States Demand Windows Source Code 808
Zeb writes: "Looks like the states who are continuing the anti-trust case
don't believe MS' claim that they cannot provide a stripped down version of Windows. They want MS to release the source code so they can verify MS' claims . Maybe MS shot itself in the foot here?" The Register has a story as well.
How lnog would it take to review? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they did get it, could they afford the time and expense of analyzing it?
Re:How long would it take to review? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How long would it take to review? (Score:4, Interesting)
then build it, it would pre pretty simple to figure it out.
Re:How long would it take to review? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's buildable and there's legible. I can see MS complying with the letter of such an order by running the source code through obfuscate.pl and delivering *that*. Sure, the code is FUNCTIONALLY the same, but you waste State money trying to decypher the source code.
Re:How long would it take to review? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who modded this down? (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you want the government to take the word of the people that run the meat-packing plant that everything inside is clean and tidy, or do you want inspectors going inside and looking for themselves?
Microsoft set themselves up by claiming that they can't strip out that code but then refuses to allow the government to review that code.
Re:Who modded this down? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine that microsoft the turkey in this equation is filled with a similar amount of bugs and may make those poor reviewers equally ill.
I got my entire grocery bill reimbursed and a 200 dollar gift certificate. I wish microsoft would do the same for all the poor suckers out there that lost data, time, and resources to them.
Microsoft Response (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who modded this down? (Score:3, Informative)
I remember a case from way way back ago, concerning a game console that had been reversed engineered so that a third party could develop games for it without having to license the technology.
However, when such games ran, the startup automatically triggered a screen that said something to the effect of "This game has been officially licensed by Somecompany".
At trial, since the console manufacturer failed to show that there was a way of booting a game without that text, they lost the case.
Now there is something remotely similar to the MS case here. MS is claiming that there is no way to deintegrate IE. *However*, they have failed to prove this. True, its proving a negative, which is difficult (at least logically, legally is another story), but MS will be on weak footing until they show the source code to someone else and let them try.
Oh, and IANAL.
Re:Who modded this down? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a little different legal situation, though - Microsoft has based its defense on the source code. As a loyal viewer of Law & Order, this then leads to the "Well, they raised the issue, Your Honor, so I can follow it up" situation. Microsoft can't be permitted to make a defense based on secret evidence that only they can see.
Re:Who modded this down? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes.
Compile it (Score:5, Interesting)
If the court orders this and selects competent experts, they aren't going to wait while MS prepares a very special set of media. They will send in Federal Marshals to take control of the MS servers containing all source code for anything that ends up on the Windows OEM disc and copy *everything* on them. MS won't regain access to its systems until the experts can build the Windows OEM disc on their own systems.
If Microsoft claims it doesn't know where all of the source code is stored (yeah, right), that's not a problem. The Marshals can seize the entire Redmond campus just as easily as they can seize a few server rooms. They should be able to seize the computers and media from all offices within a week or so, then they can sort it out back in the lab. Microsoft can easily afford to replace all of those computers. (The contents are another matter, but they'll have to request copies from the Marshals.)
Think this is unrealistic? Ask any victim of a BSA raid - and they've only been alleged of doing something wrong. Microsoft has had its day in court, been found guilty (and this verdict has been sustained on appeal), and is now being told to sustain its claims during the penalty phase.
Re:Compile it (Score:5, Informative)
If the court orders this and selects competent experts, they aren't going to wait while MS prepares a very special set of media. They will send in Federal Marshals to take control of the MS servers containing all source code for anything that ends up on the Windows OEM disc and copy *everything* on them. MS won't regain access to its systems until the experts can build the Windows OEM disc on their own systems.
You've been reading too many newsgroups. What you describe is seizure, and it's completely inappropriate in a civil matter. In order to get authorization to send in federal marshalls to seize property like that, a bench warrant must be issued. To get a bench warrant, the judge has to be convinced that there's evidence there that's relevant to a criminal investigation and that couldn't be gotten any other way.
In other words, if a judge believed that Microsoft's computers had information on them about who mailed Anthrax to those senators last fall, and that judge believed that Microsoft had been given an opportunity to turn the evidence over and had refused or that the evidence was in danger of being tampered with or destroyed, then and only then would you see a bench warrant issued for the sort of seizure you describe.
