. It would not only allow fairer competition in the apps arena, but it would also make it possible to write a DRDOS-style competing operating system which ran everything Windows can run. Are they proposing this?
If they are, does the fact that they are proposing this mean they are admitting they've been lying all these years? Does it undermine their defense? Does it preclude an appeal issue? Does it leave them open to lawsuits by their partners (who have long suspected their assurances were fraudulent)?
Is everybody supposed to accept their promise that the API being released is complete? Are they going to allow impartial experts to look at the source code to verify they're releasing everything? Will that code compile to something which actually matches the binaries they sell? Who tests it?
I have to admit that I believe the Win32 API is the key to any remedy. Source code would be a great source of entertainment, but the API is the key. They only reason we really need the source is to verify the API. (OK, it would help from a security standpoint, too. But that's not really related to the charges against them.)
But we need a way to be sure the API is valid. An independent review of the source code seems to me to be the best method to do this. Bob Lewis has suggested an alternative (putting a bounty on finding an undocumented API with MS paying the bounty).
I can't help wondering whether Microsoft has been lying for so long that they're caught in a place where they can't say anything new without contradicting something they've said in the past. I would hate to be the lawyers trying to suggest a real remedy without stomping on the testimony of one of the people paying my salary. ("Let's see, which one of you wants to go to jail for perjury?")
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
the supreme court's infamous phrase "with all deliberate speed" in brown v board of education was for a particular reason. they KNEW for a fact that they would not be able to desegregate all the schools, especially in the South, immediately. too many politically-minded individuals (like governor wallace, the prick who tried to block black kids from entering that one school) in *too many jurisdictions* to force the issue immediately.
however, this case is different because microsoft if it was forced into a remedy, if the doj pushes it just right, can get smacked down in court. it remember that microsoft wants the vague language, but the govt probably wont accept it. they tried that before, remember? and if there is an explicit statement on when and how, if microsoft disobeys a court order they will get fscking reamed, no appeals, do not pass go, dont even think about delay tactics.
unc_
I do not have a robust understanding of much outside of the standard GPL model, so perhaps someone else could expand on the general applications of 'Open Source' to this issue?
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Does this mean that I dont get the source code to notepad.exe? What about solitaire.exe? That's it! I'm taking my ball and going home.
First off, this is the right I do NOT want the government to have.
Well, you're about 110 years too late to be bitching about that one.
--
That wasn't a Troll, jackass.
Any idiot can see it was Flamebait.
If you're not going to take moderation any more seriously than that, don't moderate.
--
Isn't this what Homer Simpson tried to push the Springfield Nuclear Powerplant to do when he grew hair and became an executive?
Second, I belive that Sun has released the Staroffice code (though not with an "Open Source" compliant license). How better documented do you need?
Wouldn't it be absolutely the coolest thing if it really was Steve Ballmer? (And I was actually Linus, hehe.)
But who could seriously believe that hands-on control freaks like Bill and Steve could actually resist the temptation forever to go hang on Slash and post pro-Microsoft bafflegab. Not me. I bet each of them has done it at least once.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Excuse me for pointing out the blatantly obvious in your post, but none of the APIs you mentioned are used by the Apps team and none of them would require disclosure in a OS/Apps chinese wall.
Remember that applications are written to Win32 and not to the raw NT API hence NTCreateProcessToken(), Subsystem APIs and NTLM RPCs are not part of this.
Also, I've implemented authentication using NTLM over a socket quite happily using the published APIs. Your claim that Netscape cannot do this either implies that the guys at Netscape are fools or they have an alternate agenda. Look at the sample program in MSDN!!
I hate to say it but your post was ill informed, inaccurate and bordering on an outright lie.
John Wiltshire
Now, this debate interests me. Who is right, "John Wiltshire" or Huusker? Someone please hit me with a clue stick.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Like the code that Microsoft uses to implement its own applications. You know, those private API's that Word, Excel, and other M$ products use. I doubt they would open those up.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
Besides the Win32 API, I would like to see Microsoft document the native NT API. This is the actual interface to the NT executive that is called by the Win32 subsystem. Who knows what undocumented goodies are hidden in there.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I would guess that their licensing would explicitly prohibit such uses. The announcement said "for developers of Windows applications" or something like that.
This excludes individuals (they're not companies) who write code (writing is not design) to make windows apps run on Linux (Linux is not Windows). So goodbye Wine. :(
Am I being silly... or what?
This just means they're going to provide all level API access along with their documentation. My guess is it will be something like an NDA, they will provide you with the source you need to write an app or Windows-specific compiler but you'll need to register as a member of their development community. This would enable more access to good/free compilers which might facilitate GNU Windows software. This would also benefit the WINE people in getting their toy working with most if not all Windows apps. I'd say this is a good thing but maybe not a Good Thing.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
> How do you know? Maybe it's not that bad. You have no way of knowing this.
You can't judge a book by its cover, but you can judge a car by the pile of rubble it leaves behind it as it drives down the street.
Besides, Microsoft wouldn't be able to produce the Windows source code even if they wanted. Remember that it failed to do so with Windows 95 in the Caldera/DR-Dos case.
The only way I can see to get Microsoft to document their APIs and to ensure that they aren't holding back is to break them into multiple OS and multiple application companies and to limit the ability of those companies to establish exclusive contracts with one another.
:)
Oh, I completely disagree. I think that this remedy could be made to work, but not in the way MSFT suggests. My suggestion would be to take this remedy to its logical extreme: force MSFT to release the entire Windows operating system under a license like the GPL. An important point would have to be that MSFT would not be able to write the license itself: the license would either have to be the GPL itself, or a similar license developed by the court (say, the Thomas Penfield Jackson Public License (TPJPL)
Under such a license, MSFT would have to release the *entire* Windows source code openly, the license at a minimum would have to meet OSI. The license should be modified to prohibit even MSFT, at minimum, to have any part of Windows be closed source (with the exception of technologies licensed from other companies/developers of course, such as HyperTerminal and several of the games, including Windows Solitaire).
I think that would prevent MSFT from "weaseling out and involving endless debates among regulators and MSFT about the intricacies of software design."
My journal has hot
This case is not about facts but about opinions. This case fully depends on the support that the states backing up the trial give to it. Two are already hesitant to accept the original proposal. MS knows that and tries to influence the public further by appearing cooperative and running expensive marketing campaigns. It's all about marketing and the proven FUD concept and that's something MS is good at.
