| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft to reveal Windows code | |
|
||
| Time: 12:21 EST/17:21 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft will reveal hundreds of pieces of proprietary computer code from its monopoly Windows operating system in the next several weeks to comply with an antitrust settlement it signed with the U.S. Justice Department last year, the company said on Monday. The software giant said the disclosures are part of its first steps to comply with the settlement that must still be approved by a federal judge and remains opposed by nine state attorneys general seeking stiffer sanctions. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 247 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:46:31 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 8/5/2002 12:27:53 PM |
| Anyone know which parts? |
| #2 By 8589 (65.100.123.164) at 8/5/2002 12:44:23 PM |
|
Check this link out for more info:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020805/D7L78UNG0.html |
| #3 By 1190 (63.28.229.19) at 8/5/2002 12:55:22 PM |
|
The question is....will anyone outside of Microsoft be able to make sense of the code? :-)
|
| #4 By 8589 (65.100.123.164) at 8/5/2002 1:06:04 PM |
|
Just read this:
"Microsoft has told the judge it would be catastrophic if other companies got too much access to the inner workings of the operating system. It said that would allow them to "clone" Windows, prompting Microsoft to stop investing in research and development on the operating system. " ( from www.excite.com ) Isn't that a tad extreme? A couple of companies cloned DOS back in the 80's, and Microsoft didn't stop making MSDOS, so methinks I am seeing a bluff. <g> |
| #5 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 8/5/2002 2:15:01 PM |
|
#8: "Is there a way to prevent somebody loading up a .NET binary and vieweing the code in the disassembler?"
I hope MS comes out with an official solution to this soon. This is a big problem in the Java world, but since no one uses Java, it hasn't got much press. .NET has the same problems in that regard, but many more people will be using .NET, so it'll be a much larger problem. There are code obfuscators, string encryptors, and native compilers (ngen.exe, I think), but they all have their downsides. Obfuscators don't have much down side, though, so I think many people will start using these. |
| #6 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 8/5/2002 2:32:02 PM |
| #9 Why don't you have Coke and Kentucky Fried Chicken show their competitors their recipes? |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 2:39:10 PM |
|
On another note, potentially interesting news:
"Notice of Electronic Filings on August 5, 2002. Activity has occurred in civil action 98-1232 United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation and State of New York, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation." New filings in the antitrust case--although for some reason I have to pay now to access these files... AND they may just be docket entries, which may be as mundane as a change of address (last doc filed by DOJ), but at the same time, we should be seeing some new action on this front soon. Anyone willing to pay? |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 2:42:17 PM |
|
Ghost, because I'm not dependent on a chicken wing and a cola to function in the modern economy and infrastructure.
Nearly 200 previously undisclosed APIs (of which MS specifically withheld only 2 for security reasons)--I thought they said every API that their apps use to hook to the system had already been disclosed to ISVs to use for their own apps? No, go figure. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 14:58. |
| #9 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 8/5/2002 2:45:45 PM |
|
Sodajerk- as a programmer I know that no software would ever be developed without colas :)
#14 I agree with you. Below is the actual MS release: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/aug02/08-05settlementmilestones.asp This post was edited by GhostRider on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 14:46. |
| #10 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 8/5/2002 2:50:28 PM |
| Upon actually reading the article, I get the impression that it's just API's. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 2:54:02 PM |
|
Moo, what's your point--MS is saying these are related to the court-declared Middleware and communications protocols. Where does this say that these were undisclosed because their only use is internal system testing?
By the way, I love that the communication protocols aren't even being released--they are being sold. Who's going to buy them when Samba has already accomplished the reverse engineering pretty well while MS is likely deprecating SMB soon? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 15:09. |
| #12 By 931 (63.169.175.28) at 8/5/2002 2:56:56 PM |
|
lol probably they will start with dos and win3.1 lol and a few (about 100) undocumented nt.351 and nt.40 kernel "native" api's. There documented.lol just nor from microsoft.
Course I'm sure we all wish they'd release the source to WPA... lol.. fat chance on that one I guess. |
| #13 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/5/2002 3:16:25 PM |
| I'm sure it's more than SMB that they are releasing. Besides, when Sun or IBM is selling servers for multi-thousands/millions of dollars, I don't think 5 or more dollars per protocol will be of much concern (assuming they actually want to use any MS tech in the first place). |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 3:26:16 PM |
| I'm sure it is, enforcer; in one article they mention some of the comm protocols actually, and it just goes to show how un-standard MS communication is between apps and devices, but anyway... My main point being that if MS is basically rebuilding all of this stuff in the next 2-4 years, why spend $ to re-engineer your own software that is "relatively" compatible--this effort is likely to take 6 months to 2 years after all? And where do you get $5 per protocol? That's pretty odd licensing--I'm sure the licensing isn't flat, but rather based on how much rev generated from your own product, or number of your own product shipped? In which case $5 per, would be very, very expensive actually. |
| #15 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/5/2002 3:33:32 PM |
|
From the PressPass article linked above by GhostRider, SJ.
(Taken from that article) Because Microsoft's protocol licensing program must accommodate a broad range of uses, that pricing is based on a schedule of reasonable royalties that are linked to scale and vary across the different licensed tasks. The result of this approach is that licensees will pay Microsoft based on the value they, and ultimately their customers, obtain from the use of the licensed Microsoft communications protocols and associated intellectual property. The pricing is designed so that the license price should be only a small percentage of the total price of a server. Licenses will be available for as little as $5 per server. (Also from the article) Security Exceptions Security is a major concern in the software industry today. Section III.J of the consent decree provides a limited exception that allows Microsoft to withhold security-related technical information that would otherwise have to be disclosed under the consent decree. This provision also allows Microsoft to require that software developers meet certain criteria to establish the legitimacy of their business and proper implementation of the licensed technology when the disclosure is related to certain security and intellectual property protection mechanisms. This so-called "security carve out" has resulted in a total of two pieces of documentation that Microsoft will not make available to third parties, one interface and one protocol, out of approximately 272 APIs and 113 protocols that are being disclosed and licensed. In short, the security carve out is not a sweeping exception to the disclosure obligations of the consent decree. Specifically, only a single interface - related to the Windows File Protection system - has been identified as subject to this security exception. No other APIs have been withheld. Similarly, only one protocol, a particular method of signing data sent over a network, needs to be withheld from the licensing program for security reasons. However, even that protocol method had already been identified for replacement by a secure protocol that accomplishes the same function and will be offered under the Communications Protocol Program when available. Finally, Microsoft will license certain protocol information related to authentication and digital rights management to those third parties that meet the criteria set out in Section III.J.2. Only one API, the Secure Audio Path interface used to secure content protected by digital rights management software, will be licensed under the standards set out in this provision. mOOzilla - right, like NT's native API which Win32 sits atop. This post was edited by n4cer on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 15:41. |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/5/2002 3:43:14 PM |
|
sodajerk - I see no new filings, where are you looking?
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-2001.html As far as paying for communications protocols. Yeah there is Samba, but companies like EMC, Network Appliances and so forth who want to ensure their products are fully compliant would find this appealing. Anyway, Microsoft has been licensing this for years. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 3:45:06 PM |
|
Moo, again, these aren't those APIs so what's your point? Enforcer, curious if you have a particular point here as well... I was actually about to post this quote myself:
"Although the vast majority of interfaces used by these components were already documented, Microsoft will be publishing approximately 272 new interfaces on the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") as Application Programming Interfaces ("APIs") for software developers to use if they wish." The only people as good as politicians at talking out of both sides of their mouths is MS legal. Vast majority? Is that 60%? 70%, 80%, 90%? It's difficult to assess the # of APIs, but respectively the number of published APIs should be: 680; 907; 1360; 2720 -- just for the middleware apps. I also love that for all the whining, crying, even clawing for security protection of APIs responsible for maintaining security, even voluntarily, MS could only find 2 APIs which actually need to be protected. Thats only .7% of only this "vastly small number" of undisclosed number of APIs! |
| #18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 3:50:55 PM |
|
soda, it came in over the listserv subscipt:
"Notice of Electronic Filings on August 5, 2002. Activity has occurred in civil action 98-1232 United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation and State of New York, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation. In order to view the docket and pleadings you must have a PACER account. If you do not have a PACER login, contact the PACER Service Center to establish an account. You may register online at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov or call the PACER Service Center at (800) 676-6856 or (210) 301-6440. Currently there is no charge to view the courts Electronic Case Files. Starting in July, 2002 an access fee of $.07 per page, as approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States at the September 1998 session, will be assessed for access to this service. Copy the URL address on the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to access the updated case information. This URL can be bookmarked for future reference: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov" I don't know what the hell this PACER thing is, but I get the impression that this may just be a docket filing; probably MS saying "Look at what we did! Aren't we good boys!" Haven't you noticed how the DOJ, DCD, Appeal, Non-appeal sites all have their own particulars when it comes to posting data? And also their own schedule? (Judge Penfield was actually the quickest and most thorough in posting, ironically, and KK seems to be the slowest.) I expect that this will be made available publically in a short time, but in the interim it's only available to paying subscribers of PACER, which appears to give access to all docs filed with the Circuit Courts in near real time. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 15:52. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 4:02:43 PM |
|
That's not the point at all, Moo. MS claimed that all API's relevent to how their software interacts with the system were documented. They released over 200 today used by their apps so clearly there is additional functionality to be gained with these new APIs.
It's not a question of--I can't build an app without it; it's a question of: can MS build better apps than ISVs by having access to more APIs. So, actually, rather than responding to an impossible challenge--(how can I reveal to you an undocumented API?)--why don't you show me how every single one of these new APIs is completely USELESS to programmers and hence doesn't give MS an advantage? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 16:06. |
| #20 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/5/2002 4:22:15 PM |
|
That's no different than asking if Apple can build better apps than ISVs by having greater access to APIs or hardware info.
In some cases, the answer would be yes, however, they have an automatic advantage anyway in many cases because they built the software, its protocols, and its interfaces in the first place. For the majority of applications (if not all), there are already methods exposed for accessing functionality to do what is needed without needing to know how every bit of a protocol works. Some of the other APIs may simply provide redundant or antiquated interfaces. It is mainly those trying to build competing solutions that would find major benefits from completely exposing many of the protocols. Keep in mind that those competitors had no problems with maintaining closed protocols and APIs themselves not long ago when they had greater marketshare. And many still enjoy the benefits of their closed hardware architectures. |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 5:05:21 PM |
|
There is a difference, enforcer; just everyone is tired of having that difference pointed out. (I could point out other differences as well, but it's not necessary after taking into account the main one.) And there is also the difference of credibility--MS has repeatedly claimed that these APIs have been disclosed fully... and the simple fact is there are still undocumented APIs.
I actually don't have a hardcore view on this issue--obviously some APIs shouldn't rise to the level of significant and obviously you cannot document and make them accessible as quickly as you create them for your own use. Where I can take a hard edged stance is in regards to what Microsoft has said versus what is true, in regards to what a monopoly has to conform to versus what a company without monopoly power has to do... This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 17:12. |
| #22 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 5:33:28 PM |
|
by the way, enforcer, don't get where you're going here:
"It is mainly those trying to build competing solutions that would find major benefits from completely exposing many of the protocols." Yes, indeed, this is exactly the point. Don't see how that forms an argument against disclosure. Just because you think MS should be able to maintain some competitive leverage over these guys doesn't mean that you didn't just describe the heart of the case and the reason why API disclosure is a necessity. |
| #23 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/5/2002 6:26:19 PM |
|
Because no one should expect MS to expose all of their APIs and protocols when most other companies don't always expose theirs. It is hypocritical. Other companies gain (or try to gain) an advantage by using proprietary technology, yet these same companies want full access to the properties of others. AOL and Sun remain two of the larger hypocritical companies in this case, especially when their failings have little to do with MS' APIs. Scott McNealey regularly talks to reporters about how Sun has to police the industry and call people on when they try to go proprietary with a technology, yet Sun, themselves, has benefited and continues to benefit on staying proprietary. These same companies used to laugh at NT, but now want to use its technology to maintain some sort of hold upon their dwindling marketshare.
I'm getting off into other directions, and this has been discussed before. This case isn't really about disclosure as much as it is about getting a "free ride" off of MS' hard work. My main point is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having undocumented APIs for a product, and MS is not the only company/developer the doesn't document everything. Some APIs were never meant to be exposed as regular interfaces in the first place. Others are left undocumented for various other reasons, none of which must be ill in entent. The many dlls upon which Windows and Windows apps are built expose their interfaces. Documentation is needed, but exposing every interface to the point of redundency is not. These guys may be able to fix some of their problems by utilizing info from MS, but I wouldn't be suprised if in five years time (or maybe when the next Windows client OS is released), they point the finger at MS again as the cause of all of their problems, even if Windows is fully CLR based and all APIs are exposed through the Framework. AW Guys, Is there a chat tonight? This post was edited by n4cer on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 18:28. |
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 6:32:40 PM |
|
No offense, enforcer, but "Waaa, waa, waa!" That's how you sound. It's not hypocrisy, because none of these companies is an adjudged monopoly--the government has found no need to dissipate their dominance (because they don't have control over their markets) in these software product categories.
You have gone back to the position that MS isn't a monopoly, even worse that other's have even more control--simply laughable. Of course, you point this out yourself. "I'm getting off into other directions, and this has been discussed before." Maybe someday you'll be able to admit that fact to yourself and realize that it's pathetic to say, "But other companies don't have to! Waa, Waa, Waa!." This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 18:35. |
| #25 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 8/5/2002 7:10:08 PM |
|
That's funny, I always thought sodajerk sounded like "Whaaaa waaa waaa"
Treating Microsoft differently than other companies on the basis you claim is a pretty blatant violation of the 14th Amendment. The remedies you bring up have to apply specifically to illegal maintenance of a monopoly. Obviously if these actions are industry standard practice, they are not designed solely to illegally maintain the monopoly. I do not deny that some of these issues do not have some merit, but only when applied to the industry as a whole. If you can't admit that then you are simply reinforcing the point that this case is not about improving competition, but simply using government thugs to hamper one company in favor of a handful of others. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 247 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:46:31 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
