Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Source Code Still Not Enough for EU?
wjsteele writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft's offer to allow rivals access to its software blueprint may not be enough to prevent European Union action." From the article: "Its offer to open up its software blueprints 'underscored its commitment' to meet the European Commission's demands, Horacio Gutierrez associate general counsel for Microsoft Europe said in a statement. However, Brussels has warned the offer may not go far enough. 'It would be premature to conclude that offering access to source codes would necessarily resolve the problem of compliance," said EU anti-trust spokesman Jonathan Todd.'
Is this really news, or is this an organization saying "no comment" until there's been due process?
but I'm afraid that if MS has to comply, then later on down the road, MS can claim that some OSS has put their code into [insert an OSS project]. Then we'll have SCO all over again.
When will anti-Microsoft sentiment make way for patriotism? What I mean is, how far is everyone to allow the European Union to go with this? Are they trying to give European developers an unfair advantage?
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Source code is nothing, look at all obfuscating source code contest out there ! What this code look ! I know more than one programmer that will encrypt his code to keep his job !
And what is the license that will go with it ?
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Give us your source code and free beer for everyone for a year. No, wait, for two years! No, ok, five years and that's it!
Grundes!
With respect to any offers by Microsoft to share their super secret Windows code at an affordable price, I'll believe it when I see it.
Code is not a standard. You can not point to code, and say that _this_ is how to do something. Code changes, code can be hard to understand. Code is only one way to do things.
A standard should be clear, it should be possible to implement any number of ways, as long as the results are the same. Things outside the boundary of the standard should be undefined, not 'Well, if you compile it this way...'
Furthermore, anyone looking at the code has become contanimated by MS IP, and may be constrained from using their knowlege in the future. Standards, documentation, should not limit what people can do. This was designed to open up MS software, in order to allow competition. Not to lessen competition for MS and provide them with a revenue stream.
I haven't RTA yet, but isn't the purpose of the EU's request to promote interoperability? If that's the case, the issue is that anyone trying to write code that talks to Windows has only the (possibly cryptic or even obfuscated) source code to go on, and even that is subject to change.
What I want to know is this: how do the EU's requirements differ from Window's APIs that are already out there? What exactly are they asking for?
...its not about compliance or competition, it's about getting the payoff.
Er, ... am I the only one to find the categorization of this article (-1, Flamebait) ? It seems MS vs European Union is now a US vs UE debate ?
/. wouldn't either.
Without being too naive, if it's right then I would come to the conclusion that MS = US. WTF ?
I don't think so, and I thought a site like
Is it too far-fetched to suggest that the E.C. actually wants MS to remain out-of-compliance, so they can continue to levy fines against them? i.e. Why do criminals rob banks? Because that's where the money is.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
I don't agree with any company having to give out its secrets. I mean, what if Europe demanded to know the secret ingredients to certain food products. That may be a bad comparison, but Microsoft or any other company shouldn't have to give out its top secret source code. That code is what makes them money. True, Microsoft has LOTS of money, but hey, uber powerful and rich or not, they still deserve their privacy to their source code.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
The EU didn't ask Microsoft to open up it's source code. It asked Microsoft to open up it's protocols! Thats not the same!
:-)
Upon Microsofts declaration that it selflessly "overfulfilled" the EUs demands someone of the EU stated explicitly that Microsoft has no say in when the demands are fulfilled. The EU has. Right they are.
Someone trying to implement an interface to Microsoft products after seeing Microsoft's "opened up" source-code could face severe legal problems. Heck, even Microsofties are not allowed to even look at free software (be it GPL, MIT or BSD licence).
So I suggest we move along. Nothing interresting to see here... yet.
Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
Honestly can someone educate me on the matter?
What does the EU comission really want? Cheap Windows? Crippled Windows?
Can't they just fine them for their monopolistic practices and get over it?
If one is to suggest they move to *X, then EU would complain, well that is too hard, we'd just rather stick with MS.
And you don't need to talk to me about proprietary formats.
I work for a state institution, and let me tell you, proprietary formats are the least of our worries and inefficiencies.
I am also from Europe, so I don't have "Yankee's are the best" attitude either.
You know, I like my OS with a browser, media player and text editor (OS X). If EU has a problem with that, fine them or take your business elsewhere...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
patch -p0 stuff-to-exclude.patch && tar -zcvf micro-pub-code.tgz
Really I find this to be just downright wrong.
Big picture view, I do believe Microsoft to be a monopoly. I do believe there needs to be some sort of repercussion for it but I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point... they are the best.
I sit back and watch daily as Microsoft is flamed here on slashdot, I've been around a while, and I don't comment much but there are certain things that push my buttons. Microsoft is not the devil, they do not stifle innovation and the people and organizations who claim they do are either on the loosing end or are just tyring to get a piece of the pie for themselves.
If someone out there was better than Microsoft, we would see that.... look at Firefox... it works WONDERFULLY on Windows XP, and its what I use. I also have a bunch of Linux web servers but in the end I think the people asking Microsoft to "open up Windows" are just admitting defeat.
Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?
Regards, Ryan McAdams
For the EU this is an issue of policy, not technology. It is an issue of buiness, local software companies and European economic development.
Ewww! That subject should have read "Source Code (Not Equals) Interoperability Spec" How do I make symbols like that show in slashdot comments?
Man, and here I was thinking I'd get through the morning without my daily dose of racism. Thanks, man!
btw, most people with PhD's in "computerology" can find jobs. They just want to be paid for having actual skill, versus being paid chicken feed like a code-monkey "proud indian programmer".
Sorry, responding to a troll I know. I'm bored today.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The behaviour of MS in this matter suggests that they do not have proper documentation. If true then it would explain a lot about the quality of MS products.
...I'll bet a little "profit sharing" with Brussels would mysteriously throw Microsoft into compliance.
I read
If the information on how to interoperate with Microsoft software becomes available to any extent, America's competitors not only in Europe, but also in America benefit from the ability to interoperate. Thus America as a whole benefits from having more choices in software, and benefits from having their options in software be compatible with that software they own which is still locked in to Microsoft products. Having better and more diverse software helps not only the individual consumer in this way, but the overall American economy because it has the potential to lower IT costs and increase worker productivity.
