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'."
What's also interesting -- I don't know how many of you guys know about this -- but Microsoft has agreed to release parts of the Windows source code to the Indian Government. I think that story might have been posted on Slashdot a while back. Anyway, it seems interesting that Microsoft is loosening up some of their source code protection. It makes one wonder if this is for real or if they're just trying to create a preception that they're doing this to make a bunch of lawyers happy.
_
Best 3D Animated Cursors For Windows Here!
Why does the government need the source? I mean seriously, it's not like knowing how MS wrote their version of solitaire is going to help much.....
:)
Sheesh.
In this case, the criminals are all the world governments, and all the hackers and spies that can get a hold of the source code. So now the U.S. government will be able to crack into Chinese government computers, and the Chinese will be able to crack into U.S. government computers, and hackers will be able to crack into everyone's computers. Meanwhile, little ol' you and me will just have to leave our MS-Windows boxes wide open for all the bad people to crack.
--sexy gal
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
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.
Microsoft is complying to many government demands on this, but similar to the Shared Source Initiative, who will have the rights to the modified code?
If MS owns the rights of those modified code, then isn't it practically getting government expertise/programmers/labor for free?
Please oh please lets get all foreign gov'ts to give there encryption keys to microsoft. Then they will truly run the world.
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.
Quoth the article: ...expands on a May 2001 initiate in which Microsoft offered to share the Windows code with governments,...
So ok. It appears to me as if we're finally going to be able to get our hands on some of those long sought after nuggets of MS code. Especially if the RUSSIANS are amongst those with authorization to access it, methinks.
All fine and dandy.
But now that we're going to be getting it, what, exactly, the hell are we really going to be doing with it?
Is it fascism yet?
Not like MS letting the govornment view some of the source is benificial to them anyhow. You forgot to account for the fact that MS will more than likely make them sign a NDA. and all the souce code is propitary anyhow. No body else may use it in any form without explicit premission from MS. If this were the not case, WINE would be able to run every Windows program seamlessly, but as of now, it needs configuing for every program you wish to run on it. Not really news, more like this:
You: "My neighbor just got a new car."
Your friend: "does he let you drive it?"
You: No, but atleast I get to look at it."
Your friend: "who cares then?"
You: "Good point."
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
Does this mean they're going to show the curly brackets ?
I guess any more and you're looking at claims of IP infringement by other companies. *sigh*
i fail to see how microsoft's pseudo-open source campaigns compete with the real openness of linux. what microsoft is doing is almost like taking a prisoner out of prison, chaining him to the ground outside, and telling him he's free.
its been said a million times, but maybe microsoft should concentrate on improving their software, since that's the only way they can actually compete with linux.
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
"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
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
How is this important at all? Governments want to view the source code for their products huh? It's not hard, just use Linux. Now if only we could convince the car companies to not weld the bonnet shut so we can have a look at them and see how they work too. Oh wait...
I geek, therefore I am
I admit I am anti-Microsoft, but even when I try to think objectively, I am skeptical that this could be any more than a PR show aimed at reassuring cautious government tech buyers.
It was said that they would open the source to parts of windows... but I would guess that Microsoft is going to decide which parts anyone will get to see. Since it sounds like they are shrugging off any piracy/IP concerns, I wonder if they really plan to share anything more than the source code behind "Flying Windows"
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
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?
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
Not that it's in any way practically useful, but this shows that Linux has made Microsoft change their business practices. In short, we have them - we just need to keep doing what we're doing, and so do they.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
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."
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.
...anyone drinking the water that is placed on the tables in the conference rooms should know that it will take 9 to 12 months for the effects of the spiking to wear off :)
By that time, contracts will have been signed and monies moved about according to MS's will.
Bloomberg says it's just a chance to "look" at the code, by visiting Redmond perhaps. But News.com reports that MS will let governments build their own versions (doesn't say whether by MS or by themselves).
Which is it? There's a big difference there. And is it access to ALL the code, or just the security-related bits?
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
Some people play games... games under *nix that do not come with *nix are not fun.
-]Phreak Out[-
some pissed of ex M$ employee hasnt put up code for all to see, or at least someone screwing up and letting some of the code slip out.
