Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says Microsoft Must Give States Windows Code
murphro (along with many others) writes, "Reuters is posting a story describing how the Judge has ordered the release of Windows code to the states seeking antitrust sanctions. I doubt it will actually happen (because MS will fight it this to the end). But if it did, do you think we commoners would ever see it? And if you did get your hands on the code, what would you do with it?" Here's the Yahoo link. (The same Reuters story is on dozens of other sites, too.)
we can finally get Lotus Notes to work right!
Amazing. Can Mickeysoft appeal against that? I expect they'll be as obstructve as possible, supplying code with no documentation etc.
Port it to linux :)
What would I do with the full source code to windows....
Maybe line my birdcage w/ it?
This is incredible!
You know the source would leak out. Maybe someone could steal a copy and give it to Linus so he could fix it!
------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
If us commoners can get a hold of the source code. It would be a huge boost to projects like wine. If the source code was released. How long do you think it would take to get really good windows compatability??
I wonder what they would do, the possibility of some uber-virus would be there with people exploiting all sorts of loopholes in the Windows system. We'd be able to see just how insecure the thing is. Overall, the release of source-code could cause hell.
This article was merely the states requesting that a judge demand the source code.
If it is released to the states. Doesn't it go into a public record? I am not really sure about this. Any comments from law experts??
if the source ever made into the linux community's hands (which i find highly unlikely), i think the first thing to happen would be to see exactly how proprietary windows formats work.
i.e. look at how windows implements NTFS, etc. and write linux drivers that are less of a guess.
This is not a lead up to the release of Windows as open source code.
As I read the article, the only thing the states will be able to do with the source is verify whether or not it is possible to unbundle Internet Explorer from the rest of the operating system. Microsoft says this is impossible; everybody else knows they're lying, but the proof is in the source code.
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
"And if you did get your hands on the
code, what would you do with it?":
Burn it.
Would the code then not be part of public record?? That should mean anyone should be able to look at it at that point. But I am also hazarding that they may have a problem finding some parts of the code. Almost every mid to large sized company always has something that can't be recompiled.
Gorkman
And if you did get your hands on the code, what would you do with it?
Give it back to Microsoft, then go wash my hands with lye.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
Didn't an NT fix pack a while ago prevent Lotus Notes server from working? What's this about Netscape era seiniew? There's got to be current things that are more than just screwups or inside jokes. MS has a long track record of this sort of thing.
Now, the only question is; Can the source be siezed to prevent modification? Is it too late already?
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I wonder which will embarass MS more, that they might finally be pushed around by someone more powerfull than them, or, the source code its self? :)
INCLUDE 1.01.code
.jsdm,. csjr98 rteitujhlr uytrlejdfulk tjlk rir jg, 4r9ir 48r.j,rr u890rj jscj,dfilf804 rkjr uros84w 94 dkjdr sdlrkdsf dkjd reksalk
INCLUDE 2.03.code
INCLUDE 3.0.code
INCLUDE 3.1.code
INCLUDE NTHACKS.code
INCLUDE 95.code
INCLUDE 98.code
INCLUDE XP.code
INCLUDE IE.code
INCLUDE activeX.code
INCLUDE blackboxsecrets.code
BOOT
DISPLAY SPLASH SCREEN
LOAD DOS
SCAN DISK
DISPLAY (REGISRTY ENTRY : SCREEN RES)
RUN WIN3.1 WITH XP WINDOW DECORATIONS
WHILE IT IS RUNNING
GENERATE RANDOM NUMBER 1 - 1000
IF RANDOM NUMBER IS 666
DISPLAY BLUE SCREEN
END
Now you know how windows works, FIX IT! INCLUDE 1.01.codeBecause of the lame ness filters i have to talk INCLUDE 1.01.code
df dl;fk fdkr dre 943 49 8459 4 34 49349 44 4949 494 49449 44985 594 949 9 sadl;f dfl dfjk ldl;kjfjl fl;kjf dlkj;fdk fodflkd ld;j dklk;jkd l;dsjk df d dl dkedoe cxmkv ld 98eiuds lkr 8eur r rr r dw jjhm re jl; lkrlo u urut rir
This is great... Does anyone remeber the /. Article where they were reading the Linux kernel code out over a public stream :-).... Well I can see it now.. the 3 year broadcast of the Windows Source Code... Not just that, but just like Decss we can publish some of the code on shirts, and eh... er.... well maybe not.. Hmm I wonder if it will be on the court transcript...
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
giving Leonardo Photoshop to paint the Mona Lisa. Without the aid of technical experts no one will get the clue in millions of lines of sourcecode.
It's not like there's Indiana Jones/Golden Eye style boobytraps/keys guarding the source..
I thought it was already - How Many Times Do You Want To Reboot Today?
Now that I've actually read the atticle ;) a few difficulties spring to mind. No mention is made of how the code is to be supplied, (dead trees, a source tree for the final build of each release of each type of Windows), or how its to be analysed.
The article mentions the code for Windows XP embedded, but AFAIK, this case covers windows as far back as the Win95 CodeBase - millions of lines of code.
It'll take years to find anything from this - unless Microsoft provide expert assistance - and can that expertise be trusted?
Also, I'd expect Microsoft to demand some kind of confidentiality, so that the exact documented details proving or disproving the integration of Office or IE don't become public.
I see massive dificulties.
Well, first I'd get rid of Internet Explorer, and make the default....
The States pushed for viewing the code to prove or disprove the MS allegation that IE and other middleware can not be "unmingled" from the OS without fundamentally damaging the OS. The States want to undo the MS trend of bundling MS middleware products with the OS to the detriment of its competitors. ie. - address the original fundamental anti-trust problem and make MS sell a stripped down Windows, no doubt.
Derek
Line 1171, url.cpp
// we stuck this code in here to shaft netscape
:)
Obviously enough, people should be damn careful _not_ to look at windoze sources, because then you're "tainted" - Microsoft could, in theory, take legal action to suspend development of open source projects you're working on, at least if you live in America or one of several European countries...
Give the courts a copy of 98lite.
The worst thing that can happen for Microsoft is for users to have viable alternatives. Compatibility increases the chances of that. Source improves compatibility.
-----
"A man is judged by his every word." -RW Emerson
"They misunderestimated me." -GW Bush
Seriously, forcing Microsoft to be "Open Source" is probably a mistake. Not only because of the precedent it sets, but more importantly because of all the new virii we will be getting once people see all the holes and back doors :)
#1: Get rid of the registry file. Instead have personal registries for each file.
:P
#2: Have a logger folder, that keeps track of when files get moved and changed, and backs up files in cache format when replaced. This way if you get a virus(or spyware), you can just delete a level of folders and be back to your last OS state. Also if you overwrite a critical file you could always get it.
#3: Do the same thing with DLL files as registry. Make DLL files chained valid with the program that created them. So one program can't invalidate another program by modifying the DLL
Then I'd probably like some more customization, like a copy/paste ring. But I wouldn't code this shit, I mean seriously, the time for work on this junk is over and the monopoly is in place. Once the big guy takes over you just have to trust that they'll altruistically build their code.
God spoke to me
Should that be U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the patron saint of Microsoft bashers?
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
1. Make sure that the reviewers have photographic memories,
2. Get them together with the Wine folks for some long lunches
3. Bwahahaha!
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
Go to CNN.COM and scroll down to the bottom of the main page.
On the bottom right there is a poll asking the question, "Was a judge correct in ordering Microsoft to reveal the coding for its Windows program?"
As of a couple minutes ago, 69% of respondants were saying 'NO'. That majority is probably comprised of clueless MS users and a voting bot running at Redmond right now, but still.
And no, 'Cowboy Neal' is not a choice.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
Oh shut up. They will obviously already HAVE programmers or will hire them.
This program does a nice job. Back when this case was actually started it was very easy to nuke IE and and have very light and clean OS, despite microsoft's claims that it was part of the core os (as if it was implemented in the kernel.. ha!)
Now it seems as of Win2K SP2, IEEradictor no longer works. I'm sure thats just due to changes in the way IE is added in, and with a little work probably could be made to work again. But I think this case is in regards to Windows 95, back when microsoft got on the warpath for browser dominance .
i'll be able to recompile my windows kernel
I guess even judges speak like Alicia Silverstone these days.
slashdot is 2-3 days behind all other news reporting sites
and the world would be free from this menace.
Tom
I have discovered a wonderful
I would already have realised that I might have to give up the source code to win9x. I woudl have had a secret cabal of top programmers going through it obfuscating and repairing deliberatly anti-competitive routines.
Source code is also no good if it can't compile and be run. Do the state experts have the necessary compilers to do this? I bet it's not a vanilla MS-C or MS-C++. And we all know that you can't trust the compiler.
If you suspect that someone is untrustworthy then asking them for their written documentation of their untrustworthyness cannot be trusted.
HA! They should use that as a defense!!
I'm guilty but you can't take my word for it, I'm a liar.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
opening the windows code was the only alternative for microsoft to continue exiting.
XP and XBox are bummers. 100000 "programmers" have to be payed.
i think the whole "the judge said it", is an excuse to keep the weight of the company and stock holders don't run away.
my 2 cents
even if the microsoft argument were that the OS and MSIE were inseperable, i would see this as a valid argument even if they were technically "seperable".
windows without MSIE is like a woman without breasts--fun, but something's missing.
they might be seperable in terms of how they are coded, but maybe not so from a business standpoint. source code will show nothing,
but who am i to stand in between MS source being revealed... gimme gimme!
make them supply Mozilla with windows. or force them to GPL IE. and visual studio c++
At least two issues come out of this with regards the case though:
I would use it to write email!
----
To: Alexandre Julliard, Jeremy Allison
Subject: The best compatibility guide out there!
Attachment: Windows_Source.zip
lets get some real grass roots poll flooding going on....
what would I do with it, you ask?
/home/archives/windows/;grep -r strcpy * | more
cd
buffer overflows, here I come...
This whole thing is retarded. Microsoft says "we are such poor coders that we have not made a clear interface between the browser and the rest of the system" and the government says "prove it". All they have to do is deliver a huge steaming pile of butt-ugly code.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
They'll produce an IE-less Windows, and an installer for IE. They'll demonstrate it in court. It'll work fine. It will turn out to not be all that hard. Furthermore, the state programmers will point out that it would not have been significantly more difficult or costly to do that way than the integrated way. MS will not be able to rebut this to the satisfaction of the court. MS representatives will be found guilty of perjury. The judge will order them squished with an enormous gavel.
At least, I think that is what they had in mind when they asked for it. I guess we'll see.
thinkgeek will put it on a blanket, a mug, a noose, a tie (did I already use that one), and a suit and you won't be cool unless you wear it!
Every single one of you who say 'I'd burn it' or 'Delete it' etc.. You say that now.. But if you actually had the source.. I have no doubt, that you'd look through it many times over..
I know I sure would.. I may not like Windows, but I'm sure as hell curious on how it works.. Considering Windows has been in development since 1985.. That's 17 years of development. Not many programs/operating systems, including Linux, have that behind them.
~RaGe
www.outrigged.com
What the hell do you think they would do with it? They would hire programmers to look it over. Usually stupid posts like yours are in the form of one line seemingly witty remarks but yours shows a true M$ mentality and a lack of thought brought on by the aformentioned condition!
Seriously, how did you get through THREE paragraphs without seriously wondering "what the fuck am I talking about?".
I think Microsoft will give 'em the source code in ASSEMBLY!!! :-)
I wonder if the significance of the states asking for WinXP embedded is that they intend to show that Microsoft already has removed IE from windows.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
My second largest worry is that the attourneys general of the states will not be able to find the right people to give the code a good going over. HHopefully, someone on the caliber of Andrew Schulman who gave Microsoft an incredible amount of grief with Undocumented Windows 95 will agree to help out.
Go to CNN there is a poll on this issue (whether the judge was right or not) and it's 70% against 30% on the fact that he was wrong. Go vote! We have to win this poll :)
Guills
right...unless they hire around 500 programmers and spend 3-4 years going through code, I doubt anything will come out of it... of course, I doubt you will accept that kind of argument, based on your comment, govt should be able to regulate as long as you agree with it... sadly govt does not work that way, so your notion of them forcing to sell stripped down Windows is quite interesting if not laughable...
govt should be able to regulate as long as you agree with it...
Isn't that sort of the point of an elected government?
Why don't the courts make microsoft not only give them the source code, but show them how to compile the code so it creates a byte-per-byte identical copy of Windows XP or whatever Windows it is? If Microsoft alters the code to make IE less integrated, it couldn't possibly compile with the exact same output, could it?
Why do you guys want the code for a badly designed, bloated, bad performing, piece of software? They can keep their precious code. I just want Microsoft to stop bullying every small, innovative company around.
The only good thing releasing the source code could do is provide the states with definitive evidence that Microsoft lies and does not respect the US justice system. Nothing new, though. They have been found guilty of illegal conduct but so far have not recognized any wrong doing.
If Bill et alia were not so rich, they would be moving from state to state, changing names, getting in trouble and "borrowing" SS numbers.
If microsoft actually releases their code to independent auditors (not likely), will the government appointed overseers really be able to make any sense of it al all, let alone to figure out if IE needs to be there?
Even the win95 codebase must be millions of lines of code, it would take 10 years for anyone to actually go through and map out what everything does. (Heck, rumor is that microsoft left mysterious code in win2k because even they weren't sure what it did, so as not to accidentally break anything)
Additionally, is it a question of 'can they do it with the current code base without breaking anything', or 'can it be done with modifications to the OS code'? If its the latter, then the obvious answer is YES! Source code isn't set in stone, and in the end anything can be done. Its like someone asking "Can Linux run without RAM?", currently no, but the kernel could surely be changed to run off the HD completely (why one would want to do that is another story).
I have not seen the legal definition of what
1) source code means in this context
2) what windows means in this context
so I am sceptical that the states will get
anything more than the windows 3.1 source code
of command.com which is already out to begin with.
On a snide note - Rob, what is wrong with pointing to Reuters when quoting a Reuters story? I know you are no journalist, but pay attention and make an effort. Mod away...
Sometimes I wonder why whenever Microsoft farts it makes a headline in Slashdot. I realize that Microsoft is a huge corporation that touches all of us in one way or another ... many slashdotters are Microsoft users/supportors I suspect. But this following of the legal proceedings seems to be taking on an OJ-esque feel.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but I'm also not a fan of the Government telling private industry how they should run their business. If it were up to me I'd have this whole legal mess dropped, and quit spending millions of taxpayers money.
So what about Micorsoft's abuses? I'm a firm believer that the market will not allow for sustained monopolist abuse, given that the market is allowed to function unfettered by Governmental interference. How many people now use an operating system different from Windows because of these procedings? A scant few, I'd say.
What does this have to do with this news item? Well, does noone else have a problem with the Government ordering Microsoft to release their source code? I don't agree with their business practices, but I don't think they should be ordered to hand over their IP to a bunch of unscrupulous politicians. I don't trust Microsoft at all, but I trust politicians even less. At least Microsoft is upfront about it's base motives, they want to completely dominate the market with their product and at the same time make a massive amount of money. Show me a successful company that doesn't have that same mantra. And good luck finding a politician that is upfront about his base motives.
I just think we should all be careful about viewing the Government as our benefactors, saving us from the evil that big bad Microsoft has perpetrated upon us all. Microsoft produces a product that millions of people pay money to use, and I don't think they should be crippled because they have been so successful. Granted, I'm never going to purchase or use any of their products in situations where I'm able to choose, but that is a judgement that I should be allowed to make, it is not one that the Government should be making for me.
RFC2119
Grade: F-
Originality: 1/10
Functionality: 2/10
Code (Use of nesting, comments): 0/10
Your program failed to compile and as such there are no marks awarded for some sections.
The code lacked basic layout, nesting and the only comment was your name and assignment number at the top. The code was badly designed and had un-necessary use of goto's. Memory allocations where inefficient and unstable.
You have failed this module.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
You can't win. MS has a script that keeps voting for them
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Iaamoac
They're probably doing the same to CNN
See here and here
WTF, do they have a special division searching the internet and rigging polls?
man, read history.
