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

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. :slight_smile:
>
> 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)
>
>
>

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:
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” 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

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 :slight_smile:


Best regards,
Ivona Prenosilova

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 :slight_smile:


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

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 :slight_smile:
>
> –
> 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

“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 :slight_smile:
>

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)

“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

>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 :slight_smile:


Best regards,
Ivona Prenosilova

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
>
>
>
>

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

“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

“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.

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” 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
>

> > 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

> 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. :slight_smile:

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” 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
>
>
>
>


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

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” 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.
>

> > 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

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)

> 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