Windows System Software -- Consulting, Training, Development -- Unique Expertise, Guaranteed Results

Before Posting...
Please check out the Community Guidelines in the Announcements and Administration Category.

Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was "how to execute a process...")

David_J._CraigDavid_J._Craig Member Posts: 1,885
Had to respond even to agree. See inline.

"Nick Ryan" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
>
> David J. Craig wrote:
>
> > How can you have competition when they don't charge for the free stuff.
I
> > understand they removed source code because too many other developers
were
> > taking their code and writing a commercial product. I would be torqued
off
> > too. OSR doesn't release source code to anything and their DeviceTree
uses
> > several interesting techniques that most of us would like to see how to
> > implement even if we don't have a reason or real need. I think one of
the
> > sysinternals guys works for Microsoft now, so maybe some of the newer
> > versions are using things that can only be done if you have seen the
source
> > code to Windows.
> >
> > Even though I am currently looking for a job with only consulting to
keep me
> > going, I still think that anyone should be able to sell their services
for
> > whatever the market will pay. Some of this has contributed to the move
of
> > software jobs to India, China, and eastern Europe, but from the
questions I
> > have seen some of this stuff is beyond most of their skill sets and they
> > keep asking for "free sample source codes". I can't see sysinternals
> > helping them take more jobs either. Enlightened self interest is good.
> > Many companies are leaving California for similar reasons.
>
> (Big rant/wish-list follows. :)
>
> Sysinternals has every right to make money off their work, but the fact
> that they are a regular business now restricts what they can do for the
> community. I don't necessarily agree that the GPL is the best model for
> software development, but I do think that open-source benefits everybody
> and sports little risk for well-written commercial products.
>
I see that sysinternals has a few products at wininternals, but most of
their new business seems to be licensing source or consulting. There are so
many people trying to write security products using filemon as their basis.
Filemon was designed for one purpose and uses tricks and hacks that are
unacceptable in a commercial product for the average user. The IFS Kit
examples can be modified to easily do the same thing as filemon, but using
the approved and portable interfaces.

> To take an example, if there were decent AV, VPN, and firewall
> open-source Windows utilities out there, this would put pressure on the
> commercial vendors of same to improve their products. One VPN product
> from a big-name vendor that I used to use insisted on installing some
> sort of 'adaptive packet prediction' filter on my system. This filter
> made it impossible to play online games because it seemed to pend
> packets and send them out in periodic bursts, adding latency not
> noticeable by a sales guy downloading PowerPoint slides but fatal for
> the space marine shooting railguns. And this filter was in operation
> even when the VPN wasn't connected, for all network traffic to any
> destination! Every time I wanted to play Quake 3 I had to uninstall the
> damn thing and reboot. Bad show!
>
I have a problem using the most popular AV/firewall from a guy in a pink
shirt. Foxnews.com has the bios page, pictures and video clips invoked by
java script that this product blocks. I have to disable it before I run IE
so it will work. They had one of the best sources of the firewall as I was
using it before it was sold to them. It has been expanded in some degree,
but I think they have committed some major errors.

> And I have similar stories for various AV and firewall products I've
tried.
>
> To shift track a little bit, I wholeheartedly approve efforts by
> Microsoft to get into the VPN and AV business themselves as long as the
> software community cannot produce acceptable, reliable alternatives.
> However, I believe that Microsoft should instead be encouraging the
> software community in this regard by exposing the source code to
> Windows. Microsoft can write the best VPN and AV utilities both because
> it has smart people and because those people can see the source code.
> Any other group of equally smart people are at an automatic
> disadvantage. If the disadvantage wasn't there, Microsoft wouldn't NEED
> to spend resources on writing these utilities themselves. Microsoft
> makes money off of Windows, not off of the XP defrag utility. It would
> be great if third-party developers didn't have to work as hard inducting
> themselves into the high priesthood of Windows internals to produce
> reliable code (not that the priesthood isn't fun, but it's still a
> priesthood).
>
Microsoft seems to move into any area where a good profit can be made and I
have wondered for some time why they haven't moved into AV and firewalls.
They have some security, but luckily for third parties, they seem to be
rather bad at doing it. Maybe it is designed to make management of security
difficult and obtuse so businesses will have to hire experts just to get it
configured.

> Driver frameworks are a good idea, but they don't radically decrease the
> time needed to develop a driver. Abstractions always leak (thanks Joel
> Spolsky for his article on this topic), and 90% of a software engineer's
> time is spent plugging these leaks. Having the source code behind the
> binary code that you are smashing your forehead against is the only way
> to drastically reduce the time needed to plug these leaks.
>
Simple frameworks do work very well. I have used DriverWorks many times,
but their pricing model and the lack of need for 9x has convinced me that
sticking with the DDK is the best solution. The C++ framework is something
I would prefer, but I will still compile as C++, but not use any non-C
constructs. The C++ compiler is stricter and forces cleaner code.

> And I don't buy the IP argument against exposing the source. Microsoft
> makes money not because the page trimming algorithm in the Memory
> Manager is hidden (to take some random example), but because of the
> skill with which they can evolve the overall architecture of the
> product. For every conceivable OS algorithm in Windows, there is some
> open-source algorithm floating around that's just as good. Microsoft's
> competitive advantage is that they can string 10,000 good algorithms
> together in such a coherent way that a competitor can't hope to match
> the effort without 30,000 smart programmers of its own.
>
Bill Gates became too paranoid (just because I am paranoid doesn't mean the
whole world is not out to get me) after that MS-DOS clone. I heard that the
some of the evolution of Windows, especially early on, was to keep it from
being cloned. Probably too much code to clone completely now, but Linux
seems to be keeping them paranoid. I know from one job interview that the
caching algorithms in Windows are rather pathetic and when programs such as
SQL server run they do their own caching because the Windows cache
algorithms are not optimized for that environment. The NDIS, SCSI miniport,
printer and display driver's architecture was designed to ensure that IHVs
had no choice but to support NT as well as 9x. As I have discovered some of
the miniport implementations are far from optimal especially virtual
storage.

Another good question is why do CSPs have to be signed before they can be
used? When the "no such agency" was in control it might have been
necessary, but why now? Of course, it appears that Microsoft is trying to
force all code run on Windows to be "approved".

> --
> Nick Ryan (MVP for DDK)
>
>
>
«1

Comments

  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 7,262
    Nick,

    As usual, you make several well thought-out points.

    I just wanted to "discuss" a few:

    "Nick Ryan" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    > Microsoft can write the best VPN and AV utilities both because
    > it has smart people and because those people can see the source code.
    > Any other group of equally smart people are at an automatic
    > disadvantage.
    >

    This is absolutely true. The entire world of Windows system software
    developers would heartily benefit from having the Windows sources for
    reference.

    However, there another problem at work here that make writing things like AV
    filters in the file system stack harder than it should be -- even WITH
    source code. And this is true generically for drivers of all types in
    Windows.

    That problem is the complexity of the driver interface. Or, one might say,
    the lack of a really well defined interface without side effeects for driver
    development. This problem is rampant in the file system stack.. there are
    subtleties of the interfaces that change with each release of Windows. Even
    WITH the source code, you'd have a rough time building a robust component
    for the file system stack that works across multiple versions of the O/S.

    > Microsoft's
    > competitive advantage is that they can string 10,000 good algorithms
    > together in such a coherent way that a competitor can't hope to match
    > the effort without 30,000 smart programmers of its own.
    >

    Absolutely right. Making the source code, especially of the O/S itself,
    available should really be no big thing when you think about it. Those of
    us who just want to know all the places where IoXxxx returns
    STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED (or whatever) would be able to find out relatively
    easily. And, anything that's a security risk, ah, shouldn't be there in the
    first place and is just waiting to be "discovered" by someone who DOESN'T
    have the source code (is it David Craig who regularly reminds us that
    security through obscurity is no security at all?).

    Now, I could possibly see reasons why Microsoft might not want to release
    the source code for the Win32 subsystems (user and kernel mode) -- No sense
    helping the penguinites build a really good Win32 emulator, right? And
    maybe there are certain other kernel modules that fall into this category
    too.

    But you're absolutely right... When you think about it, there's no risk is
    letting the vast majority of this stuff out.

    I feel a pontification coming on,

    Peter

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    Peter:
    Like Mt. Vesuvius I have been keeping the lid on my own pontification
    regarding the "Open Sore" community. But your posting and the recent "Open
    Source" front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused the following
    venting:
    By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no sniggering!) I have
    managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years. So why should I
    be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to make both past
    AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY available?
    How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make money? Are we
    supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
    It isn't often I come to the defense of Microsoft but I will in this
    instance. Let's all quit whining about having the Windows source available.
    Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for the sake of
    improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for our perceived
    difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR code paid for
    with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn't our RIGHT to look at, touch
    it or feel it.
    If only I had a small chance of speaking to the head of Red Hat, I'd let
    him know my opinion of his recent comment that "one should be able to look
    at source code without fear of being arrested". Well, he can look at MY
    source code but he should fear getting the crap beat out of him.
    Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely call them are
    nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that software
    should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
    analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.

