Slashdot Mirror
States Demand Windows Source Code
Zeb writes: "Looks like the states who are continuing the anti-trust case
don't believe MS' claim that they cannot provide a stripped down version of Windows. They want MS to release the source code so they can verify MS' claims . Maybe MS shot itself in the foot here?" The Register has a story as well.
Heh heh heh...
Remove the beam from thine own eye, dudes.
I always wondered how useful the source code would be. At X million lines of code, plus the quality of comments and format might take an army of programmers a year to even figure out where to start.
If they did get it, could they afford the time and expense of analyzing it?
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
It's gonna take years before M$ can make the code readable anywho
"What's the point of absolute power if you don't intend to abuse it?"
Having had to read -one- person's code and make sense of it, can I ask where in the world the judge is going to find people who can read the source code -and- make sense of it -and- determine if the arguements have merit? And, of course, have it happen inside of a year? Any sufficiently learned group of programmers will probably be either too expensive to hire for the job or bicker amongst themselves... you have to admit, most programmers are either biased for or against MS in the first place. All it takes is one arguement and poof...
"I'm sorry, your honor, but the witnesses are deadlocked..."
When this happens, I sense a frosty day in Tartarus. (sp?)
Gee, could this mean we could see Windows on CVS sometime soon? Bet it would do wonders for 'tightening their security.'
"What's so random about flipping a coin? Ever heard of the I Ching?"
Better yet, I can imagine MS giving the states the source code to, say, Microsoft BOB or Windows 3.1, and waiting to see how long it takes them to figure out it's the wrong thing.
Wouldn't this cause the trial penalties to be further delayed? I mean delaying plays into MS hands as it gains further marketshare. How long would it possibly take to have an indepedent team verify MS's claims it cannot offer a stripped down Windows?
...stripped of comments, white space stripped,
merged all into one file, variable names mapped
to numbers, etc...
Did nt they claim that they shared their source code to groups that are willing to pay for it?
Giving ANYONE the code isn't going to help at all...29 million lines of woo hah
I really don't see the reasoning behind this
In the end, what it means is that M$ is just buying itself more time...they hold out on releasing the source as long as they can, and then when they give it up, it will take years to sort through the code...by then, they will be onto a new OS that has new "features" and we start the process over again.
...I think it's safe to predict the winner of this year's obfuscated C contest.
Wow! If windows releases it source i dont doubt that it will get leaked to the public... imagine that, windows could be in some serious trouble! if the programming public has been able to support linux for all these years, why wouldnt they be able to do the same with windows? imagine how cool that would be if there was 2 versions of windows... windows xp(or whatever) and open-windows (sounds cool too)... this has potential to be a very interesting situation... ms could lose a lot of money if this happens
spend money here
Clippy:"It looks like your Searchig and Replacing!"
Drone421:(Absently talking to Clippy)"Yep, I good go through each one of these
Clippy:"Please type your question"
Drone421:"hmmmmmm..." How to I do a global search and replace?
Clippy:"Please choose your Encarta (TM) topic: Harlem Globetrotters, Search and Rescue, or UNIX"
Drone421:"Hmmmm... I think on second thought, I'll ask the Hotmail people how they got rid of all the BSD copyright stuff in their code"
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I'm just wondering out loud here.
In the past, it has been argued that even MS doesn't fully understand the code to Windows, so how will somebody who is just starting to look at this determine what is happening?
This is misguided. There is nothing that will benefit the States in having the source code to Windows. Personally, I would hate to be the lackey that the lawyers ask to review the code for evidence.
Even if it did exist, what would programmers say other than "yes, with enough hacking, we can separate this out"? I mean, with enough hacking, you can get OS/2 to emulate Windows, or Linux. And if Windows cannot be split up, it only means that it is not well-modularized (but you guessed that already).
Most of these problems come from the peculiar notion in the US legal system that a company must have done something wrong in order to be subject to monopoly restrictions. The simple fact is that dominance of the operating system market by any system, be it Windows, Linux, or whatever, is not good. We need a diversity of operating systems, and that's what remedies should be aimed at. Leave Microsoft's source code alone.
I grow tired of the microsoft anti-turst lawsuit. Lets sue the real evil, AOL/Time-Warner
I liked it better when Time-Life could only send me empty threats over the phone because I evaluated "Wizzards and Witches" and didn't pay $17.00 for it...now the Beast AOL/Time-Warner, if I piss them off, can threaten to take me 'off the grid' I don't like that.
Like the states are going to be able to go through the code, understand it, and determine if MS is lying within 10 years.
How long do you think before we can download a leaked copy on Morpheus?
I am sure when MS stated that Windows could not be stripped down they never imagined anyone would want their sourcecode to verify this. But as stated previously, I doubt that the states that do get the source code (If they ever get it) will be able to do much with it. Even if they do prove their point, what are they going to do? Throw MS CEO's in jail for Perjury? I doubt any CEO these days could write or understand that OS's source code... including Bill himself..
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
Besides, if by some chance Microsoft did have to show their code, it would be done in an extremely closed manner. The comments here about the code being in CVS somewhere are just silly - wishful, yet silly.
Sinepaw.org: Grape Winos
They don't want anyone to see the source code because no one must ever know that Windows XP is written in Visual Basic...
States: We'd really like to know what this following section of code does.
Balmer: Code? What Code?
States: The line of code that says
while 1 {
gosub microsoft.world.domination();
}
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I would like to address two points that will come up.
1)A good software engineer will know how to approach this kind of project, and will know how to start.
2)its ease will determine on MS's standards and adherence policy.
3)If they can get the source code(I doubt it, but I hope so), I'm sure they can get documentation.
And no, I can't imagine a beo...you know the rest.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I seem to recall some tool developed at some university that allowed to remove IE without any damage to the system.
Am I totally wrong here, or is MS lying? Since they tend to lie all the time, maybe I am not wrong here.
...and all I got was this crappy source code!
(Parody of the 'I went to location and all I got was this crappy t-shirt' t-shirt.)
'cuz pigs are about to fly.
I got rid of Internet Explorer a few months ago, and my system is just fine.
I wonder if their proof involved deleting C:\winnt\system32\kernel32.dll.
just ask *explicitly* for a buildable source tree.
then build it, it would pre pretty simple to figure it out.
"Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user friendly. It just happens to be selective on who it makes friendship with"
Desler said state attorneys general are working "hand-in-hand" with Microsoft competitors, who "will stop at nothing to get access to our intellectual property."
Does Microsoft honestly think that the public's going to buy that? "We're not opposing Microsoft's illegal practices because they're illegal and snuffing out the competition, we oppose them because the competition is slipping us money on the side." Really.
Besides wouldn't the code analyzers be smacked with the same NDA's that colleges who got ahold of NT's source code were. Something like you can't develope an OS or develope system maintence software for windows for 5 years.
If I was a code developer that had the ability to understand operating systems (like windows) ... which I'm not ... would I really want to take the burden of examining this code?
And a stripped down version of windows impossible? Funny windows 1 - 95b managed to work just fine WITHOUT internet explorer. And NT was just fine until 4.0 came out. I mean what functionality does IE really bring to the Operating System. Not to mention XP, there's that stupid CD burning software, dvd player, windows media player, internet explorer, and funky skins. If you take that away from XP ... then you'll have Win2K :-).
IE integration is not neccessary to the OS itself. But I think that people really need to face the facts. If you don't like something ... do something about it. I'm not talking about suing ... I'm talking about not using it.
Let's get as many as I can remember here. BSD's, Linuxes, QNX, Be, AtheOS, Unicies (some are free now). And there are even non-free alternatives, MacOS, Solaris, Tru64, etc. If you don't like windows, stop complaining about how "virus prone", "crashy", and "crappy" it is, STOP USING IT.
Get yerself a CD-Burner and a high-speed connection and do yourself a favor, upgrade. And if you don't have the previous mentioned then find someone who does, it would take you probably all of 30 minutes to find one of your chaps that has the neccessary tools. Or get out of the house and off the phone with your lawyer, and go see your local UG (user group), perl mongers, BSD Users Groups, Linux UG's, Amiga Users, etc.
There are lots of resources out there, but you have to actually go find them. I don't think that you'll ever get a phone call "Hi this is Bill Gates, what can I do to make windows better for you?" , but if you do ... simply reply "Can you have an option to install Debian in the setup menu?"
Don't get me wrong, I dis-like MS, but what have they done wrong except make a complex math tool a cool toy that is useful? I don't see anyone suing MacOS for only running on powerpcs ... BeOS tried to get their foot in the door and linux runs on mac hardware. Is not an apple a monopoly in the mac world? Ohhh but wait, that's okay ...
"It said windows 98 or better, so I installed linux"
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
From TheRegister:
"The States also asked the judge to appoint a technical expert to provide "impartial opinions on the complex, technical issues" of the case. If she grants source access, we fear one of these may not be enough."
Just how, *how* are you going to find a geek that is impartial?
Not going to rehash all the "It'll take years to understand..." comments, that's obvious enough. So what does all this mean? Insert IANAL disclaimer.
Source released openly: What the states are asking for. This really won't get them anywhere. MS has been declared a monopolist, and going back like this is akin to going back to the murder scene for more evidence after the killer's been convicted. It doesn't do them any good other than to cause MS nightmares about their IP being compromised. Needless to say, MS hates this idea. Expect to see a scathing rebuttal within a couple of days. (Historical note: This is what one prosecutor did in the DeCSS case... put the code in as open/unsealed evidence, making it part of the public record. oops!) OSS advocates would love this idea, but without the compilation capabilities, it doesn't do Joe Sixpack any good unless MS accepts patches submitted by the public and makes them available for download.
Source released under seal: Same as an open release, but the source code doesn't get published, and only those people approved by the court get to see it. Takes even more time, more money, and accomplishes just as little. Only here, MS doesn't have to lose sleep over IP loss, just take care of a nasty migraine. Joe Sixpack gains nothing.
No release: Obvious victory for MS, but the case moves on faster than it would have otherwise, which (as we all know) MS does't want. Joe Sixpack doesn't get anything here, either.
I suspect that one of these choices is incorrect. Correct.
And the result? You have a product that has marginally less value to the consumer, Microsoft still with a monopoly on the browser market, its still free, MS have a company philosophy of making everything, and will continue to provide this for free, as long as they can justify the cost as advertising. Its also much more compatible than any other free browser, simply because everyone codes for IE.
Perhaps it shuld instead be possible to demand that other browsers are bundled with the OS.
I know who shot JFK.
....certain that they are going to point out "why" they can't remove IE stuff from windows.
The much harder side is for the examiner for the states to show why they can.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
During the trial, the government accused Microsoft of using its Windows monopoly to snuff out competitors who make add-on "middleware" products, such as AOL Time Warner's Netscape Navigator browser.
Since when is a web browser considered middleware? This reporter must have been watching too many IBM commercials and wanted to use the new words he learned.
I Heart Sorting Networks
Drone421:(Absently talking to Clippy)"Yep, I good go through each one of these .h and .c files and get the BSD copytight out of them - the states wann'a see the source"
Why would they bother? The BSD license is entirely free, unlike the GPL.
But I doubt there's much BSD licensed code inside Windows anyway... if there were I'd expect Windows to be rather more stable and well designed.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
If the code is open only to the states ... how exactly will the rest of the world know that the technical people checking over the code aren't some M$ ppl?
... and if it is, why would ppl ever buy M$ products instead of just compiling them?
What good, really, would it be to make some ppl sac. their source if it isn't publically downloadable
Paradox, no?
It's loads of fun to sit and think what terrible code microsoft must write, but you've got to be realistic. They are the largest software producer in the world. They hire smart programmers (bad designers, yes, but it's not like they have a bunch of skript kidz churning out SQL Server.) They have managers to make sure that the code is written properly. I'm not endorsing the end product or anything, but the code has got to look pretty good.
