Slashdot Mirror
Windows 2000 Source Code Gets (A Few) More Eyes
hansley writes: "Microsoft has extended its source code licensing program. Is it for distributed debugging purposes ? hmm ..." As the article points out, this limited and NDA-ridden disclosure is an expansion, rather than a wholly new idea. And remember, it has "nothing to do" with Linux or other Open Source software.
And before you mention it, yes, NT/2k uses a lot of BSD code. And they are fully compliant with the BSD license. Nothing unethical about that.
> If they aren't willing to pay programmers to debug and audit their source, they must not be able to afford it.
Ever heard of a beta test? Same kind of idea. The thing is that with this program, they will have the potential of thousands more eyes looking at the code, and testing it to see if it works right (which it usually doesn't).
I don't care who you are, but that many people costs a LOT of money to hire. So, why not have others do it for free? Sounds like a great idea for MS, and the rest of the people who use Windows 2K, because hopefully we'll get bug fixes faster.
Just my two cents
A very long time, if ever. It's really a ploy by M$ to be able to say to the DoJ that "3rd party individuals" are looking at the code. It also allows them to say, "Look at how confident we are in our code." I could also see them attempting to say something like, "It's open source for the 'big boys'. None of our secrets are out like those "other OSes", but we've got great new minds looking at the code." Meanwhile, those minds think the same way M$ does.
karma is for the weak >)
I figured they'd be too embarrassed to release the source code, heh. 65,000+ bugs. I guess they needed some way of getting all those bugs fixed and this is the perfect excuse - let more people see the code, point out bugs, and perhaps they can reduce that 65,000+ figure to the point where it's half as stable as Solaris or any other *nix.
No kidding... aside from appeasing Windows developers, conspiracy theory tells you this is a move to entrap Linux developers such as those working on Samba. A fair chunk of them write Windows apps for a living, and should their company ever sign up to view Windows source, any free code they now write is contaminated.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Cloned , not ported.
Careful with your terms, you don't want to get the xscreensaver developers sued or anything, do you?
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
Second in server shipments for last year is not a niche player. For the average office user it would be just as easy as Windows NT. Since office users have an internal IT helpdesk to help them deal with problems with their workstations and since Linux provides a great deal more crash information than NT, the problem can be diagnosed and fixed for good, rather than the reboot/reinstall and hope method. It isn't ready for the person that can't set the clock on their video, but neither is Windows.
My family often have to ask me to have a look at their PCs and I hate having to recommend a reinstall which, with all the updates required, can take many unnecessary hours. I would quite happily support them on Mandrake and I'm going to see if I can talk my dad into using 8.0 when it comes out, as he finds Windows' crappiness horribly frustrating.
And lest we forget this simple fact... revealing the fact that you are a schoolboy working on a connect-4 game instantly destroys your credibility.
Linux is just the kernel. If you want to make a fair comparison, you need to count the rest of a Linux distribution too, for example XFree86, since Windows is tightly integrated with it's GUI. Is PWS counted as part of Win32? Better add the source for Apache and WU-FTPD as well. Does Notepad count as part of the windows source? Add the count for lines of jove. And so forth... as far as I am aware, the lines-of-code quoted for Windows is for the whole thing, the entire CD distribution.
magnitude (if not two or even three) fewer eyeballs
Many eyes make bugs shallow if they're all qualified and more importantly, if they're all looking. On that metric, a far higher percentage of the people who have the code (MS staff and third parties) are useful "lookers".
It was the Internet that pushed the PC into the mainstream, MS was just a lucky passenger. Netscape were the ones that brought the Internet to the masses and sold all those extra Win95 licenses for Microsoft.
Other superior platforms and OSes existed in the past but Microsoft buried them all with a combination of marketing and anti-competitive practices.