    Bill Casey

    == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSI™ Target Mode Libs ==
    Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Peter Viscarola
    > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:44 AM
    > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    > "how to execute a process...")
    >
    >
    > Nick,
    >
    > As usual, you make several well thought-out points.
    >
    > I just wanted to "discuss" a few:
    >
    > "Nick Ryan" <xxxxx@nryan.com> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > >
    > > Microsoft can write the best VPN and AV utilities both because
    > > it has smart people and because those people can see the source code.
    > > Any other group of equally smart people are at an automatic
    > > disadvantage.
    > >
    >
    > This is absolutely true. The entire world of Windows system software
    > developers would heartily benefit from having the Windows sources for
    > reference.
    >
    > However, there another problem at work here that make writing
    > things like AV
    > filters in the file system stack harder than it should be -- even WITH
    > source code. And this is true generically for drivers of all types in
    > Windows.
    >
    > That problem is the complexity of the driver interface. Or, one
    > might say,
    > the lack of a really well defined interface without side effeects
    > for driver
    > development. This problem is rampant in the file system stack.. there are
    > subtleties of the interfaces that change with each release of
    > Windows. Even
    > WITH the source code, you'd have a rough time building a robust component
    > for the file system stack that works across multiple versions of the O/S.
    >
    > > Microsoft's
    > > competitive advantage is that they can string 10,000 good algorithms
    > > together in such a coherent way that a competitor can't hope to match
    > > the effort without 30,000 smart programmers of its own.
    > >
    >
    > Absolutely right. Making the source code, especially of the O/S itself,
    > available should really be no big thing when you think about it. Those of
    > us who just want to know all the places where IoXxxx returns
    > STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED (or whatever) would be able to find out relatively
    > easily. And, anything that's a security risk, ah, shouldn't be
    > there in the
    > first place and is just waiting to be "discovered" by someone who DOESN'T
    > have the source code (is it David Craig who regularly reminds us that
    > security through obscurity is no security at all?).
    >
    > Now, I could possibly see reasons why Microsoft might not want to release
    > the source code for the Win32 subsystems (user and kernel mode)
    > -- No sense
    > helping the penguinites build a really good Win32 emulator, right? And
    > maybe there are certain other kernel modules that fall into this category
    > too.
    >
    > But you're absolutely right... When you think about it, there's no risk is
    > letting the vast majority of this stuff out.
    >
    > I feel a pontification coming on,
    >
    > Peter
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    Hello,

    BC> Peter:
    BC> Like Mt. Vesuvius I have been keeping the lid on my own pontification
    BC> regarding the "Open Sore" community. But your posting and the recent "Open
    BC> Source" front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused the following
    BC> venting:
    BC> By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no sniggering!) I have
    BC> managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years. So why should I
    BC> be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to make both past
    BC> AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY available?
    BC> How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make money? Are we
    BC> supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
    BC> It isn't often I come to the defense of Microsoft but I will in this
    BC> instance. Let's all quit whining about having the Windows source available.
    BC> Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for the sake of
    BC> improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for our perceived
    BC> difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR code paid for
    BC> with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn't our RIGHT to look at, touch
    BC> it or feel it.
    BC> If only I had a small chance of speaking to the head of Red Hat, I'd let
    BC> him know my opinion of his recent comment that "one should be able to look
    BC> at source code without fear of being arrested". Well, he can look at MY
    BC> source code but he should fear getting the crap beat out of him.
    BC> Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely call them are
    BC> nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    BC> scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that software
    BC> should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
    BC> analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.

    BC> Bill Casey

    BC> == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSI? Target Mode Libs ==
    BC> Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    BC> 2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    BC> Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com

    this sounds to me as a comment written by and American who hangs every
    morning USA national flag on pole before his house :-)

    --
    Best regards,
    Ivona Prenosilova
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    No, just someone who works rather than steals for a living.

    Bill Casey

    == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSI™ Target Mode Libs ==
    Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of ivona prenosilova
    > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:45 PM
    > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    > "how to execute a process...")
    >
    >
    > Hello,
    >
    > BC> Peter:
    > BC> Like Mt. Vesuvius I have been keeping the lid on my
    > own pontification
    > BC> regarding the "Open Sore" community. But your posting and
    > the recent "Open
    > BC> Source" front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused the following
    > BC> venting:
    > BC> By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no
    > sniggering!) I have
    > BC> managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years.
    > So why should I
    > BC> be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to
    > make both past
    > BC> AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY
    > available?
    > BC> How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make
    > money? Are we
    > BC> supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
    > BC> It isn't often I come to the defense of Microsoft but
    > I will in this
    > BC> instance. Let's all quit whining about having the Windows
    > source available.
    > BC> Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for
    > the sake of
    > BC> improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for our perceived
    > BC> difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR
    > code paid for
    > BC> with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn't our RIGHT to
    > look at, touch
    > BC> it or feel it.
    > BC> If only I had a small chance of speaking to the head
    > of Red Hat, I'd let
    > BC> him know my opinion of his recent comment that "one should be
    > able to look
    > BC> at source code without fear of being arrested". Well, he can
    > look at MY
    > BC> source code but he should fear getting the crap beat out of him.
    > BC> Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so
    > politely call them are
    > BC> nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    > BC> scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view
    > (that software
    > BC> should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
    > BC> analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of
    > world saviors.
    >
    > BC> Bill Casey
    >
    > BC> == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSI™ Target Mode Libs ==
    > BC> Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    > BC> 2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > BC> Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com
    >
    > this sounds to me as a comment written by and American who hangs every
    > morning USA national flag on pole before his house :-)
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > Ivona Prenosilova
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    >
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    P.S. Please send all stupid replies to me directly rather than polluting
    this list.

    Bill Casey

    == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSI™ Target Mode Libs ==
    Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Bill Casey
    > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:00 PM
    > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    > "how to execute a process...")
    >
    >
    > No, just someone who works rather than steals for a living.
    >
    > Bill Casey
    >
    > == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSI™ Target Mode Libs ==
    > Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    > 2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com
    >
    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of ivona prenosilova
    > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:45 PM
    > > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    > > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    > > "how to execute a process...")
    > >
    > >
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > BC> Peter:
    > > BC> Like Mt. Vesuvius I have been keeping the lid on my
    > > own pontification
    > > BC> regarding the "Open Sore" community. But your posting and
    > > the recent "Open
    > > BC> Source" front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused
    > the following
    > > BC> venting:
    > > BC> By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no
    > > sniggering!) I have
    > > BC> managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years.
    > > So why should I
    > > BC> be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to
    > > make both past
    > > BC> AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY
    > > available?
    > > BC> How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make
    > > money? Are we
    > > BC> supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
    > > BC> It isn't often I come to the defense of Microsoft but
    > > I will in this
    > > BC> instance. Let's all quit whining about having the Windows
    > > source available.
    > > BC> Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for
    > > the sake of
    > > BC> improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for
    > our perceived
    > > BC> difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR
    > > code paid for
    > > BC> with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn't our RIGHT to
    > > look at, touch
    > > BC> it or feel it.
    > > BC> If only I had a small chance of speaking to the head
    > > of Red Hat, I'd let
    > > BC> him know my opinion of his recent comment that "one should be
    > > able to look
    > > BC> at source code without fear of being arrested". Well, he can
    > > look at MY
    > > BC> source code but he should fear getting the crap beat out of him.
    > > BC> Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so
    > > politely call them are
    > > BC> nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    > > BC> scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view
    > > (that software
    > > BC> should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in
    > the final
    > > BC> analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of
    > > world saviors.
    > >
    > > BC> Bill Casey
    > >
    > > BC> == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSI™ Target Mode Libs ==
    > > BC> Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    > > BC> 2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > > BC> Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com
    > >
    > > this sounds to me as a comment written by and American who hangs every
    > > morning USA national flag on pole before his house :-)
    > >
    > > --
    > > Best regards,
    > > Ivona Prenosilova
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ---
    > > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    > >
    > > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    >
  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 7,262
    "ivona prenosilova" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...

    > BC> Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely
    call them are
    > BC> nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    >
    >
    > this sounds to me as a comment written by and American who hangs every
    > morning USA national flag on pole before his house :-)
    >

    Careful, Ivona... People are gonna take this as flame bait.

    I'm sure you mean that in the nicest possible sense: That Mr. Casey's is a
    very typically American view of intellectual property. One that's not
    necessarily shared so vociferously in other places.

