Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. ATT 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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
[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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
[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 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
"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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
"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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
[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. ATT 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
[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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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: " 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_/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
> > 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
- Received message begins Here - > > > > 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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
> 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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
>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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "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" www.sluggy.com. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 05:53:08PM +, 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-ntfs/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-ntfs/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
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. > -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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
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. -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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 05:53:08PM +, 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "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" www.sluggy.com. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
- 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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Microsoft begining to open source Windows 2000?
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_/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
