Taiwan Asks Microsoft To Open Windows Source 473
Andy Tai writes "According to this China Times article (in Chinese), the Republic of China government has asked Microsoft to open Windows source code. The official, Lin Jua-Cheng, in charge of the 'e-government' initiative, says many other countries have also sent similar requests to Microsoft. Lin explains that without Windows source code, the government cannot add custom firewall functionalities to Windows based systems in wide use, and that is very bad for the information security of Taiwan. Microsoft refused to publicly release the source in the past using reasons of copyright protection, but Lin emphasizes this request is reasonable since it is based on (government users') necessity." Read on for a bit more, too. (Can anyone suggest an online Chinese English translation engine that produces other than gibberish?)
Andy continues "Lin points out that GNU/Linux systems, because of their freeness and high security (due to the availability of the source code, which can be modified to add firewalls and other security measures), have become widely used in government computer systems (especially in militaries and intelligence agencies) of many nations and the Pentagon, the FAA, and the air force of the U.S. Lin says the government cannot rely on a single vendor, and to promote the alternatives, the government has set up a 'Free (libre) Software Steering Committee' directing government efforts. The two aims of the ROC government's current software policy is making Windows source code openly available and the development of Free (libre) Software in Taiwan."
Okay (Score:2, Funny)
Sure, because I need to look at the windows source to know that I need to enable HTTP to this server, SMTP to that server, etc etc.
Re:Okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody ever said there was a deep understanding underlying political motivation. :)
As much as we'd all like to see this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As much as we'd all like to see this... (Score:3, Interesting)
partners to ensure that this need is met within a trusted computing
architecture via the shared source initiative, or somesuch. (When
translated into English, this rougly means they'll allow half a
dozen NDA-bound persons from the government in question to peek for
a couple of minutes at copies of what they claim is the requested
source code, with strict provisions in place to ensure no useful
information ever comes of it to anyone. The government of Taiwan
will be pacified by this just enough that nothing more interesting
will come of the matter.)
Re:As much as we'd all like to see this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Once that happens, Microsoft will pretty much HAVE to Open Source Windows to have a chance. Everyone will realize the benefits of OSS and they won't want to lock themselves into a proprietary platform.
If/when Windows becomes OSS, I may or may not endorse using it. At that point I'll judge it vs. Linux technically.
Re:As much as we'd all like to see this... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're assuming that the users would judge the OSS factor in their decision in choosing bewteen Linux and Windows. I doubt that, for 90% of people, the source being OSS would even enter into the choice. People decide on their OS by the price, availability of software, hardware requirements, and what their friends/clients use. If Linux does make a serious challenge to Windows then MSFT are much more likely to just try to compete on these factors rather than the ethics of software engineering. They may well make Windows free, but thats certainly not the same thing as OSS.
Re:As much as we'd all like to see this... (Score:3, Interesting)
At least they're taking the first small step. At least they're politely asking for the source code, which is more than any other country has tried.
Also (Score:4, Informative)
Uh...duh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uh...duh? (Score:4, Funny)
don't beleive the hype... (Score:5, Insightful)
In W2k and later, the entire network stack is completely pluggable. You can insert any layer you want to that sits between NDIS and a protocol driver, and you can create other layers as required. I'd be very surprised if they couldn't do everything required with windows exactly as it sits today.
I think this is just making political noise, and not based on any shred of technical accuracy.
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:2)
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:2)
cuz thats the only way to be sure.
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:5, Insightful)
wrong. you compile everything from source BY HAND.
The first FORTRAN compiler was written in FORTRAN and compiled...by hand. Of course, without any optimizations. A very un-optimized and bulky and messy FORTRAN compiler now existed, and it was used to compile a clean version of itself from the source the reasearchers usd to create it. So you see, the first FORTRAN compiler was really a person. (This is taken from slashdot comments from awhile ago.)
