Microsoft Preparing to Release Code to Open Source
Posted by malebolgia on 31 March 2004 - 04:29 · 63 comments & 28676 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(21 replies)
#1 Posted by MuD on 31 Mar 2004 - 04:40
- At least it's a start. Hope one day ALL software will become open source.
-
#1.1 Posted by Starman on 31 Mar 2004 - 05:03
- That's so retarded. Why would I want to release what puts food on the table for my family?
-
#1.2 Posted by MegaManXcalibur on 31 Mar 2004 - 05:54
- The code isn't putting any food on the table, the licence is. When you buy a program from Microsoft your just paying for a licence that says you can use that particular piece of software. They could always end up doing something like MySQL does. They have two licences, if you want to develop a closed source program using their database you can purchas a corprate licence, on the other hand if you want to develop open source projects that work with their databases you can just use the open source licence (which is free). This seems to work just fine seeing as the people who make MySQL are still in business. Just because they release source code doesn't mean they can't make money on it (you see Linux companies such as Red Hat and SuSE making a profit). Microsoft could always release the source code and then charge for things such as support, or boxed copies of their software, and of coarse training. You have to look at the full picture, not just the product itself.
-
#1.3 Posted by Rudy on 31 Mar 2004 - 09:15
- i dont think i'll ever understand the purpose of open source, its retarded!! I agree with Starman....i mean if windows would be open source, how many copies do you think they would sell?? slim to none because people would just compile it themself
-
#1.4 Posted by jasondefaoite on 31 Mar 2004 - 10:03
- As opposed to downloading the latest warez version of it ?
-
#1.5 Posted by BaLdMoNkEy on 31 Mar 2004 - 10:24
QUOTE its retarded
someone is really cool
-
#1.6 Posted by Jason on 31 Mar 2004 - 11:47
- I don't get it, if I created a program I want people to have the program itself not the source code that creates it, why would you need my source code as I wouldn't allow you to change anything or even copy the code.
-
#1.7 Posted by LordHatrus on 31 Mar 2004 - 12:35
- so we can find and exploit parts of your program, and attack its users. DUHHHHHH
-
#1.8 Posted by MuD on 31 Mar 2004 - 13:55
QUOTE (#1.2) The code isn't putting any food on the table, the licence is. When you buy a program from Microsoft your just paying for a licence that says you can use that particular piece of software. They could always end up doing something like MySQL does. They have two licences, if you want to develop a closed source program using their database you can purchas a corprate licence, on the other hand if you want to develop open source projects that work with their databases you can just use the open source licence (which is free). This seems to work just fine seeing as the people who make MySQL are still in business. Just because they release source code doesn't mean they can't make money on it (you see Linux companies such as Red Hat and SuSE making a profit). Microsoft could always release the source code and then charge for things such as support, or boxed copies of their software, and of coarse training. You have to look at the full picture, not just the product itself.
Exactly. Besides, not everyone is a f*cking programmer.-
#1.9 Posted by lexor on 31 Mar 2004 - 14:47
QUOTE (#1. 
Exactly. Besides, not everyone is a f*cking programmer.
aha they aren't, and they need source code why?-
#1.10 Posted by quanta on 31 Mar 2004 - 15:28
- You guys are not seeing the big picture. Most kinds of software are becoming commoditized. Software is not a means to an end. Software can be used to drive demand for bigger profits higher up on the value chain - consulting, support, customization, and training. Sure, RedHat Linux doesn't make as much money as a $300 copy of WindowsXP, but since development costs are less and RedHat can take advantange of economies to scale, they are still in the black.
Thanks to peer review, open source makes it easier to squash bugs, and develop better software faster. Don't you want that? -
#1.11 Posted by NinjaMonkey82 on 31 Mar 2004 - 15:31
- Having source code that is out for everyone to see has a lot of benefits. The main one being people can look through it for security holes. Another is that it can be modified and even optimized for certain machines.
