| Wolfe's Den: Shared source, shared trust [Opinion] |
Nov. 07, 2002
Today�s argument: open (a.k.a. �shared�) source code is good.
Microsoft has valuable code, namely Windows. Accepting our premise, opening up Windows must therefore be a good idea. (The reasons why opening up source code is a plus would constitute a long, separate column, so let�s just assume it to be true.)
Thankfully, Microsoft has already taken a big step in the right direction. Some 45 percent of Windows CE source is currently open under Microsoft�s shared source license. Anyone can look at that code. Anyone can also do the previously unthinkable -- modify and redistribute it. (Redistribution must be for non-commercial purposes.) Companies that wish to see the remaining 55 percent of the code that�s not open, or want to use modifications in shipping products, have to go to Microsoft and get a license.
This almost-halfway uncovering of CE.NET has to date been spectacularly successful. There have been more than 100,000 downloads since January of the free CE.NET Emulation edition. This includes the OS itself and a platform-builder software development tool. (A device emulator and test suite are available separately.)
What�s keeping Microsoft from lifting the lid even higher? It�s probably because the company doesn�t want to end up with a flagship operating system that�s free. This would be called a zero-revenue business model.
From Microsoft�s point of view, that�s perfectly understandable. However, from our perspective as hard-nosed, kill-or-be-killed developers -- not to put too fine a point on it -- that�s their problem.
Our problems are different. We have intense time-to-market pressures. We have to engineer ever-more-sophisticated embedded devices which connect with both the wireless and wired worlds.
To do that quickly and effectively, we need access. If operating systems were designed using well-tempered software engineering practices where everything is neatly modularized or if things were completely documented, it might be a different story. But we know that�s not the case. For anyone. (Note to Linux lovers: please don�t threaten my family.)
And the reality is that for a great many of us, the OSes we need access to right now happen to come from Microsoft.
It would seem that we�re at an impasse. We want something which, it can be fairly argued, that we don�t have a legitimate right to. (They did, after all, develop it on their own dime.) They don�t want to give us that something.
Stalemates are only broken when a balance of power shifts from one side to the other. Previously, Microsoft held the source-code cards (they read �our way or the highway�).
Most recently, developers got a themselves a weapon of mass destruction -- a piece of software Kryptonite which makes Microsoft weak at the knees. It�s called Linux.
Linux is in that position thanks to the free-market competition large corporations are always so quick to pay lip service to. Indeed, Linux has lately become significant enough to serve as a virtual �lever.� Systems-software and applications developers can �push� on it to exert pressure on Microsoft.
Moving forward, the question facing the developer community is, how do we get Microsoft to open up even more code?
To answer that intelligently, we must determine three things. Is the code that�s been opened up so far useful, and to what degree? Do we really need to see more source? Within what part of the OS might that code be?
I�m guessing that for most of us, the utility of the currently available source depends on what type of work we�re doing with and around CE.
I�d also wager that most of us would instinctively answer �yes� and �all of it� to the last two questions. From their standpoint, Microsoft is perfectly justified to feel otherwise. In the real world, both points could validly be argued ad infinitum. But as developers, we want our code regardless. (You thought I was going to say, �But as developers, we don�t live in the real world,� didn�t you?)
The question now becomes: how can Microsoft be encouraged to open up more source? The answer is simple. Ask them.
With embedded Linux lurking in the background, Microsoft has never been more aware of embedded developers than they are today. If the company doesn�t quite understand how opening up their code base could be a positive, rather than a negative, over the long term, let�s give them some prodding. Help them to see the error of their ways. Remember, to share is beautiful, but to open is divine. -- Alexander Wolfe, WindowsForDevices.com, Nov. 7, 2002.
Talk back! Do you have comments or questions on this story? talkback here
(Click here for further information)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
news feed