More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler that would put in a back-door whenever it noticed itself compiling a common bit of Unix login code, so that the author could use a certain password and get in on any system running a unix compiled with that compiler. More deviously, the author also made the compiler detect when it was compiling a version of itself and to add in the same code with which it itself was modified. (ie. 1, to change unix when it noticed it was compiling it, 2. to change a compiler, when it noticed it was compiling it, such that the changes make for a compiled compiler that both changed unix and detected/changed a version of itself, whenever it was asked to compile one.) In this way, the backhole remained through many versions of the comiler, since it did not appear in the source and could not be detected. Imagine if gcc 3.0 changed Linux every time it was compiling it, because it was compiled using gcc 2.x, which was compiled using gcc 1.x, which was changed in such a way as to change the gcc compiler, whenever it was compiling it.
So changes can propagate through the executable compilers, from generation to generation, without appearing in the source. Unless you step through the compiler as it's compiling a version of unix (hairy stuff!) or of itself (even hairier!!), you'll never be any the wiser.
Devious stuff!
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:3, Informative)
So it must be true, right?
(Relax, I'm kidding. I don't doubt what you're saying. Your citation, however, cracked me up.)
More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler
"Reflections on Trusting Trust," Communications of the ACM, August '84. Read it here [acm.org].
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:3, Informative)
in your link works.
I'll explain just the compiler half first, then the password half.
BACKDOOR CODE:
Scan source code while it gets compiled, if it looks you are compling a compiler then insert BACKDOOR CODE into the source. (You don't actually change the source file, you just read the source as if it was there.)
Now you take compiler source and put in the BACKDOOR CODE and compile it. You now have a compiler EXE with BACKDOOR CODE. Now take clean compiler code, make improvements and compile. The infected compiler invisibly inserts the backdoor into it and your clean source produces infected compiler EXE.
Now you can hand everyone the compiler EXE and the clean source without the backdoor. Even if they write a compiler from scratch it will still get infected if they use your compiler to compile it.
Now that we have a an invisible self perpetuating backdoor, we add a payload to it. Add in a another secotion to the BACKDOOR CODE: Scan to see if you are compiling LOGIN source, if so insert a backdoor root level password. Now any any version of Linux complied from perfectly clean source will have a backdoor root login, and an infected compiler.
It is extremely insidious. Everyone looks at the source and thinks everything is fine. The only way to detect the problem is to actually read through the EXE, and that's an extremely long, laborous, and error-prone process. You THINK you know what's in there already, so why would you do it? The only way to FIX the problem is to create a new compiler EXE BY HAND. That's an extremely long, laborous, and error-prone process as well.
-
Clouded minds... (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. This was a theoretical attack presented by Ken Thompson [acm.org]. It was never out in the wild, to the best of anyone's knowledge.
The point still remains that you can't trust code unless you can personally verify it at any level, because the moment you give any important code trust, the code can potentially use that as a way of subverting the entire system.
C compiler backdoor reference... (Score:4, Informative)
Pretty entertaining reading...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, but you'll find people want to trust groups of people more than one person.
If _everybody_ is using a compiler, you can trust it. (or trust that if there is a backdoor, _everybody_ has the backdoor, so you're still on a level playing field.)
But not _everybody_ is using windows to install custom firewalls. The trust can't come from a wide community of users, so it has to come from examining the actual construction of the product itself.
People don't trust a company nearly as much as they trust groups of people who should have already encountered the problems youre attempting to avoid should a problem in the product exist. Since that is impossible (or at least difficult) with respect to Windows as a custom firewall platform, because of the lower visibility of use and the lesser amount of people using it in this fasion, I'd realize I had no groups of users to trust and this I'd only trust the innards of the product once I could examine them myself.
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:3, Informative)
Tiny Software is not affiliated with MS and the product is theirs alone. Also, they aren't the only ones that have a firewall that operates like this. There is plenty of verification that Windows will not interfere with a custom firewall and has no backdoors around one (the way the network stack is built it really couldn't).
This is a non-issue.
