Slashdot Mirror
Petreley On Microsoft And Linux
Quite a number of people have woken up early in the morning to submit Nick Petreley's latest column in Linuxworld. It's kinda a grab bag column but he does reference a rumour that Microsoft has rewritten portions of Linux for use in Windows. I doubt anything like that has actually happened - but it's a strange world out there.
Given that, why wouldn't they investigate the guts of Linux to see if there's any useful x86 code they could rewrite and adapt? Clearly the idea of being sued would not frighten them- they have more expensive lawyers than the FSF. It's overwhelmingly likely that they don't consider that boundary worth respecting- the remaining question is whether they identify Linux code as worth stealing, and I'm not convinced- it goes against their tendency for NIH. On the other hand, lots of Linux code is heavily x86-centric- which would be Microsoft's primary interest.
If Petreley is correct, we're hearing about another well known characteristic of Microsoft- a tendency to treat the law as a suggestion. It's good to bear in mind that even if they simultaneously have a policy of investigating what Linux code might benefit their products, they will still maintain that nobody ever looks at GPL code and protest loudly at the distrust and negativity. It's a winning strategy that allows them to on the one hand try anything they need to try, legal or not, and on the other hand rely on people's assumptions about ethics and morality.
I am not aware of any corporate law specifically requiring corporations to be ethical or indeed to refrain from outright lying in PR statements (barring specific fraudulent claims about products, which I think is illegal). They _are_, however, legally compelled to maximize shareholder value, and MS is completely dependent on doing that without fail. Given that Microsoft cannot consider the GPL a threat, it is entirely plausible that they are seeking out good x86 code in Linux, secure behind two levels of defense- one, denial ("Microsoft policy is simple...") and two, the law (their capacity to obstruct and manipulate the legal system).
Seriously now- the GOVERNMENT has been hard pressed to deal with their obstructionist tactics and keep an advantage, and the Government has somewhat more resources than the FSF. How can anyone seriously believe that Microsoft is afraid of the GPL? Their attitude must be 'see you in court' and a conflict is inevitable. The only question is when- and in the event of this conflict, it's interesting to consider that Microsoft's extreme confidence is a matter of corporate culture and does NOT necessarily translate to victory on their part. The GPL is a contract- and the legal system is built on centuries of disputes over contracts. If Microsoft ends up in court trying to get the GPL invalidated, they will not necessarily win. They will, however, _think_ they can win, every step of the way.
It's a question of 'woooo, drawing the background of this menu isn't fast enough- where's an example of some x86 code that draws a background and uses (SSE/MMX/whatever x86 PC-specific stuff)?'
There's no way this is suggesting wholesale kernel replacement- or even major chunks of code. The MS programmers are largely fresh new just-out-of-college codemonkeys, and there's nothing like looking at some examples to whip out a working prototype or project. I think it's completely implausible that there's a highlevel movement at MS to intentionally steal Linux code. Instead it's probably a widespread tendency to look to Linux code for examples of how to deal with typical problems. Not kernel, but tiny bits of kernel functions. Not interface, but scraps of optimised x86 routines. Those are the times where you might be grovelling the web or your documentation looking for an example of how to SSE-optimise something or other- and if it's not in your textbooks? Then maybe it's been implemented by some geek much like you who happens to be writing open source for Linux. He'd probably want to share his idea with you anyway, deep down, right? Filch away and let the lawyers sort it out- they can't _really_ believe a mere license agreement is a threat. And that's how it'd go.
There's no grand conspiracy, just the interactions of different characteristics of Microsoft and open source developers.
They probably even look at the source code and say "Hey, that's neat too. I'll remember that."
But claiming that they can just drop Linux's code right into Windows, in turn improving the overall stability of 30 million lines of code is insane.
Microsoft employs a lot of people, some of them are even talented. They are probably capable of producing a stable product. It was just never a priority for their company. People would buy their crap because they really have no choice. People are still buying their crap because they have no choice, but a lot of people are seeking alternatives. That is why the company has suddenly decided that maybe it's time to work on stability. They're probably not going to win any awards for stability, but they're definitely making improvements relative to Microsoft's standards.
