Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
 MS to share MORE code

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 22, 2002
 Comments:
That's right. Microsoft is planning to share even more code. Sure it's not to the extent of Netscape or Apple. However, Bill and Company seem to think it's a step in the right direction.

Complete story here

diaries

More diaries by koochee girl
Just wonderin'
TOS a joke to behold
XP: almost complete
Who's Copying Who?
AMD and MS: Buudies?
GPL goes to court
GPL goes to court: Part 2



Question: (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 22nd, 2002 at 05:17:04 PM PST
Dear sir,

As a L.I.N.U.X. user, is this possibility compatible with your warped Open Source vs 'Micro$oft' worldview?

IE, if 'M$' supports free software, who does that leave you to rebel against?

answer and more LINKS (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 02:56:27 AM PST
if 'M$' supports free software, who does that leave you to rebel against?

Did you even read the article the link points to? Microsoft is not releasing any portion of its code to the open source community nor is it supporting free software.

I have read the article but now I can't reach the website. I'm guessing problem on their end as I can surf to any other site.
The well-guarded code will be made available under Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative initially to about 150 licensed systems integrators, the company announced today. Eligible licensees are Gold Support Services certified partners and systems integrators with more than 1,500 seats of Windows with a Level A or B Microsoft Premier support agreement.
More
The Shared Source Initiative arose as a countermeasure to Microsoft's image as a secretive company. But only its top partners will have access to Windows code, and they can't make changes to it. That's not surprising, said Weber.

"They're not going to give the source code to every Tom, Dick and Harry consultant out there," he said "It would cause more problems than it solves."
Basically MS is just given the code (and only bits and pieces not the whole thing) to well trusted organisations where everyone has signed Nondisclosure Agreements until they were blue in the face.

Here's another link to the article in case you can't access the one above.

and this is significant why? (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 06:11:43 AM PST
and is it your suggestion that a slashdot-like community of quake playing, anime watching, open source script kiddies under the delusion they are programmers should constitute a "well trusted organization" for Microsoft? Most people would prefer to run software with a geneology of competence. I remind you that Lunix is still crappy after all these years and falling relatively further behind with every Windows release.

Well-trusted organizations (none / 0) (#5)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 11:36:40 AM PST
and is it your suggestion that a slashdot-like community of quake playing, anime watching, open source script kiddies under the delusion they are programmers should constitute a "well trusted organization" for Microsoft?

If I'd only have time to play Quake. Anime is cute thing, but when the only available on TV is Pokemon and local culture has no fanclubs, it's tough to get.

Open source. The glue that holds my networks together. Example: just yesterday I managed to network a LAN-only DOS-based legacy system between several offices over a modem connection, using Linux with DOSemu and ssh; the alternative solution, proposed by the program's vendor, was a dedicated Windows 2000 server, and using Windows terminal services. Now, compare the cost and reliability.

Many of the "kiddies" are high-positioned admins of big companies. Whose just aren't big enough to be too meaningful for The Beast of Redmond. That I don't run a Fortune500 company isn't acceptable reason to me why I shouldn't have access to the code. Though a friend who considers friendship with a live person to have more moral weight than a NDA with faceless corporation could solve this neatly.

Also, their ban on modifying the code is a highly disagreeable thing - if there is an one-liner modification that will save my day, I have FULL RIGHT to do it! Being it in a free code, or in a "closed" binary - second case is just more annoying to do.

Most people would prefer to run software with a geneology of competence.

Then go FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Or, second choice, Linux.

If you don't consider Nimda and Code Red and heaps and heaps of coming-late patches and servicepacks and peddling betaversions as release-1 finished products as examples of software vendor's competence.

I remind you that Lunix is still crappy after all these years and falling relatively further behind with every Windows release.

Both Linux and Windows are heaps of shit. The really meaningful difference is that Linux holds in the shape I put it to, while around Windows - 9x, NT, 2000, doesn't matter - I have to run around with spatula.

Face it - Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is a question. No! is the answer.

On a side note, I can install Linux to a machine just by downloading a disk image to the hard drive. (Think about an emergency recovery floppy, or a bootROM.) Is it possible the same way for Windows 2000? Or has there to be a monkey on-site who will babysit the install each time it is necessary to do? We got more offices with no techsupport and I can't be everywhere physically... Ability to "reflash" the computer's disk with known-good installation would help a *lot*...


money money money (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 11:38:31 AM PST
Don't forget the number of additional licenses your company has to buy. That is unless you have money to get ahold of a corporate edition.

Also it one more reason to like MacOSX. At least part of it is open. Wanna learn to great tips for software development? Attend the Mac developer conference (or in the words of Adequacy.org loyalists, the conference of terror) called...MacHack.

Sure Microsoft is feeling the pinch. Developers and admins alike are singing the praise of open source. Does this mean it has to be completely OSS? Noooooo. Would MS garner the same support that Apple has? Most definitly NOT. Not because Windows couldn't be improved upon. But no one wants to mess with it. It's broken. It's too full of bloated code that it would take a complete rewrite and too much time.

 
blah blah blah (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 11:26:05 AM PST
and is it your suggestion that a slashdot-like community of quake playing, anime watching, open source script kiddies under the delusion they are programmers should constitute a "well trusted organization" for Microsoft?

First off stop stereotyping every one. Yes many are hackers. Some are network administrators. Do we know more than MCSE who only know MS systems? Yes. Can a Unix Admin administer a Microsoft system without a lot of trouble? Yes. Could it work the other way around? Hell no.

Also Miocrosoft is not so well trusted. It has been found tyo be an anti-competitive monopoly NOT as Microsoftites will try to get you to believe but by states in the US. It was found to lock manufacturers into licensing and contract that would cause them to lose their intellectual property because of the little clause that allows Ms to change its terms anytime it wants to.

Most people would prefer to run software with a geneology of competence.

Competence!?! Most Windows users can't even shut down their computer without fucking it up. Wanna great career that's in demand? Tech support. They get thousands of calls from lusers everyday.

I remind you that Lunix is still crappy after all these years and falling relatively further behind with every Windows release.

I will agree with Red Hat's CEO that Linux is not ready for the desktop. It will likely not be for quite sometime. But to base the success of Linux on the desktop is very close minded. There are many other systems like mainframes and servers and firewalls. According to the Gartner Group, Netcraft, and the Giga Group as well as many others, Microsoft is LOSING ground in the server and embedded markets. Microsoft OWNS the desktop but has NEVER had the same success in the server room.

NAWL, why don't you call me? (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 12:09:39 PM PST
Is this how you treat the men you sleep with? One night of passion and then you just toss us aside like we were nothing, is that it? We had something special and you can't deny it.

I'll let you play "Black Hat Hacker" again, NAWL. You can even wear the mask. Please NAWL? Call me.

I'm not NAWL... (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 25th, 2002 at 11:05:54 PM PST
but you can call ME

1-900-FUCK-OFF

 
Answer: (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 02:57:29 AM PST
Microsoft's motives are under question both in this article and the eyes of the tech world. Microsoft appears to be bowing to the inevitable, rather than embracing a new paradigm.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.