This proposal should be seen in that light. MS already knows that they are going to have to appeal whatever will be decided by Jackson. So their goal is not to fight his decision but to negotiate a good ruling for the period until the appeal.
So, MS is doing well:
- They fooled the media into believing they are cooperative now, this will definately put some pressure on Jackson.
- They have a proposal which is not particularly bad for them. Though of course this proposal will never make it as an end proposal, I wouldn't be surprised if something like this becomes the intermediate ruling until the appeal.
Jilles
Take the time to actually read it.
Microsoft isn't going to open jack diddly squat. One, it's a delay tactic, so they can have a stronger appeal. Two, it's an appeal tactic. They can now whine "we offered this" and most judges will misinterpret this statement. Three, it's a purely misleading and confusing statement, intentionally.
"parts of the Windows operating system used by independent software companies to design their applications."
That means APIs. Not Windows. That means Microsoft's playing their little wording games as always. I only PRAY that the people who NEED to know this realize that this is all lies. Microsoft already provides somewhat open access to their APIs, in the form of code examples and detailed specifications, to indepenent application programmers. For a fee. Don't doubt for one second they'll continue to charge that fee. They're going to open it, maybe, yeah. And they're going to keep right on up with making money with it. Open doesn't mean free. Get over that braindead anachronistic method of thinking, including the part where you remove head from rectum, and realize that Microsoft's in it for the money, and they'll make money any way they can.
And I'm going back to bed.
=RISCy Business - o/~ Happy Burfday To Me, my insurance still costs an arm and a leg.. o/~
your company here.
shelby != ford
"If ingested seek medical attention and induce vomiting"
Wow, thank you very much for this info. Everybody complains about how MS hides important API functions from competitors, yet this is the first time I see someone give concrete examples (or maybe I didn't look hard enough, I'm not that interested in windows programming).
Would you happen to know where I can find more information about this?
Or does anyone have other examples of important Windows API functions/system calls which have been hidden and then discovered or reverse engineered by people outside of Microsoft?
I know that DOS had a couple of these already, as illustrated by the numerous "MSDOS exposed", or "DOS internals" books published at that time. I wonder if there exist similar books on windows.
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
Keiretsu is a business concept barrowed from Japan where a number of companies (who are not competitors) have a common interest and therefore form an association to leverage mutual business development and cross sales. These associations rarely have the formality of either a partnership or joint venture, and are often founded on bonds of family or traditional alliances from the past. Kiretsus can manifest themselves in a number of ways, including preferential rates, cross referrals, exchange of competitive and market intelligence.
I see this as the future (actually, the present if you look at their posessions and investments) of Microsoft, should it be forced to split.
Much more information on Keiretus is available at http://www.corpwatch.org/ trac/feature/planet/japan_k.html
Hey, did you know that Sun, AOL, Netscape and Tivoli (IBM), @Home and many other companies are all already part of a Keiretsu?
http://www.kpcb.com/keiretsu
Of course, they added a disclaimer when someone pointed out that in the US this behavior might strike someone was being that of a cartel.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The MS view of the OS future can be broken down to two propositions:
(1)Windows is practically everywhere.
(2)Windows does practically everything.
There is nothing wrong with a company having this ambition, but it is naive to think that (2) supports (1) -- the opposite is true, at least depending on how you defien Windows.
I think the above post raises and important point (providing features to users is a good thing) but misses several others. You can define operating system any whay you want; that's an old and entirely content-free argument. The substantive issue is how you integrate the various parts of the system -- whether it has a modular and flexible design.
Windows is not outstanding for its modularity.
The argument is not necessarily that a software system must be configured minimally, but that it should be capable of being minimally configured, at least to maximize its overall flexibility. This doesn't mean that a minimal configuration is most usable for a specific role (e.g. office automation); but that a light weight, modular system can be configured optimally for many roles.
The idea that operating systems should be light weight doesn't mean that they can only be employed in light weight applications, it is just engineering common sense.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There's something about the idea of having to see Microsoft's private parts that makes me wish Judge Jackson would reconsider. Certainly Gates and Balmer are well endowed in the pocket book, but can we expect the same about the entire corporation in every respect?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Why be curious? They tell you exactly which parts:
provide open, timely and complete access to the parts of the Windows operating system code used by independent software companies to design their software applications to run on Windows
That means they'll give access to the API header files...but...wait a second! They already do that, don't they? Hmmmm....
--GnrcMan--
TIME has an essay from Bill Gates this week.
Here's an AP Article on the essay. It contains this passage (which seems to be broadly paraphrased) regarding preventing future outbreaks of ILOVEYOU type viruses where Gates sounds like an an open source evangelist:
"The front line of defense against such sophisticated viruses is a continually evolving computer operating system that attracts the efforts of eager software developers, Gates said."
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Their proposal merely proposes changes that addresses problems found in the court ruling.
"Hrm, court found that we didn't allow xyz, so we'll allow that now."
It does nothing to prevent abuses from happening in the future, nor does it do anything to address problems which were not determined during the trial.
Windows would be nothing without it's additional features that makes it a pleasure for developers to develop on. Imagine windows without basic services like COM or Explorer. What will happen to windows in the future is major services like Voice Recognition etc will not get integrated into windows because of any split up. MS has been researching this kindo f stuff for years, and it's absolutely idiotic to prevent them from adding these features to their OS.
This'd happen if the DoJ's ruling is to break up MS and nothing else. But if they're required to really open up the source, or at least to realease full doc of the API/internals then anybody could add these features to the OS with full integration. Sure MS has been reasearching Voice Recognition for a long time, but they're not the only one. Why should they be the only company to integrate those features within their OS ?
Especially since when they do, everyone else copies them (just like webbrowsing and every other feature in Windows now days).
Wow, I didn't know MS invented webbrowsing. Guess they should sue those people at CERN then.
More seriously, you need to get a better kowledge of computer reasearch history if you think MS has ever invented anything. They may get copied a lot (like GNOME/KDE), but they too have copied former work to build their OS. I see nothing wrong with that.