Microsoft would still make lots of money off of Windows even if they open sourced the whole thing. Simply because most people get Windows with a new computer and MS gets license royalties from that, I doubt a lot of people even buy upgrades they simply wait until its time to buy a new PC. They could also sell a boxed version with more support, documentation, etc. Then there are the coperate and business accounts they have. Those people aren't going to go to the net and download some .iso files and put them on all of their computers. This is how Red Hat makes money, even though its free businesses want product support.
Even Apple in a way could be an example for MS to follow. The base of the OS is free (Darwin), even availible on x86, the rest GUI and just about everything else is not. Again it works in Apple's favor because the important componants of the OS are availible for anyone to see and fix security holes, etc. and submit them back to Apple so they are included in the next OS release.
There are lots of ways MS could open source their software but I doubt they will in a serious way. It would seriously benefit the consumer, even if you aren't a programmer.
-
#1.12 Posted by Starman on 31 Mar 2004 - 15:47
- The license doesn't put the food on the table. Duh.
Ok, let's say I create the greatest software on the planet. Do I open source it? No...because then other people will be able to look at my code and see what I've done, and in turn use it to make something better, which in turn TAKES AWAY FROM MY PROFITS.
-
#1.13 Posted by Rudy on 31 Mar 2004 - 16:08
- exactly my thoughts.....and thats coming from a programer
-
#1.14 Posted by quanta on 31 Mar 2004 - 16:26
- Starman: Some software are not commoditized, and therefore worth protecting as closed source (i.e. 3D graphics engines). That still doesn't stop devs from opening the source of them later, when the support costs exceed their profits - which is why id Software now offers the Doom, Quake and Quake II engines' source code under the GNU GPL.
You have to take into account second-order effects - for example, id gets free publicity for their Quake III engine, and folks around the world increase their understanding of 3D graphics design and release more games for us to play, which can only increase demand for id products, and increase their chances of hiring more qualified staff.
BTW, if you create the greatest software on the planet, and someone makes it something better, that is a problem?
Keep in mind, if the inventors of TCP/IP, Sendmail or DNS decided to horde it and sell it for profit, we would never have the Internet. -
#1.15 Posted by NinjaMonkey82 on 31 Mar 2004 - 17:49
- The license doesn't put food on the table? Well maybe not but it sure filled up Gates & Co.'s pockets.
If you bothered to read my post I didn't say the whole OS needed to be open. It was just an idea nad one that could still make a profit. If you read further you'd have noticed I gave Apple as an example, the underlying technologies could be open sourced such as the kernal without open sourcing anything else.
The fact is that open sourcing certain pieces of MS software is a good thing. It helps with fixing bugs and security holes much faster. If you are a Windows user I would think you would want those things. -
#1.16 Posted by lexor on 31 Mar 2004 - 17:52
QUOTE BTW, if you create the greatest software on the planet, and someone makes it something better, that is a problem?
QUOTE if the inventors of TCP/IP, Sendmail or DNS decided to horde it and sell it for profit, we would never have the Internet.
Sendmail is mostly hype created by "open source" comunity, there are substitutes and alternatives that are better, so no one would buy Sendmail even if they sell it.-
#1.17 Posted by quanta on 31 Mar 2004 - 18:46
- lexor: Why is it less profit? You could still sell the product. You could sell consulting services. You could even sell a Deluxe version under a commercial license.
N.B. Stating that one must horde code because someone will come along and do one better says to me that the original programmer isn't as great as he/she thinks they are. Wouldn't working with peers create an even better program that can bring in more profit via second-order effects?
TCP/IP and DNS were created mostly by university researchers. They could have patented it and demanded licenses for it, like Novell Netware and IBM's TokenRing. Funny no one uses them anymore.
Sendmail is not hype, it pioneered email systems. At one point it ran on almost all mailservers. It may only hold 40% marketshare now (others include Postfix and Exim, also open source, and of course MS Exchange), but it sure still holds influence. -
#1.18 Posted by MegaManXcalibur on 31 Mar 2004 - 20:05
QUOTE (#1.12) The license doesn't put the food on the table. Duh.