From Article: "What interests me most is why they have chosen to do this with their Windows 2000 server and client offerings," said the consultant, who asked not to be identified. "Why not with Windows 98 or 95? Perhaps because the code was so convoluted, cluttered and full of bugs like the 'blue screen of death.' They were probably too embarrassed to have others look at it." Or maybe it was because 95/98 was a home user OS, I don't know about you but no-one I know has 1,500 liscensed copies of 95/98 in there house, which was the point at which a company could gain access to the Win2k code. Not saying I agree with microsoft on not showing the 95/98 code to anyone, but I hate it when articles quote obviously stupid people.
iRepairIT - iPhone, Mac, & PC Repair
Surely you can't be suggesting that Windows might be fragmented in some way. That is obviously nonsense since Office works on all of them and doesn't even run on Unix. (This is sarcasm BTW)
Everyone listen!!!
Run. Run like hell. This is an obvious attempt to pollute the world with intellectual property that they can then turn around and sue the living daylights out of the rest of us.
Think about this: You write a piece of functionality for a GNU piece of software after you've seen something that is somewhat similar to the Winders source code? Then the M$ cops come down for a visit because you signed your life away on the NDA?
Save yourself now -- just say no.
#30 TLS
It's not just that developers _want_ the source code, but the companies MS wants to sell to _demand_ it. VMS, IBM, Sun, HP have been including source code with systems ever since their first machine sold. It's expected in the high-end market. It helps in-house developers, and provides a measure of security, should the company ever go out of business or discontinue the product they sold you. Very simply, MS _has_ to do this... and it's not for _everyone_. Check out the requirements... 1500 Windows licences? Premium subscriptions? This eliminates very many software development companies that are supposed to benefit from this service.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
You are big, fat and rosy. You sign every paper they put, pay a $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ figure and get the source. After some time you get into a piece of code that doesn't get with you program. "Hey you have a bug here." M$ answers "It's not a bug, it's just a feature." Cool you produce a workaround. And launch your prog. However workarounds sometimes tend to mess with what they are supposed to work around. So M$ comes up and claims "You violated our license as you tried to overcome our own code." And here we go on juridical battles, Big Mony guys making faces to each other and DoJ trying another unsuccessful case...
I worked on a project that was using DCOM until we found out that the serialization was caving under high loads, we contacted Microsoft and they promised to address it in their next service pack (It took them a couple of months). Instead of waiting for the fix, we had to implement our own serialization and integrate it with DCOM. If we had the source code I'm sure Microsoft would have fixed the issue faster as we would have pointed out where the bug was.
MS Thinks that opening up a read-only source code view to 'elite' developers is going to solve anything?
This is not a smart move on their part as it's showing weakness in their propretary ways. They are validating the need and necesity of free-speech, not free beer.
Every little move like this is a victory for free-software (speech).
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
No shit?
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
It might lead to some creative patches for the UI. Maybe replacing the paperclip with a penguin? And it would probably really help with the windows emulators that people are writing (WINE). Hrm.
Windows Update has a fix to every problem. Here is a patch I suggest Windows Update post to their site. This patch will address every Windows annoyance to date. This patch can be found by going to http://redhat.com ToxicBoy [Stackis]
"Look where we worship" -- Jim Morrison
It piggy-backs on your original work contract; as an employee, you (might) have the responsibility to be held to all contracts signed by authorized people in your company. Most of the time I've delt with it, has simply been pointed out to me as part of the employee manual.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
By the last comment it looks like you have never run any of the Linux distros. I myself have run about 7 differnt brands of Linux, mostly on old equipment, and have found that it works pretty well on new AND old computers. Let's see Win2k do that!
Through this program? I don't see it. For one, this is just a broading of the existing program; you go to a MS-run secure site, look at the source on MS's machines, and then leave...taking nothing with you but what you learned. The NDA covers what you learned, so even that's not available to be shared.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Funny, I see more eyes as better, and though the average intelligence is lower, what does it matter when you have a larger sample size with more intelligent people? Your logic is screwy without any grounding in any true thought; your comment is here to draw a flame.
--
More eyes are better for Source than fewer eyes. Even if they don't have all of the eyes to read the code like Open Source stuff does!
Keeping
"I love Linux, and I would love to see it replace Windoze, it just doesn't seem likely. "
...
Of source it is not.
For the average office users using Linux would mean going back about 10 years
Yeah, it is where Linux is compared to Windows as far as desktop market is concerned.
On the server it is siply just another Unix , not the most powerfull or robust, but good enough to run ussual set of Unix services ( or deamons.)
