Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trying To Look Open Source With CE
MajorBlunder writes "There is an article at ZDnet about Microsoft opening up the source code for Windows CE. I really don't care to guess what demons of Redmond are thinking, but this certainly puts some power behind the whole Open Source concept. "
Looking deeper into the story, it appears that MS is more concerned with appearances (that is, looking like it's embracing Open Source, at least at some level) rather than actions. I'm guessing only "selected" developers get the source -- at which point, so what?
It is this kind of forward-looking action that has put Microsoft on the map and given it the status that it enjoys as a company today. Sure, at first, it might sound a bit counter-intuitive. Not only do you give away your software, you give away the source code to your software, as well! This allows people to look at it, poke it, prod it, and in general learn how it works. This also allows people to improve your software themselves and submit the changes back to you! I must say, Microsoft has certainly developed an innovative paradigm here. By opening up their source, they stand to stimulate an entire stagnant industry!
I predict that this whole "open source" thing will be one of the most important of Microsoft's contributions to the computing and software industries. I also imagine that other companies and individuals will start using this concept to write C compilers, text editors, operating systems, etc. Let's hope that they give due credit to the company that originated this idea.
Would someone out there, please name ONE good piece of software that Microsoft has written.
Here's my list:
format, works rather well with the argument C:\
fdisk - particularly when destroying old MS-DOG partitions.
Linux fdisk: liberating PC's the world over!
Not that I would ever defend M$, but the slashdot mentality cracks me up. Microsoft actually releases something as open source, and everyone here slams them. I mean come on, what the fuck did you want them to do, open source NT? Like that would ever happen. So what we have here is M$ doing a quite reasonable thing by open sourcing CE, and even the slashdot editors can't keep from taking a jab at them with the title of the article. What a bunch of hypocrites. It's exactly this sort of mentality that will cause open source to be rejected by the typical corporate entity.
I'm sorry - but he _is_ right. Some OSS code is truly horrible. Things such as consistent code formatting and commenting have simply passed many OSS programmers by... Having seen large chunks of the Win CE code (just look in your MSDN subscription!) I can say that it is well formatted and commented. You will find that code produced by professional programmers in a coporate environment WILL be good - any half decent software comapny DEMANDS rigid compliance to a house style.
Just like when Micros~1 claimed to invent Symbolic Links.
.. geez
Um, Microsoft did invent symbolic links. Hope it doesn't spoil your condescending, blind devotion to the UNIX "operating system," but the whole concept of names that "point" to an actual file, but refer to no physical file themselves, was pioneered by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in a 1972 paper at Harvard. Ken Thompson, most likely in a drug-induced haze, blatantly stole that idea and put it into his own "operating system." 'Course, the revisionist historians will never tell the story that way, because we can't actually give Microsoft credit for anything, noooooooo, we gotta make sure that they're the BAD GUYS
are the three worst parts of /. comments. I don't read the /. comments to see a bunch of spoiled brats whine about how *this* story was selected instead of *that* story, or how much /. sucks for being /. (a subjective view of what happens in the Linux/Open Source/Geek) instead of trying to immitate the pseudo-objectivity of traditional media.
/. does not match your interests perfectly. Believe it or not, you are not the only person in the world, nor a particularily important one.
I read the comments because the store interest me, and one can sometimes find corrections or further information or insigts about the story in the comments. I suspect this is what the same the vast majority of readers are after, and I moderate and meta-moderate with that in mind. The original comment was not only stupid and wrong, it was also absolutely off-topic.
If a story doesn't interest you, skip it. Don't misuse it for whining about how
Yes! It's a mass-murder attempt by Microsoft. This code is actually a "Killing Joke"!
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yes, change the definitions.
Intel has had a stranglehold on the CPU market for years now by simply defining "best CPU" as a function of higher MHz. Those that don't know better, buy the faster clock, the higher number.
So Microsoft has finally realized that the way to slay this "Open Source" dragon is to utilize it's best assets: Stupid consumers and FUD. If Open Source means one thing to the minority geek community, Microsoft can easily define it to mean something completely different to the mass market.
\
Again, here, Microsoft is ripping off Apple, who was the FIRST major software company to pervert the definition of "open source" to it's own purposes.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It would be more useful if you could modify the code. Then someone could fix the CE posix routines to actually be posix compliant. (For example, actually have them return error codes on opening of a socket.)
If you can't use it to get the bugs fixed, it is not of much use other than to point and laugh.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
What's so big about having it GPLed? If they released it under a less restrictive license, it would be better for everyone except them. (The difference between e.g. the X license and the GPL is that you can do more stuff with X licensed code than with GPLed code. The purpose of the GPL is to defend the author's wish that the code not be used in closed projects.) I GPL stuff I write, (which isn't much to speak of yet :( ). It would be cool if they released it under the GPL, since that would really make other companies who still like Micros~1 think about going GPL to be able to use the code. Releasing X licensed code is just as big a plunge for Micros~1, though, it's the real deal, Open Source the way its meant to be. (among other things, both the GPL and X style licenses meet the DFSG-free (Debian Free Software Guidelines) requirements.)
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
...is that an operating system ought to cost about a dollar.
(Actually, I think the correct price ought to be between $1.60 and $7, but I suspect they are engaging in dumping in order to obtain marketshare in the case of WinCE.)
Why then can they charge $85 to $200 for Win98SE? Even more for NT? Still more for W2K? And still charge you more for a server edition? And tag on more charges for IIS, etc, etc?
The answer is simple: WinCE is in a competitive market. The difference in price is the overcharge of the monopolist. I wonder if DoJ is paying attention to this.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
This is yet another example of Microsoft's strategy of announcing products that either will never happen or are very far from being a real product. This strategy allows them to "steal the thunder" from other competitors. How many times has the rumor circulated that MS will relase somthing as OpenSource? Bugaboo. How many times has MS overmarketed a product years from release, even going as far as saying it beats tangible products already on the markey? Bugaboo. Can we say X-Box anyone? Woh about NT with good 3D support? How obout embedded NT? Bugabuggabooooo.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Sorry, I did not follow it to make sure it was a valid link. My fault. Moderate it down, so that no one follows my idea, and flames me for it. I had not realized it was a joke until I had already posted. Forgive and moderate down, that is all I ask of you.
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
Have fun Rob!
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
C'est la vie.
Here is the link so you can just click instead of cut and paste... LinuxCE
No, thanks, please. It had to be done.
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
Not only is it different in places, but also many calls and many options to calls are missing. This is why porting anything from Win9x to WinCE is many times more painful than porting to NT. If the WINE project put too much stock in following whatever WinCE source they could get hold of, they'd just end up with a swiss cheese API, which is what WinCE itself is.
As for the second question, someone always wants to emulate anything. What if we could shoehorn WINE into a Linux-based PDA? Then I'm sure it wouldn't be long before all kinds of WinCE apps were running on it....
-----Chaz
--
Actually, Walnut Creek CDROM didn't ship 4.0 to people who subscribe to the FreeBSD CDROMS. That tells me that it's not a worthy release. I think 4.1 will be the one to watch out for.
--
.-.--
This is obviously an attempt by MS to confuse the slashdot community! By carefully combining the words "Microsoft" and "Open Source" into one press release, MS was hoping that the Linux community would run pay attention to their Windows 2000 Ads.
Linux user sees Windows 2000 Ad. Thinks to himself, "2000 is a lot larger than 2.4 - and 2000 is the new standard in reliability" and "MS = Open Source = Cool" Still dazed, the user buys a copy of Windows 2000, returns home and installs it, removing linux.
Do not read this press release! Do not become a victim in the OS war!
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Linux is too large for a number of types of embedded devices, and Linux is _certainly not_ realtime, nor are the realtime Linux extensions ready to be used in ABS, rockets, satellites, etc.