"So what about Micorsoft's abuses? I'm a firm believer that the market will not allow for sustained monopolist abuse, given that the market is allowed to function unfettered by Governmental interference. How many people now use an operating system different from Windows because of these procedings? A scant few, I'd say.
"
straight capitalism is just not the way to go. it was tried, it failed;
thats why you have several big oil companies instead of just one.. and electricity.. and copper.. (general whatever company)
why should it be allowed for MS what wasnt allowed for those firms decades ago?
(abusive use of monopoly, it really really just hurts economy in the long run)
they should just chop the company. that's what they should do accordin to the law after all, your law..(i'm outside us, and just hope eu gives ms a kick in the nuts)
-anon, maybe i should get myself an account..
Microsoft is being ordered to turn it over to the States' attorneys so that it can be evaluated. Such discovery is always covered by a protective order. Company secrets are specifically mentioned as protectable subject matter, and are as an initial matter disclosed in confidence. What would happen at hearings or trial later is at the discretion of the judge. For example, the judge could order that only representative portions, or redacted portions be shown, or the sensitive portions of the record sealed and shown only to trial lawyers and the jury. Or the judge could just tell MS to take its lumps.
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - RULE 26(c)
(c) Protective Orders.
Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
(1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had;
(2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters;
(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;
(6) that a deposition, after being sealed, be opened only by order of the court;
(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way; and
(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.
(no text needed!)
When I heard that the Windows source code could might be released, do you know what I did? That's right. *fap*fap*fap*
*wonders if over 50% of the pro-ms votes originate from the Remond, Washington area _again_.*
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
This is crazy. It's like asking coca cola to realease their recipe.
I think microsoft should submit the code without comments, indentation or whitespace all concatenated in one big file. Then print it out and hand it over to the judge as one big paper print out - after all they didn't say which format the code should be in. - The trial would then last enother 136 years and everyone in the USA would have to become a lawyer.
just my 2 cents worth. You now owe me 2 cents.
just my 2 cents worth. you now owe me 2 cents.
So isn't this just like MS telling all their employees to vote for Microsoft in that last poll? Now we are telling everyone on slashdot to go out and vote and slashdot is comprised mostly of anti-Microsoft people.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
1. I'd join some underground group that messes with the source code...probably to debug it. It would be nice to have a version of windows that if it does something to piss me off I can actually fix the code itself. ...maybe help WINE out, too.
2. I wonder how long MS will put it off either to just make the Judge give up with infinate appeals or just to modify the source code to hide the crap they put in it. Oh, and which version of windows would they release the code for.
3. I wonder how much is written in VB. ;P
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Windows code is already available as part of the "Shared Source" license (or whatever it's called). Some colleges have it, some OEM's have it, so I don't see why MS will say no to the states.
I'd print it out, and take a crap on it.
Then mail it back to Bill Gates as a suggested enhancement.
Will the source be admitted as evidence in the case? If so, I can imagine that it should be made public.
I thought it was like that with some lawsuit involving scientology...
This whole case about 'giving the sourcecode to proof your point blabla' is showing the people who have to rule in this case don't have a clue about what they're ruling about.
In Windows2000 and Windows XP, the shell the user logs into is build around 'explorer'. The same core components that are build into this explorer are the building blocks of Internet Explorer. The renderengine itself is just a COM component, Internet explorer is more. You see this f.e. when you install Internet explorer 4 on a system that has IE3 or lower (f.e. win95). Suddenly nice shell enhancements are available for you as a developer.
Is it a great design? No. Of course not: The core shell layer should be an OS part, but any tool build on it should not extend other tools build on top of that same layer, EXCEPT when the lower layer is extended with more functionality. The system as it is now, is more the result of the wacky run for the first spot in the browser war. Now that war is over, we'll see different approaches perhaps.
The problem with this case is that it's not clearly definable what 'internet explorer' is, thus were it ends and where other tools start, because core elements ARE used in the OS shell, by other tools like the windows explorer.
Just looking at the design of the system says enough to say: "it can't be removed". You don't need sourcecode for that. If it's a great design, that's not the question.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
As one person on here pointed out... source is already available to *some* organizations, etc... so what would be the problem. But I can imagine that Microsoft will fight this hands and fists - mainly to protect their WE ARE GOD - BOW DOWN TO US issues. Since Billy Goat can't stand to be forced to do anything (it'd upset his Attention Defficency Syndrom).
But I hope the courts are smart enought to (1) hire SEVERAL experts to COMPILE the damn thing... and make sure it produces a RUNABLE version... and (2) make sure that the runnable version that is produced has the SAME COMPONENTS as what they ship.
My largest fear would be that they would try to put together a version that is different from the others - just as a way to *prove* their point.
Well, if nothing more... we get to see all the paid microsoft anonymous cowards quickly jump onto slashdot to insult us... they must be feeling the pressure :))
> And if you did get your hands on the code, what would you do with it?
Print it on toilet paper.
"One of these hundreds of Linux hackers would get their grimy little hands on it," Microsoft's attorney would say as he waved the packet in the air, "steal Microsoft's invaluable intellectual property and give it away for free! If the court forces Microsoft to turn over the source code, it is robbing Microsoft of its key assets and condemning it to insolvency."
Of course, none of that is "true" in the traditional sense of the word, but Microsoft acquired Truth a few years ago.
Mod me as flaimbait if you wish, but Microsoft should NOT have to supply the source code. Isn't it OBVIOUS that they're lying? So obvious in fact, that the source code isn't even needed - nobody needs the glory of proving them wrong.
Instead, Why doesn't a judge order them to either remove IE from future versions of Winblowz, or fix the old ones, even if it means rewriting half of the source.
Making them give up the source code into uknown and probably insecure hands isn't fair. No software company - even M$ - should have to give up their source code, even if they're lying pieces of you know what.
It's missing the line:
INCLUDE abloatloadofcrapandtalkingpaperclips.code
As with all things that are to good to be true here are some of the things that could happen.
A It will never happen
B The states will never review it
C It will only be viewed in a Vault
D It will be nonfunctional code
Anyways there is no way in hell this will ever end up in our hands.
And all that crap about, "we could compile it for linux", think about it, you will compile an OS for another OS, RIGHT. "We will give it to Linus too fix", RIGHT. Like the man has that much spare time that he could clean up all the source code. Sure both of these ideas have the same chance of being done . NILL !!!!!
I doubt it will actually happen (because MS will fight it this to the end)
Because they don't want to see the public to see that all the variables are global and see all the gotos..
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
2) I predict this whole thing will result in a stalemate. Without an independent technical expert (which the judge said there was no time to find), the result will just be a standoff, with the states claiming that they have found a way to remove IE and Microsoft saying No, you don't understand the code. From the timeline (hearing on March 11) they only have 3 weeks to get the code and understand it -- good luck!
- adam
I'll never understand why MS does not make the source code available under alicense that forbids distribution of that code or derived code in any binary form or in any form that will self compile..... This way the linux folks can see what they need ot make wine work, and no one except MS can sell the binary version of the software that 90+% of the people will use
What if then M$ flags out to a island with no laws about computer crime.What will happend then?
Well:
They do not have to release source
They do not (maybe not atleast) have to pay so much taxes
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
Why do you think MS has never rewritten the code? I would guess that since 96 when they started NT that very little was documented. And if they did a recode nothing would run on it. which means all of a sudden they have not third party apps which is the biggest selling point for windows the over 25,000 Apps that run on it. Do you think even the same people are still working on the same code?
MS will never rewrite code they will depend on XP tile it dies but before that happens a new set of hardware will need a new os and will expect a rewrite at that point because it is new hardware.
So what does it matter MS will stil be MS they will never be a Great Company for a OS.
Once it goes through publication of the source code (if it's on an open record) we should get the same basic effect as DECSS, should we not? Once the corporate secret is public knowledge, it can be used by wine/samba/openoffice/whatever for higher compatability rates. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's no longer protected; however, you couldn't use the code directly. Public knowledge of what's in the code doesn't change their liscence. But you could definately find all the hooks/hidden APIs and such. Go States!
put the what in the where?