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:4, Informative)
So, you write your firewall, and then install and test it. Simple as that. Even if I was using an OSS OS, I'm not oging to trust a matter of national security (or even the security of my own computer) to hoping it's all working and nothing is interfering with it. I'll scan the thing with scanners like nmap, and sniff the packets it is passing. Only once I am convinced that it works right am I then confident.
I'm not sure when OSS gives peopel such a warm, fuzzy, feeling. As the famous C-compiler trojan proved, there is no way to be sure just because you have the source. You need to do some kind of external verification to REALLY make sure your system is secure. I don't trust my firewall for any reason other than that I have tested it, and confirmed it works.
P.S. Major enterprises, universities, government instutions, etc trust Cisco firewalls and their source is not open.
Trust me...Says the spider.... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, would you like to get a bank statement that just list your beginning and ending balance?
Not me and I doubt you would accept it too.
While I don't check the arithmetic usually, the bank knows that I CAN CHECK it any time I want. Thus, they work to make sure that there're no problems.
Similarly, knowing that the source code is visible makes the vendor think carefully about what to put in it in the first place. And that's worth a lot.
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:3, Insightful)
but then, you can't be sure of anyone elses software, either. The advantage of OSS in this facet has been debunked time and time again. Thousands of people that depend on sendmail, bind, tcpdump, libpcap, etc. The source is there for them to look at it. They look at it. They dont find anything because they're not looking hard enough or they're not qualified to do security analysis of software.
Using publicly available tools you can single-step execution of the Windows operating system. You can get the names of all the symbols in the kernel. You can set kernel mode breakpoints on any peice of the network (and rpc/app) stack you want. It's not the same as having the source, but you can isolate exactly what the OS is doing at any time if you want to. And you can just disassemble the body of any function you like, once you've isolated it (which is easy, since Microsoft publishes full symbol information).
An experiment i did in about 30 minutes of poking around (im a novice at kernel debugging) had me to a point where i could make a machine drop to a kernel mode debugger when someone connected to a SMB share on that machine. I could then examine the file they were looking at, what operation they were trying to do, etc etc.
Naturally, this can all be automated. You could write a _kernel mode_ SMB debugger if you wanted to, and were worried about the CIFS implementation.
I'm not even sure if debugging tools like that for linux _even exist_.
And it's a moot point anyway. The overwhelming majority of people that think source availability is the difference between secure and insecure software aren't qualified to look at the source of either side, much less make objective measurements of the security/correctness aspects of the code in question.
Re:don't beleive the hype... (Score:3, Informative)
Having said that, they're a pain in the ass to write. There's quite a dearth of information on this type of driver, which means you have to rely a lot on MS sample code -- never a good thing IMHO. I'm not sure how having the source would remedy that, though.
There's also some kind of IP stack hook independent of MS made specifically for this type of thing. Last I checked, though, it could only be hooked by a single caller.
The obvious answer (Score:5, Funny)
translation (Score:2, Interesting)
Click once on the Translation channel in the Toolbar.
Copy and paste the Chinese text within the top half and make sure you have the "Chinese (Simplified) to English" filter selected.
Then click the Translate button.
Re:translation (Score:2, Informative)
Lame (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. And instead of the Army servicing their own F14s, the hoods should be locked shut, and they should outsource all their service and development to Kinkos. And police shouldn't be allowed to tamper with their bullet proof vests to confirm that there really is kevlar in them. They should just trust the company that made it for them.
Am I the only person who understands that software companies build software
The gall people have. When folks bitch about the government wasting money, your proposal is the PERFECT example of wasting money. Why waste the money when you can do it in house? WHY, GOD, WHY?
WHY do we support the abject protection of intellectual 'property' in order to keep the market functioning when that goal of protection can be used to tamper with market forces? Think about it; a market isn't just somewhere where you can get what you want. Its important that you have the option _not_ to be forced to go back into the market when you can just do the work yourself.
Forced? I don't see a gun at your head. (Score:4, Interesting)
This breaks your entire rant right there. If you were getting more value for doing the work yourself, you would've already chosen that path. By saying that the money spent is a smaller cost than the personal time needed to master the concepts and develop the software, you are making an economic decision. The type that drives forward the economy. Why eat out when you can cook at home? Why buy carrots from a store when you can grow them yourself?
You have to specialize at some point, otherwise you'll end up being a person who is ok or decent at many menial tasks, while not really enjoying the benefits modern society has to offer. If you're whinning about how expensive something is when you can do it yourself, you're only trying to distract us from the fact that you haven't done it yourself! Actions do speak louder than whines.
Before you whine about trust, you should understand the economic underpinnings of these decisions. Since software is digital, the cost is all in the creation phase. You should tell your government to look in to escrow software development. Have a fixed dollar value attached to projects + the condition that it be GPLed upon release, then drum up the funding for it. Some company wanting to make money will invest time in it to reap the money returns, and the government gets software that it can again set contracts on ("we now need to to collate documents. We'll give $4,000 to anyone who gives us this feature").
You could take the alternate route that customers enter in to a limited-trust scenario. Complete access to source code, provided they do not provide it to anyone else. This lets clients pick over everything, while keeping the accountability that would allow a traditional software company to continue to sell the software + support to other people until the escrow method becomes more popular.
If today's software companies were to just give away everything as you state, they'd die. When you develop some great algorithm that suites a problem, you've done the work. When someone else comes along and copies it, you have no way of recouping the cost of the work because the copy cost is 0. Without some sort of escrowed payment system and trusted-client relationship for these innovations, software development would mostly grind to a halt.
Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Because most people cant. Why doesn't everybody outsource the prodecure of putting the toilet lid down when they're done? Because they can.
Point is: if you can do it (and there are fuckloads of cases where its cheaper to do something yourself), you shouldnt be forced to buy into the market. Thats not a free market, thats a free market youre not free to avoid when it makes you wealthier (one of the goals of healthy capitalism, no?)
Re:Lame (Score:2)
Re:Lame (Score:2)
Will this mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will this mean... (Score:2, Funny)
Of course not!
That's too much code to fit on a CD, you'll have to buy a DVD on the streets of China.
Re:DOS 6.2 (Score:2)
Re:Will this mean... (Score:2)
No way, no how. Never gonna happen. (Score:2)
Maybe a long time from now all software will be open source and the world will be a better place but until that happens, MS has too much to lose and nothing to gain from this.
Re:No way, no how. Never gonna happen. (Score:2)
The peasents want Open Source? (Score:2, Funny)
Now if only this worked... (Score:2)
We could investigate and fix bugs in... Wait, you mean Microsoft -really- intends to kill all the bugs in the code?
But we... Oh, I knew you were just joking about the bugs too. Really, I did.
I don't really want Windows to go open source. I -really- don't want it to go restricted source, because they'd use that as a weapon against Free Software like you wouldn't believe.
"The Samba team looked at the Windows XP source code and took components, putting them into the Samba tree."
"No we didn't."
"Yes you did, look here. See this contribution from X? He plead with us for immunity so we can bust your asses."
"But he works for Microsoft, according to..."
Behold, the power of plants.
Some geopolitical education... (Score:5, Insightful)
Taiwan is not China. Taiwan is a very urban, very modern nation which participates fairly in the world economy. Much of the technology used in America and throughout the world is manufactured in and imported from Taiwan. Though "officially" it is a Chinese province according to the US government, Taiwan and China have a very antagonistic relationship with one another -- Taiwan wants independence from China and is basically already fully independent in every way except in name. China considers Taiwan to be a 'rogue capitalist province' and the two governments hate one another (going back to the battles between the Chinese nationalists and communists early in the 20th century).
In fact, the US (if I understand correctly) has a very unusual agreement with Taiwan to jump to their defense if they should ever be invaded by China, even though at the same time the US also officially supports the "one China policy."