Ok, let's say I create the greatest software on the planet. Do I open source it? No...because then other people will be able to look at my code and see what I've done, and in turn use it to make something better, which in turn TAKES AWAY FROM MY PROFITS.
Yeah I forgot you need the source code to make a clone of a program
Let's look at Open Office, more of less it's a clone of Microsoft Office. Now the creators of Open Office didn't have the Microsoft Office source code, but they were able to make a program that opens, edits, and saves various Microsoft Office files. And le'ts not forget it functions quite similar in many regard to Microsoft Office.
Another example is GNUCash which functions similarly to Quicken, heck it can ever use Quicken files. The makers of Quicken to my knowlege never released the source code for their program, yet there are similar competing products out there.
Just because you don't release your source code doesn't mean nobody is going to make a clone of your program. If you know how to program you can usually figure out a way to accomplish the same thing as another program has without their source code.-
#1.19 Posted by MuD on 31 Mar 2004 - 20:22
- "Having source code that is out for everyone to see has a lot of benefits. The main one being people can look through it for security holes. Another is that it can be modified and even optimized for certain machines."
That's my point. Even though I am not a programmer, other people who ARE programmers can still look at the source code for themselves to make sure it doesn't have a back door or other security vulnerabilities.
And, like quanta & NinjaMonkey82 said, you can still be profitable because of all the royalties you get of licensing. -
#1.20 Posted by Starcom826 on 31 Mar 2004 - 21:10
QUOTE (#1.1) That's so retarded.
Come now, don't make fun of retarded people. Associating them with Microsoft is just plain insulting.-
#1.21 Posted by frogworm on 01 Apr 2004 - 03:38
QUOTE (#1.1 Just because you don't release your source code doesn't mean nobody is going to make a clone of your program. If you know how to program you can usually figure out a way to accomplish the same thing as another program has without their source code.
UltraFXP VS FlashFXP
take a look at that and decide for yourself.
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by Frankenchrist on 31 Mar 2004 - 04:41
- Wow, now we can finally get the source for Notepad! We're sooo lucky!
-
#2.2 Posted by Lord British on 31 Mar 2004 - 05:26
- Believe it or not but Microsoft released the source code to notepad and wordpad a few years ago. They were WAY ahead of their time. Ok. Maybe not
-
(2 replies)
#3 Posted by brianshapiro on 31 Mar 2004 - 05:34
- Lord British, I killed you in every Ultima game. You keep coming back.
-
#3.2 Posted by rogerroger on 31 Mar 2004 - 20:23
- LOL. Funny. I did that too.
-
(4 replies)
#4 Posted by amdme2600 on 31 Mar 2004 - 05:46
- Now we get to see more retards with the source code
-
#4.1 Posted by MegaManXcalibur on 31 Mar 2004 - 06:01
- Yeah as apposed to just the retards at Remond
Sorry couldn't resist that hit, I have a lot of respect for the developers at Microsoft, they make good products. And by no means do I think they are retards (most of the time anyhow)..
Whats wrong with having more people with the source code? This opens the doors for all sorts of great things. They aren't releasing any core source but I'm sure what they release will help developers make software that better integrates with the over all OS. In a sence they have been doing this for a while with the shared source program, the only difference this would make is that anybody could obtain the source and hence anybody could develope programs that work with Windows better.
Look at what those "retards with the source code" accomplished with Linux. Even if you hate Linux you have to admit it's come a long way since kernel 1.0 in a reletivly short amount of time. Also you have more "retards with the source code" making great products such as Mozilla and Open Office. Even if you don't personally like these programs you would have to admit both do a great job at what they are intended for (Open Office is a great office product, especially if your strapped for cash and still need an office suite).
Releasing source code to the public can lead to many great things, I'm really happy to see Microsoft is starting to open some of their source (it may not be everything but it's still something). -
#4.2 Posted by brianshapiro on 31 Mar 2004 - 06:15
- and even if non core source is released people can make minor tweaks to explorer , paint, charmap etc that microsoft is too busy to do themselves because they focus on major changes
-
#4.3 Posted by BaLdMoNkEy on 31 Mar 2004 - 10:28
- why is the word "retard" so popular lately?
go learn a vocabulary other than that of britney spears
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by BetaguyGZT on 31 Mar 2004 - 07:13
- Who would have thunk it...
