Microsoft Expands Access to Windows Source Code 282
Brain Stew writes "According to eWeek, MVPs living within thecountries that have signed up with Microsoft's
Windows Source code program can now see it for free (limited source code of course). 'Microsoft Corp. has expanded the Source Licensing Program under which its Most
Valued Professionals get access to the source code for the Windows operating
system. The Redmond, Wash., company said on Monday that all the MVPs within
the Microsoft platforms community and living within the 27 eligible countries
worldwide will now be able to access Windows source code at no cost. '"
Shared source will not work for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
And, certainly, this is their right, since it is their source code. However, I don't see many people outside of their "MVP" community (which is who? people stuck working on windows device drivers?) really being interested in doing their busy work for them. And for this reason, because of being unwilling to fully relinquish control, they are going to find themselves unable to fully benefit from openness.
In contrast, IBM fully understands what open source is all about, and manages to deal with the concept in an intelligent manner, instead of trying to make compromises and deal with half measures.
If open source manages to become a signifigant methodology in tomorrow's IT world, IBM seems better equipped to benefit from it, whereas Microsoft is unwilling to do what it takes to prevent sliding off into irrelevence.
This is somewhat good (Score:2, Insightful)
At no cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, do you want to be contaminated by having seen Microsofts' source? Always wondering when you'll end up being named in a lawsuit because you may have incorporated some of their worthless IP in a project you're working on?
It could make you unemployable in the future.
Re:Shared source will not work for MS (Score:1, Insightful)
There's no way MS source-code is available to the lowly small-company developer who (real-world example) is trying to figure out why his DLL can't add things to the STL container he passed in without crashing.
Why... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:meh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, you might want to unshare it ASAP. You do realize that your IP can be trivially discovered when you have emule on?
It should be emphasized that having the windows source is much more damaging than beneficial. People are contaminated merely by seeing the source. If you want to learn stuff, there is enough OSS operating systems around that won't make you unemployable if you really catch the kernel bug, or MSFT just finds a good reason to ruin your future.
Just stick to pr0n, music and other binaries.
Re:Shared source will not work for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
In contrast, IBM fully understands what open source is all about, and manages to deal with the concept in an intelligent manner, instead of trying to make compromises and deal with half measures.
I agree with the idea that MSFT allowing those deemed "MVP" worthy to view the source code is meaningless. But I doubt IBM understands open source. They are selling open source stuff because they make money doing so. If it conflicts with their other software, they will push closed source. And they will push it hard to the detriment of open source. Anybody have the link handy for the statements from HP? HP is trying to sell linux servers to existing IBM AIX customers, and IBM is alleged to bad mouth linux something fierce. While I can't back the claims of HP, I see no reason to believe that IBM is a saint of open source. When IBM goes 100% GPL, then I will trust them. The partial backing of IBM is a GoodThing, but I don't think the people of importance at IBM really "understand" open source.
Insert some random badmouthing of MSFT backed by personal experience.
forget open source (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shared source will not work for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why... (Score:1, Insightful)
My prediction: when things start to get really dire--like when more city, regional, and even national governments start adopting OSS on a large scale, Microsoft will put their source code RIGHT ON THEIR WEBSITE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE (with a little "Terms of Use" disclaimer at the bottom stating that by viewing this page, you agree to these terms, etc). They might even start putting the source code into pop-ups so they show up on non-MS-owned websites. They can put the source in e-mail footers of Hotmail accounts.
The point is that once you see the code you are contaminated and any code you write can be considered suspect.
Consider this line of questioning: "Mr. Torvalds, you claim to have never seen the source code to Windows. Yet you also claim to use the Internet. Have you never received mail from a Hotmail user? Have you never visited a website operated by Microsoft or a Microsoft partner? Have you never seen a source code pop-up? Excuse my incredulity, Mr. Torvalds, but I've seen the Windows source code thirty-eight separate times THIS MORNING and I don't even know how to program! Surely you've seen the code, and surely you know what it means, so surely some of your coding choices have borrowed from this new knowledge. Your honor, I rest my case."
Re:At no cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft was accused of stealing Altavista code lately. They are still hiring people with existing industry experience.
IBM understands quite a bit (Score:3, Insightful)
That pretty much sums up why I like free source software. I can hack it if I want, or pay someone else to hack it, I get updates free from everybody else working on it, and I don't get locked into proprietary schemes which may or may not go out of business or change their update policies. My data will always be accessible to me, because the programs that access it are free source, and I can look at them and change them any way I want, any time I want, now and forever.
Re:Or... (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't seen the terms under which people are allowed to view the code, but I'm sure it's not really Open Source(TM). It's probably more like, "Here, take a look at our code. Share it with your friends. Pass it around. But remember it's still closed proprietary code that no one can copy."
Actually, no (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, no. I don't think the solution is to have a handful of experienced eyes - I am sure there are Windows programmers who are pretty top-notch. What is essential is having the power and ability to FIX problems. I am sure that MS is like most places, where the project ships with bugs. After that, someone else maintains the code and the original person moves on to more exciting things. Or there is no time to fix all that "security" stuff. Or their hands are tied because in order to fix that "security stuff" they would have to break some kind of whiz-bang lock-in interoperability. Or any of a thousand other reasons.
