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.
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.
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
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
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.
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).
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...
Oh yeah. I would definately leak the source code for Windows if I used to work for Micro$oft. That's just the kind of thing I want to do. Annoy the richest guy on earth who just happens to sell software that's running on the majority of desktop/laptop computers on the planet earth. I cannot even begin to imagine the Easter Eggs, hidden registry keys, and other jokes at my expense would be included into the source code! Hell, if I was Bill, I wouldn't even prosecute the guy, I would just haunt him on the majority of desktops for the rest of his life! Using Windows Update as a form of revenge would be the ultimate payback. The next patch could have your name on it. I would hire legions of detectives and investigators to search the Internet for any reference to my name and order programmers to include personalized glitches and other nasty surprises in my operating system. Crush all resistance! Sometimes, I wonder if that's what Gate has done and that's why Windows crashes all the time. Not that I blame him for it though... It was a really, really good idea. I like it a lot and completely respect him for it.
Webmaster Wanted - Entropic Reactions
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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); }
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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
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
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.