Now mod me down.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Why does everyone always get so caught up on browser issues? I rather think that nowadays a browser BELONGS in the basic application set distributed with an operating system.
There are plenty of other illegal and/or unethical practices that Microsoft is using. How come we never hear about those? Why is it always about the browser? I would dare say that the reason IE is popular is because all of its competition sucked at the time it was building its dominance.
So should the be allowed to include IE with Windows? I think so. I haven't yet formed an opinion on things like Media Player, MSN Messenger, etc, but I lean towards removing those. Where do we draw the line? I don't know. But the issue of those other included products never comes up (at least not in popular press. I don't know what happens in the court rooms.). And I never hear anything at all about other illegal practices not related to 'commingling'.
Can't they find something new to talk about besides the browser?
Alan
I understand that most of the programmers would agree that that MicroSoft could provide a stripped down version if they would. Their statement is just a legal stance.
States move is to put MS in a position where they have to choose between releasing the code or accepting the obvious.
Microsoft Research Source Code
So...
Quit.. Yer... BITCHIN.. If you REALLY want to look at/dis MS source code, perhaps you should just go to school. About 2 years into it perhaps you'll realize you're taking life a BIT too seriously.
From the page:
Microsoft® makes source code to Microsoft operating system products like Windows XP, Windows 2000 and Windows CE available to universities and other "not-for-profit" research institutions at no charge. Currently, there are over 100 universities worldwide with our source licenses.
Sounds like a new job for distributed computing (desifering the code, i mean) :o?
If the states want to use the source to prove that windows can be broken into multiple versions, and it can be done, why would you want a different distribution of windows? I mean both the good and bad thing about Windows is that it is so dependent on itself to run. Without the whole enchilada that is windows, it would lose a lot of value. (Imagine not being able to run old DOS programs in windows NT/2k/xp)
It's one problem that linux has today, since there are so many different distributions that are subtley different, sometimes you have massive problems getting programs to work correctly. It's much better then it was in the past, but Windows doesn't seem to have this problem as often as linux ( IMO ).
I see this as a possiable way for say people in the WINE project to get access to the 'hidden' features of the windows API that everyone keeps on saying exist.
It is possible to remove Internet Explorer completely from most windows operating systems. Take a look at IEradicator. I have used 98lite with very good success in installing a stripped down version of windows 98 on my mother's old computer.
Here is a quote from their website about IEradicator: "IEradicator is tiny, script that uses the Windows setup engine to surgically remove Internet Explorer versions 3 through 6.0 from Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium and Windows 2000(sr1)."
You can download it from the company's website for free. It used to remove the entire HTML rendering engine but their current version leaves this in. If you want, you can buy the full version which will remove that too, effectively completely removing internet explorer from windows.
Adam
Hey, that is a cool quote of
/.ed,
The Hackers Handbook
The JARGON file
In its entirety you can view it at,
for example:
http://www.ccil.org/jargon/
Of course, if the site gets
Google*s cache and/or search functions
are your friends.
YMMV
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
At least, with the 9x versions. Take a look.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
What this article fails to mention was Mel's problem with alcohol and animal husbandry. Poor, afflicted Mel.
Microsoft has made a number of assertions during the original trial and is sure to attempt to make a bunch of other assertions now.
All the States have to do (yeah, merely) is to look at one or two of the assertions and attempt to disprove them with the source code. At that point they can call the credibility of a particular witness into doubt and impeach their entire testimony.
Remember, the biggest complaint most of us have had is that MS has been making unsubstantiated claims about the technical merits and difficulties of certain actions. This way the States could go out and prove they're unsubstantiated.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
it's quite possible that from the first time Bill said "can't strip it down, it's all integrated" he set his team to work on actually integrating everything into one big lump. the source that they have now and the source that used to be may be entirely different. he may have seen this ploy coming, and, now that he's prepared, may be totally willing to turn over the source.
do not read this line twice.
In Tuesday's motion, the states also asked the judge to appoint a technical expert to help provide "impartial opinions on the complex, highly technical issues raised by the parties."
I hope they plan on having more than one expert to help them analyze the code. I think they underestimate how big of a job it will be. One of two things might happen, either they look at the code and say "we dont see why MS cant split the browser out", or they look at the code, freak out and just take Microsoft's word for it because they dont want to admit they lack the intellectual capacity to understand source code.
I Heart Sorting Networks
Can't strip down the code that's a huge joke. They've already proved that they can do this. Look at the xbox with it's 28k kernel(it might be more or less but it's around there)of windows 2000. You can always strip down code. The only way you couldn't strip the code down anymore if the code was a single off bit. Then I'd have to side with microsoft and say it couldn't be stripped down anymore. Microsoft though will probably win and not have to show thier code. I don't think the coke acronymn though is right. It is like asking coke whats the minimum amount of ingredients you can combine to still have coke. The awnser is exactly what is in there, with windows the answer is obviously a heck of a lot less than there is in there now.
If your not cheating your not trying. If your not trying your not winning and if your not winning why play?
#!try/reading/source/without/comments/perl
/s /b c:/enlistment`;
@files = `dir
for $sourcefile (@files) {
open INFILE, $sourcefile or print "Error: $sourcefile: $!\n";
read INFILE, $source, -s INFILE;
close INFILE;
$source =~ s!/\*.*?\*/!!gs;
$source =~ s!//.*\n!\n!g;
open OUTFILE, $sourcefile or print "Error: $sourcefile: $!\n";
print OUTFILE, $source;
close OUTFILE;
}
print "Finished!";
Doesn't the existance of programs like 98lite prove that Windows can run without IE. Yes the mshtml.dll engine is left in there for programs that want to use it, but the browser itself can be purged. Why isn't this proof enough?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
Doesn't the gvmt have enough lines? Everytime I go to city hall, the dmv, etc, I think, "wow, how many more useless lines can they get"....
Looks like they want a few million more....
;)
then prove they can run windows without IE and stuff, basicly doing tons of work for microsoft, code wise for the cost of an antitrust trial?
And if MS wins they get it all for free, good deal.
IANAL so I'd like to know hoe people can ensure, if the code is released, that it'll stay private and confidential and that the copyright won't be screwed over. The code can't go public. A substential number of people will have to see it in order to sort it out, and then explainit to the court. What prevents those people to say "No this code cannot be separated into many modules"? I mean, it's all down to interpretation (I know that's what justice is supposed to do), but code can be rearranged, it just depands how much money you're willing to spend on it!
Somebody enlighten me please...
Imperium et libertas
Autocracy and freedom
Could the states higher experts, possibly former MS employees to guide them through the code or would that be seen as a conflict of interest since the technical experts in question are former employees? There has to be a lot of people who have worked with the windows source code over the years.
link
lol
It'll probably come printed on green bar paper
printed in yellow ink.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
"Microsoft cannot base its defense on the design of its source code and simultaneously deny the litigating states the opportunity to test those arguments by interrogating the code," the states said in their filing.
"All right, COMMAND.COM, talk! Where are you hiding those hooks?"
The following file is missing or corrupt: COMMAND.COM. Type the name of the Command Interpreter.
"Don't play dumb with me, mister! We've got EXPLORER.EXE in the next room, and he's telling us plenty!
The following system files have been replaced with older versions by a program you recently ran. These files are currently in use and cannot be...
[smack] "No more of that funny stuff, wise guy! You don't think we're on to you? You think we don't know exactly what you're trying? Why not make it easy on yourself?"
Cannot find a device file that may be needed to run Windows or a Windows application.
"Well, I suggest you find that file quick, before one of your SYSTEM32 buddies rolls over on you."
An internal consistency check failed.
[pause] "Does that mean you're ready to talk?"
The system cannot find the path specified.
"All right, get him out of here."
normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
...that Windows XP was really developed in Fortran
I Heart Sorting Networks
It should be obvious to everyone that trully removing IE from windows would break it!
The problem with referring to Microsoft's operating system as simply "Windows" means that we mesh together the kernel and the user interface into one generic term. Would removing IE break the kernel? Of course not. UI code such as browsers does not live in the kernel. But would it break the Windows user interface? Yes.
IE is tightly integrated into the UI. Click "My Computer", "My Documens", or open the File "Explorer" and what pops up? Why it's IE! Not, chance that url at the top that say "My Computer" to http://slashdot.org and now you're browsing Slashdot with Internet Explorer.
It would be impossible to remove IE without breaking the user interface. And why should they remove it? It's their user interface. The same thing holds true in the KDE world. You browse your home directory guess what you're using? Konqueror! The same web browser that comes packaged with the desktop. Similar? I think so.
The point is, I hate MS probably more than most people, but should we care that IE is tightly integrated? I think it's to the user's benefit that it is. Now whether or not Microsoft should allow the user to entirely disable IE's internet exploring abilities is another question. If I make Mozilla my default browser and I click on a link in my email, Windows will open up Mozilla. However, if I type a link into "My Computer" explorer, it just opens the link in that window (ala IE). Maybe the behavior should be to pop open Mozilla?
Anyway, like them or not, Microsoft destructive monopoly. But should packaging a tightly integrated web browser with the user interface illegal? I think not.
"Ok, here is the source code you requested."
"Thank you for complying." *scan* "Where are the whitespace and comments."
"Oh, this is our stripped down version." *two weeks later*
"This will not compile. You must have messed it up when you stripped it down."
"Oh, I must have forgotten to give you this header file. Yah, you need this one."
"Ok, thank you for complying." *two weeks later*
"No, it still won't compile. Are you sure you gave us everything this time?" *two months later, 7 "missed" files later*
"I'm afraid this really is outside the scope of our license. If you need help compiling, please call our technical support center."
best web host ever
I'm not the first to point this out, but it bears repeating: having access to the source code and understanding the source code are two very different things.
Which makes me wish that somebody was running a Windows clean room. If you needed to work with a Windows API with incomplete or incorrect documentation, you just submit a question to the Windows clean room, and they figure out what the API really does.
Did I say that Microsoft doesn't do hidden features on purpose? I lied! It's all part of their monopolistic conspiracy! The antitrust settlement must require them to set up a clean room!
The fact that the BSD license is not viral is not the issue here. The fact that Microsoft has spent a lot of time and money explaining how it is the innovative force in software today and how quaint the open source projects are is the issue. If it became known that portions of Windows are based on open source code, the result would be a MAJOR PR blow for Bill G. & Co.
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
Why stop at the "prove it" reasoning? What if our national security depended on opening Microsoft's code? The Edge Report has posted an interesting article talking about the national security implications of closed source software. While the infiltration of Microsoft by Al Qaeda may have been only a rumor, the article explores a world where this could happen. And guess what? We're living in it. It closes with a powerful statement: "Closed source software vendors, in the name of National Security: Open your Code!".
http://www.edgereport.com/article.php?sid=135
--
The source code is not at the center of their monopoly, it is their monopolistic business practices.
It isn't as if they maintain a monopoly through superior code and secure bug free implementations. It is through capitalizing on their market position using anti competitive business arrangements to extend their market position and share in a way that no other company has been able to do in recent memory. Not since Standard Oil I think. (ATT is a more recent example, but they didn't really extend their market, just prevented others from capitalizing on it.)
Also, source code is a vague term here... which version?
It doesn't make one bit of difference if they actually remove all the DLLs that make up internet explorer. The thing that kills competition is that MS puts icons for their own services all over the place.
Look at XP. Go to the Start menu and you have Internet - MSN Explorer. On my new 2000 box, they had a Money bar installed by default into IE that pops up whenever I go to a page that has $xx.xx text in a link.
If these things were never there, and MS had to advertise like everybody else, then it would at least be fair to competitors as well as ISPs that have to deal with users that keep screwing up their settings by clicking on everything on the desktop.
Why would they bother? The BSD license is entirely free, unlike the GPL.
But the copyright notices still need to be there.
But I doubt there's much BSD licensed code inside Windows anyway...
Actually the urban legend states that the entire TCP/IP stack in Windows is based on the BSD stack.
So if the rumors are true, and its is based on the BSD, then Microsoft would need to make sure that all the copyright notices were not removed. Otherwise, we're talking lawsuit city (as well as a PR shitstorm).
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
I've forgotten more programming languages than most people learn - so picking up visial basic (if needed) would be easy. I would gladly spend hours analyzing and adding comments to the M$ WindBlows codebase for the government to finally see how evil microsoft is. (FYI: I currently know and use C/C++, PHP, HTML, JavaScript, SQL. Used to write Apple II BASIC, Java, a bit of TCL, mIRC Script, ZShellScript (TI-83 Calculator)
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
int main() { //Pause to show logo
if (ie.detected() == false)
exit(1);
else {
bootLogo.show();
double x,y;
for(x = 0; x 2000000000; x++)
for(y = 0; y 2000000000; y++);
windows.begin()
}
I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
Assuming the states win this and gain access to the source code for Windows. It will most likely be made available to the States so they can look at it but it still would not be made available to the general public.
My question is what happens when someone leaks the source code? Then Microsoft will be able to claim monetary damages from the States for the distribution of its source code. The states would be responsible because they would have been employing the analysists. Microsoft could claim some serious damages from the states.
I gather that the TCP/IP stack is BSD-derived. And guess what? That part of Windows works. ;-)
Otherwise I could post the code right here!
"I doubt any CEO these days could write or understand that OS's source code... including Bill himself.."
What are you talking about? Billz got mad coding skillz. Didn't he write Edlin?
This is pretty much what everyone would say - make sure you can compile and run from the code before its accepted (and if it doesn't, find MS in contempt of court, and jail all its corporate officers).
(paraphrasing)
M$' biggest problem with releasing the source code would be getting rid of all the damning comments... i.e. "This breaks DR-Dos", "This breaks Wordperfect"...
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
It would take a week or so, max.
If the court orders this and selects competent experts, they aren't going to wait while MS prepares a very special set of media. They will send in Federal Marshals to take control of the MS servers containing all source code for anything that ends up on the Windows OEM disc and copy *everything* on them. MS won't regain access to its systems until the experts can build the Windows OEM disc on their own systems.
If Microsoft claims it doesn't know where all of the source code is stored (yeah, right), that's not a problem. The Marshals can seize the entire Redmond campus just as easily as they can seize a few server rooms. They should be able to seize the computers and media from all offices within a week or so, then they can sort it out back in the lab. Microsoft can easily afford to replace all of those computers. (The contents are another matter, but they'll have to request copies from the Marshals.)
Think this is unrealistic? Ask any victim of a BSA raid - and they've only been alleged of doing something wrong. Microsoft has had its day in court, been found guilty (and this verdict has been sustained on appeal), and is now being told to sustain its claims during the penalty phase.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Hey moderators, trolls and flaimbait are things that would spawn negative discussion and are not really relavent to the story posted.
Go read the moderator guidlines before you go just modding shit.
The Big Bad Man
All I see is blue screen, stop error, page fault..
--Yahiko
Everything I say is a lie.
Except that. And that. And that. And that.
I removed emacs and all libraries it used and suddenly my entire system stopped working. After some testing, I discovered that if I left the libc library around, removing of the remainder of emacs did not cause the entire system to become unusable.
Libraries used by an application are not the application. This is the root of the debate. Microsoft has defined IE to include libraries used by other programs, and other people have a more limited definition.
I could define IE to include the entire Windows operating system as part of it. I do not consider that a valid definition, as there are very few computers with Windows installed for the express single purpose of using IE. As soon as the HTML engine was being used by other applications than IE, it was no longer part of the IE application.
Are they going to be giving them the code for 95, 98, 98SE, XP, 2k? what? I mean if they gave them the code for 98SE they would find that no, you can't provide a stripped down version of windows because well, everything is so twisted up and tied together. If they gave them the code for 2000 they would find that the only thing preventing a stripped down version are lines of code like
if( explorer != installed){
stop.working(now);
}
remove those and you got tiny 2k.
Also, doesn't the mere existance of windows CE already prove that there can be a stripped down version of windows? Hello?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Perhaps it's me, but if the states are not believing MS, who is suprised by that? And what influence should it have on the trial? NOTHING! It's the judge who calls for a showing of code when SHE doesn't believe Microsoft. The states can yapp all they want. If the judge doesn't think code is necessary, MS doesn't have to show 1 line of code.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
...will be Lawyers vs. Hungarian Notation. Poor bastards.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Also would it give evidence on how MS "breaks" competing programs?
It would be, however, a BugTraq fest waiting to happen! ;-) The flip side of which would be that they will no longer have to have their month-long moratorium on new coding to clean up their code. Others will do it for them.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
(Parody of the 'I went to location and all I got was this crappy t-shirt' t-shirt.)
No! You're shitting me! I thought it was something you came up with on your own.
We return back to this same issue - the tying of the browser to the OS. However, it seems like the real question is never asked, and an answer is never forthcoming...
Even if it is proven that the browser could be separate, that does nothing to bring Netscape, the company (rather than the AOL subsidiary or whatever they are now), back. It does not help any stock valuing, it doesn't help investors - Netscape - the company - is dead.
Yet we don't hear from the states - the last hope (maybe) to get this settled honestly and justly - that Microsoft has been found to be guilty of using its monopoly powers illegally, to force another company out of business. They VIOLATED ANTI-TRUST MEASURES! It wouldn't have mattered if the browser was part of the OS, if it was separate and installed with it, or if it was given away free on a CD in every box of Cherrios on the store shelves. The fact that they dropped the price to zero and gave it away, plus using thier advantage in the OS market to sway people into using it (by either installing it with the OS or tying it in someway), in order to undermine a competitor in an "unrelated" software product (Netscape and the browser business) at the time - this is illegal under the Anti-Trust laws.
This lawsuit is not about today - it is about what happened so many years ago. Today, it seems pretty obvious that a browsable UI and OS seem like a good solution (or at least "a" solution). Back then, though, they were nearly two separate pieces of software. But today, the states seem to be treating this lawsuit as if it were about the present situation in software - when that isn't the case, nor should it be.
I want Microsoft to be punished for its actions against Netscape and against the consumer - for these actions removed a choice from the consumer - a choice to spend or not spend their money (ie, buy Netscape for $$$), as well as causing what may have been the premature "death" of a company (of course, this is only one aspect of the entire lawsuit - the whole thing with licensing restrictions on OEMs to prevent them from selling or installing onto systems other OSs, etc - locking in a OS monopoly on hardware OEMs - more anti-trust issues)...
I want an full answer on that - why aren't we (as citizens and consumers) getting that answer?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You don't need to look at the source code to know that M$ has made their webbrowser apart of its operating system. Just go to IE and type in c:\windows and tell me what it looks like.. but we all know this. So why even bother looking at the code.
thelikesofwhich.com
If I am not fully confused, Microsoft hasn't
ever criticized open source software, but
Free (as in FSF) Software, specifically
that with the GPL license (I never saw a
microsoftie even know about the LGPL).
Open Source - http://opensource.org
is a completely different thing, and as you
might know, the NT 5 (aka Win2k) TCP/IP-Stack
(IPv6, by the way, might be not) is derived
from an early FreeBSD one. Legally ok.
And, while we are at TCP/IP, the first Winsock
implementation used an API in Berkeley style.
(However I do not know about actual code.)
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
Would you like to see a list of homonyms so you don't make an idiot of yourself in public?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I'd like to see all the ideas and segments of code they've taken from others (*NIX) through the years and put into the M$ OS.
...I think it's safe to predict the winner of this year's obfuscated C contest.
Actually, a friend of mine who works with Microsoft has told me at length of strict standards for appearance and organization of code that they hold every single department to--as well they should. Chances are that a piece of Windows or Office code would in fact be extremely legible.
The coolest voice ever.
Microsoft has integrated these same components deeply into the OS so that Help, installation wizards, and other types of content and documents (Word, Excel) are rendered using the same engine.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
The problem for MS is that by allowing people to see the source for IE (for example), they'll let people see how the APIs are really used.
For example, there is a 'standard' API call to refresh a window - but IE doesn't use it - it uses a different publicly undocumented call. (Anyone who's used IE under VNC will know what I mean - VNC hooks into the standard API for screen updates.. when you use IE and scroll the screen, the VNC client doesn't know that the window has changed.)
Why is this? Because doing so gives IE some advantage over other (non-MS) programs.
This is what's scaring MS shitless - not that they will be able to 'strip down' the OS, but that people will actually be able to make products that compete with MS stuff on even terms. (Which incidentally, is what this whole lawsuit is about.)
Being modular is part of the problem. The entire help system, the file system explorer, large parts of applications and so on are all reliant upon the HTML rendering engine of Internet Explorer.
Honestly, Microsoft should just remove iexplore.exe from the system and say "There we've removed IE." and leave it at that. Instead they are arguing semantics with people who are technically incompetent.
I also don't see an argument for why we need a diversity of operating systems. Or rather, why you feel we don't already today have a diversity of operating systems. Linux is available, so is various forms of MacOS, BSD and so on. Fact is there is probably a wider variety of operating systems available today than at any other time in the history of personal computing.
The fact that not all of these operating systems are on equal footing in terms of hardware and software support is a result of effeciences of scale. The scale argument is the reason against diverse operating environments.(I include the hardware in along with the OS)
if (app.name == "netscape") {
exec_mode = SNAIL;
} else if (app.name == "explorer") {
exec_mode = TURBO
}
MS Attorney: Your Honor, my client agrees to turn over the Windows source code when it is finished.
Judge: And when will that be?
NY Attorney General (whispering): When no one has any money left with which to buy Windows.
MS Attorney: Well, it's hard to say...
Judge: You will deliver the source code in its present state to this court no later than two months from today.
MS Attorney: Your Honor, my client respectfully requests that Windows be treated as an intelligent life form and therefore allowed to plead the fifth.
Releasing Windows source is part of the states' proposed remedies. They shouldn't get this for free as part of the proceedings.
The states just finished arguing that calling the witnesses on MS's list would delay the process but apparently evaluating the Windows source code would not. How absurd. The states have no real interest in the source code for evidence, but they know its release will make Sun, Oracle and AOL happy which is, after all, what they're there for.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Who is going to do the anaylsis and it would probably take a year or more comb through 40 million lines of code.
Even if they succeeded in making MS shrink Windows they will just make it like Linux. A small OS on distrobution with 1000's of supplemental programs. Nothing will change.
The real and IMO only problem with MS is on the business side and how they dealt with VARs. Fix that and you will open the markets up. If someone else can come up with an OS for the masses like Mac or Windows they will have a equal shot at the VARs. Then it will be a simple popularity contest the way the rest of the market works.
Last all this anti-MS stuff isn't going to make the masses want to use Linux or Open Source. Linux and Open Source product have to appeal to them and right now they are still too difficult to use for the masses. Windows and Mac are popular becasue they are simple enough for any idiot to use. Until Linux is that simple the masses aren't going to be compelled to use it.
If the states get the source code, we'll find out that Windows was actually written in java, and that would cause an anti-trust dispute....
-E
The states could also happen up on a few lines from actual GPL'd code. Some of those comments about the GPL could still be in some of those
At least that is my theory about why MS has been so darn (afraid?) of GPL software and its license. I figure that they must have a handful of GPL code pieces in their Windows product.
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
If they were, then this case would still be open to the public and then everybody would get to see the sourcecode. Legally, no less.
..and we just say we're a company that pretty much can do anything of a software nature that we set our mind to. - Ballmer. from the zdnet article at:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-830351.html on windows security.
hmmm, so if they can do anything with software they should be able to make a stripped down version of Windows.
Faced with that decision, they'll probably take the path of least resistance and actually offer a stripped-down version of Windows, rather than allow their source code (and the various abuses of the user's system within) to be viewed by the careful eye of the government. Of course, once it is out they will have complied to their end of the bargain..a stripped down version of Windows. That can't run most programs, games, can't use themes, can't play media of any kind without installing codecs, and can't view a site without installing IE6. The only difference between the "stripped-down" version of Windows and the regular version is the time it takes to download all those "stripped-down" components.
it's not like there are any warez servers out that with enough drive space to hold such a beast. :)
If they can't offer a stripped down version couldn't they just "turn it off". And then let the OEMs bundle it with other browsers.
Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
Would you like to see a list of homonyms [cooper.com] so you don't make an idiot of yourself in public?
People from 'Kuro5hin' don't have the right to accuse other people of being spelling idiots.
Would you like to see a dictionary so you don't make an idiot of yourself in public? Hint: 'Kuro5hin' isen't in there.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
In Tuesday's motion, the states also asked the judge to appoint a technical expert to help provide "impartial opinions on the complex, highly technical issues raised by the parties."
I vote for RMS. When you need a completely impartial expert witness, he's the only logical choice.
--saint
And the entire source code is full of comments that read:
"You are not expected to understand this".
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Would you like to attempt to concentrate on the content instead of spelling and grammar so you don't make an idiot of yourself in public?
which would be why it is a capitalized proper noun
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
It came with Visual Studio. I've got all kinds of header files!
their used to be an project that would let you install windows without internet explore, dunno if that project still exists
Gov't coder: "We'll we removed the IE source from the o/s and it crashes"
Gov't manager flunky: "O, so what about the original compiled source?"
Gov't coder: "Um, well it crashes too"
thirsty*i^2
"Ya I finished that last week, it just doesn't work"
Only the government has enough lawyers and clout to alter evidence given in court. Oh wait..
y /h tml98/micr_090198.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/technolog
HAHA... like Bill ever wrote a serious line of code ever... their is a big difference between writing and cut and paste.
One could make the argument that it's impossible to simply install/uninstall and run software without damaging the operating system.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I gather that the TCP/IP stack is BSD-deriv
You gather incorrectly. The ftp client and perhaps the telnet client are BSD derived. The stack is MS native.
Reboot macht Frei.
We don't want or need the MS source code. As a matter of fact, we're better off without it, because anyone who looks at it becomes questionable as a programmer, because of 'copyright contamination.'
We need file formats, wire formats, protocols. If Microsoft doesn't have clear, concise documentation, if Microsoft considers 'the source IS the documentation' for this stuff, then *THAT* is part of the problem with computing today.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It takes a court order to get "closed" code read by an outsider eh? Hmm. I wonder, suppose I were a programmer trying to figure out what software or OS is best for my needs. Shouldn't I have the opportunity to "read" the source code to make an informed decision? After all, if the code is copywrite, stealing it for my own product/software would be illegal. What's the big deal? Why hide code?
;p
I realize this is massively academic to some of you.
"Among the illegal tactics cited by the court was the "commingling" of Windows source code with add-on middleware.
I fail to see how stripping out add-on middleware from Windows will benefit the consumer in the end.
Currently the home OS ships for $100 and comes with a good browser, decent/basic archiver, basic CD burner and a bunch of other utilities that are "good enough" for 90% of the users. Is this unfair to other vendors that make more robust version of these utilities commercially? Perhaps...
However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
Suddenly the TCO of the system is going up at a prohibitive rate. Software isn't cheap, if you actually bother to license everything you use at home. Do we expect users, who don't bother now to research alternative options to Windows software, to make rational, cost-effective decisions about purchasing add-ons for their OS? Or do we expect middleware vendors to drop their prices once the competition ball is in their court? I don't see how the consumer's wallet will benefit from all this litigation in the end.
If I were microsoft I'd just turn over the code. The duration of time it would take anyone to do a thorough analysis of the codebase (years?) with regards to the issues at hand would PROVE that decoupling is likely infeasible - Microsoft would sureley have to do the same analysis and that would tremendously impede release cycles, resources etc...
let's be honest, the states AG's are just slimeball politicos owned by companies who weren't good enough (as evaluated by the market/customer) to compete with msft. make no mistake: their "remedy" is nothing short of nationalizing windows.
"It makes you behave like the village drunkard in some early Irish novel. Total loss of all basic motor skills. Blurred vision, no balance, numb tongue. The mind recoils in horror, unable to communicate with the spinal column. Which is interesting because you can actually watch yourself behaving in this terrible way, but you can't control it."
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" - Hunter S. Thompson
I expect the good doctor's quote here would be exactly the sort of thing that would happen after exposure to Windows source (He was talking about doing ether, by the way)
For some reason they have got onto this one particular thing they feel must be resolved and won't let it go. They are so adamant about having MS remove IE that they don't even see how MS is having fun with them.
Yeah...with all the recent win releases, when you are browsing your hard drive, you are basically using IE. Start|Run|C:\, then type http://www.yahoo.com into the address line.
Personally I think it's kinda cool - and didn't KDE copy this as well?
So why can't the states get it through their heads that it is part of the OS now and just get to the point and have MS ship a copy of windows that has no IE icon, no IE program group, and no iexplore.exe on it at all.
That way they can have their precious Windows without a browser. Who cares about MS's business practices, or the embrace and extend method of hijacking standards, or anything else they are doing? As long as some company can install a version of windows without IE so they can offer some half-assed version of Netscape instead.
What's the reason they can't delete the icon, program group etc...and do that right now? Oh...isn't it some licensing deals that MS made with the companies?
While they are at it, why don't they go after HP for including Netscape with HPUX. I really wanted to install Opera, but Netscape was already there and was doing nothing to get in my way?
Sorry - it just seems they are missing the big picture - so what if MS makes a version of windows without IE, cause when they go an sell it for twice the cost of the version with IE to the computer vendors, which version are they gonna choose?
MS Should have moved to Canada when they had the chance.
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
It's called competition. MS comingled IE into windows, effectively leveraging their OS mononpoly to create one in the browser arena (which is illegal, PERIOD). Taking out similar middleware would allow third parties to create software applications to do the job, and undoubtedly, some of the software would be better than what MS has provided. Some of it would most probably be free and open-source, costing the conusmer NOTHING, yet giving them the benefits provided by competition. This is supposed to be capitalism, yet MS continues to eliminate competition by taking an app, putting it in the windows code, and claiming that it's part of the OS.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
coyote-san has the right idea. We hear about it all the time- Teenager suspected of piracy has every computer in her home taken by the authorities, is told it is evidence and may not be returned for 180 days or more.
:)
They ought to just stroll right into Redmond and do the same damned thing.
Maybe there'd be a WACO-style standoff. Think of the tv movie they could make out of that. Maybe they'd send in Noah Wiley (reprising his role as Steve Jobs) to try to convince Bill Gates to surrender the source code peacefully.
Or not. But I can still dream, can't I?
Maybe we could get the guy who played the 1st Stage Guild Navigator in Dune to inform Bill that he'll be "living out the rest of his life in a pain amplifier" instead of sending Noah Wiley in. Add in a dramatic scene where Bill reveals his Borg machinery and you'd have a hell of a TV movie, even if none of it will ever come true
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Did anyone need the explanation line at the end?
Not everyone deserves a 320i
We'd all die laughing when we saw it. :-)
6.1 million campaign dollars says it'll never happen.
...I'd put in a leet virus that made it so that the blue error screens stopped comming up! YEAH! AND I'd make it so that the uptime of the box was at least doubled! Hahaha... My virus would be so eleet...
It's one thing with code, and one could argue that even code should be better documented. Then we can get into commenting and documentation extractors, but that's not the point.
It's an entirely different thing with file formats, protocols, and the like. Microsoft tries to call these things Standards. In order to truly be a standard, something has to exist apart from its implementation. It's OK to have a reference implementation, but that's a supplement to documentation, not a replacement for documentation. Plus a live program implementing a standard is a completely different thing than a reference implementation.
Standards are supposed to have a life beyond any single given implementation - that's why it's called a Standard. Otherwise, every version might well be incompatible with the one before in subtle ways. This is also a good reason for Standards to be simple and clear.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I don't get why the states care if there can be a stripped down version of windows? If it is possible what will that accomplish?
----- The aluminum foil helmet is for my protection!
You mean, That Other Site(tm)?
If I am not fully confused, Microsoft hasn't
ever criticized open source software, but
Free (as in FSF) Software
But BSD code is Free (as in FSF) Software. In fact, every single item of Open Source Software is also Free Software by the FSF's definition. Read the original definition yourself.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
!eineew a si noskcaJ egduJ
But that doesn't matter! The trial is over. It's no longer a question of determining who is right anymore, it's a matter of determining what to do now that they've been found guilty.
DUH!
heh... just a wild thought.. they should fire Linus as the "Impartial Technical Advisor" he's the only public techie i've seen that really doesn't seem to care about microsoft eitherway (well much less than many others)
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
Rather than reading through all 10 million lines of code, wouldn't it make more sense for MS to hand over the applicable references?
Nobody is going to go through every line of code, that's just ridiculous (and technically unfeasible for the states).
Shouldn't a handful of the code be sufficient for the states, unless MS has something to hide?
I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls
I know it's not the latest, but I found the WinME source code on the net a few months ago.
"a quote" -me
You don't think that obstruction of justice and contempt of court would be an incentive for MS to be more compliant?
If they are being asked to reveal their source code in an effort to disprove their earlier testimony, can't they plead the 5th to avoid self-incrimination?
... all the cool kids are doing it.
Plead the fifth
isn't windows XP embedded a "stripped down" version of windows? and you can even choose which components you want to strip down, etc.
Smithers: Well, why don't you look in this briefcase!
*cloud of knockout gas fills frame*
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
You have expensive tastes...
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Is this unfair to other vendors that make more robust version of these utilities commercially?
Yes, because Microsoft has a long history of denying other vendors the right to thrive or even exist. If this were done to humans instead of software, Microsoft would be on international trial right now for genocide. Microsoft has killed a whole generation of good software and must pay the price.
"good enough" for 90% of the users
These 90% of users have been brainwashed to expect the worst, so when it comes they aren't disappointed! If that isn't oppression, I don't know what is.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
This is the CRIMINAL anti-trust case, not the civil anti-trust case that MS tried to get dismissed by having the education market handed to it.
This is action is also being taken during the penalty phase after conviction of criminal charges. That eliminates any legal presumption of innocence - the legal burden is now on the convicted party to prove innocence, not the state to prove guilt. (That's also why it's so hard to get convictions overturned even when new evidence is discovered.)
As for the bench warrant, all it requires is that the judge believe that the most expedient way to resolve the matter is to seize those servers. I doubt there are many experts who would look at Microsoft's performance during the trial phase and not foresee months of stonewalling unless the experts had full access to all source from the first day - and that would require seizure. I would expect many experts would make this a condition of serving in this role, to avoid wasting their own time.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
February 15, Redmond, Washington (AP) -- "Microsoft officials, who were initially outraged over the rebel states' request for source code access adopted an abruptly accommodating stance late yesterday."
"It seems that Bill Gates had started an internal initiative to find the best way to obfuscate the Windows source code in the event the states' request were to receive a successful ruling."
"Almost immediately, some of the top programmers from Microsoft, some of whom had spent years working on the Windows product, declared that native source itself already represented a sufficiently obtuse format and that not further obfuscation could better fulfill Bill's objectives."
"Let them have it!" declared one programmer gleefully and without hesitation."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
No, it isn't. It is the CIVIL case prosecuted by the federal gov't. You are confusing this case with the class-action civil suit brought by the blood-sucking ABA members.
/. posters so ignorant of the most basic facts that they rant on and on about? Why can't you OSS morons get even the most simply things right?
Geez, why are so many
Huh? I thought that the "demonstration" of this damage was shown to be fradulent. The videotape testimony claiming to show the consequences of removing IE was shown to actually involve two separate systems. The Microsoft attorney managed to avoid disciplinary actions, but it totally shredded Microsoft's credibility.
