Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Expands Access to Windows Source Code
Brain Stew writes "According to eWeek, MVPs living within thecountries that have signed up with Microsoft's
Windows Source code program can now see it for free (limited source code of course). 'Microsoft Corp. has expanded the Source Licensing Program under which its Most
Valued Professionals get access to the source code for the Windows operating
system. The Redmond, Wash., company said on Monday that all the MVPs within
the Microsoft platforms community and living within the 27 eligible countries
worldwide will now be able to access Windows source code at no cost. '"
It's pretty clear in my mind that by handing select portions of the source code to "most valuble professionals" that microsoft merely wants to go through the motions of open source, while not being open at all.
And, certainly, this is their right, since it is their source code. However, I don't see many people outside of their "MVP" community (which is who? people stuck working on windows device drivers?) really being interested in doing their busy work for them. And for this reason, because of being unwilling to fully relinquish control, they are going to find themselves unable to fully benefit from openness.
In contrast, IBM fully understands what open source is all about, and manages to deal with the concept in an intelligent manner, instead of trying to make compromises and deal with half measures.
If open source manages to become a signifigant methodology in tomorrow's IT world, IBM seems better equipped to benefit from it, whereas Microsoft is unwilling to do what it takes to prevent sliding off into irrelevence.
However, the problem remains that they really need many more eyes to fix Windows, if that's possible.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
I'm going to recompile Windows optimized for my hardware! It'll blow every other Windows away.
I thought this was already happenning on Kazaa?
10....
9...
8..
Seriously, do you want to be contaminated by having seen Microsofts' source? Always wondering when you'll end up being named in a lawsuit because you may have incorporated some of their worthless IP in a project you're working on?
It could make you unemployable in the future.
um...maybe they are trying to get the "community" to clean up their code now.
I don't trust Microsoft as far as I can kick them. People get all hot and bothered about looking at Java or Solaris code. They claim that Sun will turn around and prosecute them for "stealing" Sun trade secrets. Yet to my knowledge, Sun has NEVER prosecuted a customer. Microsoft OTOH, keeps the BSA guard dog around, and sicks them on anyone who *might* be guilty of not paying Microsoft their protection money^W^W taxes.
I know who's source code I'd rather be looking at.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Let's see if I recall things right from earlier discussions:
This is bad because
a) It's about Microsoft
b) The license handed out is way too restrictive
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
...which means I'm hoping for a leak. Oh, how the buggy code will entertain me...
Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
Yeah i still have the source code released a while ago in a nice little zip in my emule shared folder.
Why do they want to show people the source? Source code is of absolutely no use when you are entered into a non-diclosure agreement with The Beast, they aren't interested in changes or improvements. The code cannot be used in any other project...
The headaches and how dirty you feel afterwards.
It would be funny if you managed to find the comments from OS projects or Apple. :-)
Do they get to compile it and run it, or do they have to take Microsoft's word that the binaries that they are running were built from the source that they are seeing?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
"living within the 27 eligible countries worldwide"
Is Texas one of those countries?
http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1145&aid= -1
If developers want to be sure that the "source" code they're looking at is the actual code their own app calls, can they compile it and link it to the still-secret Microsoft code, then run the whole thing in a debugger?
It's an open secret that Microsoft's own apps, notably SQL-Server, call a "secret Windows API" that isn't documented. That API is said to be faster to code for (time to market) and execute at runtime (performance), giving Microsoft apps advantages in competing with their rivals. Is there a way to use this new code access to discover whether Microsoft apps are calling a "shadow" API, rather than the code made public?
--
make install -not war
"It's a trick. Get an axe."
While at first glance this may seem like a good thing (at least for MS), i'm left wondering whether it will actually do any good...the MVPs who gain this access seem to be part of a rather closed community, being voted to their status by a bunch of people from other peer microsoft communities/groups.
d =fh;EN-US;mvpfaqs
/.?
Take a look at the MVP FAQ: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?sci
Although some might say that sharing the code out, even among a closed community, might conceivably lead to improvements, from MS's track record with their multifarious products (some of which had oodles of people involved), there is no palpable confidence (at least in my mind) that it will get any better.
