Taiwan Asks Microsoft To Open Windows Source

Andy Tai writes "According to this China Times article (in Chinese), the Republic of China government has asked Microsoft to open Windows source code. The official, Lin Jua-Cheng, in charge of the 'e-government' initiative, says many other countries have also sent similar requests to Microsoft. Lin explains that without Windows source code, the government cannot add custom firewall functionalities to Windows based systems in wide use, and that is very bad for the information security of Taiwan. Microsoft refused to publicly release the source in the past using reasons of copyright protection, but Lin emphasizes this request is reasonable since it is based on (government users') necessity." Read on for a bit more, too. (Can anyone suggest an online Chinese English translation engine that produces other than gibberish?) Andy continues "Lin points out that GNU/Linux systems, because of their freeness and high security (due to the availability of the source code, which can be modified to add firewalls and other security measures), have become widely used in government computer systems (especially in militaries and intelligence agencies) of many nations and the Pentagon, the FAA, and the air force of the U.S. Lin says the government cannot rely on a single vendor, and to promote the alternatives, the government has set up a 'Free (libre) Software Steering Committee' directing government efforts. The two aims of the ROC government's current software policy is making Windows source code openly available and the development of Free (libre) Software in Taiwan."

Comments

Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

, the government cannot add custom firewall functionalities to Windows based systems in wide use, and that is very bad for the information security of Taiwan.

Sure, because I need to look at the windows source to know that I need to enable HTTP to this server, SMTP to that server, etc etc.

Re:Okay

[klocwerk]

I think that the kind of custom firewall they want to implement has more to do with blocking access to certain sites than routing traffic.

Re:Okay

[Havokmon]

Sure, because I need to look at the windows source to know that I need to enable HTTP to this server, SMTP to that server, etc etc.

Nobody ever said there was a deep understanding underlying political motivation. :)

As much as we'd all like to see this...

[Verteiron]

... I think I'm going to have to say "fat chance". I don't believe that MS will reverse its stance on security-through-obscurity... not even at the request of a nation.

Re:As much as we'd all like to see this...

[jonadab]

Oh, sure. Well, sort of. Microsoft will probably work with select
partners to ensure that this need is met within a trusted computing
architecture via the shared source initiative, or somesuch. (When
translated into English, this rougly means they'll allow half a
dozen NDA-bound persons from the government in question to peek for
a couple of minutes at copies of what they claim is the requested
source code, with strict provisions in place to ensure no useful
information ever comes of it to anyone. The government of Taiwan
will be pacified by this just enough that nothing more interesting
will come of the matter.)

Re:As much as we'd all like to see this...

[Micah]

Actually I think there's a reasonably possibility that Windows will eventually be open sourced, but ONLY IF it becomes apparent that Linux has a serious chance of taking over the desktop market (and I am personally 100% convinced that will happen; it's just a matter of how long it will take).

Once that happens, Microsoft will pretty much HAVE to Open Source Windows to have a chance. Everyone will realize the benefits of OSS and they won't want to lock themselves into a proprietary platform.

If/when Windows becomes OSS, I may or may not endorse using it. At that point I'll judge it vs. Linux technically.

Re:As much as we'd all like to see this...

[Anarchofascist]

... I think I'm going to have to say "fat chance". I don't believe that MS will reverse its stance on security-through-obscurity... not even at the request of a nation.

At least they're taking the first small step. At least they're politely asking for the source code, which is more than any other country has tried.

Re:As much as we'd all like to see this...

[spacefiddle]

For Taiwan, not a chance in hell. Not as long as the fatcats in this country can droolingly mumble "...one biiillion more cuuuustomerssss..." every time they give China the elevator glance, Tawiwan's going to get ignored. It's every capitalist's duty to screw over a democracy in favor of a communist regieme in the name of free trade... uh... yeah.

Now if China said something like, "Mr. Gates, if you don't give us the source to Windows we're gonna make Slackware the new Offically Mandated State Distro and Chinese citizen must then use it or be deemed a counter-revolutionary and we're firing up the CD-RWs now to start handing 'em out," well, i'd pay good money to be able to peek at the schizoid explosion that'd cause in ol' Bill's brain, i would.

Re:As much as we'd all like to see this...

[onion2k]

Once that happens, Microsoft will pretty much HAVE to Open Source Windows to have a chance. Everyone will realize the benefits of OSS and they won't want to lock themselves into a proprietary platform.

You're assuming that the users would judge the OSS factor in their decision in choosing bewteen Linux and Windows. I doubt that, for 90% of people, the source being OSS would even enter into the choice. People decide on their OS by the price, availability of software, hardware requirements, and what their friends/clients use. If Linux does make a serious challenge to Windows then MSFT are much more likely to just try to compete on these factors rather than the ethics of software engineering. They may well make Windows free, but thats certainly not the same thing as OSS.

Also

[Anonymous Coward]

See here for more discussion.

Uh...duh?

[MikeyLove]

It isn't surprising to me that Microsoft won't open the source. I've even asked them a few times, and they just won't budge!

Re:Uh...duh?

[bsharitt]

I think they are releasing the source to their new operating system. Its just to bad that it won't be avalible for another year.

don't beleive the hype...

[bmajik]

I am highly dubious that the person quoted here is smart enough to write any kind of a firewall, much less a ruleset for linux or Windows. ... which is all secondary to the point i am going to make:

In W2k and later, the entire network stack is completely pluggable. You can insert any layer you want to that sits between NDIS and a protocol driver, and you can create other layers as required. I'd be very surprised if they couldn't do everything required with windows exactly as it sits today.

I think this is just making political noise, and not based on any shred of technical accuracy.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[cscx]

I know McAfee Firewall, for example, is a network driver/snapin.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Spock the Vulcan]

Sure, you can insert whatever layer you want in the network stack, but the point here is, how can you trust the rest of the stack if you don't know what's in it? How can a government/organization/individual be sure that Microsoft didn't put in backdoors into their software?

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[EnderWiggnz]

so, you compile your compiler from source, right and build everything from scratch?

cuz thats the only way to be sure.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[3-State Bit]

so, you compile your compiler from source, right and build everything from scratch?

wrong. you compile everything from source BY HAND.
The first FORTRAN compiler was written in FORTRAN and compiled...by hand. Of course, without any optimizations. A very un-optimized and bulky and messy FORTRAN compiler now existed, and it was used to compile a clean version of itself from the source the reasearchers usd to create it. So you see, the first FORTRAN compiler was really a person. (This is taken from slashdot comments from awhile ago.)

More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler that would put in a back-door whenever it noticed itself compiling a common bit of Unix login code, so that the author could use a certain password and get in on any system running a unix compiled with that compiler. More deviously, the author also made the compiler detect when it was compiling a version of itself and to add in the same code with which it itself was modified. (ie. 1, to change unix when it noticed it was compiling it, 2. to change a compiler, when it noticed it was compiling it, such that the changes make for a compiled compiler that both changed unix and detected/changed a version of itself, whenever it was asked to compile one.) In this way, the backhole remained through many versions of the comiler, since it did not appear in the source and could not be detected. Imagine if gcc 3.0 changed Linux every time it was compiling it, because it was compiled using gcc 2.x, which was compiled using gcc 1.x, which was changed in such a way as to change the gcc compiler, whenever it was compiling it.

So changes can propagate through the executable compilers, from generation to generation, without appearing in the source. Unless you step through the compiler as it's compiling a version of unix (hairy stuff!) or of itself (even hairier!!), you'll never be any the wiser.

Devious stuff!

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[SirSlud]

> You have to trust someone at some point.

Of course, but you'll find people want to trust groups of people more than one person.

If _everybody_ is using a compiler, you can trust it. (or trust that if there is a backdoor, _everybody_ has the backdoor, so you're still on a level playing field.)

But not _everybody_ is using windows to install custom firewalls. The trust can't come from a wide community of users, so it has to come from examining the actual construction of the product itself.

People don't trust a company nearly as much as they trust groups of people who should have already encountered the problems youre attempting to avoid should a problem in the product exist. Since that is impossible (or at least difficult) with respect to Windows as a custom firewall platform, because of the lower visibility of use and the lesser amount of people using it in this fasion, I'd realize I had no groups of users to trust and this I'd only trust the innards of the product once I could examine them myself.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[bmajik]

you can't be sure.

but then, you can't be sure of anyone elses software, either. The advantage of OSS in this facet has been debunked time and time again. Thousands of people that depend on sendmail, bind, tcpdump, libpcap, etc. The source is there for them to look at it. They look at it. They dont find anything because they're not looking hard enough or they're not qualified to do security analysis of software.

Using publicly available tools you can single-step execution of the Windows operating system. You can get the names of all the symbols in the kernel. You can set kernel mode breakpoints on any peice of the network (and rpc/app) stack you want. It's not the same as having the source, but you can isolate exactly what the OS is doing at any time if you want to. And you can just disassemble the body of any function you like, once you've isolated it (which is easy, since Microsoft publishes full symbol information).

An experiment i did in about 30 minutes of poking around (im a novice at kernel debugging) had me to a point where i could make a machine drop to a kernel mode debugger when someone connected to a SMB share on that machine. I could then examine the file they were looking at, what operation they were trying to do, etc etc.

Naturally, this can all be automated. You could write a _kernel mode_ SMB debugger if you wanted to, and were worried about the CIFS implementation.

I'm not even sure if debugging tools like that for linux _even exist_.

And it's a moot point anyway. The overwhelming majority of people that think source availability is the difference between secure and insecure software aren't qualified to look at the source of either side, much less make objective measurements of the security/correctness aspects of the code in question.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Melantha_Bacchae]

bmajik wrote:

> I think this is just making political noise, and
> not based on any shred of technical accuracy.

Actually, it is probably a kind of political comparison shopping. Microsoft's competitors (Linux, and to a lesser extent, Apple) will give a customer source code. It is a cool feature to have. So they go back to Microsoft and ask them to produce source code.

Then they go to whoever holds the purse strings: "Wah, Microsoft won't give us any neato whizbang source code. Buy Linux." (Which is a mature as politicos get sometimes. ;)

Methinks the open source marketing plan is working. ;)

Godzilla to Microsoft:
"If you can't take the heat, RUN!"
From the Godzilla 2000 trailer Tristar tried so hard to hide.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

(This is taken from slashdot comments from awhile ago.)

So it must be true, right? ;-)

(Relax, I'm kidding. I don't doubt what you're saying. Your citation, however, cracked me up.)

More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler

"Reflections on Trusting Trust," Communications of the ACM, August '84. Read it here.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[tzanger]

Using publicly available tools you can single-step execution of the Windows operating system. You can get the names of all the symbols in the kernel. You can set kernel mode breakpoints on any peice of the network (and rpc/app) stack you want. It's not the same as having the source, but you can isolate exactly what the OS is doing at any time if you want to. And you can just disassemble the body of any function you like, once you've isolated it (which is easy, since Microsoft publishes full symbol information).

Disclaimer: I am adept at reverse-engineering and debugging, at least on ix86 and microchip PIC.

Which would you prefer: single-stepping or getting an assembly dump of a kernel call, even with function names, or looking at the C that produced it, along with the author's comments and variable names?

Which would you prefer: a multi-megabyte assembly dump (with function names, of course), or the proper source code with variable names, thoughts and ideas in comment blocks and useful changelogs?

I don't give a rat's ass if I can get the assembly dump from kernel32 with debugging symbols: it's still a nightmare to figure out why it's doing something in a certain manner, or even figure out what it's doing at all (i.e. initializing drivers, different algorithms for speed optimizations, etc.) -- without the source. Sure it's possible but it's a hell of a lot harder.

So now, you present your contracted and capable security analysist with two things: the Linux source tree and a disassembled version of the NT/2k kernel. Which do you think is going to be a lot cheaper to have him go through?

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[kevlar]

Ok, enough with the philosophy. If Taiwan thinks Windows is too insecure for their government then they simply shouldn't buy and use it. If they want a real firewall, they should use REAL firewall hardware and software, which there are tons of solutions in the market. I think Taiwan is trying to kick Microsoft around a bit to get something else they want.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[error0x100]

The bottom line is trust. You have to trust someone at some point.

Not entirely. Although (almost?) nobody is ever going to test every aspect of their system from top to bottom, what is still meaningful is whether or not they at least have the ability to do so (in a reasonable and legal way, i.e. many proprietary systems may even forbid you from "poking around inside").

If you compiled from source but didn't audit it first, it of course does not necessarily mean that you have trustworthy binaries, but at least you CAN look at the source if and when you want to, and that itself means a lot in that it does vastly lower the likelihood the the provider of the source is lying to you in some way. If you have a closed system, you essentially HAVE TO take the vendors word for it. That is, you are essentially forced into *having* to just blindly trust someone, while with opensource, the trust is at any time verifiable by yourself.

I know that with some skill its still possible to hide trojans in OSS, e.g. the compiler itself may be doing so, or the trojan code may be skillfully obfuscated, etc. But you can still look at the source, and so can others, and sooner or later someone will find the trojan. In closed source, you just will never know. I'm sure there must be literally hundreds of trojans/backdoors in proprietary software that people use every day, that we will just never know about - they will forever only be known to a few programmers here and there, and not even to the companies they work(ed) for. Its incredibly easy for a programmer to put a trojan into closed-source software. Anyone can do it, and even be reasonably certain the won't get caught. Putting one into OSS is actually a challenge, and sooner or later it will be found anyway.

OK, that was tangential, but my point was, certain things are just inherently a lot more *trustworthy* than others. The difference lies in *potential* verifiability.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Gordonjcp]

How do you know that the messages aren't steganographically encoded into the network packets themselves? A suitably kinky packet header might well be valid, but slowly transmitting messages.
One way to do it would be to use slightly different values of TTL in a particular sequence. The pattern of values, rather than the actual values, would contain the code...

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Hayzeus]

You're correct -- this is total bullshit. In fact, I think NDIS intermediate drivers have been around for longer than win2k.

Having said that, they're a pain in the ass to write. There's quite a dearth of information on this type of driver, which means you have to rely a lot on MS sample code -- never a good thing IMHO. I'm not sure how having the source would remedy that, though.

There's also some kind of IP stack hook independent of MS made specifically for this type of thing. Last I checked, though, it could only be hooked by a single caller.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Sycraft-fu]

Uhhhh, you speak for yourself. I, the people I work with, and many, many others DO use a custom firewall in Windows. My personal choice is Tiny Personal Firewall. It installs itself in the Windows network layer as the orignal poster said. From watching traffic with sniffers and scanning it with things like nmap it is easy to confirm that it indeed is doing its job. Only trafic as per its rules gets passed.

Tiny Software is not affiliated with MS and the product is theirs alone. Also, they aren't the only ones that have a firewall that operates like this. There is plenty of verification that Windows will not interfere with a custom firewall and has no backdoors around one (the way the network stack is built it really couldn't).

This is a non-issue.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[SirSlud]

Sure, lots of people use Windows for firewalls. Do they use them to do the kind of firewalling Tiawan wants to do? Probably not.

I mean, I can't just go "theyre morons, they dont need this." Especially in light to all the 'open market' cries on this thread. If they want the source, they want the source. Thats a demand. Whether MS bows to it, fine, but you cant just selectively question the demands that even one single individual user places on the market.

Specifically, I'm imaging that they _want_ to develop their own firewall to do lots of funky things, but they want to confirm that what their firewall does wont be tampered with by windows.

Sure, they could use a sniffer to confirm, but all the testing in the world doesn't garauntee that you just didnt attack your own server in the 'right way'. Thats what backdoors are .. an access mechanism that is designed to be hidden even from the person who has the product in their hands.

Look, I'm just pointing out that when the importance factor is high, your demands will be more stringant (and likely more specific than the 'use cases' that the majority of other users are in.)

You dont honestly believe these possibilities, do you?:

a) this is just an excuse to get access to Windows source 'for the hell of it'

or, worse

b) nobody over there forgot that they can just hit download.com, problem solved.

They wanna make their own firewall, and they need some SERIOUS confirmation that nothing in the OS is going to circumvent the intended functionality of their firewall. I mean, I wouldn't place my national security on assurances that Cookies in windows work as designed .. just cause the manual says cookies cant be shared between domains, its a reality that they can be. In a situation where its a matter of national security, believe me, you dont just assume the manual is correct and that the software does what it was billed to do. And you cant catch everything through testing. When the risk becomes huge, the demands on assurance of stability, security, etc become very big. Its jus a function of risk management, and its OK for them to ask for the source. I sure as hell would.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Sycraft-fu]

You don't understand. You can design any kind of firewall (or any other addition you like) and sitkc it in the network stack. The APIs are well documented for doing so. You can even add your own protocols if you like.

So, you write your firewall, and then install and test it. Simple as that. Even if I was using an OSS OS, I'm not oging to trust a matter of national security (or even the security of my own computer) to hoping it's all working and nothing is interfering with it. I'll scan the thing with scanners like nmap, and sniff the packets it is passing. Only once I am convinced that it works right am I then confident.

I'm not sure when OSS gives peopel such a warm, fuzzy, feeling. As the famous C-compiler trojan proved, there is no way to be sure just because you have the source. You need to do some kind of external verification to REALLY make sure your system is secure. I don't trust my firewall for any reason other than that I have tested it, and confirmed it works.

P.S. Major enterprises, universities, government instutions, etc trust Cisco firewalls and their source is not open.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[error0x100]

I am sure there are proprietary vendors with backdoors. But I will say this: the biggest vendors have massive incentive to not put a backdoor in the software. A single confirmed backdoor in an MS, Oracle, or Apple product would be devastating to that company. Killer. Seriously.

Apart from Microsoft (*), I tend to agree with this, sure. But I was thinking more along the lines of programmers within corporations doing it without the knowledge or consent of their bosses. I'm sure many do it and never even tell anyone. How many programmers wouldn't at least be even *tempted* to?

Someone on an earlier /. thread the other day (specifically about the trojan found in tcpdump/libpcap) mentioned a backdoor in a major Borland product (forget which now) which had been there, in the product they'd been selling, for SIX YEARS, and was only discovered sometime after they opensourced the software. I'm sure there are many out there that we'll never know about.

Of course, creating a backdoor is one thing. Actually using it without getting caught is another. "Using a backdoor" is likely to imply other suspicuous symptoms, like odd network traffic, and if someone is exploiting a backdoor enough, it is going to be noticed sooner or later, and I guess this applies equally to both proprietary and open systems.

((*) I don't think exposing a backdoor in MS software would have much effect at all on Microsofts sales, because the market forces are not based on competition. People will buy Windows anyway, for other reasons, unless the backdoor was REALLY bad, but even then I doubt it - people don't seem put off by the many security flaws, so why would they care about "another" backdoor? Microsoft takes a LOT of flak in the *public* media these days for security flaws in Windows, and it doesn't seem to even dent their hull one little bit. A few years back they were caught surreptitously sending peoples personal information with the "Windows Update" feature in Win98, and there was a big fuss for a few days in the media, and a few days later everyone goes back to business as usual.)

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[alienw]

You are aware that trying to debug/reverse-engineer Windows code voids your rights under the EULA? Microsoft specifically prohibits disassembly of Windows code in their EULA.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[SirSlud]

Point made re: testing as being the only method of real world verification.

Hey, the only reason I get warm from OSS is because its everything CS is and more. That simple. Its CS but with the bonus (pretty big bonus to me, as a coder) that I can see how my module is being treated under the hood. (Also helps me develop faster since I dont have to deal with inconsistancies between documents and the actual code .. which isn't entirely rare.)

Nothing is perfect, of course. Point made re: the trojan'd compiler .. but I'd still rather own a car I can take to somebody to get a 2nd opinion, 2nd pair of eyeballs of whether or not its road worthy. Open source is better than CS. CS isnt evil. OS isn't the only answer. Its just better. Its one more thing, especially when the physical real world equivilent of closed source wasn't needed for companies to build a business.

As long as a GM engineer can completetly dissassemble a Ford car, I'm still not sure whats so scary about opening ones source. I really dont think your market viability should be build on the exclusivity of your ideas. If you wanna protect your ideas, you publish them in a patent .. the whole world sees how your doing something, and youve got a law that prevents people from stealing your ideas and work at your own whim.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[T3kno]

how can you trust the rest of the stack if you don't know what's in it?

Actually you do, just look at the BSD network stack.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Hayzeus]

The easiest way is to stick a sniffer on the output side. Get a decent IDS system, capture and obstruct any suspicious looking packets, and there you go.

Exactly! You could use something like tcpdump, for instance. Oh, wait...

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[bmajik]

if MS didn't want anyone to debug windows, then
1) would the kernel debugger be a free download ?
2) would the kernel symbols (for use with said debugger) be a free download

furthermore, if disassembly were not allowed:
1) would all versions of Visual Studio allow you to view assmebly dumps ?

i think that your statement might be valid, with some qualification. but as presented, i think its incorrect.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[uberdave]

10 a$="20 print "+chr(34)+"10 a$="+chr(34)+"+chr(34)+a$+chr(34)"+chr(13)+chr(10) +"30 print a$"
20 print "10 a$="+chr(34)+a$+chr(34)
30 print a$

Roughly

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[fferreres]

Not easy. Remember you need to constantly upgrade Windows, and you can't audit all the traffic going in and on. Windows is full of false alarms due to itself having a life of it own. You cannot just trust the upgrade is not sending a piece of data you don't want to be sent over the network.

Even more, even if you can't detect any traffic there could still be subtle backdoors. If you are sufficently paranoid, you could think that a MS signal could render all your computers useless at their command. They may not even be real buckdoors, but carefully inserted very hard to detect bugs that will allow them to execute arbitrary code.

With XP, they are just allowed to do that without any restriction :) so it gets worst.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Alsee]

But I dont see how that self replicating program
in your link works.

I'll explain just the compiler half first, then the password half.

BACKDOOR CODE:
Scan source code while it gets compiled, if it looks you are compling a compiler then insert BACKDOOR CODE into the source. (You don't actually change the source file, you just read the source as if it was there.)

Now you take compiler source and put in the BACKDOOR CODE and compile it. You now have a compiler EXE with BACKDOOR CODE. Now take clean compiler code, make improvements and compile. The infected compiler invisibly inserts the backdoor into it and your clean source produces infected compiler EXE.

Now you can hand everyone the compiler EXE and the clean source without the backdoor. Even if they write a compiler from scratch it will still get infected if they use your compiler to compile it.

Now that we have a an invisible self perpetuating backdoor, we add a payload to it. Add in a another secotion to the BACKDOOR CODE: Scan to see if you are compiling LOGIN source, if so insert a backdoor root level password. Now any any version of Linux complied from perfectly clean source will have a backdoor root login, and an infected compiler.

It is extremely insidious. Everyone looks at the source and thinks everything is fine. The only way to detect the problem is to actually read through the EXE, and that's an extremely long, laborous, and error-prone process. You THINK you know what's in there already, so why would you do it? The only way to FIX the problem is to create a new compiler EXE BY HAND. That's an extremely long, laborous, and error-prone process as well.

-

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[Bazman]

Someone recently brought up this 'trust' business in our coffee room the other day over closed-source statistics software. He was saying that he trusted the authors of some stats package because he knew them, they worked at a major university etc etc.

Sure, you may trust them, but if the source is closed they clearly dont trust you! Quite literally not one bit.

