Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 2000 Source Code Gets (A Few) More Eyes

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the ahhh-did-not-release-that-code dept.

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.

10 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. MSDN by Ed+Avis · · Score: 3

    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
  2. My favorite quote by kaoshin · · Score: 4

    "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.

  3. Re:Micro$oft Linux...? by Dman33 · · Score: 3

    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...

  4. NDA = Crack by Spoing · · Score: 5
    I'm surprised more 'paranoid conspiracy theory' posts haven't appeared yet. Be that as it may, the obvious danger here is that the NDA probably has a non-compete clause that would make it hard/impossible to work on other operating systems for a certian number of years.

    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.
  5. Re:"NDA-ridden disclosure" by Stormie · · Score: 3

    And as far as I know, Microsoft does not allow anyone to modify the source, let alone distribute patches. So much for the debugging ...

    The point of this isn't to get Windows debugged, it's to make life easier for people debugging their own (Windows) software. Enough weird shit happens when you're trying to develop under Windows, and although probably 99% of the time it's a bug in your code, at least the companies that get a hold of the Windows source will be able to check.

    So yeah, the motivation here for Microsoft is to make Windows developers happy. This is something they've always been big on - they know full well that the platform that the developers support is the one that will win in the market. So they've seen one of the things that makes developing under an open source OS attractive, and tried to match it.

  6. Allchin setup by jmu1 · · Score: 3

    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.

  7. GPLed code by miracle69 · · Score: 4

    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.
  8. Mmmmmmm.... by HiQ · · Score: 5

    Would that be the source of all evil then?

  9. What does Microsoft really want? by Tyndareos · · Score: 3

    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

  10. But Will Developers help Microsoft? by stomv · · Score: 5
    • Will developers that see bugs in the syntax report them to Microsoft?
    • 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)?
    • 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
    • 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?

    I'm just full of questions. Anyone care to try and answer?

    The most important question (IMHO) is:
    • Is this move by Microsoft good for computer users in the aggregate in the short term? Long term?
    --
    Support a few technologists in Washington.