Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the right-generous dept.

GNU is Not Unix 284

Jan writes "Microsoft has open sourced the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool by releasing it under the GPLv2 license. The code is now available on CodePlex, Microsoft's Open Source software project hosting repository, over at wudt.codeplex.com. The actual installer for the tool is now again available for download at the Microsoft Store (2.59MB). (Microsoft previously took responsiblity for the violation.)"

cancel ×

284 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Microsoft PENIS (0, Offtopic)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391596)

PENIS microsoft! Heh heh! Oh man yeahhhhhhhhhh.

Fah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392576)

I can't be assed to read through all the comments here. Has anybody made the i-thought-the-headline-read-ms-open-sources-windows-7-joke yet? If not, please insert it [here] and laugh. thx

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30391598)

Frosty piss y'all...it's a celebration, bitches!

Good. (4, Insightful)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391604)

It's good that Microsoft took responsibility for this, kudos to them.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

Akido37 (1473009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391638)

I suppose it's a testament to the strength of the GPL in the court system. If Microsoft thought for a minute that the courts wouldn't uphold the GPL, they wouldn't have bothered to open source anything.

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391724)

Because heaven forbid the alternative: that they were informed they did something wrong and then voluntarily did the right thing, regardless of how enforceable the license is.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392120)

Or the other alternative: the marketing department decided that releasing this trivial small amount of code would make Microsoft look better to the open source community, whereas fighting the matter in court would make them look bad.

Re: FINALLY IS RIGHT !! BEEN WAIT A LONG TIME !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392682)

I've been waiting a LONG time for this, and FINALLY !! it has arrived !! I am greatful and thankful to Microsoft and its team of crack developers, programmers, and coffee girls for FINALLY giving this to us o-so-deserving humans.

Hip! Hip! Horray !!

Hip! Hip! Horray !!

Yippie !!

Re:Good. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392718)

The marketing department has nothing to do with this you buffoon. They just release the code because there's no reason not to, and because it's the right thing to do.

You conspiracy numbnuts can go fuck off.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392144)

mod this funny people, I LOL'ed on this one.

'Microsoft voluntarily do the right thing', ha. It probably had to go through 12 committee layers just to make sure it can't be used on any OS other than Windows and must not benefit anyone who does cross platform development. Because of the GPL, they probably had to run it through another 12 committee layers to clean up the code. This took loads more expense and effort than they probably wanted to put into it and you can thank the GPL for that. It's probably one reason why they really really dislike the GPL. Their code review and licensing policies are so bad that stuff like what happened with this tool costs them bucket loads of time, effort, and money and then they have to walk out into public and post their code. I can see Microsoft's executive team spitting every time they here "GPL" as if someone from Dog River said "Wullerton"

LoB

Re:Good. (1, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392214)

Wullerton

<spit/>

Re:Good. (1, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392700)

Why is this modded troll? It isn't just a random flame. Microsoft has long and well established history in this department and it is perfectly valid to doubt anything that appears to be a deviation from it.

Last I checked Microsoft is run by the same anti-competitive CEO who refers to the GPL as cancer.

Re:Good. (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392320)

Because heaven forbid the alternative: that they were informed they did something wrong and then voluntarily did the right thing, regardless of how enforceable the license is.

[citation needed]

No really, is there a citeable example of MS ever having acted like that before?

I suppose there must be, but all I can think of is stuff like Stac which took losing a lawsuit to convince MS to do "the right thing."

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392844)

All I can think of is Stac vs. Microsoft was over 15 years ago.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

quadrox (1174915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392484)

Yes, it would really be nice if that were the case.

I have long held a more or less neutral opinion on Microsoft for a very long time, until they pulled all those OOXML stunts. Since then I have become aware of more and more of their evil scheming to ruthlessly achieve their goals that I simply cannot believe in a good Microsoft any longer. I'm not even out there looking for stuff about Microsoft, I just happen upon it from time to time and each time my opinion is confirmed more and more.

There may well be individuals in Microsoft who want to do the right thing - sadly none of them seem to be able to exert any power whatsoever. And while you might argue with me that this incident proves me wrong, from past experience I must still believe it more likely that Microsoft is acting out of pure self-interest.

Microsoft needs to be boycotted at all costs. This company can not be allowed to continue to exist while one evil scheme after another is revealed with nobody doing anything about it.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392606)

A company is not a conscious entity and acts of capitalism are not "evil" on their own. You have witnessed Microsoft make money in a society based around the freedom to make and lose money. If Microsoft sold weapons to a foreign country that they knew were going to be used to kill innocent people, because it paid well, then the people who approved such deals would be evil, or at least morally wrong. Microsoft furthering it's company's agenda in the global marketplace is capitalism. And open source is included in the global marketplace always, not just when convenient. You can't run away crying because you played with the big kids and got hurt.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392872)

"A company is not a conscious entity and acts of capitalism are not "evil" on their own."

Actually it is an emergence consciousness like an ant colony or... a human brain. As for acts of capitalism being "evil" on their own, you need to back that up.

"You have witnessed Microsoft make money in a society based around the freedom to make and lose money."

I'm not sure which society that is. This society is based on freedom from government oppression. Capitalism is a tangent and this society won't lose what it is based on if those ideals are expanded to include freedom from oppression in the name of profit.

"Microsoft furthering it's company's agenda in the global marketplace is capitalism."

Microsoft has been intentionally stifling the advancement of technology from the very start when it intentionally sold an inferior system to run on IBM.

What could man have accomplished without the interference from Microsoft in this time? Where would we be? Would we have stabalized the global market? Enhanced communication to the point of eliminating corruption? World peace? Colonized alien worlds? Developed penthouse clone sex slave bots who can cook and sell 2 for the price of one at walmart?

Some of those are difficult to believe or impossible to imagine but all are theoretical improvements with advanced technology or facilitated by advanced technology.

Re:Good. (5, Interesting)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391840)

What legal principle allows a judge to void somebody's copyright because he doesn't like the terms of their license? If Microsoft successfully argued that they used GPL code because they thought the license was invalid, they just successfully argued that they committed willful copyright infringement by using code they, in good faith, believed they did not have a license to use.

Re:Good. (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392668)

I believe the most serious challenge proposed to free-software licenses is that since the software is distributed to the public for free there can be no damages resulting from infringement. If accepted, that line of reasoning would lead to a judgment of willful copyright infringement, as you say, but without any compensation required of the infringer. This would effectively render the software public-domain (which doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, but then I have a fundamental disagreement with copyright to begin with).

Re:Good. (1)

chihowa (366380) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392868)

Well there is still the issue of punitive damages, which would make the code not quite free. Also, the fact that the code is being used for commercial purposes may affect the amount of damages rewarded. If someone took the poem that you put on your website, included it in a book and started selling it, you could collect damages even though you were giving it away for free.

Re:Good. (3, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391712)

It is good, but I'm uncomfortable with how this whole thing unfolded. It reads like, "Woot... caught em! Engage the GPL virus! F-U Microsoft!" As if a battle was won and they're over there shaking their heads about having lost something.

Open Source is not supposed to be a punishment you get slapped with. It's about availability, encouraging development and creating better software. Let's not jeer too much, eh?

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392048)

I'm not sure that it unfolded like that, unless you're talking about the comments on Slashdot. You would think that most people here would have grown out of the "M$" phase.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392170)

You must be new here.

Re:Good. (2, Funny)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392250)

You stole my line!

Re:Good. (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392344)

He reproduced that line lawfully under the SML (Slashdot Meme License).

Re:Good. (1)

Plaid Phantom (818438) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392332)

You would think that most people here would have grown out of the "M$" phase.

You must be new around here.

Re:Good. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392434)

asking, not implying: is this supposed to be under GPLv3?

Misleading (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30391608)

Please, would you finally stop calling it a "Windows 7 Tool"?

It's so f*cking obvious that you've been just trying to make it sound like it was a component of Windows 7 that it's not even funny.

So, those of you who have been misled by these dishonest "journalists": It's NOT a component of Windows 7, it's a tool COMPATIBLE WITH Windows 7 that you can DOWNLOAD from Microsoft app shop.

Mod parent down (2, Informative)

ericvids (227598) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391728)

It's a tool to download Windows 7 into a USB drive, hence it's a tool FOR Windows 7. Shortening it to "Windows 7 Tool" is just common English usage -- that's just like saying a drive for reading CD-ROMs is a CD-ROM drive. Get over it.

Re:Misleading (4, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392236)

Other reasons to stop calling it the "Windows 7 Tool" include the similarity between:
"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool" and
"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Too!"

I spent the first 30 seconds in shocked disbelief as I tried to remember anything else they've open sourced.

PROOF! (0, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391670)

FTFA:

In November 2009, Microsoft pulled the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool from the Microsoft Store website after a report indicated that it incorporated open source code in a way that violated the GPL. A week later, Microsoft confirmed that the tool violates the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license. The problem wasn't just that Microsoft used open source code in the tool, but that it also released the tool under a closed source license, so Redmond decided to rerelease the tool under the GPL. Another week later, Microsoft pushed back its schedule a bit, blaming testing and localization for the delay.

This is PROOF that Microsoft KNOWS they are producing bad code. They put something out there, and then when they had to open source the code, they were all like "Well now everyone will see how bad our coding is, better take a week to fix it up before releasing it to the public!"

Re:PROOF! (5, Informative)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391720)

As someone mentioned in the original story, Microsoft does not write all of its code itself but sometimes hires other companies to write a specific tool for them. Such was the case here. As for it taking a week, I think that's a pretty short period of time for something to take in a bureaucracy.

Re:PROOF! (2, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391750)

This is PROOF that Microsoft KNOWS they are producing bad code.

Or it's proof that they made some changes so that the tool uses public API's instead of private windows internals and instead of just throwing it out the door, tested the changes made.

Re:PROOF! (3, Interesting)

bmearns (1691628) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391922)

Wouldn't changing the code at this point still be a violation of the GPL? They released a certain version containing GPLd code, they need to make /that/ version available, right?

Obviously there are plenty of other reasons it's likely to take a week to do anything at a megacompany like Microsoft.

Re:PROOF! (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392266)

Wouldn't changing the code at this point still be a violation of the GPL? They released a certain version containing GPLd code, they need to make /that/ version available, right?

If they did make changes to how the tool works with Windows (changed to using the same public API's normal people have to for instance) presumably they are no longer distributing the infringing product. As such I don't think they would have to release both, just no longer distribute the first release.

Re:PROOF! (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392358)

not sure about that but their excuse that it happened was that it was 3rd party code. If that really is the case, where is their process for handling licensing? Did they really have a licensing process in place for the 3rd party contract and one of the coders there subverted any code review process or licensing policies and brought in GPL'ed code? For a company with so much to lose brand-wise and with so much cash as Microsoft has, this would seem extremely careless. If it really was 3rd party code. If we look at the code now, we should see what company really did produce the code right? Or did Microsoft take 100% of the credit for 100% of the code except for the part which was the originally GPL'ed?

LoB

Re:PROOF! (3, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392504)

This third party code would have been produced under contract as "work for hire". Presumably, the contract stated that the third party had to assign all rights to the code to Microsoft, like any other work for hire, and that the end product must be wholly assignable.

Most likely, the third party actually violated their contract with Microsoft by creating a work that uses GPLed code.

Re:PROOF! (4, Interesting)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391764)

I've seen some of the Windows Source code when I worked there. Trust me, it's WAY more professional than the Linux source code.

Microsoft's problem with code quality isn't the engineers - they're the same as everywhere else. In Windows 2000, they set out to eliminate BSOD, and they mostly did. In XP SP2, they set out to make it secure, and it's better.

The problem is no one asks them to do the right things.

Anyway, trust me - it's very professional, clean code, nice design, and not filled with hacks like the Big Global Lock that used to be in the Linux kernel.

Re:PROOF! (1, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392116)

The problem is no one asks them to do the right things.

If what you write is true, the reason there's still buffer overflows in Microsoft code is simply that nobody's asked the programmers to get rid of them. Frankly, I find htat hard to believe.

Re:PROOF! (2, Funny)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392478)

Frankly, I find htat hard to believe.

Letter overflow!

Re:PROOF! (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392792)

Nah, just one of those "off by one" bugs.

Re:PROOF! (3, Interesting)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392148)

I'm sure Microsoft's source code looks much more professional than the Linux source code. The company probably has rigid coding standards that all programmers must adhere to. Not only standards that have to do with the kinds of constructs you are allowed to use, but how the code must look, how many spaces to indent, how to format your comments, and where to put comments. In other words they probably have a 'grammar police' for code. (Do they still use Hungarian notation?). OTHO the Linux kernel was written by coders from ALL walks of life with different views on how to write code. There is only a very loose coding standard for the kernel, if Linus can read it and understand it, it gets used as is.

Does this make Microsoft source code work any better than Linux? No. Does it make it more supportable (for the programmers actually working on it)? Probably. But the people working on the Linux Kernel are used to the hodge-podge of coding standards in use. Still it could make it harder for someone to break into kernel support.

BTW, I've heard of some diehard Mircosofties getting windows tats. Wonder if Linux coders have a Tux tat. (yuck).

Re:PROOF! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392398)

Some retard got a zune tat a while back, so a windows tat is possible. Of course, the zune logo is much cooler. As for linux tats, I've been a penguin for years and have the tux tat to prove it. I've met a number of other guys with tux tats. You know how tapping your foot is a gay bathroom hookup thing? The tux tat is like that, too. Except we compare distro preferences before the suck-n-fuck. I'm ubuntu, but I get along with debian. Most twinks are ubuntu or gentoo. RedHat and Centos do not get along.

Re:PROOF! (2, Informative)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392174)

I think your comment about asking the engineers to solve the right problem is very insightful.

But I'm curious - did Windows have more fine-grained locking than a single kernel lock at the time Linux introduced SMP support with 2.0? I can imagine Windows may well have been better re locking scalability back then. Both Linux and Windows have been using increasingly fine granularity locking over the years, which is nice. It's somewhat frustrating that the Big Kernel Lock is still hanging around but at least it's not on most / any important critical paths now. And one day hopefully it will go away properly :-)

Re:PROOF! (2, Insightful)

lewiscr (3314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392238)

filled with hacks like the Big Global Lock that used to be in the Linux kernel

The spinning hourglass begs to differ.

Re:PROOF! (2, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392292)

Eh... I understand what you are saying. And yet, Linux has never produced anything nearly as bad as Longhorn. Seriously, Long- freaking-horn. You can't praise them for 2000 and xp SP2 and ignore their obvious mistakes with xp/xp-sp1 and longhorn/vista. Every version of windows that is released is accompanied by a story interviewing some Microsoft fellow that describes how bad the source code for the previous version was and how no one really knows how all of the different parts of windows interact. I'm sure its not bad code full of obvious hackery and bad coding. I am however convinced that its a more difficult of a design than the Unix philosophy and it suffers because of that.

Plus, as closed source we can just sort of imagine the code that causes the problems we run into, where as with linux we can actually see the code that caused the problem so we don't have to imagine any code crappier than what we find.

Re:PROOF! (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392452)

Anyway, trust me - it's very professional, clean code, nice design, and not filled with hacks like the Big Global Lock that used to be in the Linux kernel.

Bad example. Just about every uniprocessor-developed OS had a Big Global Lock until they went multi-cpu - and even then it usually took a few releases before it was really eliminated. I would be hugely surprised to find that the Win9x series didn't have one too. When did the linux kernel deprecate it? Like a decade ago?

Re:PROOF! (4, Informative)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392614)

When did the linux kernel deprecate it? Like a decade ago?

Depends on your definition of "deprecate" and "decade". As late as last year (2008) [kerneltrap.org] , the kernel people were still working on removing it.

Re:PROOF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392492)

I've seen some of the Windows Source code

How delightfully vague. How much code did you "see"? Just kernel code? IE code? Outlook code? Which branches of products? Just 2000/XP or does that include 95/98/ME? Did you actually help engineer any of it or just browse?

Re:PROOF! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392522)

I've seen some of the Windows Source code when I worked there. Trust me, it's WAY more professional than the Linux source code.

That's not what we saw with the Windows NT 4 and Windows 2000 source code leak back in 2003. It was an absolutely horrible mess with practically no comments what so ever except meaningless crap at the top of each source file. It seems it wasn't too terribly bad to figure out eventually since Linux's NTFS write support improved quite a bit not too long after the leak.

Re:PROOF! (1)

omkhar (167195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392612)

ehm, back in my day we called it the Big Kernel Lock. You kids!

now get off my lawn!

Re:PROOF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392786)

I too have seen some of the MS Source Code and trust me, it is not the Devs that screw things up, it is Sales & Marketing.

MS is a Sales and Marketing Company, make no mistake about that. The S&M guy's will dream something up, get conceptual artists involved, make sketches and the like and then have a meeting with the deve side of the house and say, "We want this and get it built."

The problem with that is the S&M people don't give a rats ass how many hoops dev has to jump through to make it work or how much the may or may not have to compromise stability & security to make this new "feature" work and when push comes to shove, the Dev crowd always loses.

This is not to say the MS is the only company doing it, they ALL do it but because the Windows Ecosystem is so insanely complex and interdependent, no amount of regression testing is going to catch everything.

I DO hate Microsoft as a company, but from the folks that I have met from the Dev side are pretty damn smart and pretty damn good coders that unfortunately never get to do what is right and correct because they must answer to S&M, which is run by some truly fucked up individuals.

Re:PROOF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392852)

Professional code doesn't imply working code.

I don't give a damn if Microsoft's code looks nice. It comes down to whether or not it WORKS. I also don't give a rats ass whether or not someone is asking them to do the right thing. That isn't going to change. What I've taken away from your post is that Microsoft is an utter failure and there's no possible course of action to fix that.

Re:PROOF! (3, Insightful)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391786)

You apparently have never worked in a large company before. There were probably 27 meetings before someone high enough up the food chain stuck their neck out to say "ok". We're talking about opensourcing code from a company that generally doesn't do it. Legal was involved, top executives were involved, someone had to talk to PR about spinning a press release, etc etc. This isn't like some dev got emailed and said, "Shit! I better get that posted right away!"

Re:PROOF! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30391878)

And this post is PROOF that you're a MORON. Microsoft hires the most expensive people. They may outsource some of their coding, but if you think Microsoft writes any "worse" code than anyone else, you're an idiot. It's like you think suddenly because highly paid, highly educated, highly experienced developers start working for a company you irrationally hate that they become bad developers.

Re:PROOF! (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391930)

What do you base this on? When the source code of 2k and NT leaked everyone agreed that the code was good and clean, as what you would expect from a company as Microsoft. You're just randomly throwing out bashes with no valid arguments.

Re:PROOF! (1)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392126)

Is that on SourceForge?

Re:PROOF! (2, Interesting)

Slothrup (73029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392030)

This is PROOF that Microsoft KNOWS they are producing bad code. They put something out there, and then when they had to open source the code, they were all like "Well now everyone will see how bad our coding is, better take a week to fix it up before releasing it to the public!"

Having been involved with open source at Microsoft, I'd guess that the real reason for the delay was to "scrub" it to make sure that no intellectual property was inadvertently being given away.

Re:PROOF! (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392036)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:PROOF! (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392102)

or at least code they don't want shown to the public /* This chunk written by Sir_Sri ext 1111 e-mail ... */ //coudn't get this sh*t to work right, used a hack but if you swirl the mouse around counter clockwise 7 times the program always crashes // Sir_Sri is an idiot, incompetent and has been moved away from coding into marketing, he won't touch this again, I fixed this crap up for him Bill ext 1, office 1 e-mail 1@microsoft.com.

I give up (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30391684)

I took a quick look at the article and I have no idea what this tool is supposed to do. I couldn't even venture a guess. So some tool that I know nothing about and have no idea what it does now has the source code available for it. I think the term "underwhelmed" would apply. What exactly is a USB/DVD download tool?

Re:I give up (1)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391758)

The tool in question puts a downloaded Windows 7 installer on a USB or DVD automagically.

Re:I give up (2, Informative)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391772)

"The Windows 7 USB/DVD Download tool allows you to create a copy of your Windows 7 ISO file on a USB flash drive or a DVD. To create a bootable DVD or USB flash drive, download the ISO file and then run the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download tool. Once this is done, you can install Windows 7 directly from the USB flash drive or DVD."

Source: http://wudt.codeplex.com/ [codeplex.com] from TFA.

Re:I give up (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392716)

Source: http://wudt.codeplex.com/ [codeplex.com] from TFA.

Ya know, I've created more bootable (and/or non-bootable) CDs and DVDs than I care to count. I've also created (almost routinely) bootable (and/or non-bootable) USB hard drives drives, USB flash drives, flash memory cards, and SSDs.

I've read the two stories, the two respective articles, visited any links provided, re-read your quote, and I still don't know WTF this tool is supposed to do.

Is it a download tool (ftp, wget, fetch), a CD mastering or burning tool (cdrtools, growisofs, burncd), a disk or file system tool (fdisk, newfs, mke2fs), a copy tool (cp, tar, cpio, dump, dd), something else, something more, or all of the above wrapped in a wizard or some sort of GUI?

Re:I give up (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391778)

I took a quick look at the article and I have no idea what this tool is supposed to do. I couldn't even venture a guess. So some tool that I know nothing about and have no idea what it does now has the source code available for it. I think the term "underwhelmed" would apply. What exactly is a USB/DVD download tool?

Read TFA's discussed last weekend [slashdot.org] link.

Re:I give up (1)

cc1984_ (1096355) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392428)

I took a quick look at the article and I have no idea what this tool is supposed to do.

Well now you can look at the source code and it will all become clear!

Phallic? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30391716)

Is it me or does the icon for this story (cartoon character standing) look phallic with a hand around it's side? I'm not normally looking for phallic symbols, but that's what I originally thought the icon was... someone jerkin off. I figured it was related to the story being M$.

For a company (4, Insightful)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391754)

For a company that believes so strongly in the inviolability of Software licensing, it's nice to see them practice what they preach when it comes to the rights of others. Fair play to Microsoft for meeting it's requirements, and score one for the GPL and Open Source.

How will Microsoft spin this? (1)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392156)

For a company that believes so strongly in the inviolability of Software licensing, it's nice to see them practice what they preach when it comes to the rights of others. Fair play to Microsoft for meeting it's requirements, and score one for the GPL and Open Source.

Yes, it is good that Microsoft did the Right Thing here and opened the code under the GNU GPL. But color me pessimistic. I'm somewhat concerned that in a few months, we'll hear lots of hay being made from this - and it won't be good for F/OSS.

Microsoft is trying to kill Linux and pretty much all "Free / Open Source" software. One wedge they have continued to use is "the viral nature of the GNU GPL is evil", spreading misinformation like "if you use GNU GPL tools to build your software, you will need to publish the source code of your software under the GNU GPL."

So it's not a big stretch to think that in a few months, we'll hear Microsoft (probably Ballmer himself) say "Look, see how Linux & the GNU GPL is viral & evil, even we [Microsoft] had to publish the source code to an important tool." They'll surely omit details like "we copied GNU GPL code into ours, we were dumb" or "we weren't paying attention to what our subcontractors were doing". The spin will be "Linux and GNU are bad."

I'd love to be proven wrong.

Lol (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30391774)

As if I'm going to trust windows for anything of importance. Its a great OS until you need to do real work.

I must be getting old (3, Interesting)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391848)

First the SEGA logo brazenly appeared on a Nintendo console
Now it's Microsoft publishing GPL licenced-code. TWICE (the other being their contribution to the kernel)
Pigs expected to fly next week.

Re:I must be getting old (1)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391942)

Yes, Microsoft publishing Linux kernel source code for their own benefit and because they were not aware that it was GPL licensed already. It's actually not that big of a deal, to quote Linux Format it's not like they're feeding poor people, this is in their best interest.

Re:I must be getting old (1)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392042)

Well duh! But the fact that the company whose development and profit paradigm are the exact opposite of the FOSS philosophy is forced (legally or business-sense-wise) to develop FLOSS code is a major success, don't you think?

Re:I must be getting old (1)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392150)

I'm not really sure what you mean by "Major success". It certainly is not bad though, but Microsoft is simply doing what makes sense for them in terms of profit, legality, and to some extent, public opinion.

Re:I must be getting old (1)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392352)

...and FOSS being the sane choice for the most hostile company towards it doesn't qualify as success? Do I need to remind you of their past EEE and FUD strategies against it?
I mean, other than all the community goodness and hacker ethics and what-have-you, we DO want to actually make a living by FOSS, no?
Plus, it is kind of ridiculous for Microsoft to continue their claims that the GPL is not enforcable, or viral, or financially unprofitable when they use it themselves. These do sound like successes to me.

Re:I must be getting old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392080)

Microsoft is feeding poor people, though.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10322201-56.html [cnet.com]

Re:I must be getting old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30391958)

First the SEGA logo brazenly appeared on a Nintendo console

Now it's Microsoft publishing GPL licenced-code. TWICE (the other being their contribution to the kernel)

Pigs expected to fly next week.

Duke Nukem: For(n)ever is the week after that.

Re:I must be getting old (1)

guppysap13 (1225926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391988)

It's a bit late for that. Swine flew ages ago. Now, temperatures in Hell might be dropping a little.

Re:I must be getting old (1)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392086)

These are the final days I tell you! the end is nigh!

CT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30391872)

I love the conspiracy theories posted here. This truly is more entertaining, and dramatic, then anything on prime time television.

Ciao

The bigger news here (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391928)

The bigger news is not that Microsoft open sourced the tool after their GPL violation (that was inevitable). The news here is that Microsoft kept the open source tool instead of replacing it with one of their own. Microsoft has open sourced portions of their code before, that really isn't newsworthy. Keeping an open source tool that will be used to deploy their crown jewel operating system by millions of people - that's newsworthy.

Re:The bigger news here (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392248)

Microsoft has open sourced portions of their code before, that really isn't newsworthy.

But have they GPL'd anything before?
Seems like anytime they comment on open source, they make sure to give love to BSD and tell everyone that the GPL is the devil - or at least ebola since they are fond of the gpl-is-viral meme.

Re:The bigger news here (1)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392454)

Yes, their contrib to the linux kernel a few months ago. Some virtualisation stuff that helps them run linux on their OS I think. More news here [microsoft.com]

Re:The bigger news here (1)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392540)

Actually they have, if fairly recently [networkworld.com] . However they are farther along with open source than many people believe, they've even started their own version of sourceforge called CodePlex [codeplex.com] that hosts open source projects and developer tools. You can search directly by license type for software released under a number of licenses, including GPL.

Re:The bigger news here (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392284)

Doesn't seem like that big of a deal...

The even BIGGER news here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392426)

Microsoft released a GPL'd program and many hours later, they still exist, and all of civilazation has not crumbled! If you were to believe the BSD-tards and closed source advocates, this release of code should have caused the next great extinction event.

Seething, burning, rioting rage for Microsoft (-1, Redundant)

hellfire (86129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30391982)

Micro$oft suxx0rs! Close source is evil! Linux is better because it's open! Microsoft will die because it's closed! *RAAAAWWWRRRRRRRviolentflaminggeekrage*

Wait... Microsoft just open sourced code?

**head a'splodes**

Finally? (3, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392066)

It's been, what, a month since they were informed of the lapse, and less than that since they acknowledged the error?

Show a reasonable amount of patience.

Re:Finally? (1)

Chees0rz (1194661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392644)

No kidding. It's a large company. It isn't like the group working on this tool could just start up an apache server and host the source code to the outside world, it probably had to go through many layers.

/. Bias (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392070)

I can't help but notice the "finally" in the title.
Really slashdot, can't you post any MS related story without personal bias?

Re:/. Bias (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392202)

You must be new here.

Vaguely related questions... (3, Interesting)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392108)

1) What programs do people here like for applying .ISO images to USB drives in Windows? Is this one "locked" to Windows 7 ISOs or can I use it to, say, put Puppy Linux onto a USB drive? I tried to install this one to find out but it's telling me "This application requires the Image Mastering API v2" and I don't want to put too much effort into this if it isn't for general use.

2) Anyone know how to do the same thing in OS X? I tried using Disc Utility but it will only let me a) burn ISOs to CDs or b) apply Apple .DMGs to drives. I tried mounting the ISO and using that as a source to create a DMG and that worked, but then when I went to apply that DMG to a disk it gave up at the last minute. (Sorry, that machine is at home, I don't know the exact error message. It basically said "Sorry, can't" after I clicked 'restore'.)

Re:Vaguely related questions... (2)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392316)

Use UNetBootin for making bootable USB drives to install Linux.

All this little MS app does is format you drive, mark the partition as Active, and extract the Windows 7 ISO to it. You can do it manually just like that if you wanted.

Re:Vaguely related questions... (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392662)

UNetBootin doesn't work well with Mandriva One 2010. Or at least not for me. Of course, Mandriva One is a hybrid ISO. If you use their "Seed" tool (essentially dd), it will boot nicely off a stick.

Re:Vaguely related questions... (1)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392630)

I know growisofs has been ported to Mac OS X. You might want to look into that.

unusual trend. (2, Interesting)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392402)

Microsoft's been doing this a lot lately (a lot being relative to their past conduct).

It's good that they're doing good and paying down their negative karma, but sometimes I wonder if people are deliberately infecting their sources with GPL'ed code just to make them cough it up once it gets published. A windows 7 tool getting fingered for a GPL violation so quickly makes me think that the exposure had a bit of inside help.

Time will tell.

Kudos to Microsoft though if their efforts are sincere.

I can't open it :p (0, Troll)

atisss (1661313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392626)

GPL: For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their righ

I downloaded code (which is in .exe format) and i can't open it. Wine says:

atis@atis-desktop-work-duo:~/Desktop$ wine ./Windows7-USB-DVD-Download-Tool-Installer-en-US.exe fixme:advapi:DecryptFileA "C:\\windows\\temp\\IXP000.TMP\\" 00000000 Access denied

Re:I can't open it :p (2, Informative)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392788)

You downloaded the tool (a.k.a. application), not the source code.

I first read the headline as: (1)

digipres (877201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30392770)

"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Too!" And I wondered whether anyone would care if they did.

Microsoft released a GPL program... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30392822)

...yet the sky is not falling?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>