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

what would we do with it?

[oozer]

Port it to linux :)

Re:what would we do with it?

[penguin_nipple]

so what the hell is someone who most obviously doesn't know how to add zip and CD-R support to your kernel build doing messing around with it and then complaining vehemently about the process? Most certainly without reading the HOW-TO's associated with a kernel build. Here's a hand, if you feel like learning something:

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...

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.

I know what they are looking for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Line 1171, url.cpp

// we stuck this code in here to shaft netscape

:)

CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE!

[Knunov]

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

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".

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:Of course IE can be removed... READ!

[FatRatBastard]

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."

State programmers will modify it.

[Nindalf]

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.

Significance of XP embedded?

[mjh]

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.

Re:Here's what Novel, AOL, Lotus (IBM), ...

[sheldon]

"Didn't an NT fix pack a while ago prevent Lotus Notes server from working?"

NT4 SP6 caused Lotus to stop working because it prevented non-Administrators from opening a Winsock connection.

This security access problem also caused issues with a great many other applications, not just Notes.

It was also fixed within a day.

There is an old saying, "Don't contribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." It continues to amaze me how whiners continue looking for ghosts in the shadows instead of just understanding the technical issues, realizing people make mistakes and moving on.

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 ?"