So it's kind of like, imagine oil prices were lowering. Would Americans be upset, because American oil companies were being hurt by the low oil prices? No, Americans would be happy, because they buy gas.
I mean, yes, there are Americans who believe that anything that happens to the rich and powerful of America is good for America itself, and believe that anything good that happens to those darn dastardly french is bad for America itself, but this issue is frankly just too convoluted to easily stir up the good 'ol right-wing hatred over.
It's pretty clear that the future of software in government will rely significantly on Open Source and/or Open Standards with emphasis on acessibility, availability and interoperability. (I'm beginning to sound like a certain pointy-haired boss I fear.) But that said, to allow Microsoft to stipulate the bar for access to essentially to lock out the very parties that may need access to it. Microsoft says "yeah, you can have the source code... for one trillion dollars!" and calls that a compliance offer. Yeah... that's just not in the spirit of the court order I think.
Is it me or does it seem that Jonathan Todd (or whoever brought the sourcecode problem to light) is actually aware of the priciples invoved in programming? That documentation of the protocols is more important than arbitraty source code? And that to allow the punishemnt to work (break a portion of MS' monopoly, in this case network protocols) there needs to be no hidden strings. 'Cos documentation would be far safer for FOSS projects than the actual source code...
Woo...Scary..I mean, an enlightened beauracrat? What's the world coming to?
I'm gonna go hide under my bed now...
"...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
Remember that Microsoft has "opened" their code before (within the United States, even). The EU court may simply be remembering that what Microsoft says isn't always the same as what Microsoft means.
All that the EU is asking for is Microsoft's heart, soul, and mind. The same thing Microsoft has been demanding from us for years...
Oh man, mod -1
You know, for about 1% of what the EU is paying lawyers to violate Microsoft's privacy rights, they could pay some good programmers to clone Windows and release it in GPL. That way they'd be doing a public service for the world instead of undermining the principles of free societies. But I guess governments are made up overwhelmingly of lawyers, not programmers, and the idea of helping the people that they represent isn't nearly as important as advancing their careers and their profession, is it?
My guess is Microsoft flat out cannot comply. I believe they DO NOT POSSESS documentation in the form of a full specification. Their only documentation IS THE CODE. The EU said, "Provide documentation of your APIs." Microsoft said, "Here's 15,000 pages of docs." Then the EU said, "That documentation is incomplete and horrible and just plain crappy...and that's putting it nicely. Try again." So Microsoft said, "F*** YOU! That documentation was all put together by reviewing our code. Our code is our only documentation. You want fully documented APIs...fine. Here it is, you figure it out."
Of course, in order to look at Microsoft's source, you'll probably have to sign away your first born and you might as well give up the idea of ever writing any open source implementaton of anything you figure out from looking at that code or you'll be getting a call from Microsoft's lawyers asking you if you'd like to play a nice game of global thermonuclear war.
"Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?"
Oh, they do though. And then Microsoft buys them and buries or screws up the product and ships it. Everyone has their price. Microsoft can afford most of them.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The EU has asked for MS to provided documentation allowing interoperability with Windows and other Windows software components.
MS offered to license the Windows source code.
MS didn't have offer the source code, and the EU is rightly saying that source code sans documentation may not be enough to make interoperability easy.
It's not that source code "Isn't enough". It's communication protocols that they want, mainly. Not piles of source.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
What any developer needs to interoperate with another system is a complete, published, supported interface, which is what the EU ordered Microsoft to deliver. Having the source code to the system may help you to debug your implementation, but in this case it comes at a very stiff cost: exposure to Microsoft's intellectual property. Once a developer looks at that source code, they are contaminated -- Microsoft can come back afterwards and accuse them of taking Microsoft's IP and using it without license. (This applies to commercial developers as well as FOSS developers, but the risk is higher for FOSS).
PJ has a much longer explanation of this over on Groklaw.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Maybe Microsoft should throw in the source code to Microsoft Bob to sweeten the pot a little?
http://flickr.com/photos/75978095@N00/91721678/
I'm glad to see that the Microsoft astroturfers are out in force here.
Let's review the game plan. The EU has (rightly) condemned Microsoft of illegal monopoly practices and is attempting to force Microsoft to behave in a way that creates a more level playing field. This is not about EU vs. US; Microsoft has also been convicted of monopolist behaviour in the US, only it's managed to avoid any penalties for that.
Now, the EU is asking for Microsoft to stop working to create barriers to interoperability. This is a valid approach. Microsoft can make whatever software it likes but it cannot deliberately break interoperability. In case you're wondering why this matters, it's thanks to interoperability that the Internet even exists. Microsoft would like to make products like Samba useless.
It is trying to inject software patents into the picture, by claiming that its standards are "patented". Thus, any open source implementation would infringe.
As an alternative, Microsoft suggests that people can license its source code. Note that this is something MS has been offering to random partners for years, so it's hardly a new step. When asked what the price and conditions for such a license would be, Microsoft said, "we are willing to negotiate".
In other words, Microsoft has not budged an inch and is instead preparing the ground for patenting its interfaces in the EU.
Now we come to the crux of the matter: Microsoft, far from making any concession with respect to the anti-trust accusations, is instead laying the groundwork for an attack on open source competition! This is so blatant and so hostile to the interests of the market that it's quite amazing the Commission is still talking to them, instead of simply levying an appropriate fine.
Open standards are vital to competition, and Microsoft's attempts to quash competition by placing patent bombs into its interfaces, while happily exploiting every other standard on the market, deserve all the abuse they get.
My blog
You ask your electric utility to specify the voltage and frequency of the electricity they deliver. Instead, they try to sell you the blueprints for a power plant.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
this made me finally get a /. account rather than read it...
Every piece of software out there has its niche and does its thing best, i use MS software, i use linux, i use unix, it all just depends on what works best for the job im doing
but this whole thing i believe stemmed from not having windows media player in windows to stifle competition if im not mistaken(could be wrong)...