However, this still leaves a very large and rapidly growing segment of the embedded market. Designs where the underlying OS is not important, and simply making the thing go, networking, tasking, filesystem too, without spending too much money on it.
You have to remember, there are two main costs in embedded. Engineering costs, shipment costs. Linux may raise the latter slightly, but it can cut down on the former GREATLY. It also runs on commodity system hardware, which means the hardware costs often drop as well. Again, we're talking about roles that don't directly affect people's lives.
Lastly, reliability is always always always going to depend upon the developers of the system. No operating environment can fix that problem. You can provide tools, etc. to identify problems. You can provide tools to help solve problems. You can provide testing environments, etc. But in the end it is always up the developers of the embedded product to make it stable. This is as true on Linux as it is on CE as it is on VxWorks.
Now, if the operating environment itself is not stable, this screws the developers as well. Fortunately, most embedded OSes and Linux are both stable enough when the hardware and software run on them are restricted (as it is with all embedded systems).
-josh
Let's not be too hasty here. Have you taken a browse through many open-source projects lately?
Seeing the code is but the first step. Did you actually *compile* the code and then execute it? Microsoft has given lip service to opening source code before, but they've never promised to release all the source to a working version. Unless you can take the source, compile it, and produce a working executable, then there's no point.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Yeah, I was aware of the CE NCs. However, my understanding is that they weren't selling well because most orgs just recycled 586-class PC hardware for this purpose.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Now this is amusing. After seeing a constant barrage of "M$ Should Open Source...", they take a step in the direction of open sourcing CE, and now we have a barrage of whining too.
Is this a case of "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it" or is it simply a case of complaining about M$'s evil empire no matter what they do? Lets all try not to be quite so hypocritical when we ruthlessly slam MS while elevating our dear Linux.
-Jer-Jer
This is pure marketing hype. CE has been a source-release, or at least modular with a good ammount of source since inception. Any small footprint OS comes with source.
Why?
Because you only compile in what you need. QNX, VxWorks, CE and others. This is nothing new at all, almost redundant. Microsoft is just trying to get some hype.
Again, nothing has changed.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
That attitude is short sighted and elitist
;-)
you forgot: ironic, sarcastic, and funny
Don't take everything so seriously...
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Yep nothing really has changed, except the cost.
It's not OpenSource though.
It's just going to be free. They're giving away WinCE to help grow market share and sell more compilers. I realize that amazon has not yet patented this business strategy, but in the RealWorld it is generally known as loss leader marketing.
Give away the razor, make a fortune on the blades.
I agree... Yippee, big freaking deal.
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
Um, how has Apple "perverted" the meaning of Open Source? If you want the source to the kernel underlying Mac OS X (Darwin), you can go and download it. You can do what you want with it. The same is true for a streaming QuickTime server.
Apple hasn't open sourced any of the graphical layers of Mac OS X, but this is abundantly clear in the documentation. It's their choice. Put whatever GUI you want on top of Darwin and redistribute it.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
To quote from "The Princess Bride":
Hah hah hah hah hah hah clunk...
[Hey, send a not to Bill G, we just offed one more Linux developer...]
Just kidding. Actually, I've got better things to do with my time than look at any of Redmond's source code.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Someone mod the parent to this down. I'm usually the last to get into Moderation babble, but this one is just godawful. I mean, yes, some OSS code is pretty damn bad. Looking at RandomFreshmeatApp version 0.0.1 that just had its first public release, it's pretty bad.
And even some more important apps out there aren't coded too well (Imlib comes to mind). But part of what makes Open Source what it is, is the improvement of important things. If some software is really that important to everyone, it gets worked on. And it gets prettier. Want an example, look at pixbuf-engine in the Gnome CVS tree. The biggest effort of the current maintainer was to clean everything up from the old pixmap GTK engine. And it became better.
But in the end, the fact that a commercial company, making gobs of money, shouldn't be putting out amature code like you get from the RandomFreshmeat app. And also in the end, a comment that has no real substance and just trolls on deserves a *4*.
Well, when coding for WinCE, what API do you use? It's not just Win32, is it? Because if it isn't, it means that they still bring in money from their real cash cow, Win32.
Now, if Win32 was opened and every major OS out there could have a Win32 implementation that ran any Windows App imaginable, Windows would be dead.
But letting people peek at CE won't help us move toward that goal.
I don't see why M$ would embrace Open Source software. If they were to Open Source WinCE, do you think that they would publicly admit that th OSS community actually improved their product?
That would be an indirect endorsement of Linux.
I think M$ know that some of the best programmers (technical aspect) are OSS programmers, but they wouldn't have us believe that!
Sure, I love FreeBSD and OpenBSD like anyone, but only geeks know about xBSD. The whode damn planet knows about Linux, and that's where public perception sees Open Source.
I appreciate your support of Open Source, but it is Linux that has rendered the Open Source movement a public one.
This means nothing to any of us until this stuff is released under the GPL. Until then, its useless marketing garbage.
'cos the whole point of the open "bazaar" development model is that the community as a whole brings on the QC and, more importantly, the growth direction of the software. Just releasing source to get free proofreading is big time, suck ass cheapness. To be truly strong, you have to let it go....
Hey, it's called free speech. The day stories get posted with no hint of the poster or editors personality is the day I'm outta here!
>>It seems like the knee-jerk reaction is just "go get the code and do it yourself," but if you stop and think about it, that's a pretty weak argument BULLSHIT! That's the whole point of freeware, maybe you're not used to having the power, but hey, all of us had to start somewhere....
First off, you self-involved snot, if you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, you can do everyone a favour and keep your mouth shut. Just because someone slips when they are typing (and doesn't notice) does not give you license to assume that they are beneath you.
Secondly: your criticism isn't even technically correct, because "loosing" is the way the word is properly spelled in England, and hence most English-speaking countries.
Third: if you're going to criticize somebody's grammar (and be pretentious about it to boot), you'd better make damn sure to not make any yourself, lest you show yourself to be an arse. May I remind you that "todays" is not the possessive form of "today", nor is "titanic" the correct capitalization of a proper noun.
Perhaps you'd benefit from going back to high school and brushing up on your Grade 9 grammar; or more constructively, perhaps even back to Kindergarten, so you can learn how to be polite and interact with others?
Greg
Microsoft sticks rigidly to the iron-clad ideology that Microsoft and its shareholders are the only people who matter.
case in point
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
+&x
You'd feel pretty silly if I told you that I was dyslexic. Thanks.
Perhaps...but one is done by professional programmers and the other by hobbyists, right?
Which one would you expect to be better? wouldn't be the one you're paying money for, would it?
James
don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read
.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
SCSL from Sun is not opensource license, nor does Microsoft's SCSL^2 license. There is a definition for open source.
/_____\. .......|
CY
vvvvvvv../|__/|
...I../O,O....|
...I./
..J|/^.^.^ \..|.._//|
...|^.^.^.^.|W|./oo.|
The article goes to great pains to explain that MS never said it was like open source and if they did they would get flamed the way Sun did. So what do I see next on Slashdot? "Microsoft Trying To Look Open Source With CE"
This graphic that you can't see when going directly to the article but is currently visible on www.zdnet.com/zdnn (at least, as of 3:55 pm eastern).
What, you mean YOU DIDN'T KNOW that JavaScript was synonymous with Linux, OSS, AND WinCE?! *boggle*
Ahh, what will those marketing geniuses think of next? I can't wait!
--
You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
I think they are opening it up so that someone ports it to a Palm, and they don't take the blame for developing it.
Beware the SetupWeasel
Not so fast. CE is being used today precisely for use in network computers. Many vendors are currently selling cheap CE-based NCs that connect to Windows NT Terminal Server (now built into into Win2k Server, and no longer a separate product). It's not particularly original, but apparently it works.
Aside from the fact that Terminal Server requires a *stupendous* amount of horsepower (RAM, CPU, motherboard, disk system) to run well with many users, this is, in fact, a great solution -- we're evaluating it for our office, as we find it somewhat pointless to have many employees, who only browse the net and use the same productivity/email apps, sit with $3,000 PCs when they can each connect from $400 terminals to a $10,000 terminal server.
I have a HP Jordana 320lx running CE 2.0, and I am a MS shareholder as of 2 weeks ago (only in it for the money ;) I like what can be done with CE over other handhelds (although Transmeta will undoubtedly change that), especially with Pocket Word and Excel, which help in school. But what is the big deal with them opening CE? I dont think us shareholders will notice a drop. CE is only (at least 2.0 and prior. 3.0 will be much more powerful) a small os intended for scheduling and light word processing on RISC processors, and runs from ROM. Opening it up would require a great deal of development to convert it to x86 or whatever you want, and still, that is pointless because you can do everything that CE can do in Windows 95. Go ahead, let them open source it. Somehow someone will make a neat hack of it and burn it on a ROM chip and put it in their HPC so they have a better CE. The ONLY good thing I can see coming of this is getting a way to load Linux onto a HPC, which hasnt that been done on one of the IBM HPC"s anyhow?
My guess (I did not see if other people put this down yet) is that they are doing it to keep wince preferred over Linux, PalmOS, BeIA, etc. Most apps are written for Windows (duh), and making wince free for developers to look at will keep it that way. This way they can make sure that only slashdot readers and miscelaneous geeks buy linux products and for everyone else it is windows FOREVER. But that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
-E. W. Dijkstra
They could make the source free as in Speach without making it free as in beer. They could even charge extra for a source license.Their source license would simply require that you could only share code with those that had a valid source license.
I would be willing to pay an extra $100-$200 for a Windows license that came with source.
Then I could remove the stuff that I didn't need.
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Can your IM do this?
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Can your IM do this?
I don't think opening the source in and of itself would be enough to stop Microsoft from abusing it's power again. There are so many little details and loophopes that would be involved that I really don't think it would make enough of a business difference to Microsoft to have the government accept it.
Isn't one of the big things Open Source advocates are preaching to companies that opening the source to their products is a good thing and doesn't hurt them business wise?
Also, the reason they were found a monopoly isn't because of their code or their software design philosophies, but with their business practices.
None of this is intended as a flame, I'm interested in hearing opinions.
WinCE is also the palmtop OS that microsoft is pushing right? Palmtop Computing is supposed to be the Next Big Thing.
One could argue that if Microsoft lowers the hurdles for companies that develop CE-ized software, so they can understand the platform better, it will just anchor Windows that much more in the operating systems market.
Hey, all that software Joe User really loves is on his palmtop as well, it's very easy as far as he's concerned to transfer information back and forth. Everything works with everything else.
By giving away a product or even just offering the source to specific developers to a product that's not making much money right now, Microsoft gets companies trapped in the Microsoft world.
Palmtops are kind of a new field, and they're one Microsoft probably can't afford to lose.
Makes perfect sense.
Demons of Redmond..wow..the maturity level of slashdot submissions never cease to amaze me.
It is a good thing, even if it's a PR stunt, look at XFree86, while it's awesome, it still isnt as 'sleak' or clean looking as Windows, what draws people to XF86 is the fact that it's *powerful* what draws people to Windows is that it's *pretty* if nothing else, we can maybe get some code out of this for ideas on how to clean up XF86 a bit, I know I would like to be able to use the same key sequences for different programs in XF86, instead of having every program define its own :o(
I have to admit, when I have to use windows, it's very nice to be able to rely on alt+f working for the file menu, or alt+whatever for that menu. Sorry if this appears to be offensive to die hard MS haters, I do not like microsoft myself, but they obviously are doing something right. perhaps we can learn from it.
---
Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
To me this just seems like they are trying to compete will linux for the portable OS market. As we have seen in many articles lately linux is definately the OS of choice for portables as it can be easily ported to different hardware. I guess microsoft is hoping that if they release the source for WinCE maybe they might get some support in porting it to different handhelds.
when everything is working perfectly.. BREAK SOMETHING before something else FUCKS up!
Yes, yes, M$ is a corporation and is responsible to its shareholders, so don't flame me on that point. I just would like to see something this software giant does benefit someone else also.
Cynical? You bet. Trust Microsoft? Never.
Now I can't wait for them to figure out a way to charge for "updates" to the source and slap some kind of license on what they originally said would be open: Microsoft, for its part, declined to comment on its Windows CE licensing intentions.
Then they will insist that those who contributed to the source pay to take a test that will "certify" them as Microsoft-approved contributing developers. Of course, such certification will expire rapidly and require developers to repeatedly renew their certification. I better shut up before they get any more ideas.
Release the source for the old stuff. I mean, it's not like you can even buy this stuff anymore.
Would be nice, wouldn't it? It'll happen about the same time the blizzards hit hades though. M$ business model is based on forced upgrades - it would make no sense whatsoever to do this from their point of view. /P
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
exactly. Just because a closed source author writes it, it is inherently no better or worse than a singularly mantained "open source" project.
money doesnt buy good code, it just buys a lot of coders.
Its about the technology, not the crap.
--jay
CE is the weakest flavor of the big M's proposed set of embedded device OS'es. Open sourcing software--much less an OS, or pieces thereof--doesn't do much good when the *platform* is, as with CE, out of reach of most h@kx0r-class folk anyways. I don't get it.
Maybe that's because it never got off the ground. Microsoft products and APIs are often pretty good in first incarnation. They just get increasingly hideous with each successive version, as the customers start screaming and rattling the bars.
Their process must be terrible if it lets chaos creep in like this.
thats damn funny!
icq:=22921393;
I was able to compile and build a version of windows ce that I used for testing on low end 486 desktops.
When applying for programmer-job-descriptions, the WinCE source code will be open for you too!!!!
Bizar technology?
The release of the WinCE source fits in perfectly with the standard MS tactics (Introduce free/low cost product backed by monopoly to drive away competition). The Palm division of 3Com is splitting off into a new company, and while they will continue to produce their PDA lines, most of their efforts will be concentrated on developing the PalmOS (to license to sell to hardware makers). As everyone knows the Palm-based PDAs are slaughtering WinCE platforms hands down. So what a better way to clear Palm out of the market than to entice companies with the open source model? Microsoft wants companies to embrace WinCE rather than PalmOS, kind of the same way companies are introducing open source Linux machines rather than pricey, closed source NT boxes. At least that is the way I see it...
Soften the DOJ? I think not. The world is on to Microsoft's bullshit, and so is the DOJ. Microsoft is doomed. They will keep lumbering on for a few more years, only because of their obscene number of users (or is that, their number of obscene users?), but believe me, honest people who are informed already know what Microsoft represents, and are fed up with them. Microsoft are the pimps of the PC world; they are the ransom-demanding kidnappers of the technology revolution; they are the protection-racketteering Mafiosos of true innovation.
Erchie
Can you say "gimmick"?
At least they haven't resorted to using Bob Euker or scantily clad models... yet.
Your mouse moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Computers are like air conditioners.
- They stop working when you open Windows.
It's funny but CE represents a major re-invention of Windows, visibly similar, invisibly vastly different. For one thing, a lot of the underlying X86 and DOS cruft is gone.
It's portable, runs from ROM, RAM or Flash EEPROM with equal dexterity, it has a unified namespace (drops the "C:" drive letter prefixes from path names) and it's simpler to configure. Since it's ALWAYS pre-installed, installation isn't an issue, except for small companies creating embedded systems, such as where I work, where where it's certainly the thing that's preventing us from using Windows CE.
