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'."
I know your comment was meant to be funny but, I'm going to comment as if I didn't see the humour if you don't mind :)
For one, the governments arn't as trusting with the OS as MS would like. That's why you hear stories that government agencies already have many systems or are looking have having many systems running linux which they can freely view and examine to determine how safe their data will be on their systems.
By making this move, MS is hoping to prevent or stem the flow of government agencies from switching to linux and other OS's that MS doesn't control.
So, Microsoft need not be bothered going to your country, just send some folks round and we'll give them the hundred ruble tour. When it's over you can use our software, " to help governments and agencies such as Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization improve computer security". How, by installing Linux?
Best part is that Microsoft is feeling the heat, which must be, by the laws of thermodynamics, a good thing for Linux. And maybe even for Microsoft users.
Fight with computer brings SWAT team
If you ever want to work on any open source project that might be in an area where MS has a similar product (which covers just about everything), DO NOT look at any MS source code. Before you can look at their code, you have to enter into a license agreemnt or a contract of some kind with them. I haven't seen this agreement, but you can be sure it contains lots of provisions defining everything in the source code as trade secrets, with all kinds of provisions for enforcing it, and all kinds of waivers of the non-MS person's rights. Being under such an agreement would mean that it might be legally risk for an open source project to use you or your work. So, don't agree to that and don't look at their code. This whole MS "shared source" is a Trojan horse, I believe.
i'd just been reading coverage on apple's new safari browser and thinking how it was a significant 'hit' against microsoft internet explorer strategies as the boost given to 'the other' free software rendering engine (khtml) has now made complying to web-standards that much more important
:)
wondering how this release was impacting microsoft's share price i went over to yahoo finance and was bemused to see that it was slightly up - and then noticed the links to news stories lower on the page detailing microsofts announcement
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
- microsoft must have worked out what was in the works some time ago (the project has been a year in dev) and macworld would be the obvious announcement time
i'll let others analyse and discuss the significance of this move by microsoft - and by the way i agree with those who contend that microsoft is not 'the enemy' and that as longer as we keep true to our values and keep doing what we have been doing all will continue to be well in free software land, and ripples from the movement will continue to spread through the software world from our activity whether we plan to make a splash or not
- but watching microsoft sure is great soap opera
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?
Microsoft might not realize it yet, but it's only a matter of time before Windows sourcecode is Open (as in VMS - read only).
Really, what have they got to lose? Windows is already pirated like crazy, and they arguably have a better core system than any of their competitors anyway. Why not counter Linus Hype with a litte Dave Cutler?
They've already run through their shared source program with various universities and no dirty laundry leaked out. Having published source never hurt IBM or DEC. They should do it.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The reason many people think open source software should be used in gov't is so contractors can't sell closed sourced solutions to the gov't that would require the gov't to go back to the original contractor everytime a change is needed. In other words, it is more cost-effective from the tax payer's point of view. If the code modifications can be made in house or there is a lower bidder this is better for the taxpayer (cost wise). Nothing MS will ever do will allow a gov't to do this. They may let you "see" some of the code and perhaps allow for encryption plugins (or what have you), but they'll never provide a license that says "this code is yours, feel free to make your own modifications."
True but all the distributions I've used over the last 6 years have used a non-vanilla kernel. So the fact that some engineers do have the ability to tinker has been to my advantage.
"Shared source" and its variants is worse than open source and worse than closed source. Both open and closed source have their points (though I find the open source record to be much better, and the model more intuitively convincing), but shared source is not restricted enough, which means that all the bad people will get to pour through it. Few of the white hats will get it, and none of them can fix it. Either open it, or (distant second choice) keep it closed and pretend there's a lid on it. Don't hang your dirty laundry in public and refuse to let anyone else wash it!!!
On the other hand, since those allowed access to the code probably had to sign the NDA-from-Hell, the schools, agencies, companies and individuals involved would probably be sued six ways from Sunday if they ever even though about touching competitor's code, specifically Linux. This risk, and a probably one based on past behaviour, could generate a rousing yawn similar to the original shared source announcement.
Or it is possible that Microsoft trying to line up more victims for the Sendo treatment.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Because some governments believe that Microsoft is in bed with the US government. It doesn't help that a couple years ago, MS admitted there was a backdoor in Windows for some government agency. Anyone remember which one? The NSA, maybe? Anyway, if you're the leader of a NON-US country, do you want the US government peeking in at your citizens and possibly your government officials? I suspect those other countries want to not only see the code, but to compile it, because you trust no one else to leave the code untouched.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
It is possible. The number of possible hands is known. Just look at freecell, you can choose which hand to play. They actually know the number of unplayable deals in freecell by using mathematics. It would be just as easy to work it out in solitaire.
The reason you are seeing patterns in the game is because you mind cannot make sense of the randomness and tries to make a pattern depending on other things rather than just what is happening in the game. This is also why it appears different at different times of the day. It is a cognitive illusion.
-- RTFM:Slackware::Beer:Saturday
Actually, those are the only 2 programs that earn money for Microsoft, all others (XBox, MSN, WinCE, mice, keyboards...) lose money for them.
So they are even more dependent on Windows.
I don't know how many people care about just seeing source code, under glass as it were. People and companies tend to be interested in free software either for the sake of freedom, or because it's free, or because they can take it and make something better. Being charged for look-don't-touch doesn't really satisfy any of those desires.
I suppose people wanting to do security audits might care, but really the number of organizations in the world with the budget to seriously audit Windows can be counted on your fingers. I think even most government bodies apart from the spooks wouldn't care much -- after all, they're all using Outlook now despite the known problems. Auditing isn't going to tell them anything new.
I suppose it might be helpful in debugging problems in interaction with Windows. You can imagine device vendors wanting more access than they have at the moment. But I suspect the NDAs will be pretty restricted. Debugging Samba interoperability is probably right out.
We're in the early stages of Microsoft's stumblings towards respecting the freedom of their customers. When democracy won out in eastern Europe the countries weren't destroyed outright, but rather they came around to a different way of working. (Imperfect analogy, but humor me.) Satisfying as it might be to imagine Microsoft bankrupt, a more likely optimistic outcome is that in a few years they'll be a semi-open-source company, along the lines of Sun or IBM.
It's like a Stripper - somehow taking one's time makes people feel the results are even more interesting and worthwhile.
Just some thoughts.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
How does a government rep meeting with a Microsoft security developer make the government's concerns regarding the security (or rather the lack of security) any less of a worry? (Or are they just giving the government folks a chance to meet the goofs responsible for the travesty that is Microsoft's idea of security?)
How does meeting with Microsoft and being allowed to see portions of their precious source code make your data any less captive?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M