And in any case, even though microsoft shares the code out to the MVPs, there is nothing in the article that states that the MVPs will be allowed to modify the code...rather, the article explicitly states that they will "help" the developers. So even if some sagacious MVP does somehow manage to make a tiny improvement (unlikely, i know, but let's just suppose it for the sake of argument), wanna bet that he'd probably have to move heaven and earth to get someone who counts at MS to recognize this?
Also, as someon posted earlier, there is a good chance of the code getting leaked, even if MS uses the strongarm tactics that it is capable of to get the leaks plugged as fast as possible. What would happen then would be anyone's guess...
Anyway, here a link to the Windows 2000 source code http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/source.php. (if it's been already posted elsewhere on this site, beg pardon, i did indeed search, so my search skills are lacking...)
Wow, just as i hit SUBMIT earlier slashdot went down...is the big M already guuning for
how about Microsoft try open standards first.
As someone who works for MS in their Mac business unit (that's why I'm anon). I'd like to point out that they're gradually increasing the exposure to selected parts of the Windows source code to people in other departments - us in the Mac unit have had access to the source code for 4 months now, but there's not enough code to compile a working system so it is only of use if you're interested in how certain sections of the OS work (if they happen to be released). So, even as an MS employee we can't get our hands on the whole thing.
Because the source code is not complete and Windows is implemented a lot differently to Linux and MacOS X then some of us in the Mac business unit believe that they'd not care if the source was leaked - in fact a couple of us (me not included) think they actually want this to happen. In a way it makes sense - I mean if a wine developer seen some of the Windows source code (or even *suspected* of seeing it) then MS, in theory, could tie them up for ages with legal action. Personally, I think they'd have to be a lot more desperate to do that as it'd generate a lot of bad publicity for them. So I don't think they'd sue just develop a lot of negative spin around the fact open source people steal other peoples code and ideas.
So, to be safe, anyone who doesn't work at MS should resist the temptation to look at the code even if you're doing so legally. Of course, it's easy for them to point their fingers at open source contributors, but it's harder to track down stolen code in closed source software. I can't say if any GPL code theft goes on at MS (officially we're all warned against it and us Mac developers pride ourselves on writing good quality original code), but it'd be so easy for a lazy programmer to steal some code from Mozilla or Apache and of course we're all free to persue the open code to get ideas from.
Speaking of web browsers we used to have the best web browser for MacOS at one time, until management killed the project (officially the rendering engine is in maintenence mode to support MSN for MacOSX - but there's been little improvments). Personally I use Camino but most in my unit use Safari. Of the people outside my unit most use Firefox under Windows, there's not that many people keen on IE so Firefox has taken a hold here, there's still many people who still use IE here because of loyalty to their employer but we're not officially banned from using alternative browsers so many of us do.
I've actually met a few of the WinIE developers, don't blame them for the stagnant product, until Firefox hit the radar then most of the team were placed on alternative projects. Personally I think they've got their work cut out, IE needs a total rewrite, its last major rewrite was for version 4 - with some of the code dating back even further (check the about box if you run windows).
.... most valuable players?
How about, if an OS project is similar enough to an MS one, then Microsoft can claim that the OS project stole it's IP. Further on, they could then go on to claim that Open Source tempts infringement blah blah blah.
I mean, come on, MS is going through motions of opening source code because of demand, but actively mounting a huge FUD campaign against OS in general.
if you want the freedom to do whatever you want don't sign anything that allows you to see source code for free. It will stop you from being able to do anything you want with GPLed software.
Microsoft will use this to hurt the OSS community as they are seeing that SCO and others aren't as effective as they would like.
And how long will it be before we see these few hundred lines of sourcecode show up on Kazaa or whatever. Not that it matters. The sourcecode is probably nothing more than some general GUI stuff.
Authorities are puzzled when software developers in 27 different nations are found stark raving mad, having clawed their eyeballs out.
Got this too. What's Up?
Or am I the only one who read the headline as:
Microsoft Expands Access with Windows Source Code...
I was thinking, "OK, as if Access wasn't already bloated enough, they're going to build their OS into it?"
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
IBM has made it clear, in my mind at least, that where they embrace free source software, they do so because they don't have to maintain it, that it levels the playing field and makes their fancy service the important part, that customers are not locked into them and they are not locked into proprietary software maintenance.