I always thought "Windows for Appliances" was a better title, although I guess that gives the image of having to double-click to make your dishwasher start. Sort of absurd no matter how you look at it, but noble, and technologically sound.
Not everyone wants Windows, that's just hard for the Redmondites to accept.The Palm III is a perfect example of something with a CPU where people don't want "Windows.".
On the other hand, I have an HP 620 LX, one of the mid-sized handheld PCs running Windows CE. I only wish Microsoft had more software for it.
I've considered using it for embedded systems, and the problem is that for my uses (X86 systems, usually PC-104 form factor), it's extremely immature. If you are HP and you are making your own hardware and everything then CE would work for you. Heck, 90% of the most common plain-vanilla PC peripherals don't even have CE drivers. I think if they were serious about CE they should have gotten a driver base for it that at least covers all the most common X86 peripherals. So we've dropped it and used Phar Lap (www.pharlap.com) instead, which provides a very nice commercial RTOS that is somewhat Win32 compatible.
Warren Postma
CE never got off the ground in any arena it was targeted for, PDA's, set top boxes, toasters, etc.
Now they have declared their plans for their so called X thingamagig (gee, is that an original name) which I doubt will use CE (how many reboots just when you broke your highscore before that thing is tossed outside the window?) but a new fangled and hopefully more stable OS.
So the question is, what do we do with the dead duck CE? We "open source" it! It's brilliant! We can slow down development on CE for the next 2 years until we finally stop. If anyone wants to develop it they have the source, it's not our problem anymore.
There is good PR here too. We didn't kill CE, we gave it away!
I say CE is headed for the MS dustbin.
They are considering giving away the source code to "encourage [application] developer support". They are not considering Open Source'ing it though. So it's useless. The point of true opensource is freedom, the point of whatever the heck this is is PR.
Why should opensource developers spend time helping a product that's losing marketshare? It won't help scratch any itches, that for sure.
What excuse does MS have for this move? So that the code can be "out there"? Oh please, don't make me laugh! A ploy to make open-source seem untenable? Right. *giggle*
So they will not make it Open Source, but instead free to license. Well, availability at no cost ist fortunately not the deal with Linux, and neither behind the 'free' software movement. If you have the choice between, say, Lineo and Windows CE, both available at no cost, but you can expect a much more lively community behind Lineo, an open development model, and a high compatibility (talking of APIs), how would you decide?
This step will only bring WinCE to its end faster than ever. The hype is on Linux anyway, and giving WinCE away can not stop it. Go Open, or leave it. It doesn't even have to be GPL. But this way, it sucks. They just try to get sales by using a buzzword.
follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/moeffju
I opt for: Alt.binaries.windows.source.joke
I think that Microshaft should realease the source to all of there products under the agreement that all changes must be sent back to them. This way real developers could stableize the code and Microsoft would still make money. Linux still has a few years left to go in order to get to the same level of , in terms of easy of use, as Winblows. Most of the business comunity out there is forced to use MS products because business owners will not switch to a better OS i.e. Linux. I don't think that it is right that microsoft forces people to use such crap.
Sanity is the playground of the unimaginative
What is wrong with you people, do you not read and write the same language that you speak?
No wonder the academic level of todays high school graduates is sinking like the titanic.
Q: Where do you want to go today?
Lars -
Windows 95 4.00.950
Windows 95 4.00.950A
Windows 95 4.00.950B
Windows 98 (forgot the version numbers)
Windows 98SE
Windows (98)Millenium Edition
Yes thats right, Microsoft is still marketing MS-DOS code.
FOR GODS SAKES ITS THE YEAR 2000 AND THEY ARE STILL SELLING MS-DOS CODE !
Q: Where do you want to go today?
Lars -
If Microsoft were to open up Windows CE to the open source community, would this be the Windows CE that we have now, or will it be the new version (I forget what they've called it). If it is the old version then it would be just getting PR attention for old rope :-)
One other point though is that if Windows CE was to be open source it would provide a ready made hand held platform for the open source community to develop on that would have software already available, now that would be very nice! L
This has to be a public relations move only. As they have stated in the past they will not turn CE or anything else into an open source project and release under GPL. They are only planning to make CE available to embedded licenses. This is not Open, this is not GPL, this is not even what Sun did. The only reason they even leaked this is to get a little public feel for the possibilities, and this is enough to soften the DOJ. Personally I don't beleive any of it.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
First of all, I don't know what version of Smith's book you read, but all that the "invisible hand" states is that a command market is not needed for all of peoples' needs and wants to be met, but rather that a free market can do all of this without any command. Despite all of your name-dropping, you still haven't shown me why it's useless for me to criticize something just because I have the perceived ability to make a competitor with all of my desires incorporated into it. For one, I don't have the time, nor the money (read: the money to quit my job so I can invenst enough time into doing it right), nor, quite frankly, the technical know-how to make my own slashdot. If this was a case of my not liking a part of an open-source program, it would be quite easy for me to modify it so that I could use the features I want. But even if I set up my own slashdot-esque site, what use do I have for it if I don't have the time to keep it up to date, to make it profitable, or to get people to read/contribute?
Simply put, the opportunity cost needed for everyone involved to just make slashdot better opposed to my (or someone else) making a whole new slashdot is just not even comparable. There's a good thing going here--what's wrong with making it better? Every time you want to make a piece of software better, do you have to completely abandon the old version and build from the ground up? That's what I'd be doing if I tried to make my own slashdot--not from the aspect of the actual server code, I know, but from every other aspect.
BTW, it's ironic to see you whine about other people's constructive (literally!) criticism of your contributions to Slashdot.
I never said there was anything with arguing against someone. I was disagreeing with the content of his post, not the post itself. Those are two different things. I felt the content wasn't constructive because it didn't offer any real, viable solutions. I would hope that you would think I have the right to post a disagreement to something I don't agree with. I don't think anyone else doesn't have that right--I was just questioning the usefulness of such a dead-end solution that was proposed within the post.
They have been talking about a settlement that does not include structural remedies, or cultural changes. All this leaves is open source, in which MS would keep the trademarks, siphoning off the best ideas from the open source movement for their "official" windows. What would be the best response from the open source community? Ignore them, or rape the code?
Maybe they're open sourcing it becuase it's performed so badly vs. Palm and others?
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
--Dr. Seuss
Couldn't have said it better. Not that MS code is better in certain areas, (ask the IBM folks ;)) but 'opening up the source' is not always the way to get a program be better, just because the source gets flooded with all kinds of crapsource.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Having had a think about this, I suspect this has much less to do with Open Source, and more to do with Market Share (tm). I believe WinCE is heavily outsold by Palm in the US, and as far as OS licensing goes is under extreme threat from Symbian (Psion)'s EPOC32. In particular, the licensing costs of the two (WinCE and EPOC) are hugely different - something like $50 for WinCE and $5 for EPOC, which makes quite a difference to machines that need to make a profit at $200-$300. This could simply be an attempt to regain momentum by giving away the OS, perhaps with the plan of a paid for upgrade later on.
"but this certainly puts some power behind the whole Open Source concept."
Not to be offensive, but the open source concept already has as much power as it will ever need by all parties who will ever be concerned. Most developers don't look to M$ as a deity, and end users don't care about the source code.
Eh...
Earlier, when Slashdot posted the possibility that Microsoft may open source their code, I expressed my concern. The reason for this concern is because, when people ask when I am going to cut my long hair, I explain "I will not cut my hair until Microsoft goes open source!".
Them releasing the code to WindowsCE won't be open source, so I have nothing to worry about. Besides, WinCE can barely be considered an Operating System, much like DosShell can be considered a GUI.