    Peter
    (also a native born US citizen, before somebody on this list asks me to
    prove my bona fides)

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 7,262
    "Bill Casey" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    > Peter:
    > regarding the "Open Sore" community. But your posting and the recent
    "Open
    > Source" front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused the following
    > venting:
    >
    Gosh, I LOVE venting. We should start a whole list just FOR venting.

    >
    > By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no sniggering!) I have
    > managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years.
    >
    Gee, me too. Well, not in business for myself for 30 years, but OSR is now
    10 years old, and before that I ran my software company for 7 years.


    > So why should I
    > be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to make both past
    > AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY available?

    Never said you should...

    > Let's all quit whining about having the Windows source available.
    > Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for the sake of
    > improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for our perceived
    > difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR code paid for
    > with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn't our RIGHT to look at,
    touch
    > it or feel it.
    >

    Never said it was our RIGHT. Just that it would be a hell of a good idea.
    And that I agreed that they SHOULD make source available. And that they
    really have nothing to fear. In fact, I think making at least selected
    Windows o/s source available would be one of the most clever things MS ever
    did. It would be a major business coup. They'd take away one of the major
    whines from the penguinites, they'd help the driver community build better
    software, and they'd make a bunch of hard working devs -- who do nothing in
    the end but add value to the Windows platform -- happier by getting them
    home to dinner on time more often.

    Heck, even Digital made the sources to VMS available for reference (at very
    low cost) when they realized that there was nothing to lose, and a lot to
    gain, by doing so.

    > Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely call them are
    > nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    > scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that software
    > should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
    > analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.
    >

    Are you related to the OTHER William Casey by any chance? Wow...

    Well, me... personally, I'm all for a more socialist world view. But
    certainly not in the realm of software. OSR isn't some sort of commune.

    But I DO think you're over-simlifying the equation: There's a lot to be said
    for the open source community. Can you tell me that you've never benefited
    by finding algorithms or code solutions on the web -- or by reading some
    code in The NT Insider (or Knuth)? Well, I see what the penguinites are
    saying as just the logical extension of this concept. I must say, I have
    beneifited MANY times from code in the open source community. It's a great
    idea. Sharing is caring (everybody, let's hold hands and sing... "Kumbaya
    m'Lord..."). Of course, you can't make a LIVING that way, I agree.

    While I am nauseated by, and find grossly misguided, some of the
    implications of the GPL, I still think that most of these folks are merely
    naive and foolish. Innocently unknowning. Sort of like the poor folks in
    Cuba who fought to overthow Batista and put Fidel into power, only to find
    out years later... Surprise! He's really not about being a nice guy. Are
    these BAD people? Nah, just sadly naive and somewhat deceived.

    Gosh, I *love* rants,

    Peter

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    >Careful, Ivona... People are gonna take this as flame bait.
    it wasn't mention as a flame bait - it was a little allusion on my
    last email ...

    >I'm sure you mean that in the nicest possible sense: That Mr. Casey's is a
    >very typically American view of intellectual property. One that's not
    >necessarily shared so vociferously in other places.
    i wouldn't say it so euphemistic but you're surely right

    to Bill Casey
    >P.S. Please send all stupid replies to me directly rather than polluting
    >this list.
    sorry i have to work rather than waste my time answering your emails
    more than i did :-)

    --
    Best regards,
    Ivona Prenosilova
  • Thomas_F._DivineThomas_F._Divine Member Posts: 537
    Bill,

    Although I wouldn't use the same working as you, I certainly agree.

    Myself
    ====
    I work for myself, buy my own tools, buy my own development hardware and
    write my own code. Although I am "small potatoes" in the overall world of
    software chances are pretty high that somewhere lurking on your Windows PC
    is software derived from something I've written.

    Sources to the code I have written (bought and paid for) belong to me,
    and I believe that I should have a right to decided who can see (license)
    the code and who cannot.

    I continually maintain and improve my code because my customers expect
    expect that in return for their license fee. (I get repeat customers).

    I don't like folks who steal my software because they say they can't
    afford it or they are "only using it for educational purposes" or that they
    are "doing me a big favor" by stealing it becauses it shows that I should
    improve my security. I give it away sometimes, but please don't steal it.

    Microsoft
    ======
    By the same token, Microsoft works for itself, buys its own tools, buys its
    own development hardware and writes its own code. Microsoft is not "small
    potatoes" in the overall world of software and chances are pretty high that
    somewhere lurking on your Windows PC is software written by Microsoft.

    Sources to the code Microsoft has written (bought and paid for) belong to
    Microsoft, and I believe that Microsoft should have a right to decided who
    can see (license) their code and who cannot.

    Microsoft continually maintains and improves their code because their
    customers expect expect that in return for their license fee. (Microsoft
    gets repeat customers).

    Microsoft doesn't like folks who steal their software either. They give
    it away sometimes, but please don't steal it.

    I certainly agree that software developers have an "obligation" to support
    their community. I try to do that with websites like www.ndis.com, articles
    on www.wd-3.com and a mailing list
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discussion-pcausa/ that is heavily frequented
    by NDIS newbies. (Lots of "I wanna rite a Ndis drivur..." questions get
    answered there - as well as some other more obscure chats.) I don't provide
    lots of free code samples, but the few I do are appreciated.

    I think that Microsoft gives quite a bit of community support as well.

    If someone is interested in Open Source software, then they should go to
    products that support open source. Simple choice - like deciding which brand
    of beer that you like: home brew in the bathtub or an expensive imported
    beer.

    Myself - I would be very glad to consider Open Source as soon as someone
    answers this question from the perspective of a small company:

    How does a (very small) software development house make money under Open
    Source licenses?"

    (I am serious about needing an answer to that question)

    Thomas F. Divine


    "Bill Casey" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    > Peter:
    > Like Mt. Vesuvius I have been keeping the lid on my own pontification
    > regarding the "Open Sore" community. But your posting and the recent
    "Open
    > Source" front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused the following
    > venting:
    > By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no sniggering!) I have
    > managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years. So why should
    I
    > be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to make both past
    > AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY available?
    > How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make money? Are we
    > supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
    > It isn't often I come to the defense of Microsoft but I will in this
    > instance. Let's all quit whining about having the Windows source
    available.
    > Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for the sake of
    > improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for our perceived
    > difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR code paid for
    > with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn't our RIGHT to look at,
    touch
    > it or feel it.
    > If only I had a small chance of speaking to the head of Red Hat, I'd let
    > him know my opinion of his recent comment that "one should be able to look
    > at source code without fear of being arrested". Well, he can look at MY
    > source code but he should fear getting the crap beat out of him.
    > Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely call them are
    > nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    > scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that software
    > should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
    > analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.
    >
    > Bill Casey
    >
    > == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSIT Target Mode Libs ==
    > Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    > 2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com
    >
    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Peter Viscarola
    > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:44 AM
    > > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    > > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    > > "how to execute a process...")
    > >
    > >
    > > Nick,
    > >
    > > As usual, you make several well thought-out points.
    > >
    > > I just wanted to "discuss" a few:
    > >
    > > "Nick Ryan" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > > >
    > > > Microsoft can write the best VPN and AV utilities both because
    > > > it has smart people and because those people can see the source code.
    > > > Any other group of equally smart people are at an automatic
    > > > disadvantage.
    > > >
    > >
    > > This is absolutely true. The entire world of Windows system software
    > > developers would heartily benefit from having the Windows sources for
    > > reference.
    > >
    > > However, there another problem at work here that make writing
    > > things like AV
    > > filters in the file system stack harder than it should be -- even WITH
    > > source code. And this is true generically for drivers of all types in
    > > Windows.
    > >
    > > That problem is the complexity of the driver interface. Or, one
    > > might say,
    > > the lack of a really well defined interface without side effeects
    > > for driver
    > > development. This problem is rampant in the file system stack.. there
    are
    > > subtleties of the interfaces that change with each release of
    > > Windows. Even
    > > WITH the source code, you'd have a rough time building a robust
    component
    > > for the file system stack that works across multiple versions of the
    O/S.
    > >
    > > > Microsoft's
    > > > competitive advantage is that they can string 10,000 good algorithms
    > > > together in such a coherent way that a competitor can't hope to match
    > > > the effort without 30,000 smart programmers of its own.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Absolutely right. Making the source code, especially of the O/S itself,
    > > available should really be no big thing when you think about it. Those
    of
    > > us who just want to know all the places where IoXxxx returns
    > > STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED (or whatever) would be able to find out relatively
    > > easily. And, anything that's a security risk, ah, shouldn't be
    > > there in the
    > > first place and is just waiting to be "discovered" by someone who
    DOESN'T
    > > have the source code (is it David Craig who regularly reminds us that
    > > security through obscurity is no security at all?).
    > >
    > > Now, I could possibly see reasons why Microsoft might not want to
    release
    > > the source code for the Win32 subsystems (user and kernel mode)
    > > -- No sense
    > > helping the penguinites build a really good Win32 emulator, right? And
    > > maybe there are certain other kernel modules that fall into this
    category
    > > too.
    > >
    > > But you're absolutely right... When you think about it, there's no risk
    is
    > > letting the vast majority of this stuff out.
    > >
    > > I feel a pontification coming on,
    > >
    > > Peter
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ---
    > > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Bill_McKenzie-2Bill_McKenzie-2 Member Posts: 211
    > Myself - I would be very glad to consider Open Source as soon as someone
    > answers this question from the perspective of a small company:
    >
    > How does a (very small) software development house make money under
    Open
    > Source licenses?"

    I have seen Thomas ask this question numerous times on numerous forums, and
    have yet to see an intelligent/plausible answer. I would love to hear the
    answer to his question as well. Service revenue don't cut it either.

    --
    Bill McKenzie
    Compuware Corporation
    Watch your IRPs/IRBs/URBs/SRBs/NDIS pkts with our free WDMSniffer tool:
    http://frontline.compuware.com/nashua/patches/utility.htm


    "Thomas F. Divine" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    > Bill,
    >
    > Although I wouldn't use the same working as you, I certainly agree.
    >
    > Myself
    > ====
    > I work for myself, buy my own tools, buy my own development hardware and
    > write my own code. Although I am "small potatoes" in the overall world of
    > software chances are pretty high that somewhere lurking on your Windows PC
    > is software derived from something I've written.
    >
    > Sources to the code I have written (bought and paid for) belong to me,
    > and I believe that I should have a right to decided who can see (license)
    > the code and who cannot.
    >
    > I continually maintain and improve my code because my customers expect
    > expect that in return for their license fee. (I get repeat customers).
    >
    > I don't like folks who steal my software because they say they can't
    > afford it or they are "only using it for educational purposes" or that
    they
    > are "doing me a big favor" by stealing it becauses it shows that I should
    > improve my security. I give it away sometimes, but please don't steal it.
    >
    > Microsoft
    > ======
    > By the same token, Microsoft works for itself, buys its own tools, buys
    its
    > own development hardware and writes its own code. Microsoft is not "small
    > potatoes" in the overall world of software and chances are pretty high
    that
    > somewhere lurking on your Windows PC is software written by Microsoft.
    >
    > Sources to the code Microsoft has written (bought and paid for) belong
    to
    > Microsoft, and I believe that Microsoft should have a right to decided who
    > can see (license) their code and who cannot.
    >
    > Microsoft continually maintains and improves their code because their
    > customers expect expect that in return for their license fee. (Microsoft
    > gets repeat customers).
    >
    > Microsoft doesn't like folks who steal their software either. They give
    > it away sometimes, but please don't steal it.
    >
    > I certainly agree that software developers have an "obligation" to support
    > their community. I try to do that with websites like www.ndis.com,
    articles
    > on www.wd-3.com and a mailing list
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discussion-pcausa/ that is heavily
    frequented
    > by NDIS newbies. (Lots of "I wanna rite a Ndis drivur..." questions get
    > answered there - as well as some other more obscure chats.) I don't
    provide
    > lots of free code samples, but the few I do are appreciated.
    >
    > I think that Microsoft gives quite a bit of community support as well.
    >
    > If someone is interested in Open Source software, then they should go to
    > products that support open source. Simple choice - like deciding which
    brand
    > of beer that you like: home brew in the bathtub or an expensive imported
    > beer.
    >
    > Myself - I would be very glad to consider Open Source as soon as someone
    > answers this question from the perspective of a small company:
    >
    > How does a (very small) software development house make money under
    Open
    > Source licenses?"
    >
    > (I am serious about needing an answer to that question)
    >
    > Thomas F. Divine
    >
    >
    > "Bill Casey" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > >
    > > Peter:
    > > Like Mt. Vesuvius I have been keeping the lid on my own pontification
    > > regarding the "Open Sore" community. But your posting and the recent
    > "Open
    > > Source" front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused the following
    > > venting:
    > > By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no sniggering!) I
    have
    > > managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years. So why
    should
    > I
    > > be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to make both
    past
    > > AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY available?
    > > How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make money? Are we
    > > supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
    > > It isn't often I come to the defense of Microsoft but I will in this
    > > instance. Let's all quit whining about having the Windows source
    > available.
    > > Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for the sake
    of
    > > improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for our perceived
    > > difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR code paid
    for
    > > with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn't our RIGHT to look at,
    > touch
    > > it or feel it.
    > > If only I had a small chance of speaking to the head of Red Hat, I'd let
    > > him know my opinion of his recent comment that "one should be able to
    look
    > > at source code without fear of being arrested". Well, he can look at MY
    > > source code but he should fear getting the crap beat out of him.
    > > Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely call them are
    > > nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    > > scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that
    software
    > > should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
    > > analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.
    > >
    > > Bill Casey
    > >
    > > == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSIT Target Mode Libs ==
    > > Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    > > 2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > > Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > > > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Peter Viscarola
    > > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:44 AM
    > > > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    > > > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    > > > "how to execute a process...")
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Nick,
    > > >
    > > > As usual, you make several well thought-out points.
    > > >
    > > > I just wanted to "discuss" a few:
    > > >
    > > > "Nick Ryan" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > > > >
    > > > > Microsoft can write the best VPN and AV utilities both because
    > > > > it has smart people and because those people can see the source
    code.
    > > > > Any other group of equally smart people are at an automatic
    > > > > disadvantage.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > This is absolutely true. The entire world of Windows system software
    > > > developers would heartily benefit from having the Windows sources for
    > > > reference.
    > > >
    > > > However, there another problem at work here that make writing
    > > > things like AV
    > > > filters in the file system stack harder than it should be -- even WITH
    > > > source code. And this is true generically for drivers of all types in
    > > > Windows.
    > > >
    > > > That problem is the complexity of the driver interface. Or, one
    > > > might say,
    > > > the lack of a really well defined interface without side effeects
    > > > for driver
    > > > development. This problem is rampant in the file system stack.. there
    > are
    > > > subtleties of the interfaces that change with each release of
    > > > Windows. Even
    > > > WITH the source code, you'd have a rough time building a robust
    > component
    > > > for the file system stack that works across multiple versions of the
    > O/S.
    > > >
    > > > > Microsoft's
    > > > > competitive advantage is that they can string 10,000 good algorithms
    > > > > together in such a coherent way that a competitor can't hope to
    match
    > > > > the effort without 30,000 smart programmers of its own.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Absolutely right. Making the source code, especially of the O/S
    itself,
    > > > available should really be no big thing when you think about it.
    Those
    > of
    > > > us who just want to know all the places where IoXxxx returns
    > > > STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED (or whatever) would be able to find out
    relatively
    > > > easily. And, anything that's a security risk, ah, shouldn't be
    > > > there in the
    > > > first place and is just waiting to be "discovered" by someone who
    > DOESN'T
    > > > have the source code (is it David Craig who regularly reminds us that
    > > > security through obscurity is no security at all?).
    > > >
    > > > Now, I could possibly see reasons why Microsoft might not want to
    > release
    > > > the source code for the Win32 subsystems (user and kernel mode)
    > > > -- No sense
    > > > helping the penguinites build a really good Win32 emulator, right?
    And
    > > > maybe there are certain other kernel modules that fall into this
    > category
    > > > too.
    > > >
    > > > But you're absolutely right... When you think about it, there's no
    risk
    > is
    > > > letting the vast majority of this stuff out.
    > > >
    > > > I feel a pontification coming on,
    > > >
    > > > Peter
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > ---
    > > > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    > >
    > > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 7,262
    "Thomas F. Divine" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    > Myself - I would be very glad to consider Open Source as soon as someone
    > answers this question from the perspective of a small company:
    >
    > How does a (very small) software development house make money under
    Open
    > Source licenses?"
    >

    You know, I don't remember anyone actually advocating FOR open source on
    this list. Or even anything remotely similar. Rather, Mr. Ryan said that
    MS should make source code to parts of the O/S available. I heartily agreed
    with Mr. Ryan.

    This is FAR from advocating for anything even SLIGHTLY resembling open
    source.

    Now, if you don't WANT ms to make Windows source code available, good for
    you. If they do, and you don't want to read it, I'm sure that's good for
    you too. If you think Microsoft making some of the Windows source code
    available to people somehow makes it open source, you need to do a bit more
    reading on this topic before replying.

    What in the WORLD ANY of this has to do with open source, jobs overseas, or
    the requisite to support the community is entirely beyond me.

    And in terms of Mr. Divine's question, of course, it's the one that everyone
    in the Open Source community's been asking for, oh, the last 5+ years at
    least. Companies have gone bankrupt over it. Personally, I've RARELY seen
    that giving something away makes the giver any money... Assuming we're not
    counting cross-lifetime accumilated karma, that is...