That pretty much sums up why I like free source software. I can hack it if I want, or pay someone else to hack it, I get updates free from everybody else working on it, and I don't get locked into proprietary schemes which may or may not go out of business or change their update policies. My data will always be accessible to me, because the programs that access it are free source, and I can look at them and change them any way I want, any time I want, now and forever.
Infuriate left and right
Now microsoft can claim that your code is contaminated with theirs. No way would I take that risk with Microsoft.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Well WHOOPADEEDO!
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
And what does the MVP [1] cost [2]? I mean in dollars/euro/whatever, I am aware of the mortal soul thing.
[1] Is this really one of their TLA-named programs? Ya' gotta' be kidding me. Moronic shit like this really, really, *really*, makes me glad I don't have to deal with their tripe.
[2] Not to even bring up the whole issue of 'value'.
Ads are broken.
They aren't developing this kernel anymore, rigt? So release it to the world and let OSS developers have fun with it. Who knows? Perhaps we'll be able to improve things beyond what Microsoft did and perhaps we'd even release an OS built around it. I, personally, would love to play with it..
What is your penile percentile?
Now MVPs *start* to enjoy the access to source code,but where they will *end* in their quest for source code?
In addition to all the other great points people are making, it's clear that Microsoft is doing this as part of a FUD campaign. People will mistake this for open source. Clearly, it's not, since free software and open source licenses are generally about making sure that anyone has access to the source code and use of the software, not just a select few under terms that makes sure it stays that way.
I sort of get the feeling that Microsoft is releasing source code to some so that they could eventually attempt to do what SCO is doing. UNIX may have no trade secrets left, but Windows certainly does.
1. Share Source to people who won't help you for free.
2. ?????
3. Profit!
"within the 27 eligible countries worldwide "
That is 28 if you count eDonkey as a country.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Actually, no. I don't think the solution is to have a handful of experienced eyes - I am sure there are Windows programmers who are pretty top-notch. What is essential is having the power and ability to FIX problems. I am sure that MS is like most places, where the project ships with bugs. After that, someone else maintains the code and the original person moves on to more exciting things. Or there is no time to fix all that "security" stuff. Or their hands are tied because in order to fix that "security stuff" they would have to break some kind of whiz-bang lock-in interoperability. Or any of a thousand other reasons.
In OSS code, if it doesn't get fixed it is because the owner is lazy, or because the fix isn't deemed good enough, or it isn't seen as a high-priority. Or any of a thousand other reasons.
The more eyes you have on the product, the more likely you are to find problems. Experts will find the "expert" problems in architecture and whatnot, and the "user" eyes will find all kinds of things that the experts might not care about.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
For those wondering, "MVP" is a title bestowed by Microsoft basically to people who help out others in the microsoft.* newsgroups and such. You can find a webpage of a couple of these peope at http://www.mvps.org/.
These aren't Microsoft partner companies or licensee developers by definition, an MVP can well be just some pimply 13 year old that happens to now a whole lot about IIS and shares it with others. As you'd expect there's a lot of emphasis on getting Microsoft applications to work, arcane Internet Explorer settings, scripting, that sort of thing.
These people, for the most part, aren't kernel hackers. If they were, they'd be busy hacking away at *BSD or linux, not figuring out VBA stuff in Excel.
It's hard to see how this will benefit Microsoft directly, in the way of open-ish source. It's not like an elite squad of kernel hackers will be pouring over the source code to find race conditions in inter process communications or something like that. Though perhaps it will help MVPs to explain to others what suitably vague-enough error messages actually mean by looking at the source code that produced it.
(I'm no kernel hacker myself by a long shot, and given the source code to windows I'd.. well.. shrug, I suppose).
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Why wouldn't this be proferred to those with MCSE credentials or MSDN subscriptions -- y'know, those guys who pay to know all this stuff?
One of the wonders of closed and proprietary code is that you have the freedom to change certain things with impunity. All of the code that they release will be essentially frozed with all of the bugs in place. One of the very things that has kept MS afloat all this time is the painful process of maintinaing (mostly) adequate backwards compatibility. This has lead to much of the bloat and kruft that is within windows today. It takes much longer to make a breaking change to code that others may be depending on. When you make that code visible, you can almost guarantee that there will be dependencies created.
As seen on Wired: Get a free desktop PC
This needs major legal review. It may be necessary that contributors to GPLd code sign a statement that "I have not now nor have I ever been a licensee of proprietary Microsoft source code."
by allowing access to the # sign.
In contrast, IBM fully understands what open source is all about ...
IBM, like Apple, understands open source. It is a vehicle to sell their hardware. In contrast, Microsoft is a software company.
I get really really fucked off with Microsoft's position on it's source code. It has no logic really.
Why not let people look at it? If you are prepared to let 'some' people look then the cat is already out of the bag (what cat?).
I've been working with Windows for 10 years odd now and there has been many occasions where access to the code would have saved me time and effort. But because I'm not in one of the select group of people deemed worthy I get no access.
What do I do? I go to the wine source and see what they do. It's pathetic when your customers have to go to your competitor to use your product.
Of course, I now have the Win2K source, which is very helpful. And has the world ended because of it?
Wake up Steve, remember 'Developers, Developers, Developers!'
I'll bet a coffee (it's all I can afford) this 'release' is customized to reflect whatever MS wants to communicate to the world.
Chances that this is what actually gets compiled into the product are nil.
Sounds like the only way these legal issues are going to get solved is if someone invents open source lawyers.
But seriously, even if Microsoft does find a way to benefit from this and future open source rulings (as it undoubtably will) I don't think its tactics will be quite as openly severe as is suggested. Even if for no other reason, it has a reputation to protect, and a mass increase in lawsuits is bound to call more attention from the rest of the world than the scattering of injust rulings we've seen so far.
One of the few good things about closed source is that if a vendor wants third-party developers to write to its closed-source OS, it is beneficial to the vendor to create and make available well-written, accurate, complete, up-to-date documentation.
Admittedly Microsoft's documentation for developers has been going downhill lately, along with almost everyone else's. The physical volumes became CD's which became help-system files which became scraps of sample code. In order to develop to the Windows SCSI API, it is necessary to use guesswork, intuition, trial-and-error, and the assistance of the Windows community's "tribal knowledge." The PC community has long been used to using magazine articles and "Undocumented WIndows" books as sources of information.
But it is now about to get worse. I potentially foresee a situation where favored developers have access to source code, and documentation will decline to the point where it is difficult or impossible for non-favored developers to work in any development environment but VB.
In the Apple world, documentation was absolutely superb from about 1983 to about 2000 and underwent a precipitous decline with the advent of Darwin-based OS X. (A noticeable portion of the official documentation seems to have been generated automatically from header files!) I don't think this is a coincidence.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Looks like MS has tired of making people laugh with their ridiculous FUD-mongering myth about their closed codebase somehow having some security advantage.
That ruse didn't survive long!
i've been getting this and extremely poor performance ever since their "upgrade" ... it seems they downgraded on accident
We don' NEED no stinkin' comments! Heh, heh, heh...
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
How was this "secret" API call discovered since people don't have the source code to SQL Server.
The same way vulnerabilities or hidden features are discovered without the source code: you can always look at the disassembly, and there are plenty of powerful code analysis tools that don't need (or benefit) from the source code.
I think they're leeching the servers and installing all the good computer parts in their to-be Doom III boxen.
"Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
Wow, the last 3 stories all seemed to have come out of the Twilight Zone. Microsoft releases source, IPv6, and Doom 3 requirements. What next, a Duke Nukem Forever gone gold story?
OMG.
This is the ulterior motive of Microsoft's partial source release is to pull another SCO-styled lawsuit in a few years (or months).
Who needs another SCO with a bigger bankroll?
Don't even click-approve their EULA when getting their source.
So tell me again what the advantages of Proprietary sofware are over open source? I thought the whole point was to keep it secret for security.
-Will they show -all- the source code ? ...I mean : including the backdoors ?
-Will it be possible to check that the source code provided is indeed the -real- source code ( by recompilation and verification that the resulting files are identical to those on the installation media ?
this isn't about making the OSS community happy, it's about assuring countries considering Microsoft products there aren't any nasty surprises waiting in the code if relation go sour between them and the USA. Still, even with this, you've got to wonder what country in it's right mind would allow critical IT infrastructure to depend on a foreign power's more-or-less closed source software. Especially if that foreign company was just given a pass on breaking antitrust laws.
what about the billion other proprietary software sources they have viewed?
You want people to sign a disclaimer and do what? Send it to Billy the kid that released his daemon under the GPL?
And we've all got to wait for that patch because the guy that contributed it lives in Japan and Billy lives in the US and mail takes an awful long time?
me thinks there a WAY to many problems with a suggestion like that.
To Microsofties, who count their stock options and sip Starbuck lattes, MVPs are total saps.
It is obvious that MVPs are not the brightest of light bulbs. Microsoft is in no way endangered by showing them Windows source code - they may as well show the code to a bowl of goldfish.
Could be really important for the canned spaghetti industry.
I'm an MVP, and I've taken every opportunity I've gotten to speak up about MS practices, products, or technologies I don't like. I was given an MVP award despite this, and I have continued to do so after I got the award.
Why won't it work for Microsoft? Because someone on Slashdot arbitrarily said so?
Microsoft already shares its source with many education and government institutes, and Shared Source is a way for private companies to get in on it.
Yeah, IBM understands what OSS is all about, because it's all they had left after losing out to Microsoft. Of course they'd embrace it. IBM is as self-serving as any other company, and I find it highly amusing that people have forgiven all their past evils simply because they throw the word "Linux" around.
Get it through your skulls, guys. Source code is not a right. Microsoft can give it out however they want.
So I now have to sign up to see BSD source code?
-Nano.
Why wouldn't this be proferred to those with MCSE credentials or MSDN subscriptions -- y'know, those guys who pay to know all this stuff?
I'm a Microsoft MVP - I'm also an MCSE and have an MSDN Universal subscription ;-)
I've questioned WPA on Microsoft's campus in front of 600 other MVPs. My specific question was since WPA pretty much guarantees paid licenses and since the price of piracy was *already* built into Windows I asked whether MS was going to lower the price of Windows since sales on previously pirated copies of Windows were pure profit - development, marketing and distribution costs were factored into the price of Windows before WinXP ever came out.
I'm not going to dispute their interpretation of the EULA because they wrote the software and can license it any way they like.
And you're right - the quality of MVP answers varies widely, but if the MVP has any sense at all he'll STFU about stuff where his skills aren't strong - I know I've been corrected by both MVPs and newsgroup users a couple times in the past two or three years.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Yes, Microsoft has created an initiative whose sole purpose is to hopefully inject proprietary code into an OSS project somewhere down the line in order to sue them.
And people wonder why Slashdot is considered a poor source of fringe journalism.
I'm not sure if this is what the original poster was talking about, but he could be referring to the Windows Native API.
How was this "secret" API call discovered since people don't have the source code to SQL Server?
There are several very simple possibilities that anyone could figure out with the tools that ship with Windows itself. One way is dumpbin. dumpbin.exe can be used to dump a list of functions exported from a DLL. Another way is depends.exe, which list all functions called by a given binary, so you could confirm that sql server calls function X exported from DLL Y. Just because a function is not listed in a header doesn't mean it isn't exported from the DLL and usable.
Anyway, hope that answers some of your questions.
Different decade, same group animal behaviour....originally, it was the hardware people long ago (read minicomputers, mainframes) and basiclaly everybody else, that didn't know what to use a personal computer for (okay, you can't do much with 256 bytes, but it was early days), microsoft used the proprietairy software models to get to today, but they failed to notice that eventually when most people know how to program and pc's are really powerfull and an easy method of distribution (internet) exists, their business proprietary model now looks an aufully like the dynamic forces that put microsoft where it is today...most of these people who are sucessfull and reach the top and become the biggest sometimes don't realise that what got them there was circumstance and a lot of luck...the universe works by complex physics/chaos/dynamical systems, now MS is stuck in their old business model and is having peoblems, well lets move on to open source and mabey ms will be round in 20 years in another form, but I don't hope so..in the mean time, I'v got to buy a linux box and get away from my current win98se and avoid giving any $ to ms for xp stuff (I may have to use) and hope linux etc. can replace all ms products I may have to deal with in the future. It's like a friend of mine had to say, the computers os is just an os, it runs the computer, if ms made a good cheap os that was just os, they would still be okay, but they got greedy, never made any good os's and now they are paying the price, so open souce it is!
