Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Venkatesh Ramamurthy]

Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
blown GPL!!!!

http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Mohammad A. Haque]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:

> Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> blown GPL!!!!
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
> -

Feh. First, you need be a customer w/ 1500 licences. And then you're not
allowed to made modifications to the source.

This isn't really much different then what they were doing before.
(Paying look at the source code so you could write 'optimized' apps)


-- 

=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque                              http://www.haque.net/
                                               mhaque@haque.net

  "Alcohol and calculus don't mix.             Project Lead
   Don't drink and derive." --Unknown          http://wm.themes.org/
                                               batmanppc@themes.org
=====================================================================

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Alan Cox]

> Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> blown GPL!!!!

Oh sure

Maybe 1200 people

"Users are prohibited from amending"

Sorry but Linus had > 1200 people able to modify his code in 1992

[OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Stuart MacDonald]

From: "Venkatesh Ramamurthy" <Venkateshr@ami.com>
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html

"As such, clients will not be allowed to alter the code in any form and
may not give any other party access to any aspect of that code."

Does this preclude one reading the source and then using
the knowledge gained to write, independently, working
modules for Linux; fixing the fs problems for instance?

Does anyone on the list have access to the code?

It seems to me this might be an opportunity...

..Stu

Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[rjd]

Stuart MacDonald wrote:
> 
> It seems to me this might be an opportunity...

Or a trap. I'm not about to go anywhere near this and won't even look at
the licience but I bet the M$ argument will go something like:

   You've looked at the code.
   You now know things that are propriatary to M$.
   You are not allowed to apply it to anything outside M$.
   Stop working on those free sources the forbidden knowledge might leak.
   You have me assimilated.


-- 
	Bob Dunlop	rjd@xyzzy.clara.co.uk

Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[James A. Sutherland]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Stuart MacDonald wrote:

> From: "Venkatesh Ramamurthy" <Venkateshr@ami.com>
> > http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
>
> "As such, clients will not be allowed to alter the code in any form and
> may not give any other party access to any aspect of that code."
>
> Does this preclude one reading the source and then using
> the knowledge gained to write, independently, working
> modules for Linux; fixing the fs problems for instance?
>
> Does anyone on the list have access to the code?
>
> It seems to me this might be an opportunity...

They already license the Win2k bug's source to academic people without a
huge NDA attached (and without the non-compete clause prohibiting work on
other OSs!). There's a copy around here somewhere - I don't have access,
but know who does, and might be able to get a copy at some point...


James.

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Roeland Th. Jansen]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:01:57AM -0500, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> blown GPL!!!!
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html


basically, it's useless. no mods, huge number of licenses required.
another nice try.

-- 
Grobbebol's Home                   |  Don't give in to spammers.   -o)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel       | Use your real e-mail address   /\
Linux 2.2.16 SMP 2x466MHz / 256 MB |        on Usenet.             _\_v  

Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Nathan Paul Simons]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 12:21:12PM -0500, Stuart MacDonald wrote:
> "As such, clients will not be allowed to alter the code in any form and
> may not give any other party access to any aspect of that code."
> 
> Does this preclude one reading the source and then using
> the knowledge gained to write, independently, working
> modules for Linux; fixing the fs problems for instance?
> 
> Does anyone on the list have access to the code?
> 
> It seems to me this might be an opportunity...

	Probably not, but it would be interesting to consider the 
possibilities: what if someone with good memory went and looked at the 
source code, picked it apart, memorized how it *worked* (and not actual
code), then told someone else how it worked and that person then implemented
it in another OS (say, Linux modules).  I've heard of this scheme being
used before to get around NDA's and other legalities.  It might be worth
a try.

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Lars Gaarden]

Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:

> Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> blown GPL!!!!
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html

I'm not so sure about that. It is going to be heavily NDA'ed
and look-but-not-touch.

Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having
source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked
solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching
to Open Source.

This also gives MS an opportunity to do PR. Expect some "We
provide our customers with the good benefits of Open Source
without the danger of fragmentation and market confusion" from
their marketroids soon.

Compare this to the release of W98SE. The main reason for SE was
to stop home users being introduced to Linux because of ipmasq'ing.

You can accuse MS of a lot of things. Being stupid and ignorant
of the market is not one of them.
-- 
LarsG

Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[David Schwartz]

> > It seems to me this might be an opportunity...
>
> Or a trap. I'm not about to go anywhere near this and won't even look at
> the licience but I bet the M$ argument will go something like:
>
>    You've looked at the code.
>    You now know things that are propriatary to M$.
>    You are not allowed to apply it to anything outside M$.
>    Stop working on those free sources the forbidden knowledge might leak.
>    You have me assimilated.