Baz

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[stephanruby]

I am highly dubious that the person quoted here is smart enough to write any kind of a firewall...

I agree, the person quoted probably doesn't know what he's talking about, however it wouldn't be the first time someone enacted a government policy based on his own fear and ignorance.

Speaking of fear, I wonder if he heard the rumor of the CIA planting spy cameras inside exported Xerox copiers.
"Judging by the number of parts ordered from Xerox, Zoppoth believes that spy cameras may have been installed in photocopiers all over the world, to keep an eye on U.S. allies as well as enemies." http://www.parascope.com/articles/0197/xerox.htm

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[John Sullivan]

In W2k and later, the entire network stack is completely pluggable. You can insert any layer you want to that sits between NDIS and a protocol driver, and you can create other layers as required. I'd be very surprised if they couldn't do everything required with windows exactly as it sits today.

Sure, you can plug anything you want into the stack. But then your otherwise loyal citizens could 'accidentally' unplug those components, thereby potentially exposing themselves to extremely damaging subversive ideas.

I suspect what they would rather do is *remove* the pluggability from the stack and hardwire their constraints so deep into the OS that a domestic build couldn't possibly be used to access any unapproved information.

And yeah, I wouldn't expect them to be getting their PR flaks to do the coding either.

Re:don't beleive the hype...

[bmajik]

COMPAQ's Adapter Teaming drivers for compaq badged server NICs.

See, it takes two physical drivers, inserts itself above them in the stack by consuming their NDIS interface (afaik) and re-exposes a single NDIS interface. That way you can bind tcp/ip to this virtual adaptor, and it does adaptor load balancing, by dispatching work to each of the physical adaptors beneath it in the stack.

Did you think i was full of it, or are you playing "quiz bowl" with me ?

The obvious answer

[bsharitt]

I guess the obvious answer would be to use something other that Windows. I hear this Finnish kid is working on something.

translation

[Alex Reynolds]

Open Sherlock 3 under Mac OS X 10.2.

Click once on the Translation channel in the Toolbar.

Copy and paste the Chinese text within the top half and make sure you have the "Chinese (Simplified) to English" filter selected.

Then click the Translate button.

Re:translation

[Yuan-Lung]

The site provides GB, BIG5, and image for peoplel without the Chinese fonts. Here's a link to the BIG5 page. http://content.sina.com/news/23/49/3234936_1_b5.ht ml?skin=newscenter

Re:Translation

[Kintanon]

- We would like Microsoft to open the source code for Windows.
- We would also like the drug companies to develop a cure for cancer in the next year or so
- It would be ideal if the Israelis and Palestinians could come to some sort of agreement
- We propose that all record companies make their content available for free, so that all consumers who like the songs will send in a reasonable payment for each song, while consumers who don't like the song will delete it.

I like that cancer idea, let's do that one. When can you have a marketing bulletin ready?

Kintanon

Lame

[PtM2300]

If you ask me, this request is quite lame. Microsoft has created a product, and the government of China can use it if they so desire. If they need it to create a firewall-type software package for their machines, why not ask Microsoft to create that instead? Something just seems overly fishy here. Besides, an external firewall would most likely provide better control and better performance for all users.

Re:Lame

[SirSlud]

> why not ask Microsoft to create that instead?

You're right. And instead of the Army servicing their own F14s, the hoods should be locked shut, and they should outsource all their service and development to Kinkos. And police shouldn't be allowed to tamper with their bullet proof vests to confirm that there really is kevlar in them. They should just trust the company that made it for them.

Am I the only person who understands that software companies build software .. this isn't like some magic voodoo cult. They're just building something. Why shouldn't I be able to actually confirm that what I bought is what I'm getting, and why shouldn't I be able to customize that product I just bought? Why the hell should I be forced into forking over more cash when I can just do the goddamn work myself.

The gall people have. When folks bitch about the government wasting money, your proposal is the PERFECT example of wasting money. Why waste the money when you can do it in house? WHY, GOD, WHY?

WHY do we support the abject protection of intellectual 'property' in order to keep the market functioning when that goal of protection can be used to tamper with market forces? Think about it; a market isn't just somewhere where you can get what you want. Its important that you have the option _not_ to be forced to go back into the market when you can just do the work yourself.

Re:Lame

[SirSlud]

One more thing; had it been illegal to disassemble competitors' physical products (ie, not actually TAKE the ideas, but see what they are doing and how their product is designed and assembled), we'd have tossed 20 years of technological progress out the door. Technology would way furthur behind without the ability to do anything you like to a product you purchase because thats one less way for scientists and engineers to share ideas or be inspired by ideas or improve upon ideas.

Re:Lame

[whovian]

I agree with you Pt, but I don't think it is overly fishy. It could be as simple as an implied threat to discontinue purchasing from MS, who will in turn have to consider how much revenue they will lose.

Re:Lame

[SirSlud]

> Why doesn't everybody write their own OS, server and client to do a shopping cart on the web?

Because most people cant. Why doesn't everybody outsource the prodecure of putting the toilet lid down when they're done? Because they can.

Point is: if you can do it (and there are fuckloads of cases where its cheaper to do something yourself), you shouldnt be forced to buy into the market. Thats not a free market, thats a free market youre not free to avoid when it makes you wealthier (one of the goals of healthy capitalism, no?)

Re:Lame

[mstyne]

Actually, I'd prefer that the Grumman flavor of the week was working on my F-14, rather than Kinkos.

Re:Lame

[YrWrstNtmr]

Because that is what they bought. A tool that does NOT include modifiable source code. If package A does not include source that you can modify, and package B does, and that is something you desperately need to do, then you'd better buy package B.

Why don't the Taiwanese ask Intel or AMD for all the particulars of their chip building process?
Or Western Digital for all of the source code for their hard drives?
Or any other part of the PC package that they use?

Bitching and whining that what you bought does not do what you need is silly. Buy what you want the first time.

OBTW, the military DOES outsource a lot of the low level maintenance on their aircraft and equipment. Take the board out and send it back to the factory for part replacement and testing.

Re:Lame

[SirSlud]

Sorry, but was I the only person alive when it was deemed MS had a monopoly in the OS industry?

The whole concept here is that due to the actions of package A producer, package B is not used by enough people to make it a viable option in a high profile, high importance situation.

So this 'choice' of which you speak doesn't exist. A judge said so. Whos wrong here? The judge?

I've no doubt the Army outsources lots of work. But I'm also sure it doesn't outsource *everything*. When its cheaper to fill the gas tank yourself instead of hiring a company to do it for you, and you have little choice in using another product, I would hope that you'd have a legal right to fill the gas tank yourself. Thats not a decision that should be left up to the producer which has been found guilty of using its size as a mechanism for profiting instead of relying on its R&D and technology.

In an open market, I agree with you. However, I'm still not convinced there is much of a 'choice' when youre discussing about OSes in a vast number of situations. So the package A has the green light to ignore that 'invisble hand' (or at least influence it.)

Will this mean...

[BeBoxer]

If Microsoft actually goes along with this, will it mean that I'll be able to buy a CD-ROM of the Windows source code for $0.99 or whatever on the streets of China? Probably. Which makes me think that Microsoft isn't ever going to go along with this.

Re:Will this mean...

[bsharitt]

If Microsoft actually goes along with this, will it mean that I'll be able to buy a CD-ROM of the Windows source code for $0.99 or whatever on the streets of China?

Of course not!

That's too much code to fit on a CD, you'll have to buy a DVD on the streets of China.

Re:Will this mean...

[Peaker]

You can already buy Windows binary for 0.99c on the streets of China, so what's the difference?

No way, no how. Never gonna happen.

[Blimey85]

I'm surprised they even bothered asking. What motivation does MS have to disclose their source code? None. Why take the risk of leaks to the general public? Why take the risk of even more lawsuits (this time with definitive proof that code was stolen) from angry competitors?

Maybe a long time from now all software will be open source and the world will be a better place but until that happens, MS has too much to lose and nothing to gain from this.

Re:No way, no how. Never gonna happen.

[anonymous cupboard]

I'm surprised they even bothered asking.

My guess from looking at the translation, this was from an Open Software Committee and they were trying to make a point. Whether or not one agrees that Open Source is more secure, it is definitely more accountable.

Re:No way, no how. Never gonna happen.

[cioxx]

I got news for you. MS Windows code is not this ultra rare protected CIA secret you make it out to be.

There are thousands of research institutions, CS Professors, programmer-researchers, and developers who have seen windows' source code partially or in it's entirety. I invite you to do some research on this topic and find out for yourself.

The peasents want Open Source?

[krygny]

Let them eat SH[ared Source]IT.

Now if only this worked...

[TellarHK]

We could see cheap Taiwanese copies of Microsoft software on the black market fo... oh, wait. We can already?

We could investigate and fix bugs in... Wait, you mean Microsoft -really- intends to kill all the bugs in the code?

But we... Oh, I knew you were just joking about the bugs too. Really, I did.

I don't really want Windows to go open source. I -really- don't want it to go restricted source, because they'd use that as a weapon against Free Software like you wouldn't believe.

"The Samba team looked at the Windows XP source code and took components, putting them into the Samba tree."

"No we didn't."

"Yes you did, look here. See this contribution from X? He plead with us for immunity so we can bust your asses."

"But he works for Microsoft, according to..."

Behold, the power of plants.

Some geopolitical education...

[aussersterne]

For those going on about the Chinese spy plane incident, rampant mainland Chinese software piracy, etc...

Taiwan is not China. Taiwan is a very urban, very modern nation which participates fairly in the world economy. Much of the technology used in America and throughout the world is manufactured in and imported from Taiwan. Though "officially" it is a Chinese province according to the US government, Taiwan and China have a very antagonistic relationship with one another -- Taiwan wants independence from China and is basically already fully independent in every way except in name. China considers Taiwan to be a 'rogue capitalist province' and the two governments hate one another (going back to the battles between the Chinese nationalists and communists early in the 20th century).

In fact, the US (if I understand correctly) has a very unusual agreement with Taiwan to jump to their defense if they should ever be invaded by China, even though at the same time the US also officially supports the "one China policy."

It is entirely possible that Taiwan wants to enhance its information security to protect itself from mainland China.

Re:Some geopolitical education...

[Dan D.]

In fact, the US (if I understand correctly) has a very unusual agreement with Taiwan to jump to their defense if they should ever be invaded by China, even though at the same time the US also officially supports the "one China policy."

Originally and before 1999 (I'm not sure when policy changed) the US did recognize the independence of Taiwan. It was only around the time that China regained control of Hong Kong that the US switched (I'm probably incorrect about the timeline) from Tawain to China (including evicting Tawain from a seat in the UN).

If the defence aliance still does exist with Taiwan its a throwback to when the US officially supported their position. Of course we never did support them enough to get China off their back.

If I remember correctly, almost immediately after China reclaimed Hong Kong they picked up the fight by putting ships in the waters between the two countries and lobbing missiles over their heads (not actually hitting them of course, just "testing the range") Anyway it reminded me a bunch of kids in the backseat on a long trip yelling "I'm not touching you" while holding your finger inches from your face. The US was acting like the father in the front "Don't make me turn this car around, or both of you'll get a spanking"

Re:Some geopolitical education...

[Chris Y Taylor]

Of course Taiwan is China.

It is the People's Republic of China that is not really China; they are oppressive thugs with guns. I look forward to the day when Taiwan can reestablish its rightful rule over the mainland. Of course that may take a while...

Re:Some geopolitical education...

[GlassHeart]

Originally and before 1999 (I'm not sure when policy changed) the US did recognize the independence of Taiwan. It was only around the time that China regained control of Hong Kong that the US switched (I'm probably incorrect about the timeline) from Tawain to China (including evicting Tawain from a seat in the UN).