One wonders if there are so many hedges to source viewing to make sure no one who is used to looking at GPL'd source can participate; what is the probability that M$ code has "millions of lines" infringing on Linux?
-soup (GNUrd, Speaker to Machines) "Laugh at yourself- Why should everyone else have all the fun?" -Romanchek's 6th Ru
Shared Source WILL WORK for Microsoft.
Maybe you and I differ on our definition of "work". Or maybe we differ on our perception of Microsoft's future business model.
I'll just come out and predict it right now. Shared source will be a resounding success!
The more "free" Microsoft's code becomes, that is, the more widespread it becomes, the greater the danger to Open Source. Shared Source is a viral license. Once you see Shared Source, your brain is now irrevocably contaminated with the Shared Source virus. If you ever touch Open Source again, then some "IP secrets" must necessarily find their way into Open Source via. the patented "non literal copying" mechanism.
SCO is just Microsoft's first test case. Next time, or maybe on the thrid try, they'll get it right. Just like they have with their products. (Most real software businesses couldn't screw up so badly on the first three major releases and still be in business.)
Getting lots of people to "see" the Shared Source is a first step in this campaign. And this is not an adolescent favorite "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" game. This is "I'll show you mine if you sign right here and I keep a permanent record that you saw it".
The second step is to identify people on Open Source projects who have signed up for the "I'll show you mine" game of Shared Source. These people become the scapegoats for the non literal copying.
Finally, since Microsoft can already "see ours" then they just need to identify some plausible "non literal copying" that the scapegoats abscounded with and put into that communist^Wterrorist Open Source.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Ohh, pleeeeze!
Does anyone on '/.' really believe that MS
has not been using whatever means available
(FUD, SCO Group, IP patents) in order to
halt the spread of FOSS? AFAIK, anyone
who signs with the devil MS for access to
the source code for their crappy software
will be unemployable in the field, excepting
with MS. Regardless of how much BSD (or GNU/
Linux) code that MS has adopted as their own,
once it has "passed through the bowels of the
beast", it is forever tainted by them (and their
$50B legal slush fund).
IMHO, any coder that sets eyes on MS bloat-code
would have (effectively) signed a lifetime
non-compete with Microsoft. The same phrase I
would use for the crack dealers passing out free
samples on the corner to newbies applies here:
"Just say no!" (and quickly pass by, with eyes
averted...)
If you look at their code you open yourself to litigation.
they will say anything you code in the future you got the idea from looking at their code.
so beware and be very afraid - unless you have a lawyer as a friend.
The second page of the article states that
Microsoft have relased WiX under the CPl http://sourceforge.net/projects/wix/
so microsoft have opened the source quite a bit
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
...at MFC, the source shipped with Visual Studio for years.
;).) Sometimes end user features bury the desire for elegant (or even functional sometimes) architecture...
Ugly, ugly, ridiculously poor code documentation (if any), odd workarounds left-over from the days of WIN32s, 16-bit thunking days, et cetera...
Be GLAD that you don't have access to the Windows source, god forbid anyone should code that way (of course, there's plenty of Open Source Software that is just as ugly or worse
Loading...
OK, but we're talking about opening-up Software source code. Microsoft is a Software company. IBM does write plenty of software, mind you; but they are selling metal. If OS/2 had become the de facto standard and IBM was making $50 for every PC that shipped, you could bet that they'd be in Microsoft's shoes right now. I also believe that this is the real reason for the Xbox as Microsoft needs to become a hardware/OS platform. The first couple generations will be game consoles; but I believe the hope is to turn it into a closed platform for content delivery and everything else. Once Microsoft entrenches itself as the "digital hub," holy grail, et all, then it doesn't have to worry about it's operating systems market. Unfortunately for them, IBM's been at this business thing for quite some time; and even when it looks like they're on the road to destruction, they have the wherewithal to stay focused.
As it turns out, the turtle may win this race after all.
put the what in the where?
