Slashdot Mirror
WSJ Reports On MS Using Open Source
Graeme Turnbull writes: "As I was logging out of hotmail (shutup..) this evening, and as the Passport service automatically forwards me to ca.msn.com (knowing I originate from Ca), I noticed the headline 'Microsoft Uses Open-Source Code Despite Denying Use of Such Software.' The story is care of The Wall Street Journal. Due to the somewhat anti-MS tone of the article, I found it strange that this was linked from a MSN site!"
Update: 06/18 by J : Several of our readers have pointed out an interesting allegation this morning at The Register:
MSNBC doctors anti-MS WSJ story. Update: 06/18 by N : And several people @wsj.com have written to me to say that MSNBC picked up an early version of the story for syndication; this early version also appeared in the majority of the print runs for the WSJ. More details about half way down.
It's no wonder they don't like to provide their source - then everyone would know they actually use Open Source code in own code.
With this viewpoint, exploiting masses can't be morally bad. It's like saying people that owned slaves in the old days were socially good, because they also employed payed personal. The amount of people that receive money from Microsoft is far less than the people that are extorted out of cash for every upgrade cycle. Not to mention that I don't like to sponsor a very remote rainy region for the money I have to pay, and get nothing "social" in return.
So. Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that because microsoft pays it's staff well it is actually a good company, and because open source doesn't pay it's staff it's bad.
Well, firstly, microsoft does definitely not pay it's workers well. There have been numerous court cases about microsoft abusing it's workforce, the most important of which being their abuse of temp workers. People they hire as temp workers to pay the least amount of money possible, theyt make them think they can become permanent workers, so these people bust their balls making good software, and after a year they get fired because that's the policy among management. I'm not making this up, this is known fact. Or at least, it was, I don't know if they stopped doing that.
Then you also have your argumentation about being payed is good and not being payed is bad. Since open source workers are volunteers (they're not "shackled", they're volunteering to do a job) the only possible measurement is motivation. How good does open source motivate it's workers to produce, and how good does MS do that?
Economic theory has shown that the _least_ motivating managerial aid is money. While it does give an instant benefit, after only a short while productivity drops off again. It's like drugs. Workers need more money all the time, and if you keep giving it they'll accept a constant increase in their money stream as normal. So additional money does very little, and a halt of the flow of money is actual perceived as bad, while it's just maintaining the status quo. That's why good managers keep their staff happy in other ways than money.
Interestingly enough the most motivating factor is personal development. Give people a chance to do what _they_ want to do, and enhance their knowledge and abilities by it, and they'll be REALLY motivated. And this is exactly what open source does. People can choose what they do, and do stuff they like. It really helps to improve productivity. Microsoft is less able to do this, because they hire workers to fit a job (which is rarely a perfect match), in contrast to open source, where a worker creates his own job, which is nearly always a perfect match.
How do I know this? I studied economic theory. A damn waste of years if you ask me, I could have been writing sourcecode then. But well, we all make our own mistakes. And your mistake seems to be your whole argument, which imho doesn't really embody much validity.
You're right about open source people critisizing feature requesters though. But at least they actually respond. And as for struggles inside development teams. You get that as much in open source as in closed source, only in open source it's right on the net, while in a closed source environment it's on an internal mailing list. It's not because you can't see something that it's not there.
Oh, and comparing MS to the capitalist economy just to make 'em look like the good guys? That's low. You must be able to do better than that.
The GPL does not release it to the public domain. you would NOT license it at all if you wanted to do that. Public domain means that anyone can use it without any restrictions. The GPL does have restrictions. The GPL uses public domain ideas (open use of code) but it does not give up ownership
they also use the tar and gnuzip formats/compression...
.CAB file formats. I have a page about it.
Yeah, but the tar format and the inflate / deflate code are completely public domain. Not BSD, not GPL. Microsoft have been using inflate / deflate almost since it was released, in their EXPAND v6 and
Unfortunately, this means that every program ever written includes, er, "code" from /bin/true
and hence is in violation of AT&T copyright...
(Posted as AC so that AT&T's lawyers don't sue my sorry ass for publishing their unpublished proprietary source code)
If you use MS Excell 2k, and put a "saved querry object" in your spreadsheet, such as MS's Stock Data getter thingie, run it, and then follow the link the the legal agreement of using it, you will find that there is a segment within the legal agreement describing the applet's use of gnuplot . Hrmmm....
According to this article on The Register, MSN did indeed alter the article to make it a little less Microsoft-antonistic, but apparently got caught on it and altered it back.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
They certainly do not have that integrety. Read the Register article linked to in the blurb. They edited the content of the original WSJ article before putting it up on MSN, so as to soften it up.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
In Unix, you use threading only if you really absolutely need it, but multi-process does the trick 9 times out of 10. In NT, you use threading because you *need* to to get any reasonable performance at all, because NT sucks at multi-processing.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Yes, and it was so faithfully "replicated" that there is Unixisms such as "/etc/hosts" lurking within the Win2K filesystem.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This seems a peculiar thing to include in a "mere workalike":
C:\WINNT\system32\drivers\etc
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It's still the same thing. Microsoft wants their customers to migrate legacy apps to Windows but is either unable or unwilling to do it themselves.
If it is impossible for them, then it is impossible for their customers.
If it is impractical for them, then it is impractical for their customers.
If is not a net gain for them, then it is not a net gain for their customers.
If you won't eat your own dogfood, why should anoyone else?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That's bull!
You don't have to express the full implications of the various licences in legalese or other jargon. You merely have to acknowledge that there are different types of free software licences varying from the ultra-viral to the near-PD. Rhetoric that equates Linux with the GPL is very misleading and is quite often a blatant attempt to decieve the reader.
It is more accurate to characterize Linux with the LGPL.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What happend to "innovation"? You don't "innovate" by merely cloning other people's work. Real progress occasionally requires throwing out all of the "old stuff" and starting from scratch.