If stability was the primary goal for a company that makes billions of dollars a year, they would certainly dedicate vast resources towards meeting it. It's obviously not their primary goal (I guess "GREAT SOFTWARE!" doesn't mean stable software), so it'll suck a big one. Stability is now more important to them than it used to be, but it'll probably never be the number one priority.
The moral? Don't listen to Nick Petreley.
Under IIS 5.0 web sites can run under seperate processes, and those processes are monitored. If they do not appear to be running correctly they are killed and started afresh.
The Apache strategy is to have a child process only handle so many requests and then kill itself to free up memory leaks, etc.
I don't really see the big deal. The strategy is not particularly innovative or new, it's been done for years. Many people implement systems which check whether a process is working and restart it in the event of failure.
I think the idea that Microsoft used GPL code to implement this idea is laughable at best.
It really depends on how they're doing this.
If they reimplement the same ideas, then it is ok (in theory).
If they port the code, it is not ok.
Nicholas Petreley is perhaps responsible, more than any other person, for helping to move Linux into the mainstream. The effects of having a champion at Infoworld during Linux's formative years, a journalist who was able to not only regularly write columns about Windows but to influence the magazine to actually get front cover stories about this unknown OS--when the rest of the IT world was working diligently to collar itself to Microsoft's leash--cannot be overestimated. As far as I know, Petreley was instrumental in there being a Linuxworld.com in the first place. He's put his financial livelihood on the line for Linux. Can you say the same?
Some Slashdot followers really need to get the "all journalists are fools" stick out of their asses. All history tends to be forgotten if the writer says one thing they don't like, don't believe or--heaven forbid--is actually a mistake. News flash: journalists are humans, with not only the capacity to make mistakes, but with opinions they'll occasionally express. One may, in fact, argue that they're getting paid to express those opinions. That doesn't obligate you to like them or respect them (I have no measurable respect for Fred Moody, for example), but it behooves you to get half a clue yourself before you start slagging them.
One problem with Microsoft is that they have enough well-paid corporate lawyers, and a big enough war chest, that they really do believe that they're invincible. They'll take GPL code if they want, and worry about the legal issues later.
No court would force Microsoft to open-source a GPL-tainted Windows, especially a conservative Supreme Court full of Bush nominees. They'd be much more likely to declare the GPL non-enforceable and declare code covered by it to be the legal equivalent of Public Domain. It's the Golden Rule, folks: whoever has the gold, makes the rules. Welcome to the Corporate Republic.
Now, do I think they've actually stolen any code? Of course not. Anyone who's written code for both Unix and Windows, and especially anyone who's had the unfortunate experience of having to port code from one to the other, knows that the architectures of these two systems are way too different for ported code to run efficiently. It's hard enough making ported code run at all.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
yeah, he gives the general disclaimer that he doesn't hate Windows as much as he used to, but points out that he only uses it for games now.. I am no Windows lover, but I definitly see it as more useful than just a game OS.
He also seemed very adament about Win4Lin. Why not just put the damn banner in the middle of every paragraph. I wonder if he was making some sort of ad revenue from that. He should be, he sure was plugging them enough.
I am sure that using Linux code in Windows would be a violation of the GPL. I highly doubt that MS is doing that though. Just what they would need. More bullshit for themselves to dig through. Bill Gates putting up w/that sort of strategy? I think not. He would be embarassed as all hell if anyone ever found out. Give the coders at MS credit. They are extremely bright individuals. I am sure they are working their slave asses off to make a better product. Do NOT jump to baseless conclusions like that.
Well this may sound crap at first moment. FUD, crap and yellow journalistics. Penguins at wild...
But...
In the light of such things like this on (READ IT!): Microsoft honours Linux programmer with patent gong
I would take a more careful and detailed look at such rumours...