Great for people who don't want to spend lot of money and have enough knowledge. In another words, it is a niche market.
Nothing wrong with that.
"NDA-ridden disclosure" ... I love legal speak ... ;-)
...
And as far as I know, Microsoft does not allow anyone to modify the source, let alone distribute patches. So much for the debugging
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
I was thinking of the time before the mid-90s when Internet was brought to the masses. By then PC+Windows was already such an established system that it was the obvious choice for going online with. I agree it could have been any other platform, were it not for M$'s strategies in the first place.
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
*maddest_hatter*
*maddest_hatter*
gir_in_reboot
"Z?"
"freedom of speech means being able to scream theatre in a crowded fire."
I wonder how long it will be before you will be able to get CDs with the complete source to MS Office, Visual Studio, Win2k, and so on via MSDN. Like how you get binary CDs now.
Five years? Ten years? Never?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Microsoft did cherry pick Samba, which is GPL'd.
How do you think they finally got that WINS crap to work so well in Windows 2000 (despite the fact they are trying to kill it with MS-DNS)?
Samba is the only fully documented source for the SMB implementation on Windows, not even Microsoft has documentation that thorough.
Considering the nasty PGP ADK bug I wonder how much good this will do for windows buggyness. How big was the pgp windows source ? under 50k lines if I remember. And windows is over 1M. What corporate bug fixer is going to find anything but the most blatant bugs in the early versions of windows ?
the whole "more eyes are better" concept falls apart when the average intellengence of these eyes are just that... average. I'd rather have a fewer set of eyes where the IQ is higher.. the source code tends to have a better architechure this way.
I guess I'm thinking of the difference between Linux and BSD.
I think you missed at least a couple incarnations: Win95 OSR 2.1, Win98SE, ... not to mention various OS+Office or OS+MSIE combinations that affect core files ... when exactly is one really looking at the source to 'Windows'? How many permutations of the actual core OS exist?
"We estimate this to be about 1,000 firms in the U.S., and not all of them will want the code," ...In fact some people would prefer it was just incinerated.
I was wondering the other day what things would be like if MS did something totally out of character like releasing an older product as freeware. Windows 95 seemed to fit the bill because it's not something you can go buy in the shops right now (afaik) , it's quite a few years old and it would run quite speedily on older machines. I'm not talking open source here at all, just asking: what would be the impact if they did that?
One for you alternate history buffs!
Speaking of which, I spent some time at the usual places (IRC, warez newsgroups, etc.) watching curiously if something would show up, but didn't spot anything...
To anyones knowledge, has a more or less complete archive of the source code actually been put on the internet somewhere? (not that I'm interested in the stuff per se, I haven't done any programming lately so it wouldn't be very interesting to me)
... just curious, really.
Cui peccare licet peccat minus. -- Ovid, Amores.
Do NOT look at this code. Any open source developers would have to be carefull not to go antwhere near this stuff. Next thing you know MS is shutting down open source/free software projects accusing them of "borrowing" from their copyrighted/licenced/patented/NDAed/trade secret and generally loathsome code. BEWARE this is poison!
Lemme see, open "ntoskrnl.c" into Emacs...
Search for "int main(int argv, char **argc) {"
And here we go..!
AAAAAAAAGHH! AAUUUGGH! Mine Eyes! I Cannot See! I Cannot See!
"I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
I. Disclosure of ";"
;'s in our code we will take the following action.
...
You or any party remotely affiliated, or even not affiliated with you may not disclose even 1 character of our code. Should you or said party reveal that we use
1. The first born child of every member of your company must be enslaved to M$oft for use as we see fit.
2. Your company must publish a public retraction of this treason by stating that it could have been a : or perhaps even an = symbol
3. The eyes and voicebox of every employee that has had access or is affiliated with anyone who has access to said code, will be removed.
II. Disclosure of "#include"
You or
~ fact is not dependant upon your belief therein. ~ ~ Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
Why use GPL code when theres perfectly good BSD code.
I see you, too, are helping clear the bridges of those pesky trolls.
let's hang out in the pub tonite and drink some Troll Sweat brew.
