IBM goes slow on XP update

Quote:

---

I didn't submit this article or create this thread for anyone to gain Ap's and I don't give a rats ass if it does get positive ap's but I don't want it being closed either, I want to get this site and forums back to what they were created for security discussions etc.

---

I agree there. The thing is, there are too many chiefs and not enough indians. Now throw a troll in the mix and you have the battle of a lifetime. IMO, there is no reason to listen to a moderator/admin wannabe. When an admin or moderator closes it, moves it, or whatever, then worry about it. Otherwise, have fun.

Quote:

---

I give green points for people who share different opinions and are not afraid to say them, because I'm fine with discussion.

---

and since when will your little gif's do anything for me or anybody else for that matter?

Oh, and when I get a response from MS and/or IBM and they say they are in fact using source for SP2 to suit needs I will promptly say I am wrong, but I will not apologize. I am still looking to see where MS is sharing, giving or whatever to SP2's source code. Modifying what is already there to suit one's needs is so different from modifying the source itself to suit one's needs. I'll look and see...

Oh, and if you did quote the sources on where you got that info in the first place, you would have made your argument valid.

However, I also get the blanket "search Google" **** without any real place on where you found IBM got the source to SP2.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1624878,00.asp

Quote:

---

The source code provided under the program covers Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and future versions of Windows operating systems, including all released versions, service packs, betas and subsequent releases.

---

Okay, looking some more, I found the shared source does cover betas and service packs to select people, and now for the $10 million question. Does IBM use this service as well. Does this program cover modifications to the source to make things easier to everybody else?

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/s...nterprise.mspx

Quote:

---

Use and Restrictions
*Licensees may read and reference the source code but may not modify it.
*The license term is one year.

---

Looks like they cannot modify the source even if they did get it, so does that mean IBM did get the source and did not change it? I do not think IBM is any more special than the next guy.

So, Pooh, if you are not allowed to change the source even if you did get it, then how did IBM get the source and change it to suit thir needs? That is another mystery.

Now... show me where you got the information where IBM did indeed modify the source. Therefore, I will contact MS tomorrow and ask them directly about it and see what they say.

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/info...iconvalley.asp

:p

Oh, and you are still a moderator/admin wannabe. That opinion will never change as with your opinions of me. I am not popular here, nor do I intend to. I will speak my mind no matter how many times I get banned. That means you can get mad at me all you want. You will not change my mind or opinions because America is great :D

Oh, DeadAddict, looks like this "ripping links" for greenies turned into a great discussion man... you should post more!! :D :D

This is in regards to link posting, not the actual thread topic. I think posting new links is great. During the day I only have time to go to a few sites to check news. If people didn't do some proof reading and link posting I think a lot of people would miss out on a lot of info.

Maybe this should be its own thread topic?

Quote:

---

Maybe this should be its own thread topic?

---

I dunno. However, was part of this argument dealing with links for greenies? Ya know, it does not matter what people do, somebody will find something wrong with it or find something new to bitch, whine and complain about.

You do what you need to do.

I disagree that posting news articles is low-quality -- it all depends on how you do it. If you just post an article and leave it at that, it's a crap thread. But I've posted article excerpts as thread starters before myself, but did so ending with a question in hopes of sparking a specific discussion. Yes, I could go to their forums, but I don't want to know what they think, I want to know what you think.

We do have a lot of crap threads, but for goodness sake, let's not overcorrect the problem.

That outta the way...

So Pooh, what's the tactic business-wise that MS has in mind sharing code with IBM? I wouldn't have expected that, since IBM and MS are competitors, right? What does MS have to gain from this?

Quote:

---

We do have a lot of crap threads, but for goodness sake, let's not overcorrect the problem.

---

Some are really good at that you know.

Quote:

---

So Pooh, what's the tactic business-wise that MS has in mind sharing code with IBM? I wouldn't have expected that, since IBM and MS are competitors, right? What does MS have to gain from this?

---

From what I read, there is really no hard evidence to see if MS is sharing **** with IBM. Yeah, they might have some license agreement or whatever, but the thing that really lifted the red flags was when I read IBM was using the source to SP2 to suit it for its needs.

In the old days, like when Windows NT was just starting, MS and IBM were in bed together, but later on, MS and IBM went seperate ways and MS kept NT while IBM kept OS/2. We all know what happened with that story. If not, check out a bit of history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...deways:_OS.2F2

so with that in mind, why would MS go back and let the fierce competition have, use or share the source?

Quote:

---

By the early 1990s, tensions developed in the Microsoft/IBM relationship. They co-operated with each other in developing their PC operating systems, and had access to each other's code. Microsoft wanted to further develop Windows, while IBM desired for future work to be based on OS/2. In an attempt to resolve this tension, IBM and Microsoft agreed that IBM would develop OS/2 2.0, to replace OS/2 1.3 and Windows 3.0, while Microsoft would develop a new operating system, OS/2 3.0, to later succeed OS/2 2.0.

This agreement soon however fell apart, and the Microsoft/IBM relationship was terminated. IBM continued to develop OS/2, while Microsoft changed the name of its (as yet unreleased) OS/2 3.0 to Windows NT. Both retained the rights to use OS/2 and Windows technology developed up to the termination of the agreement; Windows NT, however, was to be written anew, mostly independently (see below).

---

lol an argument of the internal workings of IBM? Poo never said they would modify the source but perhaps their own internal applications? He even stated "custom modification to sp2 BY Microsoft." People seem to have a very centric view of IT and that involves their local home environment or a small company who does not develop critical processes effected by even a minute change in OS or application software. These IT managers and technician get "scared" of updates, even when security is important to prevent internal sabotage of segmented access restrictions. NO ONE with business critical applications would deploy service packs right out of the box. I am not talking about a web page or an email server, I am talking industrial size applications, perhaps a system that controls robots at a factory in which a small glitch could cost millions and one's job? Or a backbone for a major cellular network operating 27,000 T1 connectons across the globe. Not the same as Bob macking some "Zaa while watching windows update his nice little game box.


:)



//EDIT Why would Microsof be nice to IBM? Because if they don't IBM will use a different platform for many many many Windows based products. Money talks my friend. IBM is not longer a threat to MS Windows, but perhaps if they go another route...?

Aaaaah, I get it. So IBM is allowed the source code so they can have a chance to mold their enterprise applications around it accordingly, right? I was thinking they were getting to actual play with the code there, that's what had me thrown off.

Indeed, if we were XP instead of 2000 I'd be really nervous about all this too...

Quote:

---

lol an argument of the internal workings of IBM? Poo never said they would modify the source but perhaps their own internal applications? He even stated "custom modification to sp2 BY Microsoft

---

Which again begs the question "Why?" So MS is actually doing IBM a favor? If they are, I bet at a very, very nice premium. I also asked if he meant modifying the application and not the source itself as well. I think the former is more plausable than the latter.

So yeah, that's what this argument is about.... among other things too.

Quote:

---

Aaaaah, I get it. So IBM is allowed the source code so they can have a chance to mold their enterprise applications around it accordingly, right? I was thinking they were getting to actual play with the code there, that's what had me thrown off.

Indeed, if we were XP instead of 2000 I'd be really nervous about all this too...

---

Uhhhh.... no. I do not think so at least. If MS and IBM did have a shared source licensing agreement, they would be allowed to look at the source not modify it. Unless they have some licensing agreement that lets them do that, I have not seen or found that. I am guessing all off this **** boils down to this:

1. IBM is making sure the **** works before deploying it. That's common and good practice.

2. I doubt they have the actual SP2 source to modify it for its own needs. If they are, what licensing agreement do IBM and MS have?

It's just common sense, but hey, what do I know? heh

What I am thinking is that IBM is going to pick out specific packages/ updates from the long list that they know will work and not cause problems later on and then install them afterwards, I also believe that IBM is not going to attempt to reverse engineer any of the code that is in the service packs unless they have written permission from microsoft to do so.