PS: Btw I submitted this thing to Slashdot some days ago, but, as usual "rejected"...
They have. I remember looking at the FTP binary in Windows 95 (B or earlier) and seeing BSD copyright strings. Lots of the networking utilities (ftp, ping, netstat, route...) function very similarly to the Unix versions, right down to the command line options. Imagine my suprise the first time I accidentally typed a netstat command at a C: prompt and it actually worked. :) I think the TCP/IP stack is even BSD-derived (if true, I don't think it's a secret).
Not once have I seen the obligatory "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." message in any Microsoft OS-related advertising, even before the advertising clause was withdrawn. Of course it's a moot point now.
Expect Linux stuff to be included in MS OSes. They couldn't call themselves "innovative" if they stole from the same schmuck every time, could they? :P
yup...still there
/usr/src/linux/CREDITS
N: Raymond Chen
E: raymondc@microsoft.com
D: Author of Configure script
S: 14509 NE 39th Street #1096
S: Bellevue, Washington 98007
S: USA
in
and that from a 2.4test series kernel
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Explorer.exe is the NT shell. It is not in the kernel. In fact, when you can kill Explorer.exe from Taskmgr and it will restart (useful when your shell freezes). With NT4, Microsoft moved graphics and GDI into the kernel, not the shell.
cpeterso
> There is no designflaw in NT that makes it unreliable.
Ever run it without the GUI?
> Dave Cuttler is a well known and well respected Operating System designer
...who unfortunately works for Bill Gates, who is happy to walk through the lab and say "make it more like the Mac".
The best engineers in the world are useless when their environment's politics are maladaptive.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And where does the "trusted vendor" get compilers and linkers that aren't backdoored?
It seems unlikely that GCC is backdoored, but can you prove it is not?
(Disclaimer: I know this is a troll, and deserves the Mod that it received. I'm also an expatriot of the Empire.)
Another way to say this is 'I couldn't think of anything on my own, so I had a quick peek at the Linux code for inspiration.' Some innovation. Still, I can't fault you for wanting to avoid reinvening the wheel.
However, I seem to recall an email from Ballmer forbidding everyone in the company working on or looking at the code for OSS projects, lest it 'infect' the MS code. Do you not remember that?? I don't have a particular problem with drawing inspiration from Linux code, but I'd prefer that you not do it, since it leaves the impression that MS code (or at least ideas) could also end up in Linux code, exposing it (GNU/Linux/OSS projects) to very expensive litigation for the misappropriation of MS's 'intellectual property'.
I don't agree with Ballmer on much, but on this point I do - If you code for Microsoft, you should/must not code for OSS projects (and VV), to avoid these kinds of cross-pollenation issues.
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
Is this a joke? Seriously how did this piece of crap end up on Slashdot which recently has become almost respectable and unbiased?
/. too. It also got people clicking on links, viewing banner ads and posting comments.
Hemos (and others) never said Petreley was right. Remember, one of the major points of Slashdot (now) is to get hits and people posting comments, and this article certainly accomplished this. It *is* food for thought, even though it is (IMHO) unfounded rumour-mongering.
This Petreley column is almost in the same vein (albeit less vitriolic) as Fred Moody's verbal diarrhoea, and that got posted to
A larger point is not the trustability of various Linux binary distributions, but that the Founding Editor of LinuxWorld magazine did not seem to be aware of this very well known hack. I guess I just assumed that anyone who had been around as long as he had would have read the Jargon file or one of the printed "New Hacker's Dictionary" editions. It's generally considered one of the most ingenious hacks ever perpetrated...by one of the fathers of *NIX.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Nick wrote:
In fairness, it must be pointed out that the Jargon File mentions a famous hack, where Ken Thompson put an undetectable backdoor into a version of *NIX. Does anyone know a reason to assume that they same hack couldn't be inserted into a binary distribution of Linux? I'm just trying to keep things fair.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
I agree with the posting that Linux code is unlikely to help MS-Windows. But I must have another thing coming, because I think many of the MS-Windows instabilities are due to flawed design decisions. Not just code bugs.