But i've seen EU change their stance so many times on this it's like beating a dead horse, no one cares what they say anymore cause they can't take a firm stance!
Okay yes microsoft is big! Yes they have lots of money! Question i considered though is are they really a monopoly. I create a product called windows. you create a product called osx. We both include browsers, i include my own browser as the default browswer, i also include netscape. You include netscape but not my browswer. I own 90 percent of the market and my software is the standard in business. you share 10 percent with the rest of the other operating systems. Is it my fault my software grew to be the most well known, or is it your fault for not making a product that could compete.
Should we not criticize apple for the same thing. They made it so no other clone system could run it operating system back in the day as i recall! isn't that taking away a fair market ability?
What microsoft has done is nothing different than what you or i would do if put in the same positions. You can stick to your guns saying i would open up my source code, good i hope you do and somebody releases your source code to the general public and you loose everything cause now your company can't make money! I believe microsoft has been treated unfairly for trying to grow its company. Question if i may, you have a chance to grow a company larger than your competitors and you buy a competitor which puts another competitor out of business is it your fault they could not create either a product better than yours or market it better than yours?
I am giving away 2000 premium accounts on my new dating website myfantasyromance.com check it out!
Oh please, that excuse needs to die! It's like saying that you can never write a book if you have read anything previously because whatever you write may be tainted by what you had previously read.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Have you been to India? It's hell on earth. Yeah, there are a some nice sparsely populated areas, but the cite cores make medieval europe look like a spa. There are piles of garbage on the streets, open sewers, farm animals wandering on the roads. I wouldn't live there for 4x what I make here in the US.
> That code is what makes them money.
Yes it does, and would make them exactly as much if published, and would make them more published except for the side effect of weakening their illegally abused monopoly.
I firmly believe ALL non-game software should be required if not by law then by custom to include the complete source code. Even if not released under a Free/Open License the source should still be required. I'd go so far as to say Copyright law needs to be amended to only allow a Copyright on the Source code and the binaries to be protected only as a derived work. Software gets abandoned by the vendor far too often for any sane person to trust a binary only product for anything important.
Democrat delenda est
The EU asked Microsoft to release documentation of their protocols. What MS offers is to license their source to people already using MS products.
But that's not what the EU asked for or what the EU wants.
Even worse, if MS licensed their source to a competitor and that competitor produces a product using some of the protocols used in Windows, MS could sue them for copyright violation.
But it's a clever idea of MS nonetheless, IMHO. Luckily the EU didn't fall for it.
Windows is critical to the IT infrastructure of the whole world now, and it is to important to leave to the whims of a convicted monopoly. It would be like if Thomas Edison could control the entire world's electricity use -it would just not be acceptable.
Similarly it is not acceptable for MS to control the entire world's use of Windows. I think it is time for some nations to nationalize Windows, so they can control it separate from Microsoft. This requires having the source to Windows, but it is the only way to really, finally address the monopoly.
Ok, from what I understand the opening of the code was not even requested by the E.U.
The whole issue was about an unfair advantage by using their desktop monopoly to push certain software with Windows (such as IE, MediaPlayer so on...)
So I think it's perfectly fine that the E.U. doesn't accept this, as it wasn't part of their requests in the first place. The purpose is to split Windows in parts again so everyone has the same chance of distributing third party software. The opening of the code has nothing to do with it and is just smoke and mirrors tactics by MS.
EU: This is a stickup! Step away from the source code and drop your wallet and noone get's hurt.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
The EU are aiming at the wrong goal !
On $100,000 you could live like the maharaja. I'm almost tempted to become an indian programmer. I like farm animals wandering on the roads. I wouldn't live in the states for 4x what I earn now. Have you joined the schutzstaffel^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H citizen corps yet?
I think it's pretty obvious what the EU is after. They want full disclosure of all of Microsoft's file formats and protocols so that 100% compatible cheap (or free) alternatives become available (please STOP pointing at OO.org, SAMBA, etc., they're not 100% compatible alternatives). If I were capable of making decisions at Microsoft, I would just pull out of Europe completely. Yeah, that's a big hit to the bottom line, but the way things are going now, complying with the EU will mean that eventually Microsoft products will be done away with over there anyway. I'd think it would be better to pull out now and leave the EU holding the bag...
Yes that is almost exactly what SCO said to IBM...
Think how much that has cost - would any open source non profit organization be able to cope with a law suit like that?
A lot of the replies in this thread scares me a bit. Are a lot of you guys taking this as an American VS Europe thing? If so - then this is REALLY bad. That is usually how simple misunderstandings lead to big problems.
..that they
wish that it had extra functionality. Being the smart savy
business people that we are - we naturally give in to the
peoples wishes and even throw in some of our own innovations
to make it that much better.
;)
Please keep in mind that Europe is a close FRIEND of America and an ally as well.
The ongoing Microsoft issues are related to our individual freedom and compatibility issues with other similar system. No company in the world has any rights to control our freedom, Americans of all people should both understand and appreciate this more than anyone if you look at their history and belief that every individual has rights and that forms our democracy.
While it is perfectly natural for any company to protect their intellectual property - this isnt entirely as easy and straightforward as it might seem in Microsofts case.
I will explain. Imagine that you develop a gadget that
catches on everywhere, people really like your gadget for what it does. As a matter of fact - so much so
Now...Imagine that this gadget not only is super popular amongst everyone, but it can be used for nearly everything as well. It now gets used in critical environments like hospitals, police stations, research and much more. Lets say for arguments sake something goes terribly wrong somewhere...we try to help these poor unfortunates of course being the professional company we are... but for some reason failed to do so. Why that is could be argued to death amongst the victims of this flaw and our company.
