Microsoft says that the code for its update to the Windows XP operating system is finally ready. But IBM's internal technology department disagrees.
Source:
http://news.com.com/IBM+goes+slow+on...46.html?tag=nl
Printable View
Microsoft says that the code for its update to the Windows XP operating system is finally ready. But IBM's internal technology department disagrees.
Source:
http://news.com.com/IBM+goes+slow+on...46.html?tag=nl
When are we going to stop ripping news directly from /. ? It also has nothing to do about them 'disagreeing', it has to do with IBM customizing the SP2 source code to their own network needs rather than taking the stock patch.
SP2 is gold and final, IBM has admitted to this. But, like many major companies are doing, they want certain things customized in it and MS is now granting permissions for them to do so,
I figured it would get a discussion going seeing how nearly everyone complains that garbage threads are being created. If it doesn't get any more reply's then this thread will slowly move down off the list.
It is something to discuss, and I want to talk about it.Quote:
I figured it would get a discussion going seeing how nearly everyone complains that garbage threads are being created. If it doesn't get any more reply's then this thread will slowly move down and will probably be forgotten about.
So it looks like they are going to test it more to make sure it works for thier customers.Quote:
In the memo to employees, seen by CNET News.com, IBM's internal technology department stated that Windows XP SP2 will "change the behavior of Internet Explorer and cause some application incompatibilities." The memo also noted that some "high-profile, business-critical applications are also known to conflict with SP2."
Quote:
While some businesses, such as IBM, are deciding to test the update throroughly before installing it, consumers buying new PCs are likely to get SP2 soon. Microsoft said it is working with computer manufacturers to get them to start using SP2 as soon as possible.
Now where did you get this information from? I did not know Microsoft gave source code to competitors.Quote:
IBM customizing the SP2 source code to their own network needs rather than taking the stock patch.
There are critics to SP2, and even though you might toot it "is gold and final" this is not the end all solutions to the operating system's flaws and problems. Not just from MS itself, but from other third party apps.
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com...998904,00.html
So while it is ready to work for some, it is not ready for everybody.Quote:
Microsoft's workaround to address security holes in Internet Explorer may successfully block future attacks. But it fails to fix the browser's core problem and may actually interfere with programs that have worked fine to date, some information security experts said yesterday. They added that the company must respond to flaws more quickly than it has in the past.
A spokesperson for the software giant said critics must keep in mind that the configuration change announced Friday for Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2000 is not a permanent fix. Rather, it's a temporary measure to stave off attacks until Microsoft releases more comprehensive security updates in the next few weeks.
Oh, by the way, there is no need to explain yourself to AntiOnline administrator/Moderator wannabes that plague the boards. IMO, you are following the rules and want to discuss stuff. Nothing wrong there. It seems there is a new bitch session about how people post and go about things every week and have to walk on eggshells. Go ahead, post what you feel is important, and ignore little **** from bitches like pooh sun tzu. :flip:
Oh and for the record... pooh sun tzu goes on IRC and bitches to me what I said and promptly ignores me. That is fine.
Here are some points for you to ponder.
1. I do read articles, Slashdot and other places about things such as this. Sure, Microsoft has a shared source initiative and does give out source to others. However, nowhere in the articlde does it say anything about MS sharing or giving source to anybody. Sure, IBM can customize it when it gets MS's permission, and can further test it for compatiability for thier software.
2. That is fine you assume I do not know anything and I do not read anything. No, I do not know everything, and that is why I asked you for more sources as to where you got the information on where IBM got the source to modify it for its needs. Instead of saying where, you go on IRC and be a little bitch. Fine, I'll look some more :)
3. I did not misquote you. I went with what you said.
4. It is also OK to say I am a newbie here on antionline. Ask other members how long I have been here. However, how long you have been on a site is immaterial on what you know and other things. You can be doing something for years and not know ****.
Okay, for your peace of mind, I will say what you want to hear... ready?
<sarcasm>You are right. I am wrong.</sarcasm>
Hey, this looks like this is worth discussing :D
The second paragraph from the article. Did you fall asleep?Quote:
Now where did you get this information from?
But IBM last week told employees to hold off installing SP2 until Big Blue can fully test and customize it. The company's technology department said the delay is "due to known application problems and incompatibility with IBM workstation applications."
See that? Because IBM has custom applications it needs custom modifications to SP2 by Microsoft.
Didn't know they gave out Windows and SP2 source code? Read more /., as that is where this story came from:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/s...g/default.mspx
There are critics to everything. There are also those who have not only beta tested it, but are already running it on production servers. Have you even installed it? I know I have, as well as helped test it into the final release. Does this mean it is perfect? No, nothing is. But it deserves more than "OMFG MS FSCKED UP AGAIN!"Quote:
There are critics to SP2
Insults? That's all you can backup your argument with is insults instead of facts? Come on now, AO deserves more than that.Quote:
Oh, by the way, there is no need to explain yourself to AntiOnline administrator/Moderator wannabes that plague the boards. IMO, you are following the rules and want to discuss stuff. Nothing wrong there. It seems there is a new bitch session about how people post and go about things every week and have to walk on eggshells. Go ahead, post what you feel is important, and ignore little **** from bitches like pooh sun tzu.
Actually this article was posted on slashdot on Monday August 09, @06:36PM and News.com put it up Published: August 9, 2004, 8:54 AM PDT.
But where in that paragraph does it say source code? Hmmm, that's a mystery!Quote:
But IBM last week told employees to hold off installing SP2 until Big Blue can fully test and customize it. The company's technology department said the delay is "due to known application problems and incompatibility with IBM workstation applications."
And yes, I do know about the shared source initiative, and could not find anything about IBM (oops, heh) getting source from MS shared or whatever. Sure, I'll look into it more, even if I have to ask IBM themselves :D
And yes. There is no reason for that dude to explain himself to you. He was making conversation, and wants to talk about this. We are talking about now, are we ;) And you can yell, scream and pitch a fit all you want. That will not change my opinions.
It's called research, something we all learned to do in middle school. Visit popular sites like http://www.google.com http://www.slashdot.org http://www.news.com http://www.antionline.comQuote:
But where in that paragraph does it say source code? Hmmm, that's a mystery!
See above comment.Quote:
And yes, I do know about the shared source initiative, and could not find anything about OBN getting source from MS shared or whatever
We are posting news in a security discussion area? The news that gets posted here is usually by the same people, with usually 0 responces, that was stripped from slashdot or news.com. That's great guys, if we wanted to discuss it we would go to the news source, not another dead thread that is screaming for APQuote:
And yes. There is no reason for that dude to explain himself to you. He was making conversation, and wants to talk about this. We are talking about now, are we
I don't care if you have a different opinion. That's fine and expected. I care that you decided to take this down to an insulting level rather than a 'discussion' We should both be older than that. I give green points for people who share different opinions and are not afraid to say them, because I'm fine with discussion.Quote:
And you can yell, scream and pitch a fit all you want. That will not change my opinions.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST PART
I'm not fine when a psuedo discussion turns into an insulting war on your part.
Thanks DeadAddict :)Quote:
Actually this article was posted on slashdot on Monday August 09, @06:36PM and News.com put it up Published: August 9, 2004, 8:54 AM PDT.
Umm, DeadAddict, were you greenie wh0ring? I kinda doubt it.Quote:
We are posting news in a security discussion area? The news that gets posted here is usually by the same people, with usually 0 responces, that was stripped from slashdot or news.com. That's great guys, if we wanted to discuss it we would go to the news source, not another dead thread that is screaming for AP
I contacted MS about this via e-mail and will see what they are doing with IBM to settle this once and for all. :D
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 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.
and since when will your little gif's do anything for me or anybody else for that matter?Quote:
I give green points for people who share different opinions and are not afraid to say them, because I'm fine with discussion.
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
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?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.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/s...nterprise.mspx
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.Quote:
Use and Restrictions
*Licensees may read and reference the source code but may not modify it.
*The license term is one year.
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?
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.Quote:
Maybe this should be its own thread topic?
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?
Some are really good at that you know.Quote:
We do have a lot of crap threads, but for goodness sake, let's not overcorrect the problem.
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.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?
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...
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.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
So yeah, that's what this argument is about.... among other things 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: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...
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.
Yep, that's the $10 million question. When I installed SP2, there was really no way to pick and choose what applications to install. Since as a end user cannot modify it, that was kind of a let down, but hey, it happens.Quote:
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.
And yeah I agree that it is a good idea to test the **** before deploying it. You see, some people say "ooo oooo oooo it's new and neat!!!" and install it right away, which is fine, but there are also people that take things cautiously and methodically. Maybe IBM is doing that...
I am still waiting for a response from MS and IBM :)
**Kicks pooh in the face again**
Most likely to a flaver of a couple hundred million dollars. MS doesn't even give out their "Approved for Windows" stamp of approval without a price. Competitors flop that on their boxes all the time. Microsoft will even play mammas bitch for a while then slap you down when you get too big. Ever heard of Digital Equipment Corp? They will even sue one part of a company while working with another division. It's business, and money is the motivation. IBM has HUGE amounts of windows licensing fees, as stated if they won't work with IBM then perhaps IBM will either cross platforms or counter sue. It's tricky.Quote:
Why?" So MS is actually doing IBM a favor
In case you didn't see my edit, check out previous post sbout money.
The article states MS will modify the source to possibly fit IBM needs, perhaps they even have Microsoft working within IBM, that is typical to have competitors working inside an organization to work on projects. Why, 100 million that's why. :)
Finally some companies do have access to MS souce code and it's NOT going to be public knowledge because those of competition secrets.
Yeah, now that makes sense. :)Quote:
In case you didn see my edit, check out previous post. The article states MS will modify the source to possibly fit IBM needs, perhaps they even have Microsoft working within IBM, that is typical to have competitors workin inside an organization to work on projects. Why, 100 million that's why.
Exactly. That's what I worried about when I contacted MS about it. I was thinking why would they tell me what they are doing behind closed office doors? I expect an enigmatic answer that does not answer this question directly, but perhaps something on the lines of licensing agreements and stuff like that.Quote:
Finally some companies do have access to MS souce code and it's NOT going to be public knowledge because those of competition secrets.
Common sense may state 2 companies could not work together but if Microsoft and IBM find a way to work together and share mutual profits, they will do so. Especially large companies with autonomous division.
Even bad blood comes together, and quite often... Couln't resist this link.
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/xseries/windows/
Maybe this is the culprit, who knows. IBM is called BIG Blue for a reason. BIG. Notice the words "Joint Dev."
Hey, thanks for the link. See, now this little mystery is getting clearer and clearer.
Still want to Kick Poo in the face? Just joking. You will see Microsoft working with enemys all the time. Why? (another angle) MS wants no NEEDS to have Windows preinstalled on managed server deployments. They bend over backwards to get those new out of box shiny servers installed with Windows. You can see the reasoning behind that.
After reading this I do belive that microsoft has no problems with IBM modifing the source code to suit their needs/hardware
Quote:
on the shores of scenic Lake Washington in Kirkland, Wash., is just six miles west of the Microsoft campus. It is a 50,000-square-foot complex where more than 130 software engineers, test and quality specialists and enterprise solution staffers adapt Microsoft's software products to IBM hardware and provide worldwide Level 3 support for Microsoft products on IBM hardware.
Uh huh, but like you said, it is very very touchy when the competiton starts tinkering with source code, and yeah, they will make damn sure it is right down to the iota on compliance. Another good example is the suit against IBM, SCO and Novell regarding Linux. What a mess.Quote:
Still want to Kick Poo in the face? Just joking. You will see Microsoft working with enemys all the time. Why? (another angle) MS wants no NEEDS to have Windows preinstalled on managed server deployments. They bend over backwards to get those new out of box shiny servers installed with Windows. You can see the reasoning behind that.
They all had licensing agrements, and because SCO felt IBM was throwing in the code for SystemV in open source software they are now suing for millions and millions of dollars. While the suit is still well underway and will probably last for a long long time, this is nothing new.
And yes, it's all about the money and ruling the world. MS without a doubt have a very tight stranglehold on the market and will go to great lengths to meet thier ends.
Howver, it is still not clear to what extent IBM and MS are doing or others for that matter.
Thanks DeadAddict. I did not know IBM had a whole complex of developers to make MS more money. :)