The Registry and it's access methods, for one. Including foreign drivers into the NT4 kernel for another. FAT in general. Idle busyloop in 95|98|ME [how the EPA let that one slip, I'll never know]. Low tick frequency.
Knowing these design flaws helps to run MS products stably. I run MS-Win95b too much, but haven't had a crash in 6 months. It does take alot of maintenance to keep them this way, though. My wife won't let me at her box until it crashes too often. Then I'll sweat for a couple of hours [no reinstall] and it'll be good for a couple of weeks. [double entendre intended]
If Microsoft was using Linux code in Windows, why the hell does it always crash?
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
-E. W. Dijkstra
FWIW, nmap'ing a Win2k professional box results is a vastly superior tcp/ip stack results. Used to be in the one to two digits, now for sequence prediction I got a 9499 (worthy challenge).
But there must be a way to check for the code; a utility at www.insecure.org called nmap analyzes the differences in the TCP/IP stack implementation of the different OSes. There must be something that allows the similar debugging in at the application level of most networking programs.
As well, what about the debugging output of various programs? Can you use the output of, say dbx, debug, or other programs to determine if the code has a certain level of similarities? I mean, if the code has 200 identical assembly commands as a native Linux command on the same hardware, wouldn't that be a strong enough indicator of code copying?
Lastly, if Microsoft is violating the GPL, it doesn't matter if they are causing financial damage to the original programmers. They are breaking a licensing agreement, pure and simple; and that's grounds for litigation. I don't understand why financial damage is even brought up in the article.
Of course, it's Monday morning, I am only one cup of coffee awake, and it's too early to think.
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
Agreed, complete BS. The fact that Linux users (or is it just the authors or columns?) are so high on themselves that everything must be a conspriacy against them. More to the point, if Microsoft was to take source from somewhere, it would be BSD due to the license. As a BSD user, I welcome this achievement as much as MacOS basing a good portion of their new OS on what I'm already using.
If they convert over enough, they'll start sending in patch kits (it's much much cheaper to let others maintain your source and business is still about money more than IP) for the parts they can allow.
Besides that, do you want to pay $1500 for a copy of BSD or Linux repackaged by Microsoft (considering it's a free download otherwise)? Certainly the average home user doesn't want to either. Using that logic, they'll never take so much source that they're similar in every way. Mac's sell due to hardware not just software, and as such they can afford to have much more floating around.
All that said, Microsoft still has an extreamly high number of inteligent programmers working on their staff. Probably gets as many man hours into their projects as significant opensource projects so theres absolutly no reason they couldn't come out with as good if not better product. This is an example of their customers finally getting what they want. Even most of those without computers are well aware of the Blue Screen of death.
I hope increased windows stability forces ram manufacturers to make better ram. That stuff's always going bad. (I'll only buy Micron and IBM anymore due to it).
Rod Taylor
Such a flaw does indeed exist, and it is NT's integration of the GUI code into the OS kernel. If MS designed for stability, then NT and 2000 might look and run more like Netware or Unix.
Mostly just hardware or driver failures are causing it to get unstable, the same with other OS-es. that makes it unreliable.
Why, then, can other OS's run on this same hardware (using drivers not provided by the hardware manufacturer, I might add) and still be much more stable? Hmmm...
You state it as if you have to DESIGN reliability. That's untrue.
We all know that careful OS design leads to better systems, but one of the key aspects of careful design is reliability. Contrary to what you may believe, stability *must* be actively engineered. Example: memory protection. It doesn't happen on its own. If you don't put it in, your OS will not be as stable as one that has good memory protection. MS has learned this the hard way.
Dave Cuttler is a well known and well respected Operating System designer, not known for misdesign in what he designs for a living: OS-es.