Now - again imagine, there is no real competitor to our products and our customers are literally forced to use our products, a dream for any company or an individuals loss of freedom - you decide! Well - nothing is stopping you from developing a similar product, is there? And here is what happens when greed becomes a factor. How safe are you and I really? What if our only competitor turns out a real neath product? Ok - we buy it, but they wont sell - so we make it real hard for them to compete. After all - we OWN the standards for most of our innovations...or those that we have bought from others. But it is fortunately not as straightforward as that - heres where your freedom comes into the picture. If you have been sold a product that enslaves you so much so - that you can no longer control it yourself, you are being deprived of your freedom.
No company in this world should have so much power that it can control nearly everything you do, what you sell and whom you sell it to. Imagine that you owned all telephone cables in the world....and imagine that a million companies where dependent on your cables...and further imagine if they changed the copper to light (fiberglass cables) without asking you because they could. All of a sudden - these million companies would have to RE-invest all of their equipment into newer and different equipment rendering their old stuff useless just because the cable company wanted it. It would KILL small companies and they would not have a living breathing chance of survival because....there is no other cablenet.
Belive me - Europe is NOT evil, we are as hearty and friendly as our American allies, but we dont have to agree about EVERYTHING
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Then MS could pay itself the fines!
I've worked on POS and ERP systems that were running reliably in production systems from mom-and-pops to multi-nationals. I'd say at least 75% of the time the source code was the ONLY specification. Some of the code base is legacy with poor comments. Some is nicely commented. Some have complete specifications that were complete and kicked around before any code was written. Some have complete specifications that have no relation to the code that was actually implemented and have not been updated. It was not a conspiracy to stifle our competition. I suspect any code base of any size or importance whose development process spans any length of time would have these problems. And in production systems, actual production is often prioritized over completeness of design and specification. People realize more and more this is not good, but economics will always dictate that some will put the design and spec as secondary to delivering the sweet sweet executables.
If M$ actually does show the code, the main purpose would as a transmission vector for NDAs designed to taint would-be developers and prevent them from ever working on GPL'd code again. e.g. "hey that bubble-sort algorithm there infringes on our valuable M$ intellectual property. cease using it or pay up."
Bill's precious, precious source code not good enough for those stinking europeans? Here Bill shares the most valuable secret in the known universe with those ingrates and they look down their noses at it! Don't they know what they have in their grasp? It's as if they are barbarians who come upon a goody hut and discover the secrets of an advanced technology. Why, with the source code, they could build their own Windows and become as powerful as Microsoft. They could all become as rich as Bill Gates! Those fools! How can they be so blind?
...to "license" their source code does nothing for open source projects and they know it. The EU should stand firm and tell Microsoft "Thanks for the offer. Now complie with the requirement of clear documentation to your interfaces that will allow interoperability in a way that EVERYONE has access."
This "offer" is just Microsoft continuing to play it "I'm complying but not really" game.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I think Microsoft is one of the most evil companies around, most devious, most deserving of spit up the nose ... but I wonder, could it simply be that their code is so poorly written (turned into spaghetti by years of quick and dirty fixes, by backward compatibility nightmares, and by forced marriages between unrelated pieces of code so they can claim IE is part of the OS) that they simply can't come up with a valid API, that there is no such beast, and that Microsoft's own programmers have the devil of a time making things work?
Maybe there is no concrete API which they can document. I have worked on many systems which had so much legacy cruft that it was a miracle they worked at all, such as subroutines being called with different parameter lists which worked because they were only called under the right magical conditions.
It might also explain why they have such buggy code and why it takes them so long to develop patches.
Infuriate left and right
is all I can say. Seriously, what are they thinking? Microsoft should pay for debugging their sources themselves.
Im not really a M$ fan, but this is just stupid. I say M$ should just not license any of their software for use in the EU any more. Then let the people deal with their government.
It's not a blank slate. If you want this government protection of your (metaphorical, not natural) property, you will have to obey whatever funky laws they come up with.
If you get a $1 million govt. grant, contingent on your drinking pee, the government is not forcing you to drink pee.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
It's "dumberer", you big fat dumby.
If MS was supposed to supply only that which is required for interoperability, they would buy a copy of some SAMS book entitled "learning the Windows API in 24 hours" or something like that.
The problem is that there's tons of hidden things in there and a lot of crap that seems to make interoperability a moving target.
With the source code, there will be no such problems and no grey area. Microsoft has this problem with making the most of wriggle room. And it's probably not entirely for interoperability anyway -- they don't TRUST Microsoft and I don't blame them.
Some of you seem not to have understand what this is all about. The questions is NOT whether Microsoft has a monopoly or not. This has been shown in US and EU courts that on the desktop market they DO have a monopoly (which legally does not necessarily mean that you have 100% of the market). Thus Microsoft have to follow rules that apply to companies in monopoly situations.
One such rule (in EU and US) is that you aren't allowed to exploit your dominating position so as to extend your monopoly into other areas. Thus Microsoft cannot suddenly change Windows so that Firefox stops working, without giving Firefox a fair chance to adapt to the changes. In a number of cases during the years, Microsoft has failed to live up to this rule and sometimes driven companies our of business.
Next... The question is NOT whether Microsoft has illegitimately exploited its current monopoly. This has been shown in both US and EU courts. In the case we are talking about today, Microsoft has exploited its monopoly on desktops to leverage their server solutions, by keeping the protocols for interaction secret. Note, this is something that only applies to companies in monopoly situations. If you were a small player you may keep everything secret, but if you have a monopoly you have to act with care.
The questions is rather, what do we do about it? By the EU court Microsoft has been given two alternatives, 1) pay a 2M Euro fine a day, or 2) publish documents regarding the protocols so that competitors are given a chance to compete. Note the EU court has NOT asked for the source code, it has asked for documentation.
Is the source code enough documentation in itself? Well... why do programmers need documentation? Because... browsing through millions of lines of code takes an enormous amount of time, especially as it is in constant change. Competitors need to know WHAT something does, not HOW it is done.
them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point
Your totally misinformed.
1. Microsoft is a monopoly.
2. Monopolies exert significant market pressure that distorts competitive landscapes. This means that unless a product is vastly superior to a Microsoft product, Microsoft will win. It makes competing on merit far more difficult.
3. In order to remedy this, the EU has insisted MS supplies interoperability documentation, as interoprability concerns are the PRIMARY market barrier that MS maintains. Why does everyone use MS software? Primary reason: Not because its the best, but because its the most interoperable.
End result of interopability? More (and better) software from competing software manufactures, and more (and better) software from Microsoft. Look at Firefox; Firefox is more or less interoperable with IE. And look at the Firefox rate of improvement? It seems to have knocked MS out of its IE stagnation. Everyone wins!
4. In order to comply with the EU order, MS offered to license its source code to anyone willing to pay a reasonable fee. This is nice and all, but doesn't satisfy the interoperability requirement! The EU has NOT said MS isn't in compliance, but at the same time they haven't decided that MS IS in compliance. At the moment (and the subject of the article) the EU council is deciding whether or not supplying source code is "sufficent" documentation for a competing company to develop and interoperable implementation. If it is found to be so, end of story.
5. The CORRECT solution for MS would have been to supply documentation for the interfaces and protocols of its various Windows platform related applications. Not the entire source code, just interface documentation.
I don't understand how thats an unreasonable request for a twice convicted monopolist whose primary market barrier is interoperability concerns. Seems like a very fair and reasonable judgement, certainly much more fair (to MS) than a company breakup or vast restrictions on their business plan.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
You, sir, smell funny. Over the internet.
here you go, it's long but pretty clear Decision
Some highlights, in case you actually want the information:
"Microsoft Corporation shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, make the Interoperability Information available to any undertaking having an interest in developing and distributing work group server operating system products and shall, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, allow the use of the Interoperability Information by such undertakings for the purpose of developing and distributing work group server operating system products"
"the Interoperability Information" means "the complete and accurate specifications for all the Protocols implemented in Windows Work Group Server Operating Systems and that are used by Windows Work Group Servers to deliver file and print services and group and user administration services, including the Windows Domain Controller services, Active Directory services and Group Policy services, to Windows Work Group Networks"
Man, that was EASY! It's almost like the Comission wanted me and everyone else to know what their requirements were!
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The issue is not that they grew their company... it is that they did it *illegally*. Please get that through your heads. All the EU is trying to do at this point is re-level the playing field.
The code isn't meant to be "compilable". It's to be used as reference material to supplement the already 1200 pages of documentation and 500 hours of free technical support that Microsoft is already offering for the network protocols in question. The EU keeps moving the goal posts, and it's really obvious that they're just trying to shake down a non-European company.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
My reading is that the EU is miffed at the way Microsoft has handled this over the past few days. Microsoft seem to have sent the EU compliance folks the minimum of details while spinning a big press release and publicity bandwagon about what a massive, epoch-making offer they now have on the table. Presumably Microsoft are hoping either to overwhelm the EU via the publicity effect or push the EU into a corner whereby if the EU turn down this "offer" (which is not what Micrsoft were asked to provide) they will look churlish and against the opening up of closed code.
It's all a game. Microsoft don't want to comply if they can avoid it, because they see interoperability as bad for their business. We know that; they know that; and they know we know that. Hence this little charade with thousands of documents and byzantine and no doubt extremely expensive "peak at our code" procedures. Just my 2 cents, but I hope the EU take a tough stance against this attempt to intimidate and manipulate them.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
The EU also "screws over" EU companies. E.g. BMW.
Dipstick.
Big picture view, I do believe Microsoft to be a monopoly. I do believe there needs to be some sort of repercussion for it but I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point... they are the best.
Do you have any idea what the point of anti-trust legislation is? It is to remove an unfair business advantage that allows an inferior product to dominate a market, because there is no ability for the customer to choose the competition. They were never asked to give up their intellectual property. They were asked to document their protocols so developers can compete on even ground for making software that works with Windows (since it is wholly unreasonable to expect everyone to switch away from Windows at the same time). They are offering to license their source code as an alternative, and a poor one at that.
Microsoft is not the devil, they do not stifle innovation and the people and organizations who claim they do are either on the loosing end or are just tyring to get a piece of the pie for themselves.
Internet Explorer holds 90% of the browser market. It is a piece of crap. It is insecure, ancient technology that cannot even properly render the six year old specifications it was originally implemented with. The mere fact that it dominate the market has held back internet standards, tabbed browsing, ad blocking and the Web in general for more than half a decade, despite numerous better alternatives is proof enough. As someone who has done fair bit of Web development I assert that anyone who claims MS is not stifling innovation does not know what they are talking about. That does not even count the dozens of other standards they have intentionally corrupted, or the dozens of companies they have bought out or driven out of business using their monopoly. It is awfully hard to sell a product when everyone is already forced to buy your competitor's. You have to be so much better that people will both go out of their way and find another product and pay for it again. This is called "bundling."
If someone out there was better than Microsoft, we would see that.... look at Firefox... it works WONDERFULLY on Windows XP, and its what I use.
Yep, it sure does. Now, ask yourself why is 90% of the market dominated by its inferior competitor? You do realize what MS is doing is illegal, right? And you don't think they should be punished in some way that might discourage them from doing the same thing in the future? Like with media players and antivirus software and every other market they decide to swallow.
I think the people asking Microsoft to "open up Windows" are just admitting defeat.
Here are a couple of facts for you: Most people will never by a stand alone OS. They will just use what is on their computer. There is basically zero possibility of convincing every business and individual to switch to another OS all at once. As a result of this, there is a need for any product to interoperate with Windows in order to gain market share. Unless their are published, implementable specifications for interoperability, this cannot happen and hence MS will always remain in its monopoly position. No one wants the source code. Everyone needs open API's, protocols, and formats. MS was ordered to provide some of the APIs. They have thus far refused and instead are trying to offer to sell, the right to view the source, with restrictions, for an undisclosed price. This is wholly unacceptable.
Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?
That is the problem. You can't compete against a monopoly that bundles what you make. It is not economically feasible and even superior software you create will not win in the market, like Firefox. That is the whole point of the EU rulings, to try to make it possible to compete on even ground.
>> If someone out there was better than Microsoft.
who is microsoft better than?
