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"?)
Now I can improve my code by reading the work of masters! Begone, bugs!
im sorry dude, thats not true.
keiretsu in japan (and their equivalents in many other countries) work because of the relative weakness of shareholder rights. that is to say, if one corporation acts in a way to benefit another at direct or indirect cost to itself, in the US lawsuits can and will get filed. quid pro quo, when formalized, are not the same thing. then they become contracts.
japan was criticized by american companies during the 80s for presenting a kind of "united front", if you will, against foreign companies. that is, they banded together, offered one another specific business preferences, etc just because they were japanese, with the understanding (but no guarantee) that they would receive preferential treatment in turn.
well, as it turns out, that kind of thing doesnt work in the long-run. (breeds inefficiency, cronyism, and was a major cause of the asian economic crash). it cant happen in the united states because companies are forced to be relatively open if theyre big enough to sell stock, and because greedy shareholders (remember them?) will DEMAND that they make as much money as they can.
look at the "wintel" thing for example. intel and microsoft looked like they were presenting a united front, but we know now that they feared and hated each other all along, and as soon as there was a chance intel broke with them and cooperated with linux people.
the same with dell and compaq, who definitely have a longstanding and important relationship with microsoft but werent above stabbing em in the back introducing linux-based servers even while testifying in court how great windows is. cooperation in US businesses is almost always based on immediately obvious mutual benefit, exploitation of someone else, or fear. only one of these is a balance between equals, and isnt really cooperation in the strict sense of the word.
the bottom line is that keiretsu are a failed economic model, and that the comparatively rigorous reqt's of doing business in the US discourage them anyway. also, collusion in the united states is a major crime which is fairly prosecutable, and the penalties for collusion can be high enough to knock you out of business.(to say nothing of the drop in your stock it would cause).
unc_
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.