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.)
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??
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.
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 .
You know, I am an *AVID* OSS support and a vocal Microsoft disident, but I'm not sure I would vote the way you think I should. I mean what use do we get out of knowing that Microsoft was lying about being able to unbundle IE -- it's already proven that they are liers! How much proof do we need!
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!
I think the best course of action is something like what RedHat proposed. Make them pay a *lot* of cash money to the school system. This money would be used to purchase any non-MS hardware/software (i.e. iMacs) and to support competetion.
No solution is perfect, but I'm not sure I want MS source code "in the wild".
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
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
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.
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?
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
Before everyone offers clever comments about what they'll do with the source code when they get it, note that individual average citizens won't be getting the source code (at least not as a result of this ruling, except in the case of leaks). They're not talking about handing over the code so everyone can see it, it is only to be used for a specific purpose by specific people. The "states" will get it, meaning the people representing the states involved in the case such as the attorney generals, other lawyers, and most importantly expert witnesses. They're not getting access to the source code to determine whether it sucks or to help the Samba team out, but only to determine the validity of one specific argument made by MS:
Even worse (I'm dead serious right now) Microsoft can leak some code secretly, blame the code examiners, and then claim the case has hurt them and file for damages. They can also stop the state programmers from examining further code this way.
The only way to stop this is to make the code PUBLIC for everyone to see. If they don't Microsoft will do their standard dirty tricks and poison the case again.
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
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 :))
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.
Now presumably if what Microsoft says is true, the states will discover that having a version of Windows with a GUI in it creates a dependency on including the IE code also. Since the main target for embedded Windows is systems that don't have a traditional display, thus optimizing how finely you can split out the GUI components is not a priority, I would assume that the whole GUI code is one big blob component with IE, GDI, etc, etc. all lumped together. Thus the states may be disappointed (although asking for the embedded code was a clever idea!).
If not, <insert Twilight Zone music here>
- adam
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.
After my experience trying to upgrade Win98 and WinNT boxes to Win2K, I'm a little leery of trying that again (besides the XP spyware issues). Have you really upgraded a Win2K box to XP? I've heard some horror stories about that as well, but I suppose it works for someone.
If you really want to see an OS that is easy to upgrade, check out Debian Linux. I have a server that has been upgraded seamlessly through four major versions. That's like installing NT 3.5 and upgrading to 4.0, Win2K and WinXP, all without a reinstall. It's currently running Woody.
Oh, and the box has never crashed. Ever. The only brief downtimes have been due to (a) kernel upgrades (infrequently, this is a server) and a few power outages. Win2K is (finally!) a reasonably stable OS, but it still crashes on occasion. I rarely get more than about a month without a crash, and I know many people who still find it necessary to reboot daily as a preventative measure.
My desktop and my laptop both run Debian unstable, as do my wife's machine and my grandmother's machine. It works extremely well, and I find I have to do *far* less technical support on my wife's and grandmother's computers now that they're running Linux (as opposed to Win2K, which is what they ran before). It's just too easy for clueless users to screw up a Windows setup.
"Hey, I tried RedHat 7.2" does *not* mean you're speaking from experience.
Different Linux distros have various issues, as do the MS OSes. The issues are different, but all are eminently usable. "OS that works" is just a (rather weak) troll.
You should go back to browbeating the newbies on sci.crypt.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Until the linux community gets off their asses and makes Linux easy to use for a larger user base [i.e non kernel-hackers] its still going to be a non-desktop OS.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Linux is no harder to install than Windows is. The only reason people think Linux is hard to install is because first they have never done it and second Windows came factory installed.
Of course most you will likely respond with "Whats so hard about installing Windows, boot from the CD and type setup." The problem is unless your system and all your hardware pre dates your version of Windows by at least a year or two, you will have to install drivers, so it goes something like this;
Boot from CD and type setup (2 reboots)
install Motherboard chipset drivers (1 reboot)
install video drivers (1 reboot)
install mouse software (1 reboot)
install sound drivers (1 reboot)
install modem drivers (1 reboot)
configure modem (1 reboot)
install network card drivers (1 reboot)
configure network card (1 reboot)
install DvD player (1 reboot)
install CDRW software (1 reboot)
install printer drivers (1 reboot)
install scanner software (1 reboot)
install webcam software (1 reboot)
And this is just to get the hardware working, no applications have been installed yet and it does not include downloading and installing updated drivers. Unless you are using an EMachine and doing reinstalls from a restore disk, I don't see how this is easier than installing Linux. As a matter of fact I beleive Windows is more difficult to install than Linux. Contrary to popular belief, installing Linux does not require you to compile a kernel, and most additional software is distributed as binary and what little does require compiling is usually as easy as typing
su -c "./configure && make && make install"
Additionally installing Linux requires only 1 reboot, the only other time you will need to reboot is IF you decide to install a new kernel. I beleive the question should not be, "Why is Linux so hard to install ?", but "Why is Windows so hard to install ?"
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
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)
This was absolutely clever by the states. I have to wonder why they did not think of it earlier. And the thing is that MS cannot be so restrictive with who sees the sources, etc, etc. Because then it can be considered contempt of court. Man did MS REALLY walk into deep do-do!
What I find amazing is that this judge means business. She has shown no favourites on either side and is following the law. Wow! I guess she was probably a good choice. Ok if this backfires and MS wins maybe I will change my mind. But thus far she is following the law. COOL!!!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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.
Why do you have to be so right?! I like Linux. As a matter of fact I run 6 Linux servers and only 1 Win2000 server. However when I upgraded to the 2.4 kernel I had to get the RedHat 7.2 ISOs because getting the 2.4 kernel source and trying to get the stupid freaking thing to compile *AND* work with my hardware was pure shit. I'm not going to spend countless hours, days or weeks trying to get the fucking kernel to compile. I have a business to run and the time I spend jerking around trying to compile source is better served by me creating apps that generate *REVENUE*. Generating revenue means more than being able to get 2.4.XX of the kernel to compile and boot. BTW, some of my RH Linux servers still run the 2.2.5-15 kernel because Oracle 8.1.7 gets broken by the 2.4.xx kernel and will not run unless you patch your system.