It is entirely possible that Taiwan wants to enhance its information security to protect itself from mainland China.
Easy (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I rather like iptables.
Open Your Source (Score:2, Funny)
MS: Ha ha! We refuse!
TW: Than you bring great dishonor upon yourself!
MS: Ha ha! We care not for honor!
TW: You leave us no choice! We will switch to Open Source!
MS: Ha ha! See our secretly built navy and missile launchers? We scare even the Great Dragon itself!
TW: We make the world's motherboards! We can defeat you!
MS: Just try!
Built-In Firewall (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think MS would see this as a valid reason to open it's Windows source up. I'm guessing instead they'll simply tell Taiwan to go by XP which has similar functionality.
Re:Built-In Firewall (Score:2)
The provided filter with RAS sucks and is not stateful so you *must* write your own (the interfaces are documented). The XP solution only adds a prettier interface to the W2K filter (i.e., you can name protocols rather than use port numbers), but it isn't stateful either.
How often does this happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft products should never have been chosen for government implementation to begin with.
Austria got Windows Source last year (Score:4, Informative)
Translation (Score:4, Funny)
Here's a translation:
- We would like Microsoft to open the source code for Windows.
- We would also like the drug companies to develop a cure for cancer in the next year or so
- It would be ideal if the Israelis and Palestinians could come to some sort of agreement
- We propose that all record companies make their content available for free, so that all consumers who like the songs will send in a reasonable payment for each song, while consumers who don't like the song will delete it.
All completely reasonable propositions !
Quick China Note (Score:4, Informative)
This is dealing with the ROC, not the PRC. The PRC claims the ROC is a renegade province, the ROC is just sitting back with the US covering its ass waiting to be able to truly flip the PRC off.
Re:Quick China Note (Score:2)
But Why? Sounds so bogus to me. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't Taiwan privately contract with Microsoft to add such capabilities? Does Taiwan seriously want to use Windows for it's most secure information, and therefore need to know all the internals to Windows? And to release the details to the masses? That seems a bit unrealistic.
Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of open source. But this one sounds more like industry politics than a technical shortcoming.
I say open up Window's source code in order to curb Microsoft's monopolistic stranglehold on business and individuals and government. Not to add "custom firewall software for Taiwan".
Can anyone... (Score:2)
I dunno. Can anyone suggest a slashdot story submission engine that produces other than gibberish?
Interesting news. (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, China will much rather build its own version of Linux (it already has a project underway). It makes sense for them. If you are starting from scratch, you do not have the biggest problem that prohibits Linux in the office: retraining of non-IT personnel.
Microsoft has not been the first one to feel the wrath of China. China has developed their own x86 chip and, thus, do not depend on either AMD or Intel. They, in fact, are in a position to make 100% Made in China PCs.
I'm laughing all the way to the street vendors... (Score:2, Insightful)
-gerbik
Re:I'm laughing all the way to the street vendors. (Score:2)
Because once Microsoft releases the source to anyone, we will all have it.
Tinfoil hat translation (Score:2)
Re:Tinfoil hat translation (Score:2)
Huh? Do you mean, "to insure Nation B didn't put a back door in it".
Open Source? (Score:5, Funny)
What does this question mean for what we understand by "Open Source"?
The answer (Score:2)
I think there's something under the surface here.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would also assume that Microsoft has its supporters in governemnt, and this official is simply trying to keep the argument on it's technical merits so as not to upset any politicos. It's framed in such a way, that it's essentially a state-security issue: if Microsoft doesn't open the code, then we are more open to [Chinese] hacking and snooping. Who can argue they're not in favor of a more secure state. Actually, very, very smart on this official's part. Played this way, it appears as though it's Microsoft's problem and not about any particular government official.
There are probably many other culture differences that we cannot even begin to understand.
Re:I think there's something under the surface her (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it would be great if the end result of this was the Taiwanese government deciding to switch to Linux. The money they would save on future licenses could be better spent on furthering development of the tools that they need, if they aren't already available to them with Linux, and since the underlying code is open source, that problem is eliminated. Seems like a win-win situation for the Taiwanese government and Linux users world wide.
I don't think this will happen though. More likely MS will do the minimum that it needs to do to keep Taiwan happy. The source code will never be open, but they may add some features or create a firewall that will fill the need. They may even end up profiting off of this. They can tell Taiwan that they will do it for Taiwan, instead of the Taiwanese government using it's own programmers whom would not be familiar with the source code. Who better to modify Windows than the people that work on Windows day in and day out?
Maybe someone high up in the Linux community should step up and make an offer to the Taiwanese government. Maybe make them a package deal that would include training their IT people on how to properly install, configure, and maintain Linux as well as training some of them to be able to teach others how to use the new software.
Microsoft Spyware (Score:2)
First I (Bill) will deploy my OS in all of the countries in the world with the help of the US government, CIA, etc. then I will TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
Sort of strange that someone like Bill might have both delusions of grandure AND rule the world at the same time.
Not so outlandish (Score:2)
This is ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
Stupid, why should MS do this? (Score:3)
Why don't they just buy a damn firewall and put their computers behind it? That's what the rest of the world does?
Am I missing something?
Not to detract from the spyplane vs. src debate... (Score:2)
Filtering and control of TCP/IP doesn't require anything remotely like OS source. Right now, millions of people in Asia with their bootlegged (we hope) copies of Windows enjoy a great deal more freedom of information than they've ever had. They can share, they can organize, and keep company with people all over their continent in a fashion that should scare the socks off any but the most open of societies.
If I wanted to regain some control of information flow in any of those countries, I would want the Windows source. I would release the State version of it for a cheap price, and I would declare anyone using the non-state approved version a subversive and a law breaker. Each time the state approved version hit a website, or made any contact with any piece of software it would ask for that software's State ID. It would report all such information at its next opportunity to State sponsored computers. In filtering this data it would become obvious where the IP addresses were in your country that were not running the State version of the OS. Filtering the logs to distinguish subversives versus 'normal' folks would be a snap.
The only kind of filter that you can't add to Windows after the fact is one you don't want the user to be able to remove or refuse to install.
Welcome to the Panopticon.
At least it would be easier to reverse engineer (Score:2, Funny)
Don't Open the Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Eminent Domain (Score:3, Insightful)
Taiwan getting a looky at the the Windows source code to protect their national security from a large, powerful, local, and real communist threat seems pretty tame.
Hmm custom firewalls on the desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting concept.. near total control of incoming information..
Just add a dash of DRM to control local content.. instant 100% suppression of 'non authorized' information.
Maybe they are looking for NSA/CIA backdoors? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they just want to compile it themselves to make sure there aren't any NSA/CIA/FBI backdoors installed in it. [slashdot.org]
Disclosed source code is not equal to Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
This Corporate Power Thing Is Getting Out of Hand (Score:3, Funny)
Do you guys know nothing about the world? (Score:3, Informative)
Taiwan is a separate country not owned by China, so what the hell does China have to say about anything? The headline should be CHINA asks MS to open its source. If the guy from China actually mentioned Taiwan, he was probably talking about how China has been itching to bomb the crap out of them and take it over for decades now.
Esperandi
Re:Fair trade (Score:2, Funny)
ignorance abounds (Score:3, Informative)
the spy plane crashed on the chinese island of hainan, which is nowhere near taiwan (relatively speaking). secondly, taiwan is not china, and vice versa. that's like mixing up the us and mexico. big difference, people will get insulted on either side if you fail to see the distinction.
Re:Fair trade (Score:2)
Gosh, the ignorance would be funny if it weren't so sad...
Re:Good ol' Slashdot Duality (Score:2)
Ummm, we're talking about Taiwan not the PROC.