Dave Cutler is obviously very talented. VMS works, and keeps on working. If Windows NT and 2k ran like it, we would not be having this argument. However, I don't think it was Cutler's idea to try and maintain backwards binary compatibility with legacy 16 bit code and integrate the GUI into the NT kernel. These are marketing ideas, and they do not result in world-class reliability, as evidenced by NT and now 2k.
There is nothing wrong with trying to build the most popular operating system; MS has succeeded there. However, it is an entirely different thing to build a good operating system.
Agreed. BUT...
There's no rational reason for a tradeoff between
stability and usability. Win9x definitely has the
best overall consumer usability out there, but
that's not a reason for it being unstable.
Bad coding and the manner in which the third party
drivers are imbedded into the kernel is what makes
Win* unstable.
As for Linux, well it's definitely a teenager of
an OS. I've been using (fighting with) Solaris
since 2.2, SunOS before that, and various others.
They have their problems, but they're at least
mature OSes, which Linux just ain't. I'm worried
that its immaturity is due to the immaturity of
its coders (no offense, but most of them just
haven't been around enough to see what else is
out there), and won't get any better.
Still, it makes a damned fine router/packet
filter.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Oh, Lord. Not this canard again!
All of the various Microsoft products contain the Berkeley sockets header files. Until recently, each of those files, in turn, contained the famous "string header", and the requirement that it propagate. (Yes, the license has changed, but the poster was referring to the Windows 95 ftp code. That was issued under the terms of the earlier Berkeley license.) So, yes, of course they would pop up the Berkeley CVS entry.
Because you're not ranked as a troll (which should be a better qualification) but 'insightful', I care to reply.
What you mumble here is clearly bull. Win2K is designed to be rocksolid, as was NT. There is no designflaw in NT that makes it unreliable. Mostly just hardware or driver failures are causing it to get unstable, the same with other OS-es.
Reliability is something that is the result for careful designing and developing software. Not something like security you have to 'design in to get it'. You state it as if you have to DESIGN reliability. That's untrue. If you careful design the software you're working on, it will be reliable, unless your design has flaws, which I then don't call a careful designed system.
Dave Cuttler is a well known and well respected Operating System designer, not known for misdesign in what he designs for a living: OS-es.
Adding that up, plus the fact that Win2k is rocksolid and stable, I don't see why you're rambling about 'we won't see a stable windows for the next 4-5 years'...
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Ehm, not to ruin a perfectly good conspiracty theory, but: Microsoft already owns the source code for a full *ix implementation. It's called Microsoft XENIX, and they used to market it way back when Unix was still considered a possible follow-up to DOS 1.x. From what I remember, it was a piece of crap, but if MS truly wanted to, they could legally have all the Unix source code they wanted in their products...
Microsoft produces closed source software, without a lot of reverse engineering who is going to be able to prove their using GPL code ?
In reality it will probably be a Microsoft employee who will leak whether or not they are using GPL code after all they know whats going on.
Rememeber not every Microsoft coder is anti open source software. Don't assume that just because someone works at Microsoft they believe in Microsoft's politics. Most coders have a strong belief in ethics and professional responsibilites...someone would leak this if it was true.
Good article though, but the Microsoft using GPL code angle is purely theoretical and seems to rest on the argument that if Windows is getting more stable they must be using GPL code.
I think Microsoft's problems with stability come not from failure to care about stability, but their ranking of stability in their goals: it clearly comes far below things like gaming (yeah, even on their "professional" OSes) and backward compatibility with some of their earlier kludges. As a result, they're always patching the OS to try and get back the stability they sacrificed for other capabilities... and as a side effect, they get the bloat the OS is infamous for, which itself does nothing for stability.
I realize that this isn't completely different than what you've said, but I wanted to make this point: they do design stability in from early on... but they do it without much enthusiasm, and they do a relatively poor job of it.
If you really want to see an unstable OS, check one of their "consumer" OSes, like Win98 -- which must be rebooted at least once daily. Even NT3.51 was a paragon of stability in comparison.
---
---
Politics is about making compromises. Religion isn't. --Michael Horton
Dunno about the generality, but I do know this: this journalist (Petreley) just made a fool of himself with this article.
The article is patheticly absurd on the face of it, regardless of what the man may have done for Linux in the past, and I can't imagine this latest article will do Linux any good at all.
---
---
Politics is about making compromises. Religion isn't. --Michael Horton
Look at the menuconfig script, particularly the email address of one contributor.
You can also bet that Microsoft analyzes open source code. As benchmark-obsessed as that company is, how could they not? If GNU C, Apache, some device driver, or some other piece of software does better on some benchmark, Microsoft will surely analyze what is going on and reimplement whatever they learn in Windows.
Keep in mind that the reverse has happened to some degree for years as well: for example, people have disassembled Windows to figure out how to talk to specific devices.
Given that Microsoft is a large organization with lots of closed source and many fairly inexperienced programmers fresh out of college, I wouldn't be surprised if someone at Microsoft had violated the GPL. But I somehow doubt that it is Microsoft company policy to actually incorporate GPL'ed code--it doesn't make economic sense, and Microsoft is largely about making money.
So, I think altogether, there is a kernel of truth to the assertion that "Microsoft takes code from Linux". But I that isn't the same as widespread, blatant violations of the GPL.
The Linux community copies MS ideas at every opportunity it gets - WINE, Samba, even the look & feel of the desktops.
If MS really does copy aspects of Linux, then it is a victory for the Linux community, and validated us in copying MS ideas.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
Most everybody here says this article is bull, and I agree, but there is ground for discussion here.
Let's say, for just a moment, that in an effort to deal with problem areas in their own software, Microsoft analysed Free Software like Linux or Apache. In doing this, they may have found portions of code (let's say 200 to 500 lines) that do something better than a similar portion of code in Windows (in terms of reliability or speed). What's to keep them from copying a short portion of code like that, and damaging it into their system? Sure, it would take a lot of damaging, but admit it: it's nearly always easier to code something when you have someone else's example to tinker with and improve. (Or, in their case, to tinker and ruin.)
Besides, the author of the article has a very good point. (I like it more for the insult than for the truth in it.) From the article:
Or, perhaps, intentional sabotage :-)
Actually, I believe the real difficulty in a lawsuit with Microsoft is that no Free Software developers that I can name have the resources with which to actually sue the giant.
I think most of us don't like Microsoft because of their business practices. They simply do things that shouldn't be done for legal or moral reasons. (Remember the Caldera lawsuit, where Microsoft paid an undisclosed amount because Windows 3.1 was designed to crash intermittently when run under DR-DOS.) In my opinion, complaining about Microsoft won't help us. The only way to fight them is to improve Free Software. This takes cooperation and competition between Free Software developers, but I feel that cooperation needs to increase and competition needs to decrease. (How many of us need 17 competing, buy very similar word processors for X on our computers?)
While I agree with the notion that this is hype and not to be believed, it does highlight something about the GPL that frightens me: It's impossible to enforce it. *IF* a closed source product were to illegally include GPL code in it, how would anyone ever find out about it? The only way to ever find out would be to look at the source, and it's closed.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I now now that linux zealouts are idiots.
Before you flame, read on, PLEASE.
First off, let me state that am a long time unix user and admin, and I consider FreeBSD and Solaris my favoritre OS'es. And i have dabbled with linux since early '95 ( i think feb or so )
But come on guys, the windows 9x series is NOT, i repeat is NOT, aimed at stability, it's aimed at the consumer. Where easiness of use, and support is what matters.
Are these guys too idiotic to realize this, or are they just flame throwers and FUD spreaders?
And NT, as much as i dislike it, has some features, that although not turned on by default, are of great use, and not available on most os'es? ACL's, file attributes, etc etc.... stuff that most unixes are still trying to implement or get right.
Goin back to win 9x? does XFree even come close, and don't even bring the "remote display capabilities argument" , because it DOES NOT MATTER on a consumer OS, in terms of speed and display quality.
Linxu for extreme stability? HAH, sure linux is stable, compared to win 9x, and ok, i might give you NT on SOME configs, but there are so many cluless linux "ADMINS", and that alone makes it less stable than any other os. now that's the truth, not pretty, but true.
Microsoft might no be the best company, but donot question what they have done, they have managed to support the greates array of hardware than any other os. prolly as much as all the other combined, and still managed a reasonably stable os with all the legacy.
as a fact, most of the instability is due to third party drivers.
COme on guys, linux is getting better, and i applaud that, but it is IN NO WAY, th ebest OS" out there, it has a LONG WAY to get there, and there are situations where it is well suited it, but come on, don't push it...
i'll stop this cause i don't have the time to go into more detail....
I personally know at least two people who work for Microsoft and I know that they were told by Microsoft Legal that they are not to look at any Open Source software code. This is to prevent even the accidental use of some ideas from Open Source Software in any of the Microsoft products. The last thing that MS needs right now is another legal battle saying that they stole some GPL'd code. This would be a very dumb move to make on the MS side of things if you think about it.
"The bad news is tied to the explanation for why Windows may be getting more stable."
What is wrong with this? Is this not what we want? Do we want windows to die a horrible death or do we rather see it get stable? If you don't want it stable, why? are you afraid of a little competition?
"According to a source who has access to internal Microsoft developers, Microsoft has dedicated resources specifically to the task of analyzing Linux source code and rewriting sections of it for use in Windows."
Note these two words "ANALYZING" and "REWRITING"
Anaylzing is nothing wrong we do it all the time.
Rewriting again is nothing wrong, I can take any GPL program analyze it and rewrite it, and still keep within the boundaries of GPL, It is even much safer when 2 developers are involved at least. The first set does the analysis and translates the code to english/pseudo-code/specs, the second group works from the specs and produces code.
"According to the source, it is the adoption and translation of Linux code that is helping Windows become more stable."
Imagine someone quoting that the unstability of Windows is making Linux more stable. Or perhaps a few peeps from the BSD camp quoting that BSD code is making Linux more stable. Contrarily to popular opinion porting of a stable code doesn't necessary result in a stable port. It largely depends on the program especially when working on a huge and complex code base.
All in all, this is a useless article to start the end of my thanksgiving break. It is not worthy of discussion, I hope you all had a wonderful thanksgiving, as I did. I watched Gladiator 3 times, I am on my 3rd day without sleep. *Yawn*
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
His reasoning about reuse of Linux source turning Windows into a catchup OS is flawed. Any large program is likely to contain a large number of "components". Many of these will be useful but mundane things such as link list classes, tree sorters, task schedulers, etc.
Innovation doesn't arise from the quality of the individual components, but from the way in which those components are assembled.
Therefore, it is quite possible for MS to steal Linux code and use it to produce products that are ahead of Linux. In fact, we should expect that the result of such theft would be a product better than Windows without the theft, otherwise why bother?
As for whether or not MS is doing this, I suspect they are not. It would be foolish to do it with Linux when high-quality, legal BSD code is available for the same purpose.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
According to the article " According to a source who has access to internal Microsoft developers, Microsoft has dedicated resources specifically to the task of analyzing Linux source code and rewriting sections of it for use in Windows.....I suspect that such a practice may constitute a violation of the GNU General Public License"
Clean room reverse engineering is perfectly legitimate. The GPL gives you the right to ignore the licence and not redistribute. This still allows you to receive the code and learn from it, and even extract a specification from it. This is called fair use. The fact that source is provided makes reverse engineering a lot easier.
It's impossible to enforce it. *IF* a closed source product were to illegally include GPL code in it, how would anyone ever find out about it? The only way to ever find out would be to look at the source, and it's closed.
...
Which was one of the funny things about MS-DOS when it first came out, it was obviously ripped off from CP/M, right down to the internal names and variables, when you examined the binary with a disassembler.
Don't think, just because MSFT legal tells programmers not to use Open Source, they won't use Open Source. It works, it's been hacked to high performance, and it's a lot better than the usual MSFT spaghetti code. When you need code that won't fail, are you really going to reinvent the wheel, when they already built the best wheel there is and you just have to "borrow" the code and pretend it's yours
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
to write anything. These salesmen posing as journalists are getting way out of hand. They pretend to be objective but they aren't. Clearly Petreley is owned by Sun and Oracle. He is so deep in their backpocket that he hasn't seen the light of day in years. But he wants YOU to know that HE knows everything and, if you disagree, you know nothing. He is a self-absorbed geek and his remarks do not bear examination.
Is this a joke? Seriously how did this piece of crap end up on Slashdot which recently has become almost respectable and unbiased? The overwhelming absurdity of this article is beyond the imagination and anyone who actually believes it must be smoking some mighty strong crack (and NO ONE in software development will believe this shit and will immediately discredit this fool as exactly what he is : A pandering rumor monger eaking up hits however he can with absolutely no integrity or ethics).
HWND CreateWindow(LPCTSTR lpClassName,LPCTSTR lpWindowName,DWORD dwStyle,int x, int y, int nWidth, int nHeight, HWND hWndParent, HMENU hMenu, HINSTANCE hInstance, LPVOID lpParam) {
Unbelievable. If any of you believe this, please become luddites and get out of the software and computer businesses, because you're very stupid.
..that indeed MS is examining certain parts of the source code to linux. From what I understand, they have exhausted their supply of Mac source code and are in need of YET ANOTHER OS to rip off!
Are YOU listed?
This claim is absurd. There is only one kind of hint you can take from the Linux code: Design decisions. If you think that any Windows instabilities are caused by flawed design decisions, then you have another thing coming.
Finding errors with design decisions could be done by purely looking at theory on paper. However, the problems are much more deeply routed. They are problems with the implementation. I don't see how spying at Linux code could improve this. Let's call this bullshit a product of hype and move on...
Michael Labbe
The claim that MS is stealing Linux code to make Windows more stable is absurd on the face of it.
Windows and Linux have almost nothing in common. You can't just stick the Linux kernel in Windows and expect it to fit. Nor any major portion of it.
Reliability has to be designed in from the ground up. Frankly, that's why I give more credence to the people claiming that W2K is unstable than to those who claim that it's stable. Stability wasn't an issue at MS until Linux started getting popular. By the time MS started talking up the stability line, W2K had already been in development for several years. I know they didn't go back and retrofit stability as an add-on, because it simply isn't possible.
Now if they were desinging a new OS from scratch they might be able to benefit from Linux. But there's not really even any need for that. Good OS design has been an open topic of discussion among researchers for decades. All you have to do is want it and then apply yourself.
The problem with MS and stability isn't a matter of know-how, it's a matter of care-how. They have always been more interested in bells and whistles than in substance. If they are suddenly interested in stability now, it's because Linux's stability has been killing them in markets that they wanted very badly to corner. Expect them to brag about new, improved stability for several years while they go back and design their third generation of Windows with stability actually built in. If they're still in business you'll be able to buy stable Windows systems in 4-5 years. Not sooner.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
My m$ sources tell me that the recent 'stability' in IIS is due to analysis of Apache and copying the strategy, namely forking the process and periodically killing the children and restarting new processes.
So ... whilst I would seriously doubt the existance of any GPL'd code in windows, there may be some analysis and subsequent adoption of sucessful stategies, but this should hardly come as a surprise to anyone.
I am an avid Slashdot fan for at least a year... and I am used to the Win/Linux "comparisons" popping up from time to time. Fair enough, it's a competitive world. But the fact that a newspaper publishes a whole column revolving around a *hypothesis* that there is code stolen, and bashing Microsoft over a whole A4 page for the supposition that this would happen - that's a bit too much for me. It's not logical, it's not funny and it's a shame for Linuxworld to publish something like that. Go on, flame me!