Don't be fooled by Western governments' announcements of plans to consider Linux. Windows still has all the Good Shit (proprietary software) governments need; Linux is still missing key components. The real point of announcing plans to move to Linux is to get concessions out of Microsoft. Better licensing terms, maybe, or perhaps they want their OWN backdoors in Windows to spy on their own citizens.
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
"Countries will also be able to incorporate their own encryption schemes 'based on Microsoft's software'."
I'm sure governments around the world will breath a sigh of relief once their networks have been secured by MS Wallet(tm).
Microsoft is in cahoots with the CIA on this. The plan is to lure "problem" governments like those from Iraq and North Korea into new specially constructed facility on the Microsoft campus.
Once Saddam and his henchmen have sat down at the terminals and put on their eyeglasses in hopes of reading the Windows source code, the trap will be sprung. The doors will lock, the room will descend 300 feet underground, and special CIA forces will move in to subdue and neturalize the foreign government.
Last year's small-scale test on Russian hackers was just a tiny preview of what's in store for the Axis of Evil.
We used to have at Bell Labs in the late 1980's. If we ever wanted to put one of our competitors out of business, we would send them a copy of the 5ESS source code. They would go bankrupt trying to analyze it.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Another marketing stunt?
Due to a fear that they may lose good chunk of revenue? This, of course is caused by bargening game that various governments play using Linux as an opt-out option.
Sencere Microsoft wish to provide much better service to, at least, their most profitable clients?
My thinking revolves around the second option but same old stupid remarks about competing with completely open platform by opening parts of the code tend to drag me toward the first one.
I am not sure why did I put the third option, somehow doesn't look right - we're talking Microsoft here. More I think about it more sure I am that it can be ignored.
Ok, we decided to release more of the source code for Windows.
In the packet we have provided for all of you, you will be able to see every comment line in Windows.
And by the way, please sign your NDAs before opening your packets.
Thank you.
"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!!!
In case you are wondering, yes, having a two year old is occasionally associated with sleep deprivation. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
How does one certify that the binary that is shipped corresponds 1:1 to the code, especially if only parts of the source code are revealed (you can't compile yourself!). Sorry, but even with non-corrupt governments, one could not trust this... Note that the compiler is also a potential source of trojan horses, even if the sources they disclose were the ones they compile.
To Bill Gates: Put Windows under GPL, make it compile with gcc, and we can talk about this again...
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.
I do not think slsashdot allows ACs to reply more then a couple times to the same thread,plus they don't allow more then X amount of posts on the same day from a single AC,that's a funny post tho
Simple. Post on a dialup, disconnect, clear cookies and cache, dialup again and post.
4... Profit? er.. nevermind
Ender-
Nothing to see here
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.
I smell Dragon Windows (or whatever it's called)
And pray tell us again why we should waste time learning a new OS?
Give us real reasons. Something concrete we could use to justify our use of time to our employers - not just some RMS inspired hot air about the ethics of using free software.
The owls are not what they seem
They would release the source and and make free, Win9x and a lot of people would stay with them. The downside would be that people would see how bad it is. They would still have their other versions to make money out of and they could "free" all software as it becomes obsolete.
I am not advocating this idea as it would be bad for Linux but I do think it would be Microsoft's best move. I think that opening up some of the code does nothing except PR. The people at the mill will still see that it is not open and this makes no difference. They will be the ones that have a say (in any sensible company) and so this move will not make any real difference.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
"Microsoft Corp. will expand sharing of the code underlying its Windows programs to help .... improve computer security"
Does this mean M$ admits that open source is more secure? Or maybe that source open to those who should be responsible for the system improves security...?
This little peek does about as much good for the parties concerned as porn. Those governments can fantisize over what little M$ lets them see, but they have no more an idea of what they are looking at than they have ownership or control of it. Quality, of course, suffers. In the microsoft case, quality suffers intentionally.
Cost issues are secondary, but it should be obvious that costs are extreem for closed source software as M$ rakes in more money each year and has a larger budget than many countries do.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Please name that "competitor," I'd love to know of any software system flakier than M$ and avoid it.
You then claim, "They've already run through their shared source program with various universities and no dirty laundry leaked out." I'm not sure what you mean by that. The reputation M$ enjoys is based on the performance of their product line compounded by deceptive marketing and licensing. I doubt there was much more to tell at the Universities even if the participants wanted to break their NDAs.
All and all, however, I agree with you, Microsoft must free their code if they wish to remain relavant. Using free software has done good things for IBM. It's arguable that Microsoft could maintain their market dominance if they were to free their code. What's not debatable is the fact that the rest of the world no longer trusts Microsoft and its closed source model and is in the process of replacing them with free software they can trust. As you point out, it's not like they are going to lose revenue where Windoze is pirated.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
First Port!
:)
Eh? Aw, heck...
Take life easy: one bit at a time.
Microsoft:
;)
"See guys, in the old days where you had to put your encryption layers outside of windows, we found that our backdoors were ineffective. So now we will allow you to embed your encryption routines in windows, which in turn will allow for more appropriate layering of the security technology".
Civilian government administration person:
"Doh.. Uuh, ok!" (drools on shoes)
Lucky me, I'm under a government which wouldn't have a clue in the first place, so I doubt they will be worse off with this
Hmm. Sounds like Europe :-)
I got a sig so you would remember me.
If I were the head of a country, I would do absolutely everything within my power, for the sake of sovereignty and self-determination, to make sure that all government systems are running open code. For this reason, I think it won't be too long before each government has its own distribution.
And it seems to degrade as you play it more without stopping.
Why, it's not just Solitaire. The entire Windows is coded that way.
You seem to have forgotten that Microsoft got as big as they are by being the cheaper alternative. They were the cheap improvement over the original Apple ]['s BASIC, they were cheaper than in-house development of a DOS for IBM's first PCs, and they were a cheap way to get a GUI without buying a Mac, an Amiga or an Atari. Office got big by undercutting the competition in price, and and and...
You're right about maximum revenue. It's not being disputed. It's just ironic that Microsoft is taking this path, since their historical tactic was to undersell the competition (as Ballmer has admitted). The parent post was trying to say that no matter how low Microsoft goes, they can't kill Linux this way. There will always be a cheaper alternative.
Their meagre efforts to claim openness are hampered by the Borglike NDA. To paraphrase: "Look at our code, and you'll never be able to work on other projects ever again!"
Microsoft knows that once you've reached the top, there's no way to go but down. Right now they think they can fight off all comers, and stay where they are. By doing this, they're only making the fall off of the cliffside more painful.
2/6 - Viewing the source
3/6 - Modifying and distributing
1/6 - Profit!
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
They say governments involved will be invited to Redmond to meet w/ security engineers, and view testing procedures.
... the goverment representatives would then be cloned! The originals held in a cage above a pool with sharks! (Maybe even with lazers!).
....
If this had been a James Bond movie
The clones would then go back to there governments and praise MS! Thankfully for us, we have James Bond to protect us!
So why wouldn't you just demand a source license for all government systems and keep it secret under the national security clause? How do you know that isn't being done today with proprietary systems that run critical government systems?
Seriously, Microsoft has thousands of Brains... And very few of them think that opening the source to Windows 95 would benefit Microsoft. Look what happened to Star Office as a result of opening up the Code. Granted, they did it to the last released version, but still. Does anyone pay for Star Office?
Once a product has been given away as free, you have established precidence that it is WORTHLESS. After all, why pay for something you can get for free. I wish I was shorting Sun stock when they announced that they were Open Sourcing Star Office.
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); }
I love Linux and the BSD family. I have a special place in my computing heart for them, and I mean that. But my main machine is still a Windows machine, and there are a few good reasons for that.
/etc/[x]inetd.conf. I don't have to try and match up a Rubic's cube of prereq variables just so to run things.
Windows is coherent. I never have to worry about a dependency tree in Windows to be sure any given program will work. They just do. The only exceptions to that rule are free software apps ported over to Windows, like the GhostScript package I have. I never have to worry about library versions or which GCC build I'm running or whether I have everything set correctly in my
Windows is simple. I turn my computer on, and it goes. If it gets unstable or crashes, I reboot. File permissions have never gotten in my way on my Windows machine. I have never had to start an Xterm session as root in order to use a priviledged port. I haven't ever even had to log in to my home windows machine in order to use it. I didn't have to choose and configure an Xserver and desktop manager to use my Windows desktop. I can install device drivers without recompiling my kernel or mucking with modules.
Windows is well supported. Nevermind Microsoft support; I have an OEM copy of Windows, they won't help me. I can run TONS of freeware on Windows. I can go to the computer store and buy almost any box of software in complete confidence that, barring hardware limitations, it'll run just fine at home. I can browse the web and actually SEE things like Flash. They're pretty. I can look at almost any kind of media that's out there, because almost without exception, there is a viewer for it written for Windows.
And as a result of most of the above, Windows is also the only really viable platform for gaming, which although I generally don't participate in, I like to think I could, and would probably enjoy it. Sadly, I don't have decent hardware, but that's another rant.
Bottom line: for the home user, there is Windows, there is MacOS X, or there is nothing. Linux is by many accounts not ready to take over the desktop, mine included.
What about the server room, or the work environment? Surely those are different, right? Yeah, they are. There's someone to administrate a work system and the network it sits on. No user ever has to take care of their own desktop box in any decently sized company; they have a net admin for that sort of thing. And there's more data-intensive stuff going on in the noise and heat behind the server room door than users will ever have to see.
So there really isn't any excuse to run Windows at work. Right? No. Think of this from the perspective of the network admin. Their company needs an app to do a certain thing. Guess which OS vendors supply that app for? Windows. Guess which company they get the most support from? Microsoft. Guess which OS has easier admin maintenance? Windows. Things like user accounts and services and network configs are always so much easier when the OS you run has integrated click-and-drag, point-and-drool interfaces to work on. Adminning is simpler on Windows.
Having said all that, I probably sound pretty pro-Microsoft. I promise, I'm not. But these are all considerable strengths the free software movement doesn't have. If we really want to take on the world, we can't kid ourselves, here. Free software and Linux are still lacking in a lot of places. There are still gaps to be filled and foundations to be shored up. But these are the darn good reasons for which many companies steadfastly refuse to give up Windows. These, and the fact that they can't afford the expertise it takes to admin a real system.
--what?
there are exploits just waiting to happen.
They break encapsulation in the worst way possible and are probably the major source of buffer overrun entry points.
How could anybody be that stupid? A language FEATURE that just spells disaster.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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.
... I'd say, "What's Linux?"
- Tom L
win.com kernel32.dll [insert name of other windows files here] *AND NOW THE SPECIAL OPEN SOURCE VERSION ALSO HAS... sol.c winmine.c
Continuing with the O.T.:
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing
I thought you were reacting to Kiwi bashing.
Sigged!
Really, there is nothing big here. This is a PR move that is meant to reduce the effect of those who want to see Microsoft source code.
By doing this, they don't appease the people who read Slashdot and know C++. They appease John Doe who only heard about source code from the antitrust trial. By saying that some government organizations can view the code, they can ensure that the opening of source code will not be an issue for some time.
It seems as if Microsoft is getting ready for another major expansion - with the trial dead, PR moves like these, and a bunch of new products in the wings (the video iPod-style media player, etc.), it's almost ready.
MS is doing what they always do - Embrace and extend. The difference here is that they don't do it on a technologial level, but on a idea/conceptual level - they try to embrace the "idea" of OSS.
All your base are belong to us!
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
Is that supposed to be improved security? There is no guarantee for participating countries that the reviewed code matches the acutal Windows binaries completely! (Is there even the possibility to check whatever they want?)
Government officials cannot browse the whole code base by themselves but must work with Microsoft's engineers in Redmond. And even if they could. If one does not have the possibility to compile his own Windows package out of the COMPLETE and verifiable source, there is always room for security leaks not detectable by governments.
So what's the big deal about this. Can a government be that blind? :)
O.k. stupid question..
So, all of this anti-Linux propaganda that Microsoft were printing as advertisements in German magazines (as far as I remember) which stated that Linux was dangerous and insecure due to open source... ...Microsoft is going to pretend that they never said any of that? Obviously opening part of their sources to certain bodies isn't the same as true open source, but clearly they're beginning to encourage that sort of thing a little more from now on. Maybe Bill Gates shouldn't spend so much time shitting on a rock that he's about to sit on.
And for the sake of your economy too. Instead of sending tons of cash back to the States, pay your local people to work with your Open Source Systems....
