[Am-info] MS Source code

[Erick Andrews]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:02:10 -0800, Mitch Stone wrote:

>This article makes what looks to me to be some questionable assertions 
>about the significance of this leak. I suspect some serious technical 
>misunderstandings.

Probably so, but it is useful press for the 'plebes'.

>"Secondly, Microsoft's growth has come about because of its tight 
>control of its intellectual property - the source code of its products. 
>This has helped it maintain a stranglehold on the desktop computer 
>market. That hold has been demonstrably loosened now. Rivals could use 
>it to get a better idea of how Windows works and help them compete 
>against Microsoft."
>
>How has their hold been "demonstrably loosened" by the release of the 
>code? How might it help rivals, exactly?

I'd agree that "demonstrably" is a poor word choice.  However, I didn't
read anything strengthening, or maintaining status quo, either.

Will it loosen MS's stranglehold on the desktop market?  I doubt it,
at least for the near term.  I also doubt the leak will help MS's rivals
because I believe they will develop a different strategy:  better security.

>"Virus writers tend to be lazy and build on the efforts of others. Few 
>are likely to trawl through the millions of lines of code and go to the 
>trouble of working out where new vulnerabilities can be found. However, 
>it just takes one dedicated vandal to do the work and the tools will be 
>available to all"
>
>If this is really a problem with (some) Windows source code being made 
>available, why isn't it a huge problem for Linux, with the entire 
>source available to hackers and everyone else? Or how about OSX, a 
>large portion of which is also open source?

That's a darned good question.  Maybe sloppy "spaghetti" code on MS's
part?  The kind of programming that's not well documented, except
for the expletives that the article cites?  You'd think a $40+B company
with stars on Wall Street would have done better professionally.

I thought the BBC article was funny...and a bit perceptive for a change
on their part, even if technically wrong.  I think it points to MS's overall 
integrity.

What might more be interesting (I put on my "conspiracy hat" now) that
MS might use this leak in the future to renegue on cleaning up their
security failures.

<snip the rest>

Erick Andrews