Jailbrekr.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
Fight Spammers!
I don't understand why M$ bothers with PR like this. Lying in PR stories may be good for dealing with marketers and advertisers, but marketers and advertisers don't care if Windows CE is open sourced. PR stories without backing will have little effect on developers, who are the only people who would really care about or (dare I say) benefit from opening the source.
Point being: put up or shut up.
A choice of masters is not freedom
Yes, it's quite obvious that the so-called "source license" isn't going to be helpful unless you have huge sums of cash to pay the exorbitant licensing fee, and even then, you won't have the freedom to take wince code where you want it. Actually, this isn't extremely new, I know some windows programmers who get the code to certain parts of the win32 API on their MSDN disks. The simple fact is, however, that just because you can look at the code doesn't mean it's open source.
You can, however, get closer to true freedom by degrees. For example, Sun's license might be summed up this way: "All developers are equal, those that work for Sun are simply more equal than others." Or Trolltech's: "You can change Qt, but you can only distribute your changes as patches." But even these licenses allow you to make changes, they just restrict what you can use them for and how they can be distributed. As I understand it, the so called "source release" of wince wouldn't even allow that. You can see shoddy spaghetti code, but unless you're an imperial drone working in Redmond, you're powerless to improve it.
Does Microsoft actually think they'll fool programmers with this announcement? Doubtful. More likely, their targeting this BS at corporate execs in consumer electronics firms and other businesses. Thanks to the efforts of our pal ESR, and his many compatriots, open-source/free software is finally getting buzzword-style recognition, even among suits. MS is basically trying to trick executive types into thinking that wince is open-source and freeload off of the hacker community without stealing a line of code.
From a business standpoint, I think the only way MS has a chance at surviving in the embedded market is to release wince free-as-in-beer. Linux, NetBSD and the like make sense in embedded systems not only for technical reasons, but also for the fact that a $0 OS in a $1-$200 device makes a lot of sense. Even PalmOS is considerably cheaper to license than wince.
Of course, we should all take this with a grain of salt. As it stands, this is %100 vaporware, and a "leak" from inside Redmond doesn't really mean the situation has changed since say, a month ago.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
if it means it can help me with porting Linux/X to those CE devices. Currently those CE devices do not attract me *at all* due to the fact that they run "wince". Then there's the Samsung unit :)
Their PEERS ? Are you NUTS ? Microsoft is Peerless. For all my pals into Linux, would rather have a root canal than look at all those BSTR's and Windows code that passes as C++. Man... these guys are from a different planet. they even speak a diffrent C++!!!
#include <windows.h>
#include <system_errors.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char make_prog_look_big[1600000];
main()
{
if (detect_cache())
disable_cache();
if (fast_cpu())
set_wait_states(lots);
set_mouse(speed, very_slow);
set_mouse(action, jumpy);
set_mouse(reaction, sometimes);
printf("Welcome to Windoze 3.999 (we might get it right or just call it Chicago)\n");
if (system_ok())
crash(to_dos_prompt);
else
system_memory = open("a:\swp0001.swp", O_CREATE);
while(1)
{
sleep(5);
get_user_input();
sleep(5);
act_on_user_input();
sleep(5);
if (rand() < 0.9)
crash(complete_system);
}
return(unrecoverable_system);
}
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Som you mean there code will be seend by the general public and there peers can review the quaility of code ! Wow I wonder why there are starting with CE so people can hack dream cast ! it should be interesting to see how this pans out ! OPEN SOURCE FOREVER !
>Would someone out there, please name ONE (can you say "REDMOND"?) good piece of software that Microsoft has written.
Age of Empires II. Pretty damn good strategy game, and it was made by Microsoft... and NO, I am not a MS supporter in any way shape or form. I just think it is a good game.
What can I say, guilty as charged. We're mostly amateurs and especially in the short term, the bang for the buck(time invested) usually rests in the actual code. Sitting back for a second, I could argue that all of those beautiful professional comments won't do me much good if I can't see them !
Lurking in the desert
As most users in the corporate world already know, WinCE is the one and only operation system to run. It is the best OS ever written. I run everything on CE, it totally rules.
I asked my friends and they all agreed that CE is the best OS in the whole world. Why anyone else would write anything that would compete with this wonderful OS is beyond me. CE runs games and solitare, and doesnt crash much. What else can you ask for?
I think everyone should be running CE and i cant figure out why Microsoft would release the source. I think they must be losing their minds... LONG LIVE CE!!
Brought to you by an adoring fan of the Natalie Portman fan club.
(c)Mastah_Monkey
Slappy
I'm of the opinion that Microsoft's conversion to open source is inevitable. They are highly dependent on people developing for their platform, and once the majority of Microsoft developers insist on open source, they will have no choice.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
there is no way there are some very big strings attached to this. microsoft want total control and nothing less. as for the 64 bit topic a few posts ago, a very interesting read it was... the mind bogles (how the hell do you spell that?)
50882960 - icq im the same as you, waiting to die, just like everyone else
All this means to me is that CE is a husk of abandonware served up as the sacrificial lamp to the U.S. Government in hopes of avoiding the company being split up into 4+ pieces. Falsa
This does not suprise me.
If you look at what WinCE is supposed to be; a Microsoft STRATEGIC MOVE, it was done as quickly and as cheaply as possible to give MS a product to offer in the handheld/settop market, to prevent possible competitors from making an end-run around the PC.
If your project's #1 priority is "get something out there fast!!" it's not going to result in clean or elegant code.
Needless to say, this is probably the most common #1 priority among commercial software products in this industry.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Ahh. Right. Another oops. The link really is LinuxCE. Just as a friendly note to moderators, when you see something like this and see that it is not a valid link, make sure that it is true, that it does work, and that it actually exists. I should have noticed that the first thing, but I failed to do so. Once again, I apologise.
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
I disagree. It's relatively small, very powerful, efficent, portable....
I like Linux, but would never want it to be used on aircraft or controlling an anti-lock braking system.
Would you rather those systems run Windows CE? Personally, I'd feel a lot better with a proven and stable OS behind the scenes. (I see no problem with Linux on an aircraft.)
"Best tool for the job" is infinitely more important than advocacy.
If you read my post, I said: "Which is better at doing the job, doing it right, and doing it quickly? THAT'S the one the developers are going to pick."
I didn't say it *had* to be Linux.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
What was that in the Halloween documents about embracing and extending into the OS arena much like they have in other areas?
Could this be some sick twist of that old MS ploy.
Embrace - Call what they're doing OS even though it blatantly isn't.
Extend - Use their market power to convince corporate america that what they're doing is real OS.
Then just use that posistion to downplan Linux and true OS as some sort of communist joke.
Man, I depress myself when I try to think like MS.
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
You can download the slashdot code yourself, setup a pro Microsoft discussion forum, and editorialize (or not) any way you please.
That is the meaning of open source: you have access to the source code and can do with it whatever you like (subject to conditions of the GPL, MIT, BSD, or other open-source license it is distributed under).
Open source is completely orthogonal to the issues you raise. Certainly slashdot, an unashamed open-source advocacy, news, and disucssion community, is in no way obligated to pay any lipservice whatsoever to stories or products you may think highly of, but you have access to the very source code slashdot is built from and can easilly build your own pro-M$ (or pro-whatever) site yourself.
Oh, BTW, the FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE story came out yesterday. I just finished an ftp install onto a test box about a half hour ago. A very, very nice release, and a significant improvement over the already excellent 3.4-STABLE.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I like the assertion that a network switch is more complicated than a handheld device, and will therefore require the extra beef of NT.
I guess the author is just rephrasing some M$ propaganda, but, come on, that's a ludicrous statement.
Unless, of course, the handheld device is a spork.
