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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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
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
This is no different than health inspectors demanding to see the conditions of a food-packaging facility.
Would you want the government to take the word of the people that run the meat-packing plant that everything inside is clean and tidy, or do you want inspectors going inside and looking for themselves?
Microsoft set themselves up by claiming that they can't strip out that code but then refuses to allow the government to review that code.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
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.
"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.
This is a little different legal situation, though - Microsoft has based its defense on the source code. As a loyal viewer of Law & Order, this then leads to the "Well, they raised the issue, Your Honor, so I can follow it up" situation. Microsoft can't be permitted to make a defense based on secret evidence that only they can see.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
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 would imagine that microsoft the turkey in this equation is filled with a similar amount of bugs and may make those poor reviewers equally ill.
I got my entire grocery bill reimbursed and a 200 dollar gift certificate. I wish microsoft would do the same for all the poor suckers out there that lost data, time, and resources to them.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.