    If you're really worried, have the person with access to the MS code
write a patch, and then have someone without access to the MS code
reimplement the patch. Make sure that all that is taken from the orignially
written patch are ideas and algorithms, not actual code.

    Of course, you would still have to carefully read the actual license
before deciding on the correct isolation scheme.

    DS

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[J. Dow]

From: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>

> > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> > thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> > blown GPL!!!!
> 
> Oh sure
> 
> Maybe 1200 people
> 
> "Users are prohibited from amending"
> 
> Sorry but Linus had > 1200 people able to modify his code in 1992

So did BillyG. The difference is that BillyG's were all overworked hackers
that were on the MS campus under BillyG's whip^H^H^H^Hpay. I treated that
as proof that you need WAY more than that many monkeys to generate something
stable and workable, if you adopted the Mongol hordes programming style.

BillyG HAS thousands changing the source code. He pays them to do it.
Linus has far fewer actually changing the source code if I read this
list correctly. Experience suggests this is as it should be. Even in
coding "too many cooks spoil the broth."

{^_-}

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, J. Dow wrote:

> From: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
>
> > > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> > > thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> > > blown GPL!!!!
> >
> > Oh sure
> >
> > Maybe 1200 people
> >
> > "Users are prohibited from amending"
> >
> > Sorry but Linus had > 1200 people able to modify his code in 1992
>
> So did BillyG. The difference is that BillyG's were all overworked hackers
> that were on the MS campus under BillyG's whip^H^H^H^Hpay. I treated that
> as proof that you need WAY more than that many monkeys to generate something
> stable and workable, if you adopted the Mongol hordes programming style.
>
> BillyG HAS thousands changing the source code. He pays them to do it.
> Linus has far fewer actually changing the source code if I read this
> list correctly. Experience suggests this is as it should be. Even in
> coding "too many cooks spoil the broth."

True (afaikt).  A major difference is that those few who actually make
changes have to defend their changes in an open forum.  They can't do a
half-assed job (intentionally or otherwise) and have it not be noticed.

We have a lot more people contributing to quality control and providing
input for designers than actual designers.

	-Mike

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Dr. Michael Weller]

Oh my, why I am responding to this garbage thread?

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, J. Dow wrote:
> 
> > From: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> >
> > > > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> > > > thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> > > > blown GPL!!!!
[...]
> True (afaikt).  A major difference is that those few who actually make
> changes have to defend their changes in an open forum.  They can't do a
> half-assed job (intentionally or otherwise) and have it not be noticed.
> 
> We have a lot more people contributing to quality control and providing
> input for designers than actual designers.

Plus: There is no product deadline. If something is not ready, it is not
ready and not pushed into the market, even though anyone knows it is not
ready. 

If some module needs to be overdone to deal with a new situation not
considered when the module was first designed: It's thrown away and redone
from scratch.

Every coder wants a perfect solution for his problem, not just some hack
to shut his boss up and comply with the timeline.

Also new features are added when they seem sensible and fit into the
concept. Not just because a marketing guy says that a certain customer
needs yet another button for a specific task (since he is to stupid to see
how to do it with the stuff he already has). Unfortunately linux developed
a tendency to this problem too.

Finally a huge effort of M$ goes into inventing new, proprietary
protocols rather than trying to comply (or sensibly enhance) well thought
over accepted standards.

IMHO, you'll never see an OpenSource Windows. What would happen is like
with Netscape: Everyone says: Yuk, so that's a commercial program. They
will see there is no other way to fix it than to throw it away. M$ could
no longer ask for ridiculous payments for their crap (anyone just compiles
an own version) and since there protocols are no longer proprietary they
could no longer force people to use their products and kill markets. And
no one would send them patches for yet another new incompatible feature.
They'll just go bankrupt. 

Of course, if they go bankrupt, you might get the source. Maybe they'll
really be split into an OS and application company like the court
suggested. The OS part will just die (there is nothing deserving that name
at all) and the application part might port office suites and admin tools
to linux/unix and MacOs and what else. They really have a chance (but Kde
and other stuff will become a powerful competitor). They might die too
though, since these commercial applications will just be as buggy as
others and crash all the time (cf. Netscape), they'll also be expensive
and there will be free, working alternatives (but with fewer rings and
bells and maybe not as easy to use for Joe Blow User).

Just my two pence, sorry for the bandwidth.
Michael.

--

Michael Weller: eowmob@exp-math.uni-essen.de, eowmob@ms.exp-math.uni-essen.de,
or even mat42b@spi.power.uni-essen.de. If you encounter an eowmob account on
any machine in the net, it's very likely it's me.

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Kai Henningsen]

larsg@trustix.com (Lars Gaarden)  wrote on 08.03.01 in <3AA7DFCD.1000502@trustix.com>:

> Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
>
> > Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is
> > the thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for
> > full blown GPL!!!!
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
>
> I'm not so sure about that. It is going to be heavily NDA'ed
> and look-but-not-touch.
>
> Enterprise customers are beginning to see the value of having
> source available, and MS is doing this as a half-baked
> solution to give decition makers one less reason for switching
> to Open Source.

And remember that other companies have been doing similar things since  
just about forever. It's not as if MS invented this thing.

Or maybe I have to take that back. The "must not modify" clause certainly  
seems non-standard.

AT&T Unix source didn't carry a "must not modify" rider.

IBM's big iron OS source certainly didn't carry a "must not modify" rider.

In fact, making modifications was very much the *point* of this excercise.

Yet again. Microsoft is copying something yet failing to realize the  
point. Am I surprised? Nope.

> This also gives MS an opportunity to do PR. Expect some "We
> provide our customers with the good benefits of Open Source
> without the danger of fragmentation and market confusion" from
> their marketroids soon.

Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what they _are_ doing.

> Compare this to the release of W98SE. The main reason for SE was
> to stop home users being introduced to Linux because of ipmasq'ing.

That's a new one for me. I certainly never heard an argument for SE that  
was even remotely in that area.

> You can accuse MS of a lot of things. Being stupid and ignorant
> of the market is not one of them.

I'm not so sure about that. If they really did, why would they need to  
resort to unfair tactics so often? It's not as if a 1000 pound gorilla  
couldn't easily survive a fair fight, if he wasn't a complete idiot.

MfG Kai

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Steve Underwood]

larsg@trustix.com (Lars Gaarden)  wrote on 08.03.01 in
<3AA7DFCD.1000502@trustix.com>:

> You can accuse MS of a lot of things. Being stupid and ignorant
> of the market is not one of them.

I'd have to disagree there.

In the mid 80's MS had never had a really successful applications
product, even though Word, Excel and others had been around for some
time. The market leaders, like 123, were mostly copy protected with
schemes (e.g. key floppies) that were annoying to legitimate customers,
but hardly affected pirates. MS woke up to the opportunity, made a
splash about how their products were not protected, and their
applications market share soared. Windows, and a packaged (if far from
integrated) office suite just finished the job of killing the
competitors. You can genuinely say a measured level of openness was the
key to their success. If 123 and others had reacted earlier, and removed
their protection schemes, MS might not be as dominant as it is today.
With the momentum that gave them, and a few dirty tricks, MS have never
looked back (though they don't often look very far forward, either).

Now MS is loosing sight of this. How long will it be before their
increasingly restrictive tactics backfire and kill them as surely as
dumb copy protection killed 123's 90% market share? Maybe they will take
care to only put restrictions were they don't hurt day to day usefulness
(i.e. don't piss off the user) - maybe they won't. What we hear of
Whistler suggests the latter.

The only survivors in this industry are HP and IBM, and even they are
mere shells of their former selves!

Regards,
Steve

Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?

[Mark H. Wood]

On 9 Mar 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[snip]
> And remember that other companies have been doing similar things since  
> just about forever. It's not as if MS invented this thing.
> 
> Or maybe I have to take that back. The "must not modify" clause certainly  
> seems non-standard.
> 
> AT&T Unix source didn't carry a "must not modify" rider.
> 
> IBM's big iron OS source certainly didn't carry a "must not modify" rider.
> 
> In fact, making modifications was very much the *point* of this excercise.

Indeed, Digital LCG used to publish our bug reports verbatim, including
patches if we supplied 'em, and thank us for the help.  (In fact, VMS
Engineering took heat for publishing "sanitized" reports instead of
photocopying the SPR forms as LCG had.)

MS' approach reminds me of what the fellow said about Lotho
Sackville-Baggins:

	Seems he wanted to own everything himself, and then order folk
	about.

-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mwood@IUPUI.Edu
Make a good day.