Geography Lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geography Lesson (Score:2)
The posting refers to Taiwan, not mainland China. Taiwan, also known as the "Republic of China", is not the same country as China, also known as the "People's Republic of China". The former is a peaceful democracy, the latter is a belligerent, brutal totalitarian regime.
To be fair, only recently could Taiwan call itself a democracy. For much of its history, Taiwan was not very democratic at all.
Re:Geography Lesson (Score:2, Flamebait)
Actually they are the same country, but different governments. Both constitutions insist on this. And while the PRC is certainly both brutal and totalitarian, belligerent really doesn't fit. They've been involved in far fewer wars than any other country of their side recently, certainly far fewer than the US, and showed precious little interest in changing that. They even cooperate fairly well with the ROC, and sort-of recognise their legitimacy, under the doctrine of one nation two systems. More than I can imagine the US doing under similar circumstanced (imagine a dissident government in control of Florida and claiming sovereignty over the entire US today.)
Re:Geography Lesson (Score:3, Interesting)
Sources? I think you're referring to the amendments of '91, but if so, I think you're way off, I don't remember them disclaiming the mainland and I know, in fact, they specifically added provisions for representation of mainland residents in the ROC.
In principle they have, that's what one china two systems means. In practice they're less than happy with that, of course, not the least because ROC officials are so obviously working to Helsinkify Taiwan and return it to it's state as a vassal of Japan instead. And A-bians title in quotes is hardly limited to the mainland - you must admit, the circumstances of his election are suspicious, to say the least.
Two points, first that's not a very good analogy at all, I was consciously avoiding it, because the Confederacy never claimed any authority over the rest of the US , and second because Cuba was never part of the US. Taiwan was ruled by Japan through the end of WWII, yes, but then again, for most of that time so was Manchuria, ("Manchuguo" ring a bell?) what's your point? Taiwan has been part of China for centuries, and a few years of occupation doesn't exactly change that.
If they were belligerent they would have hit something with them. Or hit someone, somewhere, outside of China maybe? Let's see, there was the dustup with India, and they intervened at the very last minute to prevent North Korea from becoming a US stronghold, but other than that I can't think of any instances of belligerence from the PRC. They tend to stick to terrorising people inside China, which is bad, and I'm not condoning it, but belligerence implies terrorising people distant from your own borders, and I just don't see that in the PRC.
Re:Good ol' Slashdot Duality (Score:2)
And I'm sure this distinction will be made (and lost) a hundred times today, because nobody actually does their homework.
NONONONONO. (Score:2)
Re:Good ol' Slashdot Duality (Score:2)
Therefore, isn't the fact that Microsoft's closed source policies stand in the way of China's attempts at fullscale net censorship, a good thing?
That's not the issue, MS's policy wouldn't stand in the way, and doing the right thing for the wrong reason shouldn't buy one any moral credit.
Re:A government is better than the rest of us? (Score:2)
So how did the Taiwanese government come up with it ?
Re:A government is better than the rest of us? (Score:2)
Re:A government is better than the rest of us? (Score:2)
They love us! I know they do!! (swimfan)
Re:A government is better than the rest of us? (Score:4, Funny)
The license plate on my 330ci convertible reads SOLARIS..
It amazes me that ignorant people like you can afford the kind of cars you drive. Taiwan is not communist you dolt!
But hey.. good luck impressing the Slashdot hotties with you 330ci convertible.. damn your dick must be huge.
-gerbik
Re:Don't they realize (Score:2)
They will probably save a bundle too!
Re:Don't they realize (Score:2)
Re:Remember Tawian dosent like linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Remember Tawian dosent like linux (Score:3, Informative)
By very nature, 'communism' cannot exist alongside 'dictatorship' because the two are anathema to each other. The US is a much more communist state than China is (the US has many and powerful unions, the DeLeonist perspective, while in China unions are either nonexistent or impotent).
But you're right, the Chinese government is not helpful to its citizenry at all.
Re:Not only that (Score:2)
Re:Not easily translated (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft and Taiwan (Score:3, Insightful)