Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Opens Source to China
angst7 writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft has signed an agreement which would allow the Chinese government access to Windows source code. This is part of an effort to curb the shift toward Linux in China due to that country's concerns regarding the security of closed source software." Reader NZheretic points out that less than a year ago, Jim Allchin swore under oath that disclosing the Windows operating system source code could damage national security.
I have heard people discuss this and say something like "Oh boy, I wonder if the code will be leaked and we can be free to modify windows! Yaaaay!" Not. Who would want to modify windows? I mean, you can make workarounds for problems that exist already without having source. If you want a fully modifiable OS, why don't you just go with Linux?
if the Chinese can't recreate the shipping binaries from the source that MS shows them? The last time the question came up (the Caldera suit) Microsoft finally had to admit that even they couldn't reproduce the distribution binaries from source.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
can they type: ../configure;make windows;make install?
If not -- then how do they know that the code they are looking at is the same version that goes into the build on their desktops?
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Just curiously... if all the linux users care about is open source, wouldn't the functionality of windows compared to linux IN SOME ASPECTS cause a flux of *nix users to use windows if they could fiddle with it as they liked? I mean besides server issues, windows is the way to go if your computer is really just a PC.
When he swore under oath that opening the source for Windows would be a threat to national security, I completely agreed. The number of security holes in Windows with the source remaining closed was bad enough. Now China gets to see the source, and we don't? Wouldn't that put them at an advantage over US companies that can't audit the code for security holes?
No, it would compromise security if the vagrant open-source developers saw the Win32 source code. China, on the other hand, certainly isn't a threat.
Just replace "national security" with "microsoft security", and things make sense.
--
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
They often releases it to schools with various NDA's, as well as businesses under various agreements, but that's usually for educational or development reasons.
The deal with China seems to be a combination of PR and sales, rather than education and development.
frob.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
I cant wait to put my hands on that baby, i know, is an ugly one but would be very intersting to look the sources. This make me wonder, with all the security issues that Windows has isnt a bit dangerous to give the source to only one country who could find several bugs and holes by looking at the codes?, isnt it scary?, say bye-bye to Windows on sensitive servers.
Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
Unless the ability to compile the source and run the resulting binaries is there, this is a meaningless gesture as there is absolutely no way of knowing whether a given version of the OS matches up with the allegedly corresponding source.
I wonder if China and other governments will be tobuilding their own binaries and install CD's...?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Just because you un-weld the hood of the car doesn't mean you can make that outdated-15-HP-two-cylinder-powered-pinto-with-squ are-wheels run any better. The *nix communities will not be hurt in any way from this. We started out a step ahead of the game and we will always be one step ahead in the future.
Just my $0.02 cents.
...security goes out the window. (no puns actually intended).
The almighty dollar means more than anything to a corporation after all. Laws, security, morals - whatever - have nothing to do with how a corporation acts, unless it will affect profit.
BlackNova Traders
Actually, I'd be more worried about a treason investigation. If releasing the code actually does damage to national security, and they don't have the blessing of the state (so to speak), then considering the relations of China and US as of late. This would be a very serious concern.
~ kjrose
But maybe it would damage national security. To say it's perjury, you have to prove he was not telling the truth. How does this prove he wan't telling the truth?
This is the perfect opportunity to demand that the US Gov't remove all MS products from their systems and switch over to open-source equivalents!
Microsoft can no longer argue that it's safe and secure, or they'd be purguring themselves!
Oh what a tanlged web we weave... eh Microsoft?
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Either treason or perjury has occured. Long-hair Linux hipies would go to jail for such action, but bribe^H^H^H^H^Hcampain fund producers like MS will not suffer at all. Welcome to America...
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
From an Infoworld article on the subject:
"Governments signing up to the security program will be able to build systems that offer the high levels of security required for national security, Microsoft has said. However, government users will not be allowed to make modifications to the code or compile the source code into Windows programs themselves, according to Microsoft."
Yeah, real 'open'.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
That would assume microsoft has anything novel in their software to begin with. Their "value-added" pieces are simply specialized (read:bundled) versions of already commoditized software.
You think anyone really wants to slop through IE code to replace the Opera rendering engine? The original request to make competing companies on par with the MS development. So for example, if you simply cannot get the performance you want out of your TCP/IP stack, you wade through MS's to find their undocumented kernel calls. Or, it lets you learn how to hook your own WM into the system instead of the Explorer WM, but only after you finish trying their published methods. It's on a case-by-case basis, and its certainly harder to read than their documentation, no matter how sparse.
The only thing I'd want to know about their code is examples of published APIs. Even then, I've not run into too many problems in the latest platforms. Microsoft is not an big innovator IMO, they simply tightly integrate their ever-growing OS functions for personal computer "simplicity of management".
mug
Because of course, having "Hacked by Chinese" means of course that the chinese must have done it. :)
and US chinese relations haven't been all that bad actually.
There are lives at stake here!
I recall there was a story maybe a year ago about the chinese government and military investing heavily through their universities to develop a chinese made "clone"/reverse engeening of "Win95". Hmm..it seems this work will suddenly become much simpler for them, as well as being able to move up the food chain. Will they have a NT clone before ReactOS? :). And in a country where IP laws are what the leadership choose to decide they are in any given year, well, wouldn't it be a shame if the chinese choose one day simply not to recognize software copyrights or patents, after the fact? :)
so you can see the source. big deal. when i can compile my own windows, then big deal
The first organization to purchase the government-aimed package of M$ sourcecode was the electronic warfare division of FSB (former KGB) of Russia. Go figure...
It'll probably be able to be gzipped with a ~10:1 ratio, so as long as the total source code is not more than about 7.0 gigs, it should fit just fine, gzipped, on a CD.
.TEN foot pole ;-)
And it wouldn't surprise me if, if it will indeed be available, it'd "leak out" somehow.
My advice to Open Source developers, and especially the Samba team: don't touch it with a
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
I've said it before, we're about to discover that "open source" was a mistake, the battle of the words is important, and we should give it a lot more thought.
I realize that "Free Software" is not much better, but for those of use speaking Real Languages[tm], which is making the distinction between beer and speech clear, abandoning "Open Source" is, I think, a good idea.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
If, theoretically, the USG saw all the source code, couldn't citizens then solicit that same information (the source code) under the Freedom of Information Act?
I mean-- it comes down to the core issue of privacy-- the gov't would have to prove that it has no unfair advantage that could impede my 4th Amendment rights vis a vis the M$ software.
Or-- it could prove to be collusion between a private entity and the state, also illegal in the US, and I would think most of Europe...
davejenkins.com |
This isn't quite right. Trade secrets are just that - secrets. They are secrets that the company elects to protect by not publishing. However, if those secrets are discovered by someone else, or somehow otherwise made public, you have just lost any rights you may have had. The alternative is to patent them, in which case you gain limited protection (time frame, licensing fees, ect) but have just told the entire world how to do it, step by step. And not every country recognizes the same patent law. There have been recent medical cases where S American countries have broken pharma patents to provide cheap, effective medicine to it's people.
About $25 million.
So, only a few minutes of income for Microsoft.
YOUR FACTS ARE INCOORECT!
M$ lies (under oath) about security problems with OpenSource, due to its "open" nature.
M$ has FAR more security problems than OpenSource.
Countries (often those who hack into M$ computers) want the source opened, or else, so M$ complies....
M$ won't open their source to the public, who needs knowledge and a defense against those attacks.
Ergo, M$ opens the source to the wrong people, instead of the right ones. This is the difference between the "black hats" and the "white hats."
OpenSource realizes that BOTH can see their source, so the "white hats" patch the holes in anticipation of problems. M$ does not....
For this to be of any use, they'd need to open all of the Windows source to China's government. Who knows what they might be hiding inthe bits they've not opened.
Follow me
But will they be allowed to make changes and recompile their own patched or enhanced versions?
If not, then Microsoft has completely missed the point of what Open Source software is all about. It's not just about allaying fears about that is in your code. It is the freedom to(pretty much) do what ever the hell you want to with it!
"People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
- Gov. Jesse Ventura
less than a year ago, Jim Allchin swore under oath that disclosing the Windows operating system source code could damage national security.
And aparrently, not disclosing the Windows source hurts M$'s bottom line. Guess we all know now where their priorities are (not that this surprises anyone). Wonder if we should start organizing anti-MS protests among vehement pro-American groups?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." --Groucho Marx
> Now China gets to see the source, and we don't? Wouldn't that put them at an advantage over US companies that can't audit the code for security holes?
;-)
Do you know how many US (and non US) companies have the Windows source code now? Do you know how many US (and non US) companies sign strategic (and not so strategic) cross licensing contracts with Microsoft (and some of them include full source code disclosure) every year?
Try the news or ask some universitys CS department how (not) hard it is to get the source from Microsoft.
So the question why "you" -- i assume you are an US citizen -- will not see the Windows source code is missing the point. You will not until someone posts it somewhere -- nor will the average chinese geek/forum addict/slashdot troll.
b.t.w. greetings from _OLD_ europe