Judge Says Microsoft Must Give States Windows Code 610
murphro (along with many others) writes, "Reuters is posting a story describing how the Judge has ordered the release of Windows code to the states seeking antitrust sanctions. I doubt it will actually happen (because MS will fight it this to the end). But if it did, do you think we commoners would ever see it? And if you did get your hands on the code, what would you do with it?" Here's the Yahoo link. (The same Reuters story is on dozens of other sites, too.)
yes! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:yes! (Score:2)
what would we do with it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what would we do with it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what would we do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kernel HOW-TO [linuxdoc.org]
CD Burning HOW-TO [linuxdoc.org]
ZIP Drive Mini HOW-TO [linuxdoc.org]
Now my first impression after reading your post, what benig so open minded about things, is that these HOW-TO's are most likely not for you. Much in the same way that Windows based OS'es are not for all of us (Read: Choice!).
However, you're not limited by that, wanna try Linux? Buy a distro, Redhat, Suse and Mandrake are all quite mature, quite *graphically* configurable and meant for end-users (Read: Binary Updates). Additionally if you spend the few bucks, (certainly not nearly as much as XP), you get something in the realm of 30 days technical, live installation support - I know many people who have used these services and been quite happy.
So as to maintain the topic thread, I would also suggest that you're miles off topic as MS releasing the source to a fellow such as yourself would make no difference whatsoever. Additionally, there is a huge difference between configuring a kernel, which is what you need to do and kernel hacking which is most certainly something you could never do
As for your final comment, agreed Linux should be easier for everyone, admittedly the community is not there yet. However, the above mentioned distributions have come a long way in the last year, patience. If you want easy and *NIX then don't be cheap, buy a Mac.
God, I can't believe I just did all that for such a trollish comment...
Wow! (Score:3, Funny)
You know the source would leak out. Maybe someone could steal a copy and give it to Linus so he could fix it!
it's all just slight of hand (Score:2, Informative)
and of course they'll fight it tooth and nail.
Hopefully not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully not. (Score:3, Insightful)
In your dreams (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In your dreams (Score:3, Informative)
If you wish to be cynical, fine -- but at least try for some factualism while you're doing it.
fix linux drivers (Score:3, Interesting)
i.e. look at how windows implements NTFS, etc. and write linux drivers that are less of a guess.
Judge is not calling for Windows to be open source (Score:5, Interesting)
As I read the article, the only thing the states will be able to do with the source is verify whether or not it is possible to unbundle Internet Explorer from the rest of the operating system. Microsoft says this is impossible; everybody else knows they're lying, but the proof is in the source code.
Of course IE can be removed... READ! (Score:5, Interesting)
This program [98lite.net] does a nice job. Back when this case was actually started it was very easy to nuke IE and and have very light and clean OS, despite microsoft's claims that it was part of the core os (as if it was implemented in the kernel.. ha!)
Now it seems as of Win2K SP2, IEEradictor no longer works. I'm sure thats just due to changes in the way IE is added in, and with a little work probably could be made to work again. But I think this case is in regards to Windows 95, back when microsoft got on the warpath for browser dominance .
Re:Of course IE can be removed... READ! (Score:5, Insightful)
The most damning evidence that a browswer doesn't have to be so close to the kernel (in the kernel???) is IE for Macintosh. Its a damn fine browser that is nothing more than a standalone app. Sure, Microsoft bitches that IE is needed for product updates and help, but that is -- again -- only by MS design. Apple, Debian, Mandrake, et al have all shown that updating can also be a stand alone application. And Gnome and (I assume) KDE have shown you can have HTML help with a regular app browser.
The contention that IE is neccessary for the OS to run properly is true, but only because MS specifically designed it that way. I've always found the arguement "hey, we're guilty but we can't seperate IE from the OS because its too deeply tied together" the same as Firestone saying "hey, we know we produced crap tires, but we shouldn't have to change the way we made 'em because that would require retooling the tire production line."
Re:Of course IE can be removed... READ! (Score:2)
Most would unanimously argue yes... There's weasle words for 'ya. Why don't you just say "most would argue yes". Oh, I see, you don't get to throw in the word "unanimously" which implies no dissent.
Of coure, most Windows developers I've met would argue that MS is an ethical company and all this fuss is from a few companies who can't compete and Governments, state and local, that want to tap into MS' huge cash pile to help fund pork.
There's a HUGE difference. The KDE integration is modular and well documented so that it could be completely replaced by a competing web browser component. Could Netscape/Mozilla completely replace the IE integration in Windows? Not without MS doing the integration. Fat chance of that!
Re:Of course IE can be removed... READ! (Score:3, Informative)
Let's just think of the various MS programs and what they hoped to achieve:
DOS = CP/M Eradicator
W3.x = DOS App Eradicator
W95 = OS/2 Eradicator
W98 (with IE) = Netscape Eradicator
NT4 = Novell Eradicator
Office DLL/kernel integration = Wordperfect/Quattro Pro/Dbase Eradicator
Visual Studio = Borland Eradicator
W2K Server = Samba Eradicator (not while I'm alive!)
Media Player = RealPlayer Eradicator
XP = Privacy and "Fair use" Eradicator
Re:Of course IE can be removed... READ! (Score:4, Funny)
Media Player = RealPlayer Eradicator
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Anything that will wipe realplayer, a really nasty piece of work, from the world is a good thing. It causes more problems and is more bloated than any other piece of software since WP.
Re:Of course IE can be removed... READ! (Score:3, Informative)
personally, i never cared for real player either... but shortly after i tried wmp7 i promotly got rid of it for the same reasons i got rid of real player... i've been using wmp6.4 since...
the enemy of my enemy is just as bad as my enemy
so now we have two irritating bloated programs that are trying to take over the media sphere...Re:Of course IE can be removed... READ! (Score:2)
I may be wrong but...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I may be wrong but...... (Score:4, Informative)
As for not finding some parts of the code, simply provide a court order to one of the universities [microsoft.com] who already have it.
Re:I may be wrong but...... (Score:4, Informative)
My department has the source code! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My department has the source code! (Score:2)
I'm certainly not advocating that anyone leak the code, but I am curious: Does anyone know what protectections universities are required to put in place to prevent leakage? Do they use a canary trap (easy to do with code, just make slight modifications to a set of variable names) or some such? How is it that they've managed to maintain an apparently perfect security record while distributing the code to over 100 universities?
Here's what Novel, AOL, Lotus (IBM), ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't an NT fix pack a while ago prevent Lotus Notes server from working? What's this about Netscape era seiniew? There's got to be current things that are more than just screwups or inside jokes. MS has a long track record of this sort of thing.
Now, the only question is; Can the source be siezed to prevent modification? Is it too late already?
Re:Here's what Novel, AOL, Lotus (IBM), ... (Score:5, Insightful)
NT4 SP6 caused Lotus to stop working because it prevented non-Administrators from opening a Winsock connection.
This security access problem also caused issues with a great many other applications, not just Notes.
It was also fixed within a day.
There is an old saying, "Don't contribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." It continues to amaze me how whiners continue looking for ghosts in the shadows instead of just understanding the technical issues, realizing people make mistakes and moving on.
Re:Here's what Novel, AOL, Lotus (IBM), ... (Score:2)
On the 'whining' part, you do realize that there are many dirty tricks MS has been shown to do in the past.
The Notes/NT issue not being one of them doesn't discount the saying "Windows isn't done till Lotus doesn't run". Lotus, in that instance, being the once #1 Lotus 123.
Deluxe news :) (Score:2, Funny)
As useful as... (Score:2, Insightful)
State programmers will modify it. (Score:5, Funny)
At least, I think that is what they had in mind when they asked for it. I guess we'll see.
Re:State programmers will modify it. (Score:3, Funny)
BFD. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:BFD. (Score:2, Insightful)
If that's really the whole source code, how come this hasn't cropped up on warez site, or various underground trading methods?
I mean, that'd be rather nice bartering material for some people I know.
I know what they are looking for... (Score:5, Funny)
// we stuck this code in here to shaft netscape
:)
Re:I know what they are looking for... (Score:3, Funny)
// we stuck this code in here to shaft netscape
Line 1172, url.cpp
// because Netscape engineers are weenies! [evangel.edu]
Purpose (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Purpose (Score:2, Interesting)
Even worse (I'm dead serious right now) Microsoft can leak some code secretly, blame the code examiners, and then claim the case has hurt them and file for damages. They can also stop the state programmers from examining further code this way.
The only way to stop this is to make the code PUBLIC for everyone to see. If they don't Microsoft will do their standard dirty tricks and poison the case again.
