Post #20,704
12/7/01 5:26:06 PM
|
States want opened source code
[link|http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-8098768.html?tag=tp_pr|But only as a reserve penalty]
Excerpt:
In a remedy proposal submitted Friday, state trustbusters asked U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to accept the harsh penalty, in antitrust parlance typically referred to as a "crown jewel" provision.
The proposed remedy would force Microsoft to open up the source code to its Internet Explorer Web browser and possibly to the Windows operating system.
Microsoft would only be forced to reveal the code if the company failed to comply with the other terms of the proposed remedy, according to Glenn Manishin, an antitrust lawyer with Vienna, Va.-based Kelley Drye & Warren. In addition, only the source code for software found in violation of the remedy would be subject to this penalty, meaning the stipulation could apply to Windows or other Microsoft products.
"The purpose of a crown jewel provision is to coerce compliance by making the alternative so onerous that the defendant has a great incentive to do what they're supposed to do," Manishin explained. "If there's really a gun to their head, then they'll definitely comply."
I say:
A gun to their head? If only that were more than a metaphor.
Oh, don't mind me. I've had to reboot Windows too many times today.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #20,711
12/7/01 6:49:18 PM
|
Good solution
I think they should at least partly open source the code to Windows. Sort of an Apple open source license to only open up part of the OS and leave the hardware level access code closed. That way some other company can run with the code and write their own hardware level access or port it to WINE, whatever.
I can see making IE open sourced, like the old Netscape it was based on the Mosaic source code. VBScript and ActiveX controls for all! :)
|
Post #20,746
12/7/01 10:07:49 PM
|
As if.
There were any way in hell Microsoft would agree or roll over to that kind of provision. They'll fight this, or obfuscate their "agreement", unto the 24th century.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #20,901
12/10/01 12:23:38 PM
|
We don't want an agreement.
Anything that Microsfot would agree with would be bad for everyone else. It's called irreconcileable differences.
What we want is a harsh judgement, or at least a sufficiently credible threat of same to force them to accept a settlement they won't like.
Microsoft is the enemy. Never let the enemy decide whether it will agree to your winning.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #20,763
12/8/01 12:12:11 AM
|
This is the worst idea
I don't know what the big deal about opening Windows source code is. This is supposed to give somebody a leg up on competition?
Open the frigging file formats!!!
Keep them open with strict compliance monitoring.
I don't need no stinking 80 million lines of crapola MS-code(tm). Just give MS-Office some real competition.
That would have Bill and Steve browning their shorts right quick. All this hue and cry about open source code is a little too much like the complaints of Br'er Rabbit. ("No, please don't force us to open our source! And don't throw us in that briar patch over there while you're at it.")
Tom Sinclair
Speaker-to-Suits
Being a werewolf meant having the dexterity and jaw power to instantly rip
out a man's jugular. It was a trick of her father's that had always annoyed
her mother, especially when he did it just before meals.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)
|
Post #20,768
12/8/01 2:30:07 AM
|
Re: This is the worst idea
Just give MS-Office some real competition. I give you [link|http://www.sun.com/staroffice/|StarOffice]. Even [link|http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2816213,00.html|ZDNet] has given it a favorable review. And if it's not exactly glowing, remember the source. -YendorMike
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by the skeptics or the cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy
|
Post #20,779
12/8/01 9:44:12 AM
|
The problem remains
As long as MS controls the file formats and keeps them closed, products like StarOffice, OpenOffice and KOffice don't stand a chance. All MS has to do is change the format and suddenly the import/export filters for the other products stop working.
Now if the formats were open (and verifiably so), then MS would be incapable of such shenanigans and we'd finally have filters that truly work 100% of the time instead of what we have now which is ones that mostly work but not well enough for competing products to be true Office replacements.
I have nothing aqainst these products (and in fact wish they would be ported to OS X) but every time someone comes up with the statement that they can replace all instances of MS-Office, ten others chime in with file import incompatibility anecdotes.
So my original call to open the fecking file formats still stands.
(And I still think opening the Windows source is really, really dumb.)
Tom Sinclair
Speaker-to-Suits
The class was learning about some revolt in which some peasants had wanted
to stop being peasants and, since the nobles had won, had stopped being
peasants *really quickly*.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)
|
Post #20,778
12/8/01 9:43:38 AM
|
File formats will help some, but not solve the problem.
Mesa 2 for OS/2 is a wonderful spreadsheet which can read some Excel file formats. The principal coder, J. Daniel Kulp, wrote a summary of some of the issues in achieving useful filters for MS applications [link|http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OS2-L%251998050123395525%40NIC.SURFNET.NL&output=gplain|here] in 1997. The file formats are available on the web site or hardcopy for less than $50 in the form of the developer kits for the various producs. However, that fails to overcome four major obsticles to creating "perfect" file filters:
1) OLE file stream - this part of the file stream is still
undocumented. This is a moot point if you develop in Windows as you
just use the OLE calls to access the part of the OLE stream that you
want, but under OS/2 or other OS's that don't have OLE, you need to
reverse engineer the file stream or find someone who has already
reverse engineered it and license it from them.
2) Differences in the operating system capabilities. For example, some
of the background patterns and line styles and marker styles available
in Windows are not available in OS/2 and vice versa. In Mesa, we try
to map those to something reasonable similar, but it won't be 100%
correct.
3) Things are not "completely" documented. For example, the Excel
documentation lists ptgExtended (ptg's are formula tokens) as being
used for natural language extensions, but it specifically states that
"The data contained in eptgs is not documented". (page 449, Excel 97
Developers Kit)
4) Internal achitecture of target application - in order to have a
"perfect" filter, the target application would need to support 100% of
the features and in a very similar architecture. For example, even if
the Natural Language extensions were documented, how can you import
those into an application that doesn't have any type of natural
language notations. Additionally, how do you import VBA macros into an
application that uses REXX for scripting? How about things like graph
types that one supports and the other doesn't? Do you expect
application vendors to support everyting MS has plus some?
