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.
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.
You mean guys like this?
The owls are not what they seem
From what I've seen of OSS, the solution is not many, many eyes, but a core handful of experienced eyes that have experience and training.
Point needs to be made, however, that these guys who get free access are not here to "fix Windows" as much as they are there to write applications that require close cooperation with the OS (think antivirus or DRM applications). So the chances of them finding a bug and fixing it are slim, because they won't be looking for them.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
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
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.
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).
"within the 27 eligible countries worldwide "
That is 28 if you count eDonkey as a country.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
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
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.