Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool
Jan writes "Microsoft has
open sourced the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool by releasing it under the GPLv2 license. The code is now available on CodePlex, Microsoft's Open Source software project hosting repository, over at wudt.codeplex.com. The actual installer for the tool is now again available for download at the Microsoft Store (2.59MB). (Microsoft previously took responsiblity for the violation.)"
It's good that Microsoft took responsibility for this, kudos to them.
As someone mentioned in the original story, Microsoft does not write all of its code itself but sometimes hires other companies to write a specific tool for them. Such was the case here. As for it taking a week, I think that's a pretty short period of time for something to take in a bureaucracy.
For a company that believes so strongly in the inviolability of Software licensing, it's nice to see them practice what they preach when it comes to the rights of others. Fair play to Microsoft for meeting it's requirements, and score one for the GPL and Open Source.
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
I've seen some of the Windows Source code when I worked there. Trust me, it's WAY more professional than the Linux source code.
Microsoft's problem with code quality isn't the engineers - they're the same as everywhere else. In Windows 2000, they set out to eliminate BSOD, and they mostly did. In XP SP2, they set out to make it secure, and it's better.
The problem is no one asks them to do the right things.
Anyway, trust me - it's very professional, clean code, nice design, and not filled with hacks like the Big Global Lock that used to be in the Linux kernel.
You apparently have never worked in a large company before. There were probably 27 meetings before someone high enough up the food chain stuck their neck out to say "ok". We're talking about opensourcing code from a company that generally doesn't do it. Legal was involved, top executives were involved, someone had to talk to PR about spinning a press release, etc etc. This isn't like some dev got emailed and said, "Shit! I better get that posted right away!"
First the SEGA logo brazenly appeared on a Nintendo console
Now it's Microsoft publishing GPL licenced-code. TWICE (the other being their contribution to the kernel)
Pigs expected to fly next week.
The bigger news is not that Microsoft open sourced the tool after their GPL violation (that was inevitable). The news here is that Microsoft kept the open source tool instead of replacing it with one of their own. Microsoft has open sourced portions of their code before, that really isn't newsworthy. Keeping an open source tool that will be used to deploy their crown jewel operating system by millions of people - that's newsworthy.
It's been, what, a month since they were informed of the lapse, and less than that since they acknowledged the error?
Show a reasonable amount of patience.
I can't help but notice the "finally" in the title.
Really slashdot, can't you post any MS related story without personal bias?
1) What programs do people here like for applying .ISO images to USB drives in Windows? Is this one "locked" to Windows 7 ISOs or can I use it to, say, put Puppy Linux onto a USB drive? I tried to install this one to find out but it's telling me "This application requires the Image Mastering API v2" and I don't want to put too much effort into this if it isn't for general use.
2) Anyone know how to do the same thing in OS X? I tried using Disc Utility but it will only let me a) burn ISOs to CDs or b) apply Apple .DMGs to drives. I tried mounting the ISO and using that as a source to create a DMG and that worked, but then when I went to apply that DMG to a disk it gave up at the last minute. (Sorry, that machine is at home, I don't know the exact error message. It basically said "Sorry, can't" after I clicked 'restore'.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I'm sure Microsoft's source code looks much more professional than the Linux source code. The company probably has rigid coding standards that all programmers must adhere to. Not only standards that have to do with the kinds of constructs you are allowed to use, but how the code must look, how many spaces to indent, how to format your comments, and where to put comments. In other words they probably have a 'grammar police' for code. (Do they still use Hungarian notation?). OTHO the Linux kernel was written by coders from ALL walks of life with different views on how to write code. There is only a very loose coding standard for the kernel, if Linus can read it and understand it, it gets used as is.
Does this make Microsoft source code work any better than Linux? No. Does it make it more supportable (for the programmers actually working on it)? Probably. But the people working on the Linux Kernel are used to the hodge-podge of coding standards in use. Still it could make it harder for someone to break into kernel support.
BTW, I've heard of some diehard Mircosofties getting windows tats. Wonder if Linux coders have a Tux tat. (yuck).
Other reasons to stop calling it the "Windows 7 Tool" include the similarity between:
"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool" and
"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Too!"
I spent the first 30 seconds in shocked disbelief as I tried to remember anything else they've open sourced.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
This third party code would have been produced under contract as "work for hire". Presumably, the contract stated that the third party had to assign all rights to the code to Microsoft, like any other work for hire, and that the end product must be wholly assignable.
Most likely, the third party actually violated their contract with Microsoft by creating a work that uses GPLed code.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Depends on your definition of "deprecate" and "decade". As late as last year (2008), the kernel people were still working on removing it.
Je ne parle pas francais.
Microsoft did the right thing, they shouldn't be bashed for it. Consider the following:
You're standing in line thinking that the guy next to you, Steve, is a pretty normal guy; perhaps you don't like him a lot, but he seems to keep to himself. Suddenly Steve turns to you and junk-kicks you right up in your man business. When you come to several minutes later, Steve apologizes profusely. Apparently there was a mix-up which unfortunately resulted in your swollen nuts. Wanting to make things right, Steve allows you to junk-kick him in his man business.
I think it is safe to say Microsoft is doing the right thing allowing you to junk-kick their man business.
As opposed almost everyone fussing about "teh M$" and nuances of "freedom", I decided to take a look as see this professionalism.
The first, the first, line I read had a pre-processor no-no. Here:
#define ReleaseStr(pwz) if (pwz) { StrFree(pwz); }
You can read all about it here: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/misc-technical-issues.html#faq-39.4
Here's how it doesn't work:
if ( something )
ReleaseStr(pwz)
else
foobar;
So there. The code might look professional. It might but it doesn't mean that it is.