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

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".

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 ?"