OT: Why not expose software source code?

[UseNetAuthor]

Recently in financial news, there is a story about how Windows is less
expensive than Linux to run on personal computer desktops.
....
On his way to work that morning, Bill Gates notices the same story and
exclaims "That's great!" and proceeds to raise the operating cost of
Windows.



What if all software source code were exposed like a book? (not free,
just open).

....Copyrights would be easily enforceable. The software source code would
be exposed upon release of each version.
....The playing field for applications programmers maybe would be closer
to level. Outside developers might still be left behind, but any dirty
tricks would be exposed to everyone when Windows is released.
....Foreign governments wouldn't be switching to Linux because they find
"NSA_KEY" burried in the source of Windows somewhere (they have other
reasons, that is just one example).

Seems to me that hiding things in the code is the reason big software
companies balk at the idea of exposed source code.

What are the pros and cons of keeping software source code hidden? Assume
the source for all programs worldwide would have to be exposed. By
"exposed source code" I mean the whole thing so that it can be compiled
remotely into the fully functional retail program.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jim Macklin]

It is like cooking, you may use the same ingredients but the
cake will taste different when cooked under slightly
different conditions.


| Recently in financial news, there is a story about how
Windows is less
| expensive than Linux to run on personal computer desktops.
| ...
| On his way to work that morning, Bill Gates notices the
same story and
| exclaims "That's great!" and proceeds to raise the
operating cost of
| Windows.
|
|
|
| What if all software source code were exposed like a book?
(not free,
| just open).
|
| ...Copyrights would be easily enforceable. The software
source code would
| be exposed upon release of each version.
| ...The playing field for applications programmers maybe
would be closer
| to level. Outside developers might still be left behind,
but any dirty
| tricks would be exposed to everyone when Windows is
released.
| ...Foreign governments wouldn't be switching to Linux
because they find
| "NSA_KEY" burried in the source of Windows somewhere (they
have other
| reasons, that is just one example).
|
| Seems to me that hiding things in the code is the reason
big software
| companies balk at the idea of exposed source code.
|
| What are the pros and cons of keeping software source code
hidden? Assume
| the source for all programs worldwide would have to be
exposed. By
| "exposed source code" I mean the whole thing so that it
can be compiled
| remotely into the fully functional retail program.
|
| Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
| --
| (My bias. I am not anti Microsoft but I am pro choice of
applications
| which means Microsoft probably shouldn't make
applications. That's not
| for argument, just for reference.)

 

[UseNetAuthor]

It is like cooking, you may use the same ingredients but the
cake will taste different when cooked under slightly
different conditions.

So we just cook Windows twice as long?

"UseNetAuthor" <[email protected]> wrote in message

<snip, see the original post please>

 

[Steve]

If it's not open source, MS can monopolise the market.

 

[Theorem]

What are the pros and cons of keeping software source code hidden?

Keeping things secret means you've got something to hide. Now, if it's
proprietary information you've got and you want to keep "trade secrets" to
maintain a competitive advantage from knowledge you've developed, then you
hide that from view so your competitors and would-be competitors can't see
it and profit from your work.

But if it's defective goods you've got, then you might want to hide that
from view to keep your customer base under a sort of ether about your
product. As long as the source code is secret, then you can brag at length
about how wonderful your operating system is without anyone being the wiser.
And when a flaw is discovered, you can scramble to patch it without
revealing to anyone else -- even yourself -- how riddled with flaws your
product is.

Open source software does not suffer from the secret code syndrome.

(My bias. I am not anti Microsoft but I am pro choice of applications
which means Microsoft probably shouldn't make applications. That's not
for argument, just for reference.)

This is why Microsoft should have been split into two separate companies: an
operating system company (making Windows) and an application program company
(making Office and other apps). You'd see Office for Linux real quick under
that scheme. And the playing field for developers would be much more level.

 

[Lorne Smith]

Well.. would YOU like strangers nosing around your dirty underwear?

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Recently in financial news, there is a story about how Windows is less
expensive than Linux to run on personal computer desktops.

Actually, I think that was the story about one consulting firm being
paid by Microsoft to do a study.

On his way to work that morning, Bill Gates notices the same story and
exclaims "That's great!" and proceeds to raise the operating cost of
Windows.

What if all software source code were exposed like a book? (not free,
just open).

...Copyrights would be easily enforceable. The software source code would
be exposed upon release of each version.

And what if someone spots some open source code (or their own
proprietary code) in the Windows source?

...The playing field for applications programmers maybe would be closer
to level. Outside developers might still be left behind, but any dirty
tricks would be exposed to everyone when Windows is released.
...Foreign governments wouldn't be switching to Linux because they find
"NSA_KEY" burried in the source of Windows somewhere (they have other
reasons, that is just one example).

Seems to me that hiding things in the code is the reason big software
companies balk at the idea of exposed source code.

What are the pros and cons of keeping software source code hidden? Assume
the source for all programs worldwide would have to be exposed. By
"exposed source code" I mean the whole thing so that it can be compiled
remotely into the fully functional retail program.

Its easier to steal code if you can hide it in a binary-only
distribution.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto[email protected]
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
A limerick packs laughs anatomical
Into space that is quite economical.
But the good ones I've seen
So seldom are clean,
And the clean ones so seldom are comical.

 

[Dave Hazelwood]

yea verily.

Keeping things secret means you've got something to hide. Now, if it's
proprietary information you've got and you want to keep "trade secrets" to
maintain a competitive advantage from knowledge you've developed, then you
hide that from view so your competitors and would-be competitors can't see
it and profit from your work.

But if it's defective goods you've got, then you might want to hide that
from view to keep your customer base under a sort of ether about your
product. As long as the source code is secret, then you can brag at length
about how wonderful your operating system is without anyone being the wiser.
And when a flaw is discovered, you can scramble to patch it without
revealing to anyone else -- even yourself -- how riddled with flaws your
product is.

Open source software does not suffer from the secret code syndrome.


This is why Microsoft should have been split into two separate companies: an
operating system company (making Windows) and an application program company
(making Office and other apps). You'd see Office for Linux real quick under
that scheme. And the playing field for developers would be much more level.

 

[UseNetAuthor]

UseNetAuthor wrote:

Actually, I think that was the story about one consulting firm being
paid by Microsoft to do a study.

Correct. Maybe Giga Research or similar.

And what if someone spots some open source code (or their own
proprietary code) in the Windows source?

It works that way too. But with so many in the world complaining about
Windows hiding stuff (and all the problems Microsoft's hidden code
generates) I think a law that exposes all published software code might
benefit the industry.

Linux is free, but not because its source code is exposed. IOW, Windows
wouldn't have to be free.

Its easier to steal code if you can hide it in a binary-only
distribution.

I guess open source developers are at a distinct legal disadvantage for
that reason. Good point.

 

[T. Max Devlin]

In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard Dave Hazelwood say:

yea verily.

Amen.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Correct. Maybe Giga Research or similar.


It works that way too. But with so many in the world complaining about
Windows hiding stuff (and all the problems Microsoft's hidden code
generates) I think a law that exposes all published software code might
benefit the industry.

But not when most IT managers and legislators define "the industry" as
Microsoft. Anything threatening them would, by definition, not be good
for "the industry".

Keep in mind that one reason Microsoft has, until recently, been
hesitant to pay a dividend to their stockholders is that they figure
that a good portion of their cash is needed to cover costs of legal
defense. 50 billion dollars is quite a bit of corporate guilt.

Linux is free, but not because its source code is exposed. IOW, Windows
wouldn't have to be free.

That's correct. Copyright and licensing would still belong to Microsoft.

 

[a guy in Texas]

So STOP using microsoft.

Get a Mac and be virus FREE

 

[Just Me]

So STOP using microsoft.

Get a Mac and be virus FREE

No one writes a virus for Mac because it wouldn't effect anyone.

 

[Francis]

| > UseNetAuthor wrote:

| Linux is free, but not because ...


I realize this may be a dumb question, but here goes...

Did you say Linux was "Free"? Please Elaborate on this...I'm a bit confused
why you say free.

Thanks.

 

[Just Me]

| > UseNetAuthor wrote:

| Linux is free, but not because ...

I realize this may be a dumb question, but here goes...
Did you say Linux was "Free"?

Yes, as in "without charge" or "free"

Please Elaborate on this...I'm a bit confused why you say free.

Because, many months ago I legally downloaded a whole bunch of Linux
distributions (different flavors of Linux from various vendors) for free.

 

[a guy in Texas]

I use a Mac (home use). I can do anything I need to do. I can open
alter save and send almost any type file to my PC at work... without
the hassles of virii.

 

[SunSpot]

Except that there ARE viruses that effect Macs.
Remember the one that was actually distributed an a CD (think it was
Macworld, but could be a different one). I know I remember it, it hit my
roommates G3.
And now that the OS is Linux based, you will probably start seeing a lot
more.

 

[Jim Macklin]

If you look at www.mcafee.com under virus information, you
will find a bunch of Mac viruses listed.


| Except that there ARE viruses that effect Macs.
| Remember the one that was actually distributed an a CD
(think it was
| Macworld, but could be a different one). I know I remember
it, it hit my
| roommates G3.
| And now that the OS is Linux based, you will probably
start seeing a lot
| more.
|
| | > I use a Mac (home use). I can do anything I need to do.
I can open
| > alter save and send almost any type file to my PC at
work... without
| > the hassles of virii.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > In article
<[email protected]>, Just Me
| >
| > >
| > > > So STOP using microsoft.
| > > >
| > > > Get a Mac and be virus FREE
| > >
| > > No one writes a virus for Mac because it wouldn't
effect anyone.
|
|

 

[techie]

Except that there ARE viruses that effect Macs.
Remember the one that was actually distributed an a CD (think it was
Macworld, but could be a different one). I know I remember it, it hit my
roommates G3.
And now that the OS is Linux based, you will probably start seeing a lot
more.

OS X is FreeBSD based, not linux-based. It can run linux applications
but they're recompiled for OS X. The bit patterns will be different
from the same applications compiled for Linux. A worm or virus would
have to be compiled specifically for OS X but then it wouldn't infect
Linux systems. This lack of a monoculture is a real pain for
virus-writers.

I have no idea what Apple's done to change FreeBSD into OS X, but if
they didn't screw it up too badly OS X should be quite a bit more
virus-proof than Windows. The more likely source of problems will be
insecure Internet applications that can also be used to spread a
worm. For example if an email client can be taken over by sending it
an attachment, then the client could be used to email the attachment
to other people on the mailing list. However it would be very
difficult for the worm to infect the kernel, system applications, or
another user's applications and data.

Again that probably isn't a problem with Linux applications taken
directly from the project sites. When it happens, it'll be caused by a
poorly-written commercial application or a linux application that's
been bastardized just to make it look pretty.

Things are different for Windows applications being run under a
simulator. A simulater is designed to run Windows applications. It
doesn't know the difference between a virus and Outlook Express and
will quite happily run either. Using Outlook Express on a Windows
simulator on the Mac, is as risky to your Windows environment there as
it is on a real Windows machine. How risky it is to the overall OS
depends on how the simulator is implemented. When I run Windows
applications under WINE on my FreeBSD box they're in a sort of jail.
The simulated Windows environment can be infected but the worm or
virus can't touch anything outside that.

But it's also possible to configure WINE so it can access the rest of
your box and that can be very bad, although at least you still enjoy
the usual protections of file permissions and a multiuser OS.

 

[a guy in Texas]

No question....

but like someone said. Why write a virus that will affect 3%.

hehehe.... I LOVE it