    Peter
    OSR

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • J._J._FarrellJ._J._Farrell Member Posts: 200
    "Bill Casey" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    > By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no sniggering!) I have
    > managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years. So why should
    I
    > be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to make both past
    > AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY available?

    You shouldn't, you aren't, and you won't be.

    > How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make money? Are we
    > supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.

    No. You're supposed to make money by writing new code instead of
    spending much of your time re-writing the same old code that hundreds
    or thousands of others (and sometimes ourselves) have written many
    times before. The idea is that we do something useful advancing the
    state of the art, and society in general, rather than all sitting working
    for different companies individually writing code to solve the same old
    problems for which code has been written many times before. It's a
    service model instead of a property model, and it enables a vastly
    greater proportion of a limited resource to be spent on innovation and
    advancement instead of repeating the same old same old.

    > Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely call them are
    > nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    > scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that software
    > should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
    > analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.

    Silly, ignorant, and puerile comments.
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    Peter:
    I think it is your view of these people that is naive. Granted SOME of
    them may be good and kind and altruistic. But by and large they are simply
    trying to "shoplift the pooty". I mean why pay when you can join hands
    together and try to collectively (Soviet collectives anyone?) foist guilt
    upon software developers for having the effrontery to charge ACTUAL MONEY
    for their efforts? How many software ads are there in Linux Journal?
    Virtually none. What does that tell you? It tells ME they are ripping off
    every piece of code they can get their grimy little hands on.
    Forget the rosy picture - many are political do-gooders with an agenda.
    That 'agenda' is to help themselves to as much free code as they can get;
    they don't care if it hurts anyone else - they simply want their free code.
    Next they'll be saying "all hardware should be free" - I mean where does it
    stop? I guess they think EVERYTHING should be free.
    Mostly, however, they are running home at night after working at their
    no/low-tech jobs to see what they can get for nothing. Oh yeah, since (mea
    culpa) once upon a time I played the drums too, I also think artists should
    get reimbursed for their efforts - perish the thought!

    Bill Casey

    == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSI™ Target Mode Libs ==
    Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com



    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Peter Viscarola
    > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:26 PM
    > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    > "how to execute a process...")
    >
    >
    >
    > "Bill Casey" <xxxxx@virtualscsi.com> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > >
    > > Peter:
    > > regarding the "Open Sore" community. But your posting and the recent
    > "Open
    > > Source" front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused the following
    > > venting:
    > >
    > Gosh, I LOVE venting. We should start a whole list just FOR venting.
    >
    > >
    > > By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no
    > sniggering!) I have
    > > managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years.
    > >
    > Gee, me too. Well, not in business for myself for 30 years, but
    > OSR is now
    > 10 years old, and before that I ran my software company for 7 years.
    >
    >
    > > So why should I
    > > be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to
    > make both past
    > > AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY available?
    >
    > Never said you should...
    >
    > > Let's all quit whining about having the Windows source available.
    > > Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for
    > the sake of
    > > improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for our perceived
    > > difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR
    > code paid for
    > > with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn't our RIGHT to look at,
    > touch
    > > it or feel it.
    > >
    >
    > Never said it was our RIGHT. Just that it would be a hell of a good idea.
    > And that I agreed that they SHOULD make source available. And that they
    > really have nothing to fear. In fact, I think making at least selected
    > Windows o/s source available would be one of the most clever
    > things MS ever
    > did. It would be a major business coup. They'd take away one of
    > the major
    > whines from the penguinites, they'd help the driver community build better
    > software, and they'd make a bunch of hard working devs -- who do
    > nothing in
    > the end but add value to the Windows platform -- happier by getting them
    > home to dinner on time more often.
    >
    > Heck, even Digital made the sources to VMS available for
    > reference (at very
    > low cost) when they realized that there was nothing to lose, and a lot to
    > gain, by doing so.
    >
    > > Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely call them are
    > > nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    > > scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view
    > (that software
    > > should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
    > > analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.
    > >
    >
    > Are you related to the OTHER William Casey by any chance? Wow...
    >
    > Well, me... personally, I'm all for a more socialist world view. But
    > certainly not in the realm of software. OSR isn't some sort of commune.
    >
    > But I DO think you're over-simlifying the equation: There's a lot
    > to be said
    > for the open source community. Can you tell me that you've never
    > benefited
    > by finding algorithms or code solutions on the web -- or by reading some
    > code in The NT Insider (or Knuth)? Well, I see what the penguinites are
    > saying as just the logical extension of this concept. I must say, I have
    > beneifited MANY times from code in the open source community.
    > It's a great
    > idea. Sharing is caring (everybody, let's hold hands and sing... "Kumbaya
    > m'Lord..."). Of course, you can't make a LIVING that way, I agree.
    >
    > While I am nauseated by, and find grossly misguided, some of the
    > implications of the GPL, I still think that most of these folks are merely
    > naive and foolish. Innocently unknowning. Sort of like the poor folks in
    > Cuba who fought to overthow Batista and put Fidel into power, only to find
    > out years later... Surprise! He's really not about being a nice guy. Are
    > these BAD people? Nah, just sadly naive and somewhat deceived.
    >
    > Gosh, I *love* rants,
    >
    > Peter
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    >
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    > > How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make money? Are we
    > > supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
    >
    > No. You're supposed to make money by writing new code instead of
    > spending much of your time re-writing the same old code that hundreds
    > or thousands of others (and sometimes ourselves) have written many
    > times before. The idea is that we do something useful advancing the
    > state of the art, and society in general, rather than all sitting working
    > for different companies individually writing code to solve the same old
    > problems for which code has been written many times before. It's a
    > service model instead of a property model, and it enables a vastly
    > greater proportion of a limited resource to be spent on innovation and
    > advancement instead of repeating the same old same old.

    Wow! "sitting around working for different companies"! The fall of the
    Soviet Union must have been a CRUSHING blow to you.


    Bill Casey
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    > Myself - I would be very glad to consider Open Source as soon as someone
    > answers this question from the perspective of a small company:

    > How does a (very small) software development house make money under Open
    > Source licenses?"

    Thomas,

    Correct me if I'm way off-base in saying this, but your business currently
    operates under a model that differs from the general Open Source license
    only in the fact that a person has to pay to view/use your source code. I
    think that technically you have already answered and are currently operating
    under the answer to the question you've posed. If you're asking how a
    company could survive strictly releasing all their code under the GPL, it's
    doubtful they could. However, as is evidence by your current business
    model, you've successfully managed to run a business that releases some of
    its source code.

    Now, as I said before, if you were to change your companies model to use the
    GPL exclusively, then I think you're right, you would likely not succeed.
    If, however, you used the GPL or, more likely the LGPL, and released chunks,
    snippets, or even full samples of source code, your business could still
    survive. The key would be that, in order to survive, you must not use the
    GPL or LGPL exclusively, as you now have exhausted your entire source of
    income -- your software.

    Since you limited this question to how a small business could be run, I
    won't bother touching the Microsoft side of things.

    ---

    Finally, just to add more fuel to the fire, let's think long and hard about
    who the people are that work on open source software. Do they work day in
    and day out on that software for a living? The majority of them, no. Then
    why do they do it? Perhaps it's for a "love of the game", if you will.
    Internal motivation, I think, is incredibly more powerful than external
    motivation.

    I think that most of the people who view the open source movement as a virus
    are strictly ignorant and afraid. They are ignorant because they don't
    realize that they don't HAVE to accept open source. They can go on their
    way writing their closed source software without being infected by the
    'virus'. They are afraid because the open source movement is not one that
    is going to stop due to lack of funding or roadblocks, and the fact that
    they are not going to stop causes the closed source person to fear the fact
    that they may soon be obsolete. They may soon be obsolete because the minds
    of 20 open source people working on an open source project might just
    eventually produce a product that rivals, or is even better than, the closed
    source person's product.

    Suffice to say, that's the thing that I've noticed from most people who look
    upon open source so negatively. Anyways, sorry to contribute to the open
    source flame war...excuse me whilst I put on my flame retardant suit. :)

    Matt

    -----Original Message-----
    From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Thomas F. Divine
    Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:37 PM
    To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    "how to execute a process...")


    Bill,

    Although I wouldn't use the same working as you, I certainly agree.

    Myself
    ====
    I work for myself, buy my own tools, buy my own development hardware and
    write my own code. Although I am "small potatoes" in the overall world of
    software chances are pretty high that somewhere lurking on your Windows PC
    is software derived from something I've written.

    Sources to the code I have written (bought and paid for) belong to me,
    and I believe that I should have a right to decided who can see (license)
    the code and who cannot.

    I continually maintain and improve my code because my customers expect
    expect that in return for their license fee. (I get repeat customers).

