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.

Comments

How lnog would it take to review?

[Marx_Mrvelous]

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?

Difficulty factor?

[InfinityWpi]

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..."

Re:Difficulty factor?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Actually, were I a programmer asked to look at this stuff, I'd refuse; I'd be worried about Microsoft trying to sue me down the line for having seen their source code then written something. Kinda like why the Samba team refuses to look at any code Microsoft related.

Re:How long would it take to review?

[mblase]

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.

Delay by the *States*?

[Lysander Luddite]

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?

Re:Delay by the *States*?

[Lysander Luddite]

for XP. It has to replace all those copies of Win9x and NT4/2000.

MS knows it is its own biggest competitor.

sure i'll give you the source

[oogoody]

...stripped of comments, white space stripped,
merged all into one file, variable names mapped
to numbers, etc...

Re:sure i'll give you the source

[archen]

...stripped of comments, white space stripped,
merged all into one file, variable names mapped
to numbers, etc...

So they want to play dirty eh? Bring in the Perl programmers!

well...

[angramainyu]

...I think it's safe to predict the winner of this year's obfuscated C contest.

Re:well...

[tempest303]

All I can say to that is to quote the 'Almighty Tallest' from Invader Zim: "It's not stupid, it's advaaaanced!"

Re:well...

[curunir]

maybe not...aren't entries in the obfuscated C contest were supposed to do something useful when run?

open source windows?

[deviantonline]

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

Re:open source windows?

[Drakin]

No, microsoft would got a lot of money, due to the fact that the source code to windows is owned by them. Someone takes their code and makesa produt, that someone will have a court date.

Re:open source windows?

[Derkec]

Just because I have the source, doesn't mean I can use it. Many of us could run away from work today with the source code to some product that we're working on. That wouldn't allow us to open source it or build a competing product based on that code.

Re:open source windows?

[Courageous]

Q:...why wouldnt they be able to do the same with windows?

A: JAIL.

C//

Somewhere in Mordo^H^H^H^H Redmond...

[zulux]

Clippy:"It looks like your Searchig and Replacing!"

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"

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"

Re:MS....open source?

[geekoid]

Tartarus

isn't that the fish hell?

Can any good come of this?

[alman]

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?

windows "source code" is likely useless

[markj02]

Windows isn't one big program, it's lots of DLLs, drivers, kernel modules, and executables developed all over Microsoft. There probably doesn't even exist a single Windows source tree.

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.

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[Virile Garbageman]

You can certainly remove IE as a program, since it's just a container for the browser components. However, 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. It's certainly modularized, but to remove the browser component would have farther reaching effects on the OS (as well as many third party applications) than many want to admit.

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[TheAwfulTruth]

Duh! Why the hell write every damn program that uses a rich interface from the ground up? You realise that hundreds of smaller companies and coders (myself included thank you) are using the embedded IE control because we don't feel like taking 10 years out of our lives to rewrite an HTML control for every app? It was an easy and convienient way to get rich content onto apps easy and quickly. OF COURSE it was done on intentionally! What were they supposed to do, build in netscape?

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[Kraft]

Even if it did exist, what would programmers say other than "yes, with enough hacking, we can separate this out"?

Yeah, but.....

Didn't the 98lite team succeed in seperating IE from Windows with IEradicator?

Here's what they say:
The removal process is elegant with all COM servers politely being asked to de-register themselves from the system registry using their inbuilt deinstallation routines before being eliminated from the hard disk. IEradicator then pulls out the cleaning gear and gives the registry a good polish before returning control back to you. The MS HTML Engine (shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll) is left on the machine to provide needed functionality for other applications that render HMTL (e.g. Outlook Express) or that launch a mini-browsing window (e.g. Winamp's Mini Browser, Netmeeting's Online Directory).

IEradicator gives you a leaner, faster desktop by eliminating all desktop web-integration including active desktop, single click, image previews, file/folder information, and custom backgrounds.

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[slashdot.org]

There probably doesn't even exist a single Windows source tree.

Yes there is. I've worked on it briefly and at the time it was roughly 680MB. This included tons of custom utils and custom versions of assemblers and compilers. (So much for a Chinese wall).

There's nothing magic about M$ code. I've seen better code, but I've also seen worse. It's not terribly difficult to understand the overall structure though.

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).

The point is to seperate out a piece that used to be seperate in the first place. (e.g. the browser). All this stuff happens at the shell level and only requires a small part of the source tree. I think it would take very little effort to prove that it can be done (easily).

We need a diversity of operating systems, and that's what remedies should be aimed at. Leave Microsoft's source code alone.

The only way to achieve that is when there is such a thing as fair competition. There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly,- the abuse of power to make competition almost impossible is.

This brings up an other subject that I happened upon whilst looking at the Windows source, and something that may help unravel the infamous AARD code.

If I can make a suggestion: request the entire source tree for Windows 3.1. In the himem.sys source subtree there is a file called sipsim.obj. It's a small file and it contains 1(one) function: ISMSDOS. This function is the AARD code. Even within M$ this file was not distributed as source.

The fact that the function is called ISMSDOS is pretty clear indication that Schulman was right in what he suspected: an attempt to make the code not run on anything but MS-DOS.

If they "can't find" the code, I may be able to assist. ;o)

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[SilentChris]

"I mean, with enough hacking, you can get OS/2 to emulate Windows, or Linux."

I have no numbers to back me up, but I'm assuming as is the situation with emulating hardware, the more low-level information you have, the easier it is.

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[markj02]

First, if there were a common operating system that most people in the world used, writing software would become much easier for programmers. No more portability headaches. You'd have a set of guaranteed APIs that just work, you don't have to spend time angsting

And the economy would run so much more efficiently if we just planned it centrally, right? And the telephone system was just so wonderful and cheap when a single, large monopoly ran it, right?

Our economic system is based on competition, choice, and variety. Yes, there are some inefficiencies associated with that, but nothing compared to the inefficiencies of having a single, centrally planned operating system everywhere.

I'm happy for you if Windows gets your work done. It doesn't get my work done, though, yet I'm effectively forced to pay for it with every machine, and I'm forced to use it at times as well.

The problem in the case of Windows is not its popularity. The problem is that its design is driven not by the goals of quality, but by profit.

That is exactly what happens with monopolies. And that's exactly why we need choice and competition, even if breaking up a natural monopoly imposes some extra costs in the short run.

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[spectecjr]

OF COURSE it was done on intentionally! What were they supposed to do, build in netscape?

Quicken tried to do that -- it's in the court record. Netscape completely dropped the ball and couldn't componentize their browser, even though they promised Quicken that they could.

It's quite amusing reading all of the crap flinging going on at Netscape at the time. Basically, it comes down to shoddy engineering and shoddy product design.

But hey, I can't blame them for doing that for version 1.0. But for version 3?

Si

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[spectecjr]

I'd say it was shoddy PR. Didn't Microsoft say that they could deliver what Quicken wanted because their code was modular? Well couldn't they remove it easier? If it's so modular?

If Microsoft said they won because their design was better.....let them prove it. (I think the people from Quicken shot this down at the time though.)

I'd rather go off what Netscape's engineers have to say in the trial evidence:

Netscape notes on Netscape/Intuit agreement

There's more up there... just check out the Jan 99 evidence filings.

No; Quicken went with Microsoft after Netscape dallied around and couldn't deliver.

As for it being modular, not it doesn't make it easier to remove.

It's componentized. That is, it exposes itself as a component interface; anyone can connect to that interface, and use the functionality. It's a COM object.

However, most of the Windows shell uses that COM object, and other related COM objects that the API exposes. Most of Windows uses other parts of that API set. A hell of a lot of 3rd parties use that API set. If you take the list of everything that IE provides, you end up with a messy cloud of functionality -- which is needed by lots of different applications.

For example, if you remove everything that supposedly makes up IE, you get rid of windows scripting, which will break the command line, large portions of the policy management system, a lot of the administrative tools, and will also break IIS (which uses it for its ASP pages).

You'd also have to get rid of the Cryptography API. Which is used by any kind of password handling, authentication, or encryption in Windows.

So where do you draw the line? What is IE? What isn't?

WinInet provides FTP, Gopher and HTTP file transfer support. That's part of IE. But it sure as hell is a good piece of OS functionality to have in there -- it makes writing apps that handle HTTP *much* easier.