... when you can visit some russian hacker sites and download it there ? :-)
(And grab a copy of the Half Life 2 source with it
They'll find you..
Once you agree to the terms and view the code, potentially anything you write from then on can be considered 'tainted', and you leave youself open to being hit with a suit someday if you piss them off..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The source code is opened in order for MVPs, who are people who have been given that award for helping others, to help others more effectively. I'm an MVP, and I have access to the source code. It helps me figure out what is going on behind the scenes, and I can pass that knowledge on to those I am helping.
Of course, I can also submit bug reports when I find problems in the source code. Another benefit of being an MVP is that you have pretty much a direct line to Microsoft developers, and I've submitted multiple bug reports directly to them. Several bugs have been fixed because of it.
But no, it's not open source. I can't upload patches or compile my own versions of things. That's not what this is about, and they never claimed that it was.
At last, someone acturally gets its it. Now we know that slashdot isn't full of mindless, imature sheep.
Though they do sell some hardware, what IBM is really about is services. The secret that nobody else seems able to figure out about the benefit of using OSS is this - with other services or contracts, you produce the code and then when you are done that code all goes to the company you did the work for.
Using OSS, they can improve frameworks devoted to services, and also benefit from others working on said frameworks as well - making thier service work even more effective, a virtuious cycle.
I've seen some other consulting companies with thier own frameworks. But they've always been hack jobs, because they were no open and therefore had too few people to really do a good job on them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
for (i = [REDACTED]; i != [REDACTED]; i++)
{
[REDACTED]
continue;
}
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's like when you work in a company with internally built middleware to do something. You write an app that talks to said middleware and it fails. You check your code and it looks fine. So, you then check the middleware code and debug it through and voila! there's the bug.
I recently had a problem with a program interfacing with SQL Server. Checked everything over, all looked fine. In the end had to go through an MS checklist. Fortunately, I could resolve it (although the error was unhelpful in guiding me to the problem).
With OSS, you can debug it down, so if you are running and get a fault, you can do one of three things. Nothing, report it or analyse and report it with a resolution. If lots of people around the world are doing this, the quality will just keep going up.
In the MS world, you report a fault, and generally just get a workaround in if you can't really resolve it, or find another approach. Yeah, you can report it to them, but if they don't want to fix it, what are you to do?
In my IE on XP I just get a dark blue screen filling the rendering area.
i for one welcome our new open source....
oh nevermind
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
Windows source? Let the yawnfest begin.
even if you saw it it still wouldnt matter.
unless you have a photographic memory its not gonna be exact.
and unless you are trying to, you wont be able to remember enough, maybe an idea here and there, but do you know whats thats worth, ZERO.
there is no such thing as instant tainting just because you dare viewed some random bits of text.
...and any open source developer who looks upon the MS code becomes caugth between a rock and a hard place..... in simpler words "Becomes stone, unable to code open source."
At this time, I think it'd be best to point out that most positive numbers are greater than zero...
Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
...as many senior professionals as possible to make future IP lawsuits easier; assuming said professionals would work on Open Source or competing software.
Just my $0.02
err!
jak.
You can see here.
Basically it includes most EU countries and US/Canada.
Funny thing that Brazil is not considered much, despiste its official policy towards Free Software.
Freedom concerning software or source code and access to source code should not be confused. Allowing inspection of source code by those outside could be beneficial. However, there would be issues such as whether being able to see only parts of the source would be sufficient or whether the source provided for inspection was secretly altered (would the inspectors be able to actually try out the code personally? What exactly would they be allowed to do with the code?) Hopefully this would not lead to a false sense of security. One problem is that some individuals might feel bitter because only a few individuals outside the company received the privilege of inspecting the source code.
The Open Source Initiative company has talked about how problems could arise from a source-access program such as "Shared Source." Namely, these problems would be copyright and trade secret issues if developers viewed the proprietary source code and then produced competing software. It might be necessary to carefully keep track of who has accessed the provided source. They also mention that those inspecting the source code could end up serving as "free labor" for the company that produced the code.
For freedom, free software (free as in free speech) or open source software (under the OSI definition) would be a much better choice.