Billygoat Gruff III - killing trolls DEAD since 1616!
How does an NDA like that work? Does everyone in the company have to sign? Or does it just affect employees without their knowledge?
I doubt it. Several years ago, back when NT wasn't a single-architecture Operating System, I talked to a guy who sold file server appliances to DEC. If you recall, the DEC Alpha architecture was the last non-x86 CPU that NT ran on. This salesman told me that DEC engineering was very frustrated with Microsoft, because M$FT wouldn't use any of the bug fixes, performance enhancements, etc that the DEC engineers submitted. If M$FT won't use bug fixes from DEC, who had a very vigorous engineering department at the time, why should they use a bug fix from some lamer customer site? M$FT and the NT team in particular appears to have nothing but contempt for any outsider's abilities.
"How often do we discuss employment contracts and non-competes? The lack of talk on this issue here seems to show that NDAs aren't taken very seriously."
Man, we've had like 3 articles in the last week or so just on NDA, and employee's IP, etc.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It's already been ported:
bluescr.tar.gz, uses svgalib
part of xscreensaver, about 4/5 down the page
Not true. The Samba developers had better be careful, for instance.
If Microsoft goes to Open Source, it will be a big mess.
Microsoft's move brought some good ideas, and bad ideas to mind.
Good Ideas
Developers can assist with bugs, assist with security issues, shows initiative from MS and their willingness to open up on their inventions (code), gives small companies opportunity to place themselves on the map (giving MS assistance).
Bad Ideas
Developers will be scared by NDA & lawsuits, MS can turn around and attempt a buyout or slander the company for making a slightly bad NDA breach, can code really be patented and or copywritten? (even if someone distorts it to an insane method and capitalizes?), competitors may gain an insight to future MS products and capitalize on it.
MS has done good on its own for many years (yes they have done good after all check their market cap), and opening up even with an NDA sounds good but NDA's out here in the US may not mean anything in a foreign market, will MS's move hurt them or will it help them? To be honest I don't think it would do much at this point, right now MS isn't even working with the Windows2000 source code any more other than fixing bugs, maybe its good for benchmarking the next release, as for W2000 in its current state, guess bug patches will have to do.
Big Breach
360 degrees of Karma
who installs win3.1 and dos 6 these days? who BUYS those products these days? where would you get them new? I'm not saying that you're talking rubbish AC, i just can't think of where that would happen. please enlighten :)
MS code (and license) has the Gorgon effect with reguards to GPL code; after you look at it you can't contribute to free code. MS will claim that you stole ideas from them. I think this is some sort of poison pill for GPL code.
So, I think that this is bad for us free coders and good for MS, which makes it even worse for usLater...
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
Remember back in the day when so many "new" things seemed to be happening with computers? There seemed to be limitless possibilities. The Pentium had just been introduced, graphics were becoming better and better, multimedia capabilities were making their debut, and there were new technologies, programs, program suites and products being produced everywhere. Java, DirectX (or WinG), faster modems, more memory, gotta have DX instead of SX. Everybody didn't *have* to upgrade, they *wanted* to.
.Net might be something, but I would guess its DDE version 37 rather than something truly new.
This was before widespread easy Internet access (remember the ancient Compuserve dialer program?), so browsers weren't particularly important yet, but a thousand companies each seemed to have their "must-buy" technology.
That was about five to seven years ago. Now, outside of Linux, what truly *new* PC technology has emerged or been constructed since? Its just more of the same, and more after that. Pentium IV, Office 11, Windows 95,98,2000, MS Studio 7, and so on. Granted,
But its still a Microsoft product. Can *no other company* produce new technology anymore? Why is Microsoft the only company that seems to be able to produce even new versions of old binaries? Programmers have a staggering amount of information and knowledge and processing/storage power available. Again, besides Linux, where is the PC going?
Now, MS releasing source is probably a good idea, especially for an operating system, but everyone else seems to be just coasting along, still trying to get a couple more dollars out of the old "upgrade-reinstall-upgrade" cycle, and I think Microsoft is doing the same thing. I'm also not sure that releasing the source to their operating system will help the non-activity in PC development either, because of all the agreements everyone has to sign to use it.
I think it would be a lot better for the PC and technology in general if there were something new happening with computers again, or if, perhaps, Linux were to get more generally popular.
I hear Microsoft uses void main() while open source coders prefer int main(int argc, char* argv[]), so no problem there :-P
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Really?
Perhaps you should check out Sysadmin, they're a little more than a fly-by-night operation. They have been publishing articles supporting Linux.
BTW Supporting != Advocating
However I don't necessarily agree with all the solutions presented their articles.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Will developers that see bugs in the syntax report them to Microsoft?
Will Microsoft take an active roll in using any "suggestions" from programers regarding bugs in future SPs or versions?
Will the Windows OS improve as a result of this move, or just applications that run on the OS
The answers to these questions are the same: just because you have the source code doesn't mean you have access to the responsible programmer. When you find a bug, it will probably wind up going into the same support black hole that it did before. The value to the user is in making the best possible workaround as soon as possible.
How can those developers be sure that what they see as programming bugs really are, since they aren't allowed to modify the code (and hence, check)?
As noted above, your confirmation will be that the workaround is effective.
If an application writer uses undocumented side effects of Windows (that she finds in the source code) and the code changes (SP, new version, etc.), will we see new bugs?
Any programmer who does this is an accident waiting to happen, anyway. This possibility needs to be kept in mind in devising your workarounds, too.
Is this move by Microsoft good for computer users in the aggregate ...
Absolutely. In the very worst case, it can't hurt, although as some people have noted individual programmers might want to think hard about whether they want to put themselves in the situation of having signed the NDA. It worked out great for me, though. Years ago I worked for a large user of what was then a very popular computer system. Since I needed to write device drivers for some oddball hardware unique to our industry, I got access to relevant parts of the kernel source. When word got around to other companies using the same computer system, I started getting a lot of moonlight consulting work finding driver and datacomm problems. The source of the leads? The computer manufacturer's own account reps, who were sick of their unhappy customers getting no satisfaction from customer support (and who didn't have access to the source code, themselves.)
Some large corporations have Win3.1 based vertical apps used in things like call centers. As they expand the operations, they buy more copies of Windows 3.1.
A rewrite would be expensive, and often these things run on custom network drivers etc that are incompatible with Win95+.
Until relatively recently, MS even made money from sales of OS/2 1.3, which is even older than Windows 3.1.
part of the code;
set bugs = 1;
Oh.
----------
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
So I'll repeat what I said: I'm really having difficulty imagining who would want to get hold of Micro$ource. Does anyone have any scenarios?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
They'd have to target it at some poor suckers who don't know what the open source community/movement is all about.
That would be about 98% of corporate america. Most companies do not use Linux because they are afraid of going the non-M$ route. They ask, "Who else has done this and how effective was it for them?!" and they want to hear only big names... and a lot of them.
If M$ came out with a distro, most companies would go with it before they considered Redhat, Mandrake, Caldera, *BSD, or any other distro...
Yeah, but you are just looking at the linux kernel. There is a whole lot more to a usable distribution than the kernel. Not that I am defending M$. It just seems to me that you are comparing apples and bananas..
You forgot .S files, and you should also include Makefiles.
So maybe add 50 thousand more lines?
They bring in all the selected developers into a theater with armed guards. A big sign says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" in the center of the screen. Then the lights dim, the coders put on the 3D glasses and millions of lines of code frash before their eys. 15 minutes later the little kids from the local kindergarden walk around collecting "donations" When everyone is done they go home happy. Unrelizing that they spend thousands of dollars to see flashing letters in front of there faces, and were forced to donate money to kids.
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
A couple years ago when MS was first looking at Open Source, Steve Ballmer mentioned that Microsoft had done a study suggesting that something like 1-3% of Windows developers wanted source code access. (Back then you had to pretty much be an OEM, Wall St firm, or Fortune 50 client IIRC to get it.) I was intrigued by this at the time, since A) Microsoft had attempted to get hard data on the demand for this and B) that's a lot of developers. Obviously MS is finally responding to that demand, albeit in a go-slow manner.
--LP
1500 copies of Windows 2000 Pro at the going price of US$258 (at CDW this morning) =
US$378000.00
Minus the enterprise licensing discount (prob. about 10%).
If they aren't willing to pay programmers to debug and audit their source, they must not be able to afford it.
I can't believe they would consider asking for people to do this work for free, or ostensibly in exchange for getting an insider's look at the source code. I think this smacks of arrogance and is completely contrary to any kind of community fostering spirit.
I have an idea for what to do with the source they are revealing. I think it should be uploaded to file swapping services, web sites, newsgroups, chat rooms and anywhere else people can think to put it. Conisidering the 'saftey in numbers' lesson of Napster, we can expect that MS will be unable to go after anyone for this illegal distribution of their IP. That might make them think twice about such a self serving program in the future.
----------------------------
I had the chance early on in this program to be a part of it but my employer looked at it as an opportunity to try to change our intellectual property rights agreement so it became a no go. The MSFT NDA for participation is extremely restrictive (no contribution to any related projects). A few of the lambs here counldn't sign the papers fast enough though.
All of the stations where I work have Bimbo's 2000, and, well, lets just say new isn't always better, just like the boss isn't always right! I'm glad there's light at the end of the tunnel!
Please, no more distributions of Linux. I don't care who they're made by.
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
Microsoft has never denied this and always respected the licencing terms of BSD software.
Oh and not to mention all the "FP!" messages and all the kids using their l337 talk.
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
I don't think it's 150M, I think it's 30M.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
About undocumented features.
There is a large part of Windows GUI that is undocumented.
The one that I've in mind is the API the control choosing icons.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Your example is bad, as it's public domain rather than GPL.
Good point though.
arnald
NT isn't a single architecture OS.
There has been an Alpha port up until 2K B3.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
I must add that Linux does not have the Microsoft "brand". It takes years and millions of marketing dollars to build a "brand". I know this is hard for most /.ers to understand, but most decisions aren't made for purely technical merit. Marketing departments continue to exist because they work!
Where is the Linux marketing department?
Ryan Finley
Ryan Finley
SurveyMonkey.com -- Create your own professional surveys
we'll be able to set the "bugs =" statement to 0 and have a stable copy of win2k?
While the number of developers lost to both comercial and free/open operating systems should be low, we might never know the real loss.
If the NDA covers a whole company -- as the last one I had with MS for Win95 did ^ -- simply being an employee might stifle ... well ... inovation.
If so, this is a real 'win-win' for Microsoft in the long run.
How often do we discuss employment contracts and non-competes? The lack of talk on this issue here seems to show that NDAs aren't taken very seriously.
^. Not source.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
It would include an obscene number of proprietary protocols and apis, making it completely incompatible with the rest of the Linux world.
But through shrewd deal-making and corporate IT fear, Microsoft embeds itself into the Linux landscape, causing an irreperable fork in kernel development.
Of course, all they would have to do is put an ugy UI on NT and call it Linux. Most folks would play along.
Be affraid. Be very affraid.
Also keep in mind that much of that source code isn't used, like code for different architectures.
"Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
Microsoft aren't releasing this under the GPL, which is what (the post spin-doctoring) Allchin was talking about. It'll still be protected by all sorts of NDAs.
/CONSPIRACY THEORY >
< CONSPIRACY THEORY >
It's all a ploy to get more potential open source developers to see their source under an NDA of course. Then they won't be able to work on OS projects without fear of being accused of breaking the NDA.
<
- Blah blah blah, missing scientist. Blah blah blah, atomic bomb. -
Take their open source, pull apart pieces you need... say to be compatible, creatively plagurize it, and its yours. M$ does it all the time, finally a chance to get back :)
God spoke to me
I'm sorry. I've never posted a "I'm bitter because they didn't post it when I submitted it", because I don't really care if they use mine. I do think it's a little ridiculous when I submit it and they post it FIVE DAYS LATER! I remember thinking when I saw it on zdnet, "I'm surprised I haven't seen this on /."
2001-03-08 21:31:22 Microsoft expands open-Window policy (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
i guess it's just a matter of time before windows source code starts floating around gnutella.. and that they claim teh purpose is not for their cleints to be running their own custom made versions of windows and that it's just supposed to give them a better understanding of the windows platform is total bullshit.. looks like M$ is finally realizing that millions of programmers constantly working to improve code isn't something they can afford even with their R&D cash...