In OSS code, if it doesn't get fixed it is because the owner is lazy, or because the fix isn't deemed good enough, or it isn't seen as a high-priority. Or any of a thousand other reasons.
The more eyes you have on the product, the more likely you are to find problems. Experts will find the "expert" problems in architecture and whatnot, and the "user" eyes will find all kinds of things that the experts might not care about.
Re:IBM understands quite a bit (Score:1, Insightful)
This shows how little you fanboys get it. The goal of IBM's Linux campaign is to get you locked into IBM proprietary middleware software. (Because people were getting wise to their OS lockin.)
IBM, like Apple, understand open source ... (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM, like Apple, understands open source. It is a vehicle to sell their hardware. In contrast, Microsoft is a software company.
Tiny steps (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not let people look at it? If you are prepared to let 'some' people look then the cat is already out of the bag (what cat?).
I've been working with Windows for 10 years odd now and there has been many occasions where access to the code would have saved me time and effort. But because I'm not in one of the select group of people deemed worthy I get no access.
What do I do? I go to the wine source and see what they do. It's pathetic when your customers have to go to your competitor to use your product.
Of course, I now have the Win2K source, which is very helpful. And has the world ended because of it?
Wake up Steve, remember 'Developers, Developers, Developers!'
How could the secret API be discovered? (Score:2, Insightful)
How was this "secret" API call discovered since people don't have the source code to SQL Server.
The same way vulnerabilities or hidden features are discovered without the source code: you can always look at the disassembly, and there are plenty of powerful code analysis tools that don't need (or benefit) from the source code.
Re:Why... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, Microsoft would lose this example and any other case. But they would appeal. And they'd lose again, and they'd appeal again. They could keep this case going for YEARS--meanwhile their victims need to focus on the case instead of coding. The loser can be made to pay court costs, but until the verdict is reached, Linus needs to foot his own bill. Multiply that by a few thousand open source coders and you've got more than any legal defense fund could defend against.
Perhaps you are unaware of a company called SCO. They have proven that you don't even have to tell the person what you're suing them over to tie a case up in court for years.
Eventually MS would run out of appeals and Linus could get back to coding. But then that's a new cause for a new round of lawsuits, isn't it?
Re:MVPs (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone at work was trying to help a customer with a particular error they got. On Linux it's really easy to look through the source, and see what paths cause that error from that syscall, and that helps in debugging the problem. The source is the ultimate documentation.
Being able to do that on Windows would be nice for people who have to use or support it. I don't suppose Microsoft will get any useful patches back, seeing as people probably won't be able to build it.
Re:IBM, like Apple, understand open source ... (Score:2, Insightful)
and services of course
It is foolish to consider IBM or any company pro-open source (the grandparent post). The truth is they don't give a shit and why should they? Their mission is to rip the last penny out of the customer's vallet.
Those who don't like it can download, install and support their own Linux or whatever.
And for the neediest there's Red Cross (and Crescent) too.
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft already shares its source with many education and government institutes, and Shared Source is a way for private companies to get in on it.
Yeah, IBM understands what OSS is all about, because it's all they had left after losing out to Microsoft. Of course they'd embrace it. IBM is as self-serving as any other company, and I find it highly amusing that people have forgiven all their past evils simply because they throw the word "Linux" around.
Get it through your skulls, guys. Source code is not a right. Microsoft can give it out however they want.
Re:actual source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical, of all the responses to my challenge, I see the following:
Of course, this is Slashdot, where FUD against Microsoft is always accepted face value.
Re:IBM understands quite a bit (Score:1, Insightful)
Ask yourself why people buy support/services from IBM. 9 times out of 10 it's because they have IBM hardware or software. Much of the Services stuff is wallstreet spin, it's really the same old 'Solutions' business model that IBM has been doing for decades.
IBM correctly recognized that there was resistance to adopting AIX or OS/400 ('too wierd' says the Sun guys), and is using Linux to push middleware on customers that otherwise wouldn't buy from IBM.
That some enterprising IBM salesdroids have figured out how to work in high-markup licensed software isn't surprising, but it seems orthagonal to their Linux strategy
Umm, no. It's the key point of their Linux strategy. Watch their commercials.
IBM sees NO money from Linux. Really. It's purely a sales hook.
Re:Shared source will not work for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
HP is trying to sell linux servers to existing IBM AIX customers, and IBM is alleged to bad mouth linux something fierce.
"IBM" is a company which consists of thousands of people, including the commissioned sales people who allegedly did what you said above. IBM's corporate policy is pushing Linux. If not, they wouldn't bother to defend it in court. Think about it, SCO would have went away easily had IBM wanted them to.
That some commissioned sales people aren't pushing Linux is no surprise, but it doesn't mean IBM as a whole doesn't get it. It's rough for them, I'm sure, but I think they'll make the transformation to a services business just fine. HP will still sell hardware. Microsoft, well, I have a couple of great mice from them.
Their long-term potential would suck were it not for the $50B or so in the bank...
Correction - services, not hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
Using OSS, they can improve frameworks devoted to services, and also benefit from others working on said frameworks as well - making thier service work even more effective, a virtuious cycle.
I've seen some other consulting companies with thier own frameworks. But they've always been hack jobs, because they were no open and therefore had too few people to really do a good job on them.