Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Opens Code Just Slightly More
ctar writes "This story on Bloomberg.com details Microsoft's new program to open the source to parts of Windows in order to compete with Linux, especially in the government sector. Microsoft's spokesman is making these announcements directly: They say governments involved will be invited to Redmond to meet w/ security engineers, and view testing procedures. Countries will also be able to incorporate their own encryption schemes 'based on Microsoft's software'."
Mod This Post's Parent Up. Interesting point was raised.
:-)
I'll like to contribute a possible reason for Microsoft giving some code away to the Indian Government. It takes the form of this Slashdot posting which states:
Webi writes "The government of India has started taking precise, wide-reaching steps to usher in a Linux wave in India." India sure seems to be a highly contested arena lately. Interestingly, India's plan calls for government-sponsored support and call centers. Looks like they've really thought this through.
Reason enough to loosen up, eh?
Oh, I like the cursors too
As an "official" beta tester for Office 11 beta, they can come to my place and see what I do with it. (not much)
Seriously though, how come I can't get an invitation to Redmond to see their testing procedures? Maybe cuz I have half a clue what they're supposed to be doing.
And when is this source going to be made available on the internet? Will it be compilable? Can I actually use it to optimise my PC for the hardware it's running?
Somehow I doubt it, and that's why I haven't booted windows in over a week. Runs like a one-legged dog cuz I don't have a p4 3.04gig with hyperthreading.
Still, if they're going to open up stuff I'd say let me look at IIS, MSMQ, WMI, COM+ and all that other middleware that I tend to hit a lot more... looking at the kernel would be an educational trip - but only that. Not really useful per se.
I think this is a good reason why the term "Open Source" can be extremely misleading. Next thing you know, we will have an "open source" version of windows 2004---however, the license agreement restricts anyone from incorporating their source code into non-microsoft programs, and they will sue anyone who tries to. However, they can go ahead and call their software "open source," because they are making the source code available to the public.
r eedom.html
This is damaging! We must not group together "free software" programs with "open source" ones, for this very reason! The more we call "Linux" Open Source, the more we will be giving Microsoft free advertising for their "open source" programs that will surely be coming out in the future. Please call GPL'd and GPL compatible software "free" or "Libre" in the least, so that we can make clear distinctions between "open source" and the freedom that come's with GPL-like programs. Thank you.
For a more clearly articulated argument see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
Found here. Governments will be able to see some source to 2000, XP, .net, and CE.
./configure --prefix=/opt/windows
tar zxvf win32xp-i386.tar.gz
cd win32xp
make
make install
- grunby
Opening a little bit of source code up isn't really enough to be able to compete with Linux. One of the biggest problems facing Micro$oft, should Linux catch on in the mainstream, is it's price. Go to any Wal-Mart or Electronics Boutique, anywhere where they sell Windows XP and any Linux Distro side by side (or at least on the same rack/stand). Windows XP Home Edition, ~$150. Mandrake Linux, ~$30. Now, to the money concious computer user, which do you think they'll choose?
The fact of the matter is that M$ could turn a hefty profit even if they sold Windows for $50. They just want to take the consumer for whatever they can, adding to their already insanely high cash surplus (which stands at around $40 billion). That's just not right. And even if they did start selling Windows el cheap-o, they still have to deal with the fact that Linux Distros are available to broadband users (or 56K users with alot of patience) on the net for free. Yeah, sure, you don't get the manual, but that same information is available online from any number of sources.
Opening a little bit of source is a nice gesture by M$, but that's about all it amounts to. With foreign governments, universities, and even single users discovering and going with the Open Source solution, they need to do a heck of alot more to even begin thinking about the possibility of maybe, just maybe, competing with the Open Source community.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
I think you're paranoid. Apple is no threat whatsoever to Microsoft, OK? They are "opening" up their code because their customers are telling them that this is an advantage of Linux, and Microsoft have woken up and are trying to compete. Their own internal memos say this.
I'm sure Microsoft knew full well that most Mac users were already on Chimera anyway, and the IE for the Mac was a failure. They don't seem too concerned. As for "sizable number of users", I'd like to see the statistics for that. The installed user base of MacOS X seems to vary wildly depending on who you ask, but the actual big statistics companies (who get paid to compile figures as accurate as they can make them, usually) say that it's either behind or roughly equal to Linux on the desktop, which seems reasonable seeing as the latter is free and works on PCs, but the first is a better desktop OS at the moment.
I can't remember Microsoft ever taking defensive moves against Apple, least of all now. And FYI using an open source rendering engine doesn't make Safari open source itself, so really nothing much has changed, I'm sure they're actually more concerned about Mozilla as that's the only browser that really competes with IE in any real terms.
p.s. i have been using the term 'free software' in the above post but am unsure of the exact license that khtml is under (i searched and couldn't find the info) - anyone who knows?
It's under the LGPL, which is why Apple had to contribute their changes back when they started redistributing them (in the form of a patch dump unfortunately) but they don't have to make Safari free software.
Until it's compiled. Not that I'm saying that Microsoft are a bunch of lying, cheating weasels. I don't have to say that, a couple of courts have done it for me.
Given that, and given the "other arrangement" that the US gubmint has to access the source (note "the" source, not "some" source), I would have no confidence that anything shown to me by Microsoft - in a Microsoft lab, controlled by them, not available for tinkering or compiling - actually represented the source used to build the version of Windows that I was deploying across my home nation of Elbonia.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-966219.html?tag=rn
Here is Microsoft's SEC Filing:1 03221002001614/d10q.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000
Quite easy to find:2 3&mode=nested&tid=109
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/17/20372
By the way, someone posted about Microsoft opening source code to India.. Slashdot had an earlier story here:5 5&mode=nested&tid=109
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/12/20462
Another slashdot article on the XBox losing money:3 4&mode=nested&tid=109
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/15/15192
Amazing what turns up when you do just a little bit of research. ;)
user@host$ diff
While you don't actually agree with the grandparent post that "only Windows and Office make money", you do seem to support it by refuting sql*kitten. However, take alook at the link that you yourself gave.
1 03221002001614/d10q.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000
Three Microsoft divisions are highly profitable: These include Client (Windows XP Professional and Home, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows NT Workstation, Windows Me, Windows 98, and embedded systems), Server Paltforms (Windows Server, SQL Server, Exchange Server, Systems Management Server, Windows Terminal Server, and Small Business Server), and Information Worker (Microsoft Office, Microsoft Project, Visio, other standalone information worker applications, SharePoint Portal Server and CALs, and professional product support services). The grandparent's statement that the only profitable segemnts of Microsoft are "Windows and Office" is ridiculously disingenous and grossly inaccurate: The overwhelming majority of Microsoft's development effort is profitable.
What isn't profitable? MSN, the Entertainment division (XBox), Windows CE (expect a big turnaround in coming quarters) and the newly organized "Business Solutions" (which includes the newly acquired Great Plains Software). Anyone who doesn't think that division will be highly profitable in a couple of quarters is deluded.
For all the slashdotters out there with an axe to grind towards Microsoft, and a fervent desire to "be different", realize that the biggest mistake you can ever make is to underestimate your foe. The implication here is that Microsoft is riding the coattails of their purported monopoly [insert some comment from someone saying "CONVICTED MONOPOLY"...I presume they call Kevin Mitnick a "convicted hacker" without subtext], rather than the extremely successful (and agile) software company that they are.
Yeah, as evil as those 'public' member variables in C++ ;).
;).
Sorry, just because you CAN write bad code doesn't mean you're required to. Only a poorly written language doesn't give you to do this when you cannot solve a problem in any other way.
Yes, you should encapsulate, but then, encapsulation is the one thing in OO programming that makes all of us non-OO programmers cringe -- yay! I get to write stupid get/set routines just because I dont' think I'm smart enough to not make things blow up by using the public members intelligently.
And public != buffer overrun, and since VB uses a BSTR, I'm confused by your statement -- BSTRs contain the length of the string at the start, so the functions that access them read up to 'len', and there's supposed to be run time checking, or perhaps I don't understand VB well enough to despise it.
-- If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. -- Harry F. Banks