What is Digg?43 Comments
- krausyao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Licensing of the source code was not a condition of the EU and should not be accepted as a substitute. It takes a lot of work to read and understand source code in order to learn the interfaces to create interoperable programs. Will the companies that license the source code and undertake this effort be able to share the results of their work? Microsoft should produce interface documentation and openly license that documentation without charge and no use restrictions. This attempt at compliance should be rejected by the EU and fines imposed until adequate documentation is available.
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's too bad a company can be beat into releasing it's proprietary knowledge by some psuedo government. I'm no Randist, and I think the government should have a huge role in business, but this is like the government forcing the Steelers to open their playbook so that other teams can figure out how to defend against them and score points against them.
- gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The government belongs nowhere near buisiness, the government should do only 3 things:
1) Police
2) Army
3) Roads and Services
-UnlivedPhalanx"
Are you ignorant or just stupid?
-Greg - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its only like Microsoft and Yahoo obeying Chinese law, they respect their law, why not EU law?
- ShortyR19, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also, here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11018897/ - Jonty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To anyone who thinks this isn't the equivelent of opening the source because of the license, just remember all that music that's being shared is under license as well.
- nnonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Who cares? Microsoft's days are numbered; this just might make the number a little bit smaller..."
Yeah, that's it. Kool-aid anyone? - Cronos1388, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As much as I hate saying this I totally agree with psyon. It's their product they can do what they like. You want to use Firefox instead of IE? Get Linux. Want to run OpenOffice.org instead of MS Word? Get Linux.
I use both of these programs on my Windows box but the fact is that it's Microsoft's product they can restrict it how they want. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The government should never regulate business....if anyone has any businesss schooling whatsoever knows that simple fact.
So what Microsoft isn't open source...its kicking *nix based systems by far...nerds. - niqhil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hmm good oppurtunity to buy the code and fix holes. .
- WickedDrag0oN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0uhh in that case unlivedphalanx
the govt is policing business - KAMI_no_kodomo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it's yust garbage.
Yes they are 'opening' it....
ONLY COMPANIES WHO SIGN A CERTAIN CONTRACT (not explaned what is in that contract) AND WHO NEED IT FOR BEEING ABLE TO CREATE SOFTWARE FOR WINDOWS MAY SEE A LITTLE PIECE OF THE CODE
In my own words: yust pay microsoft many money and you can see the code who generates the bleu screen of death. But you're noit alowed to give the info to anybody else. But now youre able to create a program what makes the bsod red in place of blue.
I don't call that opening sourcecode. - UnlivedPhalanx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The government belongs nowhere near buisiness, the government should do only 3 things:
1) Police
2) Army
3) Roads and Services - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This isn't The EU government, there is no EU government, there are a number of bodies, some make the EU laws, court, administration etc,
it was the court that decided, not a government
People should go on Wikipedia and really find out what the EU is before commenting on what the EU is when really they don't even know
And Microsoft should respect EU law, its only like UK law
LAW IS LAW, OBEY - DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And in the weather: Those of you living in hell had better wrap up warm today...
- letmereplynow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0since when?
- ArthurSucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We use Firefox because it's better. Some of us use OpenOffice or Abiword because it's better. A few of us use Linux because it's better. If MSFT wants us to use IE and Office only, people will use something better. Go ahead MSFT, you're only helping the OSS community.
- FlyingLlama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Am I understanding this right? Microsoft is going open-source? MICROSOFT?!
WTF? Someone explain, this can't be true... - tripston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who would want the code?
- scottevans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 LeFou said, "software is not property. copying it violates no one's natural rights."
LeFou, so I guess that means that if you were a software developer, and you came up with a highly in demand piece of software, and you planned to be "set for retirement". So, you began selling your software. But, you find out that the first person you sold it to, started copying it and selling it to the public at ohhhhhh.i dont know....a quarter of what you sell it for. Or better yet, he just starts giving it to all his friends, and they gave it to all their friends...and so on. Do you think that your rights would have been violated? Would you not feel like your dreams of an early retirement and all of your hard work and sweat that went into creating that piece of software was for squat? Just something to think about, before ya go making assinine statements like you made above again. - psyon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with ianubis, and to extend on it a bit, I think microsoft SHOULD be allowed to make windows run ONLY Microsoft software if they want. They should be able to make IE the only browser that works with Windows. Its their product, its their choice. A new leader would eventually come up in the OS world that developers would make programs for, and consumers would switch to the new OS so they had more choice.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who cares? Microsoft's days are numbered; this just might make the number a little bit smaller...
- LeFou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The usual knee-jerk laissez-faire stuff here.
Copyright is a monopoly granted by the state. The state expects something in exchange, like e.g. obey our laws. If you don't like the laws you can buy some legislators who will change them for you. - peerk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"because somebody is going to get their grubby little hands on it...."
MS has been doing something like this for awhile and we still don't all have MS source code filling up half our hard disks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source - rokaholic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You people act like licensing source code is somehow giving away MSFT's secrets? MSFT is the only company among the 3 major OS's that doesn't open source their kernel (Linux and OSX both have open source kernels). So whats the big deal? I'm sure MSFT holds them as trade secrets, but cmon you have to be kidding or stupid if you think this is really going to hurt MSFT. Furthermore, for all you people saying that MSFT should be able to allow/disallow the running of any software on its OS should rethink what you're saying. MSFT can disallow the running of software, as long as it doesn't do it discriminantly. For example, if they made photoshop, office, and all of the popular windows apps run, but then blocked firefox, openoffice, and all the major windows open-source apps from running. That is simply anti-competitive. MSFT is just getting what they deserve, and it really is in no way unjust IMO.
- aa3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"LeFou, so I guess that means that if you were a software developer, and you came up with a highly in demand piece of software, and you planned to be "set for retirement". So, you began selling your software. But, you find out that the first person you sold it to, started copying it and selling it to the public at ohhhhhh.i dont know....a quarter of what you sell it for. Or better yet, he just starts giving it to all his friends, and they gave it to all their friends...and so on. Do you think that your rights would have been violated? Would you not feel like your dreams of an early retirement and all of your hard work and sweat that went into creating that piece of software was for squat? Just something to think about, before ya go making assinine statements like you made above again. "
Rule #1, do not become a software developer for the money. - Stockwell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0M$ is probably starting to realize that they will not keep market dominance. Not even on the business market.
So to make sure that they stay in the game they are releasing part of their source code (after companies have signed a NDA or something like that).
In all truth I really don't care.... hehe. Prefer Linux anyways.
M$ has had it's share of fame, time for another one to take center stage.
(Let's just hope that Billy doesn't start hell with the patent on the FAT).....
Digg worthy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the EU is wrong
But i applaud them all the same - wilsonics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Boy oh boy, i can't wait to see that sloppy code....because somebody is going to get their grubby little hands on it....
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Both Linux and OSX have open source kernels"
OSX is a perfect reason why Microsoft shouldn't open their kernel source. Some jerk ass thief like Steve Jobs and his crappy company would come along and steal the kernel, screw with it a tiny bit, put a glossy cover on it, and sell it as their own. - klbclem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"So this will lead to all the problems of open source without any of the benefits? Leaks will happen and crackers will find holes to exploit, but the open source community will not be able to fix them."
Idealy security companies will pay for access to the source code, and plug the wholes; if not you better hope that their are a lot more white hats, or at least grey hats around, otherwise windows will be even more pwned than it already is.
Perhaps microsoft will be forced (through the EU and source code leaks) to become a little bit less of an evil empire. Though I will admit they look pretty good when compared to Walmart. - jdrivein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0old!
- Yanks2435, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Meh, I hate the EU, bunch of idiots they are. MS isn't really releasing their source code, only a small part of it, related to what the issue with servers is. If they released the entire source code of the OS, then that would be something. I agree with those of you who said MS should be able to do what they want with their OS. They made it, their rules. Government should but out of business too.
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0eu union is ridiculous in their anti-microsoft ways.
drag, you make it sound so easy [and even possible] to get "microsoft's" ( they have how many products ?) source code .. why don't you go do it.
i'm assuming you're referring to the win nt leak and the ie 7 leak, which is more or less nothing.
go read up on the new kernel for vista, new development process, new code testing and so on, idiot. - LeFou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thanks for responding scottevans. If you disagree with the thing I *actually said, and feel that copying "intellectual property" violates the author's/creator's natural rights, I'd love to hear how.
Copyright protection is not a natural right; it is granted by the government, and the metaphor of "property" is applied to creative output, because it is thought that people will not write softare or novels without the incentive produced by these exclusive rights.
If you actually want government *completely out of the market for software, revocation of copyrights to source code would be a good starting point. But anti-anti-trusters (often) actually want the benefits of government-granted monopolies but not the drawbacks of regulation.
As for how I personally plan to make a living, that's my own business, literally. It's irrelevant. - wtf00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0let the hacking begin... :)
- MrOss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Microsoft: "We need to make our product better and appeal to the ever growing crowd of Linux users..... If we offer our source code and license that, we could make even more money off of our inferior product..... Not only That, but if anyone else gets hold of the source code they can find and patch the security holes that riddle our software..... Great Idea, We can sell the source."
Me: "No Thanks, It won't even be worth downloading once it hits the Internet for free. The only thing this will do is gain Microsoft some more publicity because of all the exploits that will end up hitting windows users everywhere due to problems that can now be found and exploited by using the source code." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm not a Big MSFT fan but who the F... gives the EU the right to tell MSFT what to do? MSFT spent a lot of time and money developing Windows, and now EU just want to get it for free? I love how the EU thinks it can just destroy capitalism when it gets bored. The EU shouldn't have any right to force someone to distribute their source code just because they have a significant part of the market.
- Jonty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Also, this is crap. As much as I hate Microsoft, as long as they do not break proper laws, antitrust is an inherently unfree market principle - it's government intervention.
I have to be honest, though, as long as that law's not going to go I don't think I'll be TOO vocal about it... - drag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This is such crap.
Nobody wants Microsoft's source code. Anybody who needs it can already get it.
The point is that they want documentation on how to interact with Microsoft's protocols and file formats. And they don't want it under some ***** license that restricts what you can and cannot do with the source code you yourself wrote based on this documentation.
Nobody want's Microsoft's crusty code in their Linux apps or anything like that. It's just Microsoft trying to ***** the EU into avoiding having to document their file formats and networking protocols.
It's just proof that it's Microsoft's game all along to get customer's relying on propriatory formats to hold their data so that their customer's can't go to any other vendor in case they get pissed off at MS or anybody with a cheaper and/or better product comes along and they want to use that instead.
Same thing everybody has been telling Windows users for years. Your only digging your own grave. It's now nearly impossible for a company that depends on Microsoft's products heavily to ever possibly use anybody else's software with reasonable expenses/results. - letmereplynow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think this is bad for business. Not in sense of making money but in the sense that the EU can strongarm an company into opening up it's property so others can basically steal it. Why do they feel need to change an market when it is the consumers that mold it, not the government. Although I think that is will never happen, well i hope Microsoft isn't too dumb to do this anyway but use it as a stall method.
- LeFou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0software is not property. copying it violates no one's natural rights.
- HeroreV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0So this will lead to all the problems of open source without any of the benefits? Leaks will happen and crackers will find holes to exploit, but the open source community will not be able to fix them.
Am I just imagining all that FUD that Microsoft spread about open source?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is