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Rest of the World: we don't care what you think
And that is exactly why you have a large hole where the Twin Towers used to be...
I am starting to wonder if americans even know what liberalism IS. I am under the impression that if you're not an ultraconservative christian fundamentalist, then you're a liberal. This is obviously not true. However it IS true that if you're a liberal, you're a liberal. And yes, you DO care what the rest of the world thinks, or else you wouldn't butt into the rest of the world's affairs all the time. And after doing so, you always find yourselves surprised to learn that a lot of people in the rest of the world aren't exactly in love with you or your policies.
bius sig file. This is a moebius sig file. This is a moe
It is interesting that they are going to give governments the ability to plug in their own security/encryption. That is for government deployments only, right? Because if my government starts putting spyware in an OS that I'm for some reason required to use, then using a debugger and disassembler should be allowed under the same premises as the right to bear arms, no?
Also, if I were a non-us government, why should I care that MS will show me 'some peices' of the code? That's akin to only letting the UN inspectors see 'some facilities' that might be used to build nuclear devices.
Openness is like pregnancy. You can't be a little of either.
-guvna g
All in the name of freedom of speech, I suppose?
We need to analyze this move from MS. Many goverments want to be sure there is no backdoors or time bombs hidden in the OS (for the sake of national security), and they are beginning to look toward Linux.
So MS needs to counterattack and it offers some access (read only) to the source and customization of encryptation. But if they want the goverments to forget Linux, they will need to disclose ALL the code, because a back door could be hidden anywhere.
No matter if the goverments sign an NDA, some information about the source code is going to slip outside. Specially the premium and hidden APIs that MS uses to have an advantage against the competition in the applications business. That APIs allows MS to get better features and integration months before the competition can catch up. But if they begin this program, they can say goodbye to one of their main (unfair??) advantages in the application business.
Well, it is better for MS to lose only part of the applications business than both OS and application segments.
okay let sgive some examples:
Universities mid 1970s through 1980s could not teach unix because of unix licensing bullshit..thus instead fo cs majors knowing the power and security features of unix when coding new OSes did something unsecure and mind numb such as VMS and windows and winNT!
Example two:
Security professionals have claimed for ten years that the most secure OSes are those whose cyrpto functions and code are up for open full review and modification.. guess which OSes fail this requirement? Notice tha tjus t opening the code to view with an NDA from hell does not deal with the problem.. its a PR smoke screen
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I mean, you have MS who is probably concerned that they are gonna lose out on all these deals to Linux because they don't show their source code, which governments may one day have as a requirement for goverment software. The government really isn't interested in compiling and fixing bugs, I wouldn't think.
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
where did you get this info? Not saying it's wrong, just that I've only heard otherwise.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Windows 3.11 ?
i hope to god those goverment bureaucrats remember to specify the right version of windows...
If a government is going to spend enough money to see that Windows is secure for them, why not just secure a free OS? You get the double hit of developing the software and then paying licence fees. If governments would spend just half of their security money on free software they would save millions in licencing fees, plus cut down the number of wirefraud prosecutions for unsecure businesses.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
and everything should be okay. Microsoft must learn that there are better things in this world than "winning" and "crushing their enemies with an iron heel." Give the software community to revolt (not necessarilt violently, although that might be fun) and take back what is rightfully theirs - and, collectively, ours - innovation.
It's like in Really Decadent Guys:
Minister of Procurement: We just killed that guy! You can't just go around killing people for no reason!
Minister of Philosophy: We have a perfectly good reason to kill him. He was evil.
Minister of Procurement: How can you know he was evil?
Minister of Philosophy: Well, he had knowledge we needed. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Q.E.D
It will happen, eventually. I hope. Will stop typing since I don't make any sense.
1) I've never had to check for dependencies on Linux. Even if I don't use apt/emerge/rpms all gcc requirements are pretty fulfilled by any machine that's capable of running the 2.4.x kernel.
2) I turn my machine on, and it stays stable. No rebooting unless I add something funky to the kernel. I didn't have to configure my xserver other than typing in 'nvidia' when installing debian. And I'd guess the same of all the graphically oriented distributions. I've never had to become root to use unprivaleged ports. I set my groups up properly.
3) Linux is well supported. I can run tons of free software 'emerge world -p' might give you a nice list of some of it. I can browse the web and see flash too, don't understand why you can't. I can look at any kind of media too. Tell me something that mplayer can't play?
4) Windows is not the only viable platform for gaming. The only way in which Linux is inferior is in the quantity of games. I have found that all commercial games which have ports run at least as well on my machine (yes I do use nvidia hardware).
5) If admining on Windows is so much simpler, then why did that microsoft research show that it wasn't? I haven't ever managed a coporate network, but the unix style user management has always seemed good to me. It seems to me to make user management work on windows you need something like netware (spit).
I believe you're not pro-microsoft, but don't say things like that which you obviously don't really believe. I run all major operating systems anyway, except BSD I guess. But that's pretty damn similar to Linux to the end user really.
"they also want to use an operating system that does not suck ass. So Linux is out for them, you see."
Do you lack the intelligence needed for responding w/ a valid argument or are you just one of the sheep who hasn't what it takes to learn anything that doesn't have a collection of '...for dummies' books.
I would have posted anonymously too.
How long before you can search for Microsoft on Kazaa and download the code to XP?
mmmmmm p2p.
Now that 10+ countries have access to the code base, and the public and private sector don't, it is likely that those countries will have knowledge of vulnerabilities that the public has no way of discovering or protecting itself against. Why would I want to run such an operating system, particularly if I am an organization that may be targeted for economic or other espionage? In particular, why would other governments want to run this operating system?
China will be given access to the code base, but so won't India. Just because China has access to the code base, there is no reason for China to believe that they will be able to discover every vulnerability that India has discovered. So I also find it also questionable that countries with access to the code base can have increased confidence in the code base.
The source to a Windows module isn't open until you can edit it, compile it, and produce an object file that could be loaded into a running system, or booted as the running system.
Until then, it's a disservice to OSS to acquiesce and call what Microsoft is doing "opening their source" even if that's what they call it.
Edith Keeler Must Die
If a significant (more than one) number of people in the Russian government gets access to the Windows code, then, knowing the mentality of people in the country, I can assure you that you'll be able to buy CDs with the source code for 5 bucks anywhere in Moscow within a few weeks, and will also be able to download the code from all the file-sharing networks.
>Microsoft working with the US government is a scary thing based on their previous "working with" >agreements.
>1. Microsoft Works with US Government
>2. Microsoft steals all ideas US Government has developed
>3. Microsoft claims ownership in work that it steals from the US Government.
>4. US Government goes bankrupt trying to fight Microsoft in court.
>5. Microsoft buys US Government
>6. Microsoft becomes the leader of the United States.
>7. Profit
>Anyone else see this as a bad thing?
There is a serious problem with #4.
The government can always seize all the assets for said company. Not to mention the GNP is a little more than a piddly $40 billion.
#5 already happens, but they have to compete with all the other companies try to buy the Govt. It's called campaign contributions.
#6 becomes invalid based on #4 and #5
#7 This one is still good... if you can call M$ profits good.
Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
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
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
I mean, once Microsoft has its paws in every computer on earth, I think they'de start trying to convert the linux people over by giving them at least a tiny piece of what they are used to, and besides, once they've got the chip in your computer, the OS could be open source by then, you'de just be charged for the os when you bought your processor or motherboard. All I'm saying is watch out before everyone jumps on this band wagon, it may be too late to jump off...
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
If the value of open source is the fact that you
can see the code and know what its doing, will
anyone who audits the windows code actually want
to use it, knowing that (most likely) full compatibility and better coding (based on windows system behavior) is offered in free software?
If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
There are actually many unwinnable FreeCell hands, and as far as I can tell they're all negatively numbered games - try loading game # -1, for instance.
Easy enough to prove there's an unwinnable game - #-1 just cannot be done.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
http://www.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?T=marketsquote9 9_news.ht&s=APiS2FRI1TWljcm9z
That's the current link, I believe.
No excellent soul is exempt from a mixture of madness. --Aristotle
An example of Microsoft's shared source is their release of the .NET CLI.
.NET Virtual Machine. This is quite a big deal when you think about it as it is the base of most future windows development, providing a zero compile bridge between Win32 and Win64 OS and other platforms.
The CLI is the code for the