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'."
Im sure someone will get some use out of this, but source code wont do much good unless you can make modification. I mean maybe you can get a better grasp on how some of their stuff works, but the real advantage to open source is that anyone can change it and add to it.
"Ten countries or agencies including Russia and NATO have already signed agreements..." (emphasis mine)
Signed agreements? Is this really open? I don't remember signing anything before being able to look at RedHat source...
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
Linux would be some grad student's pet project were it not for the fact that Linus opened the code for discussion, so to speak. Many of the early ideas for the Linux kernel were inspired by the Minux operating system, published in book form by Andrew S. Tanenbaum. The source code was there for Minux, published and documented. I have a copy myself from my days as a computer engineering student.
Why don't we use the Minux kernel? Well for starters, Tanenbaum (at least at the time) was a bit of a minimalist. His goal was to create a toy operating system to teach operating system design with. He didn't want to hear about adding drivers or alternate file systems. And for every good reason, you have to master walking before running, let alone flight.
Enter Linus. He develops a new kernel, but instead of publish it in book form, he released it on a newsgroup and asked for suggestions on how to improve it. The rest is history, or at least in the CVS logs.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Yes, this arrangement does not go as far as most of use would like, but it is a step in the right direction. And more importantly, it is a step that would never have happened without Open Source.
Hats off to Stallman for starting the dream and everyone who has supported it.
But when governments start using Windows, they are tied to the business decisions and future of a single company: they can't buy any substitutes and the license doesn't permit them to hire others to modify the code and redistribute the modifications. Even if Microsoft published the complete source code on the Internet, customers would still be completely at the mercy of Microsoft's business decisions because of the license. Incidentally, it's not just Microsoft: Sun is trying to navigate itself into the same position with Java, because, ultimately, all usable Java2 implementations have large chunks of code licensed from them.
Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the only systems governments should rely on are systems with open, non-proprietary standards. They don't have to be open source if there are multiple, reasonably interchangeable implementations. If they are open source, even better. Becoming dependent on a single vendor for anything is bad enough for a business, but for a government, it is really dangerous.
Unless they show them everything then it's completely pointless. Sure the data is properly encrypted by the function but the data and the key has to get to the function first.
And even with the code they can't be sure that it still isn't backdoored. It's the same as the login/compiler trojan that was in unix for years (somebody karma whore for a link, I can't be bothered).
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
If you aren't in a position to build, test and deploy the code you are no better off.
:-)
So, you can look at the code? How exciting! What guarantee do you have that the binary that is later stuffed down your throat is the built from the source you looked at? None.
False tranparency, a.k.a lipstick on a pig.
Uh, because most (probably close to 95%) of Microsoft's income is from exactly 2 programs -- Windows and Office. Microsoft gets about $40 for every copy of windows that comes preinstalled. They would have to be INSANE to give up that revinue stream. What can the open source community offer them that compares to that? Anyone who proposed such a thing would be fired so fast their ass would make skid marks across the M$ parking lot.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The developers are not to blame, we just did our jobs...
:)
A soldier is not without guilt.
It even seems that you agree, given that you found quitting was the only honorable thing to do. Cool
The problem is that it's the source Microsoft wants me to see when Microsoft wants me to see it. The advantage of Open Source is that I get to look at whatever I want to look at, whenever I want to look at it, and for whatever lame/stupid/paranoid reason or lack of reason I choose.
Now I don't really know what to look for, so if *I* don't see anything wrong, it doesn't mean all that much. But. There are people who do, and people who are paranoid, and people who will scream their heads off if there is *anything* suspicious, particularly anthing that *should* be there but isn't.
What Microsoft is doing will help. A little. But there are too many ways that what I'm seeing is a *sanitized* version of the source, that I'd still be more than a little bit suspicious.
This reminds me of those 'staged' tours that opressive governments put on for the free world press every so often. I remember when Jerry Fawell went on a trip to aparthied era South Africa, took in the govt produced show, came back and said, "Well, all the natives looked happy to me".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }