
Windows 2000 Source Code Gets (A Few) More Eyes 164
hansley writes: "Microsoft has extended its source code licensing program. Is it for distributed debugging purposes ? hmm ..." As the article points out, this limited and NDA-ridden disclosure is an expansion, rather than a wholly new idea. And remember, it has "nothing to do" with Linux or other Open Source software.
Re:GPLed code (Score:1)
And before you mention it, yes, NT/2k uses a lot of BSD code. And they are fully compliant with the BSD license. Nothing unethical about that.
Re:I guess MS is hard up for cash (Score:1)
Ever heard of a beta test? Same kind of idea. The thing is that with this program, they will have the potential of thousands more eyes looking at the code, and testing it to see if it works right (which it usually doesn't).
I don't care who you are, but that many people costs a LOT of money to hire. So, why not have others do it for free? Sounds like a great idea for MS, and the rest of the people who use Windows 2K, because hopefully we'll get bug fixes faster.
Just my two cents
Re:MSDN (Score:2)
A very long time, if ever. It's really a ploy by M$ to be able to say to the DoJ that "3rd party individuals" are looking at the code. It also allows them to say, "Look at how confident we are in our code." I could also see them attempting to say something like, "It's open source for the 'big boys'. None of our secrets are out like those "other OSes", but we've got great new minds looking at the code." Meanwhile, those minds think the same way M$ does.
I figured (Score:1)
Re:Do not look (Score:1)
Re:BSOD ported (Score:1)
Cloned , not ported.
Careful with your terms, you don't want to get the xscreensaver developers sued or anything, do you?
Re:They just can't get enough (Score:2)
My family often have to ask me to have a look at their PCs and I hate having to recommend a reinstall which, with all the updates required, can take many unnecessary hours. I would quite happily support them on Mandrake and I'm going to see if I can talk my dad into using 8.0 when it comes out, as he finds Windows' crappiness horribly frustrating.
Re:My favorite quote (Score:1)
Re:IIRC (Score:2)
Linux is just the kernel. If you want to make a fair comparison, you need to count the rest of a Linux distribution too, for example XFree86, since Windows is tightly integrated with it's GUI. Is PWS counted as part of Win32? Better add the source for Apache and WU-FTPD as well. Does Notepad count as part of the windows source? Add the count for lines of jove. And so forth... as far as I am aware, the lines-of-code quoted for Windows is for the whole thing, the entire CD distribution.
magnitude (if not two or even three) fewer eyeballs
Many eyes make bugs shallow if they're all qualified and more importantly, if they're all looking. On that metric, a far higher percentage of the people who have the code (MS staff and third parties) are useful "lookers".
Re:But do you notice something? (Score:2)
Other superior platforms and OSes existed in the past but Microsoft buried them all with a combination of marketing and anti-competitive practices.
Stupid Quote (Score:1)
Re:Cool (Score:2)
IT'S A TRAP! (Score:1)
Everyone listen!!!
Run. Run like hell. This is an obvious attempt to pollute the world with intellectual property that they can then turn around and sue the living daylights out of the rest of us.
Think about this: You write a piece of functionality for a GNU piece of software after you've seen something that is somewhat similar to the Winders source code? Then the M$ cops come down for a visit because you signed your life away on the NDA?
Save yourself now -- just say no.
#30 TLS
Re:MS knows people *want* the source... (Score:1)
The mess (Score:1)
This would be useful (Score:1)
INTSCS - (It's not the source code stupid) (Score:2)
This is not a smart move on their part as it's showing weakness in their propretary ways. They are validating the need and necesity of free-speech, not free beer.
Every little move like this is a victory for free-software (speech).
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
Re:I figured (Score:1)
But Scumsoft would *never be that bad, so why would I ever bring that up?..
Anyone still have a copy of DOS 4?. heh
Gee what an original idea.. (Score:2)
No shit?
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
I wonder... (Score:1)
It might lead to some creative patches for the UI. Maybe replacing the paperclip with a penguin? And it would probably really help with the windows emulators that people are writing (WINE). Hrm.
Re:MSDN (Score:1)
Re:NDA = Crack (Score:2)
It piggy-backs on your original work contract; as an employee, you (might) have the responsibility to be held to all contracts signed by authorized people in your company. Most of the time I've delt with it, has simply been pointed out to me as part of the employee manual.
Re:And your smoking what? (Score:1)
Re:What does Microsoft really want? (Score:2)
Through this program? I don't see it. For one, this is just a broading of the existing program; you go to a MS-run secure site, look at the source on MS's machines, and then leave...taking nothing with you but what you learned. The NDA covers what you learned, so even that's not available to be shared.
Re:Just thought I'd point out... (Score:1)
Funny, I see more eyes as better, and though the average intelligence is lower, what does it matter when you have a larger sample size with more intelligent people? Your logic is screwy without any grounding in any true thought; your comment is here to draw a flame.
Re:But Will Developers help Microsoft? (Score:1)
--
This will partially help. (Score:2)
Re:I wonder... (Score:1)
2) Yes, you can implement your own office assistant penguin easily, the process is well documented [microsoft.com].
Re:They just can't get enough (Score:1)
Of source it is not.
For the average office users using Linux would mean going back about 10 years
Yeah, it is where Linux is compared to Windows as far as desktop market is concerned.
On the server it is siply just another Unix , not the most powerfull or robust, but good enough to run ussual set of Unix services ( or deamons.)
Great for people who don't want to spend lot of money and have enough knowledge. In another words, it is a niche market.
Nothing wrong with that.
"NDA-ridden disclosure" (Score:2)
And as far as I know, Microsoft does not allow anyone to modify the source, let alone distribute patches. So much for the debugging
Re:But do you notice something? (Score:1)
--
Re:What does Microsoft really want? (Score:1)
*maddest_hatter*
*maddest_hatter*
MSDN (Score:3)
Five years? Ten years? Never?
Re:Just thought I'd point out... (Score:1)
How do you think they finally got that WINS crap to work so well in Windows 2000 (despite the fact they are trying to kill it with MS-DNS)?
Samba is the only fully documented source for the SMB implementation on Windows, not even Microsoft has documentation that thorough.
Considering the nasty PGP ADK bug ... (Score:1)
Just thought I'd point out... (Score:2)
I guess I'm thinking of the difference between Linux and BSD.
Re:Cool (Score:1)
I think you missed at least a couple incarnations: Win95 OSR 2.1, Win98SE, ... not to mention various OS+Office or OS+MSIE combinations that affect core files ... when exactly is one really looking at the source to 'Windows'? How many permutations of the actual core OS exist?
My favorite quote (Score:4)
Windows 95 as freeware? (Score:1)
One for you alternate history buffs!
Re:Source Code (Score:1)
To anyones knowledge, has a more or less complete archive of the source code actually been put on the internet somewhere? (not that I'm interested in the stuff per se, I haven't done any programming lately so it wouldn't be very interesting to me)
... just curious, really.
Do not look (Score:2)
The Process.. (Score:1)
Search for "int main(int argv, char **argc) {"
And here we go..!
AAAAAAAAGHH! AAUUUGGH! Mine Eyes! I Cannot See! I Cannot See!
NDA (Score:2)
You or any party remotely affiliated, or even not affiliated with you may not disclose even 1 character of our code. Should you or said party reveal that we use
1. The first born child of every member of your company must be enslaved to M$oft for use as we see fit.
2. Your company must publish a public retraction of this treason by stating that it could have been a : or perhaps even an = symbol
3. The eyes and voicebox of every employee that has had access or is affiliated with anyone who has access to said code, will be removed.
II. Disclosure of "#include"
You or
Re:GPLed code (Score:1)
Re:This would be useful (Score:1)
support, my ass!
Re:IIRC (Score:1)
I see you, too, are helping clear the bridges of those pesky trolls.
let's hang out in the pub tonite and drink some Troll Sweat brew.
Re:My favorite quote (Score:2)
Hmm. Am I the only person who is reminded of a well-known quotation about the market for computers is no larger than five?
Must just be my imagination: no one at Microsoft would say anything so stupid. And the quotation I'm reminded of is probably an urban myth anyway.
Geoff
Re:NDA = Crack (Score:1)
Re:Just thought I'd point out... (Score:1)
This is actually fairly unlikely. From everything I've heard, MS actually maintains a pretty strict policy of keeping their developers very far away from GPLed code. I've even heard that sourceforge and some other sites are blocked at their firewalls, for just this reason. If nothing else, "accidentally" incorporating GPLed code into their software would seem to open them to all kinds of nasty shareholder lawsuits for negligence.
Re:But Will Developers help Microsoft? (Score:1)
I doubt it. Several years ago, back when NT wasn't a single-architecture Operating System, I talked to a guy who sold file server appliances to DEC. If you recall, the DEC Alpha architecture was the last non-x86 CPU that NT ran on. This salesman told me that DEC engineering was very frustrated with Microsoft, because M$FT wouldn't use any of the bug fixes, performance enhancements, etc that the DEC engineers submitted. If M$FT won't use bug fixes from DEC, who had a very vigorous engineering department at the time, why should they use a bug fix from some lamer customer site? M$FT and the NT team in particular appears to have nothing but contempt for any outsider's abilities.
Re:NDA = Crack (Score:2)
Man, we've had like 3 articles in the last week or so just on NDA, and employee's IP, etc.
Re:MSDN (Score:1)
$man microsoft
Re:BSOD (Score:1)
bluescr.tar.gz, uses svgalib [xcp.aura.li]
part of xscreensaver, about 4/5 down the page [jwz.org]
Re:But Will Developers help Microsoft? (Score:2)
Re:But Will Developers help Microsoft? (Score:2)
MS code (and license) has the Gorgon effect with reguards to GPL code; after you look at it you can't contribute to free code. MS will claim that you stole ideas from them. I think this is some sort of poison pill for GPL code.
So, I think that this is bad for us free coders and good for MS, which makes it even worse for usLater...
But do you notice something? (Score:2)
This was before widespread easy Internet access (remember the ancient Compuserve dialer program?), so browsers weren't particularly important yet, but a thousand companies each seemed to have their "must-buy" technology.
That was about five to seven years ago. Now, outside of Linux, what truly *new* PC technology has emerged or been constructed since? Its just more of the same, and more after that. Pentium IV, Office 11, Windows 95,98,2000, MS Studio 7, and so on. Granted,
But its still a Microsoft product. Can *no other company* produce new technology anymore? Why is Microsoft the only company that seems to be able to produce even new versions of old binaries? Programmers have a staggering amount of information and knowledge and processing/storage power available. Again, besides Linux, where is the PC going?
Now, MS releasing source is probably a good idea, especially for an operating system, but everyone else seems to be just coasting along, still trying to get a couple more dollars out of the old "upgrade-reinstall-upgrade" cycle, and I think Microsoft is doing the same thing. I'm also not sure that releasing the source to their operating system will help the non-activity in PC development either, because of all the agreements everyone has to sign to use it.
I think it would be a lot better for the PC and technology in general if there were something new happening with computers again, or if, perhaps, Linux were to get more generally popular.
Re:My favorite quote (Score:2)
Re:Just thought I'd point out... (Score:2)
Re:Micro$oft Linux...? (Score:3)
That would be about 98% of corporate america. Most companies do not use Linux because they are afraid of going the non-M$ route. They ask, "Who else has done this and how effective was it for them?!" and they want to hear only big names... and a lot of them.
If M$ came out with a distro, most companies would go with it before they considered Redhat, Mandrake, Caldera, *BSD, or any other distro...
MS knows people *want* the source... (Score:2)
--LP
The Price is right... (Score:2)
US$378000.00
Minus the enterprise licensing discount (prob. about 10%).
I guess MS is hard up for cash (Score:2)
I can't believe they would consider asking for people to do this work for free, or ostensibly in exchange for getting an insider's look at the source code. I think this smacks of arrogance and is completely contrary to any kind of community fostering spirit.
I have an idea for what to do with the source they are revealing. I think it should be uploaded to file swapping services, web sites, newsgroups, chat rooms and anywhere else people can think to put it. Conisidering the 'saftey in numbers' lesson of Napster, we can expect that MS will be unable to go after anyone for this illegal distribution of their IP. That might make them think twice about such a self serving program in the future.
----------------------------
Re:But do you notice something? (Score:2)
The ones that tried were FUDed or vapourised a long time ago. Notice that every other x86 OS is available for no cost under various terms and conditions. No payware OS has ever succeeded in shifting Microsoft because buyers have to pay for a second OS, whereas they may be inclined to try something they get for nothing. This is why the anti-trust trial is so important - any area where Microsoft is threatened is immediately co-opted or crushed and until this roadblock to real innovation is removed OS and productivity software will stay as just rehashes + bloat of previous versions (and producing a stable OS after only 21 years of trying doesn't count as innovation - all the other OSes managed that years ago).
Re:Just thought I'd point out... (Score:2)
Re:My favorite quote (Score:2)
Re:GPLed code (Score:2)
Microsoft has never denied this and always respected the licencing terms of BSD software.
NDA = Crack (Score:5)
While the number of developers lost to both comercial and free/open operating systems should be low, we might never know the real loss.
If the NDA covers a whole company -- as the last one I had with MS for Win95 did ^ -- simply being an employee might stifle ... well ... inovation.
If so, this is a real 'win-win' for Microsoft in the long run.
How often do we discuss employment contracts and non-competes? The lack of talk on this issue here seems to show that NDAs aren't taken very seriously.
^. Not source.
Re:MSDN (Score:2)
I wonder whether Microsoft will be using the same tactic to help find the source of any source-code leaks. Will they put deliberate bugs in their code?
Can anyone imagine what M$Linux would be like? (Score:2)
It would include an obscene number of proprietary protocols and apis, making it completely incompatible with the rest of the Linux world.
But through shrewd deal-making and corporate IT fear, Microsoft embeds itself into the Linux landscape, causing an irreperable fork in kernel development.
Of course, all they would have to do is put an ugy UI on NT and call it Linux. Most folks would play along.
Be affraid. Be very affraid. [ridiculopathy.com]
Re: tell me about it. (Score:2)
---
Re:"NDA-ridden disclosure" (Score:3)
And as far as I know, Microsoft does not allow anyone to modify the source, let alone distribute patches. So much for the debugging ...
The point of this isn't to get Windows debugged, it's to make life easier for people debugging their own (Windows) software. Enough weird shit happens when you're trying to develop under Windows, and although probably 99% of the time it's a bug in your code, at least the companies that get a hold of the Windows source will be able to check.
So yeah, the motivation here for Microsoft is to make Windows developers happy. This is something they've always been big on - they know full well that the platform that the developers support is the one that will win in the market. So they've seen one of the things that makes developing under an open source OS attractive, and tried to match it.
Re:My favorite quote (Score:2)
I must be too subtle here. I surely would have guessed that by saying ``stupid Microsoft quotations", people would remember Allchin talking about how open source is unAmerican.
Or else it was just my imagination again.
Geoff
Allchin setup (Score:3)
GPLed code (Score:4)
Wouldn't it be great to find some GPL'ed code in there.... What a can of worms that would be for MS.
Re:GPLed code (Score:2)
Kernel hackers Jeff Merkey and Andre Hederick might be able to tell you where to start looking [linuxcare.com].
Mmmmmmm.... (Score:5)
Would that be the source of all evil then?
Re:What does Microsoft really want? (Score:2)
Think of it. You release software under an NDA and lots of licences. Then someone leaks it. After a while, people who had looked at it as teens move into the world. They write some GPL utility.
Now they have to prove that MS code did not influence them! It's like turning the world into a non-cleanroom environment, in order to get rid of opensource software (since they can inspect it easily..).
--
Re:Just thought I'd point out... (Score:2)
Re:Micro$oft Linux...? (Score:2)
Re:MSDN (Score:2)
If you don't like the HTML email, turn it off. The toolbar will never download, and you won't be wasting bandwidth for a feature you don't want.
Re:"NDA-ridden disclosure" (Score:2)
When you "get sourcecode," you don't just get a text dump. You also get some documentation, and the code itself has comments.
Re:"NDA-ridden disclosure" (Score:2)
Have you ever been debugging a program in windows, and something is going horribly wrong, and you've narrowed it down to somewhere in the big black box of "KERNEL32.DLL" which comes up as a bunch of asm gobbledeegook in your IDE? Source Code could definately be useful there.
Ever tried low-level kernel mode programming in windows? Do you realize how useful code would be to kernel-mode debugging?
Have you ever been hacking around with something in linux and found the included source code to be incredibly helpful?
Any way you slice it, having the OS source is a good thing for developers.
When [Netscape] opened up the code they had very few people who contributed or even really cared,
That's odd... where'd netscape 6 come from again? Besides, web browser source code vs OS source code is apples and oranges, from the perspective of developers
-------------
The following sentence is true.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
Re:But Will Developers help Microsoft? (Score:2)
Re:GPLed code (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if they get and set bits either. Check out http://sourceforge.net/snippet/detail.php?type=sni ppet&id=100055 [sourceforge.net].
Frankly, the whole idea of GPL'd snippets is just ridiculous. Perhaps people are thinking that they can "contaminate" code with these snippets, but I doubt that would hold up in court.
Far be it from me to tell others what to do, but if the license is longer than the code, the code should probably just be public domain.
Cool (Score:2)
I wouldn't touch the Windows 95/95 OSR2/98/ME code. That thing is probably a mess. Old DOS might be fun (back when all a Microsoft OS was a shell). But Windows 2000? Cool.
Re:GPLed code (Score:2)
Re:GPLed code (Score:2)
What does Microsoft really want? (Score:3)
[1] - Surely this is open to discussion, but at this time I'm fairly sure about this.
--
Matthijs
The Ultimate Irony (Score:2)
However, as famous and infamous as they are, as disliked as they are by some people in the computing community, they can be sure that plenty of people want to get their eyes on their code. If they allowed more people to see the code they'd have plenty of volunteers.
Thus, by their bad reputation, they ensure heightened curiosity.
IIRC (Score:2)
find
1504406
(I'm not going to claim that was the easiest or fastest way to do that....)
So W2k has two orders of magnitude more code, at least one order of magnitude (if not two or even three) fewer eyeballs and no way to FIX found bugs other than the same old "we'll put it on our list". Yeah, that's productive.
--
Beware (Score:2)
Re:But Will Developers help Microsoft? (Score:2)
Will developers that see bugs in the syntax report them to Microsoft?
I come from a Unix world myself. However, only lately have I come to realize the vast amount of developer support that Microsoft products enjoy. With the VS tools, there are tons of developers who think MS is the coolest thing since sliced bread and are eager to look at and contribute to the OS.
Will Microsoft take an active roll in using any "suggestions" from programers regarding bugs in future SPs or versions?
I'm pretty sure MS will look at the bug reports it receives. At the risk of sounding banal, I'll say that fixing bugs in software is not just a simple task of someone identifying an "obvious" bug and just fixing it. For about every 10 "obvious" bugs that you fix, you tend to cause one regression which will cost you tons of hours to find, identify and fix. Sometimes (not always) it is just not worth the risk to disturb a relatively stable product for the sake of fixing an obscure scenario.
Will the Windows OS improve as a result of this move, or just applications that run on the OS
Doesn't it lead to the same result? When a crappy driver causes your OS to bluescreen/hang, who do you blame?
Will this lead to some increases in bugs? If an application writer uses undocumented side effects of Windows (that she finds in the source code) and the code changes (SP, new version, etc.), will we see new bugs?
You're just screwing yourself if you're relying on an undocumented feature in the code. There's a reason some features aren't documented (no, and not just to srew the competitors) including that they might not be ready for primetime, have the adequate amount of testing or were pulled because of lack of demand. It would just be sheer stupidity to rely on an undocumented feature for your product.
Re:Just thought I'd point out... (Score:2)
Re:MSDN (Score:2)
In 10 years, at least one of these pieces of software will have itself completely "source" (you can look but don't touch). My bets are on Office, considering the direction they are heading with it as an application "service" and the internet. More .NET = less proprietary garbage. And, 10 years is an eternity in computing time.
By the way, have you seen Hotmail lately? IE is now incorporating a toolbar very similar to Office when you write a message. It's kind of cool to see that we've gone this far with this kind of stuff. A simple word processor that loads over the internet, for free, in a few seconds.
Re:My favorite quote (Score:2)
And lest we be judged: the actual paperclip in Office is crap. But the idea of having a fairly intelligent, natural language help query system is strong. Office got this right first and continues to get it right to today.
And personally, I do my games, internet browsing and papers in Windows 2000. I do all of my coding in Linux or FreeBSD.
Re:Just thought I'd point out... (Score:2)
Re:My favorite quote (Score:2)
Re:MS knows people *want* the source... (Score:2)
If one assumes that Microsoft wants to give out as little of their source as possible (maximizing their remaining control,) yet at the same time they want to minimize incursions of open source code into their base, then a set of incremental increases in source availability is the least-risk way for them to put their toe in the waters and see how much half-open-source-solutions satisfy people. This small incremental increase in source may not mean much, but to me, it does signal that they are feeling some pain from not making their source available to a their top licensing customers (1500+ licenses is a lot, but that covers a lot more companies than the 25000+ license type of companies I've heard of them giving source to before.)
--LP
But Will Developers help Microsoft? (Score:5)
I'm just full of questions. Anyone care to try and answer?
The most important question (IMHO) is: