Posted on 01/25/2006 7:10:50 AM PST by ShadowAce
So what else is new? ;-)
I read further. This wasn't the EU's request, but Microsoft's choice. The EU never asked for code, only documentation. My guess is that Microsoft didn't have the APIs completely documented in the first place, and just thought releasing the code would make it easier to fully comply than combing through the code and documenting everything.
I admit I'm being anal here, but no such thing as above Top Secret, just different compartments within Top Secret. NSA crypto would probably be TS/SCI/SI (Top Secret, Special Compartmented Information, Special Intelligence).
It doesn't address that. This addresses interoperability with third-party products, another part of the antitrust action. And the EU never asked for code, only documentation about the APIs.
Yes, it's almost like projects such as SAMBA don't really exist.
And the EU never asked for code, only documentation about the APIs.
They've asked for code now. Apparently they didn't like the documentation they received back in March.
Yes, you are being anal. The compartments are loosely known as "above ts".
Remember, this action is about what the state was in the 90s. They've done a lot of reverse-engineering since then, and Microsoft has actually become cooperative.
They've asked for code now. Apparently they didn't like the documentation they received back in March.
They didn't think what Microsoft sent was good enough, and requested more complete documentation. Microsoft basically said "You want better documentation? We'll do you one better and give you the code." The EU didn't request code.
And it's still not enough:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4652730.stm
So, do you really dislike Microsoft this much that the Eurosocialists are now the good guys - one of those ends-justify-the-means kind of things?
Maybe colloquially, but not when you work with this stuff.
I do, son, I do.
May not be enough -- they're withholding judgement. Although the tone of the article makes me say "Friggin' socialists, give'em an inch and they take a mile."
It is true that code isn't the end-all of documentation. Anyone who's waded through thousands of lines of another's undocumented code knows what I mean. Still, surely the previous documentation plus the code should be enough for any reasonable person -- but who says the EU is reasonable?
do you really dislike Microsoft this much that the Eurosocialists are now the good guys -
Read my earlier post from before I found out the code production wasn't forced. Anyone should be free to license their code how they want, open or closed, as long as that license doesn't violate law.
So do I, but I've never heard "above TS" from those working with it, only whether you have need to know or are cleared for that compartmentalized info.
"but I've never heard "
So, beause you didn't hear of it it doesn't happen? Let's just drop it. silly argument.
Oh, come on. Let's roll through Sourceforge and start counting up projects where the source code is the only documentation that exists at all. They've got the protocol sources they requested, the API docs they requested, and MS is offering tech support for the folks who have to go through it. How about we just mandate that Microsoft not only provide all this information, but actually write a competing implementation for everyone else to use. Is that zero-effort enough for you?
Which isn't a good thing. Those are projects that are not going to get much participation.
They've got the protocol sources they requested, the API docs they requested, and MS is offering tech support for the folks who have to go through it.
You must read the articles about this. They got some of the API docs they requested, but not enough for them, not enough to completely document the APIs to ensure the ability of programmers to make compatible products. They got the code which they did not request because Microsoft didn't feel like completing the API documentation.
It's not really an argument, it's just that I'm a purist on various things. Poorly indented code is an example, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard for me. Another is improperly referencing security, despite what the vernacular may be, since it can lead to confusion. I'm kind of a stickler for security and clear rules for communication of sensitive or complex subjects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.