This is completely different from any action taken by the police in cooperation with the BSA. In those instances (like the Rotter raid last year), the police were convinced by the BSA that criminal activity was taking place, that the activity was very significant, and that any approach other than seizure would result in evidence being destroyed.
Re:Compile it (Score:3, Insightful)
I am confused. Clarify for me: Was Microsoft found guilty or liable in the Antitrust Case. I thought they were found guilty, and that it was indeed actually a criminal violation.
C//
This is the CRIMINAL anti-trust case (Score:4, Interesting)
This is action is also being taken during the penalty phase after conviction of criminal charges. That eliminates any legal presumption of innocence - the legal burden is now on the convicted party to prove innocence, not the state to prove guilt. (That's also why it's so hard to get convictions overturned even when new evidence is discovered.)
As for the bench warrant, all it requires is that the judge believe that the most expedient way to resolve the matter is to seize those servers. I doubt there are many experts who would look at Microsoft's performance during the trial phase and not foresee months of stonewalling unless the experts had full access to all source from the first day - and that would require seizure. I would expect many experts would make this a condition of serving in this role, to avoid wasting their own time.
Re:This is the CRIMINAL anti-trust case (Score:3)
That's simply false. Judges can't go issuing warrants whenever they feel like it. There are legally and constituionally mandated guidelines that must be followed in order for the warrant to be legal.
There's no question that the most expedient way to get anything is just to take it. That doesn't mean our justice system operates that way.
Re:Compile it (Score:4, Interesting)
Gosh, I wish that were true. Seems like I recall that way back in dinosaur days, Netscape noticed that Navigator ran quite well under Win3.1, but very poorly under Win3.11. Hmm... maybe a little too poorly. So Netscape sued, eventually a federal judge ordered Microsoft to turn over the source to Win3.11. Microsoft then claimed that it had lost the source.
No federal marshals were sent in to confiscate source code. The judge slapped Microsoft's hand and that was the end of it. This all took years and Netscape was dying by then anyway.
I would love to believe that we could rely on the law to save the day, but I just can't.
Compound this with the fact that Microsoft was a huge campaign contributor in 2000.
=brian
Cthulhusoft. (Score:4, Funny)
Aiiiiie!
Re:Cthulhusoft. (Score:2, Funny)
You forgot to use the word "cyclopean".
Re:Cthulhusoft. (Score:3, Funny)
--
Evan "Ai Ai Ai, *sneeze*" E.
Re:How lnog would it take to review? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How lnog would it take to review? (Score:4, Funny)
But then, we know they already have a pact with Satan. Maybe it's NOT so farfetched...
Re:How lnog would it take to review? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its easy to find what you want in the Linux source code and I'm sure Windows would be just as organized (they do have to maintain it.)
Any teenager surely can hack windows code by searching around, cutting and pasting a few features here and there to get what they want.
Re:How lnog would it take to review? (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, Microsoft's claim is that IE is so tightly integrated into the OS that it could never be removed - even if they do have it separated out nicely into modules internally, I'd be surprised if the copy of the source they release to the court doesn't have everything arranged to best support their argument.
I'd love to see a copy of the randomly rescrambled files, though... "Kernel32AndClippyToo.h", anyone?
--
Damn the Emperor!
A probably meaningless but concrete number (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, there's no reason to be believe that (A) I remember that right, or (B) McNealy didn't just pull that out of his ass.
Re:A probably meaningless but concrete number (Score:3, Informative)
Are you including all the code for XFree86, the C libraries, Emacs, PAM modules and whatever else is installed? Considering you need about a gig of drive space to install any recent distribution in total, that's a lot more than 2 million lines of code.
The Debian source distribution comes compressed on 3 CD's which indicates that there is far more than 2 million lines of code.
I seriously doubt McNealy's claim as well, again because my Solaris 8 install also takes over half a gig.
Re:A probably meaningless but concrete number (Score:3)
evilpenguin@paladin:/usr/src/linux$ find * -iname *.c -exec cat {} \; | wc -l
2894192
evilpenguin@paladin:/usr/src/linux$ find * -iname *.h -exec cat {} \; | wc -l
768934
For a grand total of 3663126 lines of code. This isn't including any of the scripts such as Makefiles.
(This was done on the version 2.4.17 tree)
Re:How lnog would it take to review? (Score:2)
Re:How lnog would it take to review? (Score:3, Interesting)
> If they did get it, could they afford the time and expense of analyzing it?
Maybe they didn't think of that, or maybe they don't really want the code, and just suggested it as a plausible position to be bargained down from.
Re:How lnog would it take to review? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh well...it COULD have worked...
Re:How lnog would it take to review? (Score:3, Funny)
s/\r\n//g;
}
You're hired.
Not long... Here's what I would do. (Score:5, Informative)
Most of these DLLs are special components that are EXTRAs to memory management, user interface, graphics, file systems, IO and Network Interface.
MOST of these DLLs are extra components like the following:
* Message Queuing
* Broadcast Architecture
* 4 Media Services SDKs (Software Development Kits)
* Image Color Management
* NetShow
* Group Policy
* Management Console
* MS Exchange (Client Components)
* MAPI - Mail Interface
* CDO - Collaboration Data Objects (Another Mail Interface plus more)
* NetMeeting
* Active Directory Services
* Fax Services
* Internet Authenication Services
* Internet Protocol Helper
* Network Management
* Network Monitoring
* QOS - Quality of Service Extentions
* RPC - Remote Procedure Calls
* Syncronization Manager
* TAPI - Telephony Applications
* Crytography
* Smart Card interface
* Policy Management
* Scripting Engine for JScript + VBScript
* Microsoft Agent API
* Countless Webserver APIs and Services
...and the LIST will go ON AND ON AND ON...
To be honest, you don't have to look through most of the source code to know MS CAN provide a stripped down version of an operating system.
Unfortuntately, it won't run a lot of software because most applications are beginning to take advantage of the specialized SDK's like I've listed above.
As much as I would love to have MS give up thier source code, you honestly don't need it to know you can distribute a stripped down operating system.
The operating system WILL work. Just don't be surprised when most applications don't install correctly when it notices you don't have the DLL for database transactions.
Stripped down version of windows... (Score:2)
Sure they can.. its called Windows 95... or better yet MS-DOS %-)
.
Re:Stripped down version of windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
This arguement is like Ford saying they can't sell a Windstar without a radio because the radio is built into the fuel injection computer, so if you remove the radio the engine won't run. The answer to that nonsense is simple: Ford, build a fuel injection computer without a radio. Microsoft, write Windows core dlls without IE functionality. Yes, the comparison is apt: in the 1970's the government ruled that auto makers must offer cars without factory radios but with factory antennas (nevermind that those 1970's wire-in-the-windshield antennas were crap, the public wanted them but they also wanted Blaupunkt not Delco).
It may be difficult (because they made it difficult on purpose), but it's not impossible. They're lying. Again.
Re:Stripped down version of windows... (Score:3, Interesting)
They also integrated an RTF editor, and a basic plaintext editor. It's called the RichEdit control and the EDIT control.
Was this to kill competition in the editor market?
They also integrated TCP/IP support.
Was this to kill competition in the TCP/IP stack market?
So they integrated an HTML parser and an HTML renderer.
Where does it become a problem, and where doesn't it? Because I know a LOT of developers who use the HTML support provided by IE in their code on a DAILY basis, because it works, they don't have to reinvent the wheel, and it cuts development time by 10 man-months just to get it up and running.
This is why Konqueror is componentized.
This is why Gecko is componentized.
People need it, people want it, and people use it.
Don't be so hypocritical.
Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Experts (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Experts (Score:2, Insightful)
MS could say that the states' experts, if they did construct a stripped-down version, in stripping it down are removing the functionality that make the program Windows. For example, remove the CD writing from XP and is what you have XP anymore? That is one of the things MS touted since not everyone wants to pony up for Nero's or Roxio's power packages.
If the states win this challenge, things could get messy fast...and I think I'd like to watch the fun!
Re:Experts (Score:3)
Is there anyone on slashdot who DOESN'T think they're a great coder?
Re:Experts (Score:3, Insightful)
What is on their mind? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what the states hope to accomplish.
Re:What is on their mind? (Score:2, Funny)
By recruting a few people out of Brazil I would assume?
Difficulty factor? (Score:4, Funny)
"I'm sorry, your honor, but the witnesses are deadlocked..."
Re:Difficulty factor? (Score:3, Insightful)
Delay by the *States*? (Score:3, Interesting)
sure i'll give you the source (Score:3, Funny)
merged all into one file, variable names mapped
to numbers, etc...
well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:well... (Score:2)
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
open source windows? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:open source windows? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:open source windows? (Score:2)
Somewhere in Mordo^H^H^H^H Redmond... (Score:4, Funny)
Clippy:"It looks like your Searchig and Replacing!"
Drone421:(Absently talking to Clippy)"Yep, I good go through each one of these
Clippy:"Please type your question"
Drone421:"hmmmmmm..." How to I do a global search and replace?
Clippy:"Please choose your Encarta (TM) topic: Harlem Globetrotters, Search and Rescue, or UNIX"
Drone421:"Hmmmm... I think on second thought, I'll ask the Hotmail people how they got rid of all the BSD copyright stuff in their code"
Re:Somewhere in Mordo^H^H^H^H Redmond... (Score:2)
Why would they bother? The BSD license is entirely free, unlike the GPL.
But I doubt there's much BSD licensed code inside Windows anyway... if there were I'd expect Windows to be rather more stable and well designed.
Re:Somewhere in Mordo^H^H^H^H Redmond... (Score:3, Funny)
Can any good come of this? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the past, it has been argued that even MS doesn't fully understand the code to Windows, so how will somebody who is just starting to look at this determine what is happening?
windows "source code" is likely useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it did exist, what would programmers say other than "yes, with enough hacking, we can separate this out"? I mean, with enough hacking, you can get OS/2 to emulate Windows, or Linux. And if Windows cannot be split up, it only means that it is not well-modularized (but you guessed that already).
Most of these problems come from the peculiar notion in the US legal system that a company must have done something wrong in order to be subject to monopoly restrictions. The simple fact is that dominance of the operating system market by any system, be it Windows, Linux, or whatever, is not good. We need a diversity of operating systems, and that's what remedies should be aimed at. Leave Microsoft's source code alone.
Re:windows "source code" is likely useless (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, but.....
Didn't the 98lite team [98lite.net] succeed in seperating IE from Windows with IEradicator [98lite.net]?
Here's what they say:
The removal process is elegant with all COM servers politely being asked to de-register themselves from the system registry using their inbuilt deinstallation routines before being eliminated from the hard disk. IEradicator then pulls out the cleaning gear and gives the registry a good polish before returning control back to you. The MS HTML Engine (shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll) is left on the machine to provide needed functionality for other applications that render HMTL (e.g. Outlook Express) or that launch a mini-browsing window (e.g. Winamp's Mini Browser, Netmeeting's Online Directory).
IEradicator gives you a leaner, faster desktop by eliminating all desktop web-integration including active desktop, single click, image previews, file/folder information, and custom backgrounds.
Actually it is well-modularized... (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, Microsoft should just remove iexplore.exe from the system and say "There we've removed IE." and leave it at that. Instead they are arguing semantics with people who are technically incompetent.
I also don't see an argument for why we need a diversity of operating systems. Or rather, why you feel we don't already today have a diversity of operating systems. Linux is available, so is various forms of MacOS, BSD and so on. Fact is there is probably a wider variety of operating systems available today than at any other time in the history of personal computing.
The fact that not all of these operating systems are on equal footing in terms of hardware and software support is a result of effeciences of scale. The scale argument is the reason against diverse operating environments.(I include the hardware in along with the OS)
Re:windows "source code" is likely useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there is. I've worked on it briefly and at the time it was roughly 680MB. This included tons of custom utils and custom versions of assemblers and compilers. (So much for a Chinese wall).
There's nothing magic about M$ code. I've seen better code, but I've also seen worse. It's not terribly difficult to understand the overall structure though.
Even if it did exist, what would programmers say other than "yes, with enough hacking, we can separate this out"? I mean, with enough hacking, you can get OS/2 to emulate Windows, or Linux. And if Windows cannot be split up, it only means that it is not well-modularized (but you guessed that already).
The point is to seperate out a piece that used to be seperate in the first place. (e.g. the browser). All this stuff happens at the shell level and only requires a small part of the source tree. I think it would take very little effort to prove that it can be done (easily).
We need a diversity of operating systems, and that's what remedies should be aimed at. Leave Microsoft's source code alone.
The only way to achieve that is when there is such a thing as fair competition. There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly,- the abuse of power to make competition almost impossible is.
This brings up an other subject that I happened upon whilst looking at the Windows source, and something that may help unravel the infamous AARD code [ddj.com].
If I can make a suggestion: request the entire source tree for Windows 3.1. In the himem.sys source subtree there is a file called sipsim.obj. It's a small file and it contains 1(one) function: ISMSDOS. This function is the AARD code. Even within M$ this file was not distributed as source.