Your timeline is off by about 20 years. The US also never recognized the independence of "Taiwan". Rather, the US recognized the government of the Republic of China - which from 1949 to the present effectively controls only Taiwan and a couple of small islands. In the late 70s, the US wanted to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, at which time the RoC left the UN.

If the defence aliance still does exist with Taiwan its a throwback to when the US officially supported their position.

No, it's a US law called the Taiwan Relations Act, which requires the US government to provide Taiwan with defensive weapons against aggression from China. It was enacted after diplomatic relations were severed. It specifically does not require the US to send troops, although of course the US may choose to.

If I remember correctly, almost immediately after China reclaimed Hong Kong they picked up the fight by putting ships in the waters between the two countries and lobbing missiles over their heads

The missile tests were aimed at intimidating Taiwanese voters just before a presidential election. That was several years before Hong Kong was returned to China.

The US was acting like the father in the front "Don't make me turn this car around, or both of you'll get a spanking"

Uh, one of the "kids" in the backseat has nuclear weapons. I think your analogy grossly overestimates the US role here.

Re:Some geopolitical education...

[GlassHeart]

Taiwan was 'created' after the communist revolution in China (Mainland). The losers went to Taiwan and called it China, they even held the 'china' seat at the UN. It wasn't till in the 60s (??) that the People's Republic of China got that seat and Taiwan doesn't have it anymore.

Utterly wrong. The Republic of China was created in 1912, following the overthrow of the Qing ("ching") Dynasty. This was the "China" that allied with the US in WWII and got a permanent seat in the Security Council of the UN.

In 1949, the RoC lost the civil war against the communists on mainland China, and retreated to Taiwan. The communists established the People's Republic of China, which was not recognized by the US until the late 70s. The PROC later took over the UN seat.

To date, there is no country (recognized or not) named "Taiwan". The RoC remains in power on Taiwan, with a couple of dozen diplomatic relationships.

If the Chinese want to, they can take it easily. 3 US carriers won't help a bit against a Chinese offensive with 500,000 men.

That's wrong, too. China must first establish air superiority if their limited naval ability to ferry troops is to survive the trip. Taiwan has hundreds of Mirage and F-16 fighters to counter. As for the overwhelming numerical superiority, you need to consider that Taiwan is a small island, and sending too many troops really will just cause congestion.

Unaided, Taiwan will most likely eventually lose, but it's not at all likely to be easy for China. This is really Taiwan's only and worst military nightmare, so a lot of preparations have gone into this potential war.

Re:Some geopolitical education...

[meringuoid]

Taiwan is not China.

Actually, Taiwan IS China. That bunch of commies on the mainland between Russia and India say they're China, but they're just full of it...

And am I the only one who thinks we should have handed Hong Kong over to the real China, the one we actually had the lease agreement with in the first place, as opposed to said commies who are only pretending to be China?

Re:Fair trade

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's the PEOPLE'S republic of China. This is the Republic of China, which ironicly treats it's people alot better.

Built-In Firewall

[_bug_]

Windows 2000 has built-in support for IPSec and the ability to filter port. It's similar in function to personal firewalls except it might be a bit more difficult to configure properly.

I don't think MS would see this as a valid reason to open it's Windows source up. I'm guessing instead they'll simply tell Taiwan to go by XP which has similar functionality.

Re:Built-In Firewall

[anonymous cupboard]

It all comes down to whether the ROC trusts MS's implementation. You may write a filter that is wonderful, but you always have the possibility that someone comes in through another route.

The provided filter with RAS sucks and is not stateful so you *must* write your own (the interfaces are documented). The XP solution only adds a prettier interface to the W2K filter (i.e., you can name protocols rather than use port numbers), but it isn't stateful either.

Re:Good ol' Slashdot Duality

[foistboinder]

Ummm, we're talking about Taiwan not the PROC.

How often does this happen?

[mao che minh]

I want to know what other governments (as mentioned in the post) have submitted similar requests to Microsoft. I would imagine that this can't be an all too uncommon occurence when it comes to Microsoft. Afterall, this is a very legitimate concern for all governments (and it should also be a point of interest for all businesses that handle sensitive data).

Microsoft products should never have been chosen for government implementation to begin with.

Translation

[tmark]

(Can anyone suggest an online Chinese English translation engine that produces other than gibberish?)

Here's a translation:

- We would like Microsoft to open the source code for Windows.
- We would also like the drug companies to develop a cure for cancer in the next year or so
- It would be ideal if the Israelis and Palestinians could come to some sort of agreement
- We propose that all record companies make their content available for free, so that all consumers who like the songs will send in a reasonable payment for each song, while consumers who don't like the song will delete it.

All completely reasonable propositions !

Geography Lesson

[Kamel Jockey]

The posting refers to Taiwan, not mainland China. Taiwan, also known as the "Republic of China", is not the same country as China, also known as the "People's Republic of China". The former is a peaceful democracy, the latter is a belligerent, brutal totalitarian regime.

Re:Geography Lesson

[foistboinder]

The posting refers to Taiwan, not mainland China. Taiwan, also known as the "Republic of China", is not the same country as China, also known as the "People's Republic of China". The former is a peaceful democracy, the latter is a belligerent, brutal totalitarian regime.

To be fair, only recently could Taiwan call itself a democracy. For much of its history, Taiwan was not very democratic at all.

Re:Geography Lesson

[Arker]

Actually they are the same country, but different governments. Both constitutions insist on this. And while the PRC is certainly both brutal and totalitarian, belligerent really doesn't fit. They've been involved in far fewer wars than any other country of their side recently, certainly far fewer than the US, and showed precious little interest in changing that. They even cooperate fairly well with the ROC, and sort-of recognise their legitimacy, under the doctrine of one nation two systems. More than I can imagine the US doing under similar circumstanced (imagine a dissident government in control of Florida and claiming sovereignty over the entire US today.)

Re:Geography Lesson

[taweili]

To be fair, only recently could Taiwan call itself a democracy.

The democracy in Taiwan is a joke. The political platform in Taiwan look like a bad Jerry Springer show with meaningless and sensational catching pharse spiting out from smart ass politicians in the TV talk show.

Re:Geography Lesson

[mgs1000]

Just to clear up a few things:

1.Since about 1990,the ROC constitution no longer claims the mainland.

2.The PRC has never recognized the legitamacy of the ROC on Taiwan. Even the Chinese newspapers, when discussing Tawain's leaders, place their titles in quotes. i.e. "President" Chen

3.The comparision with Florida being ruled by another government is pretty bad too. A better comparision would be if the Confederate leaders fled to Cuba after the Civil War and claimed it was part of the USA (or CSA), since Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese until the end of WWII

4. 400 ballistic missles in the Fujian province pointed at Taiwan is not belligerent? The "incident" in 1996 when China launched the missles over Taiwan during their presidential election wasn't belligerent?

Re:Geography Lesson

[Arker]

1.Since about 1990,the ROC constitution no longer claims the mainland.

Sources? I think you're referring to the amendments of '91, but if so, I think you're way off, I don't remember them disclaiming the mainland and I know, in fact, they specifically added provisions for representation of mainland residents in the ROC.

2.The PRC has never recognized the legitamacy of the ROC on Taiwan. Even the Chinese newspapers, when discussing Tawain's leaders, place their titles in quotes. i.e. "President" Chen

In principle they have, that's what one china two systems means. In practice they're less than happy with that, of course, not the least because ROC officials are so obviously working to Helsinkify Taiwan and return it to it's state as a vassal of Japan instead. And A-bians title in quotes is hardly limited to the mainland - you must admit, the circumstances of his election are suspicious, to say the least.

3.The comparision with Florida being ruled by another government is pretty bad too. A better comparision would be if the Confederate leaders fled to Cuba after the Civil War and claimed it was part of the USA (or CSA), since Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese until the end of WWII

Two points, first that's not a very good analogy at all, I was consciously avoiding it, because the Confederacy never claimed any authority over the rest of the US , and second because Cuba was never part of the US. Taiwan was ruled by Japan through the end of WWII, yes, but then again, for most of that time so was Manchuria, ("Manchuguo" ring a bell?) what's your point? Taiwan has been part of China for centuries, and a few years of occupation doesn't exactly change that.

4. 400 ballistic missles in the Fujian province pointed at Taiwan is not belligerent? The "incident" in 1996 when China launched the missles over Taiwan during their presidential election wasn't belligerent?

If they were belligerent they would have hit something with them. Or hit someone, somewhere, outside of China maybe? Let's see, there was the dustup with India, and they intervened at the very last minute to prevent North Korea from becoming a US stronghold, but other than that I can't think of any instances of belligerence from the PRC. They tend to stick to terrorising people inside China, which is bad, and I'm not condoning it, but belligerence implies terrorising people distant from your own borders, and I just don't see that in the PRC.

Re:Geography Lesson

[mgs1000]

Sources? I think you're referring to the amendments of '91, but if so, I think you're way off, I don't remember them disclaiming the mainland and I know, in fact, they specifically added provisions for representation of mainland residents in the ROC.

I was referring to the dissolution of the Taiwan Provincial Assembly.

In principle they have, that's what one china two systems means. In practice they're less than happy with that, of course, not the least because ROC officials are so obviously working to Helsinkify Taiwan and return it to it's state as a vassal of Japan instead. And A-bians title in quotes is hardly limited to the mainland - you must admit, the circumstances of his election are suspicious, to say the least. One country, two systems does not have anything to do with Taiwan, just Hong Kong and Macau have that. That doesn't mean China accepts the Taiwanese authorities. Why did it block Taiwan's participation in the WHO?

Two points, first that's not a very good analogy at all, I was consciously avoiding it, because the Confederacy never claimed any authority over the rest of the US , and second because Cuba was never part of the US. Taiwan was ruled by Japan through the end of WWII, yes, but then again, for most of that time so was Manchuria, ("Manchuguo" ring a bell?) what's your point? Taiwan has been part of China for centuries, and a few years of occupation doesn't exactly change that. China didn't officially claim Taiwan until 1887, and they foreited all claims to it "in perpetuity" in 1895(Treaty of Shimonoseki). BTW, the San Franciso Peace Treaty did not return sovereignty of Tawain to the Chinese. The ROC army was allowed on Taiwan to oversee the disarmament of the Japanese troops there. (Just as the US occupied Japan and South Korea) I agree, I didn't give the best analogy because the CSA did not claim the whole USA.

If they were belligerent they would have hit something with them. Or hit someone, somewhere, outside of China maybe? Let's see, there was the dustup with India, and they intervened at the very last minute to prevent North Korea from becoming a US stronghold, but other than that I can't think of any instances of belligerence from the PRC. They tend to stick to terrorising people inside China, which is bad, and I'm not condoning it, but belligerence implies terrorising people distant from your own borders, and I just don't see that in the PRC. We must just have different definitions of belligerance. And don't forget the attack on Vietnam in the late 70's. BTW, when you say "terrorising people distant from your borders", you must be admiting that Taiwan is beyond the borders of China.

Re:Good ol' Slashdot Duality

[Komodo]

This isn't the People's Republic of China. This is Taiwan. It's not the same thing (unless you believe the PRoC). Taiwain is a democratic republic, a US ally, and the place where they make most of your nifty toys.

And I'm sure this distinction will be made (and lost) a hundred times today, because nobody actually does their homework.

Quick China Note

[TellarHK]

Remember, folks. Taiwan is the Republic of China (ROC) and mainland China is the People's Republic of China (PRC).

This is dealing with the ROC, not the PRC. The PRC claims the ROC is a renegade province, the ROC is just sitting back with the US covering its ass waiting to be able to truly flip the PRC off.