All I can say is that Hell hasn't frozen over YET, but it definetely looks like snow.
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by memNOC on 31 Mar 2004 - 07:48
-
#6.2 Posted by rogerroger on 31 Mar 2004 - 20:24
- LMAO
-
(3 replies)
#7 Posted by modem on 31 Mar 2004 - 07:55
- Why do I get the odd odd feeling this might have something to do with april fools day tomorrow?
-
#7.2 Posted by jeff_pony on 31 Mar 2004 - 10:59
- Can that apply to information released on the 31 March?
-
#7.3 Posted by roadwarrior on 31 Mar 2004 - 20:20
- It can when you consider that about half the world is already on April 1.
-
#8 Posted by Wiseman on 31 Mar 2004 - 10:23
- that what i saw in microsoft
-
#9 Posted by contra on 31 Mar 2004 - 11:11
- this is too close to april fools day for my liking
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by shao on 31 Mar 2004 - 12:03
- last time i checked april fools jokes generally happened on april 1st.... did someone change that rule, or does suspect stories on march 31st count as fools too... edyots.
-
#10.2 Posted by roadwarrior on 31 Mar 2004 - 20:21
- Shao, you are aware that about half the world is already on April 1, don't you?
-
#11 Posted by Halesie on 31 Mar 2004 - 12:42
- Hmm. That story and headline look spookily familiar
-
#12 Posted by amdme2600 on 31 Mar 2004 - 14:21
- Only retards respond to the word retarded. lol
Last edited by 49352 on 31 Mar 2004 - 14:44
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by amdme2600 on 31 Mar 2004 - 14:21
- o and **** you 2
-
#13.1 Posted by BaLdMoNkEy on 31 Mar 2004 - 14:29
- and only retards do not have the ability to click the edit button at the top of their post
-
#14 Posted by amdme2600 on 31 Mar 2004 - 14:41
- Go eat monkey ****.
-
#15 Posted by neufuse on 31 Mar 2004 - 14:53
- In some ways open source is good, but in others it is bad. From a comerical point of view open source is bad. If I create a program (which I do for work at lot), I want to posess the source code, not hand it out to someone for free or even licensed. The licensing of it could easily fail in many diffrent ways, of which I don't have time to explain.
People can say they sell the license all they want, the way It should be done is you buy the software, at that point you own it. If you were giving out the software for free, and depending on license sales and support sales alone, you will notice a decline in sales overall. A lot of what is out there is also makeing a profit on media distribution. If you buy media kits for software unlicensed, you will notice you pay a lot more then the CD's are worth. Visual Studio media kit for example (just the CD's alone) is about $40... There has to be some bit of a profit there, it does not cost $40 to stamp 6 CD's and do a quick silk screen of them..
-
(4 replies)
#16 Posted by TheLord on 31 Mar 2004 - 15:37
- ARE YE ALL CRAZY??? If microsoft releases windows' source code then that would be a disaster for them.. who the f.uck do you think is going to acctually BUY anything from microsoft??? even the dumbest person on earth wouldn't do that! Anyone will be able to have windows for free everyone will have windows' source code any f.uckin will be able to mess with them THAT AINT GOOD! even a stupid noobie programmer would be able to program like a PRO! Lots of windows programs will be burned in hell since anyone will be able to search and find any API any CALL in any DLL or any hard coded function in windows' source code! besides, opensource S.U.C.K.S! a bunch of programmers are developing an opensource project and then a big company steals it (how?? DUH IT'S OPEN SOURCE) then they make a few goddamn changes and then sell it making that way profit from those s.uckers that thought their project would be developed and left opensource for the good of the opensource community. redhat and suse and generally all the linux distributors do the same thing! Another point is that if I release one of my projects (as opensource) any f.uckin i.diot will be able to make changes, remove my name and sell it or just get credits and the worst a company may offer him a job for "his" (heh my..) program! I can't see the good thing in that! try prooving i'm wrong!
cheerz,
-thelord -
#16.1 Posted by Dessimat0r on 31 Mar 2004 - 16:10
- You idiot.
