“Windows Interface Source Environment”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

WISE SDKs were based on an emulation of the Windows API which could run on Unix and Macintosh platforms.

History

WISE was issued in 1994. WISE software development kits were not directly provided by Microsoft. Instead, Microsoft established partnerships with several software providers (which needed to have access to Windows internals source code), which in turn sold WISE SDKs to end-users. A few software providers provided WISE SDKs or emulators, mainly:

Unfair use of Microsoft dominant position

The WISE program, which was discontinued shortly after its inception,{{When|date=July 2018}} was seen by some{{who|date=February 2014}} as a Trojan horse designed by Microsoft to penetrate the Unix market.^[3] Companies which provided WISE SDKs needed to have access to Windows source code, which made them dependent on Microsoft's good will. In 1999, Bristol Technology Inc., a software company which provided a WISE SDK, sued Microsoft, arguing that it illegally withheld Windows source code and used its dominant position with Windows to move into other markets.^[4]^[5]^[6] A ruling later ordered Microsoft to pay $1 million to Bristol Technologies.^[7]

Source code leak

To be able to develop WISE SDKs, software providers needed to have access to Windows internals source code. In 2004, more than 30,000 source files from Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0 were leaked to the internet. It was later discovered that the source of the leak originated from Mainsoft, one of the WISE software providers.^[8]

See also

References

1. ^{{Cite web |url = http://hyper.sunjapan.com.cn/~hz/win32/wise.htm |title = Windows Interface Source Environment (WISE |date = January 1995 |accessdate = 2008-04-26 |deadurl = yes |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20080330032918/http://hyper.sunjapan.com.cn/~hz/win32/wise.htm |archivedate = 2008-03-30 |df =}}
2. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.insignia.com/|title=Insignia Group of Companies|website=www.insignia.com|access-date=2018-07-06}}
3. ^{{Cite web| url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/18/analysis_how_ms_used/| title=Analysis: How MS used the WISE Trojan Horse against Unix| publisher=theregister.co.uk| date=2009-07-18| quote=Bristol may yet appeal after its loss against Microsoft (as of Friday, it hadn't come to a decision on this), but as the case stands it serves as an awful warning for companies doing business with Microsoft. A nice little business took it into an alliance with Microsoft, then it got sucked in deeper, and then the carrots started to disappear, replaced by the stick.| accessdate=2009-07-03}}
4. ^{{Cite web| url=http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,2072149,00.htm| title=Bristol: Microsoft unfairly withheld NT code| publisher=zdnet.co.uk| date=1999-06-04| quote=Bristol claimed Microsoft raised prices on the contracts unfairly and offered only a sliver of the code. But Microsoft said NT 4 and 5 are far more advanced versions of the operating system and should cost more. Bristol makes a product called Wind/U, which lets developers port programs written for Windows to other operating systems such as Unix.| accessdate=2009-07-03}}
5. ^{{Cite web| url=http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2072175,00.htm| title=Bristol: Microsoft aggressive, not anti-competitive| publisher=zdnet.co.uk| date=1999-06-07| quote=Bristol sued Microsoft in August, arguing that it illegally withheld source code and used its dominant position with Windows to move into other markets. Prior to filing suit, Bristol had a three-year contract to license Windows NT version 3. But Bristol claimed that when it came time to renew the contract and include versions 4 and 5, Microsoft illegally raised prices.| accessdate=2009-07-03}}
6. ^{{Cite web| url=http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/bristol/Default.htm| title=Bristol Technology v. Microsoft| publisher=techlawjournal.com| accessdate=2009-07-03}}
7. ^{{Cite web| url=http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18834532;jsessionid=3EIFGSNLAIOPKQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN| title=Microsoft Ordered To Pay $1 Million In Bristol Case| publisher=crn.com| date=2000-09-01| quote="Microsoft's deceptive acts constitute affirmative acts of misconduct which were designed to injure those to whom they were directed, and wantonly risked serious injury, albeit of a purely economic nature," Hall said in her ruling.| accessdate=2009-07-03}}
8. ^{{Cite web| url=http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3312621| title=Mainsoft Eyed as Windows Source Code Leak| publisher=internetnews.co| date=2004-02-13| accessdate=2009-07-03}}