What kind of precedent? (Score:2)
A sainthood. (Score:4, Funny)
Dave
CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE! (Score:5, Informative)
On the bottom right there is a poll asking the question, "Was a judge correct in ordering Microsoft to reveal the coding for its Windows program?"
As of a couple minutes ago, 69% of respondants were saying 'NO'. That majority is probably comprised of clueless MS users and a voting bot running at Redmond right now, but still.
And no, 'Cowboy Neal' is not a choice.
Knunov
Re:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE! (Score:5, Interesting)
I fear that opening the source will give MS grounds to complain about all those OSS projects that are "stealing" their code (assuming it gets leaked). What kind of trouble can they cause us? Microsoft is *very* crafty, who knows what they will do next!
I think the best course of action is something like what RedHat proposed. Make them pay a *lot* of cash money to the school system. This money would be used to purchase any non-MS hardware/software (i.e. iMacs) and to support competetion.
No solution is perfect, but I'm not sure I want MS source code "in the wild".
Re:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE! (Score:2)
Re:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE! (Score:2)
Cowflop. Once the source is out, it's out. Someone somewhere will leak it (just to friends, of course). Might take 3 days, maybe a week, but it _will_ get leaked to warez.
I hope this ruling will be upheld, but it will likely add another item to the dictionary definition of "open source." I'd like to see the looks on Stallman's and Raymond's faces.
It's the best thing Microsoft might do to disrupt the free-software / open-source community. I mean, we'll all be throwing up and laughing hysterically by turns, for weeks!
Re:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE! (Score:2)
Re:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE! (Score:2)
The tables have turned. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The tables have turned. (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, only if you receive your livelihood from slashdot and also had reason to believe that a failure to vote "correctly" would impact your career. The issue is not that Microsoft tells its people about a poll. The issue is, Microsoft can -- implicitly, at least -- coerce them to vote a certain way.
Re:The tables have turned. (Score:2)
But doesn't it?
If you've bet your career on Linux, and the market is continuing to move away from Unix towards Windows... isn't your career quickly becoming irrelevant?
Even ignoring that issue, you have the one of support of someone's favorite niche OS. Most anti-MS people on
Face it, anti-MS people are just as motivated by financial gain as pro-MS people.
Re:The tables have turned. (Score:2)
And if you really had an argument, we wouldn't be reading articles on slashdot about how RMS wants Miguel to explain himself on his
Re:The tables have turned. (Score:2)
Re:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE! (Score:2)
That is what is know as a leading question. Phrased like that it sounds as if Microsoft will lose control of the code.
A better phrasing would have been "Was the judge correct in ordering Microsoft to reveal the coding for its Windows program to the States' AGs".
No wonder a majority is voting 'No' on that poll. It is blatantly phrased to generate a pro-Microsoft outcome. Strange from an AOL/TW owned website.
MartRe:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE! (Score:2)
How about "Was the judge correct in allowing the states to look at the code for Windows?" That's what the issue really is here. MS is making claims about the ease of doing things with its code, but doesn't want anyone to be able to look at the code and judge for themselves how true those claims are. The states are essentially asking for a chance to look themselves, and the judge has accepted their argument. It's a basic issue of fairness, IMO; if MS wants to make claims based on the code, the code must be available as evidence to refute (or support) those claims.
Re:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE! (Score:2)
No, that's probably pretty accurate. The majority of Americans, especially those in "fly-over country" consider Bill Gates to be a hero.
Bill Gates pissed off the government elites by not paying attention to them. His enemies who knew how to "work the system" used that power to go after him. This is a fine example of why we need some kind of campaign finance reform (but not the version that was passed in the House a few days ago--it's got constitutional issues).
There are plenty of companies that engage in practices much worse than anything MS did, but they know how to grease the works.
Public Record Yes, Freedom of Information (Score:2)
How FOIA Really Works (Score:5, Informative)
Not feasible. A quick check at EFF turned up A Citizen's Guide to FOIA [eff.org], which in turn gives some pointers:
But later, we find
And later
As an aside, that last one is the oddest, IMHO:
Strange, although one imagines this might take on new significance in the post-9/11 world.
Which version? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey, that reminds me. Our publisher once thought about forcing us to hand over the code of a product and we planned to write a tool that would remove ALL comments from the code and substitute all variable names with random alphanumeric strings as well as seriously misformatting all sources. Never happened of course, but we had a great time designing the features of this utility.
If I were Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Source code is also no good if it can't compile and be run. Do the state experts have the necessary compilers to do this? I bet it's not a vanilla MS-C or MS-C++. And we all know that you can't trust the compiler [acm.org].
If you suspect that someone is untrustworthy then asking them for their written documentation of their untrustworthyness cannot be trusted.
HA! They should use that as a defense!!
I'm guilty but you can't take my word for it, I'm a liar.
Can of MS worms (Score:3, Insightful)
At least two issues come out of this with regards the case though:
fun, fun, fun (Score:4, Funny)
cd
buffer overflows, here I come...
Stupid (Score:2)
Re:Stupid (Score:2)
In that case, the source to ANYTHING microsoft has written should do the trick ;)
Significance of XP embedded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Significance of XP embedded? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now presumably if what Microsoft says is true, the states will discover that having a version of Windows with a GUI in it creates a dependency on including the IE code also. Since the main target for embedded Windows is systems that don't have a traditional display, thus optimizing how finely you can split out the GUI components is not a priority, I would assume that the whole GUI code is one big blob component with IE, GDI, etc, etc. all lumped together. Thus the states may be disappointed (although asking for the embedded code was a clever idea!).
If not, <insert Twilight Zone music here>
- adam
The interesting questions: 'who?', 'for how long?' (Score:3, Interesting)
My second largest worry is that the attourneys general of the states will not be able to find the right people to give the code a good going over. HHopefully, someone on the caliber of Andrew Schulman [undoc.com] who gave Microsoft an incredible amount of grief with Undocumented Windows 95 [accu.org] will agree to help out.
Re:The interesting questions: 'who?', 'for how lon (Score:2)
What would I do with it? (Score:2, Insightful)
what good would it do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the win95 codebase must be millions of lines of code, it would take 10 years for anyone to actually go through and map out what everything does. (Heck, rumor is that microsoft left mysterious code in win2k because even they weren't sure what it did, so as not to accidentally break anything)
Additionally, is it a question of 'can they do it with the current code base without breaking anything', or 'can it be done with modifications to the OS code'? If its the latter, then the obvious answer is YES! Source code isn't set in stone, and in the end anything can be done. Its like someone asking "Can Linux run without RAM?", currently no, but the kernel could surely be changed to run off the HD completely (why one would want to do that is another story).
Microsoft Mainia (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but I'm also not a fan of the Government telling private industry how they should run their business. If it were up to me I'd have this whole legal mess dropped, and quit spending millions of taxpayers money.
So what about Micorsoft's abuses? I'm a firm believer that the market will not allow for sustained monopolist abuse, given that the market is allowed to function unfettered by Governmental interference. How many people now use an operating system different from Windows because of these procedings? A scant few, I'd say.
What does this have to do with this news item? Well, does noone else have a problem with the Government ordering Microsoft to release their source code? I don't agree with their business practices, but I don't think they should be ordered to hand over their IP to a bunch of unscrupulous politicians. I don't trust Microsoft at all, but I trust politicians even less. At least Microsoft is upfront about it's base motives, they want to completely dominate the market with their product and at the same time make a massive amount of money. Show me a successful company that doesn't have that same mantra. And good luck finding a politician that is upfront about his base motives.
I just think we should all be careful about viewing the Government as our benefactors, saving us from the evil that big bad Microsoft has perpetrated upon us all. Microsoft produces a product that millions of people pay money to use, and I don't think they should be crippled because they have been so successful. Granted, I'm never going to purchase or use any of their products in situations where I'm able to choose, but that is a judgement that I should be allowed to make, it is not one that the Government should be making for me.
Programming Assignment B5 (Score:3, Funny)
Originality: 1/10
Functionality: 2/10
Code (Use of nesting, comments): 0/10
Your program failed to compile and as such there are no marks awarded for some sections.
The code lacked basic layout, nesting and the only comment was your name and assignment number at the top. The code was badly designed and had un-necessary use of goto's. Memory allocations where inefficient and unstable.
You have failed this module.
Not Public Yet (Score:2, Insightful)
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - RULE 26(c)
(c) Protective Orders.
Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
(1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had;
(2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters;
(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;
(6) that a deposition, after being sealed, be opened only by order of the court;
(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way; and
(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.
coca cola (Score:2, Funny)
I think microsoft should submit the code without comments, indentation or whitespace all concatenated in one big file. Then print it out and hand it over to the judge as one big paper print out - after all they didn't say which format the code should be in. - The trial would then last enother 136 years and everyone in the USA would have to become a lawyer.
just my 2 cents worth. You now owe me 2 cents.
Re:coca cola (Score:2)
Crazy? No. Like asking Coke, yes, which is exactly why it is routine. If the coke recipe was an issue in a case it would absolutely be fair game. It is extremely frightening that ANYBODY actually believes the argument that IP stops the judicial branch from gathering evidence.
MS should submit the code without modification from its native format, including the build instructions that produce the bit for bit output that they sell. Anything less should be viewed as contempt of court.
Do people understand that evidence can be admitted under seal? This is not the same thing as ordering MS to make their code open for inspection by general members of the public. The doom-and-gloom scenarios about the impact of allowing the states to see the code are completely disingenuous since MS already licences third parties to see their source code via their "Shared Source" program.
Piece of cake (Score:3, Insightful)
What would I do? (Score:2, Funny)
Then mail it back to Bill Gates as a suggested enhancement.
You don't need the sourcecode to tell MS is right (Score:2, Interesting)
In Windows2000 and Windows XP, the shell the user logs into is build around 'explorer'. The same core components that are build into this explorer are the building blocks of Internet Explorer. The renderengine itself is just a COM component, Internet explorer is more. You see this f.e. when you install Internet explorer 4 on a system that has IE3 or lower (f.e. win95). Suddenly nice shell enhancements are available for you as a developer.
Is it a great design? No. Of course not: The core shell layer should be an OS part, but any tool build on it should not extend other tools build on top of that same layer, EXCEPT when the lower layer is extended with more functionality. The system as it is now, is more the result of the wacky run for the first spot in the browser war. Now that war is over, we'll see different approaches perhaps.
The problem with this case is that it's not clearly definable what 'internet explorer' is, thus were it ends and where other tools start, because core elements ARE used in the OS shell, by other tools like the windows explorer.
Just looking at the design of the system says enough to say: "it can't be removed". You don't need sourcecode for that. If it's a great design, that's not the question.
Re:You don't need the sourcecode to tell MS is rig (Score:2)
Interesting move... but... (Score:2, Interesting)
As one person on here pointed out... source is already available to *some* organizations, etc... so what would be the problem. But I can imagine that Microsoft will fight this hands and fists - mainly to protect their WE ARE GOD - BOW DOWN TO US issues. Since Billy Goat can't stand to be forced to do anything (it'd upset his Attention Defficency Syndrom).
But I hope the courts are smart enought to (1) hire SEVERAL experts to COMPILE the damn thing... and make sure it produces a RUNABLE version... and (2) make sure that the runnable version that is produced has the SAME COMPONENTS as what they ship.
My largest fear would be that they would try to put together a version that is different from the others - just as a way to *prove* their point.
Well, if nothing more... we get to see all the paid microsoft anonymous cowards quickly jump onto slashdot to insult us... they must be feeling the pressure :))
Giving MS Ammunition (Score:2)
"One of these hundreds of Linux hackers would get their grimy little hands on it," Microsoft's attorney would say as he waved the packet in the air, "steal Microsoft's invaluable intellectual property and give it away for free! If the court forces Microsoft to turn over the source code, it is robbing Microsoft of its key assets and condemning it to insolvency."
Of course, none of that is "true" in the traditional sense of the word, but Microsoft acquired Truth a few years ago.
Unfair... (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead, Why doesn't a judge order them to either remove IE from future versions of Winblowz, or fix the old ones, even if it means rewriting half of the source.
Making them give up the source code into uknown and probably insecure hands isn't fair. No software company - even M$ - should have to give up their source code, even if they're lying pieces of you know what.
don't get too excited about this (Score:2)
2) I predict this whole thing will result in a stalemate. Without an independent technical expert (which the judge said there was no time to find), the result will just be a standoff, with the states claiming that they have found a way to remove IE and Microsoft saying No, you don't understand the code. From the timeline (hearing on March 11) they only have 3 weeks to get the code and understand it -- good luck!
- adam
It should become public information (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It should become public information (Score:2, Insightful)
Once the corporate secret is public knowledge, it can be used by wine/samba/openoffice/whatever for higher compatability rates
Not that easy, I'm afraid. You say that you couldn't use the code directly, which is certainly true, but it goes deeper than that. If you so much as looked at the Microsoft source code you wouldn't be able to contribute to Samba/Wine/whatever (I believe that the Samba group actually put out a statement to that effect) because Microsoft lawyers would come down on you like a ton of bricks, and with some justification. They'd claim that the GPL'd code you wrote for whatever Open Source Project was based on theirs in that you discovered how to write it by looking at how they'd done it. Notice that in order to download the WinCE source that they've made available, you need to have a Passport to identify you... Anyway, it shouldn't be too hard for them to notice the patch that suddenly makes Wine work 100% or whatever.
The only way around this AFAIK is the way that Compaq (I think?) used to clone IBM's original PC BIOS: a clean-room implementation whereby you have one group of people who study the original BIOS, or in this case the MS source code, and who document every single function call etc. extremely thoroughly; this documentation is then given to a second group who have not seen the source at all and who re-implement it based only on what the first group have told them about it. Long, difficult, tedious, painstaking, but fairly safe...
FOIA? (Score:2)
What is a state government going to do with the code? Most likely, they will contract an outside firm to review the code and give a report. I have a lot of experience in dealing with state government as I am the lead developer on a software product that is used throughout the state of Maine by the government. My experience tells me that state governments collectively don't have the technological expertise to be able to analyze software internals! Its plain and simple, they're going to have to contract to external sources in order to analyze the code.
This poses a very dangerous situation for Microsoft. How easily could contractors be persuaded to give the source code to somebody that wants it bad enough? How easily could the code be retrieved through FOIA? These are big issues that Microsoft will have to face if they are forced to hand out the code to state governments.
The real victory (Score:3, Informative)
As for the debate ensuing here, I have my answers:
Is the code in the public domain?
No.
If it were, would it be ethical or legal to use it to make our open source projects better?
No (we do not want to make Microsoft a victim in any way).
Are there faked nude celebrity photos of the judge on the internet?
Give it time, young grassshopper.
Olympic-Class Irony: 9:8 9:9 9:9 9:9 (Score:3, Interesting)
So, a new judge was picked. Who now states that Microsoft is even more full of carp than Judge Jackson claimed, and has demanded that Microsoft show the source code for Windows XP.
The last time this happened - with the demand for the source for Windows 3.x, the source got mysterously shredded. By accident, of course. All known copies. Including those overseas. And all at the same time.
It'll be a little harder for Microsoft to pull an Ollie North, this time. My guess is they'll content themselves with being an Ollie Hardy. The monkey tape shows how good a certain CEO is at being loud and obnoxious.
The question that remains for me is how long the Department of Justice will settle for being a Stan Laurel.
What would be the punishment for non-compliance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say that Microsoft simply does not comply with demands from the states when they finally make it past appeals (if they ever do).
What would be the punishment? Not being able to sell software in some states? Customers will demand it. More new penalties? That only means more trials, which will take even more years.
Meanwhile, Microsoft will be able to actually have the law changed in their favor, and only release source code long after they abandon the platform.
So what is a realistic punishment that will actually survive to have an impact on Microsoft if they don't comply with a request to release the correct source code?
:^)
Ryan Fenton
What would I do? (Score:3, Funny)
I would wash my hands.
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
Derek
Re:lol (Score:3, Insightful)
govt should be able to regulate as long as you agree with it...
Isn't that sort of the point of an elected government?
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
After my experience trying to upgrade Win98 and WinNT boxes to Win2K, I'm a little leery of trying that again (besides the XP spyware issues). Have you really upgraded a Win2K box to XP? I've heard some horror stories about that as well, but I suppose it works for someone.
If you really want to see an OS that is easy to upgrade, check out Debian Linux. I have a server that has been upgraded seamlessly through four major versions. That's like installing NT 3.5 and upgrading to 4.0, Win2K and WinXP, all without a reinstall. It's currently running Woody.
Oh, and the box has never crashed. Ever. The only brief downtimes have been due to (a) kernel upgrades (infrequently, this is a server) and a few power outages. Win2K is (finally!) a reasonably stable OS, but it still crashes on occasion. I rarely get more than about a month without a crash, and I know many people who still find it necessary to reboot daily as a preventative measure.
My desktop and my laptop both run Debian unstable, as do my wife's machine and my grandmother's machine. It works extremely well, and I find I have to do *far* less technical support on my wife's and grandmother's computers now that they're running Linux (as opposed to Win2K, which is what they ran before). It's just too easy for clueless users to screw up a Windows setup.
"Hey, I tried RedHat 7.2" does *not* mean you're speaking from experience.
Different Linux distros have various issues, as do the MS OSes. The issues are different, but all are eminently usable. "OS that works" is just a (rather weak) troll.
You should go back to browbeating the newbies on sci.crypt.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Until the linux community gets off their asses and makes Linux easy to use for a larger user base [i.e non kernel-hackers] its still going to be a non-desktop OS.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Linux is no harder to install than Windows is. The only reason people think Linux is hard to install is because first they have never done it and second Windows came factory installed.
Of course most you will likely respond with "Whats so hard about installing Windows, boot from the CD and type setup." The problem is unless your system and all your hardware pre dates your version of Windows by at least a year or two, you will have to install drivers, so it goes something like this;
Boot from CD and type setup (2 reboots)
install Motherboard chipset drivers (1 reboot)
install video drivers (1 reboot)
install mouse software (1 reboot)
install sound drivers (1 reboot)
install modem drivers (1 reboot)
configure modem (1 reboot)
install network card drivers (1 reboot)
configure network card (1 reboot)
install DvD player (1 reboot)
install CDRW software (1 reboot)
install printer drivers (1 reboot)
install scanner software (1 reboot)
install webcam software (1 reboot)
And this is just to get the hardware working, no applications have been installed yet and it does not include downloading and installing updated drivers. Unless you are using an EMachine and doing reinstalls from a restore disk, I don't see how this is easier than installing Linux. As a matter of fact I beleive Windows is more difficult to install than Linux. Contrary to popular belief, installing Linux does not require you to compile a kernel, and most additional software is distributed as binary and what little does require compiling is usually as easy as typing
su -c "./configure && make && make install"
Additionally installing Linux requires only 1 reboot, the only other time you will need to reboot is IF you decide to install a new kernel. I beleive the question should not be, "Why is Linux so hard to install ?", but "Why is Windows so hard to install ?"
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)
Install WinME, reboot twice
Set TCP/IP, Install Video, sound and first update
try to figure out which driver screwed up the system up, reboot 3 more times.
setup WinTV, download second set of updates, install IE6
system screwed up again, uninstall WinTV, system still screwed up. Format and reinstall, 4 more reboots
download more updates, DirectX and dev suites, 2 more reboots.
Tried to play Wolf, but system hangs during setup, 1 reboot
can now play Wolf, but could only do the install after killing all the programs running in the background.
Yes Virginia, I am a Troll and this is Flamebait.
Re:Really though... (Score:2)
Re:Wine (Score:4, Insightful)
Or it could be the disaster that kills Wine / Linux. IFF the WinSource is handed over for technical examination, it will certainly be in a VERY controlled environment and, most likely, subject to non-disclosure agreements or court orders. If copyrighted code from Windows wound up in any part of Linux, then Microsoft would have legal justification to sue distributors everywhere to block all distribution. Followed by suits against every name in the contributors list for the infected projects.
Out-thinking Microsoft is one thing. Stealing their shit is something entirely different.
Of course, it may be different in your universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Next Automakers and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the tenets of capitalism is that there is no barrier to entry into the market and that a company should be able to compete on their own merits. Should a company be so successful that it attains monopoly status, that's perfecctly legal and fine.
However, when a company uses it's monopoly in one market to force it's way into another market, that's another thing. It's illegal and helps to create a barrier to market entrance for other smaller companies.
Microsoft has created a huge barrier to entry into various markets. Just try and get a browser developed and hope to have a marketshare of greater than 1%. Opera, OmniWeb, iCab, Konqueror. All very good, very compelling products, but they don't come bolted on to Windows, so where's the compelling reason for the average consumer to spend the time downloading the file or even pay for the product? There isn't one. M$ has made sure of that.
M$ should hand over the source code. Experts should figure out whether or not IE can be seperated from the system and have it still work. Right now consumers do not have a choice of browsers in any real sense. They get IE and there is no real reason for them to use anything else as it is an extra expense and/or big hassle from their point of view.
The government doesn't want to tell M$ how to do business, it just wants to set up rules for them to follow so that some semblance of just competition is restored to the marketplace.
M$ didn;t get where they are today by creating new, exciting or innovative products. They got there through rehashing other companies' products, marketing said products better than anyone else and generally intimidating anyone who chose to step into the ring with them.