6 ms·

The Windows Driver Frameworks are on GitHub

283 points by canacrypto 12y ago

vortico 12y ago
I hope Microsoft knows this, but Open Source doesn't imply putting your source on GitHub (and vise-versa). If Microsoft dev teams served source tarballs along with their releases, we'd be just as happy. But perhaps they will actually use the GitHub issue trackers and other neat features, as they are pretty useful.
- bhuga 12y ago
  They have been accepting community contributions on dotnet/coreclr, among other projects: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pulls https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pulls
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Uh, publishing your source under a usable license is sorta really the definition of open source. Whether or not you like their dev style or other things is separate and trying to make new definitions. You shouldn't just throw caps on a common description then claim no one is that common thing because you've redefined it.
- BinaryIdiot 12y ago
  This is just one of many steps. For instance if you take a look at the following merge someone actually comments regarding what you're talking about: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/485 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/485 Basically many teams are still on TFS versus GIT and will take some time to move over. But once they're moved over GitHub and their internal stuff will be treated more like separate branches and there will be good, useful history instead of simple bombs from TFS.
- blawa 12y ago
  Nice comment. Let me know your github handle and I'll see what's your OSS contribution and then show'em how it's done.
- ghuntley 12y ago
  Uh, they have moved their entire development workflow to GitHub pull requests. Fully transparent and out in the open. Work has commenced on getting CoreCLR (the official.NET run-time) ported and running on BSD and the following PR's were merged yesterday which add initial support for NetBSD and OpenBSD: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/453 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/453 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/470 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/470 The "port team" is organzing work via the following issue: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/455#issuecomment-82992748 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/455#issuecomment-82... We are looking for more people to help out, if this is of interest then please goto above and say Hello ;-)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Let me see if I have this straight: - Keeps source closed. Is therefore evil. - Opens source. Must be up to no good, because is evil. This might qualify for the original meaning of, begging the question...
  - viraptor 12y ago
    Considering the company pretty much defined EEE as we know it and is known for lying about competition, I don't think being cautious is a bad thing. I'm happy they're releasing things and trying to be more open, but... let's see where it goes before we start celebrating.
  - Qwertious 12y ago
    They're considered evil not because they kept source closed, but because they actively abused their monopoly to illegally malign their competition. That's what the problem with EEE is. They're open-sourcing stuff (which will in theory make it harder for them to do it in the future), but that doesn't mean they've repented and have good intentions. They're open-sourcing their software purely out of self-interest, and people are wondering what exactly this self-interest is, and are being quite reasonably cautious.
  - gonvaled 12y ago
    Well, they will need to do a bit more than that to change the prevailing perception that they are up to no good (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_c...) And you rightly ask: how much time needs to pass by to forget about all that, and judge MS by its current behaviour? The answer is very subjective, but for me it is something like "a bazillion years".
    - XzetaU8 12y ago
elchief 12y ago
Whiny ass comments so far. Bravo Microsoft!
NamTaf 12y ago
What effect will this have on the ability to boost driver support in Linux, if any? FreeBSD has ndisgen [1], but would this help improve that or a broader set of driver use in Linux? Secondly, what about WINE? [1]: https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ndisgen https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ndisgen
- ikonst 12y ago
  It means nothing. WDF is a high-level framework for drivers on top of Windows NT – basically a convenience library you link with. While using WDF, you can freely call regular NT functions too. It's like MFC to Win32.
  - NamTaf 12y ago
    Thanks for the information. I'm not at all involved in driver work so I have no clue. :)
- auxym 12y ago
  Linux has ndiswrapper
  - NamTaf 12y ago
    I wasn't trying to imply it didn't have an equivalent ndis tool, I just used FreeBSD as the example as that's my experience. I was more wondering if this would've helped advance these (and similar) offerings.
shmerl 12y ago
Will it help making drivers for filesystems which MS doesn't care to support?
- whoopdedo 12y ago
  Drivers aren't much of a threat to the Windows hegemony because since Vista they've needed to be signed. If you don't mind taking the risk of running with driver signature verification turned off you can get FSDs for XFS and Ext4.
  - ikonst 12y ago
    Last time I checked, code signing certificates could be had for $400 a year, not an exorbitant price to many tech enthusiasts.
    - rplnt 12y ago
      However, being able to support the driver so it passes the certification process with every update is not something many tech enthusiasts would want to do.
      - magamiako 12y ago
        What certification process? Driver signing does not need a WHQL certification and in fact, Microsoft isn't involved in the driver signing process at all. It's between you and whichever CA you choose to do your code signing.
      - cypher543 12y ago
        Certification is only required if you want to display a "Certified for Windows" logo, prevent a warning dialog from displaying on Windows XP, and/or distribute your driver through Windows Update.
        rplnt 12y ago
        The warning dialogue is displayed on all versions of Windows, depending on the driver. Some can't be installed at all.
ximeng 12y ago
One barrier to developing drivers for Windows is the driver signing policy https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff548231(v=vs.85).aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff... which requires you to pay for a software publisher certificate.
- geon 12y ago
  Is it any different than the Apple iOS developer license?
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    Yes. The certificates Microsoft requires use the standard CA system, and are pretty much bog-standard code signing certificates, so the key you need can also be used to sign other windows apps you make, java apps, mozilla add-ons, etc.
- frozenport 12y ago
  I can live with this. Buggy software drivers wreak havoc and security vulnerabilities. I routinely use expensive industrial equipment without signed drivers, and the problem seems to be a warning from the installer.
  - stinos 12y ago
    This seems to be the case indeed. The couple of times Windows BSOD'd on me was always because of faulty drivers and more often than not the unsigned ones.
    - dfox 12y ago
      IIRC the only BSOD I got on XP on my thinkpad since 2006 was caused by not even driver bug, but by driver that seems to have intentionally caused BSOD.
- wslh 12y ago
  What's the barrier for that? You can develop drivers without signing the drivers and obtain them in the deployment phase.
aceperry 12y ago
I must say, I'm very impressed with all of the open source moves that MS has done lately. I wonder if that will drive more adoption of C# and cause Oracle to open up Java. I'm not a fan of C# because it's basically only used on windows systems, despite xamarin and et al.
- pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
  Yeah, especially since you need to pay a regular fee to use Xamarin, and it's not libre software either. If a free Xamarin came out I'd jump on the C# boat in a heartbeat, which I guess is what MS is trying to do with all this open sourcing (free software-ifying?).
  - josteink 12y ago
    > Yeah, especially since you need to pay a regular fee to use Xamarin You can use Monodevelop[1] which is 100% FOSS. AFAIK Xamarin is just Monodevelop with some extra wrappers and custom libraries for cross-platform mobile-development. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If you're just making normal applications, libraries or web-solutions you don't need Xamarin. [1] http://www.monodevelop.com/ http://www.monodevelop.com/
  - Rapzid 12y ago
    I have used Xamarin Studio a lot in the past for free. It's the mobile stuff that costs extra. Now I lean a bit more toward Visual Studio as it is free for my purposes.
- btzll 12y ago
  Since most of the income of Oracle comes from Enterprise software, I doubt they will do what MS does in the near future.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  I like both eco-systems a lot, however Java is currently more open than .NET, specially if you look around for available certified JVMs.
MrZipf 12y ago
The open-sourcing is a sign that MSFT is in a tricky spot (BYOD, mobile, tablet, games) and desperately needs to improve relations with the outside world. Expect we'll also see MSFT using more open source in products to compete effectively though I wonder what'd happen with internal best practices that the outside world doesn't have, e.g. SAL. Will they contribute back? Let's see. Inside MSFT there used to be minimal credit for releasing source which was a strong inhibitor in the employee review process. And a gratuitously awkward internal process for open sourcing code with no path for accepting changes/contributions. Attitudes are definitely improving. The major benefit of this particular move will be when you're working on Windows drivers - now you can see and completely grok what a piece of code does until it transitions into the kernel proper.
- threeseed 12y ago
  It's also a sign that Microsoft sees its future in services. Which in that case means that protecting the former "company jewels" of Windows and Office ceases to be less important.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    I don't think it's about Windows and Office becoming less important as concepts or products, but that their old sales channel and use cases are outmoded. Windows and Office will still be Microsoft's cash cows; they'll just collect the fees through Azure, OneDrive, and other software-as-a-service packages. Open-sourcing is about keeping Microsoft's platforms competitive so that people will rent Azure nodes. Microsoft realized they were becoming to FOSS as OS X is to Windows and is trying to counteract that. Microsoft's vision is still valid; they want Microsoft technology running every computer in the world.
    - wslh 12y ago
      Indeed it's clear that Office is very important, they are just unifying products and services. Now you have a unified subscription of $ 9.99 per month for Office 365 + Office Desktop Apps.
- 12y ago
throwawaymsft 12y ago
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Gandhi
- crazychrome 12y ago
  why this quote got down voted? it's exactly how Opensource progresses.
  - 0xFFC 12y ago
    1.Because MSFT doing good job 2. Gandhi was sick person, you can search about it , He was afraid of money/tea and so many things.Those good thing we hear about Gandhi I think most of them are propaganda.
    - throwawaymsft 12y ago
      1. Sure, Microsoft is doing the right thing after exhausting every other possibility. Closed source didn't work, FUD against open source didn't work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Mic...), now they need to stop people from leaving their platform and tools in any way possible. 2. Ad hominem. The behavior of an individual doesn't change the truth of what they say.
      - crazychrome 12y ago
        the behaviour of an individual does affect his creditability though.
kriro 12y ago
There are actually some strong OS voices in Microsoft. I was at Solutions Linux in France (around 2006 iirc) and there was a Microsoft booth. Since our booth had some downtime I talked to the guy manning their booth who was kind of stranded between Linux distros and FLOSS companies. He was pretty cool and genuinely trying to advance OS within Microsoft but said it's a pretty frustrating experience overall (his descriptions of the internal processes at Microsoft were pretty interesting). Seems like they have come a long way since, I hope he's still working there. I should have his card somewhere at home :) So as far as I know there have been developers who were pushing to open source a lot of infrastructure/language stuff for quite some time. Edit: I think it's no coincidence we see this happening now that Ballmer is gone. He was kind of the villain in the "let's open source stuff" stories I heard.
- brudgers 12y ago
  Scott Hanselman has been talking about the process of changing Microsoft's culture toward open source on Hanselminutes since he started working there about five years (and a couple of hundred episodes) ago. The move to open source has been in the works a long time and appears (to me at least) as part of Ballmer and Gates long term strategic plan for the era when they were no longer the largest and second largest shareholders and the company was more beholden to Wall Street. The new post-founder (ok Ballmer wasn't technically a founder) era at Microsoft has been set up so that Microsoft can operate like a software company again. That means embracing current industry culture. Practices that made sense when software came in boxes and was sold through magazines and connecting meant squawking over POTS, needed to be looked at with an eye toward long term. Nadella was set up by Ballmer to fall into the pit of success. The super tanker's rudder was changed years ago. The move toward open source is no more overnight than the hardware build quality of the surface.
  - igorgue 12y ago
    Also, I bet having Phil Haack working at Github changed the mindset of a lot of people, either way, even from the days from Novel and Mono, Microsoft was always cool with opensource.
baxter001 12y ago
"we understand there’s no substitute for having OS source available" Ho ho ho.
maguirre 12y ago
This is slightly off topic. However maybe someone on this thread can point me in the right direction. Can anyone recommend some good resources to get started writing low-level drivers for windows (books or open source examples)? I work mostly with embedded software on custom project. From time to time I need to interface with Windows machines and the information of this topic has always been limited.
- galaktor 12y ago
  I too have been finding it hard to find a single reliable and up-to-date source for learning windows drivers. There's a plethora of info online, but lots is out of date and/or scattered and redundant. Even decent paid training is hard to find, at least in my part of the world. There's a book, but it's old [1] There's samples, which are fresh [2] There's a multi part series on Code Project, but it's old (yet much of it still applies conceptually; samples not so much) Part 1 of 6: [3] If anybody has a good one-stop-shop and updated source of learning I'd very much appreciate it (I'd love a nicely written book on the matter that's not older than, say, 3 years old) [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Drivers-Foundation-Developer-Reference/dp/0735623740 http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Drivers-Foundation-Develope... [2]: https://github.com/Microsoft/Windows-driver-samples https://github.com/Microsoft/Windows-driver-samples [3]: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/9504/Driver-Development-Part-Introduction-to-Drivers http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/9504/Driver-Development-...
monocasa 12y ago
I don't see a patent grant...

283 points by canacrypto 12y ago

I hope Microsoft knows this, but Open Source doesn't imply putting your source on GitHub (and vise-versa). If Microsoft dev teams served source tarballs along with their releases, we'd be just as happy. But perhaps they will actually use the GitHub issue trackers and other neat features, as they are pretty useful.

bhuga 12y ago
They have been accepting community contributions on dotnet/coreclr, among other projects: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pulls https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pulls
MichaelGG 12y ago
Uh, publishing your source under a usable license is sorta really the definition of open source. Whether or not you like their dev style or other things is separate and trying to make new definitions. You shouldn't just throw caps on a common description then claim no one is that common thing because you've redefined it.
BinaryIdiot 12y ago
This is just one of many steps. For instance if you take a look at the following merge someone actually comments regarding what you're talking about: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/485 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/485 Basically many teams are still on TFS versus GIT and will take some time to move over. But once they're moved over GitHub and their internal stuff will be treated more like separate branches and there will be good, useful history instead of simple bombs from TFS.
blawa 12y ago
Nice comment. Let me know your github handle and I'll see what's your OSS contribution and then show'em how it's done.
ghuntley 12y ago
Uh, they have moved their entire development workflow to GitHub pull requests. Fully transparent and out in the open. Work has commenced on getting CoreCLR (the official.NET run-time) ported and running on BSD and the following PR's were merged yesterday which add initial support for NetBSD and OpenBSD: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/453 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/453 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/470 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/470 The "port team" is organzing work via the following issue: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/455#issuecomment-82992748 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/455#issuecomment-82... We are looking for more people to help out, if this is of interest then please goto above and say Hello ;-)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sliverstorm 12y ago
Let me see if I have this straight: - Keeps source closed. Is therefore evil. - Opens source. Must be up to no good, because is evil. This might qualify for the original meaning of, begging the question...
- viraptor 12y ago
  Considering the company pretty much defined EEE as we know it and is known for lying about competition, I don't think being cautious is a bad thing. I'm happy they're releasing things and trying to be more open, but... let's see where it goes before we start celebrating.
- Qwertious 12y ago
  They're considered evil not because they kept source closed, but because they actively abused their monopoly to illegally malign their competition. That's what the problem with EEE is. They're open-sourcing stuff (which will in theory make it harder for them to do it in the future), but that doesn't mean they've repented and have good intentions. They're open-sourcing their software purely out of self-interest, and people are wondering what exactly this self-interest is, and are being quite reasonably cautious.
- gonvaled 12y ago
  Well, they will need to do a bit more than that to change the prevailing perception that they are up to no good (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_c...) And you rightly ask: how much time needs to pass by to forget about all that, and judge MS by its current behaviour? The answer is very subjective, but for me it is something like "a bazillion years".
  - XzetaU8 12y ago

elchief 12y ago

Whiny ass comments so far. Bravo Microsoft!

NamTaf 12y ago

What effect will this have on the ability to boost driver support in Linux, if any? FreeBSD has ndisgen [1], but would this help improve that or a broader set of driver use in Linux? Secondly, what about WINE? [1]: https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ndisgen https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ndisgen

ikonst 12y ago
It means nothing. WDF is a high-level framework for drivers on top of Windows NT – basically a convenience library you link with. While using WDF, you can freely call regular NT functions too. It's like MFC to Win32.
- NamTaf 12y ago
  Thanks for the information. I'm not at all involved in driver work so I have no clue. :)
auxym 12y ago
Linux has ndiswrapper
- NamTaf 12y ago
  I wasn't trying to imply it didn't have an equivalent ndis tool, I just used FreeBSD as the example as that's my experience. I was more wondering if this would've helped advance these (and similar) offerings.

shmerl 12y ago

Will it help making drivers for filesystems which MS doesn't care to support?

whoopdedo 12y ago
Drivers aren't much of a threat to the Windows hegemony because since Vista they've needed to be signed. If you don't mind taking the risk of running with driver signature verification turned off you can get FSDs for XFS and Ext4.
- ikonst 12y ago
  Last time I checked, code signing certificates could be had for $400 a year, not an exorbitant price to many tech enthusiasts.
  - rplnt 12y ago
    However, being able to support the driver so it passes the certification process with every update is not something many tech enthusiasts would want to do.
    - magamiako 12y ago
      What certification process? Driver signing does not need a WHQL certification and in fact, Microsoft isn't involved in the driver signing process at all. It's between you and whichever CA you choose to do your code signing.
    - cypher543 12y ago
      Certification is only required if you want to display a "Certified for Windows" logo, prevent a warning dialog from displaying on Windows XP, and/or distribute your driver through Windows Update.
      - rplnt 12y ago
        The warning dialogue is displayed on all versions of Windows, depending on the driver. Some can't be installed at all.

ximeng 12y ago

One barrier to developing drivers for Windows is the driver signing policy https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff548231(v=vs.85).aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff... which requires you to pay for a software publisher certificate.

geon 12y ago
Is it any different than the Apple iOS developer license?
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  Yes. The certificates Microsoft requires use the standard CA system, and are pretty much bog-standard code signing certificates, so the key you need can also be used to sign other windows apps you make, java apps, mozilla add-ons, etc.
frozenport 12y ago
I can live with this. Buggy software drivers wreak havoc and security vulnerabilities. I routinely use expensive industrial equipment without signed drivers, and the problem seems to be a warning from the installer.
- stinos 12y ago
  This seems to be the case indeed. The couple of times Windows BSOD'd on me was always because of faulty drivers and more often than not the unsigned ones.
  - dfox 12y ago
    IIRC the only BSOD I got on XP on my thinkpad since 2006 was caused by not even driver bug, but by driver that seems to have intentionally caused BSOD.
wslh 12y ago
What's the barrier for that? You can develop drivers without signing the drivers and obtain them in the deployment phase.

aceperry 12y ago

I must say, I'm very impressed with all of the open source moves that MS has done lately. I wonder if that will drive more adoption of C# and cause Oracle to open up Java. I'm not a fan of C# because it's basically only used on windows systems, despite xamarin and et al.

pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
Yeah, especially since you need to pay a regular fee to use Xamarin, and it's not libre software either. If a free Xamarin came out I'd jump on the C# boat in a heartbeat, which I guess is what MS is trying to do with all this open sourcing (free software-ifying?).
- josteink 12y ago
  > Yeah, especially since you need to pay a regular fee to use Xamarin You can use Monodevelop[1] which is 100% FOSS. AFAIK Xamarin is just Monodevelop with some extra wrappers and custom libraries for cross-platform mobile-development. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If you're just making normal applications, libraries or web-solutions you don't need Xamarin. [1] http://www.monodevelop.com/ http://www.monodevelop.com/
- Rapzid 12y ago
  I have used Xamarin Studio a lot in the past for free. It's the mobile stuff that costs extra. Now I lean a bit more toward Visual Studio as it is free for my purposes.
btzll 12y ago
Since most of the income of Oracle comes from Enterprise software, I doubt they will do what MS does in the near future.
pjmlp 12y ago
I like both eco-systems a lot, however Java is currently more open than .NET, specially if you look around for available certified JVMs.

MrZipf 12y ago

The open-sourcing is a sign that MSFT is in a tricky spot (BYOD, mobile, tablet, games) and desperately needs to improve relations with the outside world. Expect we'll also see MSFT using more open source in products to compete effectively though I wonder what'd happen with internal best practices that the outside world doesn't have, e.g. SAL. Will they contribute back? Let's see. Inside MSFT there used to be minimal credit for releasing source which was a strong inhibitor in the employee review process. And a gratuitously awkward internal process for open sourcing code with no path for accepting changes/contributions. Attitudes are definitely improving. The major benefit of this particular move will be when you're working on Windows drivers - now you can see and completely grok what a piece of code does until it transitions into the kernel proper.

threeseed 12y ago
It's also a sign that Microsoft sees its future in services. Which in that case means that protecting the former "company jewels" of Windows and Office ceases to be less important.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  I don't think it's about Windows and Office becoming less important as concepts or products, but that their old sales channel and use cases are outmoded. Windows and Office will still be Microsoft's cash cows; they'll just collect the fees through Azure, OneDrive, and other software-as-a-service packages. Open-sourcing is about keeping Microsoft's platforms competitive so that people will rent Azure nodes. Microsoft realized they were becoming to FOSS as OS X is to Windows and is trying to counteract that. Microsoft's vision is still valid; they want Microsoft technology running every computer in the world.
  - wslh 12y ago
    Indeed it's clear that Office is very important, they are just unifying products and services. Now you have a unified subscription of $ 9.99 per month for Office 365 + Office Desktop Apps.
12y ago

throwawaymsft 12y ago

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Gandhi

crazychrome 12y ago
why this quote got down voted? it's exactly how Opensource progresses.
- 0xFFC 12y ago
  1.Because MSFT doing good job 2. Gandhi was sick person, you can search about it , He was afraid of money/tea and so many things.Those good thing we hear about Gandhi I think most of them are propaganda.
  - throwawaymsft 12y ago
    1. Sure, Microsoft is doing the right thing after exhausting every other possibility. Closed source didn't work, FUD against open source didn't work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Mic...), now they need to stop people from leaving their platform and tools in any way possible. 2. Ad hominem. The behavior of an individual doesn't change the truth of what they say.
    - crazychrome 12y ago
      the behaviour of an individual does affect his creditability though.

kriro 12y ago

There are actually some strong OS voices in Microsoft. I was at Solutions Linux in France (around 2006 iirc) and there was a Microsoft booth. Since our booth had some downtime I talked to the guy manning their booth who was kind of stranded between Linux distros and FLOSS companies. He was pretty cool and genuinely trying to advance OS within Microsoft but said it's a pretty frustrating experience overall (his descriptions of the internal processes at Microsoft were pretty interesting). Seems like they have come a long way since, I hope he's still working there. I should have his card somewhere at home :) So as far as I know there have been developers who were pushing to open source a lot of infrastructure/language stuff for quite some time. Edit: I think it's no coincidence we see this happening now that Ballmer is gone. He was kind of the villain in the "let's open source stuff" stories I heard.

brudgers 12y ago
Scott Hanselman has been talking about the process of changing Microsoft's culture toward open source on Hanselminutes since he started working there about five years (and a couple of hundred episodes) ago. The move to open source has been in the works a long time and appears (to me at least) as part of Ballmer and Gates long term strategic plan for the era when they were no longer the largest and second largest shareholders and the company was more beholden to Wall Street. The new post-founder (ok Ballmer wasn't technically a founder) era at Microsoft has been set up so that Microsoft can operate like a software company again. That means embracing current industry culture. Practices that made sense when software came in boxes and was sold through magazines and connecting meant squawking over POTS, needed to be looked at with an eye toward long term. Nadella was set up by Ballmer to fall into the pit of success. The super tanker's rudder was changed years ago. The move toward open source is no more overnight than the hardware build quality of the surface.
- igorgue 12y ago
  Also, I bet having Phil Haack working at Github changed the mindset of a lot of people, either way, even from the days from Novel and Mono, Microsoft was always cool with opensource.

baxter001 12y ago

"we understand there’s no substitute for having OS source available" Ho ho ho.

maguirre 12y ago

This is slightly off topic. However maybe someone on this thread can point me in the right direction. Can anyone recommend some good resources to get started writing low-level drivers for windows (books or open source examples)? I work mostly with embedded software on custom project. From time to time I need to interface with Windows machines and the information of this topic has always been limited.

galaktor 12y ago
I too have been finding it hard to find a single reliable and up-to-date source for learning windows drivers. There's a plethora of info online, but lots is out of date and/or scattered and redundant. Even decent paid training is hard to find, at least in my part of the world. There's a book, but it's old [1] There's samples, which are fresh [2] There's a multi part series on Code Project, but it's old (yet much of it still applies conceptually; samples not so much) Part 1 of 6: [3] If anybody has a good one-stop-shop and updated source of learning I'd very much appreciate it (I'd love a nicely written book on the matter that's not older than, say, 3 years old) [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Drivers-Foundation-Developer-Reference/dp/0735623740 http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Drivers-Foundation-Develope... [2]: https://github.com/Microsoft/Windows-driver-samples https://github.com/Microsoft/Windows-driver-samples [3]: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/9504/Driver-Development-Part-Introduction-to-Drivers http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/9504/Driver-Development-...

monocasa 12y ago

I don't see a patent grant...