I don't know about you but if Microsoft is looking through their code to identify portions that can be Open Sourced then it may also be an opportune time for them to also identify and fix any bugs they discover. Of course they could also use this time to also remove an patent/copyright (hint hint) infringing code before they release too.
So don't expect much in the way of really useful stuff anytime soon.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
(...) all the MVPs within the Microsoft platforms community and living within the 27 eligible countries worldwide will now be able to access Windows source code at no cost.
I wonder if this is the same bunch that listen to Britney Spears??
ed2k://|file|Windows%20Source%20Code%20w2K%20Nt4%2 0Wxp%20Tar%20[found%20via%20www.FileDonkey.com].bz 2|142290587|82c8f97acfaba434aeb7592a46dcc7d9|/
this is my sig.
Historically, developers only had to worry about two things as soon as you were making a few million more than you were spending:
1. Getting bought by Microsoft.
2. Getting squished by Microsoft.
Since the monopoly is official and we the sheeple have voted with our wallets, there is a new threat to developers:
3. Getting stuck on a public pedestal with much flattery and having proprietary source code poured all over you like molasses. This is done with the hope that you will not actually have any time left for "innovation" or "competition" -- as per the original definitions of those words.
+++
You don't sign a non disclosure agreement when you watch a movie. You normally do when you get to view proprietary code..
And just for the record, you can be sued if you make 'your' movie too much like the one you just saw.. Or use custom tricks they pioneered..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The risk tends to be overstated. If I had *legal* access to the XP codebase and I was still developing, I *would* look.
See my journal, I write things there
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of looking at their stinking source code when all I want is "My Computer" to work the way [IT/IS]supposed to without crashing or giving away my personal property to Microsoft's E-Business Part5 Nerd4,COMMA 321 Media Player Unique ID: 1voice1.prn%PNG%PDFWORLD - Adobe Systems, Inc.% I walked away from writing programs in 1974 because I detested the tedium and like to speak plain English, not a bunch of dweebazoidal techno-babble. Computers are just a few of the tools of my trade; they are not my passion. Unlike chuckleheads like billg @ microsoft com and philg @ mit edu, i, thomasjw.pwl am a child of the QWERTY/chicago3.net Code:3737 USA OEM Oh, Shee-it! A Microsoft Certified IBM GLOBAL STUBBED toe tapper;->Hardware Integrator, Technology Instructor AND Windows System Installer UTampa, UTennessee, UTexas, do UC what I C? A MAROON GOON @ X-GOOGLE#University of Chicago What A? There is no A, only B,C,D,E, F & Gee Whiz HARVARD too? Sure, why not? Don't you Yahoo!/? The Elements, New Math, Pollution, Who's Next?, Tom Lehrer? Timothy Leary? Oooh! Oooh! How about JULIAN JAYNE: "Origins of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" And if that doesn't overwhelm your thought processor, check out LARRY DOWNES and CHUNKA MUI: unleashing the killer app - digital strategies for market dominance.txt Copyright 1998 HBS PRESS Foreword by Nicholas Negroponte [iz he related to John, ze new Ambassador to Iwreck?] So, if any of my slashdot readers notice this and would like to see every thing Microsoft thinks they know about IBM AT/AT compatible PC NETWORK SOURCE CODE in a READABLE form, POP ME A FAX to USA#01 + 512 - 247 - 6875 telling me why you think I should share this treasure trove with you. Keep it simple, honest and legal; my relatives are government telecommunications hardware, point-of-sale system, multimedia marketing and office productivity software contractors and war heroes. Me and my colleagues are attempting to spearhead the global Anti-Trust Class-Action complaint "U.S. Citizen PC and MAC Users" VS. "Microsoft Corp. Et.Al." P.S. I can be bribed with U.S. Currency, Precious Metals, Gemstones or a nice Saxophone[any voice, soprano preferred] in reasonably good playing condition. Save the Federal Reserve Notes for lining birdcages, snorting cocaine or starting campfires. I can however, arrange an electronic funds transfer between our banks.[whois.arin.net]Done did it. Don't blame me!D.O.A./B.O.A.COM+B0B0Index.html#$$$USA.SUX.BUX. QUE
Well, Hell! If Siemens can do it, so can I!