I am surprised at how much vehemence the people on /. have for MS. Some guy said that they should be forced to open all their apps to ensure competition. How about Linus being forced to BSD license all his code to allow other people to incorperate it into their programs without the restrictions of the GPL. Of course that's silly, and so it opening all microsoft apps. The governemnt, and the computing community have gotten the smell of blood, and proceded to try to rip MS to shreds. Case in point: The government is bandying about a proposal to break MS up. If that wasn't bad enough, the OS company would be allowed to keep internet explorer in the OS. Wasn't that the whole point of contention in the lawsuit? Sure MS has monopolistic practices, but no more than the baby bells or the cable companies. If you saw what kind of stronghold they have in the washington area, you'd think that MS was embittered in competition. The government is completly ignoring the practices that make MS a monopoly. Such as an OEM not being able to install another OS along with Windows, or MS charging different prices to different OEMs. You know what? None of these problems will be solved by breaking up MS. Then there is the thing with applications. People point to the success of Office and scream monopoly. However, the main reason Office is so succesful is MS basically gives it away to the OEMs. They are perfectly free to preinstall WordPerfect (in fact, some do) but Office is cheaper to bundle? Is that a monopolistic practice? When talk gets to IE and Netscape and Java, the arguement gets ridiculous.
A) People use IE because Netscape sucks. It is bloated, slow, and a disk hog. Simple as that. Netscape didn't lose because MS strong armed them, they did a fine job losing on their own. If Netscape 6 is the sight of things to come, Netscape's going to keep on losing. There is the hairy fact that IE is only available on Windows, Mac, and Sun (kinda). Is that monopoly? Hell no! If it were, then the KDE people should be sued for not porting their browser to Windows!
B) MS only made Java better. Before MS came along Java performance sucked ass. By extending Java to work better on windows, they took an Open system and enhanced it to make it more appealing to develop on Windows. Again not a monopoly! Making your OS the more appealing development platform is the whole point of a commercial OS! Should Linus be sued because Linux is an appealing platform for POSIX development? Second, in recent months, Sun has done more to kill Java than MS ever has, so what's the beef?
C) People point to closed technologies like DirectX which keep people chained to the Windows platform. Know what? There is a reason that people use DirectX. It whips anything else out there! In recent days, even Direct3D has become more feature filled (if not faster and as easy to program) as OpenGL. Then there is the superlative capabilities of the rest of the DirectX suite. Now, people concerned with freedom would look at DirectX, see that it's not available on (Linux|BSD|BeOS), respect the companies wishes, and develop something that could compete with it! Nothing on Linux or even BeOS holds a candle to DirectX.
In general, all of the application stuff points to a whinny bitchy attitude among the computing community. They are all running to the government for help because they don't have the skill to make something better. Even now, I am very proud of (most) of the OSS community because instead of whining and bitching, they went out and developed software that put MSs to shame.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
OK, so in the scenario you propose I'm a developer who has been granted access to the API through MSDN on the condition that I only write Windows applications and never work on a project like WINE. In that case what's to stop me from writing a program called TESTAPI.EXE that would do the following pseudocode:
say hello
test API function #1 using sub testAPI1
test API function #2 using sub testAPI2
test API function #3..#n (you get the idea)
report whether the tests are successful or unsuccessful
say goodbye
sub testAPI1
test all of the functions of the first API
report back the results
sub testAPI2 through whatever...
run a test on the API
report back the results
(end of code)
Now then. I haven't broken either of the conditions of the licensing agreement. I've just written some code that tests whether these new APIs do exactly what Microsoft saye they will. However, I also release this program under the GPL or the Artistic License or something similar. Now a WINE developer, or anybody else for that matter, can look at my code, see what functions it's testing and has some concrete examples of how the functions are called and what they're supposed to do, and then use that to write a functional equivalent. In other words, assuming the WINE developer isn't tained by the same or a similar license, I've just implemented a clean room environment that will allow a developer to re-implement a library that exposes the API, then test it to see if it works the same way Microsoft's code does (success, failure, all we'd be interested in is the same results). Yet I haven't included a single line of MS code or done anything that would violate the license I signed.
Heck, I wouldn't have to release this under an open source license if the MS license forbade it. I'd just write the app in Visual Basic. It's no secret that you can disassemble VB programs to get the original code back, right down to the variable names you used.
I'm a Perl hacker, so excuse me for saying it, but all we would need would be to get the camel's nose into the tent.
--
Someone you trust is one of us.
Watch this.. Remember the MS philosophy of "Embrace and extend". They will start claiming that this is "Open Source" in the truest sense, and by means of massive advertising to this effect, the MS definition of what Open Source means will become the accepted one in the publics eye. The average joe on the street doesn't know anything about Open Source, and is waiting for the organization with the most advertising bucks to tell them what it means. That ain't us folks...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Why not? If you and I agree to do something together, and write and sign a contract saying who does what, and who gets what and so on, then later on, I decide I don't like the contract, and want the government to modify it in my favor, is this right? Why should it be different if I sell you something on the condition you don't make a copy of it?
I'll assume here that we're talking about the US government here. The US government is granted the authority to do certain things in the constitution. Stopping "anything MS does to hurt society" is not one of the duties enumerated.
Copyright law does not exist "solely for social benefit". Copyright law exists "to promote science and the useful arts". This doesn't say, "once you have a product, copyright law will only help you so far as your actions benefit society". IP law is a method of providing for property rights in non-physical things. Property rights are necessary because without them people have little incentive to do anything productive. How hard would you work if your entire paycheck was taken in taxes to be used "solely for social benefit"?
The issue in the microsoft case is that microsoft is using it's control over the application software market to prevent entry into the operating systems market. Think: who's most likely to go into the operating systems market? Dot-coms? Hardware vendors? Or maybe large-application developers? Netscape or Corel are the types of companies that can develop a competetor to Windows. AOL/Netscape and Corel are in fact doing that right now. It's based on Linux, but that's beside the point. Microsoft's position of control of the OS market helps them make sure competetors never get big enough to enter the OS market.
Except for this issue of preventing competition in the OS market, Microsoft doesn't have any incentives to try to take over the application software market. Or, they may want to take it over, but if they do so, it isn't really going to harm the consumer. I think this is refered to as the one-monopoly rent theorem, or internalization of competetive efficiencies.
This shows you really don't get it. Sure, we'd all be better off if we just had the federal government raid Bill Gates bank account and use that to reduce our taxes, but that wouldn't be a good idea, because it reduces the incentives for people to try to become rich. And the only way you can become rich is by producing something people want (or think they want). If you don't think incentives are important, look at how "ideal" the soviet union was. There were no incentives, so no one worked.
I'm pretty sure the US currently has an extra tax on "windfall profits". This is defined as like some really high percentage gain on an investment. But what if a risk should be taken? Who's going to gamble five years of their life on a risky business if they don't have the potential to become filthy rich through it? If there's an investment that could give me 10000% returns, but has a 99.7% chance of failing, I might do it, but not if the government is going to come in, and say "Windfall Profits! Give us 90% of all profits above 500%" (or whatever it is).
How exactly is Microsoft "fucking its customers in the ass"? By making crappy products? Everyone selling software to consumers does that. Go pick up a consumer level graphics program (Print Shop, Print Artist, Print Fiasco, whatever). You'll be horrified at how completely unusable they are for anyone more skilled with computers than my cat. Buggy software? Sure, compared to Apache, or Linux it's buggy, but it's not too bad compared to what is shipped by other proprietary software vendors. When was the last time you saw "stable" and "netscape" in the same sentence? But it's usable, and that's good enough for the desktop. By pricing to high? This is plausible, given that they do have a monopoly, we would expect them to. But how much cheaper would computers sold to consumers be if they had a free OS? Not that much. Windows 98 isn't a big portion of the price. Yeah, they screw people on NT, but the people who buy NT are the people can actually shop around and say, "I'll just run Linux, and save the $2000 in MS licenses". Does anyone think that MIS people wouldn't be willing to go over to Linux if MS jacked the price up high enough? So MS can't really overprice by that much.
My feeling is that since the technology industry is so volitile, the usual issues of regulating monopolies don't matter. Just because you have a monopoly today doesn't mean you will tomorrow. And the more you try to use your monopoly to screw people, the less likely you will have one tomorrow. But more importantly, regulating the computer industry would be bad, because regulators aren't anywhere near as good at guessing what should be done than venture capitalists are.
People like to pretend that it's just Microsoft, but you know the government would never consider stopping there. Remember when the government got involved in civil rights, it was about making sure the KKK didn't prevent people from voting. Now the government has gotten to the point where they consider a disparity between the number of men and women who play sports at a school as absolute evidence of discrimination.
And don't bring up "the government built the internet". The government didn't build the internet any more than the Navy invented microwave ovens.
--Kevin
(note: by "fascist" I mean someone who wants to maintain the illusion of private ownership, but in reality have government make all the decisions in the best interests of the people)
This is, to say it politely, bullshit. The Win32 API specs are carefully crafted to be incomplete. They tell you just enough to get locked in to Windows, but not enough to actually make a product that would compete with Microsoft.
You're telling me that in order to compete with a large product microsoft produces...like say Microsoft Office, competitors like Corel and Sun need to know InitializeSecurityContext?
Most of these APIs are moderately documented on MSDN. That's a hell of a lot better than the ridiculus JavaDOC sun passess off as documentation (like getContext() - gets the context).
I don't think Microsoft goes out of their way to document native NT "APIs", but they do document a heck of a lot of Win32 APIs quite well. How the heck do you think so much of Windows Software can actually be written.
The 99.999% of these so called 'hidden APIs' would be used by 0.001% of software companies out there. Simply cause they don't need it.
Maybe some of those APIs would help people that need to do low level stuff like Oracle. Symantec seem to do quite a lot of low level stuff (but maybe they get special secrets from Microsoft).
I disagree on your points about COM+/ADSI and DHTML though. Microsoft has done a heck of a lot to make people aware of these technologies and how to use them, there was even an MSDN show on ADSI, MSDN's web workshop and DHTML dude covers DHTML quite well, and COM+ has been covered to death by both MSDN and DevDays. How many APIs does Sun document for StarOffice?
Maybe Microsoft's problem is actually making so many of their appliactions have such accessible APIs. They explicitly add APIs to Office that other people can use, they do that with IE, and their other major applications too. Perhaps if they made everything monolithic and unextendable (like netscape), it would make some people happier - but I can assure you, developers wouldn't be.
I really do believe Microsoft is one of the companies in the industry who actually does the best documenting. Just look at MSDN and stuff...even Microsoft's C documentation kicks the butt off Unix C man pages.
They do not document a few of their exported functions, or core functions, but I'm not so sure they really had to in the first place. Now they're offering to release it all on request (seeing as everyone is whining).
Splitting MS in two (OS and Software) ignores the other pies MS has its collective finger in, including Media and Hardware. Split 'em in to three or four, and enforce strict behavioral limits on the various sub-companies. IE: No more pre-announcing that spiffy new OS 5 years before it actually goes to market.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I could easily see microsoft doign this, however their definition of "parts of the Windows operating system code used by independent software companies to design their software applications to run on Windows" is probably much different than everyone else's opinion. The use of the word "software companies" might mean it's only open to them, not the whole community.
A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
First off, this is the right I do NOT want the government to have. If they got away with this with Microsoft, believe you me every time they had a problem with a company, this precedent would allow them to do just that.
All source code for all applications they have ever written should be placed under GPL, and the copyrights assigned to Richard Stallman.
Why the GPL? Why Stallman? What do either have to do with this? Besides the fact that this case is about win9x and Internet Explorer ONLY, if they were to take the source code it should be public domain and nothing else. Why should RMS get some kind of gift from the government? If anyone were to get a copyright from it it would be the companies that actually deal with Microsoft and were so harmed by them (i.e. IBM, Sun, Apple etc..). But you wouldn't want this because they are big, bad, proprietary companies aren't they?
The microsoft.com domain should be assigned to the EFF, with them directed by court order to maintain a web site at that address containing all the relevant court documents for all time.
Once again, why? Just because the EFF is "fighting for the little guy" does NOT make them some higher moral entity. I respect the EFF and much of their work, but Why should they get anything out of this (see above).
All other domains with Microsoft in their title should be required to change their names. It is acceptable that they still have "ms", such as MSNBC, but only if they find a title where the MS means something else.
So the name Microsoft will be completely obliterated? What will that accomplish?
What do you think will happen to the companies that rely on MS products if MS disappears one day? Do you think that they will suddenly give up and start using Linux? Is that really what you want? Not me. Sorry the last thing I want to do is retrain several thousand users (and I work for a small company) to use their 7337 Linux desktops. We have Linux servers on sites. We have MS servers, we have sun, we have SCO. The desktops are all MS however. We couldn't afford to have to completely start over from scratch, and neither could any of our customers. Of course your proposal doesn't take that into account does it? Screw big business (and small/medium business too) as long as Microsoft and it's name is completely obliterated from the planet.
Something needs to be done, but the ways you describe are the obvious result of extreme zealotry and are insane.
