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?

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.

well...

[angramainyu]

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

Re:well...

[curunir]

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

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

[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

[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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.