The fact that the function is called ISMSDOS is pretty clear indication that Schulman was right in what he suspected: an attempt to make the code not run on anything but MS-DOS.
If they "can't find" the code, I may be able to assist.
Re:windows "source code" is likely useless (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not only that.. (Score:3, Informative)
Why is this? Because doing so gives IE some advantage over other (non-MS) programs.
Uh, no, it doesn't.
IE just paints outside of the WM_PAINT handler sometimes. You can do that you know - the call is GetDC. Or GetDCEx if you need better control.
Not to mention that IE doesn't paint directly to the screen. It paints to a memory DC first for compositing, and then paints the memory DC to the screen.
Just because the VNC client isn't complete, don't start claiming that "IE uses undocumented calls" -- because it doesn't.
But tell ya what, prove that it does, and that it's not a bug in VNC, and I'll eat my hat.
Simon
I can't wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft is Protecting a Secret (Score:3, Funny)
Let the Windows Source Jokes Begin! (Score:3, Funny)
Balmer: Code? What Code?
States: The line of code that says
while 1 {
gosub microsoft.world.domination();
}
points addressed (Score:3, Insightful)
1)A good software engineer will know how to approach this kind of project, and will know how to start.
2)its ease will determine on MS's standards and adherence policy.
3)If they can get the source code(I doubt it, but I hope so), I'm sure they can get documentation.
And no, I can't imagine a beo...you know the rest.
Someone call the FAA! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Which features can't be removed? (Score:3, Offtopic)
I got rid of Internet Explorer [98lite.net] a few months ago, and my system is just fine.
I wonder if their proof involved deleting C:\winnt\system32\kernel32.dll.
Re:Which features can't be removed? (Score:2)
And emacs is part of the operating system too (Score:3, Insightful)
Libraries used by an application are not the application. This is the root of the debate. Microsoft has defined IE to include libraries used by other programs, and other people have a more limited definition.
I could define IE to include the entire Windows operating system as part of it. I do not consider that a valid definition, as there are very few computers with Windows installed for the express single purpose of using IE. As soon as the HTML engine was being used by other applications than IE, it was no longer part of the IE application.
Re:Which features can't be removed? (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember the days where some PC apps had their own TCP/IP implementations built-in. Then, a bit later, most of them started to use winsock, which became a dll eventually. Now it's a system wide resource.
Or to continue the car analogy: many of the electrical components of a car could have their own battery, but didn't -- because the battery/alternator system that supported the electric ignition was already there. This served as a good platform for adding other electric/electronic devices to the car. And yet replacing the starter motor does not mean that I have to replace anything else. Can you say the battery/alternator is PART of the starter motor? Or Headlamps? Dashboard electronics? Radio?
Generally useful pieces of applications will tend to migrate outside the app -- because programmers know it's better to reuse rather than reinvent (if you can understand the API, anyway). The HTML renderer is an important system component now. The IE application is not. If the analogy doesn't demonstrate that clearly, the actions of the 98Lite team do.
but WHY? (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides wouldn't the code analyzers be smacked with the same NDA's that colleges who got ahold of NT's source code were. Something like you can't develope an OS or develope system maintence software for windows for 5 years.
If I was a code developer that had the ability to understand operating systems (like windows) ... which I'm not ... would I really want to take the burden of examining this code?
And a stripped down version of windows impossible? Funny windows 1 - 95b managed to work just fine WITHOUT internet explorer. And NT was just fine until 4.0 came out. I mean what functionality does IE really bring to the Operating System. Not to mention XP, there's that stupid CD burning software, dvd player, windows media player, internet explorer, and funky skins. If you take that away from XP ... then you'll have Win2K :-).
IE integration is not neccessary to the OS itself. But I think that people really need to face the facts. If you don't like something ... do something about it. I'm not talking about suing ... I'm talking about not using it.
Let's get as many as I can remember here. BSD's, Linuxes, QNX, Be, AtheOS, Unicies (some are free now). And there are even non-free alternatives, MacOS, Solaris, Tru64, etc. If you don't like windows, stop complaining about how "virus prone", "crashy", and "crappy" it is, STOP USING IT.
Get yerself a CD-Burner and a high-speed connection and do yourself a favor, upgrade. And if you don't have the previous mentioned then find someone who does, it would take you probably all of 30 minutes to find one of your chaps that has the neccessary tools. Or get out of the house and off the phone with your lawyer, and go see your local UG (user group), perl mongers, BSD Users Groups, Linux UG's, Amiga Users, etc.
There are lots of resources out there, but you have to actually go find them. I don't think that you'll ever get a phone call "Hi this is Bill Gates, what can I do to make windows better for you?" , but if you do ... simply reply "Can you have an option to install Debian in the setup menu?"
Don't get me wrong, I dis-like MS, but what have they done wrong except make a complex math tool a cool toy that is useful? I don't see anyone suing MacOS for only running on powerpcs ... BeOS tried to get their foot in the door and linux runs on mac hardware. Is not an apple a monopoly in the mac world? Ohhh but wait, that's okay ...
"It said windows 98 or better, so I installed linux"
What??!? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The States also asked the judge to appoint a technical expert to provide "impartial opinions on the complex, technical issues" of the case. If she grants source access, we fear one of these may not be enough."
Just how, *how* are you going to find a geek that is impartial?
The good, the bad, the ugly (Score:5, Interesting)
Source released openly: What the states are asking for. This really won't get them anywhere. MS has been declared a monopolist, and going back like this is akin to going back to the murder scene for more evidence after the killer's been convicted. It doesn't do them any good other than to cause MS nightmares about their IP being compromised. Needless to say, MS hates this idea. Expect to see a scathing rebuttal within a couple of days. (Historical note: This is what one prosecutor did in the DeCSS case... put the code in as open/unsealed evidence, making it part of the public record. oops!) OSS advocates would love this idea, but without the compilation capabilities, it doesn't do Joe Sixpack any good unless MS accepts patches submitted by the public and makes them available for download.
Source released under seal: Same as an open release, but the source code doesn't get published, and only those people approved by the court get to see it. Takes even more time, more money, and accomplishes just as little. Only here, MS doesn't have to lose sleep over IP loss, just take care of a nasty migraine. Joe Sixpack gains nothing.
No release: Obvious victory for MS, but the case moves on faster than it would have otherwise, which (as we all know) MS does't want. Joe Sixpack doesn't get anything here, either.
Re:The good, the bad, the ugly (Score:3, Interesting)
Middleware? (Score:2)
Since when is a web browser considered middleware? This reporter must have been watching too many IBM commercials and wanted to use the new words he learned.
it's probably very well written (Score:2, Insightful)
Now mod me down.
Quitcherbitchin (Score:5, Informative)
So...
Quit.. Yer... BITCHIN.. If you REALLY want to look at/dis MS source code, perhaps you should just go to school. About 2 years into it perhaps you'll realize you're taking life a BIT too seriously.
From the page:
Microsoft® makes source code to Microsoft operating system products like Windows XP, Windows 2000 and Windows CE available to universities and other "not-for-profit" research institutions at no charge. Currently, there are over 100 universities worldwide with our source licenses.
Re:Quitcherbitchin (Score:3)
The old maxim "Those who know don't speak, those who speak don't know" usually holds true around here.
Multiple versions of windows == bad (Score:2)
It's one problem that linux has today, since there are so many different distributions that are subtley different, sometimes you have massive problems getting programs to work correctly. It's much better then it was in the past, but Windows doesn't seem to have this problem as often as linux ( IMO ).
I see this as a possiable way for say people in the WINE project to get access to the 'hidden' features of the windows API that everyone keeps on saying exist.
Re:Multiple versions of windows == bad (Score:3, Insightful)
It is possible to remove IE! (Score:2, Informative)
Here is a quote from their website about IEradicator: "IEradicator is tiny, script that uses the Windows setup engine to surgically remove Internet Explorer versions 3 through 6.0 from Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium and Windows 2000(sr1)."
You can download it from the company's website [98lite.net] for free. It used to remove the entire HTML rendering engine but their current version leaves this in. If you want, you can buy the full version which will remove that too, effectively completely removing internet explorer from windows.
Adam
They don't have to review all of the Windows Code (Score:5, Insightful)
All the States have to do (yeah, merely) is to look at one or two of the assertions and attempt to disprove them with the source code. At that point they can call the credibility of a particular witness into doubt and impeach their entire testimony.
Remember, the biggest complaint most of us have had is that MS has been making unsubstantiated claims about the technical merits and difficulties of certain actions. This way the States could go out and prove they're unsubstantiated.
Maybe I'm on drugs but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hire old MS coders (Score:3, Interesting)
This is when we find out... (Score:3, Funny)
Remove IE, break windows? YES (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be obvious to everyone that trully removing IE from windows would break it!
The problem with referring to Microsoft's operating system as simply "Windows" means that we mesh together the kernel and the user interface into one generic term. Would removing IE break the kernel? Of course not. UI code such as browsers does not live in the kernel. But would it break the Windows user interface? Yes.
IE is tightly integrated into the UI. Click "My Computer", "My Documens", or open the File "Explorer" and what pops up? Why it's IE! Not, chance that url at the top that say "My Computer" to http://slashdot.org and now you're browsing Slashdot with Internet Explorer.
It would be impossible to remove IE without breaking the user interface. And why should they remove it? It's their user interface. The same thing holds true in the KDE world. You browse your home directory guess what you're using? Konqueror! The same web browser that comes packaged with the desktop. Similar? I think so.
The point is, I hate MS probably more than most people, but should we care that IE is tightly integrated? I think it's to the user's benefit that it is. Now whether or not Microsoft should allow the user to entirely disable IE's internet exploring abilities is another question. If I make Mozilla my default browser and I click on a link in my email, Windows will open up Mozilla. However, if I type a link into "My Computer" explorer, it just opens the link in that window (ala IE). Maybe the behavior should be to pop open Mozilla?
Anyway, like them or not, Microsoft destructive monopoly. But should packaging a tightly integrated web browser with the user interface illegal? I think not.
Over and over again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it is proven that the browser could be separate, that does nothing to bring Netscape, the company (rather than the AOL subsidiary or whatever they are now), back. It does not help any stock valuing, it doesn't help investors - Netscape - the company - is dead.
Yet we don't hear from the states - the last hope (maybe) to get this settled honestly and justly - that Microsoft has been found to be guilty of using its monopoly powers illegally, to force another company out of business. They VIOLATED ANTI-TRUST MEASURES! It wouldn't have mattered if the browser was part of the OS, if it was separate and installed with it, or if it was given away free on a CD in every box of Cherrios on the store shelves. The fact that they dropped the price to zero and gave it away, plus using thier advantage in the OS market to sway people into using it (by either installing it with the OS or tying it in someway), in order to undermine a competitor in an "unrelated" software product (Netscape and the browser business) at the time - this is illegal under the Anti-Trust laws.
This lawsuit is not about today - it is about what happened so many years ago. Today, it seems pretty obvious that a browsable UI and OS seem like a good solution (or at least "a" solution). Back then, though, they were nearly two separate pieces of software. But today, the states seem to be treating this lawsuit as if it were about the present situation in software - when that isn't the case, nor should it be.
I want Microsoft to be punished for its actions against Netscape and against the consumer - for these actions removed a choice from the consumer - a choice to spend or not spend their money (ie, buy Netscape for $$$), as well as causing what may have been the premature "death" of a company (of course, this is only one aspect of the entire lawsuit - the whole thing with licensing restrictions on OEMs to prevent them from selling or installing onto systems other OSs, etc - locking in a OS monopoly on hardware OEMs - more anti-trust issues)...
I want an full answer on that - why aren't we (as citizens and consumers) getting that answer?
Microsoft Objects (Score:4, Funny)
Judge: And when will that be?
NY Attorney General (whispering): When no one has any money left with which to buy Windows.
MS Attorney: Well, it's hard to say...
Judge: You will deliver the source code in its present state to this court no later than two months from today.
MS Attorney: Your Honor, my client respectfully requests that Windows be treated as an intelligent life form and therefore allowed to plead the fifth.
Red Herring (Score:5, Insightful)
We need file formats, wire formats, protocols. If Microsoft doesn't have clear, concise documentation, if Microsoft considers 'the source IS the documentation' for this stuff, then *THAT* is part of the problem with computing today.
The source IS the documentation (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an entirely different thing with file formats, protocols, and the like. Microsoft tries to call these things Standards. In order to truly be a standard, something has to exist apart from its implementation. It's OK to have a reference implementation, but that's a supplement to documentation, not a replacement for documentation. Plus a live program implementing a standard is a completely different thing than a reference implementation.
Standards are supposed to have a life beyond any single given implementation - that's why it's called a Standard. Otherwise, every version might well be incompatible with the one before in subtle ways. This is also a good reason for Standards to be simple and clear.
How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how stripping out add-on middleware from Windows will benefit the consumer in the end.
Currently the home OS ships for $100 and comes with a good browser, decent/basic archiver, basic CD burner and a bunch of other utilities that are "good enough" for 90% of the users. Is this unfair to other vendors that make more robust version of these utilities commercially? Perhaps...
However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
Suddenly the TCO of the system is going up at a prohibitive rate. Software isn't cheap, if you actually bother to license everything you use at home. Do we expect users, who don't bother now to research alternative options to Windows software, to make rational, cost-effective decisions about purchasing add-ons for their OS? Or do we expect middleware vendors to drop their prices once the competition ball is in their court? I don't see how the consumer's wallet will benefit from all this litigation in the end.
Re:How is stripping down OS is a win for consumers (Score:5, Insightful)
The main problem is the fact that they're not providing you with a browser: they're providing you with a browser that's impossible to remove. And people who claim that "well, it's nice to be able to enter stuff in the go window" are missing the point - There's NO reason that MS couldn't have made the OS able to accept a browser of any type as a file manager, provided it met some specifications (see GNOME's WM spec). Or use a different HTML renderer. But, no, they were scared of Netscape, and so they bundled IE in with Windows.
Think I'm crazy? What about this - what if Windows didn't allow you to change the default "Open" program for filetypes? How is this any different than what's going on now? The point is NOT that MS bundled these programs - look at Linux, for instance. If RedHat started bundling commercial programs with Linux, great - but the OS allows you to remove them.
So, I'm not saying "strip out the middleware". What I'm saying is "strip out the integration of the middleware into the OS" or "make the middleware removable". If MSN was set up in Windows to be the ONLY ISP, and any other ISP didn't have nearly the flexibility that MSN had under Windows (for no good reason other than Microsoft won't tell anyone what the APIs that MSN uses are), would that be fair? What the states and everyone else is saying is add everything you want, but DON'T BREAK THE LAW. MS has a monopoly. If you have a monopoly, you can't go around acting as if you don't - you have to act differently. Basically, you have to be very "nice" with your monopoly - not use it to bully around people or increase your business.
That's kindof what the antitrust laws are for. They acknowledge that monopolies sometimes occur, but that when they do, the company needs to somehow maintain the air of a competitive environment.
Other News (Score:3, Funny)
February 15, Redmond, Washington (AP) -- "Microsoft officials, who were initially outraged over the rebel states' request for source code access adopted an abruptly accommodating stance late yesterday."
"It seems that Bill Gates had started an internal initiative to find the best way to obfuscate the Windows source code in the event the states' request were to receive a successful ruling."
"Almost immediately, some of the top programmers from Microsoft, some of whom had spent years working on the Windows product, declared that native source itself already represented a sufficiently obtuse format and that not further obfuscation could better fulfill Bill's objectives."
"Let them have it!" declared one programmer gleefully and without hesitation."
W2K runs fine without IE Courts are DUMB ! (Score:3, Insightful)
The courts are compltley ignorant on this matter, so are their 'expets' for the most part. Windwows will run fine without IE, at least, 95, NT 4.0 and W2K , SP is 2k on steroids with eye candy, The OEM install kit(XP) has a network ready bootable CD image that wii RUN ANY(IE included, Abobe, you name it), Windows app under it you want this should be PROOF alone. It starts as only a background and a shell window, you can run anything else from it you want executing it from the command line, Beauty is it will handle Win32 AND NTFS partitions, makes a wicked hack tool for a dead or funked machine, or to change the SAM around
Re:Windows source code is easy to get.... (Score:2, Insightful)
ha ha ha ha. That's sooo flipping funny. Standard Microsoft bashing. Can't we get beyond this? Just once?
Re:Windows source code is easy to get.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really. I can't remember the actual numbers from my software engineering class, but some 60% of all software problems come from the spaghetti code problem. If you look at what Microsoft has done, expand the platform and combine it with Windows NT, then I can almost say there is going to be bad code.
Don't take it so hard. The only people that should be afraid are the MS engineers.....hmmmmm
Re:MS....open source? (Score:2)
isn't that the fish hell?
Re:You guys are retarded. Leave Microsoft alone. (Score:3, Informative)
The OEM license agreements were the proof and the smoking gun.