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?
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.
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'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 |
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....