Microsoft releases Windows Source Code | The Coffeehouse

LarryOsterman

Yup, that's right, according to MSNBC.

Just wanted to get here first with that. /. hasn't noticed yet Smiley

IRenderable
Pi

shooby wrote:
What a hoot.

I'm guessing what ever they publish, you'll need to spend 5000 on Microsoft software to make any use of it...

So?

shooby wrote:

(I anxiously await Microsoft Toilet Paper Server 'we really DO give a sh*t! Of course we charge for it')

...maybe they'll create a server just for this purpose, something like 'Microsoft EuroServer: more exploits than you can shake a worm at'

Not quite sure what you saying there...

shooby wrote:

....I kill me!

Please do.

DoomBringer
Doom!

shooby wrote:
What a hoot.

I'm guessing what ever they publish, you'll need to spend 5000 on Microsoft software to make any use of it...

(I anxiously await Microsoft Toilet Paper Server 'we really DO give a sh*t! Of course we charge for it')

...maybe they'll create a server just for this purpose, something like 'Microsoft EuroServer: more exploits than you can shake a worm at'

....I kill me!

I love you too

xx00

shooby

You're incapable of rational discussion. Go away.

Shiv
Life is beautiful :)

hope this results in a generation on better applications than viruses and rootkits

LarryOsterman

Shiv wrote:
hope this results in a generation on better applications than viruses and rootkits

Since the article indicates you've got to pay for the code, I suspect that's it's unlikely that it's going to be that big a deal.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

LarryOsterman wrote:
Yup, that's right, according to MSNBC.

Just wanted to get here first with that. /. hasn't noticed yet

I'd give it about a month before it's available on BitTorrent.

rjdohnert
You will never know success until you know failure

I think it will be a big deal for developers who need access to the code. My question is, whats the difference between this and the Shared Source Program?

LarryOsterman wrote:
Shiv wrote:hope this results in a generation on better applications than viruses and rootkits

Since the article indicates you've got to pay for the code, I suspect that's it's unlikely that it's going to be that big a deal.

JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

Think of all the Linux developers who will be compelled to buy it...
[6]

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

rjdohnert wrote:
I think it will be a big deal for developers who need access to the code. My question is, whats the difference between this and the Shared Source Program?

Or the program that allows universities etc. access to the source too?

LarryOsterman

W3bbo wrote:

rjdohnert wrote: I think it will be a big deal for developers who need access to the code. My question is, whats the difference between this and the Shared Source Program?

Or the program that allows universities etc. access to the source too?

That was my first thought too, I don't know. The web page for the licensing deal isn't up yet so...

DuNuNuBatman

Wow, serious?
That's pretty cool, although, what parts will be available?

Shiv
Life is beautiful :)

LarryOsterman wrote:

W3bbo wrote:

rjdohnert wrote: I think it will be a big deal for developers who need access to the code. My question is, whats the difference between this and the Shared Source Program?

Or the program that allows universities etc. access to the source too?

That was my first thought too, I don't know. The web page for the licensing deal isn't up yet so...

shared source is pretty much like gnu licensing where if u develop a code from the code u obtained with shared source license u must release that code too except that u can't sell any software built using it. its only for educational purposes while the new license will give access to the companies source which only they can have and imporantly sell it

Tom Servo
W-hat?

Depending how affordable it'll be, it will end up on the web at some point.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Shiv wrote:
shared source is pretty much like gnu licensing where if u develop a code from the code u obtained with shared source license u must release that code too except that u can't sell any software built using it. its only for educational purposes while the new license will give access to the companies source which only they can have and imporantly sell it

Shared Source is certainly NOTHING like GPL. Please research fully before making such claims.

BTW Larry: Can you ballpark a guestimate cost to license the Windows source for a small north-american company with less than 20 employees?

Shiv
Life is beautiful :)

ok i am not comparing shared source and gpl in all ways .i knew of the shared source present only in the Rotor project hence i made my comments . and in that perspective all my statements are correct.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

I suspect this licensing deal will involve signing an NDA. Possibly using your own blood, on paper made out of human skin.

eagle

So who will buy the code?

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

> Microsoft claims the EU demands on opening up its software specifications would also open the door to the cloning of the company's core product, the ubiquitous Windows operating system

Well, duh. That's the whole point.

Escamillo

W3bbo wrote:

rjdohnert wrote: I think it will be a big deal for developers who need access to the code. My question is, whats the difference between this and the Shared Source Program?

Or the program that allows universities etc. access to the source too?

The license for universities only allows for non-profit research.
Details:
http://research.microsoft.com/collaboration/university/NTSrcLicInfo.aspx
http://research.microsoft.com/collaboration/university/ntsrclicensees.aspx

eagle

Listen to a Recording of the Press Conference

Rossj

Can't the EU just use this - China saw it a couple of years ago.

Escamillo

rjdohnert wrote:
I think it will be a big deal for developers who need access to the code.

What devs actually need access to the code? I've done Windows and Mac programming for 15 years, and never needed the code, and it would be idiotic to program against the code rather than against the spec, as the underlying code can change. Seems pointless to me. Can someone enlighten me as to why one would need the code?

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Escamillo wrote:
Seems pointless to me. Can someone enlighten me as to why one would need the code?

The same reason I use Reflector against the .NET Framework class-library: To see how it works and to understand it better.

The provided documentation isn't perfect, this more than makes up for it.

Stephen

It is ONLY Windows Server protocols.

Have a read of the Microsoft Press release here

It is still a great way to address the complaint that 12,000 pages of technical information is not enough nor 500 hours of Professional support. Tongue Out

Rossj

Escamillo wrote:
Can someone enlighten me as to why one would need the code?

Learning and possibly to add features that Microsoft deem inappropriate?