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
>
>
>
>