(disclaimer) Slightly Off-topic (/disclaimer)
So if they open up source (or partial source) on this, how long until there's a M$ distro? And who would buy it? They'd have to target it at some poor suckers who don't know what the open source community/movement is all about. After all, anybody who knows what's up is already running Linux, BSD or something else non-M$...
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
We don't need no stinking NDA for Microsoft's source code.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Ditto - I submitted it too, as did probably a couple hundred other people. Who was asleep at the wheel?
Hmm... Does this seem suspicious to anyone else, having just heard the total pile of poo that spewed forth from the mouth of one Jim Allchin? Just an observation.
The curiosity might also have something to do with the fact that this code (or rather Windows in the broader sense) runs on 90% of the world's computers...
arnald
This will be a great opportunity for someone to examine their code looking for GPL'ed code.
Wouldn't it be great to find some GPL'ed code in there.... What a can of worms that would be for MS.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
I don't but it. Even on a secure site, I can cut and paste. Even If they made the source into a *.jpeg, It would still live in my cache for a while.
I have a feeling that this program would require a trip to a "MS Field Office", or maybe they send a CD with a propritary viewer. The Field Office could do body cavity searches b4 and after viewing the code. The propritary viewer would probably have to be designed to catch virtually every screen-capture hotkey know to man. Actually, I could just set up my own hotkey sequence. Even if they were truly clever, a digital camera could be used to catch the screen.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Would that be the source of all evil then?
Perhaps it'll be easier to discredit GPL software.
Think of it. You release software under an NDA and lots of licences. Then someone leaks it. After a while, people who had looked at it as teens move into the world. They write some GPL utility.
Now they have to prove that MS code did not influence them! It's like turning the world into a non-cleanroom environment, in order to get rid of opensource software (since they can inspect it easily..).
--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
More like apple seeds and banana-cream pies.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
Simple solution: f you are a free coder, don't go anywhere near MS code or NDAs. On the other hand, if you are already immersed in a MS-only world, and are working on MS-only applications, and systems, perhaps this is a good thing for you. I think there is a sufficient differientiation between MS-immersed people and free software coders...there probably isn't all that much overlap there.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The companies who can afford the code. Microsoft is going to be very carefull who they let see the code. Each company has to be very carefull which employee has access to the code. Microsoft will kill them if let the source out.
I wouldn't touch the Windows 95/95 OSR2/98/ME code. That thing is probably a mess. Old DOS might be fun (back when all a Microsoft OS was a shell). But Windows 2000? Cool.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
My take on this whole thing - I think they are just trying their ass off to get ahold on the last little bit of the market. I mean - I am a realist, M$ is really kicking ass in the OS market, Linux would seem to not really be a major player. Depends on your take.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and I would love to see it replace Windoze, it just doesn't seem likely.
Anyway, to the point. M$ has the "large business" market, hell let's face it, they have pretty much all the business market as well as the home market. So what's left? The Open Source users. So now the pretend that they can get a hold on us if they just send us a little bait and make it seem as if they want to play along. Well Bill, I for one am not taking the bait. Linux rocks, and everything M$ sucks.
of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
How long before this code roams the Net? IM: Microsoft surely is aware that opening their source to large groups of people over whom they have no control, is going to result sooner or later in leakage to the rest of the world.[1] So why do they do it? They must have some kind of devious plan behind this ...
[1] - Surely this is open to discussion, but at this time I'm fairly sure about this.
--
Matthijs
If MS was any other company doing this, people wouldn't take notice.
However, as famous and infamous as they are, as disliked as they are by some people in the computing community, they can be sure that plenty of people want to get their eyes on their code. If they allowed more people to see the code they'd have plenty of volunteers.
Thus, by their bad reputation, they ensure heightened curiosity.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I remember a lot of talk from a couple years ago about how they were adding 20 million lines to NT to get W2k, bringing the total up to something like 150 million lines.
/usr/src/linux/ -type f -name *.[ch] -exec wc -l {} \; | awk '{sum+=$1;} END {print sum}'
find
1504406
(I'm not going to claim that was the easiest or fastest way to do that....)
So W2k has two orders of magnitude more code, at least one order of magnitude (if not two or even three) fewer eyeballs and no way to FIX found bugs other than the same old "we'll put it on our list". Yeah, that's productive.
--
324006
They're trying to dupe the simple into giving them free services - just like they've screwed over 'hobbyists' many times in the past - "here, try this alpha out, report the bugs to us, now bugger off". Remember, anything anyone contributs to the Msft effort is the property of Msft, all your rights belong to them. Suckers....
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
This was posted almost a week ago (6 days) and its 'News for Nerds'? I thought us nerds wanted to know the info AS it was coming out, not a week, month, or year later as we have seen happen with some topics here on /.
Sig? Hah, I don't need no stinking sig!
Will developers that see bugs in the syntax report them to Microsoft?
I come from a Unix world myself. However, only lately have I come to realize the vast amount of developer support that Microsoft products enjoy. With the VS tools, there are tons of developers who think MS is the coolest thing since sliced bread and are eager to look at and contribute to the OS.
Will Microsoft take an active roll in using any "suggestions" from programers regarding bugs in future SPs or versions?
I'm pretty sure MS will look at the bug reports it receives. At the risk of sounding banal, I'll say that fixing bugs in software is not just a simple task of someone identifying an "obvious" bug and just fixing it. For about every 10 "obvious" bugs that you fix, you tend to cause one regression which will cost you tons of hours to find, identify and fix. Sometimes (not always) it is just not worth the risk to disturb a relatively stable product for the sake of fixing an obscure scenario.
Will the Windows OS improve as a result of this move, or just applications that run on the OS
Doesn't it lead to the same result? When a crappy driver causes your OS to bluescreen/hang, who do you blame?
Will this lead to some increases in bugs? If an application writer uses undocumented side effects of Windows (that she finds in the source code) and the code changes (SP, new version, etc.), will we see new bugs?
You're just screwing yourself if you're relying on an undocumented feature in the code. There's a reason some features aren't documented (no, and not just to srew the competitors) including that they might not be ready for primetime, have the adequate amount of testing or were pulled because of lack of demand. It would just be sheer stupidity to rely on an undocumented feature for your product.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I wonder if it's a first step in "embrace-and-extend". Yeah, right, it "had nothing to do with the success of the open-source movement and the Linux ...". I think they're just testing the waters, and if open source software catches up with more and more enterprises, it'll just give them a chance to proclaim that they support open source. This may be enough for many IT managers who have heard the buzz word, but have very little idea what it actually is.
In the unlikely event that this is true, it wouldn't stand up in court.
Contract law says that in order for me to be bound by a contract, I must:
If my employer agrees to a contract on my behalf, and does it without my knowledge or agreement, then I'm not bound by it. Not according to contract law, anyway.
OTOH, if you've already signed a "non-compete" agreement with your employer, then you've got bigger problems...
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
You bet! "Nothing to do with open source..." LMAO...
As usual, MS has a very nasty surprise hidden in this program. Buried in the NDA for this is a clause that says "all persons that may potentially view and examine the 'code base' are prevented from participating or contributing in any manner to any product or service that may be considered competitive with current or future product or service of Microsoft or it's affiliates." In other words, about 90% of any future carrer of developers covered by this is foreclosed. Further more, it attempts to cover not just those that actually DO study the code, but all that may POTENTIALLY see it. And just to be sure, the names and positions of all those 'potential' developers must be provided to MS up front. Isn't that just wonderful.
However, in the DeCss Case, people took great care to show that they learned about the working of the algorithm by themselves.
In the case of normal goods, you would have to show that you acquired the goods in good faith. I am not sure that this applies to knowledge.
I would have thought an NDA is mostly legal bs that allows you to retain copyright/gain patents on the code while still showing it to people.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Have you ever wondered how the Blue Screen of Death in windows 2000 works ? If yes, get the source.
I'm just full of questions. Anyone care to try and answer?
The most important question (IMHO) is:
Support a few technologists in Washington.