Ever heard of the ReactOS project? (http://www.reactos.com/). It is a group of kernel hackers trying to develop an OS which looks and acts like Windows NT (mainly the kernel architecture...)
If those guys actually could get the source code and build up a stable, nice-looking NT-like OS only with a commandline, then I'd switch to this OS!
What do you other guys think?
-- Anders
Then, of course, the states could hire the equivalent of a hieroglyphics expert to translate it.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Who are they going to hire to look at the source code? And what if this person is just paid off by microsoft or maybe even working for microsoft?
What would I do with it? ...
;)
Go to www.motion.net/tp
Nuff Said
Anonymous Fucking Stupid Coward: Next time maybe you should take just a moment and read the article... No, no, on second thought don't. Since your comments have no intellectual value, at least some of us can recognize your entertainment value...
MS has already offered (and presumably given) access to it's source to several large companies already. I forget the name of their source code sharing innitiative...essentially though, hasn't MS already allowed the world access to it's code via NDA.
I seem to remember rumors of GPL'd source being intergrated into 2k and XP about a year ago. Certainly, they would be able to find this. If so, how would they address that issue? Could Microsoft be made to pay punitive damages, and to whom?
Or, in other words, Microsoft could have avoided the entire mess by not releasing IE4 as IE4, but as 'Windows Internet Shell Upgrade' and by not putting an IE icon on the desktop, but simply using the 'type your URL into any old explorer box/the run box/whatever.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
What about the freedom of information act? IANAL, but it seems that there could be a way to petition state governments to hand the source code over to anybody that wants it. Depending on the circumstances under which the windows source code would be given to the states, this may or may not be possible.
What is a state government going to do with the code? Most likely, they will contract an outside firm to review the code and give a report. I have a lot of experience in dealing with state government as I am the lead developer on a software product that is used throughout the state of Maine by the government. My experience tells me that state governments collectively don't have the technological expertise to be able to analyze software internals! Its plain and simple, they're going to have to contract to external sources in order to analyze the code.
This poses a very dangerous situation for Microsoft. How easily could contractors be persuaded to give the source code to somebody that wants it bad enough? How easily could the code be retrieved through FOIA? These are big issues that Microsoft will have to face if they are forced to hand out the code to state governments.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Linux might be hurt if microsoft released it's code under a GPL style licence, becuse it would only have technical suppirioity over ms, and no longer price or moral suppiriority.
Perhaps that is why they are pushing out the framework so fast, and only supporting winXP and 2000 which I belive are the two operating systems in contention.
It would be rather like driving past a car crash, or watching an eye operation on the TV: you know it'll be gross; you know it will make you sick...
... but you just... can't... help... looking!
The more advanced the technology, the more open it is to primitive attack
No, the point of an elected government is so that one group of people can force their agreements on others, and then claim the moral highground.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
...that I'd make some good money getting it printed on toilet paper.
I don't care too much for Microsoft but I think we can do a lot without their code. *We have done a lot without their code.* As a matter of fact, I don't care for their code. We can do better, and give it away for free and Free.
... I believe in the rights of every individual (and I guess these days, corporations are regarded as individuals. Funny, huh.) Forcing them to give up their code is similar to (but not exactly) forcing them to give up their property, and no matter how much I dislike anyone, I can't always agree with that. Anyone not bothered by Microsoft's intentions and practices can stay with them. Those that see the evil have a choice, thank God. I think it is much more important to protect the liberties that guarantee that we have a choice in Free Software, than to chase Microsoft's tail everywhere. That is the crucial point that makes or breaks everything. Too bad many of us in the public don't understand this. Microsoft, OTOH understands this exceedingly well, and has spent a fair bit of time and money pursuing legislation (think DMCA, SDMI, ...) that potentially robs individuals of their liberties and would essentially criminalize many Free Software projects. This is the more important issue.
Another seemingly minor but, IMHO, very crucial point is that I believe in the right that we all (yes, Micro$oft included) have to own property, to pursue happiness,
So, to hell with their source code. Besides, we can and have done better.
Probably most respondants do not know anything about the actual judgement, and are assuming that the question is, "should everybody and his dog be given access to the Windows source code?"
This is like their poll which found that, immediately after Sept. 11, the vast majority of respondants thought that the US should bomb Kabul in retaliation. Clearly the next poll should have been, "have you ever heard of Kabul?" It would probably come out that the majority of respondants were voting to bomb a city they had never heard of. Even better would be to pick a city in the US whose name sounds middle eastern, and ask if the US should bomb that.
And public opinion is probably still confused over the repeated reference in various media to "Windows source codes." The media (probably through their ignorance) made it seem like there were some encryption codes needed to unlock the secret power of windows or something.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
It would be interesting to know what BSD code m$ has taken..
If MS claims they cannot strip their OS of programs like Internet Explorer, isn't that like admitting that their programmers suck? We all know that Windows [anything] is totally bloated, but Microsoft's claim is telling the world that their programmers don't know proper Object-orientation procedures, don't you think?
Powerbook G4/1.5GHz 12", Toshiba Satellite 1135-S1554
Cool. For all the trolls wanting the source code, Schulman sells a program called Windows Source, that "Turns Windows and OS/2 files into source code". Knock yourselves out, guys.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Slashdot IS a stupid freaking news agency. And you are also a Anonymous Coward. I don't even know whose idea is this about Anonymous Coward. Maybe the stupid mothersucker Anonymous CmdrTraco Coward. Or Anonymous Hemos Coward. Or the OSDN Cowards.
Anyways, what a waste of time earning money with a site like this.....
The problem with people agreeing to do this is that it will be very hard for them to get real programming jobs again. Write anything that appears to be based on Microsoft source code, and they'd sue so fast.
I'm actually surprised MS has been able to keep the codebase under wraps for as long as it has!
With all the 1337 0-Day w4r3z folks trading stuff before it's even released, how does microsoft keep it's stuff securely trade-secret, and still have tons of people working on it.
Same goes for any product really... why does the source get "leaked" more often?
These cases drag on for weeks, months, years... and there is too little time to find a technical person who can give impartial opinions? I find that statement odd.
After reading the first few dozen comments, it's painfully obvious that few have actually read the story. The judge said that "the other side" should have access to the source code. Not necessarily the general public, she was just referring to the state officials involved in the case.
yep... at the same time, be aware that govt will then regulate other things that you might not like... but then again, this is slashdot, what else to expect from the comments... there I go posting again, and I promised myself that I will read articles again...damn it!
So sad. Bubye MS.
My apartment is always low on toilet paper (damn roommates), so I think I could put a printed copy to good use.
I'll tell you what I'd do with it. I'd fix what is IMHO the most broken thing in Windows XX: It's infuriating file system layout.
Nothing gets me more than the fact that if I want to migrate my settings to another computer, it involves copying out chunks of the registry, going into various Program files directories and also the stuff in Documents and Settings (Where all that stuff should have been in the first place).
Actually, it's less hassle to wait for the various applications to work under your open operating system of choice, so I guess I won't bother.
Then, of course, the states could hire the equivalent of a hieroglyphics expert to translate it.
To which they'd immediately be sued due to DMCA violations. Can't be out reverse-engineering stuff and breaking wingding encryption now, can we? Hmmmmm?
T
Even now, any State could copy and distribute windows with impunity. The reason for this is that States are immune from suit for copyright infringement in federal courts by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment (and recent court decisions thereunder). If States obtained windows code, they could modify windows prior to copying and distributing! By giving windows away for free, any State could put M$ out of business starting today!
The real victory here is Judge Kollar-Kotelly's attitude. She has been an unknown for many months, and we are now starting to see her attitude. I like it. She is not going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, but she is not going to appear partial to the states. She is going to be fair, and she is not going to be easily fooled. The outcome might not be my pipe dream ("Bill, fetch me another mocha."), but I have faith in the judge.
As for the debate ensuing here, I have my answers:
Is the code in the public domain?
No.
If it were, would it be ethical or legal to use it to make our open source projects better?
No (we do not want to make Microsoft a victim in any way).
Are there faked nude celebrity photos of the judge on the internet?
Give it time, young grassshopper.
Nowadays, IE is a 'windows upgrade'. IE6 for example is an update to win2k, an update of the OS, not a 'tool' you install like word.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
In cases like this, where one party in a lawsuit asks to review proprietary or secret code from another, generally a couple of guys are put under NDA and then are given access to the code for review.
This happened to me once; I was the litigation support expert for a lawsuit between two C compiler developers. Neither side wanted to allow the other side to see their code (for fear of future cross contamination), so I was placed under NDA, had to sign a proviso saying I would never work for a C compiler developer for 5 years (times up!), and then I was given access to both company's compiler code.
This is a pretty common tactic by the lawyers, hiring litigation support experts to help them review the code. My report on the similarities (the problem was one guy used to work for one company and went to work for the other--taking some code with him) was then sent to a professional "expert witness" who then actually testified.
I would think that the NT source is the last thing the ReactOS guys want to see. To be legal it has to be a genuine reverse engineering effort. The judge hasn't forced MS to GPL their code yet! If there was any hint of them copying MS source code they would be slayed by the lawyers.
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
T
Let me guess: the state is going to employ a bunch of coders to analyze millions of lines of (possibly) spaghetti code to understand what it does?
And this would take... 3 years? Heh, what futility: by the time they are done, MS would have them hooked on the 2nd generation of Windows+XP.
That's a bit like: "Sony, show us how you put your clies together so we see if it really needs a jog-dial... oh we need your PDA to keep notes.. hang on."
Silly court people.
From Microsoft's perspective, that was excellent design. Look at the market situation back in the mid 1990s -- The number of Internet users was growing exponentially. Most users stuck with whatever browser someone gave to them, and Netscape was way ahead. Thus Microsoft had to use every legal or illegal channel to get their warez out into the hands of the consumer before Netscape did.
By turning IE into what SSM calls 'Windows Internet Shell Upgrade', they encouraged classic Win32 developers to use the "nice shell enhancements" in their apps.
Now originally, if a 3rd party developer did this, they had to ship IE with their software media -- for the first year or so, Microsoft changed their "redistributable" DLL licence so that you couldn't just ship the upgraded "system" DLLs, you had to ship the whole IE package. But, in order to do that, Microsoft demanded that you include special "IE Enhanced" features on your website (things like DHTML or Channels). Later on, they relaxed these requirements, but core intention of getting millions of copies of IE onto 3rd party media was successful.
Furthermore, you can see how they almost anticipated telling a Federal Judge that it was unremovable. Anyway, you can see how MS's software design is dictated by the geniuses over in marketing.
And if you did get your hands on the code, what would you do with it?"
Well something about Mordor and The Cracks of Doom keeps coming to mind.
I just can't see them giving up the Real McCoy...
"Look where we worship" -- Jim Morrison
it can't be removed? There just ones and zeros. No, they can't just remove a couple dll files and call it a day, but they integrated ie and windows in less than a year. If they really believed it was important, they could have taken them back apart sometime in the last 4 years.
Yes it would be alot of work. But it can be done.
Slashdot is not our employer. Our job isn't endangered if we go vote no.
This is not a product that we make in comparison to another product. It's deceiving to make a product and then skew the results that is suppose to be a public opinion on it.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
> Cool. For all the trolls wanting the source code, Schulman sells a program called Windows Source [v-com.com], that "Turns Windows and OS/2 files into source code". Knock yourselves out, guys.
Not quite what's wanted; from that link:
"Windows Source works with Sourcer to produce commented disassemblies of Windows executables, dynamic link libraries (DLLs), device drivers, 32-bit virtual drive drivers (VxDs) and OS/2 files. The generated assembly listings are used to improve your understanding of programs, the internals of Windows itself, and help identify and clarify important undocumented services and functions." [emphasis added]
If the source code gets released to the states, they're going to need to hire somebody to interpret it. Most likely, these persons will not be MS advocates.
Sure, they'll probably get these people to sign some sort of a NDA(Non-Disclosure Agreement) but, the code will get out somehow.
That's like trying to prevent people from distributing mp3's or other flavors of copied digital music.. All it takes is 1 good copy, and it's everywhere within a short amount of time. Especially something like MS source code that every script kiddie wants to get a hold of...
> So what about Micorsoft's abuses? I'm a firm believer that the market will not allow for sustained monopolist abuse, given that the market is allowed to function unfettered by Governmental interference.
ROTFL! A quiet talk with some of the OEMs, with Lotus, Stac Electronics and other former MS partners might convince you otherwise.
Actually I can't think of a single use for it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Yesterday we fixed a bug in Word involving sending documents through Outlook Express by changing a value in a dialog box in Internet Explorer.
At that moment, I knew Bill would win this argument.
Whoopie. The devil proved he's evil.
--Blair
For /dev/null
But not if it only applied to this current release of Windows. If the next release gets to be closed-source again, there's absolutely no teeth to the ruling.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Everyone go vote YES to the quick vote question "Was a judge correct in ordering Microsoft to reveal the coding for its Windows program?"
http://www.cnn.com
Open up an Open File dialog in your own app, and a dozen new DLLs load. Worse, three extra threads start up. (Does anybody know what they're doing?) And they don't exit when the dialog box closes, either. This happens even in a non-MFC app based on OpenGL, one written to use as few Windows services as possible.
This appears to be "strategic complexity" designed to make it hard to remove IE from Windows. But that could be fixed. It should be, if only to get irrelevant code out of apps.
This is just untrue. You know that there are utilities that DO the job of removing Internet Explorer from Windows 2000?
They do leave a few DLLs, but all Microsoft have to do, is remove everything else, and if the government still isn't happy, they'll just have to rewrite those DLLs.
It is of course possible to remove ANY component. The only problem is the amount of rewriting you have to do.
Personally I'd be happy to see MS just remove the user-visible parts of Internet Explorer. If MS cannot even remove this, they'll just have to do the rewrite as part of their punishment.
You are BSing if you think IE cannot be removed.
Uh huh. And tell us why 98lite was capable of completely stripping out IE and leaving the rest of the OS functional (or as functional as Windows gets)? Or are you going to tell me that in Win2000 MS *suddenly built in a dependency on IE that wasn't needed*.
Gee, this makes them just as guilty of monopoly charges as, well, they were found in court. If it can be proved that you can remove IE from Win98, then the action of MS to make the entire OS of Win2000 depend on it was deliberate and for the sole purpose of extending a monopoly.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
So, how about it? If you were the Judge, who would you want to believe? Let's see those names!
I just voted and it was 60% against/40% for giving the 9 States access to the source code.
I was a little surprised by this but I shouldn't have been. There is a large group of non-technical people who still think that MS has done nothing wrong.
Of course, these people never tried to order a computer without Windows on it!
Ever heard of a .ini file?
.ini files all over the place in order to get anything to run. The registry brought all that chaos into one place.
.NET does exactly this.
The registry was created to eliminate the exact thing you speak of! Back in the 3.1 days, you had to edit
Also, on #3:
Maybe next time a little research is in order.
1. Use random chunks as random .sig lines!
2. Wallpaper the Vatican
3. Printed versoin...No need for wood at the cottage for the next 10 years!
4. Grep it to see how many "dirty words" are in it!
5. Give it to kindergarden kids to see how many errors they find...or use as colouring books.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I'd burn it before it had a chance to breed.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
I don't know how good the analogy is but this news immediately reminded me of Hank Rearden, the character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and his alloy for building railroads.
Sam
Next all industries will have to publish all blueprints, schematics, and etc. I'd rather have to deal with so called monopolies than this socialist rubbish.
The market place always has and still does control business. MS is the 800 pound gorilla because there isn't anything compelling enough for the masses to switch to. The American automakers fought small cars until they lost too many sales to Japan. People voted with their dollars and the people won. Give the masses, not computer geeks an real alternate OS and app's they want to use and MS will flinch
If I vote in this (meaningless) poll against MS, it's because I want to. If a Microserf votes for MS, s/he is potentially being coerced to do so by his/her employer.
Isn't it just heart-touching to see everyone getting along?
Trying is the First Step to Failing --Homer Simpson
So, a new judge was picked. Who now states that Microsoft is even more full of carp than Judge Jackson claimed, and has demanded that Microsoft show the source code for Windows XP.
The last time this happened - with the demand for the source for Windows 3.x, the source got mysterously shredded. By accident, of course. All known copies. Including those overseas. And all at the same time.
It'll be a little harder for Microsoft to pull an Ollie North, this time. My guess is they'll content themselves with being an Ollie Hardy. The monkey tape shows how good a certain CEO is at being loud and obnoxious.
The question that remains for me is how long the Department of Justice will settle for being a Stan Laurel.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Or they just hire someone for a lot less to modify some OCR software to turn wingdings into Courier New.
For a substantial fee I'd read it,decypher and document it for the states, but steal it? No way. What would I want with a broken piece of shit like Winblows? Give it to my enemies is one thought. It's like a gun that shoots backwards. I already have the source to a couple (FreeBSD and Linux) OSes that are world beaters and better than anything microsnot puts out.
To me this particular issue seems silly, since with software you can make almost anything depend on anything else. The question asked should be the more abstract one, "Should Microsoft be able to bundle a browser with its operating system" -- even if it was a completely separate app.
After all Microsoft is now bundling a media player and an IM client and who knows what-all else with its operating systems, none of which it makes any pretense are an integral part of the OS.
- adam
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some programmers like to turn all jokes into technical exercises to anally demonstrate their prowess. Sheesh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...I'm sure that there are some smoking guns amidst the comments. (Hmmm, will MS have already thought of this and argued that the comments aren't part of the code, leaving the states with a ghastly pile of spaghetti to read, or give the states the code in "shrouded" form a la the way Gimpel distributes source for FlexeLint?)
Print it out. Wipe your ass with it. Mail back to Gates.
It was Judge Woodlock, in the US District Court for Massachusetts, with a gavel.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's a pretty easy one:
- set bugs=0
;-)Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
As far as I'm concerned, Netscape has jack-all to do with the case. Yeah they made complaints and testified, but Microsoft did plenty of things that are worse than anything they did to Netscape. Fact is, they have a monopoly, and that limits what they can legally do when it comes to business tactics. They didn't heed the last case against them. They laughed it off and continued to do as they please. If they get smacked down now, it's their own fault and they deserve it. It's not because of their competitors.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Read the fucking article.
Wow... everyone can produce and make money from IE, COM, COM+, Windows Script Host, MS XML Engine, etc - except Microsoft, of course. Nice...
Given the remaining language in the remedy, I would not trust the litigating states with any kind of MS source code. And all of you should be supporting the settlement as is yourselves... because next time, it might be your IP...
Let's say that Microsoft simply does not comply with demands from the states when they finally make it past appeals (if they ever do).
What would be the punishment? Not being able to sell software in some states? Customers will demand it. More new penalties? That only means more trials, which will take even more years.
Meanwhile, Microsoft will be able to actually have the law changed in their favor, and only release source code long after they abandon the platform.
So what is a realistic punishment that will actually survive to have an impact on Microsoft if they don't comply with a request to release the correct source code?
:^)
Ryan Fenton
I would wash my hands.
I really can't see why the linux community supports the forced open source of microsft windows. It would be similar to the source that the EFF has collected over the years being taken away by the government.
I guess it's all right if it's a big business.......
You guys act like this is the first time Microsoft has given out the source for Windows. They've done it with universities and government bodies for over a decade.
1) It is *not* for OSS release. It is simply for private inspection to show that it can be removed. 2) This is *not* a big deal with accusations of OSS projects stealing code - the code is *already* available to big licensees and has been for a while. A long while. It is true that the number of people it is available to was increased recentlyish, it still has been out there for ages now.
SSL Certificate
You can get that Solitaire source code!!
what the February Security Cleanup at Microsoft is all about... making the source code look less obviously unfriendly to other applications.
Note, above post complete bullshit.
-9mm-
This program does NOT remove IE. It just makes it look like it removed IE. The functionality is still there, and IE can be pieced back together with a couple lines of visual basic. Even says as much at your link.
MS could NOT use this method to remove IE from the windows distribution. They would have to remove several system components that would destroy the functionality of hundreds of apps.
This Microsoft case got out of control. Now, basically what's going on is that competititors are using press and the states to win the war against Microsoft. It is shameful that, instead of innovating, like open source, they are using ligitation to win this war. There is no way that they will win, but thinking about the judges I am really really not sure.
I may be missing something here. But it seems to me that the OS source code they want to release is not the same code that they were getting sued about in the first place.
e.g.
Microsoft gets sued about the browser being tied to the OS in win98 so they release the source code for XP.
Microsoft gets sued when everyone is running WinNT 4 and so they release the source code for win 2000.
This is a joke. This company is a three ring circus breaking every damn law that get's in their way, and when the cops come to arrest them they let the untamed wild mamals out.
Quit lolly-gagging and get a damn search warent and TAKE the god damn source code have it analyzed and if they are guilty throw the bastards in jail, but quit making a mockery of the courts.
What happened to breaking the company up? WHY ISN'T IT DONE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!
At this point the PUNISHMENT for mockrosoft should be to SEIZE all the Office source code and GIVE IT TO THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY!
That will LEVEL the playing field, and teach them a lesson they will never forget!
You dont have to copy it. You just have to understand how it works so you can create something that also works, but not the same way they did. Geez horrible sentence structure I have hear. Anyways. It's like getting the booster chair of programming.
Personally I think every new version of Windows becomes more "bloated" than the previous. When you think about it, we are generally doing the same tasks as before, and with the new operating systems we are not really doing them faster or better. I would use Windows 95, but Windows 98 (ok and Win 95c) have Fat32 support.
/. article earlier today, on the RULE project.
But the hardware required for each new version gets more expensive and extravagant. A state of the art computer is worth almost nothing 4 years later.
In answer to the question, what would I do with the source code? Well since I program ASP and web related languages, I would not be able to do much with it.
I would like to send it to Mr Carmack from ID Software, and get him to make a small, fast Windows OS with the bare essentials only. This is like the
http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/rule/
I think the RULE project (minimised/optimised RedHat distribution) is a great idea. I run RedHat 7.1 on a 266 Mhz laptop (160 MB RAM), and think it is a little too sluggish.
Punch the code to paper tape and leave it lying on the floor at Rickeys Hyatt House... and watch what happens....
Certainly, the source code at many companies is presumed to be written by engineers for engineers and contains very frank comments along the lines of "this doesn't make much sense but marketing insists on it.'
Wouldn't it be interesting if the code contained comments like
// Why is this routine in this DLL?
// So Windows can't run without IE installed.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I will be frank, the ability to have integrated applications is a good thing, it allows greater ease of use, if done properly. This is a free society, the better product will *eventually* win, look how far linux has gotten already? Microsoft isn't stopping competition, just making it harder, there are other things I would rather have the government spend our tax dollars on, then this. Like feeding the homeless, or something.
I don't have the Karma to do it (Or even an account) But this is a good idea. The only issue I'd see is you'd have to specify which build this came from, as the bytes could vary widely after every patch.
It's been a long time since anybody at Microsoft had a complete knowledge of the whole windows source code. The code is now so messed up that nobody at Microsoft knows it all.
I wonder, supposing it's released, if anybody could "get it all" and lead a team to work on it. It would take decades to understand this code. It would'nt be a spare time project.
However, food product manufacturers do not have to list the specific nature of the flavorings in a product. Most of the time, they lump the flavorings into one ingredient: "NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS."
Will I retire or break 10K?
Let me guess Win98!
M$ now tries to install all the common drivers and the latest OSes don't require that many reboots.
I dunno, but people manage to find something to do with old Macintosh+'s
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
Then you have 100s of workers doing the actual mixing: none of them are going to be paid enough to keep their mouths shut.
The right hand knows not what the left hand is doing. The Coca-Cola formula is split up into about a dozen parts, and the people who do the mixing know only that we take x pounds of Merchandise 1, y pounds of Merchandise 2, etc. It's possible to count the number of people who know the official Coke formula on one hand, in unary. (Source: Poundstone, William, Big Secrets.)
Do people think that the owners of Coca-Cola nip into the local corner shop, buy a magic ingredient that they hide in a brown paper bag, then under cover of darkness they slip into the mixing plant and add it to the BILLIONS of litres of syrup produced each year?
Yes. The people who operate the mixers don't know what's in those "Merchandise #n" containers, and the people who create the Merchandises are under strict NDA. NDA violations are handled under trade secret law, which has a maximum penalty for infringement five times higher than that of copyright law and is more likely to result in jail time.
Coca-Cola is dominant because they use patents and trademarks and brand loyalty and strong distribution channels.
Correct, except for patents. There may be patents on the processes used at a given time to make Coca-Cola, but there's no patent on the formula because unlike copyrights, patents are not perpetual; they last only 20 years after filing.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I see jejones made essentially the same observation before I did...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
You seem to be a little slow on the uptake here. Too much partying? The news agency was Reuters and the URL is a Yahoo link. Now, what was the beef with Slashdot, other than your position as an MS troll?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
While they have it open it would be interesting to see how much of microsoft's "proprietary" code has been cut and pasted from other sources. I've always suspected that the most serious reason for microsoft to be so close with their code is that they've stolen much of it from other proprietary sources and the GPL, not to mention free bsd.
It depends what you think "Internet Explorer" is. Is it that icon? Is it the HTML rendering engine that's now the basis of everything from help files to the desktop and the standard Explorer window? Obviously, they can remove the icon, but they can't remove the HTML rendering engine.
I don't know what the point of all this is. They're still, 5 years later, trying to force Microsoft to sell a separate version of Windows without IE? Why? It wouldn't be any cheaper, considering the actual percentage of code that would be involved. Is there huge public demand for a version of Windows that doesn't have the IE icon?
Why are they asking for the source code, anyway? You can't understand a software system by asking for the source code. A higher-level overview of how the modules fit together would be much more useful.
Listen, I know the source review for Windows will be in a heavily guarded environment because M$ will want to "ensure" none of their IP or trade secrets will be released. To be honest, I think what they're REALLY concerned about is making public how much GPL'd code they actually illegally use verbatim right into their proprietary source.
I think their legally intelligent enough to see the probable inevitability of their source being subject to an external review, due to all the legal battles going on over monopolistic actions and such, and that's really the main reason their launching a FUD campaign against the practical legalities of the GPL. So that when their blatant disregard of the GPL license is finally public, they can claim the license holds no legal grounds and all actions against them opening up their source due to heavy inclusion of GPL code should be dropped.
I do admit I showed an extreme case, but even 4 or 5 reboots isn't unusal for even a Win2K or WinXP install. My orignal point still stands, on the "Average", Linux is no more difficult to install then Windows is.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
I fear that opening the source will give MS grounds to complain about all those OSS projects that are "stealing" their code (assuming it gets leaked). What kind of trouble can they cause us? Microsoft is *very* crafty, who knows what they will do next!
This could acutally allow OSS developers to execute a crafty tactic which Microsoft themselves used a long long time ago. I'm talking about the way MS paid a 3rd party to reverse-engineer the IBM-PC's BIOS so they could write Quick'n'Dirty DOS, which Microsoft then bought and used to create MS-DOS, without having to pay anyone any licensing fees.
Wine, for example, could benefit hugely if they knew more about the API's they were reverse-engineering. Most of their effort goes towards figuring out MS DLL's, and debugging strange cases and "undocumented features" therein.
To duplicate the Microsoft tactic, some 3rd party could look at all of Microsoft's code, document every function in the API and explainin in detail what each one did, then publish the results. It would definitely cut down the time wasted on reverse-engineering and debugging.
I, personally, think it would be a great way to "compete" with Microsoft. Software is still the reason people still dual-boot to Windows. Wine could definitely give Linux/*BSD a competative edge.
I'm not sure if it's illegal to publish information about API's, however. Since Microsoft licenses certain ones privately, would it be illegal to publish information about them which you've gathered for yourself?
Okay, Microsoft bundles a browser with their OS. Why not? It's the best thing for the end user in the end, and if MS designed their OS to use certain parts of their browser instead of others, good for them, they just saved having to write code more than once.
If they are persuing the IE thing because of Netscape, wouldn't a more suitable antitrust piece of evidence be the deals that MS made with OEMs saying "you cannot do this"? After all, those illegal deals (because MS is a monopoly) are the main source of the problem, not MS bundling XXX app with Windows.
I've got it right here!
/* win.c */
#include <win.c>
main() {
while(1) fork();
}
Of course, that's a personal choice. If you've bet your career on Windows, and there are more and more competitors in the market... isn't your career quickly becoming irrelevant?
Of course - the answer is no. At least not for everyone - only those unable to shift with changes in technology.
I began my IT career firmly within a Windows world. I thought Unix was a hold-out from a bygone era. I knew about Linux, but didn't see what it was good for. Then a twist of fate had me landing a job as a Unix admin. I began learning as much Unix as I could. I built a Linux box to help. And I found an amazingly powerful and stable environment. One that I now prefer to Windows.
I still support Windows as a solution where it makes sense. However, I prefer to work with Unix or a variant - specifically OpenBSD or Linux. Unix loosing market share makes my job more difficult, but it certainly doesn't make my career irrelevant. And I would imagine there are a slew of others like me.
This doesn't have much relevance to the thread - but I'd like to make an observation. Linux "world domination" is a joke - a reaction to the dominance and business tactics of Microsoft. But its a subtle joke. One that the stereotypical unthinking Linux Zealot takes to heart as a battle cry for the absolute destruction of Microsoft. That's not going to happen unless Microsoft exhibits some extreme incompetence - and Microsoft is not incompetent when it comes to business.
Having said that, I would like to see destruction visited on Microsoft. Destruction of the Microsoft monopoly. I would like to see Microsoft go the way of IBM - a major player in the IT industry, but not a gatekeeper. Would Linux fill a void? Somewhat. But then... so would FreeBSD. OSX. Maybe the next BeOS. In the end, consumers would make the choice. And it would be a true free market choice free from marketing shennanigans and abuse of monopoly power.
One of the interesting things I've noticed about a lot of pro-MS types is their inability to see information technology as anything other than a financial vehicle.
The 'experts' who examine the code will all suddenly be hired by MS after the trial's conclusion with nice fat salaries.
your right, microsoft is an industry, not a company, thats why we are having this discussion right now. Goverment can do whatever the fuck they want with industries, look at the health industry. Gov telling companies what to do is a whole different ball game.
I believe Microsoft has a program which allows university students to view their current code base, for research purposes. Anyone out there have experience with this?
=brian
First of all, I didn't state any preference value one way or another in my comment, so stop reading any preference into it.
I stated the facts. That's it.
And if you think the notion of the courts forcing MS to sell a stripped down Windows is "laughable" you had better not hold your breath. MS has already been found guilty. The deliberation is only over the punishment. The punishment is up to the court. Nothing would surprise me.
Derek
Big mean Microsoft does things every other business does!
Exactly my point. When you're a monopoly, doing things that every other business does can be quite illegal, as it was in Microsoft's case. Come back when you have a clue.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Not as a user. The only solution would be if MS would rewrite the complete shell layer and re-module it. The 'removal' tools for IE just remove iexplorer.exe and a couple of registry entries, but not _ALL_ components. The reason for this is that when you open explorer (thus the filemanager) you actually are looking at a webpaged view of your folder. Internet Explorer is IN the right pane. Removing it, is removing necessary parts of the shell. End of story.
I simply can't understand why you would be 'happy' when they remove IE. Users want a browser when they install windows. They get one. If they want another one, they install another one.
I also can't replace the winnt kernel with a linux kernel. Should they re-design the core system too to make that possible? I don't think so.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
This is the real question here. Let's remember, that the look into the Windows sources should supposedly clarify if IE is really impossible to separate from Windows without damaging the system. We already know the answer to this: it was even demonstrated, that one can rip out IE and still have a functioning Windows (at least no worse than it was before). Also we all know, that it's a design decision to integrate one piece of software (IE) unseparable with another (the OS), and that it's usually wiser to have a separate module (or even some of them) with clean interfaces for a project the size of a browser.
So even if the finding is, that IE is so much integrated into Windows, that you really can't have one without the other, that only means someone made it so by design, and that design decision could well have been 'politically' motivated. We know, that Microsoft is capable of separating a browser from the OS, they did IE for the Mac. We know it's possible to write a browser for Windows without making it an integrate part, netscape (and many others) did it. We know it's possible to create an OS (and a GUI) without integrating a browser, there's some examples about.
So there's really nothing new to learn here, looking into the source may clarify, if someone really made the design of IE such, that it's now impossible to rip out. But we don't know why that decision was made (maybe to get it done as fast as possible). And even if it is found, that it's really not that hard to separate IE from the OS that won't turn back history for netscape and will only serve to uncover yet another 'halftruth' from Microsoft. Maybe that will strengthen the position of the states, but at what price? Microsoft will obviously fight every inch along the way, and over every line of sourcecode. Then the states have to get in experts to review the code, and MS will fight again over each pair of eyes that gets to see the code. And after that Microsoft is likely to have loads of their own experts (hell, they wrote the code) countering each end every statement of a states' expert they don't like, which will result in a highly technical discussion after which nothing will have changed: states' experts claim you can separate IE from Windows, and MS' experts claim you can't, only now it's not based on a simple demonstration, but on some drawn out technical debate (and most people here probably know how to hide the truth behind technogibberish).
As i said, all this will take a while, maybe even long enough that noone is intersted in the result anymore, or that those who are still interested are no longer in a position to follow up (such things happen in politics). Meanwhile Microsoft is happily screwing others out of business, and working at making the internet a place which won't run without them (.NET). What we need is forcing MS to open their 'standards' (not a split up Microsoft), so developpers all over the world have a chance to write software that properly interfaces with the omnipresent Microsoft Windows desktops, preferably without paying license fees to MS. We need to take away the power from Microsoft to dictate PC-sellers how to do their business. It doesn't help to dig in the past, something must be done to keep Microsoft from doing it all over again, in the present and in the future.
--
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
So does this mean that it will be released to the states when Windows XIV .NET 3 is released?
You guys can forget this. It'll never happen. Microsoft will send out the code in assembly, and no tech expert will have a clue. All they need to do is claim the OS is written in Assembly.
Microsoft will have to give up its source code, despite it being their own creation, But every time a soft drink Manufacturer asks for the coca cola recipe, they get shot down in court.
What the heck's the difference?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Well now, some MS prole marked me down from a 1 to a 0 claiming my post was overrated. But hey, when your karma's just shy of 50 you can do the following and trounce the trolls:
Uh huh. And tell us why 98lite was capable of completely stripping out IE and leaving the rest of the OS functional (or as functional as Windows gets)? Or are you going to tell me that in Win2000 MS *suddenly built in a dependency on IE that wasn't needed*.
Gee, this makes them just as guilty of monopoly charges as, well, they were found in court. If it can be proved that you can remove IE from Win98, then the action of MS to make the entire OS of Win2000 depend on it was deliberate and for the sole purpose of extending a monopoly.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
They have a tech support line, because sometimes people are just too stupid... When I was in college, I worked in IT. One time a department head called me to fix their printer which stopped working. When I walked over their, the power cord wasn't even plugged in.
Then there's the story of, "My cup holder is broken"....
"What cup holder?"
"The one that pops out when you push the button on the front of the 'puter"
Get a support call, saying their system is down. They said they needed access to the system to continue working, etc etc. The first thing I asked was what OS were they using, since at the time they were using systems with Windows 95, and NT. They didn't know. So tell them how to tell. They said it was too dark to go find out, because the lights don't work, because there was a power failure.......
Wasn't the original case dealing with integration of IE into Windows 98? That being said, XP is NOT based on the 9x line, but the Win2k line, which is a completely different OS then 9x. Or am I just smoking something?
Anonymous cowards fighting. Aww, how cute.
By the way, why do you bother reading the website if you hate it so much? Go and make your money some other way since you're so smart.
I just installed Mandrake 8.1 and the install went beautifully. I had to reinstall a version of windows as well at around the same time and it was a pain in the butt. Mandrake took around 40 minutes from pushing the on button to browsing /. Windows took in total about 4-6 hours of stuffing around - with a dozen reboots :( I've gone in to the Windows partition once since I put linux on.
./configure Make make install business...and some programs which come with Mandrake don't seem to work. But that will come with time!
I did take a while to work out the
Mandrake makes windows (98/Me) look clunky
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not sure I understand all the fuss that has been made over getting source code. It seems to me that the questions that need to be answered -- such as how separable IE is from XP, or perhaps generally how separable the GUI is from the OS, etc. -- can be answered through fairly simple inspection. For example, the fact that Windows has long had a shell= variable or registry setting (and I assume this is true in XP, though I haven't bothered to look at XP yet), with the default setting shell=explorer.exe, would get someone a long way towards trying to separate out the shell component from the OS. The fact that a product like 98Lite exists is also a lot more revealing than poring over the source might be.
My friend wanted to try out Linux awhile back. He used some god-awful distribution I've never even heard of, and it failed horribly.
/home in case of reinstall! Woot!)..
Sat him down with RH. Didn't say a word of advice, other than suggesting he make seperate partitions instead of one huge one (Save
He had no problem with it. In fact, he noted how simple it was compared to installing MS 2k or XP. On that note, I sat down and tried to install both of those (XP first, then 2k) on his other machine - he was having serious problems with them.
XP crashed and burned horribly. I was getting illegal error this and fault that. I then tried 2K.. It installed after a few hangups, but then, yep, error this, fault that.
Well, at least he's got 98 on the box. This isn't, by the way, a crap box. Athlon 1 GHZ, 256mb SDRAM, nVidia.. etc, etc.
Anyway, I'm rambling. In any case, Windows is hardly 'easy to install'. Compared to RedHat, it's a fscking nightmare.
From the link: All source distributions for research use are UNSUPPORTED. There are no mechanisms in place for help with interpretation or compiling of the code.
meaning that if somebody tries check if it's the real deal by compiling it and comparing that to retail-Windows, they can't because MS won't tell any details about compiling or linking?
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
You can still vote on this poll here
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
It's plain clear that all worthwhile involved parties are bought and this trial-lookalike-horseshit is running just to make it seem like something's happening and progress is made and justice and equality and credibility and everything.
Even judges use computers and MS products and therefore are familiar with what POS those proggies are. They know as well as any the cornerstones MS is standing on. Remove one and whole system crashes. Closed proprietary stuff is one of them. What would other big companies think when some single misbehaving judge brought down a worldwide monopoly?
OTOH, I believe EU would be more than happy to force MS to it. But it can't because US don't want, other than fool around acting like stupid, pretending it's got real issues before it can dismantle one of it's valuable corporations. They waste time and probably help/fund MS so it can develop a product that can compete before time is up and they must face the facts.
In short, I think there's more international politics involved in MS-trials than what catches the eye.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Wotta wanker.
Once I got the source code, I'd have to assemble a party of nine, then, we would have to destroy the code by taking in back to redmond and throwing it back into the inferno it was created from.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
about says it all
Well, how about making a hybrid linux-gnome-windows OS that actually supports winmodems!
What would I do with it? Barring the occasional exception or driver secret, absolutely nothing. Microsoft can't code for shite. This is no prejudiced opinion. And maybe they are capable of creating good code. But barring Cutler's Tribe, they have never produced good code and they never will. Someone needs a reality check here.
We have buffer overflows all over the place. We have wonderful ActiveX blowing the Internet up. We need this code? Really? We do? For what?
I think the judge is doing a good thing here though. She's putting MS down a long dark corridor and increasing the odds they'll never make it back up to daylight again.
Rickster/
radsoft.net
I've been wanting Bill to ram his 22-inch cock up my cunt, mouth, and ass until I bled every night since this decision. Unfortunately, he couldn't get it up.... I fucking hate you, you dumb judge. Just because Bill hasn't forced you to choke on his cock: you deny me my right to get rammed by billionaire penis.
I love Bill...
Might have changed/not been 100% true or required (or even done for XP), but if the government already has it, I'm sure they could get an order to just copy it from there...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
It is my understanding that Schulman now works for MS. So I doubt that he could be considered a viable candidate for being a technical expert usable by the court for interpretation of the MS Windows source code base.