Re:Quick China Note

[Matthias Wiesmann]

This is dealing with the ROC, not the PRC. The PRC claims the ROC is a renegade province, the ROC is just sitting back with the US covering its ass waiting to be able to truly flip the PRC off.

Actually, not anymore, since the last elections, the old party line "we will take back the mainland" has been abandonned. The new plan is to become a independant country, which has angered the PRC governement a lot (even more that the invasion stance) the idea that China is not one cannot be tolerated...

But Why? Sounds so bogus to me.

[standards]

I don't see the argument that Taiwan needs Microsoft to publicly open the Windows' source code so that Taiwan may add custom firewall software.

Why can't Taiwan privately contract with Microsoft to add such capabilities? Does Taiwan seriously want to use Windows for it's most secure information, and therefore need to know all the internals to Windows? And to release the details to the masses? That seems a bit unrealistic.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of open source. But this one sounds more like industry politics than a technical shortcoming.

I say open up Window's source code in order to curb Microsoft's monopolistic stranglehold on business and individuals and government. Not to add "custom firewall software for Taiwan".

Can anyone...

[sulli]

(Can anyone suggest an online Chinese English translation engine that produces other than gibberish?)

I dunno. Can anyone suggest a slashdot story submission engine that produces other than gibberish?

Interesting news.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

First of all, China is a huge, EMERGING market. This means that most people there do not have PC, but they are starting to buy them. Microsoft cannot just say "well, yes, we would like to help you but, actually we won't".

Secondly, China will much rather build its own version of Linux (it already has a project underway). It makes sense for them. If you are starting from scratch, you do not have the biggest problem that prohibits Linux in the office: retraining of non-IT personnel.

Microsoft has not been the first one to feel the wrath of China. China has developed their own x86 chip and, thus, do not depend on either AMD or Intel. They, in fact, are in a position to make 100% Made in China PCs.

Re:Interesting news.

[Capt_Troy]

Does that mean we'll start getting PC's in our cereal boxes???

Re:Interesting news.

[Valdrax]

...and thirdly, for those incapable of reading both the article and the title bar of their browser, this article is referring to Taiwan, the Republic of China, not mainland China, the People's Republic of China.

For those ignorant of history, the nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek fled mainland China to Taiwan during the communist revolution in 1949. In the beginning, Taiwan maintained that it was the seat of the real government of China while the Maoists maintained that Taiwan is a rouge province from the real government of China in Beijing. America originally only recognized Taiwan as the government of China and gave the communists the finger. We stationed a fleet around Taiwan to guard it against the mainlain with the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 as a hedge against the spread of communism.

Since the 1960's, the people of Taiwan have sought independence from the mainland. In 1971, the UN ejected the Nationalist representative and installed a representative from Beijing as the official Chinese representative, and not too long after the US adopted the "one China" policy of recognizing the mainland as the official government. Since then, we've had unofficial ties with Taiwan and have sold them the weaponry they use to defend themselves currently.

So, to wrap up...
Republic of China (ROC) -- Taiwan
People's Republic of China (PRC) -- China
Relevance of above comments about PRC -- 0%

I'm laughing all the way to the street vendors...

[mr_gerbik]

Yeah, Microsoft is going to open the source to Windows for a country that has a 98% software piracy rate. A country where the latest version of Windows will run you $5 on any street corner.

-gerbik

Tinfoil hat translation

[Outland Traveller]

Nation A asks Microsoft to let it see source code, obstentatiously for development reasons, but actually because they wish to insure Nation A didn't put a back door in it, and also so they can put a back door in it themselves.

Re:Tinfoil hat translation

[Ian Wolf]

Nation A asks Microsoft to let it see source code, obstentatiously for development reasons, but actually because they wish to insure Nation A didn't put a back door in it, and also so they can put a back door in it themselves.

Huh? Do you mean, "to insure Nation B didn't put a back door in it".

Re:Tinfoil hat translation

[rixster]

No - he's talking about the USof "A" and that removal-of-privacy bill soon to be passed...

Re:Tinfoil hat translation

[Ian Wolf]

So Nation A is concerned Nation A put a back door in the code, and Nation A then wants to put a back door in while their at it.

I know what he meant, but what was written made no sense.

Re:Don't they realize

[anonymous cupboard]

The ROC is oferring access to government contracts for critical systems. If MS want their stuff to be used for these systems, they will have to open up the source. MS can still sell them non-critical stuff, and they can look elsewhere for their server solutions.

They will probably save a bundle too!

ignorance abounds

[teh*fink]

ok, that's not funny; it's just stupid.

the spy plane crashed on the chinese island of hainan, which is nowhere near taiwan (relatively speaking). secondly, taiwan is not china, and vice versa. that's like mixing up the us and mexico. big difference, people will get insulted on either side if you fail to see the distinction.

Re:Fair trade

[flacco]

M$ give them the source code and we get the spy planes back :)

Gosh, the ignorance would be funny if it weren't so sad...

NONONONONO.

[Penguinoflight]

THIS IS NOT RED CHINA! This is the Republic Of China -- ROC. The republic of china was formed right after the chinese empire fell, but they were defeted by the red communists later, and driven out... into Tiawan which is why the TITLE says tiawan. SO, no this isn't about anti-democracy, because Taiwan is very pro-democracy.

Re:Good ol' Slashdot Duality

[RealAlaskan]

That's Taiwan, our ally , not Mainland China, the oppressive enemy power.

Therefore, isn't the fact that Microsoft's closed source policies stand in the way of China's attempts at fullscale net censorship, a good thing?

That's not the issue, MS's policy wouldn't stand in the way, and doing the right thing for the wrong reason shouldn't buy one any moral credit.

Open Source?

[KjetilK]

If MS opens the source, will it be Open Source?

What does this question mean for what we understand by "Open Source"?

Re:Open Source?

[spurious cowherd]

actually it'll be more like Open Sores

Re:Open Source?

[IamTheRealMike]

Nah, it wouldn't be. There's a lot more to "open source" than seeing the source code. Lack of central control is another one. If MS gave away the source to Windows tomorrow, it'd still suck, because Windows by its very nature has to be centrally controlled and maintained.

Linux is by nature distributed and people are working very hard to ensure that it's pluggable and still works, for instance desktop standards, the LSB etc. If Windows was open sourced, it'd immediately be forked to remove all the dodgy monopolistic integration stuff, but Windows can't cope with forks, it's hard enough just dealing with the versions Microsoft themselves put out! The whole thing would collapse.

Re:Remember Tawian dosent like linux

[AKnightCowboy]

That's a pretty stupid reason to not like Linux. Maybe you mean they don't like Red Hat? I still find it funny that a communist country like China can claim to be the "Peoples Republic of China". They're more like the "Communisty Party Dictatorship of China". Oh btw trolls, don't even start trying to defend that horrible government. The people are very nice but the system of government is horribly cruel and inhumane.

Re:Not only that

[Squareball]

one word WINE if the people at WINE could see all the windows APIs then they could emulate them.

The answer

[mao che minh]

Red Flag Linux - a beatiful thing

I think there's something under the surface here..

[airrage]

Honestly, I don't think the article is as straightforward as it seems. We must ask, why even ask that of Microsoft? I believe the answer is politics. Somehow, there is a struggle going on over there, dealing with which road to take technically. I think Microsoft is probably over there pitching and wooing as hard as it can, but Taiwan laid down the guantlet: open up or your out.

I would also assume that Microsoft has its supporters in governemnt, and this official is simply trying to keep the argument on it's technical merits so as not to upset any politicos. It's framed in such a way, that it's essentially a state-security issue: if Microsoft doesn't open the code, then we are more open to [Chinese] hacking and snooping. Who can argue they're not in favor of a more secure state. Actually, very, very smart on this official's part. Played this way, it appears as though it's Microsoft's problem and not about any particular government official.

There are probably many other culture differences that we cannot even begin to understand.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Austria got Windows Source last year

[Carnage4Life]

The Federal Ministry of the Interior in Austria is the first government body in Europe to be granted the source code for Windows XP under Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative

Re:Austria got Windows Source last year

[alexburke]

I give you a gift:

</A>

Microsoft Spyware

[Shamanin]

Many government contracts out there exist with MS.

First I (Bill) will deploy my OS in all of the countries in the world with the help of the US government, CIA, etc. then I will TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

Sort of strange that someone like Bill might have both delusions of grandure AND rule the world at the same time.

Re:Not easily translated

[coryboehne]

Print it, then OCR it, then post your results here, well, that is IF you have the time to spend....

Re:Don't they realize

[mao che minh]

"They will probably save a bundle too!" Probably? Homie they gonna save a lot mo' then shree fiddy, ba'leed dat.

Not so outlandish

[quintessent]

Hundreds of Universities and corporations already have access to the Windows source code. Taiwan just may get it too.

Re:I'm laughing all the way to the street vendors.

[mr_gerbik]

So, then, what's the loss to Microsoft in this case?

Because once Microsoft releases the source to anyone, we will all have it.

Re:DOS 6.2

[roguerez]

How would you know this about the dos source code?

This is ridiculous

[scrytch]

This was a publicity stunt from someone who wanted to plug Linux. There are thousands of source licensees for Windows, and I wager the government of Taiwan is one of them. Maybe this person's particular firewall project didn't get a source license -- not to mention how it didn't need one, as MS's network stack is absolutely pluggable and documented in the SDK -- but this doesn't immediately translate into a mandate for MS to give the code away and satisfy one person who could easily vote with his feet and use FreeBSD+netgraph, OpenBSD+ipf, or Linux.

Re:I think there's something under the surface her

[Blimey85]

So you think this is an ultimatem? Open up your source or we will switch to Linux?

I think it would be great if the end result of this was the Taiwanese government deciding to switch to Linux. The money they would save on future licenses could be better spent on furthering development of the tools that they need, if they aren't already available to them with Linux, and since the underlying code is open source, that problem is eliminated. Seems like a win-win situation for the Taiwanese government and Linux users world wide.

I don't think this will happen though. More likely MS will do the minimum that it needs to do to keep Taiwan happy. The source code will never be open, but they may add some features or create a firewall that will fill the need. They may even end up profiting off of this. They can tell Taiwan that they will do it for Taiwan, instead of the Taiwanese government using it's own programmers whom would not be familiar with the source code. Who better to modify Windows than the people that work on Windows day in and day out?

Maybe someone high up in the Linux community should step up and make an offer to the Taiwanese government. Maybe make them a package deal that would include training their IT people on how to properly install, configure, and maintain Linux as well as training some of them to be able to teach others how to use the new software.

Stupid, why should MS do this?

[Capt_Troy]

So the Chineese can add "Custom Firewall code" to the Windows source???

Why don't they just buy a damn firewall and put their computers behind it? That's what the rest of the world does?

Am I missing something?

Re:Stupid, why should MS do this?

[Mulletproof]

Those firewalls were made by evil forgein devils, of course. Especially those evil western foriegn devils.

Not to detract from the spyplane vs. src debate...

[Art Popp]

...but the actual motive here seems pretty obvious. Half the people reading this post could layer whatever kind of supercomplex, 3 megs of IP tables firewalling that the State wants into a cheap Linux box that could be placed at all the gateway points to a particular section of country.

Filtering and control of TCP/IP doesn't require anything remotely like OS source. Right now, millions of people in Asia with their bootlegged (we hope) copies of Windows enjoy a great deal more freedom of information than they've ever had. They can share, they can organize, and keep company with people all over their continent in a fashion that should scare the socks off any but the most open of societies.

If I wanted to regain some control of information flow in any of those countries, I would want the Windows source. I would release the State version of it for a cheap price, and I would declare anyone using the non-state approved version a subversive and a law breaker. Each time the state approved version hit a website, or made any contact with any piece of software it would ask for that software's State ID. It would report all such information at its next opportunity to State sponsored computers. In filtering this data it would become obvious where the IP addresses were in your country that were not running the State version of the OS. Filtering the logs to distinguish subversives versus 'normal' folks would be a snap.

The only kind of filter that you can't add to Windows after the fact is one you don't want the user to be able to remove or refuse to install.

Welcome to the Panopticon.

Trust me...Says the spider....

[Tungbo]

Look. You may not balance your checkbook every month. I know I don't. I DO trust that my bank will do the arithmetic correctly most of the time.

However, would you like to get a bank statement that just list your beginning and ending balance?

Not me and I doubt you would accept it too.
While I don't check the arithmetic usually, the bank knows that I CAN CHECK it any time I want. Thus, they work to make sure that there're no problems.

Similarly, knowing that the source code is visible makes the vendor think carefully about what to put in it in the first place. And that's worth a lot.

Re:Trust me...Says the spider....

[GigsVT]

I am not denying that. But luckly with most systems - for exmaple if you want to do Internet communications - you can simply examine the input and the outputs. The internals are completly blackbox. Thats the whole point of good design techniques.

Yes, you can do that to verify proper input produces proper output. However, "proving" there isn't some hidden feature is impossible this way. There are an infinite number of invalid inputs, and a limited number of valid ones. Proving proper function with the valid inputs is relatively easy, proving that improper output will never happen with invalid inputs is impossible.

Any black box system therefore can never be trusted.

Re:Trust me...Says the spider....

[Tony-A]

you can simply examine the input and the outputs. The internals are completly blackbox. Thats the whole point of good design techniques.
A time bomb passes that test.
A self-destruct mechanism listening for its trigger passes that test.
Intel's "broken" math Pentium passed that test, for a while at least.

At least it would be easier to reverse engineer

[trikberg]

If Microsoft actually opened the source, how long until we see the Taiwanese operating system called Doors 200X or something?

Minor oversight...

[jonadab]

I seem to have left the word "leveraging" out of my statement. It
should read, "work with select partners to ensure that this need is
met within a trusted computing framework by leveraging the shared
source initiative..."

Anyway, my point is that nothing meaningful will come of it.

Don't Open the Source

[Moirke]

I may be alone here, but I do not think Microsoft should open its source code. I believe if Microsoft did publicly release Windows source code, every open source project would live in fear of a lawsuit. Microsoft's would sue everyone that released anything for copyright infringement.

Eminent Domain

[namespan]

The local city government can eminent domain away property rights of a street full of homeowners to accomodate the construction of a freakin' Costco. The United States government can install puppet juntas in Latin America to prevent the spread of communism.

Taiwan getting a looky at the the Windows source code to protect their national security from a large, powerful, local, and real communist threat seems pretty tame.

Clouded minds...

[Inoshiro]

"More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler that would put in a back-door whenever it noticed itself compiling a common bit of Unix login code,"

Nope. This was a theoretical attack presented by Ken Thompson. It was never out in the wild, to the best of anyone's knowledge.

The point still remains that you can't trust code unless you can personally verify it at any level, because the moment you give any important code trust, the code can potentially use that as a way of subverting the entire system.

Re:Clouded minds...

[Billly Gates]

Oh someone loged on to bnc's network about a decade ago with the initials "kt". Hmmm how did that happen?

Hmm custom firewalls on the desktop

[nurb432]

This way they can control content even if you get an illicit internet connection out of the country and by pass the national firewall of content..

Interesting concept.. near total control of incoming information..

Just add a dash of DRM to control local content.. instant 100% suppression of 'non authorized' information.

Re:Hmm custom firewalls on the desktop

[nurb432]

When DRM hardware is in full swing, that may not be an option, 'unapproved' software wont run, be it an OS or an application..

Will open source ever be DRMized and therefore run under the hardware? who knows, but it wont be in the grand plan, and they will make it difficult at best for us.

Maybe they are looking for NSA/CIA backdoors?

[CSG_SurferDude]

Maybe they just want to compile it themselves to make sure there aren't any NSA/CIA/FBI backdoors installed in it.

Re:Remember Tawian dosent like linux

[aussersterne]

You're right, except for the reference to communism. Just because China claims to be 'communist' doesn't mean that they are.

By very nature, 'communism' cannot exist alongside 'dictatorship' because the two are anathema to each other. The US is a much more communist state than China is (the US has many and powerful unions, the DeLeonist perspective, while in China unions are either nonexistent or impotent).

But you're right, the Chinese government is not helpful to its citizenry at all.

Re:Lamer

[SirSlud]

>And the military should also design all their own integrated circuits and processors too?

if its cheaper, sure. um .. if its cheaper (assuming they can build to the same levels of quality as a producer in the market), why not? isnt that what capitalism is all about? utlizing the efficiency of economy of scale when its useful, but not using it when its not?

> how do they know their communication and encryption chips don't have backdoors built into them?

good question, although you _can_ reverse engineer the chips if you want to. its not nearly as difficult as verifying the functionality of a million-lines-of-code binary after its been compiled against its target.

Forced? I don't see a gun at your head.

[Inoshiro]

"Why the hell should I be forced into forking over more cash when I can just do the goddamn work myself."

This breaks your entire rant right there. If you were getting more value for doing the work yourself, you would've already chosen that path. By saying that the money spent is a smaller cost than the personal time needed to master the concepts and develop the software, you are making an economic decision. The type that drives forward the economy. Why eat out when you can cook at home? Why buy carrots from a store when you can grow them yourself?

You have to specialize at some point, otherwise you'll end up being a person who is ok or decent at many menial tasks, while not really enjoying the benefits modern society has to offer. If you're whinning about how expensive something is when you can do it yourself, you're only trying to distract us from the fact that you haven't done it yourself! Actions do speak louder than whines.

Before you whine about trust, you should understand the economic underpinnings of these decisions. Since software is digital, the cost is all in the creation phase. You should tell your government to look in to escrow software development. Have a fixed dollar value attached to projects + the condition that it be GPLed upon release, then drum up the funding for it. Some company wanting to make money will invest time in it to reap the money returns, and the government gets software that it can again set contracts on ("we now need to to collate documents. We'll give $4,000 to anyone who gives us this feature").

You could take the alternate route that customers enter in to a limited-trust scenario. Complete access to source code, provided they do not provide it to anyone else. This lets clients pick over everything, while keeping the accountability that would allow a traditional software company to continue to sell the software + support to other people until the escrow method becomes more popular.

If today's software companies were to just give away everything as you state, they'd die. When you develop some great algorithm that suites a problem, you've done the work. When someone else comes along and copies it, you have no way of recouping the cost of the work because the copy cost is 0. Without some sort of escrowed payment system and trusted-client relationship for these innovations, software development would mostly grind to a halt.

Standard socialist terminology.

[jonadab]

> I still find it funny that a communist country like China can claim
> to be the "Peoples Republic of China"

The adjective "People's", in communist countries, doesn't mean the
same thing that it means in (for example) the US. To us, "people" is
the plural of "person", and "People's" is possessive plural,
indicating that the item is owned by a group of individuals who
are each a person. It doesn't mean that in China. Rather, it
means something along the lines of "controlled by the state that
governs the People", where "the People" is a collective term that
refers not to individuals but to the entire populace as a nation.
(The simple plural people, meaning a number of individual people,
is also used, but you can tell the difference from context.)

Re:Open Sourcing the Chinese Government

[comic-not]

Nope. Don't have any mod points handy just now, so here's the intelligent reply: Taiwan is a democratic, modern country which quite likely has produced a large part of the system you used to post your message. Taiwan is not PRC. In fact, PRC might happily herd the entire population of Taiwan to the aforementioned square given a chance to do so.

Re:Fair trade

[Steve Franklin]

Formerly known as Nationalist China, now referred to by anyone who doesn't want to anger the Butchers of Beijing as "Taiwan," the Chinese name for the island of Formosa. Isn't political correctness wonderful?

Read the article!

[adrenalinerush]

Sheesh, I really get sick of people on Slashdot posting without reading the article. I mean, come on, it's written in plain Chinese...

oh, nevermind.

C compiler backdoor reference...

[Karpe]

...can be found here.

Pretty entertaining reading...

Re:Not easily translated

[HeghmoH]

I think it's pretty obvious you don't know Chinese, given that you're calling it Kanji, and Kanji is the name for the Japanese writing system....

Disclosed source code is not equal to Open Source

[Bruce Perens]

MS might disclose its source code, as so-called "shared source". Shared source does not have the list of rights available for it that are included with Open Source. I think the request we are seeing is for MS to disclose its code, not for it to change its fundamental business model. There is a technical term for what is being asked for. It's called disclosed source code, not Open Source.

Bruce

This is a PR stunt

[Duderstadt]

Really, this is nothing but a stunt by someone who wants to promote Linux / OSS software. Software that will probably be developed by some Taiwanese company with political influence.

The fact is that Microsoft has granted thousands of shared source licences. I have no doubt that the ROC can get one. But that is not what the ROC is asking for. They obviously want permission to modify the source and create derived apps from it.

And of course, MS is not going to allow that. No vendor of proprietary software would.

There is something else as well. For those who are unaware, NT is highly customizable at compile time. The gov't (US) and many major corps (eg, Boeing) request NT with various bit flags set at compile time. There is no reason that the ROC could not do the same.

The ROC wants the source not to see, but to mess with and use in their own apps - perhaps even OSS apps. Is it any wonder that MS would respond FU?

Flog the man with some history!

[Mulletproof]

How about this: when the shit hits the fan, there will be three Red Chinese for every one of you...When Jiang says jump, you make like a fucking frog, okay?

Such an obvious little troll. "Feed me! Feed me!" Awwww... So cute... Ok, just a tidbit now...

Numeric superiority only matters when you insist on playing their game or you have no other choice. Funny how Britain, Germany, Japan and Russia have all told us to 'jump' at one time or another too... Did a shit load a good, didn't it :)

Re:Forced? I don't see a gun at your head.

[SirSlud]

> If today's software companies were to just give away everything as you state, they'd die.

Thats just plain bullshit. This _why_ we have legal protection from copying ideas (or a certain level of protection, which is what this is all about.)

I dont wanna build an OS. I cant build an OS for cheaper than MS. But I can build my custom firewall cheaper (and faster, and more customized to my use) than MS.

You can take your ideas to the extreme; everything you see, hear, etc came from somebody. Which took effort. And you're stealing it all. But I'm just curious why physical producers don't lock up their products before they ship them out the door but software producers are terrified. Copying the 'idea' of how to build a good engine starter, which took lots of thinking to come up with, also costs 0 dollars. In fact, you could turn around and sell this knowledge to the next guy and profit off of it. But its illegal to do that, so theres no reason to ensure that nobody is capable of dissassembling a motor starter.

In fact, imagine if it were illegal to make closed source software. You can verify that producer A did in fact steal an idea from producer B (an idea that is protected by a patent of course, because its not illegal simply to use an idea you find in somebody's product unless its patented.) and the issue about detecting law breakers is resolved.

But think about it. Patents exist, in part, to ensure that everybody DOES have access to the details of an idea. If you wanna get protected by law to be owned money when folks use your idea, be prepared to share it (since its been demonstrated over hundreds of years its better for everybody when people can improve on ideas in incremental fasions. No idea is 100% original, and 100% yours. If its an original idea, its an original reformulation of other people's thinking.) Protecting the source of an application is, quite simply, a method of being garaunteed payment for your IP while circumventing the other stipulations in patent laws (that you have to publish your idea).

Its much like how the DMCA effectively renders copyright law a moot point because you can wrap up work with an artificial mechanism that circumvents the processes and laws we put in place in order to balance the interest of the public against the interest of creators.