>> I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property
Just specs.
>> look at Firefox... it works WONDERFULLY on Windows XP
sounds like you think it's better than ie, yet it's usuage is not even close.
>> isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?
damn straight, that's what these repricussions are supposed to do.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
It's been quite some time and I really don't see microsoft wielding anywhere near as much power as before. 8 years ago windows was dominant and almost necessary for most computers. This is not true anymore, sure ms is on more desktops then not BUT the competition isn't hindered much by that fact anymore.
What's stopping them from taking advantage of a free and powerful OS like linux. Many business and goverment offices can easily run on linux free of charge. With such an alternative I don't see how MS is monopolizing anything over there. It's their choice if they want to go ms. I know the general dislike and disgust of microsoft is great here but it almost seems like the EU might just be badgering a non EU company.
Hmmm... Pie...
these things that are supposed to fix the market are retarded. Software needs to be treated like any other business.
What needs to happen is that companies like dell need to be allowed to sell another os, without repricussions from microsoft.
Just like the government had to step if and force Boeing to offer other engines on their jets than just prat+whitney.
It's lame to think that just because it's software special rules apply.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Microsoft already provided 1200 (or 12000, I forget which) pages of documentation plus 500 hours of free tech support for any dev that's trying to implement the protocols in question. The EU is full of crap. They are going to declare Microsoft to be "out of compliance" no matter what Microsoft does, just so that they can levy fines to fill the coffers in Brussels. This is an old fashioned shake down, nothing more, nothing less.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
>> The code isn't meant to be "compilable".
Then it's useless, how do you even know that you are getting real code.
>> It's to be used as reference material to supplement the already 1200 pages of documentation and 500 hours of free technical support that Microsoft is already offering for the network protocols in question.
They aren't giving it away. They are charging up the ass for it. It's like opening up a new market to "punish" a company that broke the law.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
At the risk of seeming off-topic, I wanted to point out that the main headline "still not enough" appears to be indicative of the delusion some members of the press are under.
The EU asked for A.
Microsoft offered B.
The EU says B is not A. The EU may still want A instead of B.
How is offering B instead of A presupposed to be enough? I don't get it.
In a word: yes.
The EC didn't *want* the source code, they were even smart enough to explicitly mention they only demanded documentation, not source code (look it up if you don't believe me). Apparently Neelie Kroes, the commisioner for competition, is as surprised as you and me about why Microsoft suddenly offer *this* as an anti-competition remedy. I just hope she's adamant to stick to the ruling of march 2004 because that actually made sense. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer nor an economist. Can anyone think of a reason why opening up the source code can be regarded as a remedy, instead of just publishing the interface documentation??
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Has to comply??? Source code is not documentation of the specification! They have to comply with any government's demand if they want to do business in that country. The EU didn't demand source code, they required adequate documentation.
I don't buy it. Having access to the source will make it easier for the public to determine if someone has put MS code into a project (or vice versa) and it will come to light quickly.
Given that open source is already open and Microsoft is just now going to start providing it to specific groups, I'd say the open source author has a lot more ground to stand on, which may somewhat compensate for the unbalance of money.
no torrents up yet?
Wrong.
/. Is it not enough for first poster to be trolls in 99.999% ? Now even article posters are competing for "first post" troll?
EU wants open SPECS, not source code for fee. MS completely missed the request.
Can somebody please mod article as TROLL? Poster of this article is obviously using wrong organ to think.
As it was posted sounds like:
Even source code is not enough for EU, they just want to go on all-out-MS-war, while in reality EU only demands freely accessible readable SPECS.
There was request for readable and freely accesible SPECS, not for source code.
1. Specs MS provided at first were not readable.
2. MS decided to provide code for fee under licence which completely obstructs any way to cooperate with most OSS licenses. Original intention EU was demanded for this one sole purpose which levels the playing field between OSS and MS.
p.s. C'mon
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
And people have been sued for having a plot similar to someone else's. It's not an excuse, it's reality.
And, re-read what I said. I'm not excusing anything. I'm saying that unless people are doing it for free, as soon as it starts gaining attention Microsoft will buy your product (or one like that) and run other people out of the market, or at least try to leverage their monopoly so that happens. Witness: Anti-Spyware, Internet Explorer, IIS, Media Player, DirectX.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Is MS saying their protocols aren't specified anywhere, and the only way to interoperate is to reverse-engineer directly from source?
A lot of the F/OSS folks won't want to touch that for fear of later legal claims of plagiarizing, even if they had the 50K license fees available.
What they were *asked* for, and owe the EU antitrust folks, is a complete protocol spec for others to work from. They don't *want* the source, they don't care; they're quite capable of writing their own code, thanks, if they know what to work to.
The EU can't find it in their hearts to switch to Linux, but feel that OSS is the right way to go. The solution, force MS to publish their source.
What a victory for... capitalism? No, if they were letting capitalism work, they'd switch products. Open Source? The FSF must be thrilled that they can now license to peek at MS source... not so much. Ahh, Linux... no, the EU hates Linux so much, that they can't bear the thought of departing from Windows.
Whoever you are, whatever you've accomplished, uhmm, congratulations or... something.
Calling Microsoft a monolopy on an OS is like calling apple an monolopy on portable music players. MS owns 90% of the OS department, ipods own 90% aswell.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
The problems are (a) anyone looking at the source and then working on a counterpart product can expect an IP lawsuit from MS and (b) if interoperability is a moving target then looking at source in 2006 may not help you in 2007 when it gets changed again.
The answer is (a) provide a SPEC of the protocol that you can actually implement against and (b) have MS stop tweaking said spec every other year in order to break interoperability with competitors.
I mean, what if Europe demanded to know the secret ingredients to certain food products.
Yeah. Or worse, imagine if every single food product on the market were required to list all its ingredients, as well as the exact quantities of things like sugar and sodium, in a standardized format that food companies were forced to print right on the side of the food product's box. What a bizarre and terrible world that would be. It would be a simple violation of basic human rights if consumers were to demand to know this information.
Why do these wacko left-wing european statists have no respect for corporate privacy?
How is anyone supposed to compete with microsoft with them making deals to stop distributors from selling PCs with other OSes on them?
That's 90% of my beef with them. They catch a lot of flak but as soon as I can walk into a chain store and buy a PC with something like BeOS or a GNU distro then they're forgiven, in my book.
Once there is a competitor on John Q's radar the market will be able to hold them accountable and they'll have to behave more...
They want it for Free, anything less is just
not good enough
While I'm going to be labeled as 'on the bandwagon to hang Microsoft', when you've been convicted of being an abusive monopoly in *2* countries/unions, frankly, I want to see them suffer like those they've made suffer. They forgot ethics when they decided to do business, perhaps it's time to remind them why ethics is a good thing by making them be on the receiving end of it for a change.
Well, I don't know about the idea/logic/politics behind this - has everything been told. But I know for sure, I've always wondered why Microsoft products are not being developed here in Europe - at least that I knew about it. I've also asked Microsoft representatives here in Finland to try to get source code for us too, like American schools do. Simply to learn coding. This news goes far beyond my understanding. Visual Studio is great IDE at least, imho. I have to admit, I used to be quite pro-MS, but since they started blogs my mind has changed dramatically.
"And what is the license that will go with it ?"
I believe it will prohibit any actual viewing of the code.
SCISNE? ANUS SIMIAE!
Atlas Will Shrug
Total Revenue: 39,788,000,000
Cost of Revenue: 6,200,000,000
Gross Profit: 33,588,000,000
minus $1.095 billion (365 days @ $3million/day -- my approximation of 2 million EUR ) --->
32,493,000,000
So that would cut their gross profit by a little over 3%.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The EU wants Microsoft to comply with the relevant court judgement. What's so hard to understand?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I mean, can we say irrational here?
The Europe isn't known for global technological brilliance. Sure, perhaps in some areas, but not when it comes to the computer hardware and software industry. Heck, Japan isn't even at the fore front of computer software and technology (my sh*t is mostly made in China these days being designed in the US or even Canada). Its the US which make the world's most popular software, and the world just can't stand that.
So the EU feels the only way for EU companies to compete against Microsoft is to rip off MS source code, come out with a cloned Windows product, and then probably undermine the Windows OS market by offering it dirt cheap, using the SAME ANTI-COMPETITIVE business practices that got Microsoft into trouble. (PS EU, you can do that already for FREE with Linux, get a clue!).
I mean, look at the French/German company trying to rip off Google. When is the EU going to go after Google and force them to post all their development code and trade secrets. Its coming, just wait another year or two, especially if Google doesn't bend over for the EU if they make some smaller demand.
What I feel should happen is Microsoft simply pull out of Europe. Stop selling Windows there, period! I mean, honestly. F*ck the EU! Once Europeans realize they can't get their favourite OS in ANY form, they will pretty much retaliate against the EU and force the EU to let Microsoft do business there, without restriction.
Microsoft is making enough money around the world to hold out and not sell to the EU for a period of time. I don't think it would be long before European computer consumers force the EU to play nice with Micorosft.
I mean, honestly Microsoft doesn't deserve to be played nice with, but at the same time, they suddenly decided to give competitors access to source code, along with 13000 pages of documentation on how to use it. What more does the EU want? It free and handed to them on a silver platter? Get Freakin Real! How about Microsoft just write a competitive OS with 98% of the same source code and hand it over to some French or German or British company and say, "Here you go, NOW can you compete you bloody eurotrash?"
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
They want to continue to develop the spaghetti mess they have been working so hard on :-)
Infuriate left and right
This is like a convention. Are you folks Camarilla members?
For some reason the article doesn't mention that Microsoft's proposal is to provide the server source code and 500 hours of "free" support under an NDA and at a cost of US$10,000. That pretty much excludes both OSS and companies without much funding. A proper standard would of course be free or nearly so (as I recall ISO docs are around US$100.)
From Europa Rapid Press release ...........
Document IP/04/382 24 March 2004
"The European Commission has concluded, after a five-year investigation, that Microsoft Corporation broke European Union competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems (OS) onto the markets for work group server operating systems(1) and for media players(2). Because the illegal behaviour is still ongoing, the Commission has ordered Microsoft to disclose to competitors, within 120 days, the interfaces(3) required for their products to be able to 'talk' with the ubiquitous Windows OS. Microsoft is also required, within 90 days, to offer a version of its Windows OS without Windows Media Player to PC manufacturers (or when selling directly to end users). In addition, Microsoft is fined 497 million for abusing its market power in the EU."
IP/05/1215 5th October 2005
"The European Commission has appointed Professor Neil Barrett, a computer scientist, as the Trustee who will provide technical advice to the Commission on issues relating to Microsoft's compliance with the Commission's 2004 Decision "
IP/05/1695 22nd December 2005
"The European Commission has issued a Statement of Objections against Microsoft for its failure to comply with certain of its obligations under the March 2004 Commission decision (the "March 2004 Decision", see IP/04/382). That decision found Microsoft to have infringed the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82) by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players. One of the remedies imposed by the decision was for Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. The Statement of Objections indicates that the Commission's preliminary view, supported by two reports from the Monitoring Trustee (see IP/05/1215), is that Microsoft has not yet provided complete and accurate specifications for this interoperability information. After giving Microsoft an opportunity to reply to the Statement of Objections, the Commission may impose a daily penalty."
"Since the 24(1) Decision, Microsoft has revised the interoperability information that it is obliged to disclose. However, the Commission takes the preliminary view that this information is incomplete and inaccurate. This view is supported by the report of the Monitoring Trustee, which concludes that, "any programmer or programming team seeking to use the Technical Documentation for a real development exercise would be wholly and completely unable to proceed on the basis of the documentation. The Technical Documentation is therefore totally unfit at this stage for its intended purpose." The report also states that, "the documentation appears to be fundamentally flawed in its conception, and in its level of explanation and detail... Overall, the process of using the documentation is an absolutely frustrating, time-consuming and ultimately fruitless task. The documentation needs quite drastic overhaul before it could be considered workable."
Professor Neil Barrett, the Monitoring Trustee, is a computer science expert appointed by the Commission (see IP/05/1215) on the basis of a shortlist of candidates submitted by Microsoft. He provides impartial technical advice to the Commission on issues relating to Microsoft's compliance with the Commission's March 2004 Decision."
MEMO/06/49 25th January 2006
"The European Commission will study carefully the announcement made by Microsoft on 25th January once it has received the full details.
The Commission is looking forward to receiving, no later than 15th February 2006, Microsoft's reply to the Statement of Objections sent by the Commission on 21st December 2005 (see IP/05/1695). The Commission sent the Statement of Objections because of Microsoft's failure to disclose complete and accurate interface docu
>> They are charging up the ass for it. It's like opening up a new market to "punish" a company that broke the law. Good for them :-). EU is all about socialism, and if there is any capitalistic company daring to make money there then they must be bad. Maybe [you freeloading piss monkey who live's in your parents home] should examine how much it costs to support software code (and remember that even RedHat charges for support and so many other Linux Distros).
Microsoft hires talented people (Hi Justin!), but most of their innovations are, um, adopted. They have done some truly original things here and there, but I think their real strength is deciding which competing products to ignore, which to purchase, and which to clone for free inclusion in the next point oh release.
It's awfully hard to compete with free.
The EU has the chance to stick it to the big bully on the block--America. They aren't going to let MS get away with ANYTHING now that they've got 'em where they want 'em. They are going to nail MS to the wall, to say "We aren't going to let those bullies in the US push us around anymore!"
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that you're an idiot!
(2 !== 3) obviously returns true.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
First of all, they are charging $10,00 for that. OSS need not apply.
Second of all, even though there is boat loads of it, I doubt the documentation is comprehensive. Note that the DoJ is upset that Microsoft has not released documentation it agreed to do so in the 2001 settlement
Furthermore, all avaliable evidence suggests that the Documentation currently offered to the EU is effectively broken
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
You guys are taking this [title]. I don't see why... Isn't anyone thankful that finally someone is forcing MICROSOFT to open up? I was cheering when I first read the news... and here all I see is "oh no, this after all is our doom...". OMG
>> Maybe [you freeloading piss monkey who live's in your parents home]
grow up, troll
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
I'm not the one whining to his mommy about big bad Microsoft not conforming to EU's moving goal post... TROLL!
Can someone explain to me the difference between the "Blueprints" and "source code"?
lol
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
'' Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft? ''
Yes, that is why Microsoft has to produce the documentation how to interact with their software, so that others can start innovating and competing. Without that documentation, the Microsoft monopoly prevents competition.
Now it seems that Microsoft is uncapable to provide documentation, so as a publicity stunt they propose to let others read their source code instead of documentation. But as any programmer knows (are there any here on Slashdot? ), SOURCE CODE IS NOT DOCUMENTATION.
"Big picture view, I do believe Microsoft to be a monopoly. I do believe there needs to be some sort of repercussion for it but I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point... they are the best."
According to the Free Software Foundation of Europe Microsofts implementation of the *standard* server SMB protocol: "... a number of incompatibilities deliberately introduced in pre-existing protocols and then altering them with the aim of prohibiting interoperability." To extend a standard protocol is not inventive, it is evolutionary. The protocol is not secret, http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html, the non-standard Microsoft implemenation is. The EU simply says this is an obvious abuse of monopoly hurting competition and must stop. And no, seeing one specific implemenatation does not easily get you far in understanding how Microsoft specifically has extended the protocol itself. And by the way, 12000 pages of documenation? How can the Microsoft specification be that much longer than the original specification?
Also it may be useful to look at the wikipedia reference on the SMB protocol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_message_block
IBM, not Microsoft, specified the SMB protocol. What Microsoft did, inheretnly to stay incompatible with competitors server products and illegaly use their desktop monopoly, was to extend the SMB protocol. Andrew Tridgell which leads the Samba team has on several occasions noted that it seems like the changes made often has no other purpose than to make the Microsoft SMB implemenation incompatible with other implemenations.
Publish documentation for communications protocols. What in the world does that mean?
What kind of products would a competitor build? Even if MS was somehow able to figure out exactly what level of documentation to provide to create some imaginary product, the net result would be the same as producing a version of Windows OS without Windows Media Player. And since there is no request to produce ongoing documentation, the APIs have and will probably further change to make the documentation obsolete.
Seems like a good old fashioned shakedown.
Europe does demand to know the secret ingredients to all food products sold, at least it is the case here in the UK (and I am pretty sure the rest of the EU). Everyone has a *right* to know all ingredients in the food products they purchase. If I someone a nut allergy, they would want to *know* that the food they are about to eat will not kill them. You cant get round that by saying that "they are secret ingredients", neither should Microsoft.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Thats better, isn't it.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
"First of all, they are charging $10,00 for that. OSS need not apply."
There are plenty of OSS companies that can afford that fee.
And there are plenty of closed source companies that can't afford it.
Being OSS or not has nothing to do with being able to pay a fee.
"Second of all, even though there is boat loads of it, I doubt the documentation is comprehensive. Note that the DoJ is upset that Microsoft has not released documentation it agreed to do so in the 2001 settlement. Furthermore, all avaliable evidence suggests that the Documentation currently offered to the EU is effectively broken"
The "available evidence" that you refer to is that one European dev was unable to implement the protocols in four days. That means nothing.
Judging MSDN documentation vs OSS documentation, I'm sure that Microsoft's documentation much more comprehensive than OSS documentation (and Apple's for that matter). But even for a dev that's too incompetent to understand the documentation, MS is offering 500 hours of *free* tech support. If the dev is still too stupid to implement the protocols, then Microsoft is now offering the code. What more do you want?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
The code isn't meant to be "compilable". It's to be used as reference material
Still, critical functionality can be hidden from the source by embedding it in the compiler, such as every secret API Microsoft has. Thus it would not be useful as reference material either as it would be critically incomplete.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?