    I don't like folks who steal my software because they say they can't
    afford it or they are "only using it for educational purposes" or that they
    are "doing me a big favor" by stealing it becauses it shows that I should
    improve my security. I give it away sometimes, but please don't steal it.

    Microsoft
    ======
    By the same token, Microsoft works for itself, buys its own tools, buys its
    own development hardware and writes its own code. Microsoft is not "small
    potatoes" in the overall world of software and chances are pretty high that
    somewhere lurking on your Windows PC is software written by Microsoft.

    Sources to the code Microsoft has written (bought and paid for) belong to
    Microsoft, and I believe that Microsoft should have a right to decided who
    can see (license) their code and who cannot.

    Microsoft continually maintains and improves their code because their
    customers expect expect that in return for their license fee. (Microsoft
    gets repeat customers).

    Microsoft doesn't like folks who steal their software either. They give
    it away sometimes, but please don't steal it.

    I certainly agree that software developers have an "obligation" to support
    their community. I try to do that with websites like www.ndis.com, articles
    on www.wd-3.com and a mailing list
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discussion-pcausa/ that is heavily frequented
    by NDIS newbies. (Lots of "I wanna rite a Ndis drivur..." questions get
    answered there - as well as some other more obscure chats.) I don't provide
    lots of free code samples, but the few I do are appreciated.

    I think that Microsoft gives quite a bit of community support as well.

    If someone is interested in Open Source software, then they should go to
    products that support open source. Simple choice - like deciding which brand
    of beer that you like: home brew in the bathtub or an expensive imported
    beer.

    Myself - I would be very glad to consider Open Source as soon as someone
    answers this question from the perspective of a small company:

    How does a (very small) software development house make money under Open
    Source licenses?"

    (I am serious about needing an answer to that question)

    Thomas F. Divine


    "Bill Casey" <xxxxx@virtualscsi.com> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    > Peter:
    > Like Mt. Vesuvius I have been keeping the lid on my own pontification
    > regarding the "Open Sore" community. But your posting and the recent
    "Open
    > Source" front-cover headline by C/C++ Journal has caused the following
    > venting:
    > By the sweat of my brow and force of my intellect (no sniggering!) I have
    > managed to stay in business for myself for almost 30 years. So why should
    I
    > be forced either directly or through reverse engineering to make both past
    > AND future intellectual work product not only FREE but FREELY available?
    > How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make money? Are we
    > supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
    > It isn't often I come to the defense of Microsoft but I will in this
    > instance. Let's all quit whining about having the Windows source
    available.
    > Maybe we should all stare at our OWN code a little longer for the sake of
    > improving it rather than dump responsibility onto MS for our perceived
    > difficulties. Buck up and take it like a man. It is THEIR code paid for
    > with THEIR money. We can complain but it isn't our RIGHT to look at,
    touch
    > it or feel it.
    > If only I had a small chance of speaking to the head of Red Hat, I'd let
    > him know my opinion of his recent comment that "one should be able to look
    > at source code without fear of being arrested". Well, he can look at MY
    > source code but he should fear getting the crap beat out of him.
    > Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely call them are
    > nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
    > scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that software
    > should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
    > analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.
    >
    > Bill Casey
    >
    > == SCSI Adapters & VirtualSCSIT Target Mode Libs ==
    > Advanced Storage Concepts, Inc. (409) 744-2129
    > 2720 Terminal Drive xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > Galveston, TX 77554 USA www.virtualscsi.com
    >
    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Peter Viscarola
    > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:44 AM
    > > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    > > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    > > "how to execute a process...")
    > >
    > >
    > > Nick,
    > >
    > > As usual, you make several well thought-out points.
    > >
    > > I just wanted to "discuss" a few:
    > >
    > > "Nick Ryan" <xxxxx@nryan.com> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    > > >
    > > > Microsoft can write the best VPN and AV utilities both because
    > > > it has smart people and because those people can see the source code.
    > > > Any other group of equally smart people are at an automatic
    > > > disadvantage.
    > > >
    > >
    > > This is absolutely true. The entire world of Windows system software
    > > developers would heartily benefit from having the Windows sources for
    > > reference.
    > >
    > > However, there another problem at work here that make writing
    > > things like AV
    > > filters in the file system stack harder than it should be -- even WITH
    > > source code. And this is true generically for drivers of all types in
    > > Windows.
    > >
    > > That problem is the complexity of the driver interface. Or, one
    > > might say,
    > > the lack of a really well defined interface without side effeects
    > > for driver
    > > development. This problem is rampant in the file system stack.. there
    are
    > > subtleties of the interfaces that change with each release of
    > > Windows. Even
    > > WITH the source code, you'd have a rough time building a robust
    component
    > > for the file system stack that works across multiple versions of the
    O/S.
    > >
    > > > Microsoft's
    > > > competitive advantage is that they can string 10,000 good algorithms
    > > > together in such a coherent way that a competitor can't hope to match
    > > > the effort without 30,000 smart programmers of its own.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Absolutely right. Making the source code, especially of the O/S itself,
    > > available should really be no big thing when you think about it. Those
    of
    > > us who just want to know all the places where IoXxxx returns
    > > STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED (or whatever) would be able to find out relatively
    > > easily. And, anything that's a security risk, ah, shouldn't be
    > > there in the
    > > first place and is just waiting to be "discovered" by someone who
    DOESN'T
    > > have the source code (is it David Craig who regularly reminds us that
    > > security through obscurity is no security at all?).
    > >
    > > Now, I could possibly see reasons why Microsoft might not want to
    release
    > > the source code for the Win32 subsystems (user and kernel mode)
    > > -- No sense
    > > helping the penguinites build a really good Win32 emulator, right? And
    > > maybe there are certain other kernel modules that fall into this
    category
    > > too.
    > >
    > > But you're absolutely right... When you think about it, there's no risk
    is
    > > letting the vast majority of this stuff out.
    > >
    > > I feel a pontification coming on,
    > >
    > > Peter
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ---
    > > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    >
    >
    >
    >



    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@positivenetworks.net
    To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
  • Don_Burn_1Don_Burn_1 Member Posts: 4,311
    The one problem I see is with Visible source code is the old question
    flagged in Brook's Mythical Man Month, if you use the source as a reference
    how do you tell architecture from implementation. It is very easy for the
    user community to start relying on something that you do not want them to.
    I believe there was reference at some talk I was at the Call Usage Verifier
    was hampered by usage inside of Microsoft that was not exactly as defined by
    the docs. I have experienced the pain of this first hand at a mini-computer
    firm where some OS extensions got canceled because customers who had read
    the source, knew that is was safe to fiddle with fields we told them not to
    touch.

    I'd still like the source, but this is one reason I can see Microsoft for
    not going there.

    Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
    Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting


    "Nick Ryan" <xxxxx@nryan.com> wrote in message
    >
    > I will therefore say that making source code Visible probably poses
    > little danger to software companies both large and small, provided a bit
    > of effort is taken to reduce the ease of piracy (such as PGP's decision
    > not to publish the quite complex but mostly irrelevant installer project
    > source code with PGP 8.0). If you want to develop Open Source, however,
    > I'd say at this should be done more as a hobby and as a community social
    > effort than as a way to make money.
    >
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    > > Bottom line is that these "penguinites" as you so politely call them

    > > are nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist,
    bottom-dwelling
    > > scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that
    > > software should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in

    > > the final analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of
    > > world saviors.
    >
    > Silly, ignorant, and puerile comments.

    Actually, if you read what Stallman (and many of his disciples) write,
    they ARE trying to impose a specific socialist world-view, and they are
    very explicit about it. Stallman is so extreme that, in a recent
    interview, he refused to even mention one Linux distribution that did
    not conform to his extreme views on IP rights, because he didn't want
    people to see their site, and thus be "exposed" to it. (To me, this
    demonstrates the fear and weakness in Stallman's arguments -- if they
    were as good as he claimed, they should withstand the existence of
    counter-arguments and counter-examples.)

    Stallman, and many, many others, do hold extreme views, and are actively
    using GPL to push those views. It is useful to draw a distinction
    between something we can all observe & verify (that Stallman et al. are
    explicitly pushing their views), and something that we can't (their
    motivations, e.g. cheap-assholes / saints -- which is what Bill is
    speculating on).

    -- arlie
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    I think your distinction of "Visible Source" is a useful one.

    What if software companies published sections of source code, that were
    obfuscated using techniques similar to what Yahoo and other companies
    use, to obscure keywords that you must type in? In other words, what if
    the source code you were making visible was presented in the form of
    JPEG images, with text that humans could recognize, but was obscured
    enough to defeat OCR software? You could still include a list of
    keywords (symbol names, etc.) in each document, so that text searches
    would still be somewhat functional.