... and so on, and so on...

So which part is IE?

Is it the HTML renderer? Or the HTML parser? Or just the frame window with the menus and toolbar buttons?

Si

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[Suppafly]

install 98se and run ieradicator and see how stable the system is after words.. sure it will use less resources, but I seriously doubt it will be as stable as originally intented. Not to mention it doesnt actually remove all of IE. If you removed all of IE (which is part of the windows system in general) you better get used to the idea of a blank desktop and nothing else. The fact that the hs html engine is left is proof that they dont remove all of IE.. dlls associated with a product are generally removed when a product is removed.

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[connorbd]

Reasonably speaking, I'd say a browser with IE's functionality consists of the wrapper for the renderer and networking client functionality and not much more than that. The Cryp API and the rest of it are middleware and have no proper place being considered part of the browser software, which is just a client of the DLLs it's built against.

/Brian

Re:windows "source code" is likely useless

[markj02]

The [telephone] monopoly was bad, but deregulation is proving to be a bigger disaster.

Deregulation is only problematic because telephone companies are merging again to form new monopolies. If government policies had ensured that customers actually have a choice among several phone companies, things would be better. How? For example, not letting phone companies buy cable companies might have been a start. And requiring that anybody that runs a wire to your home to offer both Internet access and phone service at reasonable rates, whether they want to or not, would have helped, too.

Isn't Linux a centrally planned OS (Linus)?

Pretty much every commercial and free project is centrally planned. There is no problem with central planning of projects as long as all the projects participate in a competitive market. The market provides the incentives and feedback that keeps the planners from slacking off. Microsoft is largely decoupled from that kind of market feedback. In the one area where they have been challenged, Java, they did respond (although merely by cloning, not innovating, but it's a start).

I can't wait...

[jguevin]

How long do you think before we can download a leaked copy on Morpheus?

Re:I can't wait...

[GregWebb]

(Malicious thought)

OK, let's say we get hold of that. Which isn't impossible if this goes ahead.

Anyone want to check what compilers it compiles on? What's the bet you can find _something_ in the source base that causes VC++ to barf? Or some VB code?

;-)

Microsoft is Protecting a Secret

[eric_aka_scooter]

They don't want anyone to see the source code because no one must ever know that Windows XP is written in Visual Basic...

Let the Windows Source Jokes Begin!

[Bonker]

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();
}

points addressed

[geekoid]

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.

Someone call the FAA!

[Telastyn]

'cuz pigs are about to fly.

Re:Someone call the FAA!

[sharkey]

'cuz pigs are about to fly.

Doubtful. Notched ears and curly tails are probably high up on the "Terrorist Indicators" list given to airport security, right between eyelash curlers and the United States Congressional Medal of Honor. Said pigs won't be allowed on the plane.

Which features can't be removed?

[UsonianAutomatic]

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the company had proved during the trial that it is impossible to remove software features from Windows without damaging the operating system.

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.

Re:Which features can't be removed?

[SuiteSisterMary]

The MS HTML Engine (shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll) is left on the machine to provide needed functionality for other applications that render HMTL (e.g. Outlook Express) or that launch a mini-browsing window (e.g. Winamp's Mini Browser, Netmeeting's Online Directory).

Yup, cleans IE right out of there, doesn't it? Just removes it completely from the machine. Oh, wait. Except for the parts that would DAMANGE THE OPERATING SYSTEM.

Re:Which features can't be removed?

[doorbot.com]

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the company had proved during the trial that it is impossible to remove software features from Windows without damaging the operating system.

I got rid of Internet Explorer a few months ago, and my system is just fine.

I think your comment is meant to be +1, Funny, because if you follow the link you provided it says in red bold letters:

Not for use with Windows 2000sr2 or Windows XP

Geewiz, I wonder why. Could it be because IE is so tightly integrated with the OS that removing it would kill your unborn children? Perhaps. But Mr. Desler's comments are right on... they can't remove it because they purposely integrated it into the OS. I think that's a great thing for the consumers... but the end result was some shady business practices that Microsoft deserves punishment for.

Re:Which features can't be removed?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well, if removing a 'add on' app winds up breaking apps that think they're calling a core API, I'd say it's pretty damn useful? Lots of bits of the OS itself use them, too; the help system, active desktop, and so on.

Re:Which features can't be removed?

[namespan]

Except for the parts that would DAMANGE THE OPERATING SYSTEM.

If removing it would damage the operating system, then it's no longer part of the application. It's a system resource.

This whole fiasco is a lot like saying "In order to remove the radio from a car, you have to take out the car battery, and that would hurt the operation of the car, so we can't remove the radio." This analogy was developed at length in this article almost 4 years ago, but it's still true.

When you talk about removing apps, you can't fairly talk about removing all the libraries they depend on. They're not part of the application, any more than libc is.

Re:Which features can't be removed?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Ah, but mshtml.dll and the like started out as part of the IE application, and should be considered part of it. What happens when any given application installs it's own shared libraries, and those libraries become SO USEFUL, and SO USED BY OTHER APPS that they naturally become part of the OS?

Re:Which features can't be removed?

[namespan]

If a component the application relies on can be used w/o invoking the application, then it's fair to argue it's not part of the application. Where a component starts life isn't particularly relevant except as history/philology.

I remember the days where some PC apps had their own TCP/IP implementations built-in. Then, a bit later, most of them started to use winsock, which became a dll eventually. Now it's a system wide resource.

Or to continue the car analogy: many of the electrical components of a car could have their own battery, but didn't -- because the battery/alternator system that supported the electric ignition was already there. This served as a good platform for adding other electric/electronic devices to the car. And yet replacing the starter motor does not mean that I have to replace anything else. Can you say the battery/alternator is PART of the starter motor? Or Headlamps? Dashboard electronics? Radio?

Generally useful pieces of applications will tend to migrate outside the app -- because programmers know it's better to reuse rather than reinvent (if you can understand the API, anyway). The HTML renderer is an important system component now. The IE application is not. If the analogy doesn't demonstrate that clearly, the actions of the 98Lite team do.

Re:Which features can't be removed?

[SuiteSisterMary]

So MS can build in the functionality, but not the ActiveX container to use it?

Re:Which features can't be removed?

[namespan]

They're allowed to build whatever they darn well please. What they're definitely not allowed to do is make ridiculous claims about the inseperability of what they build.

They'd even be allowed to bundle together whatever their customers (be they OEM or End-User) -- if they hadn't been walking on the shady side of anti-trust law. The reason anyone is even looking at restricting their freedom is that they've shown a tendancy to use that freedom to behave in a way that looked criminal -- and, in fact, in a way the courts have determined was indeed criminal.

The fact that they try to intentionally obfuscate relatively clear points like the boundary between system and application doesn't give them much credibility.

This isn't about what they have the freedom to build. This is about their criminal behavior, and how to check it.

Re:Which features can't be removed?

[SuiteSisterMary]

How is it a clear boundry? Windows 3.1 didn't include a TCP/IP networking stack; Windows 95 did. Too bad Trumpet Winsock. Internet protocol capability is a modern computing requirement, and that capability should be built into the OS. Period. Nobody complains that they throw in an FTP client.

Re:How long would it take to review?

[real_b0fh]

just ask *explicitly* for a buildable source tree.

then build it, it would pre pretty simple to figure it out.

but WHY?

[SuperDuG]

I mean has anyone here ever ran windows? ... and you want to see the sourcecode ... I mean seriously the sourcecode has to be a BFM (big freekin mess).

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"

Re:but WHY?

[stikves]

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 :-).

I strongly disagree. I am running XP at home, and I am not using XP for the features you mention (except for one). I use XP because it's stable!

Well I am not a Microsoft advocate. I am a Slackware user and I even can't use Mandrake, RedHat, Debian, etc. But sometimes I have to use Windows (for something like playing games, editing Word files, or somehow cdrecord stops working). And I can assure you that XP is much faster and stable than any other windows version (except for 3.1).

(FYI: I am using Adaptec CD Creator (when cdrecord fails for my kernel version), WinAmp, PowerDVD, etc. But I keep that shiny skin :)

What??!?

[big_groo]

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?

Re:What??!?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Just how, *how* are you going to find a geek that is impartial?

Presumably the same place you're going to find three impartial overseers to monitor their behaviour in future, as previously suggested...

The good, the bad, the ugly

[Mhrmnhrm]

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.

Re:The good, the bad, the ugly

[Yottabyte84]

What if they use the fact that thier code has gone puiblic to sue the developers of WINE and the like for copyright infringement? Right now, they haven't been sued because they have a 'cleanroom' implementation which requires not looking at source. With the source to windows publicly available, WINE developers will have a hard time arguing that thery didn't touch any of the Windows.

Re:The good, the bad, the ugly

[Maigus]

As stated in the parent, I don't see any advantage for the OSS community from the release of the windows source.

Speaking as one who worked with the source tree (PowerPC NT 3.51 and 4.0), although not as a developer but rather in a white box test environment, I don't think that the OSS community as a whole would gain much from it. The really interesting things which haven't already been reverse engineered by the OSS community or simply rendered irrelevant are all in .NET. Things like the new garbage collection system are truly interesting but I don't see the rest as much fun.

Furthermore, the source itself is a wreck. It's impossible to read, there's still legacy comments from David Cutler in it which are incorrect and my opinion was they were still there because they were amusing.

Building the source is yet another nightmare. Even if you had it, actually getting it to compile is hellish even with the complete tool set, environment, and instructions. Last I saw they were still using "build" an "imake-like" tool which is only available through the DDK to compile the source. Yes this is after they switched to the VC compiler.

Realistically, what is this supposed to prove even if the source is released? The fact of the matter is that with programming *anything* is possible. If MS really wanted to remove the dependancy of IE from the system they can. We know it, they know it. It might involve major surgery on their part, but the mshtml render engine could simply exist there for the apps which use it to render text (help, IE, etc).

The correct remedy for the case has always been and remains proper regulation of a buisness which is out of control presently. Releasing the source will piss them off, not make them compliant.

Re:The good, the bad, the ugly

[I_redwolf]

Ummm.. IANAL but asking Microsoft to release the windows source code publically for review is probably a good idea. You get experts in the field from different scopes AND/OR firms from different scopes funded by the states to read the source and to make a technological feasibly sound decision as to whether it can be slimmed down or not.

Microsoft doesn't have to worry about any IP being compromised as the firms and/or people are usually bound by court rules. This is evidence, not the public release of source code to some company; and evidence in a case doesn't HAVE to be disclosed to the public. As you've said above.

I believe that this does alot of good for "Joe Sixpack" as even though he might not care, people like me would like to know one way or another with no doubt that Microsoft is lying. Not only will it help the states case against Microsoft but it will truly put an end to Microsoft as trustworthy; which will have dramatic effects on future projects from Microsoft. (ie: .NET)

With the Source released for review, Joe Sixpack gains what matters to them most. Slimmer version of windows, cheaper price and or just peace of mind, knowing not to trust wholeheartedly things from Microsoft (buyer be wary).

Without the release.. Microsoft gets to keep Joe Sixpack blind.

Re:The good, the bad, the ugly

[wfrp01]

So what does all this mean?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this mean that the source code for Windows would become part of the public record?

Re:The good, the bad, the ugly

[Yottabyte84]

IIRC, the Bleem crew used a similar defense with Sony, in that they performed the emulation not by copying the PS1 BIOS, but instead by studying how the software and hardware interacted, then figuring out how to reproduce those responses on the x86 platform. With the WINE crew, it would be studying how two different layers of software interact, then reproducing those results with a different software layer. As long as they don't go looking at the W32 source (just as Bleem didn't look at the PS1 BIOS), they should be clean. Again, IANAL

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned a "cleanroom" implemention. Much like the a "blackbox". You send a signal in, and observe the signal out, and work to duplicate the results without opening it up. This is a legal method of reverse engenierring. If, however, you opened up the box, and copied the circuit, then you would be infringing. IANAL, this is stuff I have read from multilpe places, and has been upheld in court several times. I'm sorry I don't have links, but a good web search should find some stuff.

Middleware?

[mrroot]

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.

Re:Somewhere in Mordo^H^H^H^H Redmond...

[cperciva]

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.

it's probably very well written

[SweetAndSourJesus]

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.

Quitcherbitchin

[AnalogBoy]

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.

Re:Quitcherbitchin

[AnalogBoy]

Where are the slashdotters who go to the universities? I garuntee that those EULA's are tight. Plus, i believe there are cultural barriers between the kind of person who would be interested in OS Research, and the kind of person who hangs out on Slashdot (or, at least those who make a habit of posting.) Just my observation.
The old maxim "Those who know don't speak, those who speak don't know" usually holds true around here.

Re:Quitcherbitchin

[scot4875]

Why the hell don't we see shitload of Windows-based software then?!

Because most universities are research institutions, not application developers. And, (at least here at the University of Idaho) most software development is done for major contractors like HP, or the DOD and would be of little use to desktop users.

This is getting further and further off topic, but there're actually some fascinating studies going on here using modified kernels of both NT and Linux related to security. One professor has a series of functions hooked into all system APIs, and then monitors those API calls to see how the OS behaves during different types of attacks. (DOS, break-ins, whatever) Then the OS can automatically attempt to compensate for what it *thinks* might be an attack.

Anyway, enough OT for now...

--Jeremy

Multiple versions of windows == bad

[Steveftoth]

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.

Re:Multiple versions of windows == bad

[Steveftoth]

COnsidering that they have done everything except drop support for the old oses, they are doing pretty good. The only OS they sell in the store is XP and xp is much more compatable with programs written for WinNT (any version) then 95/98/ME was. They are slowly getting windows back to one platform. After the splits they created when they switched from win16 -> win32 (95 version) -> win32 (nt version) finally you should be able to write a program and have it work on Win2000, and WinXP and whatever next without having OS specific hooks and code paths.

Re:Multiple versions of windows == bad

[rhavyn]

What stores do you shop in? Fry's has (on the shelves) Windows 2000, 2000 Pro, 2000 Server, XP Home, XP Pro, and Me. Best Buy and Circuit City have mostly the same (they didn't have 2000 Server IIRC). Even if you don't want to count the different flavors of the same version, that is 3 different versions that are easily available at the store.

And outside of stores, there are all of the different embedded versions of Windows, etc. MS has had one platform for the past 7 years ... it was called Win32. The fact that they broke the API repeatedly, and every different patch level of every different version of Windows caused new and different bugs in Win32 does not make me feel even the slightest bit confident that XP is going to make this any better.

And XP is supposed to be phased out within 2 years for the next version of Windows that will be all .NET (another new platform). MS will make sure that you always need to have OS specific hooks and code paths to work reliably across the commonly used versions of Windows.

Re:Multiple versions of windows == bad

[Steveftoth]

But the differences between the different versions of windows are getting smaller and smaller. The difference between Win95 and WinNT is HUGE while the difference between Win2k and WinXP is much smaller. Now when I say this I mean the difference in the APIs. The Win95 implementation of Win32 doesn't have many of the features that the Win32 version that NT runs does. This means that every time you make a call you have to double check the docs to make sure that it will work on both oses properly. Everything from creating a thread to accessing the registry is much different inbeween the versions. WinXP and Win2k is much smaller, and the different versions of XP (home/pro/server) are MOSTLY the same, again not perfect, but MSes track record is that all the APIs are converging.

They will not get rid of Win32 for many more years, of course .Net could turn into the next platform to program to, but again that will not happen until Win32 is long gone. No matter what MS says, the .Net platform will not have the performance of the Win32 apis. They may be easier to program to, but again that remains to be seen.

It is possible to remove IE!

[a3d0a3m]

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

Seperate IE? You bet they can.

[Decimal]

At least, with the 9x versions. Take a look.

Re:Seperate IE? You bet they can.

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

I tried installing 98 lite... Yes you can do it, no IE. But man is that a pain in the ass. Not to get it installed without IE. The creators of 98 lite make an easy to use installation system. However installing 98 without IE, you are just setting yourself up with headaches, death by scripting errors, and overall not your usual 98 environment, that you as Joe Six Pack are use to.

You truly gain some sort of appreciation that IE is integrated to the operating system, if you are a regular Windows user by using 98 lite. Microsoft should just come out and say that they have done it to better the user experience. I mean running Windows without IE? C'mon you might as well run Linux, like I do now. ; )

They don't have to review all of the Windows Code

[TheConfusedOne]

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.

may already be too late

[liquidsin]

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.

Re:may already be too late

[lblack]

Quite unlikely that Microsoft does not engage in source control. Take the stable source from a release, and have them provide you with the compiler, compiling options, compile platform, etc. used to create the installation set, as well as all documentation regarding changes to the output of the compiler.

Replicate the steps taken to create the installation binary set. Checksum your creation against the actual release. Ask MS "What's up?" when things don't check out.

l

Re:may already be too late

[lblack]

My favorite Slashdot-ism: The complete, unthinking, absolutely unassailable assumption that every MS employee must be a lying bastard, hypocritical and backstabbing to the end...

"when things don't check out." Because of course they're all lying bastards, and of course it won't check out... and "of course" if you gave the source to Linus [salon.com] he'd save us all!

Um. Actually, having done similar activities in the past, I gravitated towards "when" instead of "if", because I've never been in a situation where a complex project restored from source control matched exactly the installation binaries generated during release. You have to chase your way around your development team and discover that, oh yea, there was a tiny little bug that was patched with 1 line of code and that escaped version control because Person X was in a hurry and told Person Y to do it tomorrow, and then Person Y was out sick so Person Z ended up...you get the picture.

My favorite slashdot-ism: Being so engaged in the political infighting in Slashdot that you aren't able to disengage yourself from it, and devote your time to showing everyone just how biased they are.

Hm.

-l

Just one expert?

[mrroot]

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.

Maybe I'm on drugs but...

[mhesseltine]

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?

Re:Maybe I'm on drugs but...

[pmz]

mshtml.dll pretty much is the browser. Everything else is GUI fluff. When will people realize that GUIs are <10% of real software?

Re:Maybe I'm on drugs but...

[pmz]

The GUI is purely an interface layer to the software. If the software is modularized properly, UIs can be swapped in and out, and the core functionality remains unchanged (GUIs for CLI UNIX programs, for example).

If IE were designed properly, the real guts of the browser are in separate modules from the UI. It appears this is the case, since mshtml.dll appears to be the "guts". If such DLLs remain after so-called IE cleansing, then the cleansing really failed. IE still remains on the system just without the UI.

hmmm...

[SevenTowers]

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...

Re:hmmm...

[Chris Mattern]

> 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.

No kidding YANAL. IANAL either, but this line of reasoning (making copywrited material public invalidates the copywrite) means that nobody could ever copywrite a published book.

Chris Mattern

Re:hmmm...

[kindbud]

The code can't go public.

On the contrary, this remedy is one that many people see as the only one that would be effective and would directly address the crimes that were committed. Microsoft abused the proprietary nature of their intellectual property, they abused their limited exclusive rights to stifle progress in the field to their own exclusive benefit rather than encourage it, as copyright is intended to do. The penalty should ensure that they cannot abuse it again. Taking away Microsoft's exclusive access to their source code would do that, and would spur new competition that was not possible before. This is exactly the remedy that the situation calls for.

Hire old MS coders

[asv108]

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.

Interrogating, huh?

[wildwood]

"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."

This is when we find out...

[mrroot]

...that Windows XP was really developed in Fortran

Remove IE, break windows? YES

[d3xt3r]

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.

Re:Remove IE, break windows? YES

[TheAwfulTruth]

Not to mention the fact that I and hundreds of other software developers use embedded IE controls in our products. So it'll break hundreds of programs as well... The question isn't even "can" they, it's "should" they and the answer is one huge resounding "NO!".

Re:Remove IE, break windows? YES

[Anthony Boyd]

But should packaging a tightly integrated web browser with the user interface illegal?

You've just defined "tying" which is illegal for a company with a monopoly to do. Since Microsoft has actually been found guilty now, I think the answer to your question is not only yes it should be illegal (in theory), but also yes it is illegal (according to the court ruling).

I think the exchange would likely go more like...

[immanis]

"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."

This isn't the ONLY Reason to Open it Up!

[advtech]

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

--

Re:This isn't the ONLY Reason to Open it Up!

[jeff13]

Interesting. I've always suspected an open Internet, as it truly is for now more or less, would be the greatest benefit to all. A virtual democracy. But the minute you use networks to exchange money, this goes out the windows. So to speak. This is why I believe a .NET setup isn't in the interests of that democratic Internet many dream about. Hey, .NET is great if you WANT a $ network. What about connecting to the Internet itself?

But why does that mean I have to use only Microsoft servers, workstations, software, standards, etc. to connect to this $ network? Isn't this a monopoly?

I think people need to define what sort of network they want, where they want it, and whether everyone should be allowed to play.

Do you prefer a world with an AOL Network, then a .NET one, a Unix/Internet one, and some others (the Sun network, the Sony one, etc.)? What if, since you pay all your money to be on one network, you can't connect to another $ network?

Ok wow, OT or what? MOD down! ;p

Re:This isn't the ONLY Reason to Open it Up!

[advtech]

Of course, but in the near term, we won't be able to get past the use of this virual democracy by less than honest people to exploit those less fortunate or more trusting. It's the nature of individuals, and unfortunately, monopolies. If Microsoft didn't see a broader world where they owned the architecture, connecting clients, and all of your traffic data, why would they go through the trouble of pushing the .NET standard? They wouldn't of course. And consider what PRIVACY might mean in that future. Your surfing patters, like it or not, can be collected in an aggregate for and sliced and diced however they please.

Scary? You bet.

--

It doesn't matter

[scott1853]

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.

Re:Somewhere in Mordo^H^H^H^H Redmond...

[JordoCrouse]

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).

Re:Somewhere in Mordo^H^H^H^H Redmond...

[markmoss]

I gather that the TCP/IP stack is BSD-derived. And guess what? That part of Windows works. ;-)

Nick Petreley said it best...

[Rooktoven]

(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"...

Compile it

[coyote-san]

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.

Re:Compile it

[foobar104]

Oh, and me without any mod points.

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.

You've been reading too many newsgroups. What you describe is seizure, and it's completely inappropriate in a civil matter. In order to get authorization to send in federal marshalls to seize property like that, a bench warrant must be issued. To get a bench warrant, the judge has to be convinced that there's evidence there that's relevant to a criminal investigation and that couldn't be gotten any other way.

In other words, if a judge believed that Microsoft's computers had information on them about who mailed Anthrax to those senators last fall, and that judge believed that Microsoft had been given an opportunity to turn the evidence over and had refused or that the evidence was in danger of being tampered with or destroyed, then and only then would you see a bench warrant issued for the sort of seizure you describe.

This is completely different from any action taken by the police in cooperation with the BSA. In those instances (like the Rotter raid last year), the police were convinced by the BSA that criminal activity was taking place, that the activity was very significant, and that any approach other than seizure would result in evidence being destroyed.

Re:Compile it

[Anonymous DWord]

Except, you know, the federal marshals can't go around acting on state enforcement actions.

Yeah, they're busy running around enforcing licensing for Adobe and Microsoft.

Re:Compile it

[coyote-san]

The states are the plantiffs, but it's still a case before the US Federal Court and the Federal Marshals are the enforcement arm of those courts.

Re:Compile it

[Courageous]

What you describe is seizure, and it's completely inappropriate in a civil matter.

I am confused. Clarify for me: Was Microsoft found guilty or liable in the Antitrust Case. I thought they were found guilty, and that it was indeed actually a criminal violation.

C//

Re:Compile it

[surfcow]

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.)

Gosh, I wish that were true. Seems like I recall that way back in dinosaur days, Netscape noticed that Navigator ran quite well under Win3.1, but very poorly under Win3.11. Hmm... maybe a little too poorly. So Netscape sued, eventually a federal judge ordered Microsoft to turn over the source to Win3.11. Microsoft then claimed that it had lost the source.

No federal marshals were sent in to confiscate source code. The judge slapped Microsoft's hand and that was the end of it. This all took years and Netscape was dying by then anyway.

I would love to believe that we could rely on the law to save the day, but I just can't.

Compound this with the fact that Microsoft was a huge campaign contributor in 2000.

=brian

Re:Compile it

[foobar104]

MS was sued under the civil provisions of Sherman. There are criminal provisions, but they haven't been exercised.

Re:Compile it

[guttentag]

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.

Of course, MS would move the source somewhere else for safe keeping.

So if we go to Terraserver and zoom in on the Redmond, WA area, we should see a line of monkeys carrying boxes of 5.25-inch floppies from the campus to Bill Gates's house?

If only Terraserver was realtime...

Re:Compile it

[sean23007]

Are you mad? You can't just send the Federal Marhals in to take whatever you want! This isn't a drug-bust on the multibillion dollar scale, and they didn't even take these kind of measures against Enron.

Come on guys, you have to obey the law, even if you believe in Open Source. And, similarly, if you are an idiot.

Re:Compile it

[IPLawyer]

Seizure is available in civil matters. For example, if you're a trademark holder and have evidence that a third party is selling counterfeit goods, a warrant can be obtained to send in the Marshalls for a seizure. I've done it before, and it can get quite ugly.

Re:Compile it

[arkanes]

legally, this isn't any different than a multi-billion dollar drug bust, and a judge would be within his powers to order such a warrant, if he were convinced that Microsoft wouldn't fully comply with a subpeona of the source code. Politcally speaking is another matter, which is one reason it didn't happen to Enron. But, in essence, yes, they certainly can send in the Federal Marshals to take whatever they want. It happens all the time.

Re:Compile it

[kin_korn_karn]

wouldn't it be irony to the nth power if MSFT had all their source code repositories stored on an offshore data haven? or that they actually OWNED Sealand*?

* I may have the name wrong, I'm thinking of the data haven that is its own nation built on an old oil rig somewhere in the atlantic

Re:Compile it

[foobar104]

For example, if you're a trademark holder and have evidence that a third party is selling counterfeit goods, a warrant can be obtained to send in the Marshalls for a seizure.

Which is, of course, a long way from what the original poster was saying. In your example, the seizure is of goods that themselves are illegal, and is to prevent the sale of them, which would be an illegal act. The seizure of Microsoft's source code for Windows (not an illegal good) to make it available for analysis (not a legally mandated act) would be completely unjustified and would never happen.

Re:Compile it

[Tony-A]

Of course, MS would move the source somewhere else for safe keeping.
And THEN the worms come out of the woodwork.

Fear Uncertainty Doubt

Re:Compile it

[WNight]

Wah. If the stockholders didn't like the idea of courts and federal marshalls interfering with profits they should have avoided buying stock from a company that had broken the law and was obviously doing so again.

Maybe the loss of some money will teach them. Nothing else seems to reach people anymore.

Re:Compile it

[sean23007]

What would you guys have said if every person at MS had refused to testify in court?

"They are hiding something! They are guilty! Monopoly! Kill Bill!"

But right now everyone at Enron is refusing to testify, and you all say:

"It's a good thing we have so many rights! America rules! What do you mean Enron did something wrong? Innocent until proven guilty!"

Justice means removing your unfounded biases and making reasonable decisions based on facts. Being stupid does not make you right.

Re:Compile it

[Kenneth]

Compound this with the fact that Microsoft was a huge campaign contributor in 2000.

So was Enron. To both parties.

Right now would be the perfect time to step in and really make Microsoft squirm. Sure the current administration has been a little more than favorable toward Microsoft. Right now, they can't afford to even appear to be colluding with another large corporation that is breaking the law.

Re:Compile it

[sean23007]

If there is plenty of evidence to prove them guilty, why is it thus far impossible? Of course everyone knows, deep down, that they are as guilty as a killer with blood on his hands and a knife in his pocket standing over a mutilated corpse, but then why does it take so long to pin anything on them? There are problems with any judicial system that has such difficulty in the area of justice.

Re:Compile it

[Courageous]

The bigger question is how I got moderated to "insightful" for admitting to be confused. Slashdot. Go figure.

C//

I don't even see the code any more..

[Yahiko]

All I see is blue screen, stop error, page fault..

--Yahiko

And emacs is part of the operating system too

[hburch]

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.

Re:And emacs is part of the operating system too

[sammy baby]

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.

Please mod up parent - this is essentially the core of the debate. In fact, Steve Ballmer went on record as saying that "We should have the right to integrate a ham sandwich into Windows if we so choose."

However, I think that the way you formulated your statement is pretty weak: for example, every computer I have has some sort of memory management scheme in the operating system, and yet none of them were installed with the "express single purpose" of doing memory management. You can argue that you can't have a computer without managing its memory, but MS would argue that you can't have its operating system without the functionality in IE. The shared libraries issue, on the ohter hand, makes much more sense.

Re:And emacs is part of the operating system too

[sammy baby]

Re-read what I wrote. I said that nobody installs an OS with the express single purpose of doing memory management. What would the point be? It's like buying a car just so you could play with the gearshift, but not to actually drive it anywhere.

You're correct, of course, in that it's a required function of an OS to manage memory (which I mentioned in my previous post), so if that's the distinction that's bothering you, let me try another example:

Although Mac OSX's new Aqua interface has plenty of detractors, nobody has criticized Apple for requiring the installation of a GUI with the OS. An OS doesn't require a GUI (cf any command-line-interface OS), and the only people who buy a Mac specifically for the purpose of moving windows around in Aqua are wankers who bought iMacs to go with the furniture.

Which version of windows?

[Apreche]

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?

Err....

[Otis_INF]

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.

Over and over again...

[cr0sh]

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?

Re:Over and over again...

[IDIIAMOTS]

BeOS included a built-in browser at a cost of $0
OS/2 Warp included a built-in browser at a cost of $0
Netscape used its other revenue streams to fund Netscape distribution for free to educational institutions and individual users

So what has Microsoft done differently by including IE in Windows?

Re:Over and over again...

[maddman75]

The issue isn't that simple. If you think an OS is a few tiny utilities and a kernel, then yeah, maybe MS violated laws continuously for decades. If you think an OS is the tool set used by people to get what they want done, then it seems pretty clear that most if not all software is "part of the OS".


You don't seem to define an OS very well. What's the difference between an OS and an application? By your definition there is no difference.

An Operating system allows programs, hardware, and users to interact. That's it. Everything else is an application. Most of what we think of as 'Linux' is applications. IE, notepad, paint, wordpad, scandisk, all applications.

I think developers should be wasy of developing Windows software. After all, if your software becomes popular enough Microsoft will make a clone and give it away.

Re:Over and over again...

[cr0sh]

But when this all started (1995-1996?) they WERE separate markets - and that is what this issue is about - not what they are TODAY, but what they were YESTERDAY.

Re:Over and over again...

[cr0sh]

Then along comes Windows 2.0 and later 3.0. No more sales. Windows paint is free and does it all just as good. Did MS abuse their monopoly?

Well, in a way - yeah. For the simple Paint market they used thier presence in the OS market to give away a competing product, eliminating the smaller competitors in the Paint market. Indeed, I could show you an ad (from an old Creative Computing Magazine from the 80's) which I could almost swear is the same Paintbrush program as is included in Windows 3.0 and 3.1 - but it was made by a different company - however, that company is no longer around - I tend to wonder if Microsoft bought them out, then incorporated the program into their software...

You notice they have not gave any serious effort yet of "squashing" Adobe, on any real front? I imagine that will be coming in the future.

As far as a browser being a core function of the OS - I would have to agree that, yes, today it just might be. But at the time of Microsoft giving away IE (by putting it prominently on the desktop, which was pre-installed via OEMs in binding licenses that disallowed them from installing any other browser, much less selling another operating system) in the face of Netscape selling their browser, they used their monopoly to take over another market sector - which is a violation of anti-trust laws. You can yell all you want about it not being a market today, but back then, it clearly was a different software market. It doesn't matter how it is "today" - what matters is their actions YESTERDAY, and how that caused the "destruction" of a competitor, Netscape.

Re:Over and over again...

[Cinematique]

Netscape 6.2 is Internet Explorer's only true competition.

Opera, OmniWeb, iCab... they all fail to load one site or another... *correctly*

my definition of "correctly" = matching IE5 and Netscape6

It looks like you're trying to post to Slashdot.

[Inoshiro]

Would you like to see a list of homonyms so you don't make an idiot of yourself in public?

actually...

[Faust7]

...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.

Actually it is well-modularized...

[sheldon]

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)

Re:Actually it is well-modularized...

[Anthony Boyd]

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.

Not according to the ruling from the court, which convicted Microsoft of illegally leveraging their monopoly to kill or limit competition.

Re:Actually it is well-modularized...

[sheldon]

IBM used Windows code to make OS/2.

Microsoft Objects

[guttentag]

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.

Not to mention...

[cnelzie]

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 .h and .c files.

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
--

Re:Who modded this down?

[phyxeld]

Seriously, folks. I hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but this is getting out of hand. The government demanding a private company's source code? Is that the kind of world we want?

Everyone seems blinded by the fact that this time it's microsoft who happens to be the victim. Doesn't anyone see that next time it might be the good guys getting fucked by the government?

It's a shame the Feds aren't still in it

[Guppy06]

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.

Re:It looks like you're trying to post to Slashdot

[zulux]

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.

Impartial judge.

[saintlupus]

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

Re:Who modded this down?

[smagruder]

Hmmm... seeing "Microsoft" and "victim" in the same sentence is making me go cross-eyed. As soon as my eyeballs return to center, I'll roll them up voluntarily.

Re:Who modded this down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you actually read the article?
microsoft is saying that X is technically no feasable well do you expect evrybody just belive them without any verification?

how would the be able to tell?

[negativethirsty]

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"

Re:I think the exchange would likely go more like.

[BrookHarty]

Only the government has enough lawyers and clout to alter evidence given in court. Oh wait..

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/technology /h tml98/micr_090198.html

...without damaging the operating system.

[dpilot]

One could make the argument that it's impossible to simply install/uninstall and run software without damaging the operating system.

Re:source code

[andcal]

Actually, MSFT has allowed portions of source code to be accessed by some companies. It is a matter of record.

Look at the lawsuit filed by the British company Bristol (and subsequently either settled or decided in MSFT's favor, I forget which). From what I read in the news, it seems that MSFT was providing source code to Bristol, but then stopped doing so at some point, for some reason or another, at which point Bristol decided to sue Microsoft to force them to continue to provide the source code.

I am sure that Bristol is not the only company that MSFT was/is providing source code access to.

Re:Somewhere in Mordo^H^H^H^H Redmond...

[haruharaharu]

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.

Re:Who modded this down?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

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.

Re:Never happen

[Sj0]

I'm wondering...if they were to get the actual source code, could MS be charged with prejury(lying under oath...spelled wrong perhaps...)? If it turned out that Microsoft has been lying the whole time (like we all know they were), I wonder if they could be punished severely? Even if MS can't be charged, their "consultant" who "testified" would get hammered. Good. One less slimy liar in the world.

Red Herring

[dpilot]

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.

Re:Who modded this down?

[rapid prototype]

how is this different from, say, demanding the plans to the Ford Explorer to verify Ford's claims that it was the fault of the Firestone tires for all the rollovers?

-rp

How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers?

[IDIIAMOTS]

"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.

Re:Who modded this down?

[ethereal]

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.

States want to NATIONALIZE MICROSOFT

[markhahn]

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.

Re:Who modded this down?

[bbqBrain]

Nobody has said they have to release their source to everyone--just the court. Or does that amount to being admitted as evidence and, thus, part of public record?

I remember a review of the source code in the DeCSS trial allegedly preserving the source forever in public records (heh). Can anyone explain the ramifications of allowing government analysts to examine the code? Can a NDA be used in this case?

State Attorneys have their heads in their ass

[Sabalon]

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?

Re:State Attorneys have their heads in their ass

[I_redwolf]

You sir, have your head far up in your ass cavity. KDE is not apart of Linux. No matter how you compare functionality I've never seen a patch for KDE in my Linux kernel config. It's userspace and it's modular. Don't you think IE should be the same way? Modular, userspace, so that if I end up on a windows box "I" don't have to use it??

I think you are missing the big picture, if you are even looking at the same picture at this point.

Re:State Attorneys have their heads in their ass

[Sabalon]

At which point did I say KDE is a part of Linux? I said that KDE copied the functionality that Windows put into their folder browser.

At no point did I say that Linux added this functionality via KDE or anything like that. Actually, after looking back at my post, I didn't even mention Linux at all. Can you see your prostate from your vantage point? ;)

As for should Windows and the GUI have the same seperation as KDE and the underlying OS, no, I don't think that. There is nothing stopping you from implmenting your own file browser.

It is a given that when you buy windows, you are buying an OS with a tighly intergrated GUI - the same way that I know when I buy a Ford Windstar, I am buying a shell, engine, tires, and endless nightmares down the road. If I want to I can swap parts out, but Ford, like MS, does not have a business model that lets me go in and just buy this and that part (well, at least not easily!!!)

However, when I decide on Linux, I know I can install the OS with whatever components I may or may not need. None of my Linux boxes even have X on them...only my HPUX does. Yeah...modular is good, but know what you are getting when you go to get it.

Re:State Attorneys have their heads in their ass

[SuiteSisterMary]

FYI, you do a step too many. Just type your URL into the run box; so long as the http:// prefix is on, it'll run in your registered browser.

Re:State Attorneys have their heads in their ass

[Sabalon]

Yup...but what I was trying to fully illustrate is that the windows file brower windows were basically IE without a couple options.

I bet they are kicking themselves now.

[viper21]

MS Should have moved to Canada when they had the chance.

-S

Federal Marshalls raid Redmond

[abe ferlman]

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 :)

Re:Just Ask Netscape...

[WildBeast]

price = $0 = capitalism ? You're brilliant

Re:Who modded this down?

[nomadic]

Is that the kind of world we want?

Yes.

The source IS the documentation

[dpilot]

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.

Re:Somewhere in Mordo^H^H^H^H Redmond...

[Arandir]

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.

Re:Who modded this down?

[linzeal]

Speaking about this very thing. My girlfriend just got a job yesterday after 3 months of looking and we were going to celebrate with a turkey dinner with all the fixings. Soon after I tested the turkey for doneness and raised it out of the roasting pan something horrific layed in store. Thousands upon thousands of little insect bodies that must have been living in the turkey at that the time of its freezing.

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.

Re:I think the exchange would likely go more like.

[DoctaWatson]

You don't think that obstruction of justice and contempt of court would be an incentive for MS to be more compliant?

Can't they plead the 5th?

[telstar]

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?

Plead the fifth ... all the cool kids are doing it.

Re:Can't they plead the 5th?

[drik00]

I dont believe so. The way that I understand it, the source code is seen as evidence, whereas you can only pleade the 5th Amendment in personal testimony.

Re:How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers

[pmz]

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.

This is the CRIMINAL anti-trust case

[coyote-san]

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.

Re:This is the CRIMINAL anti-trust case

[foobar104]

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.

That's simply false. Judges can't go issuing warrants whenever they feel like it. There are legally and constituionally mandated guidelines that must be followed in order for the warrant to be legal.

There's no question that the most expedient way to get anything is just to take it. That doesn't mean our justice system operates that way.

Re:This is the CRIMINAL anti-trust case

[foobar104]

Steve Jackson Games?

The exception that proves the rule. The judge who issued the warrant for the search of SJG offices and seizure of equipment therein overstepped his bounds. The government was found at fault and forced to pay damages and legal fees.

However, thanks to a bunch of zealots who associate themselves with the EFF, this case was blown completely out of proportion. It was a simple, albeit dramatic and traumatic, instance of illegal seizure. Advocates on the side of SJG and the EFF tried to turn it into a privacy/wiretap case by claiming that the seizure of SJG computers was tantamount to the illegal interception of electronic communications, prohibited by wiretap laws. The Fifth Circuit, of course, saw straight through that noise.

The point is that illegal seizure is illegal seizure. The fact that it has happened in the past doesn't mean it's policy.

Other News

[4of12]

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."

Re:According to MS's spokesman...

[Cylix]

Yes,

There was a utility that allowed you to remove the current shell from Windows98 (ie) and have the older one copied from the Windows95 disk. The system ran fine afterwards and rarely did any application break. I rather enjoyed this application at the time.

Twin view (two monitors) was broke in this because the older version of explorer did not support that feature.

For the most part the system was as stable as it had been before and ran a great deal lighter.

MS's claims the system went to hell are totally bogus and were later proven to be bogus.

Wasn't this a big scandal?

[coyote-san]

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.

Re:Who modded this down?

[sharkey]

Hmmm... seeing "Microsoft" and "victim" in the same sentence is making me go cross-eyed.

Yeah, you expect "victimiser" rather that victim.

Re:How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers

[quintessent]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers

[barawn]

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.

Re:How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers

[SilentChris]

I agree with you. It's actually the same argument as the "base system" theory.

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.

It's so very, very, very simple

[Weasel Boy]

Microsoft distributes Internet Explorer separately from Windows (e.g., for the Mac). Therefore, it is not an inseparable part of Windows. QED.

Re:How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers

[deblau]

I fail to see how stripping out add-on middleware from Windows will benefit the consumer in the end.

I've just bought a shiny new combination TV/VCR. I take it home. Three months later the TV (OS) part breaks. If the VCR and TV had been separate, I'd be able to just send in the TV to be repaired. As it is, if I ever want to watch my $5000 tape collection again (add-on software), I have to go out and buy a whole new TV/VCR when all I needed was just the TV (they don't come unbundled, you see).

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.

Joe User buys these things anyway, they just tack on the price without him seeing it. There's no reason an OEM can't do the same. It's just that right now, they have no choice.

They already have it

[Florian Weimer]

At least California: San José State University has licensed the Windows source code.

Re:Ummm...no.

[RandomCoil]

[BLOCKQUOTE]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.[/BLOCKQUOTE]

Well yes, I agree, but only kind of. The default/icon issue relates to something MS had been doing for years: exercising strict control over what OEMs could and couldn't install and how they present MS's OS. This was understandable, I think, as MS didn't want the OEMs installing something that would _appear_ to come for MS and hurt their image (say, replace solitaire with strip poker, as an extreme example).

The lawsuit was precipitated by MS _continuing_ to excercise this level of control with the introduction of IE.

I made the KDE argument in support of the idea that the browser could be an integral part of the OS (I'm talking in terms of feel, not files). If this argument holds water, then the real issue would be whether or not MS has the ability to control the look/feel of its products when filtered through vendors. I believe a company has this right; whether or not the KDE developers choose to excercise it is irrelevant.

RC

You guys are retarded. Leave Microsoft alone.

[delus10n0]

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.

Re:You guys are retarded. Leave Microsoft alone.

[tweek]

The reason people are making a fuss is that the wrong antitrust argument was presented to the courts. I've given up on this whole thing. The real argument and UNDENIABLE proof of abusing the monopoly (remember kids: monopolies aren't illegal. Abusing your monopoly power is.) power against competitors was the bootloader issue.

The OEM license agreements were the proof and the smoking gun.

A few realistic comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How long would it take to review?

[MAXOMENOS]

just ask *explicitly* for a buildable source tree. then build it, it would pre pretty simple to figure it out.

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.

What source?

[sean23007]

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.

Re:What source?

[sean23007]

Are you saying that I lose, or are you saying that the anti-Microsoft advocates lose? Because there may be a big difference. If you had read my entire post, you would possibly understand my entire point, that the code that is at issue is not the current source, but instead the old 9x source. So, if Microsoft is forced to release their source code, the judge cannot reasonably demand the NT code, because they were not sued because of that code. If the states want to get the NT code, they have to sue again, and MS can work during that time to produce and release a new codebase.

I don't know what planet you're from, or why you think it is acceptable to be so biased, but Microsoft wins. For good or bad, regardless.

Re:Just Ask Netscape...

[(void*)]

When using Windows I ~like~ being able to type a URL or file system address (or SMB address) into the "go" line of any explorer window and have it work. Why woud I want separate programs for these functions?

You are evidently not experienced enough with filesystem design or the web to make this judgement. Hypertext documents have very different semantics from filesystems. Hypertext can have multiple links. It is not an error for document A to link to B, and B to link back to A. It is not an error to assign a link with attributes like "famous" or "important" or (26k) (like Google does) to links, which can be different if you used a different search engine. But filesystems aren't like that! Can you link a directory into a loop? YES, only if you used symbolic links! Hardlinks not permissable. How could a databased FS like ReiserFS cope with something like that?

Directories and hypertext documents are very different beasts. That you can IE to blur and obscate the semantics shows very POOR DESIGN and SLOPPY THINKING on the part of MS. That KDE should want to imitate that shows again, the dearth of IQ amongst most programmers and the users who follow them blindly.

Re:Who modded this down?

[MaxVlast]

I'm no expert, but I imagine that the building environment for something as complicated and huge as Windows would be extremely difficult to duplicate. If MS wanted to be difficult, they could easily make the build environment slightly funky.

And that doesn't even include the amount of time that will be necessary to actually build the damned thing. Think about how long an XFree86 build takes.

Re:Who modded this down?

[MaxVlast]

As an earlier poster posted:

"Any and all paperwork, disks, patents, intellectual property, etc. is subject to be displayed in a court of law so long as there are proper non-disclosure agreements about core intellectual property (which by the way, the government doesn't even have to agree to... it could post the source code to the web if it wanted... b/c it has that power, but it wouldn't want to deprive the company of any property or cause harm to the business without due process of law"

Microsoft Response

[gnovos]

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!

Re:How long would it take to review?

[arkanes]

Courts frown on such tricks and trying them would get them slapped with contempt of court. They aren't totally stupid, you know.

Not Me, Baby!

[Greyfox]

I've seen their thing in action. I think if I looked at the source code, I'd have to boil my eyeballs afterwards.

Re:Not just useless... unnecessary

[homer_ca]

"Despite claims to the contrary, Windows is pretty well documented."

You may find this article interesting. It shows how a change in the undefined behavior of one Win32 function crashed his application between Windows versions.

Re:How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers

[Auckerman]

"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.

W2K runs fine without IE Courts are DUMB !

[CDWert]

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 :)

Would reveal a lot of lies.

[miffo.swe]

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?

Re:Not only that..

[spectecjr]

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.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

IE just paints outside of the WM_PAINT handler sometimes. You can do that you know - the call is GetDC. Or GetDCEx if you need better control.

Not to mention that IE doesn't paint directly to the screen. It paints to a memory DC first for compositing, and then paints the memory DC to the screen.

Just because the VNC client isn't complete, don't start claiming that "IE uses undocumented calls" -- because it doesn't.

But tell ya what, prove that it does, and that it's not a bug in VNC, and I'll eat my hat.

Simon

How is bloating up the OS is a win for consumers?

[Kjella]

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

Re:Who modded this down?

[dasunt]

I remember a case from way way back ago, concerning a game console that had been reversed engineered so that a third party could develop games for it without having to license the technology.

However, when such games ran, the startup automatically triggered a screen that said something to the effect of "This game has been officially licensed by Somecompany".

At trial, since the console manufacturer failed to show that there was a way of booting a game without that text, they lost the case.

Now there is something remotely similar to the MS case here. MS is claiming that there is no way to deintegrate IE. *However*, they have failed to prove this. True, its proving a negative, which is difficult (at least logically, legally is another story), but MS will be on weak footing until they show the source code to someone else and let them try.

Oh, and IANAL.

Win98lite

[Kris_J]

As it happens, I've just started reading World War 3.0 -- a book all about the MS anti-trust stuff. I haven't got all that far, but I'm already asking;

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Who modded this down?

[bleckywelcky]

You can try and generalize things over and try to not make exceptions anywhere, but you gotta face the facts: MS isn't just any old company anymore. Ask the average Joe Schmoe what sort of hardware they have in their box and they'll respond "Windows".

MS has involved themselves in so many people's lives so deeply that they deserve seperate treatment, mostly resulting from the monopoly they've achieved. All of the arguments about them "just being another company" don't fit anymore and they deserve seperate treatment accordingly. It doesn't matter that other people will argue that you can't punish them for just doing well in their market because they are approaching levels of influence in people's lives that only the government has had in the past.

I personally wouldn't even mind seeing seperate committees being designated to oversee MS operations internally. These people would serve as a check on MS in the same way that they are checks in congress, the military, public services, and every other section of the government - because these areas, sections, or whatnot have a large influence on people's lives, so the people need some control over the influences (although here you can easily argue that the government doesn't correctly represent the people, and I would agree with that partly, but that's a whole other discussion). The only problem I would see here is that I wouldn't want the government taking over enough control to stifle growth and development - that would be completely counterproductive to most anyone's goals.

MS and their Windows OS line have been turned into a public service, and they need to be treated accordingly - just as every other public service is.

What about 98lite working

[os2fan]

Yes, you can get Windows to work without IE: check out 98lite.ner.

I ran 98 quite successfully in 16MB without the bloated shell.

Norton Commander and XTRee clones for Win32

[os2fan]

Check out File Commander or FAR. There both excellent console mode NC replacements.

XTree users might care to check out the xtree clone ZTBold and ZTreeWin

I am not saying you are wrong

[AdmrlNxn]

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.

Re:Not just useless... unnecessary

[arkanes]

Ironically, when I attempted to read your link, the page was TOTALLY filled with a horrendous, translucent Flash add for .NET. I cried like a baby.

Re:Good Luck

[shyster]

These "professional" programmers have released CONSTANTLY obviously buggy code for years. Big whoop about your opinion as the proof is in the result and it mostly sucks. Why the HELL do you not know that everyone associates the word "Microsoft" with "pain"? They can slap on all the "Microkernal", "Dynamic Functionality", and "More Better" bullshit buzzwords, but that doesn't stop me from being FORCED to reboot at least 3 times a day for fairly stupid OS reasons.

You're obviously an idiot. And it's obviously not the OS, because I can run a Win98 box for weeks without rebooting. I'm sure your Win98 OS is the same as my Win98 OS, so you're problem lies in either a)hardware and/or their drivers, b)poorly written software, or c)misconfiguration.

And don't start telling that an OS that lets programs and/or drivers do X is flawed. We all know of ways to crash OS's. It's the programmers job to write and test their programs to make sure it works. If they can't program around bugs in Windows, then they should release their product for Macintosh, Linux, etc.

If Microsoft were smart..

[Suppafly]

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.

Re:Who modded this down?

[connorbd]

Yeah, great idea... private inspectors who can be bought off more explicitly than the FDA...

Now maybe you're not the hardcore libertarian you come off as, but this is a libertarian fantasy...

/Brian

Re:Who modded this down?

[connorbd]

(/me shakes head in disappointment)

I'm thinking it's pretty safe to call anyone a monopoly who has the clout to prevent their competitors from gaining a foothold in the marketplace.

/Brian

mixing metaphors

[poemofatic]

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!

Re:How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers

[Suppafly]

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.

Neither...

[leonbrooks]

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?

I'm a vegetarian. (-:

Re:Just Ask Netscape...

[Suppafly]

I agree.. it seems perfectly obvious to anyone that isnt lying to themselves that a window that contains stuff and has an address bar can be used for both tasks that involve windows and address bars.. I have to catch myself from typing www.slashdot.org in the location bar in the beos filemanager since I am so used to it from Windows and KDE.

The word is ``disintegrate''

[leonbrooks]

MS is claiming that there is no way to deintegrate IE.

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?

Re:At least SOMEONe is calling micro$oft on their

[connorbd]

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

Re:Who modded this down?

[WNight]

They're being asked to hand over evidence (that will be kept secret, unlike usualy trial proceedings) for a trial, not to GPL it and release it.

Also, Microsoft (Bill and various employees) have repeatedly lied to the court. (Remember the Windows-without-IE video?) The fair thing to do would be to toss everyone involved with that into jail for ninety days and hit them with a whopping fine (in relation to the ammount of money they were attempting to save by lying) for it.

The state governments are perfectly justified in asking for this.

Re:Who modded this down?

[WNight]

The government intrusion here is limited to the government asking to see evidence pertaining to an open case. Seems perfectly reasonable.

Would you expect health inspectors to ignore looking at a particular set of freezers (being actively used) simply because the company claimed the freezer design was a trade secret?

MS is just lucky that Bill and a bunch of employees didn't get to spend 90 days in jail for contempt when they lied to the judge. (Technically, fabricated evidence, which I guess counts as perjury. The "Windows barely runs without IE" video that was shown to be doctored.)

Sad but true

[leonbrooks]

Since when do criminals get to negotiate their punishment?

When they have lots of money.

Sad but true. Even more so for America, because...

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. (James 2:9)

thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. (Deuteronomy 16:19)

...America is called ``a Christian country'' and has a large proprtion of at least nominal Christians in the population. Hmmm.

Re:Antitrust is per se a civil matter

[WNight]

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.

Re:I think the exchange would likely go more like.

[kubrick]

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')

Re:Not just useless... unnecessary

[homer_ca]

I don't think he's denying that it's a bug in his code. The point is, they forgive sloppy coding in one version so that there does not appear to be a bug, and then it crashes in the next version given the same sloppy code.

Re:Not just useless... unnecessary

[spectecjr]

"Despite claims to the contrary, Windows is pretty well documented."

You may find this article [byte.com] interesting. It shows how a change in the undefined behavior of one Win32 function crashed his application between Windows versions.

From the article:

At first I thought: &*%# Microsoft! But when I looked at the API documentation, it clearly said that you have to initialize the dwOSVersionInfoSize field of the OSVERSIONINFO structure, with the size of the structure, which I had never done. But it used to work, so what happened?

Jeeeeeeesus Christ.

Rule ONE of Win32 programming. IF A STRUCT says initialize with the size of the struct, you INITIALIZE with the size of the struct.

NT3.51 was the platform it 'worked' on, and NT4.0 threw a fit. The reason?

NT3.51 was the first version of the OS to HAVE that function. So it didn't need to check the length of the struct (no backwards compatibility mode necessary). NT4.0 changed the details of the struct (presumably), and so the check got enforced.

BIG DEAL.

EVERY single book on Win32 programming, EVERY example I've seen, EVERY piece of documentation from Microsoft makes it VERY EXPLICITLY CLEAR that if the struct has a cbSize (or other similar) member, you HAVE to initialize it with the sizeof() the struct.

The guy is an ass. And he wrote an article about his 'l33t haxor1ng sk1ll2'. To whine about his *very* elementary windows programming mistake.

Just goes to show; writing software requires dilligence. And he just didn't have it.

That was Sega v.Accolade; applies also to Game Boy

[yerricde]

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.

98lite and the naked OS

[Reziac]

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.

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) ... after all, that provides a handy tool for downloading a better browser :)

Re:Who modded this down?

[Radical Rad]

The government just wants to verify that what Microsoft said is true. If it is then they would have to drop that line of questioning.

Would you like us to all accept microsoft's claims without question, even after Gate's testimony? 'Well, that depends on what the word "the" means.'

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You don't need to look at the source code

[buckrogers]

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.

No, your honour, that's not a part of Windows ....

[os2fan]

Be interesting to see what is not a part of Windows if they have to release "Windows" source code.

Maybe they'll claim IE is not part of Windows.

I wish the lawyers were smarter.

[Kenneth]

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.

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 /. 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.

Re:How long would it take to review?

[arkanes]

Well, GOOD courts frown on them :P Politically neutered courts don't frown on much of anything.

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.

Thanks.

[Inoshiro]

This was the best reply I got :)

Re:Just Ask Netscape...

[(void*)]

Excuse me, I'm going to go point my Konqueror window (currently at /usr/tmp) to http://rcsb.org now. Oh the horror!

How is this horrific? Pointing Konqueror at /usr/tmp and http://rcsb.org gives you visually, the same thing right? Look deeper. In one window, you have a set of icons, each one correponding to a file. The set is essentially a database of sector locations and what they represent. Click them - there is a one to one correspondence between an icon and a file. Select one, and drag it to the trashcan. You've managed to delete a file on the disk.

Now go to the webpage. Click on something. Does that take you to the hyperlink? Or does that select something for you to manipulate? Try dragging it to the trashcan - what gets deleted? Impossible? Why? Why are two separate things - one a filemanager that is essentally a matephor for OBJECTS on a disk, mixed with another metphor, one that displays text in a presentable manner?

To make the analogy even better, park your browser on a webpage made to resemble a filepanel. Go have a cup of coffee, come back and see if you can get it right the first time.

Re:Antitrust is per se a civil matter

[WNight]

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.