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
whine whine whine. Is that all people do on here anymore? I think it's cool that MS is going to open up CE under whatever license, why? CE has alot of potential applications that open code would be great for. One of the best examples would be embedded and non-legacy systems. Right now If someone wants to build a low power limited feature product they need to make their own OS with their own software APIs or figure out how to fit a current OS onto their design. You say Linux; a multi-user OS is fine for workstations, servers, and to a lesser extent plain Joe Average desktops but when it comes to closed single user mini-boxes its utility dimishes. WinCE has the advantage of being very similar to Windows which means programmers could port their code relatively easily to whatever device. I bet one of the first places it pops up will be set top boxes, RTOS non-legacy low power products. Because of DirectX being deeply embedded into the CE API it wouldn't be too difficult to build fairly advanced gaming machines using stock hardware rather than spending megabucks designing your own. DirectX would also benefit game programmers because they could develop in a familiar environment. Stop whining you whiners.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
For an article describing something that is completely different from open source, they sure did use the term quite a lot. It sounds like they're just talking about a free-as-in-beer but very restrictive license for some hardware developers.
Damned straight you'll incur my wrath.
Perhaps some of the Win32 code would be useful for the WINE project? Of course, Windows CE has a different quirky implementation of Win32 than Windows 9X and NT. Presumably, no WINE user will want to emulate WinCE apps?? ;-)
cpeterso
The interesting thing was I used extrans, and a is one of the supported links. Right now the box definitely shows as "Extrans (html tags to text)", and if this isn't bold I think Rob has a bug to fix.
You are correct. My type-o. I suck.
I will not buy an American made car. Or better to say, I will not buy a car designed by an American corporation. Why? The same reason I don't use M$ products. Neither entity has a goal of delivering me a quality product. Instead, they both concentrate solely on maximising their own gain. American made cars appear to be designed to die at about 5 years (this has been my experience, YMMV). What a suprise that this is about the same time as most people's finance period. It is my belief that American metallurgy and quality control is good enough that a corporate boss can say "I want this part to last between 30 and 36 months" and he'll get his way. The point here isn't that American make poor quality cars. Just the opposite, they make high quality cars that are designed to break down under coporate fiat.
The same is true of M$. The quality of the end product is not controlled by the quality of the engineers. It is dictated by corporate fiat. In this case, Bill says "You have 3 months to produce a product", and then the company markets a first pass attempt. M$ definately has good programmers, but that doesn't mean that they are allowed to make good products.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Furthermore, many respectible news agencies have extremely biased reporting styles. ZDNet appears to irrationally favor Linux over other operating systems, www.benews.com seems to like BE and for whatever reasons, and www.microsoft.com appears to be a page devoted largely to talk of some familiy of operating systems I've never heard of.
Serriously though, everyone gives Slashdot a lot of crap about their reporting. If you're looking for something that you're not getting here, go elsewhere.
And as others have mentioned, yes, BSD did get it's own article. Look before you leap :P.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
So is the source from WinCE available anywhere on the Net? Someone who reads /. has to be an MSDN member, right? get a free GeoCities homepage and post it!
Cthulhu for President!
(darren)
Also, I think a little less bias in the selection of the stories themselves could be useful. Who on earth made the decision that the release of FreeBSD 4.0 wasn't even worthy of a mention as a "quickie,"
Perhaps you should read a little more of slashdot in future, to catch information about FreeBSD 4.0? Or, if you're more specifically interested in BSD articles only, maybe just read all the articles about BSD? After all, the information is quite available to you.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
No offense, but Linux is out of its league in embedded systems. Sure, you could use it, but embedded systems programmers are very particular about things--as they should be, considering that they're often working on systems that lives depend upon. You would never want a system with unpredicatable context switching times or free-for-all memory usage (i.e. dependent on malloc) in a critical system. I like Linux, but would never want it to be used on aircraft or controlling an anti-lock braking system. Never. There's a huge difference between reliability on the desktop and reliability in situations like these. "Best tool for the job" is infinitely more important than advocacy.
Also, I think a little less bias in the selection of the stories themselves could be useful. Who on earth made the decision that the release of FreeBSD 4.0 wasn't even worthy of a mention as a "quickie," yet the book review on assosciate programs was worthy of a whole article?
Erm...however decided it wasn't worthy of a mention of a quickie probably made that decision based on the fact that it already had its own article. FreeBSD 4.0 Released.
I have to say that I agree with the main thrust of your comment; the editorializing in the article topics and some of the article selection does get a bit ridiculous sometimes. However, you might want to do the slightest modicum of research (i.e. scan the Older Stuff slashbox) before you spout off ignorantly.
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Can your IM do this?
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Can your IM do this?
Sigh... I hope I get this one in M2. This is absolutely not off-topic. Until we have some kind of persistent thread where we can discuss topics primarily related to Slashdot, a post to a related/example article is the only acceptable forum for concerns of this nature.
jimjag was, in my opinion, out of line with his comments. Yes, he's obviously been around long enough and is knowledgable enough that the Slashdot powers that be respect his opinion more than they do mine; he gets to post the stories, and I do not. However, that does not mean he (or myself or anyone else) is above reproach. There was no good reason that his thoughts couldn't have -- and shouldn't have -- been posted in the discussion forum.
Please, let's see a little less editorializing in the items posted. Leave that to the person who submitted them, or to the discussion itself. There's no need for a display like this one.
-jay
Don't fret too much about Embedded NT. It's just one of the VMS test kernels they had lying around, with a couple of K in code tweak. In fact, most of the changes they made were to remove the 'Copyright 1989 Digital Equipment Corporation' notices, so you they couldn't have fucked it up too badly..
.sig: Now legally binding!
Eventually you'd have different versions of the kernel, 15 different (and not totally compatible) window managers, config files that you had to edit by hand using an external keyboard, etc.
:)
do you think anyone anywhere will be able to figure out what the code does? Or fix the bugs? Or make the system workable with any reasonable amount of work? Bah. They're "Open Sourcing" it because it seems like a good move to their PR department. "Hey - look! We support Open Source! See our code? See how big it is?" Yeah, I'd love to see Windows source code - I don't know if it would be readable by me, but I'd still love to see it.
Eruantalon
Eruantalon
The Annals of Middle-earth
Depends on what you mean by good. They are fairly "user friendly" (although there are several notoriously BAD elements in the UI design, I still have to admit that it's way ahead of what I have been able to find for linux - while some programs actually have very nice GUIs even those are hampered by the failings of X still, i.e. things like no "real" cut and paste across programs - usually it can be done, I know, but X is still far less friendly than windows, and this has to affect the real world rating of programs under them.)
On the other hand, in a number of other respects these programs are EXTREMELY poor - security being the number one concern, executable documents and the like offer very little boost to usability and totally break any notion of security. Of course, this may be on purpose - if it weren't for Word and Outlook's offences in these respects folks like McAffee (sp?) would be considerably less wealthy...
Wandering perhaps to the edge of being off-topic, my personal nomination for the one thing that linux needs most atm is a good GUI standard - no flames, I agree one hundred percent about freedom of choice, I love being able to choose how to set up my desktop to make me happy and so forth. But - the problem is, none of the currently available environments are really good, in a UI design/ease of use sense. It would be really nice if I could set up a workstation with a consistent, well designed UI using linux, but I can't quite do that yet. GNUStep anyone? Seriously... the NeXT stations were, in my opinion and in the opinion of a great many experts in the field, the pinnacle to date for usability. They are far superior to anything M$ has put out, Apple is trying to improve on it, but they seem to be breaking as much as they improve - this looks like a great opportunity for anyone that wants to see linux become viable in the desktop market. I suck as a coder or I would be hacking away at GNUStep right now, but since I haven't coded my way out of a paper bag in years I'll have to be satisfied hoping some people that CAN code think about this and maybe do something about it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Logic dictates that there has to be a first time that a company releases something as open source. I had to make the same comment when Glide was opened up. The idea is that the momentum will build and eventually they'll release everything (in a perfect world). Don't blast them for not following the practices of Redhat, RMS et al.... blast them because their software is buggy, bloated and ill-conceived.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Okay its not THE greatest but I did not die laughing or anything. Take this with a grain of salt since I have no qualifications really to say if WindowsCE code is higher quality than Linux code or vice versa however there did not seem to be all that much kludge and stupid stuff going on. The API is a bit cleaner than the regular windows API. :-o
I had to do a small thing for CE once and I found the source on our MSDN disks :-).