If anyone did that, they would get sued to kingdom come by Microsoft. You'd have to totally recode it to not leave a trace of it being theirs.
And anyway, WHO THE HELL WOULD BOTHER?
Get away from me, you goon. -
#16.2 Posted by Fanon on 31 Mar 2004 - 18:21
QUOTE release "non core" code - i.e. code that is not a part of the operating system.
You first need to work on your reading - then you need to work on your sentence structure.-
#16.3 Posted by MegaManXcalibur on 31 Mar 2004 - 20:23
- I can see you are really upset about this. I honestly think you should sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over (wonder if anybody will get that refernce).
Anyhow let's think about this, how many people who use Linux have purchased something on the lines of Red Hat, SuSE, or Mandrake? Quite a few, as you can see not every "****ing idiot" out there is going to go and compiler Windows, how many people do you know just happen to have a compiler (that would actually compiler Windows so GCC probably won't work) and the know how to use it lying around?
And your telling me any "stupid noobie programmer" will be able to program like a pro?! It's nice to see somebody who has never programmed before is commenting on programming. At least I'm betting you've never programmed because if you had you'd realize that being a "noobie" means you don't have a lot of knowlege, you just know the basics. Somebody who knows just the basics is never going to understand the complex code Windows uses, let alone know how to alter it.
It's also nice to know open source "S.U.C.K.S!" seriosly you could have pulled out a few "." and you may have seemed like you had some ability to use the english language properly. Without there being any core code you really would be getting enough to make windows programs "burn in hell." What Microsoft would probably release would be some basic code for various things that would help deveopers better intergrate their programs with Windows. They aren't going to give out all their core DLL files.
The bottom line is Open Source is working for other companies very well. Microsoft will most likely see a lot of advantages by releasing some of their source code. I'm sure Microsoft thought everything through, they aren't a dumb company. If they actually do plan to do this then they obviously see some sort of advantage for their company.
-
#17 Posted by quanta on 31 Mar 2004 - 16:17
- Free, full article here (requires no subscription)
http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/7503585eb6e9543f80256e670038578b
-
#18 Posted by Sub on 31 Mar 2004 - 16:44
- Little do you all know they are releasing the source code for windows 3.1...hahah
-
#19 Posted by mrkd on 31 Mar 2004 - 17:04
- Maybe in a distant future Microsoft could "claim" patents over opensource software like SCO case against linux if a bit of their software is mixed in opensource projects...
I dont like that move, too suspicious... maybe a bad joke?
-
(1 reply)
#20 Posted by Trek234 on 31 Mar 2004 - 18:15
- Anyone want to bet the vast majority of the source code they "release" just happens to be inluded in the same source code that was leaked some time ago?
If it is (which I suspect will be the case) MS deserves NO praise.
It would be like me refusing to share my food with a person who is starving to death when I have 1000lbs of food, then me forgetting my food stash was in the room with that person and leaving, that person eating some, then me turning around and saying "Oh yea you can have that!" and everyone loving me for how "kind" I was.
Different situation, but you get the idea. -
#20.1 Posted by JaggedFlame on 31 Mar 2004 - 20:06
QUOTE If it is (which I suspect will be the case) MS deserves NO praise.
I suspect you're a moron who likes to blindly jump to conclusions.
Whether this report is accurate on how Microsoft will release such code, it looks promising for developers wanting to gain better access to the inner workings of Microsoft applications. This latest moves comes nearly two months after some Windows NT 4 and Windows 2000 source code leaked to the internet. Since, February Microsoft has been continually reviewing the way it shares source code to customers and this latest news may bring some promising developments in Microsoft's future.
You'll be amazed how thoroughly AntiVir protects: