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
Venkatesh Ramamurthy <[email protected]>:
>
> 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
Not a chance. First your company must have at least 1500 licences.... and
you can't modify any code... which implies that you can't rebuild either...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
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/
[email protected]
"Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
[email protected]
=====================================================================
> 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
My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
send a patch and they would put it in thier next version. Is this not the
same way Linux Kernel is developed?. Only thing microsoft does not want to
immediately go full open sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux
people.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Cox [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 11:06 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
>
> > 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
At 16:04 08/03/01, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
>My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
>its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
>source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
>send a patch and they would put it in thier next version. Is this not the
>same way Linux Kernel is developed?. Only thing microsoft does not want to
>immediately go full open sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux
>people.
You are not reading the article carefully enough.
With Linux, everyone is free to make their own changes which suit their
particular setup, recompile the kernel, and run their own linux kernel on
their site / server / workstation / whatever.
Microsoft specifically forbids this in their license!
It is a "look but don't touch" license which is as far away from the ideas
of the GPL as you can possibly get.
Even submitting them a patch is technically violating their license as a
patch implies that you have modified their code already, which is forbidden!
The only change from before that I can see is that Microsoft is going to
make even more money now, because they will collect the money from ~1000
instead of ~10 people. No other news there.
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-ntfs/
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> Only thing microsoft does not want to immediately go full open
> sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux people.
They don't need to release their source code to achieve that.
Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
> its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
> source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
> send a patch and they would put it in thier next version. Is this not the
> same way Linux Kernel is developed?. Only thing microsoft does not want to
> immediately go full open sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux
> people.
>
making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
(you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since you have the code).
at least _ANYONE_ was able to contribute to linux. not just people with
gobs of money. I'm not even gonna comment on the embarrasement bit. The
one consultant quoted in the article summed it pretty nicely.
Also notice that you're now paying MS so you can find their bugs. Very
nice.
--
=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/
[email protected]
"Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
[email protected]
=====================================================================
No, the Linux way is to send the patch to everyone else who's developing or
testing the kernel. Even if Linus doesn't accept it into the "official" kernel,
there's nothing to stop you (or anyone else) from using it yourself or
distributing it to others. The Microsoft agreement prevents you from changing
the source, and if they decide to ignore your bug report, there's nothing you
can do about it. Oh, and you have to pay (at least 1500 licenses' worth) for
the "privilege" of doing their debugging work for them. That's about as far
from the Linux way of doing things as you can get.
Wayne
Venkatesh Ramamurthy <[email protected]> on 03/08/2001 10:04:25 AM
To: 'Alan Cox' <[email protected]>
cc: [email protected] (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
Subject: RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
send a patch and they would put it in thier next version. Is this not the
same way Linux Kernel is developed?. Only thing microsoft does not want to
immediately go full open sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux
people.
From: "Venkatesh Ramamurthy" <[email protected]>
> 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
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 16:04 08/03/01, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> >My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
> >its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
> >source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
> >send a patch and they would put it in thier next version. Is this not the
> >same way Linux Kernel is developed?. Only thing microsoft does not want to
> >immediately go full open sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux
> >people.
>
> You are not reading the article carefully enough.
>
> With Linux, everyone is free to make their own changes which suit their
> particular setup, recompile the kernel, and run their own linux kernel on
> their site / server / workstation / whatever.
>
> Microsoft specifically forbids this in their license!
Yes. It's a pretty crappy license - but still beats the previous one (if
you want to worship our almighty code, hand over your firstborn. Oh, and
leave your brain with us for safekeeping, and you're not allowed to do any
programming ever again, except for us.)
> It is a "look but don't touch" license which is as far away from the ideas
> of the GPL as you can possibly get.
Is it? Going from "totally closed" to "we might let you see the code if
you grovel" is a step in the right direction, at least.
> Even submitting them a patch is technically violating their license as a
> patch implies that you have modified their code already, which is forbidden!
Hmm... Perhaps. I doubt they'd object, particularly if the patch worked :P
> The only change from before that I can see is that Microsoft is going to
> make even more money now, because they will collect the money from ~1000
> instead of ~10 people. No other news there.
They do already license the source to a few trusted companies (Executive
Software used to ship modified NTFS drivers for NT 3.51 as part of
Diskeeper, IIRC). They are inching ever so slowly towards letting human
beings (cf MS drones) read their code...
James.
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 [email protected]
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Stuart MacDonald wrote:
> From: "Venkatesh Ramamurthy" <[email protected]>
> > 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.
At 17:36 08/03/2001, James A. Sutherland wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > At 16:04 08/03/01, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> > It is a "look but don't touch" license which is as far away from the ideas
> > of the GPL as you can possibly get.
>
>Is it? Going from "totally closed" to "we might let you see the code if
>you grovel" is a step in the right direction, at least.
It would be except there is no big change. Microsoft was already doing
that, as you say below yourself, except that it is now broadening the
number of people that are allowed to see the code.
> > Even submitting them a patch is technically violating their license as a
> > patch implies that you have modified their code already, which is
> forbidden!
>
>Hmm... Perhaps. I doubt they'd object, particularly if the patch worked :P
Well, there is that of course. But if they wanted to, they could shoot you
down for it in accordance with the license.
> > The only change from before that I can see is that Microsoft is going to
> > make even more money now, because they will collect the money from ~1000
> > instead of ~10 people. No other news there.
>
>They do already license the source to a few trusted companies (Executive
>Software used to ship modified NTFS drivers for NT 3.51 as part of
>Diskeeper, IIRC). They are inching ever so slowly towards letting human
>beings (cf MS drones) read their code...
Exactly my point. Only a slight change in numbers, nothing more, nothing less.
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-ntfs/
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
>
> > My initial thought after seeing this article was that microsoft was testing
> > its waters on open sourcing. If i have 1500 licenses then i would get the
> > source. If i find any bug in thier source , i would report to microsoft or
> > send a patch and they would put it in thier next version. Is this not the
> > same way Linux Kernel is developed?. Only thing microsoft does not want to
> > immediately go full open sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux
> > people.
> >
>
> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
> to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
> (you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since you have the code).
>
> at least _ANYONE_ was able to contribute to linux. not just people with
> gobs of money. I'm not even gonna comment on the embarrasement bit. The
> one consultant quoted in the article summed it pretty nicely.
>
> Also notice that you're now paying MS so you can find their bugs. Very
> nice.
Of course Microsoft, being the industry leader and producer of
the world's most powerful operating system, could not possibly
have any bugs or even room for improvement. Therefore, revealing
their exquisite source code is only being done to educate those
who have not yet achieved Microsoft's pinnacle of perfection.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. FYI, I doubt that much actual code
will be revealed because this could open the door to many lawsuits
having to do with stolen intellectual property. Instead, they
will probably define some MACROS like:
START_OS();
RUN_OS();
STOP_OS();
These are just dummies. The most important is a callable procedure:
make_blue_screen_of_death();
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 05:53:08PM +0000, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> >
> >They do already license the source to a few trusted companies (Executive
> >Software used to ship modified NTFS drivers for NT 3.51 as part of
> >Diskeeper, IIRC). They are inching ever so slowly towards letting human
> >beings (cf MS drones) read their code...
Their code is tough to read due to the use of C++ constructs all through
their architecture. You can issue a request to some kernel component of
NT only to have it raise a software exception that shows up somewhere else
in the kernel code. Since they use structured excpetion handling all
over the place, it takes a long time to make sense of just what is
going on in large sections of their kernel. Their architecture is
much more flexible than Linux, but you pay the price in increased
complexity. The NWFS file system on W2K was an absolute nightmare
to write and debug, and I could not have done it without their source
code and David from MS helping.
I'm more suprised they are even showing to customers. It's so damn
complex, most of the people they give it to won't be able to make
heads or tails of it. Linux is a lot easier to read and follow. The
licence they disclose it under is very strict.
Giving a W2K customer the source to W2K isn't going to do a single one
of them any good, other than to watch some automated makefiles build
stuff and maybe boost the customer's egos. An average W2K customer
lookinh at the W2K sources would be like Captain Kirk from Star Trek
forgetting his tricorder on Rigel 7 or something -- in 100 years of so,
the natives might figure our how to make it start a fire or something.
It takes years to understand the subtle behaviors in W2K kernel
programming, and it doesn't have the mongolian horde following of
Linux developers.
MS releasing W2K code to customers is pretty much a non-event in terms
of it causing some meaningful "linux-like explosion" of W2K development.
Jeff
<snip "microsoft may be going open source">
> Not a chance. First your company must have at least 1500 licences.... and
> you can't modify any code... which implies that you can't rebuild either...
You can modify your compiler, so that it accepts patches (with no context)
and completely rewrite anything that needs modified.
The modified source would never be stored anywhere.
>From Mohammad A. Haque on Thursday, 08 March, 2001:
[snip]
>Also notice that you're now paying MS so you can find their bugs. Very
>nice.
Indeed. They've been very successful so far in getting people to
pony up (pay) for beta software (see W2K: The Beta, Whistler/XP: The
Beta, and (I am pretty sure) VisualStudio.Net: The Beta.)
Interesting concept. Quite an evil marketing scheme, if you ask me.
The users pay to help Microsoft debug their software, and also pay
to put their security (both in the cracking and data safety senses)
on the line.
Huzzah! Microsoft has proven it: we're sheep!
Baaa baa baa baaa,
Joseph
--
Joseph==============================================jap3003@ksu.edu
"I felt a great disturbance in the force. As if a significant plot
line suddenly cried out in terror... and was suddenly silenced."
-Torg in "Sluggy Freelance" http://www.sluggy.com.
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
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
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.
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.
Microsoft such attempts can be viewed as either
1. Trying to make it sources open(in the long run) or
2. As you said a "half - baked solution"
But the article mentioned about the "earlier success with the pilot
program" , which made me feel that they may have more plans than making the
sources open for a few customers.
--------- Received message begins Here ---------
>
> <snip "microsoft may be going open source">
> > Not a chance. First your company must have at least 1500 licences.... and
> > you can't modify any code... which implies that you can't rebuild either...
>
> You can modify your compiler, so that it accepts patches (with no context)
> and completely rewrite anything that needs modified.
> The modified source would never be stored anywhere.
So you have the source to the MS compiler???? And they gave you all of the
object modules (or at least the source) AND the makefiles (or equivalent)???
I believe their "can't modify" includes the OS you were supplied under a
different license.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
I suspect this is actually in response to the reported breakings and
external access to the M$ code base.
There have been a number of concerns about backdoors, trojan horses or
other things being maliciously added to the code base and the
resulting extreme security risk.
By 'increasing' the number or eyes that look at it, they are probably
hoping to alleviate the security concerns.
The other issue, is if it doesn't compile into the same executable, it
isn't the same code.
---
Reversal is the key to communication with me.
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Microsoft such attempts can be viewed as either
> 1. Trying to make it sources open(in the long run) or
> 2. As you said a "half - baked solution"
>
> But the article mentioned about the "earlier success with the pilot
> program" , which made me feel that they may have more plans than making the
> sources open for a few customers.
Don't get me wrong. I think that making the source available is
a step in the right direction. But MS' business model is very
centered around controlling and protecting their operating
system/platform. Ever since they gained an upper hand in the
PC platform war, their agenda has been to protect Windows from
any competing platforms. Think OS/2, Java, Netscape.
There is also the fact that Windows source code has been available
for a long time, both to universities and to ISVs that are
developing software that requires deep hackery (Citrix, Bristol
technology, etc). Which makes me believe that this "source
available (under heavy license)" thing is mainly a marketing stunt
to make MS look good.
Today MS is a platform provider. Open Source is all about making
the platform a commodity. A major business plan and culture
rewiring has to happen inside MS before they can embrace Open
Source, and I don't see that happening yet.
I'd be very happy to be proved wrong, though.
--
LarsG.
> > 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
Venkatesh Ramamurthy wrote:
> send a patch and they would put it in thier next version. Is this not the
> same way Linux Kernel is developed?. Only thing microsoft does not want to
> immediately go full open sourcing and get embarrased at the hands of linux
> people.
Is this linux-kernel or "The Onion" ? I can already see it:
"<Insert_Rogue_Nation_of_Your_Choice> suspends execution of dissidents
for one week.
Amnesty International hails this as a significant move, showing their
determination to move swiftly to full compliance with human rights."
- Werner (couldn't resist ;-)
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH [email protected] /
/_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/
From: "Alan Cox" <[email protected]>
> > 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."
{^_-}
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, J. Dow wrote:
> From: "Alan Cox" <[email protected]>
>
> > > 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
"Mohammad A. Haque" <[email protected]> writes:
> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
> to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
> (you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since you have the code).
Does making a patch necessarily require modifying the source code?
Back in my days as a mainframe systems programmer (ICL VME/B), most OS
patches were made to the binary image, either in the file or to the
loaded virtual memory image.
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" <[email protected]>
> >
> > > > 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: [email protected], [email protected],
or even [email protected]. If you encounter an eowmob account on
any machine in the net, it's very likely it's me.
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
>"Mohammad A. Haque" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
>> to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
>> (you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since you have the code).
>
>Does making a patch necessarily require modifying the source code?
>Back in my days as a mainframe systems programmer (ICL VME/B), most OS
>patches were made to the binary image, either in the file or to the
>loaded virtual memory image.
Nearly always. The problem is that the patch may make the module bigger/smaller
or relocate variables whose address then changes. All locations that
these are referenced must be modified (either direct address or offset).
Sometimes other modules will get relocated too.
Now when you have relocatable object code distributed there is an alternative:
you recompile the module, and relink the entire kernel. The assumption is
that you have all the object modules...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
Jesse Pollard wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
> >"Mohammad A. Haque" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
> >> to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
> >> (you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since you have the code).
> >
> >Does making a patch necessarily require modifying the source code?
> >Back in my days as a mainframe systems programmer (ICL VME/B), most OS
> >patches were made to the binary image, either in the file or to the
> >loaded virtual memory image.
> Nearly always. The problem is that the patch may make the module
> bigger/smaller or relocate variables whose address then changes. All
> locations that these are referenced must be modified (either direct
> address or offset). Sometimes other modules will get relocated too.
You're too young. Or I'm too old. :-)
IF your patch can be inserted into the code space available: Then good.
If not, you move the code out of the previously allocated space, and
put it somewhere else. Put a "jump" instruction in the old place.
At the university there was a lab-assignment where we had to use the
provided semaphore routines. Turns out we found a bug. The TA then
told us it was going to be hard-to-fix, as about 8192 bytes of the 8k
PROM were in use. He was wrong. The bug was one instruction too
many. We just wrote "nop" over the bad instruction. The processor had
also been correctly designed: you could overwrite any instruction in
the PROM with "nop", as the NOP instruction was 0xff. Fixed on the
spot!
Roger.
--
** [email protected] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots.
* There are also old, bald pilots.
Graham Murray wrote:
> Does making a patch necessarily require modifying the source code?
> Back in my days as a mainframe systems programmer (ICL VME/B), most OS
> patches were made to the binary image, either in the file or to the
> loaded virtual memory image.
Hmm. I guess you have something there. I come from a Mac background and
some patches I've seen to 'hack' a feature into one of Apple's drivers
has been one that modifies the resource fork of the driver file. The
person who made this mod of course didn't have access to the source
code.
--
=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/
[email protected]
"Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
[email protected]
=====================================================================
Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> Maybe they can be applied that way but no sane engineer would ever develop
> a patch without source if possible at all.
Keyword there being sane right? =P
Sorry, I'm running off little sleep right now.
--
=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/
[email protected]
"Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
[email protected]
=====================================================================
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:26:36AM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> Hmm. I guess you have something there. I come from a Mac background and
> some patches I've seen to 'hack' a feature into one of Apple's drivers
> has been one that modifies the resource fork of the driver file. The
> person who made this mod of course didn't have access to the source
> code.
Maybe they can be applied that way but no sane engineer would ever develop
a patch without source if possible at all.
Ralf
[email protected] (Lars Gaarden) wrote on 08.03.01 in <[email protected]>:
> 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
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>Jesse Pollard wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
>> >"Mohammad A. Haque" <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
>> >> to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
>> >> (you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since you have the code).
>> >
>> >Does making a patch necessarily require modifying the source code?
>> >Back in my days as a mainframe systems programmer (ICL VME/B), most OS
>> >patches were made to the binary image, either in the file or to the
>> >loaded virtual memory image.
>
>> Nearly always. The problem is that the patch may make the module
>> bigger/smaller or relocate variables whose address then changes. All
>> locations that these are referenced must be modified (either direct
>> address or offset). Sometimes other modules will get relocated too.
>
>You're too young. Or I'm too old. :-)
Neither - we've both been there.
>
>IF your patch can be inserted into the code space available: Then good.
>If not, you move the code out of the previously allocated space, and
>put it somewhere else. Put a "jump" instruction in the old place.
>
Only if you generate your patch in assembler.... and there is somewhere
else to put the real module...
>At the university there was a lab-assignment where we had to use the
>provided semaphore routines. Turns out we found a bug. The TA then
>told us it was going to be hard-to-fix, as about 8192 bytes of the 8k
>PROM were in use. He was wrong. The bug was one instruction too
>many. We just wrote "nop" over the bad instruction. The processor had
>also been correctly designed: you could overwrite any instruction in
>the PROM with "nop", as the NOP instruction was 0xff. Fixed on the
>spot!
>
Congratulations - We used to do similar things to change the baud
rate of serial interfaces (though overwriting core memory was much
easier).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
[email protected] (Lars Gaarden) wrote on 08.03.01 in
<[email protected]>:
> 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
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 [email protected]
Make a good day.