Anyway, writing file filters is a very daunting task. It takes a lot
of time and patience. Trust me. I know. I've written 7 Excel
filters, 4 Lotus filters, and a Quattro filter.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you have every right to expect high
quality filters, but don't expect them to be perfect. MS says they're moving toward XML file formats. XML is an open standard, but (as I understand it) the code which acts on an XML file isn't. Thus the file could have (pseudo-code - I know XML not:) "7887 do file transmogrify" and that could be completely documented, but "file transmogrify" would be done by external code which isn't (and likely won't be) documented (if MS thinks it gives them an advantage). Fuly opening up the file formats would certainly help. So would opening up communications protocols, OLE/whatever it's called now, ActiveX, etc. But how do you do it in a way that MS can't pervert? "We opened up ActiveX. ReActiveY is completely different." "We opened up the file formats. We can't help it that OpenOffice hasn't licensed our patented file transmogrify intellectual property. We don't freely license core IP to competitors. The license fee is a very reasonable $25M, renewable every 3 months." And so forth. <half-serious> About the only way around these weasling attempts is for MS's products and intellectual property to be declared an "essential facility". The company should be dissolved and its products given to the FSF for non-exclusive licensing by all comers. </half-serious> My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #20,780
12/8/01 9:49:20 AM
|
Oooh, I like that idea
|<half-serious>
|About the only way around these weasling attempts is for MS's products and |intellectual property to be declared an "essential facility". The company should |be dissolved and its products given to the FSF for non-exclusive licensing by |all comers.
|</half-serious>
I agree that XML won't solve the problem either. I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that proprietary binary code(such as an ActiveX control) can still be inserted into an XML document and make it non-portable.
Fine.
Take off and nuke them from orbit, then.
Tom Sinclair
Speaker-to-Suits
It's not enough to be able to pick up a sword. You have to know which end to
poke into the enemy.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies)
|
Post #20,903
12/10/01 12:34:09 PM
|
Open file formats aren't enough.
I presume what you're after is assured interoperability. In that case, we must open up all interfaces whatever, and we, not they, get to decide what consitutes an interface.
That means: file formats, APIs, network protocols, file system structure, and anything else I've forgotten.
The things I like about the idea of forcing them to open the source are:
* It would implicitly open all interfaces, including any we don't even know exist.
* The idea really, really seems to bother them.
Okay, so the code is crap. Better crap code than nothing at all. It gives us a starting point. I've had to work with crap code lots of times. It's not fun, but you get better at it with practise. Tactics that help:
* Refactoring.
* Insert printfs to log files and run, to help reverse engineer the guts.
Come to think of it, unlimited rights to reverse engineer would also be better than nothing. And source code would be better still. Just opening the interfaces is what we really want, but how better to enforce than by opening the source code?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #20,919
12/10/01 2:00:14 PM
|
Actually
This is the best argument for open-sourcing their code that I've heard. I'm still dubious about the amount of effort involved in digging through millions and millions of lines of spaghetti, though.
I like your idea of unlimited rights to reverse-engineer (might have to adjust/repeal laws like the DMCA and UCITA on this one, though). I will admit that the best way to reverse-engineer something is to have access to the original source.
Better than opening up their file formats would be to force them to strictly adhere to cross-platform industry standard formats that *they* don't control. This might keep them from performing the 'MS double-shuffle' and even give them an extra marketing point. ("Fully compatible with industry standard file formats!")
Tom Sinclair
Speaker-to-Suits
Sergeant Comely was working on the general assumption that where you got
lots of people gathered together, something illegal was bound to happen
sooner or later.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Johnny and the Dead)
|
Post #20,910
12/10/01 1:02:13 PM
|
My thimbleful of cold water
tjsinclair, you are, of course right; the file formats need to be opened. The problem is, that dues to yet another pile of laziness/incompetence by the DoJ, Office was not part of the original suit. Therefore, Office has not (technically) be found to be part of the illegal monopoly. We both know this is bullshit; Office is every bit the monopoly that Windows is, and has been illegally protected in the same ways the illegal Windows monopoly has, but case law is case law, and there is no lever that anyone can legally use at this point to force them to open the formats up. (Remember IANAL, so YMMV. Oo-coo-ka-choo...).
That said, would you not agree that forcing open Windows would help in getting access to the Office internals? Since Micros~1 can't seem to fix a spelling error in any Office ap without updating at least a half-dozen system DLLs, one could surmize that they (Office and Windows) are very closely, if not inextricably, linked. As was mentioned in another post in this thread (about writing an Excel filter for OS/2), opening up OLE file streams would eliminate one of the bariers in writing a filter for a platform that (thankfully) doesn't support OLE.
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #20,920
12/10/01 2:03:50 PM
|
There are certainly problems aplenty
with almost any solution re: the Microsoft problem.
Whatever is done, it's very important not to let Microsoft set the terms of their own punishment. (Of course, that's exactly what's happening now.)
Of course, if we come up with something that really, *really* bothers Bill and Steve, all the better.
Tom Sinclair
Speaker-to-Suits
It was Carrot who'd suggested to the Patrician that hardened criminals
should be given the chance to "serve the community" by redecorating the
homes of the elderly, lending a new terror to old age and, given
Ankh-Morpork's crime rate, leading to at least one old lady having her
front room wallpapered so many times in six months that now she could only
get in sideways.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay)
|
Post #20,986
12/11/01 3:09:25 AM
|
Omniscient LRPD: Tasty little nuggets of alien technology...
|
