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!
Port it to linux :)
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 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.
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.
It's not like there's Indiana Jones/Golden Eye style boobytraps/keys guarding the source..
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
:)
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.
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?
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 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
Must be one heck of a birdcage you have... I'm afraid to think of how big the bird is... or what you feed it....
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
At least two issues come out of this with regards the case though:
what would I do with it, you ask?
/home/archives/windows/;grep -r strcpy * | more
cd
buffer overflows, here I come...
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.
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.
govt should be able to regulate as long as you agree with it...
Isn't that sort of the point of an elected government?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
I would wash my hands.
Install WinME, reboot twice
Set TCP/IP, Install Video, sound and first update
try to figure out which driver screwed up the system up, reboot 3 more times.
setup WinTV, download second set of updates, install IE6
system screwed up again, uninstall WinTV, system still screwed up. Format and reinstall, 4 more reboots
download more updates, DirectX and dev suites, 2 more reboots.
Tried to play Wolf, but system hangs during setup, 1 reboot
can now play Wolf, but could only do the install after killing all the programs running in the background.
Yes Virginia, I am a Troll and this is Flamebait.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli