Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a Guillemotto
|
|
|
Chrome uses Microsoft code
WHILE GOOGLE has acknowledged that its Chrome Web browser owes a lot to Open Source projects, Firefox and WebKit, it failed to mention the input from that great supporter of open saucing... Microsoft.
Digging through the Chrome source code, Scott Hanselman, a senior programming manager for Microsoft, found that the browser uses a chunk of Microsoft code, called the Windows Template Library.
This is software for building a Windows user interface and it uses an abstraction layer so that the interface software can be employed on other operating systems.
It looks like Google just downloaded it from SourceForge.net and on the Chromium site, Google lists WTL 8.0 as included third-party software.
Google also apparently used an undocumented interface from Microsoft to get the feature working in Windows XP SP2.
Microsoft's Arun Kishan said the interface is "undocumented and unsupported" and "initially only intended for our own use" on a Microsoft forum posting.
Google said it disassembled the source code of Windows Vista to get the code working.
L'Inq
Redmond Developer
Share this:
Share
Hand my down me walkin’ cane
Hand my down me hat
I agree that there's something nefarious going on here about undocumented feature sets being used by Google which Microsoft created for their own internal use.

Those undocumented features are never going away. Even "our own use" implies investment. That means that the removal of such features is unlikely at any point in the near future. Will we see it disappear from Microsoft's own use in 5 years, 10 years? Whatever that may be it is unlikely to ever interfere with Google's project, though I would have been happier to know that they weren't tying us to more Microsoft lock in technologies.

If they were smart they'd be making a truly cross platform or platform independent browser. If they can do that I'll seriously look at using it. If they can ensure they are really after making the browser market more competitive I'll use it but as it stands by making it OS specific (regardless of whether the Murkysofty mires us into the belief that this is code designed to make things work on other platforms.

Google should know better. Microsoft will take them down at any chance and will use any means to do it. They should not be involved in any measure which purports alliances.

Move on past Microsoft Google. They are old. You are new. Make our lives better.
Disassembled the source code, is that fancy talking for reading the program lines? :p

Now if we were talking about binary code...
Isn't Google breaking the terms of their EULA by disassembling anything?

(Of course, I take it to mean they disassembled binary code, since a) Microsoft doesn't give out the source code to its crown jewels, and b) with source code, there's no need to disassemble - as many above have also mentioned.)

I know Microsoft is the spawn of all evil, but giving them carte blanche to sue you isn't the most intelligent thing to do. Still doesn't help Google in my opinion, though: Their grasping attitude towards my privacy is enough to make me want to avoid installing anything written by them on my PC - just as I also avoid anything by Real Networks. Get the picture?
This article is a joke right? But to understand it, you have to be a developer?... The "Windows Template Library" is (as the name says) a *library*, it is a bit misleading to refer to it as "Chrome uses Microsoft code". This is silly, of course it has to use Microsoft code, tools and libraries if it is going to run on Microsoft's OS!

Does the fact that WTL is younger than MFC or ATL makes it so much different than any library provided by MS? It's no different than using comctl32.lib IMHO. Sure its source code is available, so what? *Many* other MS libraries are provided with source code for debugging purposes.

MS employees want to give their company some importance with naive statements like that, but it is pretty much pointless. WTL is just a library like all the others provided by MS, there is nothing special about it.

Why don't Gooo...ooogle and GAtesville do something useful like come together And pour some milk over the credit crunch or something!!!! Or hAven't they noticed thAt the freAkin world finAncial system hAs just collapsed. Who needs A browser thAt runs Another .exe every time you open Another freAkin window, As if my Ancient Sony pc didn't hAve enough trouble runnin All the free softwAer thAt's out there AlreAdy!

Don't they sAy that Nero was writing code As Rome burned? And I don't mean Cds.

I do enjoy this website.

The title says a lot, but allow me to add that we needed another browser like we need another world war.
"Google said it disassembled the source code"
Ok Joe, We've got 4673 "A"s, 2345 "B"s, ... 76 "Z"s.. Now what do we do with them??
Firstly, it has been known that Chrome uses WTL since its release. It is in the blinking source, after all. It is not hidden. Here, for example, from Sep 5th:
http://www.catonmat.net/blog/code-reuse-in-google-chrome-browser/

Secondly, and this may come as a surprise to many "technical writers", any Windows application has to use Microsoft code because all the APIs are written by Microsoft and the application has to link against them. 

When you are coding for a Microsoft OS you are using a whole lot of Microsoft code. What was the article about, again ???

Now, the fact that Microsoft felt the need to even discuss this is quite interesting in itself and could deserve an article in an online publication, say like The Inq. Sadly, this is not the case.
google sucks
Disassembled the source code, now that's no mean reverse engineering feat!
In fairness, Chrome is only available on MS systems, and platform specific code was the most likely reason for this, so why should this come as a shock to anyone? I'm not saying it's a good thing that they used it, mind, just that it's not all that much of a revelation
From TFA: "Google said it disassembled the source code of Windows Vista to get the code working."

No, Google didn't say that, Scott Hanselman of Microsoft said they "may have disassembled part of the Windows Kernel in order to achieve this security feature under Windows XP SP2"

Next time you should read the article that you're quoting from. I've read your crap regularly for years, and I'm surprised there's no libel lawsuits out there against you guys for your shoddy "journalism."

With that said, keep talking s**t about nVIDIA because I'm biased against them as well ;)
So what, they want it to be compatible and if using this does the job with the MS OS then more power to them. If I remember correctly MS is notorious for having outside programs run like crap while their own stuff runs nice, on purpose of course but try and prove it in court.
I watched the press announcement of Chrome by Google. 

They didn't mention Microsoft then either. 

A reporter even brought up Microsoft, but not without first tossing out "Voldemort" as their nickname. 

Clearly Google sees Microsoft as competition, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were taking the high road by simply not mentioning a competitor known to have used underhanded competitive tactics in the past. 

Michael Adams
www.chromevoice.com
Sensationalist article, badly written. Like an example? "Google said it disassembled the source code of Windows Vista". First of all, there is no need to disassemble 'source code', that's ludicrous. I think you must mean the binary code, they disassembled the compiled code?? Just re-read your own article, it sometimes helps...

Microsoft: 'undocumented' 'for our use only'. Nice to know the convicted monopolist is still using the same old book of tricks. They give out API's, but keep the really good stuff for themselves. Something that can be used to make programs easily ported between different platforms!? Blasphemy! Of course they're not going to give the keys to THAT particular piece of work away.

So, what else is new?