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.
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.
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...
Yeah i still have the source code released a while ago in a nice little zip in my emule shared folder.
In that case, you might want to unshare it ASAP. You do realize that your IP can be trivially discovered when you have emule on?
It should be emphasized that having the windows source is much more damaging than beneficial. People are contaminated merely by seeing the source. If you want to learn stuff, there is enough OSS operating systems around that won't make you unemployable if you really catch the kernel bug, or MSFT just finds a good reason to ruin your future.
Just stick to pr0n, music and other binaries.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
how about Microsoft try open standards first.
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
Yup, they're just putting out bait, hoping that some of the code will be used by someone in the OSS community and then they can pound them for "hybrid source" in the media and in court.
I haven't seen the terms under which people are allowed to view the code, but I'm sure it's not really Open Source(TM). It's probably more like, "Here, take a look at our code. Share it with your friends. Pass it around. But remember it's still closed proprietary code that no one can copy."
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
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.
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!'
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 that explains why they're doing it. People will use it in the same way that (good) support engineers now use the Linux source.
Someone at work was trying to help a customer with a particular error they got. On Linux it's really easy to look through the source, and see what paths cause that error from that syscall, and that helps in debugging the problem. The source is the ultimate documentation.
Being able to do that on Windows would be nice for people who have to use or support it. I don't suppose Microsoft will get any useful patches back, seeing as people probably won't be able to build it.
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.
Typical, of all the responses to my challenge, I see the following:
Of course, this is Slashdot, where FUD against Microsoft is always accepted face value.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
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