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.)

Comments

fix linux drivers

[dy_dx]

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.

Judge is not calling for Windows to be open source

[dmoen]

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.

Of course IE can be removed... READ!

[tweakt]

Of course it's possible. It's already been done.

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 .

Re:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE!

[Corrado]

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".

The interesting questions: 'who?', 'for how long?'

[brokeninside]

My largest worry is that even if Microsoft hands over the source code, they will endeavor to make certain that that there is not really sufficient time for the plaintiffs to give it the going over that it needs.

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.

My department has the source code!

[Glorat]

Absolutely. I asked my computer support group (CSG) at my university and apparently, our department has cheap(/free?) licenses to all sorts of MS products such as Visual Studio, Win 2000 etc. etc. AND I was told we also had the source code to some of these products! Unfortunately, they are under a strict licence so the likes of me can't just waltz in and take a copy. What it does mean is that

• The court request is perfectly reasonable
• Source won't become public domain
• Microsoft might not actually fight it!
• If the courts feel so inclined, they could hassle a university for the "evidence"

Unfair...

[siliconwafer]

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.

Re:Significance of XP embedded?

[AdamBa]

The embedded work involves splitting Windows into various "components" (thousands I think) and then creating a list of dependencies so you know what has to be included if you want a system with a network stack, or that can run user-mode apps, or whatever. A component is one file, or a group of binaries that are for practical purposes indivisible.

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

Re:Hmm...

[swillden]

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.

Re:Hmm...

[NumberSyx]

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 ?"

Olympic-Class Irony: 9:8 9:9 9:9 9:9

[jd]

Microsoft contested that the original judge was too hostile, and made too many excessive demands. (Demands such as "being reasonable to the rest of the planet, for example.)

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.