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'."

Comments

I can't see how this is good

[The Bungi]

While I would personally love to see some of the Windows code (I'd kill for a peek at the COM+ marshaling engine) I can't see how this is going to help anyone. it's not like you can find a bug and recompile the kernel, and I've always had a bit of reservation against providing Microsoft with solutions to problems in their own products. The MTS/IIS4 timeframe left me pretty much soured on that whole thing.

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.

"Open Source" vs. "Free Software"

[gnujoshua]

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.
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-fr eedom.html

Re:"Open Source" vs. "Free Software"

[Arandir]

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

I think this is a good reason why the term "free software" can be extremely misleading. Next then you know, we will have a "free software" version of Internet Explorer.

p.s. The above is an example of sarcasm. If you are a regular Slashdot reader, the concept may be unfamiliar to you. I suggest a dictionary.

p.p.s. Speaking of dictionaries, look up "free" while you're at it.

p.p.p.s. Funny isn't it how download.com offers thousands of "free software" downloads of proprietary shareware?

Also reported on CNet -

[grunby]

Found here. Governments will be able to see some source to 2000, XP, .net, and CE.

tar zxvf win32xp-i386.tar.gz
cd win32xp
./configure --prefix=/opt/windows
make
make install

- grunby

What M$ Needs To Do

[E-Rock-23]

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.

Re:safari publicity kill?

[IamTheRealMike]

i can't help wonder if the announcement was timed to take some attention away from the extremely significant move by apple to move it's sizable number of users from a proprietary based browser to one at least based upon a free software engine

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.

Source code is just a bunch of words

[Rogerborg]

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.

Re:Something to Think About

[technix4beos]

Here is the relevant link as reported by CNet:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-966219.html?tag=rn

Here is Microsoft's SEC Filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/0001 03221002001614/d10q.htm

Quite easy to find:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/17/203722 3&mode=nested&tid=109

By the way, someone posted about Microsoft opening source code to India.. Slashdot had an earlier story here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/12/204625 5&mode=nested&tid=109

Another slashdot article on the XBox losing money:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/15/151923 4&mode=nested&tid=109

Amazing what turns up when you do just a little bit of research. ;)