So what! WinCE being made Open Source a la Microsoft means nothing to the real world. Nobody will embrace it because Microsoft is crooked, dishonest, greedy, and devious, and the world has already awakened up to that fact. Can you imagine a Nazi opening a Jewish community center?
Microsoft is incapable of writing good code, so why should the Open Source community do it for them. WinCE is properly named. There are no honest open source coders out here who will sell their souls to Microsoft to promote their crapola idea of "open source" WinCE.
It is not that Microsoft "doesn't get it" about what Open Source really is-- They don't want to get it-- they just want the world to think they are joining the human race. Fat chance! As one human with voting rights, I do not intend to let them in! Fsck Bill Gates. Fsck Microsoft.
Microsoft is dying. Linux isn't killing it. Their own greed and stupidity is.
I hope the DOJ wins the antitrust case, and all of the appeals that Microsoft makes fail. But I also hope that nothing is done to break them up. They deserve to be destroyed as the whole entity of evil that they are. And they will be-- by their own inept, stupidly greedy, Machiavellian deviousness. The world already knows what they are-- just let them sink into their own quagmire of putrifaction and feces.
Erchie
If the Wine people got their hands on that source, in some mysterious way, it could parhaps help them a bit with the rather inadequately documented Windows API. How much of the standard Windows APIs can be found in CE? Any windows hacker (Ehumm) care to comment?
- El riesgo siempre vive - Private J. Vasquez
Its not *THAT* hard to license parts of windows source code. It just costs money thats all. I think of they are speaking of open source it will be something a little more open like possibly a MSDN thing or so. I know people who have seen doze source and lived so you can get access to it if you want it bad enuff :-)
Jeremy
Why is it that every time someone criticizes slashdot, the only response that anyone gives is that the person doing the criticizing should take the code and start their own threaded discussion stie? I'm not claiming for a second that I could build, from the ground up, a site of the quality of slashdot. What I am suggesting, however, is that there are improvements that could be made to an already great resource. It seems like the knee-jerk reaction is just "go get the code and do it yourself," but if you stop and think about it, that's a pretty weak argument. If you disagree with my contentions, argue agains the contentions themselves. Constructive criticism has never hurt anyone. Just because I think there's something wrong with the current system doesn't mean I want to scrap it all, nor does it mean that I think that the problems are irreperable.
I find it hard to believe that so many people seem to think that because WinCE came from Microsoft that it is crap. Are all of you that much better than any programmer at Microsoft? Yes, it may be a marketing gimmick, and no, it's not the crown jewels, but I'm sure that there is *something* in that code that could be of use to someone. Even if as an anti-microsoft zealot, you can use it to see ways not to do something. In any case, I think it's detrimental to disparage this code just because of its source. If you are pro- open system, then you should welcome this - obviously if you have the source, it makes it much easier to develop applications that interoperate. Why not take this opportunity to allow people to use their Windows CE devices with Linux boxes, including more advanced functionality that hasn't yet been developed. Anything can be a resource.
-d11
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Actually it is a valid link. It's just supposed to be www.linuxce.org.
----------------------------
Human beings, (and any similarly designed AI programs and humans) including Cmdr Taco, Hemos, and whoever the hell jimjag is, have opinions. What is much worse than the *editors* editorializing, is when media outlets assume a veneer of objectivity while concurrently promoting an agenda or not questioning the agenda or the people they agree with or who pay their salaries. Slashdot has been pro-free-software before "open source" was a buzzword exploited by Sun/Apple/(MS?). I know this and I know they are owned by VA.
... )
I am a reasonably intelligent human being (or AI or alien...) and I don't have to agree with what the editors of slashdot think. (except when Rob comes to me in my dreams and orders me to buy a VA Linux box). If I think that they are misreporting something, intentionally or subconciously, or just have their basic data wrong, I can check the facts myself, and make up my own mind and try to convince other people of my view. Moreover I hope that other people would take a rationally skeptical view when I open my mouth (or logic gates or jlkjds'ds oriface)
I've been reading slashdot for more than 2 years in part because it is visibly run by human beings (or AIs (who need to get a date with a pretty little ispell program) or aliens). Sometimes they f*ck up. But I can deal with that, I'm a human being too (or
In a lot of cases, it's not about who's open-source and who isn't. People are using Linux in embedded systems (as well as other places) because it does a better job than it's counterparts. So what if it's free, and open source. Which is better at doing the job, doing it right, and doing it quickly?
THAT'S the one the developers are going to pick.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Amen to that my brother. In my quest to learn GTK programming I have spent some time hacking through some of the apps that ship with gnome and I have to say that they SHOULD LEARN TO PUT SOME FUCKING COMMENTS in their code.
Writing good code is more than coming up with clever little hacks or the tightest algorithm. Writing clean, well commented code with descriptive variables goes a long way in my book. Some code I looked at was just fucking awfull..no comments at all and variable names with no meaning at all. Yeah it's a pain in the ass to write comments, but it's more of a pain in the ass to slog through uncommented spaghetti code.
So don't get all high and mighty until your house is in order.
I know for a fact, from talking to a Microsoft employee that there *are* people at Microsoft who are pro open-source. Remember when ESR gave a talk at Microsoft a while back in the summer?
:)
Well it seems as though they might be taking some of the good points of his talk (like they would do with ALL of the people that they bring in: and they have a very *large* impressive list of speakers) and applying it possibly to CE.. Why you may ask?? here is my theory:
CE is loosing badly in the PCD market. Palm has taken out the whip and is giving them a good beating. CE is a very modular Operating System that you *can* hack on to some extent. For example let's say that you don't like the graphics subsystem (as in the case of some OEMs) you can rip it out program you own and plug it back in using the hooks that exist in the other modules. Of course the next logical step here is to open some of the source up.
But then again it might not be a PR thing. CE 3.0 is just around the corner. (could this be ths oss release??) With CE 3.0 they are promising some sort of Real Time capablility which would be geared towards the embeded environment. Now wouldn't it make a bit more sence to have an open environment for this kind of thing?
Getting back to MS and open source. Most MS employees took ESR's talk very well but there were two points that some could not get over
1) Security in an open environment is harder: (we all know the downfalls of security though obscurity: sooner or later someone figures it out)
2) Smart people don't work for free making free projects: (actually I heard that someone put up their hand and said "hey: I will never work for free" In which I reply with two things, first think speech not beer, second one if my boxes has been up for 108 days cause it was programmed by someone stupid
Can't you see what this is? A cynical attempt to kill a large proportion of the open source community. How many of us are literally going to die laughing when we see the quality of this code?
The article had MS PR flaks describing CE in a number of unflattering ways--including as a "companion to NT Embedded." I guess I should count myself fortunate that I've never even heard of this critter. Personally, I can't imagine NT having the uptime, stability, or simplicity to operate as an embedded system.
In the meantime, can anybody here think of anything in CE's source that might be worth reading? MSFT's not exactly giving away the whole store here.