    This would allow for software visibility, and yet prevent a buildable
    product from being released.

    -- arlie


    -----Original Message-----
    From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Nick Ryan
    Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:17 PM
    To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    "how to execute a process...")


    First I'd like to say that I am grateful to Microsoft for the developer
    community outreach efforts they ARE making. Events like the filesystem
    filter plugfest are great, and I realize that rand-and-file Microsoft
    employees do as much as they can for the community; they of course do
    NOT have the authority to make decisions on their own on such an issue
    as revealing source code.

    > Myself - I would be very glad to consider Open Source as soon as
    > someone answers this question from the perspective of a small company:
    >
    > How does a (very small) software development house make money under

    > Open Source licenses?"
    >
    > (I am serious about needing an answer to that question)

    I think we may need to develop some new terminology here (if this hasn't

    already been done and I haven't heard about it). What I'll call 'Visible

    Source' is what companies like PGP do - they'll let you see and download

    the source and maybe compile some of it, but you can't use it or
    redistribute it in any way. 'Open Source' is widely taken to refer to
    source distributed under licenses advocated by the Free Software
    Foundation that typically allow modification and redistribution of the
    source (often termed 'copyleft').

    I will therefore say that making source code Visible probably poses
    little danger to software companies both large and small, provided a bit

    of effort is taken to reduce the ease of piracy (such as PGP's decision
    not to publish the quite complex but mostly irrelevant installer project

    source code with PGP 8.0). If you want to develop Open Source, however,
    I'd say at this should be done more as a hobby and as a community social

    effort than as a way to make money.

    --
    Nick Ryan (MVP for DDK)
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    > Finally, just to add more fuel to the fire, let's think long and
    > hard about
    > who the people are that work on open source software. Do they work day in
    > and day out on that software for a living? The majority of them,
    > no. Then
    > why do they do it? Perhaps it's for a "love of the game", if you will.
    > Internal motivation, I think, is incredibly more powerful than external
    > motivation.

    You mean like the "love of the game" the virus writers have?

    > fear the fact that they may soon be obsolete. They may soon be obsolete
    > because the minds of 20 open source people working on an open source
    project might just
    > eventually produce a product that rivals, or is even better than,
    > the closed source person's product.

    Complete rot!! The Linux kernel is just NOW getting around to releasing
    things like preemptive multitasking (in the kernel) and processor affinity
    that have been in Windows since NT - this is years folks! These 20 people
    sure are kicking software butt aren't they?

    Bill Casey
  • J._J._FarrellJ._J._Farrell Member Posts: 200
    "Bill Casey" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    > > > How the hell am I and thousands like me supposed to make money? Are
    we
    > > > supposed to DONATE our time and thoughts.
    > >
    > > No. You're supposed to make money by writing new code instead of
    > > spending much of your time re-writing the same old code that hundreds
    > > or thousands of others (and sometimes ourselves) have written many
    > > times before. The idea is that we do something useful advancing the
    > > state of the art, and society in general, rather than all sitting
    working
    > > for different companies individually writing code to solve the same old
    > > problems for which code has been written many times before. It's a
    > > service model instead of a property model, and it enables a vastly
    > > greater proportion of a limited resource to be spent on innovation and
    > > advancement instead of repeating the same old same old.
    >
    > Wow! "sitting around working for different companies"! The fall of the
    > Soviet Union must have been a CRUSHING blow to you.

    Why do you say such a silly thing? What is the connection between
    your distortion of what I said, dishonestly enclosed in quotation marks,
    and your comment?
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    > Actually, if you read what Stallman (and many of his disciples) write,
    > they ARE trying to impose a specific socialist world-view, and they are
    > very explicit about it. Stallman is so extreme that, in a recent
    > interview, he refused to even mention one Linux distribution that did
    > not conform to his extreme views on IP rights, because he didn't want
    > people to see their site, and thus be "exposed" to it. (To me, this
    > demonstrates the fear and weakness in Stallman's arguments -- if they
    > were as good as he claimed, they should withstand the existence of
    > counter-arguments and counter-examples.)
    >
    > Stallman, and many, many others, do hold extreme views, and are actively
    > using GPL to push those views. It is useful to draw a distinction
    > between something we can all observe & verify (that Stallman et al. are
    > explicitly pushing their views), and something that we can't (their
    > motivations, e.g. cheap-assholes / saints -- which is what Bill is
    > speculating on).
    >
    > -- arlie

    Your erudition is admirable and YOUR arguments cogent. If I got a little
    'hot' on this subject earlier, its because I've been reading such copious
    amounts of drivel on this topic for so long that I couldn't contain myself.

    Bill Casey

    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@virtualscsi.com
    > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    >
  • Vladimir_ChtchetkineVladimir_Chtchetkine Member Posts: 156
    It's entertaining :-)
    People who advocate for open source (or should I say "free source") look
    at it not from the intellectual property prospective, but from the
    freedom of information prospective (well, at least I do). Meaning, that
    everybody has right to know [information] and to use that knowledge
    [information]. Benefits of this approach are quite evident for those who
    know the power of freedom :-) And MS itself is a great evidence as it
    won the war by opening their interfaces and making the majority of
    softdevs working for _them_ for _free_ by adding value to MS products
    (didn't somebody mention that already?). And there is nothing
    "socialistic" or even "communistic" about sharing your source code. It
    is simple math: you trade one line of your (most of the time stupid)
    source code for a hundred lines of (most of the time genius) somebody
    else's sorce code. From another hand, people that have experience and
    knowledge that they've earned hard way have rights to protect that and
    secure their advantage over young and hungry (sometimes not just
    figuratively speaking) competitors (isn't this what it is all about,
    keeping competitive advantage?). But 80% of the "old horse" value is
    what is in his/her head and not what is on her/his hard disk. Which is
    not just ability to "code an algorithm", but to build the _product_.

    P.S. Pardon my French :-)
  • Vladimir_ChtchetkineVladimir_Chtchetkine Member Posts: 156
    It's rather an argument on the side of not doing Visible Source for
    _everyone_. Just like you have to learn how to couple words "freedom"
    and "responsibility" before you can drive :-)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Nick Ryan [mailto:xxxxx@nryan.com]
    Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:05 PM
    To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    "how to execute a process...")

    This is definitely an argument on the side of not going Visible Source,
    but one that I believe is still outweighed by the practical benefits.
    Ideally, an interface would be complete and reliable enough that it
    should just work without having the need to deal with leaks from the
    abstraction. Practically, this has never been accomplished on a major
    software platform as far as I know. Hardware firms like Intel do it all
    the time, however. When's the last you needed to see the microcode for
    an x86 instruction in order to ship a driver (I'm sure it's happened for

    SOME of us, but very rarely)?

    Don Burn wrote:

    > The one problem I see is with Visible source code is the old question
    > flagged in Brook's Mythical Man Month, if you use the source as a
    reference
    > how do you tell architecture from implementation. It is very easy for
    the
    > user community to start relying on something that you do not want them
    to.
    > I believe there was reference at some talk I was at the Call Usage
    Verifier
    > was hampered by usage inside of Microsoft that was not exactly as
    defined by
    > the docs. I have experienced the pain of this first hand at a
    mini-computer
    > firm where some OS extensions got canceled because customers who had
    read
    > the source, knew that is was safe to fiddle with fields we told them
    not to
    > touch.
    >
    > I'd still like the source, but this is one reason I can see Microsoft
    for
    > not going there.
    >
    > Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
    > Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
    >
    >
    > "Nick Ryan" <xxxxx@nryan.com> wrote in message
    >
    >>I will therefore say that making source code Visible probably poses
    >>little danger to software companies both large and small, provided a
    bit
    >>of effort is taken to reduce the ease of piracy (such as PGP's
    decision
    >>not to publish the quite complex but mostly irrelevant installer
    project
    >>source code with PGP 8.0). If you want to develop Open Source,
    however,
    >>I'd say at this should be done more as a hobby and as a community
    social
    >>effort than as a way to make money.
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    --
    Nick Ryan (MVP for DDK)


    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
    xxxxx@borland.com
    To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
  • OSR_Community_UserOSR_Community_User Member Posts: 110,217
    -----Original Message-----
    From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Bill Casey
    Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:04 PM
    To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    "how to execute a process...")


    > > Finally, just to add more fuel to the fire, let's think long and
    > > hard about
    > > who the people are that work on open source software. Do they work day
    in
    > > and day out on that software for a living? The majority of them,
    > > no. Then
    > > why do they do it? Perhaps it's for a "love of the game", if you will.
    > > Internal motivation, I think, is incredibly more powerful than external
    > > motivation.

    > You mean like the "love of the game" the virus writers have?

    Yes, the same thing. Is that supposed to make open source people look like
    bad guys or something? Just because you like pie and Charles Manson likes
    pie doesn't mean you intend to chop up a bunch of people.

