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.)
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
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.
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
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
The "IE is an integral part of the OS" arguement has always made me chuckle. Its true only because Microsoft has designed it that way, which doesn't necessarily make it right.
The most damning evidence that a browswer doesn't have to be so close to the kernel (in the kernel???) is IE for Macintosh. Its a damn fine browser that is nothing more than a standalone app. Sure, Microsoft bitches that IE is needed for product updates and help, but that is -- again -- only by MS design. Apple, Debian, Mandrake, et al have all shown that updating can also be a stand alone application. And Gnome and (I assume) KDE have shown you can have HTML help with a regular app browser.
The contention that IE is neccessary for the OS to run properly is true, but only because MS specifically designed it that way. I've always found the arguement "hey, we're guilty but we can't seperate IE from the OS because its too deeply tied together" the same as Firestone saying "hey, we know we produced crap tires, but we shouldn't have to change the way we made 'em because that would require retooling the tire production line."
At least two issues come out of this with regards the case though:
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.
govt should be able to regulate as long as you agree with it...
Isn't that sort of the point of an elected government?
I think the WINE and Lindows people would have a field day with it.
Tim Dorr
Owner/Manger
A Small Orange
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).
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
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.
Or it could be the disaster that kills Wine / Linux. IFF the WinSource is handed over for technical examination, it will certainly be in a VERY controlled environment and, most likely, subject to non-disclosure agreements or court orders. If copyrighted code from Windows wound up in any part of Linux, then Microsoft would have legal justification to sue distributors everywhere to block all distribution. Followed by suits against every name in the contributors list for the infected projects.
Out-thinking Microsoft is one thing. Stealing their shit is something entirely different.
Of course, it may be different in your universe.
Kernel HOW-TO
CD Burning HOW-TO
ZIP Drive Mini HOW-TO
Now my first impression after reading your post, what benig so open minded about things, is that these HOW-TO's are most likely not for you. Much in the same way that Windows based OS'es are not for all of us (Read: Choice!).
However, you're not limited by that, wanna try Linux? Buy a distro, Redhat, Suse and Mandrake are all quite mature, quite *graphically* configurable and meant for end-users (Read: Binary Updates). Additionally if you spend the few bucks, (certainly not nearly as much as XP), you get something in the realm of 30 days technical, live installation support - I know many people who have used these services and been quite happy.
So as to maintain the topic thread, I would also suggest that you're miles off topic as MS releasing the source to a fellow such as yourself would make no difference whatsoever. Additionally, there is a huge difference between configuring a kernel, which is what you need to do and kernel hacking which is most certainly something you could never do
As for your final comment, agreed Linux should be easier for everyone, admittedly the community is not there yet. However, the above mentioned distributions have come a long way in the last year, patience. If you want easy and *NIX then don't be cheap, buy a Mac.
God, I can't believe I just did all that for such a trollish comment...
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.
One of the tenets of capitalism is that there is no barrier to entry into the market and that a company should be able to compete on their own merits. Should a company be so successful that it attains monopoly status, that's perfecctly legal and fine.
However, when a company uses it's monopoly in one market to force it's way into another market, that's another thing. It's illegal and helps to create a barrier to market entrance for other smaller companies.
Microsoft has created a huge barrier to entry into various markets. Just try and get a browser developed and hope to have a marketshare of greater than 1%. Opera, OmniWeb, iCab, Konqueror. All very good, very compelling products, but they don't come bolted on to Windows, so where's the compelling reason for the average consumer to spend the time downloading the file or even pay for the product? There isn't one. M$ has made sure of that.
M$ should hand over the source code. Experts should figure out whether or not IE can be seperated from the system and have it still work. Right now consumers do not have a choice of browsers in any real sense. They get IE and there is no real reason for them to use anything else as it is an extra expense and/or big hassle from their point of view.
The government doesn't want to tell M$ how to do business, it just wants to set up rules for them to follow so that some semblance of just competition is restored to the marketplace.
M$ didn;t get where they are today by creating new, exciting or innovative products. They got there through rehashing other companies' products, marketing said products better than anyone else and generally intimidating anyone who chose to step into the ring with them.
Pooty tweet
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