Call me a Microsoft shill but I am looking out for my and many other small/medium business owners out there, not to mention the end user. Completely ending all things MS will hurt a very large consumer and economic base in this country.
-Marc
Flame all you want, I'll post more.
if MS is only required to release a subset of the code, what is to keep them from hiding the codecs in the other parts or intentionally obfuscating the source (ie, leaving the explanatory comments in the hidden parts)? basically, unless a company can get at the whole source, there can be some real issues and MS knows it.
Even with the new much-hyped APIs you mention above, they are still carefully designed to be almost-but-not-quite complete.
I'll pick COM+ from your list as an example. One of the key features of COM+ is asynchronous remote calls, which is crucial for high-volume server apps that need to handle lots of simultaneous requests. Many outside developers have been begging for async COM for a long time. The underlying OSF RPC/NDR layer has been able to do async RPC on Win 9x/NT for years. And yet the async feature of COM+ is only available on Windows 2000. There is no good technical reason for this. Microsoft's own software (e.g. ADSI for NT) seem to be using async COM just fine on NT. But if anybody else wants to use async COM , Microsoft forces Windows 2000 down your throat.
I could rant about hidden APIs in ADSI to cripple the competition (e.g., Samba was getting too close to unlocking NTLM RPC), but I'll stop here. The point is that Microsoft will never willingly divulge any API information that would hurt the sales of their latest OS.
I know this is a joke, but I remember someone saying something like this before and being very serious.
:) probably don't think of this as a bad thing, but right here and now MS-Win is a very important part of most people's interaction with the 'Net(TM).
If Win9X is open sourced, there will be much more people looking for a way to bring down the "OS" then people looking to patch the problems.
You'd have to wait six months or more before it'd be safe enough to put your Win9X box online again.
Some of you (most of you
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
> to the parts of the Windows operating system
> code used by independent software companies
but not the 5% hidden api that lets MS-created sw hop win versions?
and make MS apps run faster?
what a pathetic joke.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
1 is really only a very complete form of documentation. It will help people write compatible programs, and avoid "hidden APIs", but won't benefit anyone besides Windows applications.
2 would be useful from a support perspective; when you find bugs in Windows, you can fix them yourself, rather than having to complain to Microsoft. But again, it only helps Windows users.
3 is the kicker. This is where WINE can make Windows APIs work perfectly. Where Your Favorite Unix can take advantage of any clever OS things Microsoft might have figured out (yes, it is possible). But it goes beyond that; if you can reuse the source, then you can make your own version. Then we might very well see Red Hat Windows, and 500 other distributions. There would be nothing special about Microsoft anymore.
In short, 1 and 2 just make Windows a better product and don't really hurt Microsoft. But 3 hurts Microsoft enormously, perhaps even unreasonably. Therefore, I think it's unlikely that Microsoft would agree to 3, and so its proposal wouldn't be punitive.
Of course, all this assumes that we're talking about the complete source, and it seems Microsoft may not be. So that would make it an even less significant remedy for the government and the public. In short, I very much doubt that Microsoft's proposal is meaningful.
Tonight on the 11 o'clock news a local Seattle TV station briefly reported on this story, and also reported that "Bill Gates was hoping that this would convince Judge Jackson that Microsoft is acting in good faith in this matter." Or something like that, you'll have to forgive me for not remembering exactly.
Now, call me naive, but doesn't that mean that MS does not expect this proposal to be accepted at all? In other words, aren't they just trying to score points with the judge by proposing something that has no substance at all? Or should we interpret it that the DOJ is so unfair that MS does not expect them to accept any reasonable deal?
MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.
"The DOJ plan would effectively reduce Windows to a small core of low-level functionality that performs only the most basic operations."
So instead of making a better product, they now get to blame someone else for their own crud OS? How is this hurting Microsoft?
Perhaps if Windows were regressed back to DOS it might actually be able to perform those "basic operations" without crashing.
Hammer of Truth
However, the reason why the MS Office widgets are so lovely compared to the crufty MFC widgets is that the Office widget code is entirely internal to Microsoft. Thus, backwards compatibility isn't as much of a concern. And it was backwards compatibility that muddied MFC (and Windows). Ask anyone who's written floating CToolbars ($#@*!ing COMCTL32.DLL).
Microsoft will be sued very readily for violating antitrust if they modify their newly open APIs. Competitors could claim they did it to purposely screw them, especially since Microsoft will only release the changes after they've internally adapted to them. At one level, they'd be right. At another, well, tough. Differently versioned COM interfaces have unique GUIDs for a reason.
And you thought Windows/System32 was big as it stands! Now version it...
here
and here
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
I think they'll be opening up the parts of source code that are least embarassing.
Jamie was talking about Mozilla, but I think his point applies even more to Windows. Open source isn't a magic bullet that will suddenly make quality code out of the mess that is win32. The whole design is broken, from the fat32 filesystem, through the layers of legacy interface, to the thousands of haphazardly organized system calls.
I'll be sticking with Unix, thank you. It sucks, but at least it doesn't suck that much...
If Microsoft's strategy for dealing with the DOJ were distilled to instructions like those on a shampoo bottle, it would read "confuse, delay, repeat". :-)
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
we can argue semantically as to whether or not "keiratsu" refers to an economic model, but what i am talking about is how japan, south korea, indonesia, and most of the other asian countries built up heavy industry after ww2.
all of asia realized they needed to modernize as quickly as possible, and so the various gov'ts provided direct and indirect support to people who were willing to create large, industrial conglomerates- keiratsu in japan, and the chaebol in south korea. similar to nationalized or partly gov't owned companies in many other asian countries.
consequently, you see the rapid rise of huge conglomerate companies invested in multiple nonsynergistic industries, with the gov't directly supporting those companies through partial ownership (hence direct investment to purchase capital equipment) and other perks like tax breaks or high import tariffs to block foreign competition.
the problem though, with anything the govt touches (or feeds directly) is it tends to become inefficient and dependent on gov't handouts. in this case, companies with gov't funding or support were expected to take up part of the burden of social services- lifetime employment and housing subsidies for its workers, which until very recently were the norm in japan, s korea, and elsewhere.
furthermore, in attempts to build up certain industries which a particular country felt was vital (like automobiles in south korea) a company would keep pouring money into particular divisions that kept losing money and had little to no chance of ever catching up with foreign competitors.
adding to this was that many companies were not willing to compete with one another, preferring to expand into product lines that had no native equivalent. korean companies would try not to hurt each other overly much, the japanese companies would deal only with japanese suppliers, etc. even if americans or europeans offered lower prices on raw materials, japanese would only deal with japanese, or they would expand (vertical integration) into southeast asia. this still happens all the time, but its getting harder to do (because of, as you mentioned, globalization)- and many japanese companies have realized that they simply dont know how to produce the raw materials they need at internal prices competitive with those they might get outside their companies.
the long-term result is an underlying weakness in a country's economy- this is the stuff macro hedge bets are made of, like soros and his friends deflating most of the southeast asian currencies, which forced rising interest rates, which killed property speculation and crashed the stock markets simultaneously.
you and i are both right. in the 80s many american companies werent producing good products. and business cycles do go up and down. but you ignore the difference between a hard fall and a soft one- if asian companies had been more efficient in the first place, they would not have suffered nearly as much as they did in the transition between good times and bad.
and the underlying cause of the inefficiency is the ideas supporting keiratsu- companies overly dependent on government support and nationalistic or overtly chummy business practices. it allows for rapid expansion and the creation of whole industries in a country that didnt have them even 50 years ago, but it comes with a price.
unc_
His post was one of the most accurate I have seen on slashdot for a while.
What you are conveniently editing out of things John, is the *history*. Yes, I'm sure Netscape can implement NTLM over raw sockets *now*, but not back in the NT3.5 timeframe that they needed to in order to compete with MS.
The SSPI functions *WERE NOT DOCUMENTED* until NT4.x or so. Delay in documentation whilst your own internal teams have full access is usually enough to ensure dominance of your application over the competitors.
This is a completely obvious truth that cannot be denied. I've been up to Redmond, I *know* how this works. You may be able to fool non-programmers John, but not those of us who have to deal with MS documentation (and lack thereof) on a daily basis.
Case in point, the password verification API called on change password on domain controllers. This was only *finally* documented after I revealed it's existance on the 'Net and posted sample code for it.
The Novell integration group at MS had been using that API for *years*.
There are too many of these inconvenient peices of historical evidence for you to keep denying them. Of course you can claim "it's documented now" and I fully expect you to. That's not the point. How many years did MS developers have access *before* it was documented ?
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
I think one idea Microsoft may be seriously considering is to produce TWO different versions of Windows 98/ME/2000.
One version will be the same as the current Windows 98/ME/2000, with Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and other Microsoft "enhancements." The other will be akin to the original release of Windows 95; it will use the Windows 98 or 2000 base (including the ACPI Plug and Play), but will lack Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc.--essentially a "Plain Jane" release.
The "Plain Jane" release version is intended for OEM's, who can load whatever enhancement they want (Netscape Communicator/Netscape 6.0, RealPlayer 7.0, QuickTime 4.0, Adobe Acrobat Reader 4.0, etc.) and have rights to even change the Windows intial startup screen to look different (it'll say "Windows 98" or "Windows 2000 Professional" but you'll also see logos for the OEM and the other add-ons the OEM preloads). Don't be surprised that the "Plain Jane" Windows 98/ME/2000 will be sold to OEM's at a flat cost of $29.95 per copy.
Hmmm....
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
NTLM RPC API Essential for doing DC operations to manage domain accounts. With this Samba could eliminate the need for NT Server. Still undocumented.
I'm pretty late posting this and it's nested pretty deeply so I don't really expect anyone to read this much less moderate it but here it is anyway...
This is the perfect time to sue Microsoft to get the needed api information. Think about it. Little open-source developer (with the help of the EFF) goes after big bad 800 pound Microsoft to get a little itty bitty piece of information that would benefit all mankind. With the opensource world, the DOJ, and needless to say, the supreme court watching carefully. Should they try to put up any meaningful kind of a fight the negative publicity and probable negative legal fallout for Microsoft would be astounding.
Just sue for one little piece of information, get it, and the floodgates will open. Microsoft would never dare hold anything back after that.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
For years, whenever hidden APIs have been mentioned, MS has claimed that "ALL the APIs have been published." In the unlikely event they were telling the truth, They are offering nothing. On the other hand, If they were lying, Then why should I beleave the new list is complete?
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
You comments distort the truth almost to the extreme. You claim that keiretsu are a failed economic model. In fact keiretsu isn't a failed economic model; it isn't a economic model at all.
The whole thing about the Japanese and the Americans in the late 70s and early 80s is that *America* was producing absolute crap, while the Japanese focused on quality, and sold them at low prices (with a little help from home of course).
The main problem is that domestic American products were substancially inferious to imported goods. Take automobiles for example. I wouldn't want to own let's say a 1986 Chrysler Laser. It just doesn't run as good as let's say a 1984 Toyota Corolla.
The last decade witnessed the largest turnaround in American manufacturing since the last world war. No longer does American companies settle for inferior products. Look at the cars that Chysler makes today and compare it to the junk it made 14 years ago. Lee Iccoa did make his mark by the emphasis on quality, and many American companies followed suit.
The problem with keirusu is not that it doesn't work, because it works and it works very well in both the short and long run. The problem with keirusu is the affect it has on the consumer markets.
Put it this way. Almost all keirusu would have a balance sheet firmly in the black. However, to achieve this and also achieve penetration pricing on significant breath of its product mix would require pricing the profit making products to include a very large profit margin to fund the products on promotion.
This is what Japan did, and still does. Sony sells products in America with higher quality (in regards to competing American brands), at relatively reasonable prices. However, at home, back in Japan, the CPI is much higher and subsequently, the Japanese pay more money on average to live, than let's say Americans.
Some American companies cried foul and took out their lawyers (typical American reaction) accusing Japanese firms of dumping. Most imported products however, do not sell below production costs, and dumping legislation is only a tactic domestic companies use to *protect* their market. In fact Americans do the same thing abroad.
The problem is that putting a strain on your own economy to expand operations in another economy works well if your own economy is very strong. However, as anyone who has taken econ101 knows, there is this nasty pest called the business cycle, and because of this things get very complicated. So complicated in fact that tiny changes in the economic climate in either the home or expansion economy can cause widespread havoc on the cash flow of large corporations, since it is the large corporations that tend to run into cash flow problems when economies turn sour. When not just one, but many operating markets turns sour due to volatile stock markets and the numerous problems in the finance sector (as with the just-passed Asian Economic Crisis), you can be pretty sure that back at home in Japan they really weren't happy campers. Couple this with the fact that the economy was already in a slump due to the severe stagnation of the European markets and the American economy then just on the brink of a comeback.
The problems that you tried to associate with keirusu is actually not their fault at all. In fact the problem is globalization. In fact it has happened more than 70 years before. When Wall street went down in the early 20th century, the impact was felt all over the world.
You can compare extensive global economic interdependancy to Microsoft Windows. Sure its great and it gets things done quite well, but there are many things added on only as an afterthought. Think of a virtually non-existance security system for a operating system that was designed for '95 and you get the idea.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
This could end up opening up Windows to major virus attacks. Open sourcing a program/OS is good only if you their is a community of programers in the real world willing to improve the code on their own time. In other open source programs (linux, apache, sendmail) security flaws are addressed quickly, and fixed. This is because their is a large informed community that wants to improve the program for their own use. However the majority of the Windows community is uninformed at best, and have little or no knowledge of computer programing. Even if their was a large pool of programers willing to work on the source code, Microsoft doesn't have the mechanisms in place to implement their bug fixes.
dont_forget
I said it so you don't have to.
The thing is, having a monoply isn't illegal. Abusing a monopoly is, which Microsoft has blatantly done. The fact that people just accept the ILUVYOU virus is proof. Here's how splitting it in half will help:
- On a Windows box, using any software that isn't made by Microsoft is a hinderance. It runs slower (see Netscape vs. IE), isn't as "integrated" (drag MS Word text into Eudora? Not likely.), and doesn't come "built in" (thanks, Compaq! Could you tell me what web sites to see too?).
- Splitting the company in half will force them to no longer tie software in with their OS. Opening parts of the source gives people more of a chance, but I highly doubt we'll see a true competitor to Office on Win systems anytime soon, as long as it's all one company.
- If the company is split up, only one of them will be allowed to say they "promote innovation for the benefit of consumers" and the other one gets to ridicule them for feeding us bullshit.
Where's President Taft when you need him...
------------
"Okay, who taught the cat how to type ctrl alt delete?"
You folks have to look at the REAL effect this is going to have on the world. You'll have to realize that while everyone who reads /. knows what open source source is actually all about, the vast majority of the general computer using public does not.
;-)
While this (microsoft's half-assed open sourcing scheme) isn't exactly the greatest thing to ever happen to the computer using public, the true value is that it opens Joe Schmoe's eyes to what open source is all about. More people will have a slightly larger interest in "this new fangled open source thingamijig."
I reall don't care what MS does/impliments because i don't use windows...but i have the nagging feeling this may actually enlighten some people and increase that "other" operating system's user base.
Thoughts...commments?
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
What parts would these be? Something good I assume. Like maybe those MSN channels. Sure would like to see the source code there. How about that Outlook code; I mean, I have like 50 iluvyou viruses (virii? virons?) on my linux box, pine didn't trigger any of them. I felt left out.
Businesses might be happy, because they can write programs that further extend their tentacles into the system, but hackers will still be disappointed. And Windows will be as unstable as ever.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
However, here's a small look at Windows' hidden APIs:
These are really things you would think would be readily available to other developers. they are not. It pisses me off being a shell developer and not knowing what function to call to get something to work (even though I know the functionality exists, since I see it every day).
IMO, I really think this would help. However, MS will find a way to make it really hard to find anyway. For instance, just publish the API that gets revealed right along with the current API. "Huh? That's what I'd expect!" Okay, answer me this: How in the world are you going to tell the difference and find new functionality which you really didn't see before? There's probably around a few thousand functions hanging around in the Win32 API, and it'll be pretty difficult to find that hidden API you were looking for a year ago. And by the time you find it, it will most likely be obsolete due to a new operating system.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
Keiretsu is a business concept barrowed from Japan where a number of companies (who are not competitors) have a common interest and therefore form an association to leverage mutual business development and cross sales. These associations rarely have the formality of either a partnership or joint venture, and are often founded on bonds of family or traditional alliances from the past. Kiretsus can manifest themselves in a number of ways, including preferential rates, cross referrals, exchange of competitive and market intelligence.
I see this as the future (actually, the present if you look at their posessions and investments) of Microsoft, should it be forced to split.
Much more information on Keiretus is available at http://www.corpwatch.org/ trac/feature/planet/japan_k.html
Also see http://www.businessforum.com/keiretsu.ht ml
http://www.redherring.com/mag/i ssue51/american.html
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
This is just Microsoft scrambling to do anything to deflect the coming storm. They lost in court and here rather soon they are either going to be broken up, or face heavy sanctions.
If they were to actually release the code in some way, it would be nothing more than a trap. Old scratch may be the craftiest devil of all, but the imps at Microsoft sure give him a run for his money.
At this point in the game I wouldn't do anything other than ignore this. They've been intentionally leaking rumors about opening up the source code for windows for a long time now. Anything they say to the media is soley to manipulate public opinion.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
does anyone else remember something from history class, about the civil rights movement?
it seems to me that when the supreme court finally got around to racially intergrating public schools, the legalleese included the term "in due time," which some schools interperted as "years from now." these schools managed to keep intergration on the bottom of their to-do lists for a very long time.
now don't get me wrong. i'm not saying that this microsoft bull is nearly as important or as vicious as the antiblack sentieent held by the courts and schools of that time, but the tactics imployed certianly do smell familiar.
Second, regarding the proposed solutions. I'm sure it might have benefits, but it still misses the core of the problem. MS's monopoly is in *DESKTOP OS*. They are leveraging this monopoly as we speak to promote their server OS with Kerberos as well as with applications and protocols. This is less important from most peoples' points of view, where servers are ignored unless they're down, and even then it's a clueless "my computer's broken". We at slashdot know better. Allowing MS to leverage its current desktop monopoly to get a server monopoly in the future could have horrendous impact on computing in the long-term.
Breaking up a desktop OS corp separate from the server OS corp would probably be far too difficult and expensive. Making source available under NDA or without allowing redistribution of modifications would wouldn't necessarily solve the problem. Making it available as free software is just not going to happen. What we need to do is force all MS desktop OSs to be standards-compliant whenever possible, and force all non-standard protocols and APIs (and fileformats, etc) to be open and non-obfuscated, for at least a few more years. (It'd be great to do that for *all* MS products, but they don't have a monopoly in any others, so perhaps it wouldn't be fair. Feh.) Maybe that's just about as unlikely as freeing the source... but if it or something more drastic doesn't happen, I think MS is going to continue fucking its customers in the ass for quite a while longer.
My first choice would be splitting MS into a systems company and an applications company. I'm happy (and very surprised) that those seem to be the two options that the court is seriously considering.
I've been generally impressed by the rulings of Judge Jackson in this case. I knew he knew what he was doing when during the course of the pretrial hearings he was told that it would be impossible to remove IE from Win95 without completely crippling the system, and he went home and did it himself, then returned to the court with harsh words for Microsoft. He was not also terribly impressed by the way they broke a consent decree arrived at in an earlier case. I don't think he's going to be bamboozled by their bafflegab.
My initial impression that Judge Jackson knew what he was doing was confirmed by the fin ding of fact and then the dec ision. The proposal to split up Microsoft into two companies is also well-considered.
While I generally am leery of government interference in business, this case clearly involves blatant antitrust violations and is precisely what the Sherman Act was drafted to prevent.
As for Microsoft's whining about "innovation," and how this damages their right to "innovate," I hardly see how ripping off betas of your competitors' products, reverse-engineering them, then sending out goons to force computer manufacturers to use them constitutes "innovation." At most it is an "innovative" form of racketeering.
To be honest, I don't think the remedy goes far enough. I'd like to see Microsoft split up into about a dozen corporations. However, I'll readily confess that this is based more on blind hatred and animosity toward Microsoft than any valid legal reasoning.
After all, they are the enemy.
WIN 98 SOURCE CODE REVEALED:
/*
TOP SECRET Microsoft(c) Code
Project: Chicago(tm)
Projected release-date: Summer 1998
*/
#include "win31.h"
#include "win95.h"
#include "evenmore.h"
#include "oldstuff.h"
#include "billrulz.h"
#define INSTALL = HARD
char make_prog_look_big[1600000];
void main()
{
while(!CRASHED)
{
display_copyright_message();
display_bill_rules_message();
do_nothing_loop();
if (first_time_installation)
{
make_50_megabyte_swapfile();
do_nothing_loop();
totally_screw_up_HPFS_file_system();
search_and_destroy_the_rest_of_OS/2();
hang_system();
}
write_something(anything);
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
do_some_stuff();
if (still_not_crashed)
{
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
basically_run_windows_3.1();
do_nothing_loop();
do_nothing_loop();
do_nothing_loop();
}
}
if (detect_cache())
disable_cache();
if (fast_cpu())
{
set_wait_states(lots);
set_mouse(speed, very_slow);
set_mouse(action, jumpy);
set_mouse(reaction, sometimes);
}
/* printf("Welcome to Windows 3.11"); */
/* printf("Welcome to Windows 95"); */
printf("Welcome to Windows 98");
if (system_ok())
{
bsod(random_err());
crash(to_dos_prompt);
}
else
system_memory = open("a:\swp0001.swp", O_CREATE);
while(something)
{
sleep(5);
get_user_input();
sleep(5);
act_on_user_input();
sleep(5);
}
create_general_protection_fault();
}
(Thanks to the 4 Guys from Rolla)
Now I can improve my code by reading the work of masters! Begone, bugs!
Any proposal to open Windows source code, even one that would be much more significant than Microsoft's, would ultimately only help Microsoft by making their APIs and software even more entrenched. Their proposal is by far the sweetest deal for them. In fact, it doesn't even represent a big change from existing practice: almost any Windows software company can get lots of Windows source code anyway if they ask.
The only way I can see to get Microsoft to document their APIs and to ensure that they aren't holding back is to break them into multiple OS and multiple application companies and to limit the ability of those companies to establish exclusive contracts with one another.
Microsoft hates that because it would finally bring up their costs to everybody else's: their current approach has allowed them to cut corners on interoperability and documentation, which saved them money and cut time to market, while at the same time excluding competitors. It's been a sweet deal for them, and it is precisely this conduct that needs to be addressed. A breakup with operating restrictions would create the economic necessity for Microsoft to do this. Any other remedy will just let them weasel out and involve endless debates among regulators and Microsoft about the intricacies of software design. In fact, we tried that before and it didn't work.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I don't think MS is talking about "open source" in any sense; they're talking about opening the Windows APIs, i.e. giving outside developers the same access that the Office developers have. The press constantly confuses "open source" and "open APIs", in their attempts to stupidify news about the MS case.
From a purely selfish perspective (i.e. not considering whether the government has a right to interfere at all,) this is probably my second favorite remedy. My first choice would be splitting MS into a systems company and an applications company. I'm happy (and very surprised) that those seem to be the two options that the court is seriously considering.
MSK
Under the proposal, Microsoft would be required to provide open, timely and complete access to the parts of the Windows operating system code used by independent software companies to design their software applications to run on Windows.
"See we're giving our competitors exactly the same information our own apps developers have!" This is, to say it politely, bullshit. The Win32 API specs are carefully crafted to be incomplete. They tell you just enough to get locked in to Windows, but not enough to actually make a product that would compete with Microsoft. The apps developers in Redmond have direct access to the OS development team and can obtain detailed specs on DFS/COM+/LSA/ADSI/DHTML or whatever new whiz-bang technology is needed to beat the competition.
Several people (Andrew Schulman 1995, et al) have suggested for a long time that a Chinese Wall should go up between the Apps team and the OS team. All communication that goes over the wall should be made public.
My background is security, so I can give you some classic examples of almost-but-not-quite documented APIs that cripple attempts to compete with Microsoft:
Microsoft will only release enough information to ensnare users into the Windows environment. To publish API information that would give a competitor an advantage would be over their dead body.
'The DOJ plan would effectively reduce Windows to a small core of low-level functionality that performs only the most basic operations.'
-- MICROSOFT LOBBYING PAPER
Basic operations? You mean like acting as a virtual machine to run programs on, and controlling the computer's resources? It's funny because the DOJ has to tell Microsoft how to write an operating system.
--
share and enjoy
I know all of you Open Source, anti-Micro$oft people are having a field day, but have you thought of the downside to this?
If the Windows API's are open to everyone, someone could use them to put a program into an innocent looking e-Mail that could be opened by a Macro reader in Outlook, and could then go through the system, ruining any kind of mpeg or jpeg file.
I think all you open source people really have to consider the security risks that could come up if just anybody was allowed to look into the guts of the otherwise safe, stable and secure Windows Platform.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.