Meanwhile a prosecution witness testified that he was able to remove most of IE without the serious damage claimed by Microsoft.
It's a Big Lie of the first order if Microsoft is now claiming that they "proved" this during the trial.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
This is an issue the appeals court pointed out that the lower court had completely missed the ball on.
In the past, there have been many instances of bundling that were actually good for the consumer. One example the appeals court cited was that, at one time, people bought a car and a starter from separate companies. Then the car companies starting selling their cars with starters, and because of major savings in the distribution channels, it ended up saving people money. A second example was when carpet companies began selling carpet with stain protection built in. They argued that this was good for the consumers, because the combined cost was much lower.
The appeals court found the lower court's ruling unsatisfactory, pointing out in part, that the lower court had not even addressed this possibility.
They also pointed out that just about every OS ships with a browser--Mac, BE, etc.
Also consider:
OSes have a long history of replacing programs that had been sold separately.
When the Mac came out, it came bundled with a calculator and all sorts of little apps that previously had to be acquired separately. Even third party text editors get threatened by OSes that bundle things like Notepad.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
If the Windows source code was leaked, we'll never get rid of it!
I'm serious!
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Comment removed based on user account deletion
if we let them arrest criminals, next they'll start arresting the rest of us. "First they came for the criminals, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a criminal..."
Come on. Microsoft is evil. Show them no mercy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
uSoft currently sells a kit that breaks WinXP into about 11000 components. It certainly allows you to build a version of XP w/o IE (or any other thing you can or can't imagine)
Despite claims to the contrary, Windows is pretty well documented. In fact, you can get all of the information needed to clean room the entire OS at your favorite bookstore. For example, Programming Apllications for Microsoft Windows goes into some pretty explicit details regarding kernel32.dll services, process and thread creation, etc. Hell, Inside COM shows you how to actually implement a basic COM system in C++. But I digress...
And BTW... the integration of IE and Windows didn't wasn't exactly the straw that broke the back of Netscape. I seem to recall that almost all software for Windows included IE in the box. In fact, I got copies of IE with Quake II (to read the help files and manual) and Unreal (ditto). But I don't remember getting Navigator...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But that's not what would happen. What you'd see would be:
* The AOL-Netscape pack (Netscape+CD burner+WinZip+Java)
* The Sun bundle (Netscape+several Java utilities)
* The IBM solution (Netscape, IE, IBM Java, Eclipse, several IBM addon utilities)
* Microsoft Plus (everything that they stripped out)
Each would run at anywhere from free to $50.
Consumers would have the choice of using one or all of these addon packages.
I see a large benefit.
Of course, it's not so simple. Many Microsoft applications are component based and most of the components are shipped with the OS. The actual application is often a thin shell that wraps the components. This basically means that Microsoft has many advantages over their competitors. (Think service packs, install-time quickness, better OS integration, etc.)
The KDE is just like IE argument is VERY weak.
If you followed the lawsuit at all, you'd know that the original basis of the argument was the setting of the default browser - not the inclusion of web libraries. Had Microsoft allowed the IE icon to be removed, none of this would have occured.
The problem with your analogy is that there is nothing demanding that KDE be installed with Konqueror as the default browser. You, as a vendor can change it. Furthermore, you can get the source code for KDE and, with a little work, remove all the code for Konqueror if you want to.
And if they are trying to propose a "slimmed down" release of Microsoft as the remedy? Suddenly, these assertions become extremely important.
...However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost...
:)
:-)
...?!??
CD burner ($50) -- use freeware instead. ($0)
a browser($30) -- WTF?! Here It's free. ($0)
an archiver($30 for Winzip) -- Go Here. It's free as well. ($0)
an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2) -- if FREE ($0) IE is not enough, go here and get something else. ($0)
etc etc etc. -- You can get this for free as well
The total is $0. Consider the imact on the consumer
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Someone on the inside needs to send that code to WINE developers so that the rest of the world can actually DO something with it. Honestly, though, why would M$ be opposed to giving their code to the JD? Are they afraid that their lies will be found out? thaen
I've always wanted to read the core source code files of Windows! mem_eat.c rndcrash.c bsod.c
The problem with this argument should be fairly obvious, though.
The main problem is the fact that they're not providing you with a browser: they're providing you with a browser that's impossible to remove. And people who claim that "well, it's nice to be able to enter stuff in the go window" are missing the point - There's NO reason that MS couldn't have made the OS able to accept a browser of any type as a file manager, provided it met some specifications (see GNOME's WM spec). Or use a different HTML renderer. But, no, they were scared of Netscape, and so they bundled IE in with Windows.
Think I'm crazy? What about this - what if Windows didn't allow you to change the default "Open" program for filetypes? How is this any different than what's going on now? The point is NOT that MS bundled these programs - look at Linux, for instance. If RedHat started bundling commercial programs with Linux, great - but the OS allows you to remove them.
So, I'm not saying "strip out the middleware". What I'm saying is "strip out the integration of the middleware into the OS" or "make the middleware removable". If MSN was set up in Windows to be the ONLY ISP, and any other ISP didn't have nearly the flexibility that MSN had under Windows (for no good reason other than Microsoft won't tell anyone what the APIs that MSN uses are), would that be fair? What the states and everyone else is saying is add everything you want, but DON'T BREAK THE LAW. MS has a monopoly. If you have a monopoly, you can't go around acting as if you don't - you have to act differently. Basically, you have to be very "nice" with your monopoly - not use it to bully around people or increase your business.
That's kindof what the antitrust laws are for. They acknowledge that monopolies sometimes occur, but that when they do, the company needs to somehow maintain the air of a competitive environment.
Since when was Windows able to answer questions? Given it's bugginess, if it were to pass a Turing test, it would be a psychologist's nightmare (or possibly source of income for life
Seriously, even the help center can't answer most of my questions.
LOTR: Elijah Wood is a munchkin asshat. Yes, asshat. LOL.
Absolutely not. Not until the threat was real. When have either of those two factors ever motovated MS?
Once a judge delivers an ultimatum, they would comply. But history shows they would push the envelope as far as they could for as long as they could.
best web host ever
For example, when a base system has a CD-ROM (as they do now), ALL software and hardware manufacturers can support it. They no longer have to worry about whether or not the user has it, so they can create an improved experience.
Same thing as XBox with the built-in hard drive and broadband. A lot of game players were like "Why bother with a hard drive. Memory cards are adequate." They didn't realize how beneficial the hard drive can be for load time. Now *every* game can use that cache, without having to worry about whether or not the cache even exists (like the optional hard drive in PS2).
Base system options get pushed to the mass market, expecially if they're already popular. We saw it with floppy drives, CD-ROM's, 56K modems - and no one argued that those devices didn't benefit computing in the long run. Now we're seeing new advances like 802.11 built-in and hard drives on consoles, and if they prove successful everyone benefits.
Same can be said with the "base model" of OS software, as you mentioned. Everyone benefits.
Microsoft distributes Internet Explorer separately from Windows (e.g., for the Mac). Therefore, it is not an inseparable part of Windows. QED.
They're not expensive tastes. Just some of the software that's top-rated by Tucows. The browser pricing btw, is based on Netscape's license circa '97. If I remember correctly.
No, it's not unrealistic for a seizure to happen. Yes, the Marshal's need a bench warrant for that. BUT, if the judge thinks that microsoft is a "flight risk," they can issue one as well. Normally, flight risk in this sense means the same thing that it does when someone is arraigned, but in this case I could see a judge extending that definition to mean removing/changing/destroying of materials precious to the feds.
[move
Sounds like you need to use a spell checker. Does Linux not have one? Maybe you can borrow the one used by Rob Malda..
cpeterso
Criminal matters involve punitive damages, and/or sending people to jail, neither of which is being contemplated here. Any damages awarded are supposed to be compensatory (although they can be trebled in antitrust cases to make up for the hassle of trial and recovery). Any other outcome is supposed to fall in the realm of remedy (note the continuing use of that term in the news coverage), not punishment. In other words, the court's job is to do what they can to make the situation right, but not to punish for the sake of punishment. Remember, most of MS's shareholders haven't done anything wrong, and the court's job is not to harm them capriciously.
Note also, however, that the civil nature of the case lowers the burden of proof, which is why it's sticking at all. Criminal trials have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the appeals court has exposed some reasonable doubts (e.g. plausible intent of creating customer benefits). Civil trials, however, can be proven by a mere "preponderance of evidence," which (legally) there was.
Like the DoJ and Attorneys General are going to understand source code.
All they know is that MS keeps it secret because it's vital to their business to do so. They want it because it hurts MS.
These morons have no fucking clue what to do with source code, and if they think they're going to just grab it and build Windows, they're dead wrong.
They'd pretty much have to hire a group of programmers to become their experts (which, in today's economy, is not entirely unfeasible.) A bunch of lawyers aren't going to understand C code.
How petty. If they want source code, make them open the API classes. You wouldn't even need the source for that - just a list of properties, events, and methods.
Oh well. So much for expecting my government to know something about the technology they're trying to regulate... silly me.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
Seems to me that there are plenty of web browsers, burner applications, ftp clients, and archivers available completely free of charge. Last time I checked, you could even use WinZip free of charge and the only difference I've ever noticed was that it says something along the lines of "Unregistered" at the top. Big deal. You're definitely right that this would have a large impact on the consumer, but would this impact necessarily be bad?
...However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost...
...?!??
:)
:-)
CD burner ($50) -- use freeware instead. ($0)
a browser($30) -- WTF?! Here It's free. ($0)
an archiver($30 for Winzip) -- Here. It's free as well. ($0)
an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2) -- if FREE ($0) IE is not enough, go here and get something else. ($0)
etc etc etc. -- You can get this for free as well
The total is $0. Consider the imact on the consumer
They aren't asking Microsoft to only offer a stripped-down version of Windows. Actually, I'm sure they'd be absolutely thrilled if the Windows installation asked if the customer wanted to install Internet Explorer, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Media Player, etc. This would keep them as options, instead of software which you have no choice but to waste hard disk space with, even if you aren't using it.
No comment.
At least California: San José State University has licensed the Windows source code.
Eeep! Eeeep! Stupid HTML tags =\ /sigh
No comment.
Well, we could get the Home OS for cheaper..
Browser: Mozilla $0
Archive: FreeZip (Not that SpyWare "FreeZip!" crap, but another program) if you want to get picky about format, but there are many free archival utilities out there. $0
FTP Client: GNU FTP $0
etc etc etc
If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
It takes more than a week to just figure out how to even build a single core component in the NT source base, this with full cooperation from the build team. The windows 95 source base is so arcane nobody really understands it.
I know this because I have worked on both code bases.
You think you know how large Windows source base is, but you have misjudged. It is really huge. It was written by hundreds of different companies, tens of thousands of developers. Over 20 years. Mainly in assembly. Always under time pressure, not always with code review.
No my friend, the task of proving your case is much larger than you think. This of course is what MS is counting on: the government does not have the ability to analyse the code and make any sort of determination about what can and cannot be changed.
too lazy to login
http://home.columbus.rr.com/squishee/
It needs tweaking more, but it details how to install Win2k without IE.
Anyone wanna submit perfections to the process?? lemme know... vor7ck@earth7link.net (remove the digits please)
Most of Windows is assembly, not C.
Internet Explorer is a superior browser to anything out there.
Why are people making such a fuss over IE being part of Windows, or any other "features" for that matter? Why isn't anyone going after Apple for releasing/distributing so many tools (iPhoto, iMovie, iCrap, whatever) for their OS?
Also, IE and Explorer are basically intergrated code. You could remove IE's icon from the desktop, and make it so no URL's could be entered into the location bar.. but I guess that isn't "uninstalled" enough for some people?
Besides, no one's forcing you to use Internet Explorer. If you don't like it, install Netscape or Oscar or whatever the hell you want. Sheesh.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
1) Do you really think that windows includes "bad" code in their compiled OS and associated files? Be honest... it's not too hard to take ANY program apart to it's base elements and look through it. In addition, many universities and technical institutions have the code already and have analyzed it a dozen times over... don't you think that it would have leaked out by now that MS included bad code or code to purposely break other programs?
2) Oh, do you really think MS churns badly coded software? I mean, is it written badly? You (coders) may not agree with certain forms and styles used, but I doubt seriously if you can fault how it is put together, notated, and otherwise written. I am willing to bet, given that MS hires some pretty good people (often the best) tha the codebase is tight as hell.
It's not the codebase, but rather the design descisions and attempts at full compatibility that cause problems. For instance, it has to support Direct X, D3D Sound, OpenGL, EAX, A3D 1/2, and a plethora of other API's to get just games to work (along with the core programming language sna DLL's from the software itself). I don't think anyone in the linux community can point to a 100% successful attempt at this yet (not even close) nor can they say that ANY flavor of *nix never crashes or bombs out... it simply would be a false statement.
3) On Netscape - Spare us. I certainly agree that MS aggresively marketed and "sold" their free browser. However, their OS is their OS and they have the RIGHT under law to bundle it in. They also have the right to sell it for free and introduce what they feel should be the standards we web folks design to.
MS only screwed up in their licensing to OEM PC manufacturers by forcing them, amoung other items that are definately in the anti-trust category, to not also include Netscape. This is Nutscraps only leg to stand on, and a valid one to boot. Since IE was offered for free, and Netscape could install and run on any MS consumer and corporate OS freely and without restriction, what kind of monitary descision do you think Netscape will get in a court. Nothing that MS can't pay, especially since they didn't charge persay for IE.
While on the topic... with the exception of V3, early builds of 4, and the latest 6.1 versions of Nutscrap, was there even a reason to use it? It was slower than IE4+, and from IE5+ it was not as feature complete or as standards compliant. Netscape shot themselves in the foot with the massively bugged out release 6 of their browser which took them nearly 9 months to fix as well. IE on the other hand isn't perfect and certain "standards" were not as tightly followed or supported as should have been, but in comparison it was a better choice.
4)How many lines of code are in Windows XP (which is what we are talking about here, not 95/98/ME/2000)? I have heard that it is as high as 37 million lines of code comprising the whole OS. That is alot of code... who is going to go through it (with or without comments by programmers) and determine if MS is a liar about stripping out IE from XP. And who do you believe when it is refuted by MS experts... it becomes a very long, endless cycle that results in no descision ever being made.
A great deal of you here think that MS is evil. Well, in one very specific set of circumstances I guess this is true. They are a company that succeeded and dominated an industry (they still do and will for many years to come no matter the outcome of the case), but they let it go to their heads and they got greedy. Who can blame them... it is not all just Mr. Gates and company, but the whole company, especially the first generation of employees who profited massively and got rich when MS took off.
ALL companies lobby in washington. ALL companies seek to make their product the most popular. ALL companies seek to become a dominate and driving force in their industry segment. It's called business.
The issue is not against one specific company. The issue is MS's aggressive and seemingly illegal licensing aggreements with OEMs in the PC manufacturing area. They sought to contain the ingress into their market segments by other companies by forcing OEMs to only load their OS "as is" because they could due to their industry leading position.
A secondary issue may very well be that once MS achieved such a leading and dominate role that so effects the whole PC industry and not just their segment(s), they took advantage and forced their coporate image and products through OS integration and bundling, displacing competitors by limiting their potential exposure... however, the flip side is that the MS operating systems are their operating systems and they should be able to sell it how they want.
I think personally that they should not be allowed exclusivity in their future license deals anywhere in the US, and pay a hefty (say 1 - 2 billion) dollars to the government in settlement. The settlement will be split up evenly between companies that can prove they were hurt by MS licensing to OEMs and to public education to improve the exposure of students to valuable and important technologies and software (all OSs and programs). In addition MS should be split into three divisions... the OS, Internet, and Software (productivity, education, and entertainment) divisions.
I don't think that they should disclose any codebase, nor should they be forced to unlink their browser and other bundled apps from current OSs. Future OSs shouls have less integration, with clear and easy menu's that during the install process allow you to choose what is and isn't installed. There should no longer be consumer OEM versions by hardware manufacturers as well, but there can be a corporate version. I also don't find fault in MS having enhanced copyright protections built in.
There's buildable and there's legible. I can see MS complying with the letter of such an order by running the source code through obfuscate.pl and delivering *that*. Sure, the code is FUNCTIONALLY the same, but you waste State money trying to decypher the source code.
Finding God in a Dog
The story fails to mention what for what OS the source has been demanded. Reading the other comments here at Slashdot leads me to believe that most of you assume that they will release the source for Windows 3.1, and hand it over with an unconcealed snicker on their sneaky, rich faces. The rest of you, evidently, assume that they will have to turn over the code for Windows 2000, or even XP (note the comment someone had which placed the kernel32.dll in the \winnt\system32 folder). This is definitely not the case. From the beginning of this case, Microsoft has been very careful to keep their NT codebase off-limits from investigation. The entire argument that is, and has always been, going on is based entirely on Windows 98. I don't know how many people still use Windows 98, but it is a satisfyingly small number, and you can't even get a new computer with 98 still installed.
If I were Microsoft, I would agree to releasing the source code, because the most advanced OS the judge can force MS to hand over is Windows 98SE, which is years out of date.
Microsoft succeeded in this case, because they have completely moved away from the codebase the argument is based on, which they were planning to do anyway, and no judge can legally demand that MS release any code that came from the NT codebase. It is 9x at best, which is completely useless to everyone.
Best case scenario: the states prove that it is possible to remove Internet Explorer from Windows 98 (the code given them), without wrecking the OS. Judge says: "See, Bill? Change it." Bill G. replies: "Oh, I see how it's done now! Okay, I'll change it." So he goes back to Redmond and removes IE from 98, and they give that back at the deadline, which will of course be too much time (MS obviously already knows how to do it). The judge sees it and approves, and forces Microsoft to sell that version of Windows to the public as a watered-down version of Windows. Microsoft submits, and releases Windows 98 Light to the public, which is basically Windows 98 without anything good attached to it. When no copies sell, MS shrugs and says: "See, no one wants a dumbed down version of Windows," but the states say "Wait a second, that's the old version, of course nobody's buying it! I'm suing them for XP!!!" But the judge agrees with Microsoft that the NT/2K/XP codebase was never part of the argument, so the litigation must start all over again.
We go through a few years worth of court cases again, while MS fervently works out a whole new codebase. When the states finally get them to release the NT code, they release the code to XP Home Edition at the same time as they release their newest OS, based on a completely new codebase.
Repeat as necessary, ad nauseam, to infinity, et cetera.
Microsoft cannot lose in court, in fact they may have already won. If you want to beat them, you need to release a product that goes faster, crashes less, and has complete binary compatibility with Windows, or else the mass public will not make the switch. And if you had these features, why would the public switch, if they are only buying another Windows?
Thus, Microsoft wins. They can do nothing but win. Sorry, fellas.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
#include
:)
#include
#include
#include
void main()
{
for(;;)
{
spit_gui();
crash("GPF!");
do_nothing();
}
}
They compile it with no optimizations, and link in every library known to man. That's why it takes up so much space.
FYI Your CD burner link leads to a bunch of spyware.
States demand that hell be frozen over...
That is all.
Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
#include <crap.h>
#include <monopoly.h>
#include <minesweeper.h>
#include <solitaire.h>
If the EULAs weren't tight AS HELL we would
certainly have had some more code snippets flying
around, posted anonymously anywhere.
--
$ live dream
Even easier,
Just look at the modifications that 98lite makes to the executables... that'll show you how easy it was to remove from Windows 98.
Granted this won't fix ME (but personally, who cares - it's pretty bad) and Windows 2000.
However, I believe that examining 98lite's mods would be a quantum leap in the right direction.
Hmmmm..
AC
From what I read of this motion, it looks more like the feds wanting to check up on an ingredient that has been found to be harmful to the public. The leveraging of the Windows monopoly to get an internet monopoly was found to be harmful. So, it's not unreasonable for the government to make sure you can't keep windows without removing IE.
What if a filler in sausage was carcenagenic? Is it unreasonable for an inspector to review the packing process to see if it really can't be done away with?
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
You are right, bur check your spelling.
Hint: 'Kuro5hin' is Here
--
$ livedream
:)
So you get a free turkey, a 200 gift certificate AND all the added protien of all those yummy yummy 'features'? You are living large my friend!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Courts frown on such tricks and trying them would get them slapped with contempt of court. They aren't totally stupid, you know.
"No my friend, the task of proving your case is much larger than you think. This of course is what MS is counting on: the government does not have the ability to analyse the code and make any sort of determination about what can and cannot be changed. "
That's what everyone who has something to hide thinks. "If I just bury them in paper, they'll never find the bad stuff" The problem is, they discount motivation. People won't be analyzing the code objectively; they'll be looking for specific things, and for personal reasons, be it a promotion, extra pay, or revenge. Why do you think news organizations dive headfirst into government document releases - there's always the possibility of being the next Woodward or Bernstein.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I wonder what a stripped down Windows would consist of. No IE, Media Player, Movie Maker, etc. Why not dump the explorer shell entirely, and just leave the Kernel. It would open up the market for third-party distributions of Windows, perhaps with something like Litestep on top. In the Server market the already allow OEM's to build a stripped version of W2K server for appliances, http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/sak/defa ult.asp They were definately responding to the prevalence of headless Linux boxes that rule the market. So it is possible. Not that I would run a windows based appliance.
I've seen their thing in action. I think if I looked at the source code, I'd have to boil my eyeballs afterwards.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Before Windows 2000 came out I used NT 4.0 (Don't mod me down, I now use Linux.). There was a question/answer on ntfaq that asked how to install NT 4.0 without IE. Sure enough there was an easy solution. All you had to do was open up I believe one of the text or ini files in the i386 directory on the cd and change one of the lines where it specified IE to install all you had to do was comment it out. This was while ago so I can't remember exactly. But I did try it once and low and behold it installed with no browser what so ever. Of course you can not save directly to a cd so I had run the Windows Based Installer and edited the file after it copied everything over. You could probably make your own cd with the small change too now. Anyway I looked over on ntfaq and they don't seem to have anything older than the year 2000.
they can't strip out the white spaces
a lot of it in VB, and VB is CR(/LF) terminated
ie no ';' and 1 command/statement to a line
i'm sure any good perl programmer is blocking this fact from their head, for the fear of it.
"I fail to see how stripping out add-on middleware from Windows will benefit the consumer in the end."
Because Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway are not stupid. They all realize that their customers WANT stuff to come with their machine and will include it themselves. This isn't rocket science here. Look at OS X, it comes with a web browser, media player, dvd player, photo manager (with built in web page maker), mp3 manager (with bult in burning)...every single one of those apps can be dragged into the trash and the user can insteal install anything they want to replace them ).
In the PC market, it wouldn't be the user who deceided this (directly anyhow), it would be the OEM's who did. The would add to a stripped down Windows their own branded toys. Then, shopping for a x86 box would require a choice that was more advanced than looking at 1. price 2. hardware 3. shape of computer. The industry would be better off.
Burn Hollywood Burn
If you know what you are doing, you can run W2K server WITOUT IE, You need to make a special OEM cd using their toolkit, and you can even do other fun things like put InetPub AND IIS on a sperate partition, under users that have no access to the rest of the partiotions , hence the OS. NSA has some good info on the latter.
:)
The courts are compltley ignorant on this matter, so are their 'expets' for the most part. Windwows will run fine without IE, at least, 95, NT 4.0 and W2K , SP is 2k on steroids with eye candy, The OEM install kit(XP) has a network ready bootable CD image that wii RUN ANY(IE included, Abobe, you name it), Windows app under it you want this should be PROOF alone. It starts as only a background and a shell window, you can run anything else from it you want executing it from the command line, Beauty is it will handle Win32 AND NTFS partitions, makes a wicked hack tool for a dead or funked machine, or to change the SAM around
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Fisrst of all, IE isnt an intrical part of windows and can be removed by for example win98lite. http://www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html I cant imagine paint, the media player or movie maker having any seriuos IO tasks either. Microsoft tried to claim that it was impossible to remove IE and it was done under the trial by an expert witness. They still clame its impossible? The source code would reveal this both by how the apis was communicating and by the source. Other strange things hidden in the source would probably pop up aswell. Atleast it would either expose som serious anticompetitive practices or put an end to speculation. I vote for the first considering how they fight to keep the source hidden. One also wonders, how much is real code and how much is landfill? All those easter eggs has to be stored somewhere on the HD?
HTTP/1.1 400
You are correct. However, in this case there is no single "smoking gun". Its a thousand little tiny pieces, that, even if they are able to piece it altogether, they have to now convince a judge and jury of the interpretation.
You can imagine building a version of Windows that has all of IE ripped out. Now you have to convince people that it really is still windows, that IE really is ripped out, and that it really is still as functional as it started. This you will have an extremely hard time doing, because of course MS will try to find a case where your version causes a GPF or DLL not found error or just any minor glitch where the original does not have it. And sadly, you could do this between every weekly build of windows even without major labotomy surgery.
So you are saying a security review is impossible and the 30 day security stop is complete BS.
If they weren't a monopoly, they wouldn't be able to charge $100. MS can use the inflated prices to gather enough cash to roll other features into the OS.
As for the examples you cite, they're laughable. CD recording software comes with CD-R drives (and besides, XP is the first MS OS to come with that software). Browsers are free (see Opera). Who doesn't have Winzip already? etc. etc. etc.
You don't get it, do you? Microsoft can afford to sell this cheaper because they can use their monopoly to *force* it on a large userbase. I've been looking into buying a laptop. *Every* one of them I can buy around here comes with WinXP, and unlike a desktop I can't even build it myself. I have no choice but to buy all those extras.
If I want to use the CD burning software included with my CD burner (0$ as I already got it), Opera (0$/ads), any freeware zip utility (0$), Filezilla ftp client (0$) I can. Yet I have to buy all the MS stuff anyway. That you pick some of the most expensive commerical replacements to justify WinXPs cost makes me wonder...
Actually, users will make fairly rational desicions. The only problem is the lack of desicions to choose from. It usually goes like this: I must have Windows. Insane pricetag but I must have it. What else do I need? Hmm, nothing, it's all included in Windows.
It doesn't help that a bundle is great, when it's not what you'd need. It's like with MS Office, the individual programs are priced incredibly much higher than the Office pack. Why? Because you can make people feel they got a good value. Oh I had to pay X$ for Word, it's insane, but for just Y$-X$ (Office - Word) I got all these other great tools too so I guess it's alright then.
Pushing the competition out has never been good for the consumer in the long run. That they can offer tools for free/cheap is an illusion. They're using the money made from their OS monopoly to extend their monopoly, and don't think you won't be paying for it when they *have* the monopoly.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Didn't the "Win98lite" installation utility prove that the browser can be separated from Win98?
I thought it let you install the nice stuff from Win98, like USB, and the lighter weight Windows Explorer from Win95 and not at all install Internet Explorer.
Personally I use Win98 as the base, Litestep as the shell and Mozilla as the browser. I still use Windows Explorer as the file manager, but only because long file names mean you can't use the old DOS Norton Commander...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Coke have to turn over their formula to the government otherwise they would not be able to win approval by the Food and Drug Authority. The same as the people who make Viagra have to release the patent to that drug after it has been on the market for a number of year's in order to allow the creation of generic brands (who have to meet governmental controls for quality themselves). Or at least this is the case in the country I come from.
I think that a good arguement exists that M$ should be required to release the source for windows, that in fact full disclosure of source should be a requirement of the industry, due to the number of problems created when you have millions of people dependent on that code. For example if Cisco, made drugs with certain undocumented side effects, their would be a uproar that would stop the nation.
Just because these people run technological companies should not insulate them from the social and economical costs that their products cause. The discloser of source should be a mandatory social requirement.
Pianist : Some jerk whos taught themselves how to type in rhythm
I ran 98 quite successfully in 16MB without the bloated shell.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
They will NEVER do it trust me !
.net to any non Win32 platform (just look at what they are doing ; a simple CLR+CoreClass port and not a complete .net port .... this is just comercial waves here and not real usefull stuffs !)
... talking about them is just some more free advertisment for them !
Whatever the any US state decide, just because they may just relocate their company in canada (or any place) whenever they want to !
If they only plan to do so then the US lawsuit will just wanish because US government will lobby the DOJ and states to stop lawsuits.
MS will NEVER release the sources as MS will never port
Rumours are wind for Microsoft
Thanks goes to everyones for each days complaning about MS but still using their softwares !
4R34.
As I recall it, after last year's decison Microsoft claimed that IE5 was so interwoven into the OS that it couldn't be removed and thus you would have trash Windows to comply with the judgment. Obviously trashing Windows would put them out of business and send an earthquake through the desktop market, so don't do it Judge !
Then Microsoft produced Windows 2000 sans IE5, so they proved their own lie.
Microsoft can't be believed when it makes these sorts of claims. MS seems willing to go to any lengths to preserve its supremacy, who can forgot the Netscape disabling code fiasco ? It becomes a question of how to prove these claims, do the petitioning states have the patience and resources to do it ?
XTree users might care to check out the xtree clone ZTBold and ZTreeWin
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
The dissenting states--including California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut--say the availability of a stripped-down browser, without all the extras would help restore competition to the software business. I think they mean stripped down OS, because a stripped down browser serves nothing in this argument.
Put identity in the browser.
What I am saying is that this would have to apply to everyone then. nVidia would have to release the full schematic on their premiere GPU's. IBM would have to not only release source code for every piece of software, but for all schematics for the hardware they build too.
Oracle, (I am pretty sure they don't have it open source but I could be wrong, so don't flame me for this one) would have to release the code for their database manager.
GM would have to release the exact process in which they mold their engines.
ID Software would have to release the full source for every single FPS they make right at release like everyone else. (Not that they don't already but they do it eventually down the line)
I mean screw Viagra and Coke. Their products are consumed into the body. They rlease the exact recipe to the FDA to make sure no one is internally harmed by toxic chemicals they maybe in said products. That is a given.
Closed source OS code does not really harm anyone in a severe way that it would be dangerous to ones life. The only thing it causes is frustration among those who want it open. That is a fact. It is closed. So what. Who honestly cares!? If Linux is the more efficient and precise of the two sets of code. Then it will eventually prevail.
OS's are like cars in one aspect. Take Ford. They have been around longer than anyone person who reads this site. They have some of the best advertising and marketing strategies. Now lets say they build shitty cars. An individual will only buy the shitty car for so long before they realize that this company over here. Saturn. Makes better cars, that don't break down. That run forever maintenance free, etc. Granted they might not have the marketing and strategy but eventually people will switch to the better car.
Frankly, I think the code should remain closed. If it becomes open. What if it becomes better than your precious Linux. I mean what if with a few minor tweaks from Slackware Kernel Gods, the windows source code out preforms and destroys Linux. What then? Would you all switch to a Windows Distro? Since it turned out to be the better of the two because it was released open source. What about Linux? What about all you stood for?
Leave it closed. Let the competition flow between Open and closed source. Lets have a little fun and MS bash! Fuck the code. Only reason anyone would want it would be to get the code for the API. After that it would all be down hill. Linux wins, game over!
On a side note. I believe that Win98 could not run without IE at all. Hence they would have to trash 98. NOt every WinOS. NT and 98 are completely different. Some visual similarities but completely different OS's all together.
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
Well, it's nice to know that the courts are trying to force a company into making a stripped-down operating system. No wonder I have so much confidence in our legal system.
They'd appologize about lying in court, and agree to release a bloatless operating system for sale. Then they would take windows, strip out IE, Outlook, *explorer, and also the tcpip stack. Have a great tool bar and stuff, and have no file manager. That would totally satisfy the courts, and no one would buy it because it wouldnt be at all useful, and ms could still sell XP for $200 a pop.
The Microsoft Corp. has been deemed guilty of violating various Antitrust Laws. The question now is, how to punish them? I say, cripple the company severely enough to allow many smaller software development companies to grow. Crippling to that extent is in essence putting them out of business. That is bad for Microsoft. But good for everyone. Why? Microsoft is helping to cripple our economy. How many jobs were lost when Microsoft bought ought companies and closed them? A google search would report many web pagse detailing these companies and what happened after Microsoft bought them. A lot of people lost jobs. The worst, the potential for MORE jobs in the future are stifled by Microsoft. Who wants to compete with MS Windows right now? Noone! Because MS' business practices would swallow them up. A loss of potential jobs; a crutch to our economy. Statistics and common sense alone would show, that many smaller development companies would employ more people as opposed to one large company. More jobs can never really HURT an economy. More jobs means more productivity. The higher our Gross Domestic Product (Production Value), the better for everyone in that economy. Time to give Microsoft axe. kkith
Nah. They'll just go down the hall and ask the NT guys what they wish they would have done different when they swiped project Mica source from DEC to build NT. I swear, hasn't that company sold anything that wasn't stolen directly or blatantly plagerized? Oh yeah they have, now I remember... MS Bob.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
The government demanding a private company's source code?
next time it might be the good guys getting fucked by the government?
Since when was releasing your source code akin to losing your virginity?
I hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but this is getting out of hand.
The govt. just wants to look at it -- not own it, or take it over or mangle it. Besides, M$ will still have their own copy to play with. They can still keep all the source code they have now, and even write more in the future!
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
That is a totally ignorant comparison and if you are trying for anything than +1 funny or something, you have a serious problem with your thought process.
If your OS breaks, you pop in your windows cd and fix it.. if IE breaks, your run windows update or your pop in your cd and fix it.
I'm a vegetarian. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Actually, the proper word should be disintegrate, as in ``if I could disintegrate IE, about 12% of my security issues would evapourate''.
Actually, IE for the Mac is quite livable. But what are the odds against getting that back-ported? To the nearest million?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You've never seen Altair BASIC, have you? The source code is on the net somewhere (don't know the URL off the top of my head, though) and the general conclusion was that Bill, Paul, and Monte were very, very good at what they were doing.
The fact that Bill is a flaming scumbag and Paul is a wealthy semifamous nonentity notwithstanding, I'd say Bill still knows his shit.
/Brian
Sad but true. Even more so for America, because...
...America is called ``a Christian country'' and has a large proprtion of at least nominal Christians in the population. Hmmm.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If you commit a non-destructive act with the intent of someone else getting harmed it doesn't make you any less culpable.
Microsoft didn't integrate IE into the core of the OS because it was a technically superior solution. They integrated it with the specific intent of being able to say "it's part of the OS." There are many ways to implement an internet browser, a file browser, etc. A smart developer has open-ended thinking, tries to work in a modular fashion, and develops code that avoids too many dependencies.
Sure, everyone appreciates having a browser that can be used as its own development platform. Microsoft made sure you'd be grateful to them and not Netscape by undermining Netscape's opportunity to develop a viable browser platform.
History has shown that Netscape has never been too savvy when it comes to recognizing opportunities or seeing the potential of their technology. They got too rich too fast, and turned lazy in short order. However it still doesn't justify MS's disgusting design decisions.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Funny that. I would consider buying stock in a company that was breaking the law (and doing it publicly) to be something wrong. I'd consider it perfectly fair if investors who bought MS stock lost their money.
And if someone's mutual fund bought MS, they should have checked what the fund was buying.
You don't think that obstruction of justice and contempt of court would be an incentive for MS to be more compliant?
Didn't seem to work during the rest of the court case. (e.g. that video 'incident')
deus does not exist but if he does
And there's no reason why NETSCAPE couldn't have implemented their browser to comply with all the COM interfaces microsoft use and have it become the one used when installed on a windows system. Absolutely no technical restriction what so ever.
Just because netscape were too stupid to do it doesn't mean that it's microsoft's fault.
1)Convicted criminals are generally not allowed to keep any of their ill gotten gains.
2)Make no mistake that an individual that is convicted of a crime comparable to MS is going to go to jail for a while.
3)Following your logic that what MS did is "Called Business", and that makes it ok,excusable, or they should only be punished a little: IBM should be completely blameless for all of it's pollution and poor working conditions in several of it's drive manufacturing plants that did a lot of damage to many people and the environment, Union Carbide should be totally blameless for Bhopal, India, all investigation of Enron should cease(theres a good study for someone, compare the losses attributable to MS with the losses from Enron, see which is bigger), companies should be allowed to continue the same accounting and business practices that got Enron in trouble, etc..etc.
I sure hope your a paid MS astoturfer and that isn't really how you feel. If it is I really feel sorry for you.
prisoner# msce18xxxxx. Currently planning my escape.
At trial, since the console manufacturer failed to show that there was a way of booting a game without that text ["Licensed by Sega"], they lost the case.
The case in question was Sega v. Accolade. A similar reasoning applies to games for Game Boy and Game Boy Advance systems, which use a nearly identical protection (a small graphic instead of text). To be perfectly safe, as soon as the system gives your program control, put "Correction: Not licensed by $console_maker" at the top of the first copyright notice screen. The makers of Bleem! did this for the Dreamcast version of their PSX emulator, and Sega couldn't touch them.
Will I retire or break 10K?
98lite (98lite.net) itself is supposed to be able to pare Windows down to as minimal of modules as you care to pursue. I've even heard of someone using it to reduce Win32 console mode to a package that will fit on a single floppy disk.
... after all, that provides a handy tool for downloading a better browser :)
A pared-down version of Windows would HELP M$, not hurt them. Frex, I cannot sell XP to my clients, because they can't justify a massive hardware upgrade just to cope with XP's fluff. But XP's core, ie. the really necessary parts of the OS, would likely run pretty well on a P200/128mb, and I *could* sell THAT to my clients.
I really would have liked to see WinXP released as 1) the buck-naked OS itself, and 2) a Plus Pack that included all the stuff that's currently bundled with Windows -- each at about half the current list price for XP. That way we who prefer to install and configure our own software don't have to fight with bundled crap (nor pay for crap we don't want), and those who don't know or care how to customize a system can just buy and install the Plus Pack and call it done. AND the basic OS would run gracefully on last year's system.
I don't have anything against the OS including a browser (*provided* it's NOT "integrated" with the OS)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You just have to run winlite against a windows 9x machine to totally remove IE to see that microsoft is full of crap. An article on this very topic is here.
-- Never make a general statement.
This case was started with the win98+IE gig right? so, does that mean that the entire case is based on that code? When making the request for the code do they want to look at Win98, Win2k, WinXP, .Net Server, WinCE, what? you got like a million diffrent versions of windows. What version are you going to require them to ship 'stripped down'? Im sure MS would sell the next release of windows CE without IE to make the court happy.
Real men don't use GUIs.
Check http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix-win2000/invite dtalks/lucovsky_html/
for the presentation given by Mark Lucovsky about Windows NT development process.
Slashdot = Sarcasm
What would the state attorneys do with the source code to Windows? Especially given that doing anything with it would be illegal, and that there is so much source code available for free on the Internet that Microsoft's is just one more project.
OTOH, I'm sure it would enable some companies to write competitive software for Windows if they had the source, as Microsoft seems to be good at putting undocumentated APIs into their products for their own gain.
use IE's browser component.
I never see ads, even in software with ads included, because IE's component happily respects my browser's proxy settings.
Thanks Microsoft! Thanks WebWasher!
Maybe they'll claim IE is not part of Windows.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
The Windows Development Team(s) have never been able to anything worthwhile. If they say that "they can't" do something in regards to programming, I certainly believe them.
Why would they all of the sudden be competent programmers? I do think that they could give the source to pretty much any other developer out there and get a stripped-down version in a matter of weeks (or months).
Let the States let their own guys take a crack at it. Even if is technically feasible (probably is), that doesn't mean that MS can do it. It is possible to make an operating system that doesn't crash 7 times a week, but they've never had an OS like that.
So, to be perfectly honest, it's not possible (profitable) to ship a stripped-down version of Windows. This would require skill.
No excellent soul is exempt from a mixture of madness. --Aristotle
Courts frown on such tricks
You mean, like doctoring video evidence? And look where that got them--another two years of trial and a near capitulation by their opponents.
I certainly wouldn't put it past MSFT to strip out all their comment lines, at the least; you would have a hard time arguing that the comment lines are necessary for building the binary, it would be difficult to tell if a comment had been removed, as they're neither legally nor technically required, and it would stall investigation of the code that much more.
--
$tar -xvf
Then its just a list for people who don't care about money or what they get?
Then why would they care? They'd probably get the full Windows in the first place.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Maybe they'll subpeona accounting records to see if Microsoft is telling the truth about their finances.
Maybe they'll ask for phone records. Maybe they'll ask for email records.
Seriously, when you're trying a case like this you have to get the information that proves or disproves your case. As a programmer myself I seriously doubt that any claims that Windows cannot be stripped down have any validity and I believe a decent programmer could show that and disprove Microsoft's claims.
Coding Blog
Actually, you can remove iexplore.exe and it still doesn't deintegrate IE. Try it yourself. Remove iexplore.exe and then go into "My Computer" and type a web address into the "Address" field. WOW, a web page pops up. Then, you might end up looking in \WINDOWS\WEB and noticing these little hidden files (*.htt) which are the Hypertext TEMPLATE files for all of the special folders on Win98. There's a Control Panel.htt, My Computer.htt, etc etc. When you look at these, you'll realize what a sham this all is! WIN98 IS JUST A MEMORY MANAGER THAT RUNS MS-DOS INSTANCES. That's why when you click on my computer and you have a CD in the drive, it takes forever for it to come up. Windows effectively opens a DOS instance, trys to log each drive (A-Z) and then reports back to explore.exe, which then makes up some cheesy HTML from the My Computer.htt template, and renders it. MICROSOFT does not want the world knowing that Win98 is just a cheesy graphical shell for DOS. But, that's all it is. And it's pretty slick how they do it. Everything is just a script with a few tiny DLL's here and there to do hardware work. That's why it is so slow and crappy. It is just DOS. IT'S DOS I TELL YOU! Sorry, coffee'd up.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
First, as has been already pointed out, it IS possible to get the Windows source code. Microsoft, trying to capitolize on the Open Source popularity started their 'Shared Source' program. It shouldn't be that hard to get it, and even supponea(sp?) independant people who have studied it as expert witinesses.
/. and elsewhere in the Open Source/Free Software world see the free as in speech approach to software, there is a huge segment of the population that has difficulty distinguinshint left and right click. Unfortunatly such people are often very influential. Free as in speech when it comes to source code won't matter to them, because they are incapable of understanding it.
Although Microsoft has some sort of really strict NDA on their source that they give to researchers, a judge could easily compel testimony, and give the witiness immunity from any sort of legal reprisals. There are probably already people who know the answers to the questions the states have.
If I had much influence in any of the states involved, I would suggest putting a little extra pressure in Microsoft. This could be accomplished legally easily. Simply phase out all Microsoft products on all state run organizations, give groups that recieve state funds a 'bonus' for not using Microsoft software, and give companies that don't use Microsoft software a bit better chance of getting a contract from the state if they don't use Microsoft software.
The threat of that much lost business in that many states would put a bit of economic pressure on Microsoft, and could be handled with internal state policies.
States can easily put the policy of only buying software when a non-free (beer, were talking ecomomics here[1]) alternative isn't available. It could easily be sold to the taxpayer as a way to cut government spending without putting anyone out of work. For the federal government to interfere with such things would be very bad indeed.
Some of the other stuff such as influencing other organizations or compainies might not fly as well, but it's at least worth a thought.
[1] A important as a lot of people on
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
It seems to me that one solution would be to separate the HTML rendering engine portion of IE into a separate installatable service. Given API spec, you could even throw in Gecko and use that, if you felt very brave.
..
Then again, I'm of the subversive notion that chopping M$ up into a dozen smaller companies would be better for the consumer and better for the company. I have hard time imagining that smaller separate divisions pursuing their own agendas couldn't outdo M$ revenue as it is.. With no monopoly required.
Just make the damn Win32 OS a commodity. Like, make MS Operating Systems corporation do a public bid for each component that goes into the OS, such as email client, browser, ftp client
Easy- Stick it on the web and allow everyone to add their comments. This would be the ultimate irony using open-source methods to bring the beast down.
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
I *think* it would be dangerous to Microsoft delivering the Windows code.
It could become well-know the portions of code the lamers have been ripping off from opensource projects.
IANAL (still!), but I imagine that a good one could come up with legal language that amounts to "the full and detailed source files as used by the engineers who actually work with it". And, as was mentioned, if needed marshals could go in and just TAKE that source code.
Microsoft is not saying they can't seperate windows from the browser. They are saying they can't seperate WIn98 from the browser. I mean the thing was built nearly from the ground up when it came to the important aspects of it. Integrating IE5 was just a bonus feature. I mean I am sure there is a way, but why would they want too. Windows 98 is dead anyways.
Well saying a Web Server or an OS is super important is the same as hardware. After all Processors make it go! So if Microsoft has to open source their OS then Intel and AMD should totally open the architecture and schematic behind each of their lines of processors.
What seems important to many (eg. Web Server OS) means nothing to others. For example. My brother couldn't give a rip about a Web Server. All he cares about is how many frags he can accumulate in 10 seconds.
The reason so many people from this site are behind the whole open sourcing of Windows. (Which is still Windows 98, not any other OS) Is it would mean the near demise of Microsoft whom they all hate. God knows why!? I still can't fathom a hatred as deep as this one.
Just to summerize so I can go play EQ real quick.
Web Servers are only important to those who feel they are important. Same as Graphics cards, video games, and even cars. Frankly I think this whole case is stupid. Should never have happened. So if you are going to force a company to open-source their code. Then you have to make everyone else. Besides, in this case code isn't another form of documentation. Once it gets in the hands of Linux Geeks and is mirrored around the world. They are going to tweak and use the MS API in Linux and it will all be over for MS. That isn't fair competition. That is stooping to their level.
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
>
Currently the home OS ships for $100
Sorry, That would be the Upgraded home version of XP.
Expect to pay $199.99 for the Non Upgrade Home edition, $199.99 for the Upgraded XP pro, and $299.99 for the full XP Pro. To the best of my knowledge, all brick/mortar stores sell for the same price. (Price fixing is my guess.)
Meanwhile, I'm off to Best-Buy to get the latest Mandrake.
;-)
Ah yes. Investment is so easy when you don't have anything to invest. Get back to me in 20 years. :)
This was the best reply I got :)
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
What an easy brush-off.
I've got a moderately sized investment portfolio now (retirement) and I do select funds based on what they are invested in. Partly because I don't want to have to whine when a company gets busted and the stock tanks.
But really, I don't see why investing in a company obviously involved in illegal activities is any better when you stand to make money off of it. I can see why it's more attractive, but that's not supposed to matter is it? (You wouldn't forgive a thief who stole a Porsche would you, just because it was a very attractive target?)
The only thing that hurts about not investing in fraudulent companies is that the people who do get huge payoffs from it. That doesn't mean we should all sell out though, it means instead that we should try to put a stop to it so that the honest people don't get penalized.