You know what I really want them to open source? Word for DOS 5.0. There never was a nicer word processor.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Actually, CE is a pretty damn good OS in its own right. It is influenced by NT, offers DirectX support in some versions, is fairly light, fairly memory conserving, fast, and fairly stable. Might suck as a palmtop OS (too big) but would be pretty nifty as a general purpose desktop OS. If the Sound/Input/Graphics/Music parts of the Win32 API were taken out of CE, and ones based on DirectX with some extra libraries over them to implement some easier to code functionality, it might make a fairly good general purpose OS. The reason is that
A) It already runs on x86. The only thing that would be needed would be to tweek it for the architecture.
B) It already runs on a lot of RISC procs. Should be fairly easy to port it to some more. The code base is probably protable because it runs on x86, MIPS, and SH3.
C) Most hardware already has DirectX drivers. Small tweeks and a recompile might be necessary, but could be doable.
D) DirectX on this system rocks. It is pretty deeply embedded. Imagine, your normal desktop being drawn through DirectDraw, ultra low latency sound through DirectSound, and low overhead input from DirectInput. Okay, enough about DirectX, I think you get the point.
E) At an 8 meg memory footprint (maybe 16 meg if you put all the other stuff I mentioned) it would whoop Linux/X, Windows, and most of the other GUI OSs out there. (Even BeOS needs 32meg to feel like BeOS)
F) Back to DirectX, the driver model is greatly simplified, giving a smaller chance of stuff breaking.
You do realize that MS is standing there with an OS that with a few months of careful coding, could easily become a very kick-ass Windows 2001.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Here's a point-by-point dissection:
Microsoft Corp. is contemplating giving Windows CE to some developers for free.
The keyword is "some". And by developers, they mean the developers they recognize as developers. That is, friends. There is nothing wrong about doing it. Nor is there anything new about it.
Microsoft's revenue comes, instead, on development tools and maintenance contracts, sources said.
The open source OSs, Linux, *BSD, and Hurd, come with all of the development tools bundled. You can get them from the same sources that you got the OS and all of the applications from. If you have the program, you can get the source and the tools to compile it. Every user is a potential developer, or more to the point, every potential developer can become an actual developer for the cost of downloading and installing the tools.
For now, developers say, Microsoft isn't contemplating going so far as to turn Windows CE into an open-source project, which would allow developers to make changes to the source code and share their work with Microsoft and others in the development community.
So they are not creating any potential developers.
Why now? Microsoft is considering the move to stave off competitive embedded Linux products.
The bottom line is that Linux is more portable. For embedded systems, having a portable OS means that your code can outlive the hardware it originally ran on. Oh wait, that is true of any kind of code. It also means that your choice of hardware is not limited by the OS as much. I'd say that constitutes substantial pressure.
Now, why could this help them anyway? Is there anyone inside Microsoft or out who believes that the open source community is Microsoft's friend? Okay, there are many people in open source who also use Microsoft products and are happy with them. But alienating the open source community is not exactly something Microsoft loses sleep over. This gesture doesn't mean much, but the people it is meant to impress are people who have heard the words "Linux" and "Open Source" only in connection with business news about the Redhat and VA Linux IPOs. They haven't read The Cathedral and the Bazaar and they don't know what makes open source work.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
I think the article should have said something like: "Microsoft is contemplating the possibility of thinking about maybe considering letting some specific developers in certain situations look at parts of the WindowsCE source code."
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
Our humble little /. is only a tiny little blip compared to the mountian of marketing garbage that micros~1 spews out every day. I, for one, welcome the editorializing about micros~1 in order to have a balanced opinion of the facts.
Where can I turn to find real-world, hands-on evaluations of micros~1 products? MS? ummmm no. They're so in love with their stock options you hear actual ms "product managers" using phrases like 'this __DOS2.1-DOS3.0-Win1.0-Win3.0-MsBOB-WinCE___ is an exciting new paradigm shift'.
The best anology I can think of is watching your network evening news (liberal) and tuning into Rush (conservative). Neither may be perfect, but by sampling content from both sources, I get to decide what's signal and what's noise.
The problem is that you're so conditioned to reading the "ZDnet ms press release" on a daily basis that this is the first time you're hearing "The emperor has no clothes".
_________________________
Also, I think a little less bias in the selection of the stories themselves could be useful. Who on earth made the decision that the release of FreeBSD 4.0 wasn't even worthy of a mention as a "quickie," yet the book review on assosciate programs was worthy of a whole article? God forbid a VA Linux subsidiary would have any mention of a non-Linux based OS in a somewhat positive light! Okay, openness lovers, why not open up your story selection process a little bit?
Yes, Microsoft opening up their source code to CE doesn't exactly match what Linux zealots consider "true" open source. Quite frankly, do you even expect that they would open up the source code to any of their programs and say, "Here, take it and redistribute our programs for free?"
...expecting this post to be moderated down as "Unpopular Opinion," or something related...sense the cynicism?
Microsoft is in this for the money. If they're going to open up the source to their flagship programs, then it'd be stupid not to expect that there will be heavy licensing and the such attached with it. Do you think Microsoft could afford to let their programs go open source...at least as defined by the Linux crowd?
Microsoft has stockholders to keep happy, and they sure as hell aren't going to keep them happy by losing money by open sourcing their flagship programs.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
The Open Source pot should NOT be calling the Microsoft kettle black... take a look at some of the code from Open Source projects some time. It's some of the worst, inconsistently indented, uncommented, algorithmically brain-damaged on earth.
Not a quickie, a whole article. Right here: BSD: FreeBSD 4.0 Released
Who on earth made the decision that the release of FreeBSD 4.0 wasn't even worthy of a mention as a "quickie," yet the book review on assosciate programs was worthy of a whole article?
Did you miss this article?
--
E_NOSIG
Granted it isn't as much of a step as they could take. But it is still a step in the right direction. Of course I don't care if it was open source I would never look at the billions of lines of code for windows 2000:) Unless I was really into optimizing it for a game I was programming, but I don't program games so I will continue using my friendly UNIX servers. I would like to see them starting to open up more source so that maybe we could yank out parts of applications we dont need so that we could get them back to working on our old boxes. If this is a first step great and let us hope that. However, the bashes that are going to come will probably tell much more true of MS than hoping they will see this is good and become more and more open source in the future.
I am 31337 or something.
Read the article. MS is focussing on giving away WinCE for free. They may give away the source, but that's doubtful. If they do give away the source, it will probably go out to a limited group.
Why bother? There is too much publicity about companies that chose Linux because it was "Free". not "Open Source". MS Sees opportunity, they can capitolize on "Free" cause they hardly make any money on licensing. So this definately won't grow to the regular Wins because they make most of their money on those from licensing.
We need to get more companies to emphasize "Open Source" when they discuss their choice of Linux for embedded systems.
chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
I briefly worked at a company that writes WinCE compilers and build tools for Microsoft. Microsoft outsources these projects to other companies. Compiling a WinCE kernel requires many batch files and a custom IDE called Microsoft Windows CE Platform Builder to edit the (ugly) config files. The Platform Builder IDE is based on the source code for Microsoft Visual Studio 5.0 (yes it's old code). This Microsoft C++ code was literally the worst code I have ever seen/debugged! I'm not exaggerating. I'm talking about C++ classes with 50+ public methods and 20+ public data members! Microsoft has no concept of modularity or data encapsulation.
cpeterso
You have been able to get the source for CE for a long time. An "evaulation" version of the Windows CE source comes with our MSDN disks. Of course, you still have to license it if you want to do anything with it, but the souce *IS* already available and has been for at least a year.
If you really want a true open source OS for your Windows CE machine, take a look at <a href="http://www.linuce.org">LinuxCE</a>. A port of BSD is also up and running on the same devices.