Its useless to allow people to avoid these institutions using technology. These laws (in theory) are designed to balance interests. If theres something broken about them, lets fix it, but in the very least lets not encourage economical models that can let innovators protect and profit off of ideas without repaying the scientific and engineering community for all the ideas they used in building their product.

Re:Not easily translated

[Flakeloaf]

All of the kanji have been rendered to .gif files

which would be singularly unhelpful for someone trying to read Japanese! Sub hanzi for kanji and try again.

Taiwan, Echelon and NSA_KEY

[phsolide]

I'm certain that whatever motives ROC government had in requesting Windows source code from MSFT are far from pure. However, given the NSA_KEY episode and the existance of things like ECHELON, I have to believe that any foreign government has to suspect US government spyware might be in Windows.

If the government of ROC doesn't at least think about the possibility of TLA agency spyware or trojans in such a massive closed-source OS, they aren't being paranoid enough.

Everywhere you wanna be. Or not.

[Mulletproof]

Ok, lets assume for a moment in a galaxy far, far away that this senario is even remotely possible. Are you there yet? No,no,no... You have to focus. There. Now is it just me, or is Taiwan THE LAST COUNTRY you want to be sending anything valuble concerning your software to??? We're talking piracy central here, or at least it's major orbiting satillite. As wonderful as the fanboys might find this, I'd have to side against it. I mean really-- Microsoft's product would be turned inside out within days and blasted across the net at faster than light speeds. I sure as hell wouldn't want that happening to my product... But then, this is Penguine/Mac country, so what the hell, right?

Two Chinas -- Probably Not for long

[budalite]

Any bets on how long there continue to be two Chinas? Right on up to the day that BigChina decides, or realizes, it really, really can just take LittleChina. Which it probably can do any time it wants to with "only" around a couple of hundred thousand lives lost. The BigChina really wouldn't wouldn't have a problem with that. Peasants are cheap in BigChina. Really. Sad, that.

Translation from Chinese to/from English

[Jon Abbott]

Can anyone suggest an online Chinese English translation engine that produces other than gibberish?

I know that Sherlock in Mac OS X provides Chinese (simplified and traditional) to English translation support. I don't know how well it works though, as I don't read, write, or speak Chinese.

As a test that I could try, I typed in "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy yellow dog" and asked Sherlock to convert the phrase to Simplified Chinese. Then, I converted it back to English, which resulted in the phrase, "The fast brown fox has jumped the lazy decadent dog." Not quite jibberish, but I wouldn't use it for writing anti-war treaties with foreign countries either... :^)

Re:Translation from Chinese to/from English

[Jon Abbott]

AFAIK, the translator used by Sherlok on OS X is the same that empowers Babelfish, if it isn't babelfish itself.

Although they are both "powered" by Systran, there are a few translation options available in Sherlock that aren't available on Babelfish. Notable exceptions are that Dutch and Greek are supported in Sherlock, as are both Simplified and Traditional Chinese.

Re:Remember Tawian dosent like linux

[Gordonjcp]

To quote the oft quoted Patrick Henry, "Give me libery or give me death!"

No problem. Just stand over there - this won't take a minute...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Really gonna happen

[rppp01]

And in other news, the US asked Osama Bin Laden to come out with his hands up and give himself up.

Re:Fair trade

[Steve Franklin]

Gee, I wonder what the native inhabitants called it before the Nationalists invaded and set up a military dictatorship? You don't suppose they used the Portuguese name because no one recognized their native name for it?

One also has to wonder when the Chinese are going to rename Tibet.

No, I am not a Conservative. I just don't like oligarchs. Something about my ancestors living under the damned Czar for too long.

Re:Open Sourcing the Chinese Government

[limekiller4]

comic-not writes:
"Nope. Don't have any mod points handy just now, so here's the intelligent reply: Taiwan is a democratic, modern country which..."

From the article:
"...the Republic of China government has asked Microsoft to open Windows source code..."

Anything else? =)

This Corporate Power Thing Is Getting Out of Hand

[Mannerism]

Microsoft responded to Taiwan's requests by recalling to Pearl Harbour the USS Carl Vinson and her battle group, currently in the Taiwan strait observing Chinese naval exercises. Micrsoft also suggested that further extensions of China's "most favoured nation" trade status may no longer be contingent upon Chinese non-aggression towards Taiwan.

Re:Politics

[jonadab]

> (Microsoft tells them to go take a flying leap.)

Right, but that's where it'll go wrong, because Microsoft has a lot
of corporate weasels who can write stuff like "Microsoft is working
closely with select partners on an initiative to ensure that the
needs of Taiwan with respect to custom firewalls are securely met in
a trusted computing framework by leveraging the added value of shared
source to customize the secure computing environment for effectiveness
in the kinds of scenerios that the government of Taiwan faces. We
have committed software and security experts who will establish open
communications with the Taiwanese government IT departments in order
to establish more definitely their security needs and establish an
infrastructure to allow these needs to be met. Microsoft is fully
committed to helping Taiwan to fulfill all of its requirements for
secure software on the Windows platform.

So, as I said upthread, nothing meaningful will come of this.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I think there's something under the surface her

[horster]

would tend to agree - doesn't microsoft alread have a source program for universities and large corperations/governments?

Re:I think there's something under the surface her

[Sycraft-fu]

Or they might just give the source code to the Tiawanese government. I realise that most people on /. think that the MS source code is some kind of uber secret, but it's not, lots of people have it. Academic instutions can obtain the source to Microsoft OSes free of charge and indeed ASU in Phoenix (I mention it since I live nearby) has a liscence to the code.

It's not like it's an all or nothing thing, MS doesn't have to make the source available to the world they can (and do) just make it available to those that they want to. Doesn't matter though, Tiawan is whining over nothing, there are plenty of third party firewalls already that work with Windows, and are testably secure via scanners and sniffers.

Re:Open Sourcing the Chinese Government

[comic-not]

You don't seem to know the difference between the Republic of China (ROC, AKA Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China (PRC) (Hint: the Square of the Heavenly Peace is in the latter one).

Re:(Bad) translation

[PinkX]

whoa, this sounds like Tarzan english translation... 'me tarzan, be king of the jungle!'

And they won't have to.

[mindstrm]

thanks to a free market.
Taiwan will use what they need to to get the job done; if having the source is a requirement, Microsoft will either provideit, or lose the sale to some other company or product that meets their requirements, or, of course, cut them a deal they can't refuse sans source.

Please don't mention security through obscurity.. you know that if MS released the windows source openly, it would drive up the number of windows clones and aid in reverse engineering all their weird apis.. it wouild spell their undoing, currently. They do have a valid reason not to release it, their business currently depends on it.

Let me get this straight

[WildBeast]

They want MS to open up there secrets so they can better hide there own secrets? Anyone see the irony?

Re:Not only that

[pyros]

No, if the people at WINE (WINE Is Not An Emulator) could see all the windows APIs then they could implement them.

Re:Disclosed source code is not equal to Open Sour

[greygent]

There is a technical term for what is being asked for. It's called disclosed source code, not Open Source.

No, actually it's called "shared source". YOU call it "disclosed source code". The title is "open the Windows source code"... similar to "open the window, i just farted", or "open up the box". Nowhere did anything or anyone say "*open source* Windows" in the philisophical sense.

You're stating the obvious from the article, so I can only assume your comment got mindlessly modded up because you're "Bruce Perens", and so you MUST have something important to say, even if it's just rehashing the article and should have been moderated "Redundant".

Re:Microsoft and Taiwan

[Doomrat]

Well, you lose a lot of l33ticity when you convert it from a non-English language.

for the curious...

[mithras the prophet]

Lin Shu the Ling/Taibei reported submits the administrative reconciliation plan book eve in beautiful business Microsoft to the fair transaction committee, Executive Yuan ãSÒ meeting Chairman Lin Chiach'eng indicated, for enhances the government information security, then melts the monopoly, the government set the opening primitive code requirement to Microsoft. Only he stressed that, is a negotiation has nothing to do with with the fair meeting administrative reconciliation. Requires Microsoft to open the primitive code, the development free software is the present phase government to develops the job software two big policies main axle.

Manages the Executive Yuan "the electron government" plan Lin Chiach'eng to indicate that, except Taiwan outside, recently also had many countries also to Microsoft to propose the opening primitive code requirement, believed Microsoft was carrying on the comprehensive appraisal, by opened the primitive code in accordance to this requirement the tide.

Lin Chiach'eng stressed that, the free software can open the primitive code to utilize for user, the governmental agency user then may according to the above independently design the firewall, lets the government information obtain a higher safeguarding. The counter- view Microsoft job system, the governmental agency attains the primitive code, does not have the means voluntarily Canada to garrison in its original job program the wall with flues for heating, enhances the safety coefficient.

Lin Chiach'eng stressed, because the governmental agency uses the Microsoft job system the proportion quite high, Microsoft has not opened the primitive code to use for our country, secure is quite disadvantageous to the government information.

Passes regarding Microsoft repeatedly take "the safeguarding copyright" as the pretext, resists certainly to open the primitive code to the user the movement, Lin Chiach'eng believed, the opening primitive code has very many different levels, the entire job system primitive code opening is one kind of level, the local opening also is another kind of level. He stressed that, based on the use need, "requires Microsoft to open the primitive code is very reasonable."

Lin Chiach'eng believed that, including IBM, HP, rose and so on to have the emulation relations positive with Microsoft the merchant recently all quite positively to develop the LINUX job system, the government cannot completely rely on Microsoft in the policy. Much less the government information security is such important, certainly must protect oneself.

The related official pointed out, because the primitive code is public, may let the user depend on the itself demand not Breaks the improvement, LINUX by its low-price quality merchandise, the secure high superiority, on a large scale enters the various countries government apparatus large-scale computer system, specially the military and the sentiment govern the unit. Including American Pentagon, air force, Federal Aviation Administration and so on, also all has uses the LINUX job system.

Lin Chiach'eng believed that, in the policy, "will require Microsoft to open the primitive code", "the impetus free software" advances in unison, the government information system will not be able to rely on the sole merchant. Executive Yuan country information communication development impetus group, has established "the free software direction committee", estimated two seven years may have thirty % above governments units and the enterprise network server end use free software job platform, ten % personal computings use the free software platform.

it almost makes sense! "two big policies main axle" indeed... I'm also not sure what Canada is doing in there.

The Source of All Evil...

[Tsali]

Maybe they can't give out the source because they lost it when Bill sold his soul to the devil during the anti-trust trial.

As a result, all the code behind the header files was converted to ancient Sanscrit. It now runs via satanic influence. So everyone can see the API calls but no one has any clue how it works.

That's a joke. Although if it were true, we'd never know the difference anyways.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Uhhhh no.

[wumingzi]

As for the US backing in case of a Chinese invasion, it's 100 km from China to Taiwan and 5000 km from the US to Taiwan. If the Chinese want to, they can take it easily. 3 US carriers won't help a bit against a Chinese offensive with 500,000 men.

You sound like you know a little about the internal politics of Taiwan, but judging by the comment above, you haven't been there for more than a few days.

1) The PRC has no way to put 500,000 men on the island in the first place. The boats simply don't exist. Further, in these days of radar, hydrophones, satellite photography, etc. doing a D-Day style attack is infinitely more complicated than it was in 1944. While the 500,000 troops are making their way across the Taiwan Strait on hypothetical boats, the word "sitting duck" comes to mind.

2) The layout of the island makes it hard to invade. The West Coast (the one facing China) is a nearly solid block of concrete buildings, with a few farms to break the tedium. Fighting in urban areas is annoyingly difficult. The East Coast (the one facing the Pacific) is mountainous, with some of the peaks rising from sea level to 13,000 feet (4,000 m) in less than 60 miles. Fighting in heavily forested mountains is also rather difficult.