    > > fear the fact that they may soon be obsolete. They may soon be obsolete
    > > because the minds of 20 open source people working on an open source
    > > project might just
    > > eventually produce a product that rivals, or is even better than,
    > > the closed source person's product.

    > Complete rot!! The Linux kernel is just NOW getting around to releasing
    > things like preemptive multitasking (in the kernel) and processor affinity
    > that have been in Windows since NT - this is years folks! These 20 people
    > sure are kicking software butt aren't they?

    So, you countered my general argument with a specific example. This is an
    ineffective form of arguing. The reason it is ineffective is because I too
    could go and enumerate a list of things that the Open Source community have
    done that the Closed Source haven't done yet. In fact, your specific
    citation has pointed out the truth in one of my premises -- that 20 open
    source people might eventually produce a product that rivals a closed source
    product. Also, keep in mind, that I stated that those 20 open source
    programmers might eventually do it BETTER than the closed source people.
    Success of software is, in the end, not determined by who did it first,
    rather it is determined by who did it BEST.

    > Bill Casey

    Matt

    ---
    Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

    You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@positivenetworks.net
    To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
  • David_J._CraigDavid_J._Craig Member Posts: 1,885
    "Time to market" is a killer for a small company. If Microsoft had to write
    MS-DOS after IBM contracted for it, I think they would have gone by the
    wayside as many startups have done over the years. Lotus had a lock on the
    spreadsheet for several years, but once they attracted the attention of the
    OS vendor who could use revenue from one side to fund startups (even if
    inside the same company), it was the beginning of the end. Microsoft Money
    used to be rather pathetic when compared to Quicken, but after the purchase
    was blocked, Microsoft has improved it considerably. Intuit's recent fiasco
    with TurboTax copy protection may be something they never recover from, but
    I am not enough of a soothsayer to know.

    This sure is fun!

    "Matt Miller" wrote in message
    news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of Bill Casey
    > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:04 PM
    > To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
    > Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
    > "how to execute a process...")
    >
    >
    > > > Finally, just to add more fuel to the fire, let's think long and
    > > > hard about
    > > > who the people are that work on open source software. Do they work
    day
    > in
    > > > and day out on that software for a living? The majority of them,
    > > > no. Then
    > > > why do they do it? Perhaps it's for a "love of the game", if you
    will.
    > > > Internal motivation, I think, is incredibly more powerful than
    external
    > > > motivation.
    >
    > > You mean like the "love of the game" the virus writers have?
    >
    > Yes, the same thing. Is that supposed to make open source people look
    like
    > bad guys or something? Just because you like pie and Charles Manson likes
    > pie doesn't mean you intend to chop up a bunch of people.
    >
    > > > fear the fact that they may soon be obsolete. They may soon be
    obsolete
    > > > because the minds of 20 open source people working on an open source
    > > > project might just
    > > > eventually produce a product that rivals, or is even better than,
    > > > the closed source person's product.
    >
    > > Complete rot!! The Linux kernel is just NOW getting around to releasing
    > > things like preemptive multitasking (in the kernel) and processor
    affinity
    > > that have been in Windows since NT - this is years folks! These 20
    people
    > > sure are kicking software butt aren't they?
    >
    > So, you countered my general argument with a specific example. This is an
    > ineffective form of arguing. The reason it is ineffective is because I
    too
    > could go and enumerate a list of things that the Open Source community
    have
    > done that the Closed Source haven't done yet. In fact, your specific
    > citation has pointed out the truth in one of my premises -- that 20 open
    > source people might eventually produce a product that rivals a closed
    source
    > product. Also, keep in mind, that I stated that those 20 open source
    > programmers might eventually do it BETTER than the closed source people.
    > Success of software is, in the end, not determined by who did it first,
    > rather it is determined by who did it BEST.
    >
    > > Bill Casey
    >
    > Matt
    >
    > ---
    > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
    > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
    >
    > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@positivenetworks.net
    > To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    > > state of the art, and society in general, rather than all sitting
    > working for different companies individually writing code to solve
    > the same old
    > > > problems for which code has been written many times before. It's a
    > > > service model instead of a property model, and it enables a vastly
    > > > greater proportion of a limited resource to be spent on innovation and
    > > > advancement instead of repeating the same old same old.
    > >
    > > Wow! "sitting around working for different companies"! The fall of the
    > > Soviet Union must have been a CRUSHING blow to you.
    >
    > Why do you say such a silly thing? What is the connection between
    > your distortion of what I said, dishonestly enclosed in quotation marks,
    > and your comment?

    You're right; my apologies for inserting "around" - very dishonest, a grave
    distortion, very silly! I suppose sitting 'around' (after your
    non-programming day job presumably) "advancing the state of the art, and
    society in general" (did I get that one right?) is what you do. But really,
    referring to honesty when we're discussing the 'Open Theft Community' is a
    bit of a stretch, what?

    Bill Casey
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    > Nobody's saying that they should give away their software for
    > free. Giving people read access to your source is lightyears away from
    GPL'ing it.

    THIS is good - "read access to your source" - like that doesn't give them
    WRITE access to copy it!

    > Yes, open source is a different philosophy from closed source. No,
    > open-sources are not generally thieves, nor are they lazy, stupid or
    > "fascist". That's the dumbest argument I've heard in a while. I
    > would have thought that there were better manners among people who are
    capable of
    > writing kernel-level software. Alas, it seems I'm wrong.

    Gee, a .DE return address! Why am I surprised? Was it the word fascist
    that got you? Like it isn't fascist to impose your opinion/world-view on
    everyone else? Notice I said impose not share. You guys in the Open Sore
    twilight are DEMANDING that all source be free and open. What is that?
    Benevolent dictatorship?

    Bill
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    > And where, exactly, did you get all of that wisdom? I've worked with open
    > source people in the past, and none of them is even remotely like the
    > fictional people you're describing here.
    >
    > You really like your cold-war foe images, don't you?
    > --
    > Burkhard Daniel
    >
    > mtronix Precision Measuring Instruments
    > xxxxx@mtronix.de * www.mtronix.de

    ANOTHER .DE address heard from - you guys are staying up late. No,
    actually, I was never much of a cold warrior. But I DO remember something
    called the Berlin airlift - heard of it? That's where we selfish,
    money-grubbing, ideologues saved a city for a year - but I could be wrong.

    Bill Casey
  • William_J._CaseyWilliam_J._Casey Member - All Emails Posts: 52
    > > > why do they do it? Perhaps it's for a "love of the game", if
    > you will.
    > > > Internal motivation, I think, is incredibly more powerful
    > than external
    > > > motivation.
    >
    > > You mean like the "love of the game" the virus writers have?
    >
    > Yes, the same thing. Is that supposed to make open source people
    > look like bad guys or something? Just because you like pie and Charles
    Manson likes
    > pie doesn't mean you intend to chop up a bunch of people.

    Oh no? You Open Sore guys are trying to up chop the entire independent
    software development industry by depriving them of income. Face it; all
    this talk of "society in general" and better software through an
    international mind meld is just a ruse and bilge respectively.

    > > Complete rot!! The Linux kernel is just NOW getting around to releasing
    > > things like preemptive multitasking (in the kernel) and
    > processor affinity
    > > that have been in Windows since NT - this is years folks!
    > These 20 people
    > > sure are kicking software butt aren't they?
    >
    > So, you countered my general argument with a specific example. This is an
    > ineffective form of arguing.

    Well, pardon me all to hell down here in Texas. I didn't know argument
    form was going to count.

    > The reason it is ineffective is
    > because I too could go and enumerate a list of things that the Open Source
    > community have done that the Closed Source haven't done yet. In fact,
    your specific
    > citation has pointed out the truth in one of my premises -- that 20 open
    > source people might eventually produce a product that rivals a
    > closed source product. Also, keep in mind, that I stated that those 20
    open source
    > programmers might eventually do it BETTER than the closed source people.
    > Success of software is, in the end, not determined by who did it first,
    > rather it is determined by who did it BEST.

    Yep, the operative word there is MIGHT!

    That's all folks! No more Looney tunes for me - unless it is something I
    just can't resist :).

    Bill Casey
  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 7,262
    "Bill Casey" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >

    Let's all have a sing, shall we:

    Arise, ye pris'ners of starvation!
    Arise, ye wretched of the earth,
    For justice thunders condemnation,
    A better world is in birth.
    ...

    Oh, sorry, Bill... you're not singing, are you.

    (sorry... but this whole socialist thing just lights my bulb)

    Peter

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Upcoming OSR Seminars
Developing Minifilters 29 July 2019 OSR Seminar Space
Writing WDF Drivers 23 Sept 2019 OSR Seminar Space
Kernel Debugging 21 Oct 2019 OSR Seminar Space
Internals & Software Drivers 18 Nov 2019 Dulles, VA