Rather than listening to me, check with Admiral Nimitz, the WWII military leader. He drew up a battle plan for invading Taiwan as a precursor to the invasion of Japan that everyone expected would be needed to end the war. The Nimitz plan anticipated 250,000 US casualties would be incurred to pry loose 50,000 Japanese soldiers. There are currently about 250,000 regular soldiers on Taiwan, maybe 10 times as many available as reserves. Plus radar, hydrophones, satellite photos, and lots of other stuff that didn't exist in 1944.

Could Taiwan be invaded? Sure. The place could be bombed flat and/or nuked prior to sending the troops in, which would make the entire point of taking the place (getting a reasonably modern, high-tech economy incorporated into the PRC) moot.

In short, it ain't easy. It never has been. If it was, it would have been done years ago.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Disclosed source code is not equal to Open Sour

[istartedi]

Right. Who died and made Bruce Perens chairman of the Bureau Of Standard English? In fact, the USA doesn't even *have* a standard English, and if English were ever made the official language for voting and what-not, we would probably have to have such a thing. That's one of the strongest arguments against making English a legal requirement in certain settings. Make it a requirement, and we end up with the French situation where some beurocrat gets all in a snit because people are saying "Le Big Mac".

At any rate, "open source" is one way to say what Taiwan wants. "Open Source" with capital letters is the Open Source trademark as it were, and they're welcome to use it as a trademark (service mark?) as long as people understand that if it isn't capitalized it could mean something else. It's far more likely that the Taiwanese simply said "we want the source" and didn't use anything that translates nicely into "Open Source", "Shared Source", "Disclosed Source", "Free Software" or any other trade/service mark.

Re:Forced? I don't see a gun at your head.

[fferreres]

If you were getting more value for doing the work yourself, you would've already chosen that path.

They are stating they are NOT happy with the sources not being there so that their goverment can veryfy it.

They are stating that their country does not really want to trust all their IT infrastructure on a closed source monopolist running their business at the US and serving the US needs (confirmed with the DoJ-Microsoft honeymoon).

They are NOT saying they will make war, or take any legal action to do whatever Microsoft doesn't want to do with their propietary software.

This is clear, they are stating an opinion, and if Microsoft doesn't comply, maybe they will start embracing something else. It's in all their right for them to negotiate conditions, like taking a look at the sources.

If I where a goverment I'd rule out ANY OS that wasn't open source. Closed source applications are ok, as long as they don't use network resources.

Everything else should be open for scrutiny. And the case is not nonsense. The US goverment has seen and always sees the Microsoft sources, the military sees the sources (you may not be told this, but if you think they don't have access to it and an agreement then....well...).

It's not about a "product", it's about national security. Coutrnies are realizing Microsoft is a threat, and not just a balance of trade nuisance.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Some Things Only Man Can Do

[Pakup]

Here's a rough translation of the article, by hand. Feel free to point out any mistakes, it was done too rapidly. Note that according to the article, the government has already made this request to MS.

Reading the article as a whole, I think the talk about firewalls is a polite smoke screen and that the Taiwanese, like the Mainlanders, are really concerned about backdoors and such.

Government Asks MS To Open Source Code

Lin Shuling reporting from Taipei

On the eve of MS's submission of its administrative reconciliation plan to the Fair Trade Committee, the chairman of the Administrative Research Committee Lin Jiacheng stated that in order to increase administrative security and loosen monopoly, the Government has already requested MS to release its source code. But he emphasized that there's no connection between this request and the FTC proceeding. Asking MS to release its source code and promoting development of open-source software are two linch pins of government policy.

Lin, head of e-government planning, said that in addition to Taiwan, many other countries have recently asked MS to open its source code and he believes that MS is now making a full appraisal of these requests, as it must given the wave of these requests.

Lin emphasized that as open-source programming gives users the opportunity to access source code, government users could take advantage of this access to build firewalls, and thus create relatively safe protection for government data. But looking at MS's operating system now, government agencies don't have the source code and thus can't themselves properly design a firewall and increase data protection.

Lin also stated that since MS's operating system is relatively widely used by the government, the failure of MS to make its source code available is particularly disadvantageous.

Regarding MS's previous "copyright protection" excuse for not making its source code available, Lin noted that source code can be opened on many different levels and opening the source code of the entire operating system is just one level, opening just a part is another level. He emphasized that in view of operating needs, "asking MS to open its source code is very reasonable."

Lin believes that since IBM, HP, Shengyang, and other MS competitors are now actively developing Linux-based operating systems, government cannot as a matter of policy rely solely on one vendor, MS. Given the importance of safe-keeping its data, the government must act to protect itself.

As a related official pointed out, when source code is open, the user can modify and improve it directly, and thus good and cheap and secure Linux has made inroads into become an operating system for large government systems worldwide, especially in military and intelligence fields. The US Pentagon, Air Force, FAA and other agencies are now using Linux.

Lin Jiacheng believes that from a policy standpoint "asking MS to open its source code" and "promoting open-source software" are hand-in-hand measures, and government data systems can't rely on a single supplier. The relevant organ of the Administrative Yuan has already established a Guiding Committee On Open-Source Software with the goal that by 2007 at least 30 percent of public and commercial internet servers will use open-source software and 10 percent of PCs will run on open-source platforms.

Source: Zhongshi Dianzi Bao 2002-11-10

Re:Not only that

[Grab]

And Gnu's not Unix. Yeah right.

If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck...

Grab.

...still so flawed that it cannot be disclosed

[SgtChaireBourne]

Well it's no surprise that they're not willing to open the source to public scrutiny:

"[Allchin] later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed."

Or

Our products just aren't engineered for security.

Gartner points out that Microsoft isn't likely to catch up any time soon. And since then, even Microsoft execs have acknowledged that security is impossible for their products. One could speculate that this admission is only to try to push users into License 6.0, which has been a flop in the consumer market.

Back to source, closed source will no longer enjoy the market it once had (why pay for work twice, thrice, etc.?) Right now new, profitable economic models are replacing the out-moded failing models in use by Microsoft. Despite this month's multi-million dollar campaign of ads and astroturfing, with people's attention now on security and TCO, the bottom would drop out of Microsoft's market if the code were accessible, even despite illegally leveraging their desktop monopoly.

Microsoft has just fallen too far behind in technology. Microsoft dropped the ball in regards to the Internet and has frittered away the time it needed to catch up. Arguments against using Macintosh or Linux usually center on retraining issues. However, heavy retraining occurred when migrating between Win3.11, WinNT, Win2000, and - for the chumps - WinXP. So if you have to retrain anyway, then why not go with something easier to both use and maintain like Macintosh OS X or Mandrake/Redhat?

When you consider the bizarre nature of the service pack EULAs, the migration to Macintosh or Linux should be the obvious choice

3 Words: No Freakin Way

[serutan]

This just in from Bangkok:
The government of Taiwan has asked Americans to eat less junk food, get more exercise and stop watching so much tv. The Taiwanese leaders also requested that politicians everywhere quit taking bribes and generally screwing the public over.

In other news, hell froze over today, with a nippy low of 27 degrees F, expected to drop into the high teens overnight.

Do you guys know nothing about the world?

[Esperandi]

Ummm... so the government of China says MS needs to open its source because it stops them from doing firewall stuff for Taiwan?

Taiwan is a separate country not owned by China, so what the hell does China have to say about anything? The headline should be CHINA asks MS to open its source. If the guy from China actually mentioned Taiwan, he was probably talking about how China has been itching to bomb the crap out of them and take it over for decades now.

Esperandi

Re:Do you guys know nothing about the world?

[tdye]

The Republic of China is Taiwan.
The People's Republic of China is China.

Both countries claim that they are the legitimate government of 'China'. That's what all the fuss is about.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You misread my reply.

[Inoshiro]

"Thats just plain bullshit. This _why_ we have legal protection from copying ideas (or a certain level of protection, which is what this is all about.)"

I was saying that because the parent poster said: "WHY do we support the abject protection of intellectual 'property' in order to keep the market functioning when that goal of protection can be used to tamper with market forces?"

Note how we both agree that protection of ideas for people in order to make money off of these ideas is good (to do otherwise would stiffle the production of new ideas).

Missing the thread entirely.

[Inoshiro]

SirSlud was stating that asking the original provider (Microsoft) for features and maintenance was akin to the US Military having Boeing service all their planes. This was a somewhat reasonable premise, as the US Military would need to service their vehicles sometimes.

S/He then ranted on about how s/he could make a better OS, spouting off a rather good NiH quote: "Why the hell should I be forced into forking over more cash when I can just do the goddamn work myself."

This is why I stated that if the value (time, money, etc) of producing an OS was indeed greater than the value of buying a prepackaged OS, SirSlud would've already made one. I think went on to explain the cost/value relationships in software. I think you may be replying to a different thread entirely.

My experiences in Taiwan

[Ryu2]

I'm not surprised that the Taiwanese would be up to stuff like this, and wouldn't put it past them to do such sheningans. I'm an American businessman in the import- export business, so as you might guess, my frequent travels take me to many places around the world, on every continent.
I wanted to share my experience in the "great" country of Taiwan.

So, I was in Hsinchu, Taiwan last August for about a week on business. A bit of background: Hsinchu is a "Science Park" that the TAiwan government set up to try and give foreigners the illusion that Taiwan really ISN'T a drab, overcrowded agarian state that's diplomatically isolated from the rest of the world. Here, rules are relaxed and technology is encouraged, not surppressed. Well, let me tell you this, if this is Taiwan's best, then I'd hate to see the worst.

Anyways, when I stepped off the train from Taipei (which was no paradise itself, as that place has gone down the shitter since the Americans left) I was shocked. The whole place smelled like a combination of vomit and dog shit that had been left out in the sun for a day or so. And it was probably BECAUSE there was vomit and dog shit all over. I almost retched, and I've certainly been in some sketchy places in my travels but NOTHING like this.

And do I need to mention Chou Tofu (stinky tofu), a staple of the Taiwanese diet? God, you can smell that shit from a mile away. They put tofu among rotting vegatbles, and they actually eat it afterwards.

Noise pollution is endemic. It doesn't help that their infernal language consists of abrupt rapid fire tones that is a cacophony for any human ear to bear. How do they speak and listen to that shit without going crazy all day long is beyond me.

Anyways, Taiwanese stink -- literally. There is no concept of personal hygiene whatsoever. Meetings with even top officials were hourlong sessions of having to endure hot sweaty bodies and rancid breath eminating from mouths missing a few teeth. Geez, at least use deodorant for crying out loud.

The hypocrisy, corruption, and double-standards from the highest levels of government on over are the norm at the same time Taiwan produces 90% of the stuff that goes into the world's PCs. Foreigners get charged as much as five times for transportation, lodging, food, and everything else.

Traffic is horrible. Rules are non-existent except for at traffic lights: red means to go fast, green means to go REALLY REALLY fast.

The Taiwanese people themselve are pretty apathetic and everyone just wants to get out of that hell hole, so you see students trying to score as high as possible on entrace exams, so they can get into a good college, and then to grad school in the US, and if they fail, with tragic results (Taiwan's suicide rate is among the highest in the developed world).

The whole country, in my assessment is a lost case. Even the cheap labor can be found in Southeast Asia or China.

Anyways, the one redeeming quality were the girls. I paid 1000 NT dollars (about $30 US) for a great fuck, with a 16 year old who seemed quite new and "unblemished" if you get my drift. Boy, was she tight, made all the right noises, sucked and fucked all night long and let me cum all over her. Much better than even the vaunted Thai whores, and worlds apart from anything in Las Vegas or in Europe. Best bargain I have EVER found in my life!

So yeah, screw the hell hole that's Taiwan. It's a lost cause of a country suspsended by a hollow facade of so-called new technology that's just show more than anything.