BeOS benefits greatly from this approach.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re-examine the rhetoric. Microsoft is not merely attacking Linux. Linux may be first on their hitlist. However, it is obvious that ANY gratis OS undermines their position.
FreeBSD is as much a danger to them as Linux is. In this respect, it doesn't matter that they can assimilate it. Once anyone gets a taste for a free Unix, they may lose their taste for Windows.
They may even decide to go with some commercial Unix and it's associated RISC small iron when they outgrow FreeBSD (or Linux).
Any free x86 server OS hits Microsoft right where it lives: the low end server space.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Possibly because the original post was being sarcastic. Microsoft got caught altering the words in a Wall Street Journal story published on MSNBC. They changed the words and the meaning of the story to put Microsoft in a more favourable light. Details are on TheRegister.co.uk. That's how I read it and so I thought it was funny.
If the original post was trying to be insightful then the author is a dweeb. It wasn't insightful. If the author was being serious then at best I'd label it flamebait. I expect a little information before I moderate informative. I expect a little insight before moderating insightful. Saying "/. sucks and they censor" is neither.
They were planning to replace the BSD boxes with Windows ones, but they decided to wait unril they had to reboot them, and then they completely forgot about them because they're used to rebooting machines every week.
They would replace them now, but... uh... they got lost during some recent renovations...
It was a joke on the complexity of the proprietary code.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Why can't we talk about ACLs?
This is what we call Urban legend.
The time between the announced purchase of Hotmail.com and the rumors of an NT 4.0 migration was only 4 months.
Corporate mergers do not move that fast, for one thing. For another that 4 months would never have allowed enough time for any analysis of the problem, much less code conversion.
Also shortly after this, I went and did a search on deja.com, various other search engines, etc. I could find no references to any hotmail.com outages. No enduser complaints, etc. Although there was ample evidence of such complaints during other time periods.
This is an urban legend, much akin to "Microsoft can't ever enter the Unix market" legend promoted by RE Ballard on c.o.l.a.
Hotmail.com used to use PERL. One of the first things Microsoft did after purchasing them was move this to CGI written in C++.
From the Microsoft article:
"All of the Hotmail web servers are dual Pentium processor servers. Originally, these servers were built with FreeBSD running Apache as the web server. Most of the Web pages were generated by Perl-based CGIs. The version of Apache that was being used was not multi-threaded so each request was handled by another Apache process that was spawned off by the parent process. Spawning a new process is costly and Perl is an interpreted language so the performance of these machines was not optimal.
One of the first tasks undertaken by the dev team when Microsoft purchased Hotmail was to convert all the CGIs from Perl to C++. This was done for several reasons--the most important of which was performance. After this was completed, a couple of developers were tasked with getting the code to build and run on Windows NT® operating system. This was done because of the need for better debugging tools. "
Sorry, I didn't read the article with my tinfoil beanie on. I must have succumbed to the mind altering rays.
What the hell are you babbling about?
If you have issues with trying to understand what I wrote, feel free to email me about it.
Why is it that people can't understand the difference between the GPL and the BSD licenses? You can attack one without attacking the other, and Microsoft has focused their complaints against the GPL, implying that the BSD license is better.
Furthermore as far as hotmail.com goes. Again, if you read the article that Microsoft has on their site regarding the migration to Windows 2000 they acknowledge the support/mindshare issue.
The support people were used to monitoring the FreeBSD servers. As a result, they installed syslog tools on the Windows 2000 servers(by way of Services for Unix). Microsoft fully admits they still have some FreeBSD machines in house, it's just the main web servers they migrated. They also say in the article that the development machines had been using Windows NT/2k for quite a while beforehand. Initial development had been done on NT, then recompiled on FreeBSD and retested.
According to the article Microsoft migrated the entirety of several thousand web servers running FreeBSD to Windows 2000.
According to the hotmail migration article, not only did switch over to Win2k servers seamlessly, they also increased the number of users they could support on hotmail without buying additional hardware.
Sounds to me like a terrific success for Microsoft, and something just last year open source zealots were claiming they could not do.
Doesn't it bother people a little bit that there were two differing versions of this news item? Shouldn't WSJ be posting the final articles instead of the "early" versions for syndication?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I can think of several other projects funded by Microsoft that produce GPL'ed code. Some work on the Mercury language, for example, was funded by them. One of the conditions for the cooperation was that "all the support for the .NET platform in the Mercury system will be available on the same terms as the rest of the Mercury system, i.e. open-source under the GPL or LGPL".
This seems all the more ironic since I understand Craig Mundie to be telling the government not to support GPL'ed development. Is Microsoft itself now going to stop research funding for software under such cancerous licenses?
(rant)But they're okay, aren't they? They're not Microsoft.(rant off) History lesson The original DOS tcp stack has an interesting history. It's not related to the BSD 4.x stack in any way, and it shows. It was originally developed by the LanMan group in combination with IBM during the original OS/2 collaboration. It was included in LanMan, OS/2 1.x, probably later versions of OS/2, and definitely Windows for Workgroups. It was forced upon the NT 3.1 development team (they weren't happy, apparently), forked at NT 3.1 and Win95. High quality descendants ended up NT 3.51 and its derivatives until NT 5.0 ~ beta 1. WinME still has the derivative of the LanMan/WfwG stack.
NT 5.0 (Win2K) adopted the FreeBSD stack prior to beta 2, and in fact, roughly around build 1477 Win2K smelled like FreeBSD to nmap. This adopted stack has been seriously tuned to provide even higher throughput of an already well acknowledged industry leader stack for throughput and solidity. Things like full SMP robustness, CPU affinity, etc were added (FreeBSD are adding them now in the -current branch; speak to Greg Lehey and co for more detail).
Andrew van der Stock
And what was up with all those industry terms in quotes? Who wrote this, Dr. Evil?
We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead
This sig intentionally left blank.
Guess I was wrong... they don't have the integrity, their just a little slower than I thought.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19804.html
Kinda puts some egg on many faces.
I've seen a weird trend from /. moderators. Anytime someone makes a good point about or appears to support Microsoft, it gets labels as "Funny".
It's as if such comments were incapable of being "interesting", "informative" or "insightful". TikkaMassala makes a good point, but instead of taking it seriously we label it as "Funny" to avoid the uncomfortable implication that Microsoft has integrity. In a corporation as large as Microsoft, I find it plausable that there are parts within it's walls that retain integrity, but we tend to mock rather than support those who point this out.
Shame on us moderators for this. We should hold outselves to a higher standard.
neo
Actually, the ActivePerl stuff I believe is dually licensed under the artistic license and the GPL. I'll check to make sure, though.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Baz
% more
#!/usr/bin/sh
# Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 AT&T
#ident "@(#)clear.sh 1.8 96/10/14 SMI"
# Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation
# All Rights Reserved
# This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft
# Corporation and should be treated as Confidential.
Gosh. And what is this proprietary information, I hear you ask?
# clear the screen with terminfo.
# if an argument is given, print the clear string for that tty type
/usr/bin/tput ${1:+-T$1} clear 2>
exit
Ooh, these 'leet Microsoft programmers....
Baz
Good article. One thing to point out thou, MS is
such a large company, it seems to me a case of
the right hand not knowing what the left hand is
doing.
What I find surprising, after some of their past
mistakes (i.e. DoJ Trial), you'd think they would
be more careful.
Awesome!
Did you even read the WSJ article above?
"
Microsoft acknowledged its repeated use of open-source code Friday, in response to
questions about the matter. Just two days
earlier, it had specifically denied the
existence of any such software at Hotmail.
"
Netcraft only looks at web servers. If they
have FreeBSD running DNS and other functions,
it wouldn't be detected.
-Kevin
No, *you* missed the point - Microsoft said
they switched everything over from FreeBSD to
Windows. Apparently they did not, and they
admitted this Friday. (FreeBSD still runs
DNS and ad tracking apparently).
Additionally, FreeBSDers found that Windows
2000 software uses FreeBSD code.
Yes, I agree with you that WSJ has clout, but
this is new information about Microsoft's
use of open source and an admission of it.
-Kevin
It seems clear to me that Microsoft is scared
because of the quality of code in FreeBSD
and Linux is higher than their own. Therefore
they want to assimilate it to remain competitive.
In other words, I don't think their true issue
with Open Source has anything to do with the
loss of IP, but rather that _they_ can't use
GPLed code without releasing source.
Looking at the admittedly flawed OS comparison
yesterday, one thing jumped out at me. The
scaling curves of Linux and Windows 2000 were
_very_ similar (go look at them again if you
have a chance).
So Microsoft appears to be benchmarking Windows
2000 carefully against open source offerings
and finding themselves lacking, then increasing
performance to match. "Unfortunately" in the
case of Linux they can't legally use the code.
I wouldn't be surprised if IIS is using Apache
code as well, since it is a very proven web
server and still dominates the market. It
would be interesting to find out for sure.
Even though Microsoft's usage of BSD-style
code is totally legal, it weakens their recent
campaign against open source where they have
not been clear at all about the GPL vs. BSD
license distinctions. (I personally think
this is an intentional oversight)
-Kevin
Besides when MS was "criticizing opensource", the arguments were against the licensing terms of GNU and not open source in general.
Even though MS statements actually describe potential problems with the GPL, they always use the term "Open Source". That is not an accident. They are attempting to use fear of some features of the GPL to keep managers from evaluating any Open Source product on its own merits.
I disagree. I think MS execs use the term Open Source for several reasons, none of which stem from ignorance.
I have no doubt that Microsoft's primary objection is to the GPL, but I don't believe it was just plain ignorance that led them to consistently use the term "Open Source" instead of specifically naming the GPL as the problematic license.
He can have an agenda and still be correct in ppointing out errors and mis-statements on Microsoft's part. I don't think you need to be pro-Linux to see the inconsistency in Microsoft's anti-Open Source statements and it's use of BSD licensed code and operating systems.
The article is dumbed down too much to avoid explaining the different licenses. Microsoft also does this in their announcements. Most of Microsoft's arguments against Open Source are against GPLed software. The WSJ doesn't even mention GPL. That's either because they don't know how to explain it in a few paragraphs, or even more likely they don't understand the issues with the different licenses.
The reporter sounds like he's well aware of the differences between the GPL and BSD licenses, even though he does not specifically mention the GPL. I think that was probably a good move, given that his target audience would be businesses that use software rather than businesses that sell software.
On the other hand, Microsoft's announcements avoid mentioning the licenses in order to paint all Open Source products with the same broad brush. There is no way that Jim Allchin could be unaware that Windows contains BSD networking code. I also doubt that Mr. Mundie is ignorant of the key differences between the GPL and BSD licenses. While there is an element of audience targeting in their comments, the statements of the MS spokeperson about BSD and Hotmail make it clear that MS would like to paint a negative picture of all Open Source products.
Do you really believe that MS hasn't already taken a GOOD look at the competing code bases out there? It wouldn't just be a good idea for them to do it, it is a great idea. That's why I am sure that they have done it for years now.
Isn't 2000 based on NT (and therefore, VMS)? That's just a guess--I don't know for sure.
I'm not so sure. I don't think most people who run Office for Windows are all of a sudden going to run Linux because Office is ported to it. Only people who are already interested in Linux would be able to use it.
Did any significant number of users jump ship when Office was ported to Mac OS? (That's not rhetorical--I really don't know the answer.)
How shortsighted some can be...
This may suprise you (and those who modded you up) but there are more and more people who get it starting to make the decisions when it comes to buying software/hardware and running an enterprise level IT department. But even during the current times when there are but few who do get it please don't discount the future. Who do you think will be running the IT departments and making recommendations to CTOs in 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? People who have a much better clue. Why? Because it will be people like us who read slashdot (and friends) and have a real interest in the field. Not transplants from another field or people who found themselves suddenly running an IT department. No it will be those of us actually interested in computers, those who feel great when we do our jobs. We don't read WinMagPropeganda 3.0 and we don't let fancy colour brochures make our decisions for us.
It is for these reasons that while MSoft's marketing is working for the here and now it is also hurting their future. You can only insult even the general populace for so long before they get pissed. And as vain as this sounds, we are slightly more aware than the general populace. Apparently it doesn't take much insulting at all to set us off.
--- I do not moderate.
This article may force m$ to explain the difference between various "open source" licenses (thus admit there's more than one, admit linux != "open source", GPL != BSD license, etc.), to prove that they have every right to use BSD stuff. Would be fun to see :)
Szo
Red Leader Standing By!
I don't think the Journal's recent attitude towards Microsoft is one of hostility. The reporters at WSJ try very hard to get the facts straight because it actually matters at the bottom line. (In contradistiction to, say, the op-ed page, where the connection between opinion and fact is much more tenuous.) What it does mean is that "The Establishment" has gotten at least a partial clue about the economic potential of free software, and they are calling Microsoft's bluff in this one instance. It doesn't mean that they're going to dump their MS stock or urge the states' Attorneys General to sue them again.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The real story here is that MSNBC altered a negative article.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
You might have hit a nail on the head there too. The IBM'ers have customers which MUST have 5 digit uptime. The stuff has to work. The Microsoft side can deal with reinstallations, memory leaks in MFCxx.DLL, etc because reboots don't turn customers eyes like seeing a NYSE trading terminal goind down would.
note: I have no idea if NYSE use IBM or MS, it's just an example.
I've seen IBM's way of releasing software and when you get it, it works. The Microsoft way is to dump it on the customer and fix bugs later as the complaint's come in. IMHO
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
On Linux box typed:
/mnt/e -o username=administrator
/mnt/e/windows and proceed to grep.
smbmount \\\\ws1\\c
then cd
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Talk about being Linux-centric. FreeBSD isn't an inferior OS by any means - it can be better than Linux in many situations. This, of course, coming from a FreeBSD user :)
That may have been true in 1999, but those companies who relied on clue-insulated management are on the rolls of the dead in 2001.
They may not be geeks, but the ones who survive know when to heed geek counsel.
I can see the fnords!
Yes, at least at one office I know of. And especially among the heavy laptop users. When Office 2000 was released for the Mac, IS started offering the choice of IBM laptops or Powerbooks to the staff that travelled heavily. Most people chose the Powerbook.
And the exodus is continuing, partially the general dissatisfaction with Win2000 and the recent arrival of the eminently sexy TiBook.
I can see the fnords!
People educated in the IBM culture tend to be bureaucrats. Have you ever seen RPG code? It looks like some kind of primitive assembly language, but it's still in use in many shops.
This has not created a high-productivity programming culture. But there is an upside: the work that finally gets produced tends to be of high quality, and IBM AS/400 types are highly intolerant of bugs that would generate shrugs of the shoulder in the Windows world.
I actually tried an AS/400 but got discouraged by the vertical learning curve - you literally have to understand how the whole incredibly complex system fits together before you can write 'Hello World'.
I have a sneaking admiration for people with that kind of patience. But it certainly goes a long way towards explaining why the IBM group was a lot less productive; it's probably cultural, just as higher productivity in Linux versus Windows is.
D
----
Before this, your friends wouldn't have known or talked about Linux at all. This is progress for us. As they say, "call me anything you want, but call me". What a gift from Microsoft, we could never afford to buy this kind of free publicity.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
I guess that makes sense from MS's POV. After all, the only thing worse for MS than not being allowed to make your code part of their proprietary system would be to allow Sun to keep their code proprietary.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
As long as posts such as yours are visible, I hardly think /. is a PR mouthpiece. Heck, the easiest way to get moderated up around here is to point out problems with Linux, why Microsoft isn't so bad, why the GPL is wrong, etc., etc. And as I discovered the other day just stating your personal reasons to use Linux as opposed to Microsoft software is a good way to get moderated down as a troll. Maybe the front-page news items betray a smidgin of bias from time to time (although I think the editors have made it clear that they do prefer Linux and aren't ashamed to talk it up), but come on - who reads just the front page. As has always been the case on this forum, whenever there's BS on the front page, the highest-rated comment is someone being called on it. I don't see that changing any time soon.
In light of the Register article about Microsoft doctoring the WSJ article and then restoring it, maybe you should reexamine your perceptions of who has more integrity?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Just checked w2k (pro), and the exact same copyright message is in ftp.exe here.
Have a look at our own home-grown boys, VA Linux Systems. They ran a self-congratulatory article on the two year anneversary of Linux.com's opening, and the people who worked on it--Several people pointed out in responses to the article that VA had carefully neglected to mention some of the less-than-pleasant aspects of the deveopment process (namely all the volunteers who got screwed, people who were promised employment in exchange for services rendered, etc)
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
It is horrible PR.
No it is not! Do you really thinkg MS's PR is aimed at the slashdot crowd? Or do you think it's aimed at the PHB's who allocate funds for software purchases? Repeat after me:
GEEKS DO NOT CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS.
MS is a business; their goal is to make money; their advertising is targeted at people who spend money on software. 'Nuff said.
Brief moment of thought - what would have happened if Standard Oil had content control of the major news sources of the day...
I fear that, as Jeff Cooper has said, "We live in the age of the wimp".
Expect more of this in the future. Our children will think this is normal.
What a surprise the article that says "my 5 open source developers beats your 5 MS developers" gets a 5. Bah is what I say! Listen, I don't care if you use Assembly, I would rather have people that understand the code from the inside-out then program on whatever OS. The key here is not finding MS vs. non-MS. Its good vs. bad programmers. Microsoft currently owns about 80 - 85% of the total marketshare. Therefore, the individuals programming for the MS platform are going to be directly proportional to the amount of users on the platform. Linux is a developer/admin platform, therefore, there are a disproportiante amount of developers to platform users. This means that your users are going to be of a higher caliber then those of the general Microsoft OS. Also it means that developers are going to be more often be users.
Where am I going with this? Here's where I am going, if Linux had as many users as MS then Linux would have a less disproportiate amount of developers to users. As you move along a standard curve of population, the developers will be weaker. So higher the number of users, higher the developers, lower the skilled developers in proportion to the overall user population. Second, MS has many more users, admins, hackers, crackers, etc banging on its stuff then Linux. Check yourself, am I saying the code of either one is better or worse...no I am not. John Carmack and the fine folks at id software had some of the best testers come in to bang on Quake 3 before they shipped it. However, it was not until wide dissemination to users that bugs started coming out. Let a proportionaly large group of regular users bang on a RedHat, SuSE, Caldera installation and they will find a great deal of problems. You can say, Linux users are some of the most technically skilled in the world and yes I would agree. However, Linux has been developed for developers and you let an idiot user bang on an installation and I guarantee you will have problems. "But we will restrict their access, no ROOT for them!" Right? Now you have restricted what the user can do, and you wanna play that game; I can restrict all sorts of access in an NT/2000 workstation and bring about the same result. Heck, I can control it in the hardware so that they only save to a network drive and there entire harddrive remains the same; no fuss, no muss.
As for managers buying the "MS marketing line" as you so eloquently put it. Let's see there are approximately 6 MS users to 1 Linux user. MS users have at least show a propensity to purchase software (some of them anyway); show me one successful Linux package that has been brought to the table like Quicken that isn't immediately immitated by an open-source project. The problem is what makes Linux/Open Source great, is what's contributing to its being held back. Do I want to invest the time and energy to develop for a platform when no one wants to pay me for my software and there are six times as many users in another OS (notice six times; I'm not going installations Im going by users), of course not! There are exceptions such as Oracle, which cannot be duplicated piece for piece by a bunch of free-time developers. Im talking about small software packages.
So what have we learned children.
1. The more users = more developers you have working on a platform thus the weaker your average developer will be.
2. Open-Source imitation has hindered small software package development on the Linux platform.
3. Its not about the platform, its about the developers, agreed their are a great deal of crappy developers for MS, but given the same installed base of users so would Linux.
FWIW, The Reg is reporting that WSJ is now claiming that there's no deceit involved. Rather, MSNBC published a "pre-lease" version of the article, but the WSJ touched up the article and added the offending phrases after sending the article to MSNBC.
Whatever.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> What I don't understand, is why Microsoft's PR department insists on causing so much controversy.
Because they view it as a life-or-death struggle. (OK, they seem to view everything that way, but they may well be correct this time.)
As many others have pointed out, MS is unlike most other OS vendors in that the OS is their premier product, not something they make so they can sell their expensive hardware. If OSOSes ever replace MSOSes on commodity hardware, MS is toast.
In addition... insert here the oft-repeated explanation that even if OSOSes don't replace MSOSes, MS still has the problem that it requires growth to keep its stock prices up, and OSS is sucking up a big portion of what little uncommitted market still remained to MS for growth.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
See this story over at The Reg.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Very little, very little indeed.
Not much of unix is in there. It's quite a bit different from a kernel point of view.. and as for the GUI.. it's 100% not-X.
IT's not just a bunch of scripted commands.
It's been long-standing knowledge that Hotmail runs on FreeBSD. That's what it was built on, and moving it to NT would be (is) a nightmare.
And try to find a TCP/IP stack that *doesn't* have code derived from the BSD stack. Yes, I know it's out there... but BSD stacks are by far the most common. This is not news.
And it crashed, badly. And kept crashing, badly. And thus, they quietly moved it back to FreeBSD.
Alas, no references, this is purely memory. Although I first heard that story here on Slashdot
RTFA.
it isn't bundled with Windows, but it turns out that it's actually possible to install third party software. See http://www.cygwin.com.
A Microsoft representative says this bug will be adressed in the next version of Windows, code named WA (Windows Alone).
] From the article:
] "...Microsoft's main objection has been to
] Linux, which has a more restrictive licensing
] arrangement than FreeBSD."
What's ironic about that? What's wrong with that perspective? It happens to be true.
It is true; however, Microsoft's standard EULA is much more restrictive than both. We don't see them objecting to that, do we?
deus does not exist but if he does
It's true that it doesn't contradict their intent or the point, but it DOES contradict their literal statements. In the end, that's all they can be held accountable for. That's what the reporter was hitting on.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
The advertising clause is just that..materials used for advertising. Compiled programs are STILL going to have identifiable strings.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
They didn't post the story, only the headline. It was probably just RSSed right into the ca.msn.com page. The controversy over the original article's content involved MSNBC, not MSN.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
It's called the Internet. Maybe you've heard of it? You can thank BSD for a good portion of it, including TCP/IP and Sendmail. Let's not forget Apache. Linux is probably somewhere in there too. ;)
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
The BSD license isn't about stealing, it's about _giving_. It's not even about 'stealing'.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Maybe not surprising to us, but certainly to the readers of WSJ.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Another collection of Win32 binaries of typical Unix tools can be found at SourceForge: the
GnuWin32 project.
The Register is reporting that MSNBC originally doctored the WSJ and then restored it after they got caught.
The story is here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19771.html
All I know is that MSNBC stories have in the past often had user polls where only IE users could see the poll, or only IE users could vote on it, but afterwards the pollresults got showed to everyone. (And yes, I did verify this for myself, I in fact discovered it once by accident.)
You know, when this happened, I worked with the MSNBC guys to get it fixed. I reported the problem. They fixed it.
What if instead of bitching about it two years after it's fixed, YOU had reported the bug?
Sound more productive? I think so.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
In light of the Register article about Microsoft doctoring the WSJ article and then restoring it, maybe you should reexamine your perceptions of who has more integrity?
I guess it's a pity that The Register was pulling that entire story out of their ass then (par for the course for them).
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
NT and VMS design teams were lead by the same person. Other than that, NT and VMS share very little in common, and definately no code. Digitial was a stickler with VMS code to Microsoft after Microsoft stole its software CP/M and its key design employees.
Right. My point was only that having Office on Windows would eliminate a reason for needing to run Windows, not that this in and of itself would cause anyone to switch their OS. However, the lack of Office for Linux is one of the canonical reasons why Linux isn't ready to replace Windows as a "default" consumer OS.
I can imagine it would lead to PC companies trying to shave a few bucks and preinstalling Linux with this (hypothetical) Office for Linux and selling it as an entry-level, or at least low-cost PC. If the company saved $100 for the Windows license, they could charge $75 less and put the difference towards support costs.
However, my guess is that now would be an unlikely time for this to succeed, as the first-time PC buyer market seems to be stagnant, if not on the decline.
A move like this would probably hurt Microsoft. It would eliminate a reason for needing to run Windows (which is a big cash cow for them, as they get paid for a Windows license for nearly every PC sold.)
Moreover, I don't think they could control Linux. Perhaps you're thinking they could supply patches to the kernel that would make Office run better than, say KWord or Star Office. However, this would require Linus' agreement. I doubt he'd include such dubious features. They're free, of course, to fork the kernel and make their own distribution, but they would have to distribute their source code and couldn't stop their customers from doing the same.
However, I think you're right that what would help Microsoft (or at least hurt the open source community) would be if they managed to divide and conquer the community. Their recent rantings about open source as "cancer", however, seems to have caused the OS community to close ranks and ignore their differences, as MS paints them all with the same brush.
Perhaps they would consider trying to divide the OS community along OS licenses, but complaining in public about OS licenses is a weak tactic for MS, because it relies on the arcana of the definition of open source. It would be pointless for MS to try to divide the OS community by picking sides in the "which license is better" debate because their PR machine works at the consumer/upper management level. The decision about which license is better takes place at the developer level, and is hardly a topic of interest to the general public. (I.e. typical Windows users.)
Then there's OS-X. While Apple freely embraces OS in the form of BSD and makes no bones about it, as many people have pointed out Windows (NT) is based in part on some BSD code. So MS rantings about OS "cancer" only also alienate them from Mac afficianados as well. This tactic seems to have backfired by (a) causing their otherwise fractioned enemies to find common ground, and (b) exposing their own hypocracy in their use of BSD code.
Yes and no. From the original BSDL (if we could use CSS, this would be properly formatted):
To my knowledge, MS has never advertised the use of ftp, so that alone wouldn't trigger the clause. OTOH, if they used, e.g., the BSD TCP/IP stack, it would, since as I recall MS was quite enthusiastic about Internet support in 95 and 98.
Also, I thought that even though the date is 1983, the new license still applies to the old code.
Nope; you can't relicense code retroactively. If they wanted to, though, MS could take the newly licensed ftp and port it, possibly just by patching it from their own source (assuming it hasn't changed any in 15 years, or the original was also relicensed). Not really worth the effort, though.
Ah, but Mercury is being developed in Australia, not the US. Maybe MS is trying to topple to Australian government; or maybe there is a shadow war between waged Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch for world dominance, and this is just the first evidence to escape their 'cleaners'.
I agree that it's not likely that they lifted the BSD stack and dropped it into Windows, but that doesn't mean they didn't borrow some code from it. Headers, in particular, seem to get around more than actual code; Linux has several headers that are labelled as ""Copyright (c) 19* Regents of the University of California", even though it doesn't use any of the original corresponding *.c files (AFAIK).
Hint: take a Statistics 101 course...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Maybe they have more integrity than censoring news stories that put their community in a bad light
It will be interesting to see just how much "integrity" MSN has now that this story has been "spotted".
As many others have pointed out, MS is unlike most other OS vendors in that the OS is their premier product, not something they make so they can sell their expensive hardware. If OSOSes ever replace MSOSes on commodity hardware, MS is toast.
Also, OS dominance has tremendous strategic benefit to Microsoft since it uses it as the base to launch into other markets. While being illegal, of course, this has been MS's main MO for the past decade and it has been extraordinarily successful. If MS loses its OS dominance, it will have a much more difficult time expanding into new markets and dominating old ones. They would be just another player on the field, rather than the owner of the playing field.
A casual reading of the parent post might lead one to think that Free Software is a cause of "the considerably lower standard of living" in some countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. The low standards of living were pre-existing. Free software is a minor benison to such countries. If the per capita income is $500 a year (or less) then no one is going to be spending much money on commercial software licenses. Free (or Open Source..whatever) software makes helps make it legally possible for second and third companies to engage in computing.
;-). In short, I don't feel taken advantage of in way by using my software of choice.
I also have to point out the Microsoft's treatment of it's workers and charitible donations do not excuse it's unethical behaivor in other areas. It most certainly does not excuse the out and out lies coming out the mouths of Ballmer and Mundie. "Cancer", anyone? "Open source software will force you to give up your IP.", ad nauseating. Microsoft is well deserving of "accusing fingers" in the PR as well as other respects.
I also fail to see how frequent software releases take advantage of users. Does the release in use fulfill your needs? If yes, then don't upgrade. Does the new release provide a desired feature? Yes? Then by all means upgrade and report back the ways it could be better. If that is being taken advantage of then PLEASE! take advantage of me some more!
There are other points that could be made like the many positive reasons for developers to contribute APART FROM EGO. Then there are also the economic points in OSS' favor but I need to get back to work
I'm not required to give proof to that, Microsoft needs to. I was simply reporting on what Microsoft wants you to think. Nobody who is skilled in much of anything would actually buy their logic, they're hoping that people with business degrees listen, not math degrees.
Of course *I* know the logic is flawed, THEY don't want YOU to know that.
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
Did you read the actual article? Have you been listening to what Microsoft has been saying lately? In case you haven't it goes something like this. GPL=open source, GPL=anti-intllectual property, Open Source= anti-intellectual property, All Open source threatens intellectual property, because if you use any open source, you have to give away all of your IP.
Everybody in the tech community knew that the Win95/NT tcp/ip stack was the BSD stack, everybody in the tech community knew that hotmail was run (until recently) on BSD.
I don't find anything in this to be breaking news, I just find it to be funny.
"Don't use open soruce it's bad." "Shh, don't tell anyone, but all of our most mission critical stuff runs on open source software."
That's the funny part.
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
actually, doesn't the OpenBSD website run on a Solaris/Sparc machine at some university?
woah. Wonder if they wrote their own gunzip code.. hmm.. probably licensed it from WinZip :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
BTW, while Unix & NT have totally different design models (both in the way they are developed, and in the way they work), they both aim at the same targets, and have roughly the same capabilities.
Are you just trolling? Unix & NT were designed totally differently and they both aim at the same targets but NT doesn't have the same capabilities as Unix. For instance take a look at NT's quota system.. It's absolute garbage and you CAN'T do the same things. I can't set it up so that a user gets 5 megs of room for a quota if the folder is bigger than 5 megs etc. The quota system in unix is so old it isn't funny and I can do whatever the hell I want with it. Lets not even start talking about ACL's
NT just can't compete with the flexibility and stability of a unix system. They might aim at the same targets but trust me, they don't have "roughly the same capabilities". NT isn't even close at this point.
More trolling I see, Hotmail is a large project but swapping out a website isn't that big of deal. It really shouldn't take years unless they have it horribly designed. The reason it's taking years is because they either don't know what they are doing or want NT to play catch up and slowly phase it in. Do you think that a couple years ago NT could of handled Hotmail? Why do you think the original owners put it on FreeBSD in the first place?
No, it's only spelled "centers" in the US (and probably Toronto). Everyone else in the world spells it "centres".
------
What in tarnation does THAT mean? The guy was right on the money.
------
Since the user _insists_ on having his favorite tools and installs them himself :) Mine are not cygwin (or mingw which I prefer) but Win16 downloaded from some BBS in '94. For those without these handy tools, you can just try:
C:\WINDOWS>debug ftp.exe
-s 0 l 0 "Calif"
152A:5A29
-d 5a00
152A:5A00 63 29 20 31 39 38 33 20-54 68 65 20 52 65 67 65 c) 1983 The Rege
152A:5A10 6E 74 73 20 6F 66 20 74-68 65 20 55 6E 69 76 65 nts of the Unive
152A:5A20 72 73 69 74 79 20 6F 66-20 43 61 6C 69 66 6F 72 rsity of Califor
152A:5A30 6E 69 61 2E 0A 20 41 6C-6C 20 72 69 67 68 74 73 nia.. All rights
152A:5A40 20 72 65 73 65 72 76 65-64 2E 0A 00 2E 00 00 00 reserved.......
152A:5A50 38 00 00 00 61 73 63 69-69 00 00 00 72 00 00 00 8...ascii...r...
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
I suspect there's alot more BSD code in MS-Windows[*|NT], but either compressed to hide the UC copyright or licenced more recently without the "obnoxious advertising" BSD clause.
No he did not. Read this paragraph:
[...] The Microsoft spokesman, in acknowledging that fact, said it didn't contradict the company's many recent anti-open-source statements. He said that's because Microsoft's main objection has been to Linux, which has a more restrictive licensing arrangement than FreeBSD. Microsoft, though, hasn't previously suggested that there were benign forms of open-source software, and while singling out Linux for special criticism, has tended to criticize all open-source with the same broad brush.
Right. In the recent anti-GPL FUD, it tried to broaden the attack to all Open Source. Looks like it's backfiring now, especially to the general public who cannot see the nuances between GPL and other open source licenses. Now they read MS is using it themselves...
BTW, it looks to me like MS' campaign is kind of working. A lot of my not-into Linux friends ask me questions lately about the issues of using Linux at their work - the FUD is spreading! I hope it really is countered with articles like this one in the main stream press.
Well, it could be the developer and not the tools they use. Don't flame since I don't know the company, but doesn't it seem possible that the better developers, the ones that read tons of books & articles & tinker at home, would therefore choose to be on the non-MS side of the house & therefore develop better?
Thinking about here, the users of MS are all pretty much managers or the guys that are doing Project schedules all day. The Engineers are using Windows to connect to their *nix boxen (this is slowly changing to Linux -> *nix boxen) to do the real work.
Guess what I'm trying to suggest is that maybe MS doesn't make developers dumb, dumb developers chose microsoft.
You know that all of those guys in the applications division run linux and bsd at home.
Or at work. There was Linux on plenty of desktops at their support center at Las Colinas. I did support for them for about 6 months, and there was plenty of discussion about Linux, the trial ( I started just after the Jackson's FoF), and what the outcomes would be like.
With all of the FUDmongering that comes out of Redmond, you'd think that Linux would be a four - letter word at Microsoft, but they use the same number of letters there as anywhere else in the English - speaking world.
They were generously unconcerned about what software, what os, and what games we had on our machine. OTOH, there was a huge THOU SHALT NOT USE OPEN -SOURCE TOOLS TO DEVELOP mentality, that probably forced developers to conform to a standard - approved tools list.
When was the last time you heard of...
These companies all believe in their product. What does this say about Microsoft? I don't ever remember a time that they tried to convince me to run a FreeBSD server...
Anyway, who says OS developers can't get paid for their work? I am currently supplementing my income by helping to write an online teaching tool funded by my university and it will be GPL'ed when it is finished. I think this can benefit a lot of schools that do not have the money to pay for a propietary solution and would just have to do without.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
What evidence do you have that this is disingenuous? Also, it's isn't "from MSNBC", it's from an editor at wsj.com. It seems quite plausible, and unless you are calling this wsj.com editor a liar, it seems like this other edition made it into print as well.
/.'ers most common folly is to assume that Linux is for hobbiests and geeks. Look who is contributing to the 2.5 kernel. Oracle, IBM and HP aren't some hobbiest commies. They are big buck drive the dollar home capitalists. Their goal is to make money.
Someone you trust is one of us.
If I ran the zoo...
The "Enterprize" market could fricking care less about some BS slander campaign. F500 companies are *not* run by idiots. There is a reason that the average F500 CIO makes 10 million a year. Those guys go on results. The only market that can be suckered in this fashion frankly is the grassroots crowd. Look at all of the FUD on this site for instance. But, the grassroots crowd doesn't take well to perceived bullying.
Microsoft is responding to the "Dune-Mwadeeb" effect of GNU/Linux/BSD. When facing the jahad, don't fuel the flames by executing the faithful. What Microsoft needs to accomplish, is a truce. They need to court the energy of the open source movement in their favor. How? Port Office to linux. Through a few billion into Gnome or KDE or Wine, or their own fricking desktop, but have it run on Linux. Port Office to Linux and they could help control it. Open Source Internet Explorer for Linux. MS needs to get their hooks into the Linux development like IBM, Oracle and HP are.
Someone you trust is one of us.
What I don't understand, is why Microsoft's PR department insists on causing so much controversy. This anti open source movement only reinforces their draconian reputation. Sun is no better than Microsoft (if they only had Microsoft's monopoly we would be living in the 3rd Reich). But at least Sun's PR actually attempts to soften their image.
Coming out against Open Source is like attacking charitable causes. It is horrible PR.
Microsoft has increased its licencing fees by estimates of 100%. It has dropped negotiations with AOL over issues of content controlling (its browser wars II, Return of the Media). To cover up these clear demonstrations of monopoly abuse, the company has assulted open source???
Someone you trust is one of us.
Both Mundie and the reporter are writing to the same audience. Mundie's not explaining the issues is probably a combination of it being less confusing for his audience, as well as all Open Source being a competitor to some extent.
What bothers me about the WSJ article is that there really isn't much to the article. Other than reporting that someone at Microsoft saying there was no Open Source used at Hotmail, which he should have known to be untrue, and easily proven untrue. A fact which was corrected a few days later by someone at Hotmail with a clue. Spokesmen for Hotmail get no benefit from lying about this, someone was just clueless about this issue. The rest of the article is really just sensational. There aren't enough facts in the article to make it useful for anyone who is trying to learn something. The article isn't really trying to inform people. It's just a sensational article about a controversial subject. That makes WSJ a business tabloid, which is dissapointing. I guess I should be used to being disappointed by the mainstream press. I'm really disappointed by Slashdot's increasing tendency to link these articles without technical comments added. It seems to me like Slashdot's becomming a technical tabloid where you get to comment on the sensational articles. It's not there yet, but it seems to be leaning in that direction more and more.
I'm sure they've looked at other code bases, but I doubt they are actively following every change. Software, especially Open Source software, is constantly evolving. If you think one OS is better than another OS at a particular function, just because they were better a year or so ago, then you may be missing something. If OpenBSD is doing something better than Windows, that Windows NEEDS to do well, then it's time for MS developers to take another look.
The article is dumbed down too much to avoid explaining the different licenses. Microsoft also does this in their announcements. Most of Microsoft's arguments against Open Source are against GPLed software. The WSJ doesn't even mention GPL. That's either because they don't know how to explain it in a few paragraphs, or even more likely they don't understand the issues with the different licenses.
Microsoft telling reporters that Hotmail doesn't use any Open Source software is a different issue. Either the Microsoft employee that stated that was horribly informed and should have known to keep his mouth shut, or the quote was taken out of context. Through Hotmail, Microsoft has learned that there are some things that FreeBSD is better at. I'm willing to bet that these issuses are getting a lot of attention by the Win2000/XP development teams. I'm sure that it's a goal of Microsoft's to be able to switch those systems over to Windows in the future. At least they're smart enough to run FreeBSD untill they have a "Microsoft" solution. If they're smart, part of the solution will be to look at the FreeBSD code and learn what they can from it, and since the BSD license allows it even use BSD code to solve the problem if that works for them.
A lot of companies make really stupid decisions for marketing reasons, or because of managment's pride. I've seen really stupid business decisions that were technically unsound made just because a manager was unwilling to change course after an important, high profile decision was made. Someone made the decision to remove FreeBSD from those systems, and that person had to admit that Windows wasn't up to the task.
What else could they have done? They could have gone down the path of Microsoft doing a rush job of patching Windows to fix this problem. You would have ended up with an unstable system for a while, and Hotmail would have lost some customers. Instead, Microsoft swollowed their pride and made a good business decision.
I can understand the free software developpers better than the free windows beta testers. They both work for free. But the first ones improve the overall productivity to the world, the second ones improve the productivity of the MS product and lower the cost for MS to develop products.
;)
I think you just have to get over the fact that some people like to work for free with only a moral, social or psychological benefit in mind. I guess for most people it's just a hobby
Microsoft tries to use it's desktop platform to lay it's hands on every other profitable aspect of the software market. If you are competing in the market and Microsoft thinks it can make a profit in your part of the market the scenario is simple: ...).
step 1: they buy a competitor/sign an agreement with a competitor to use their technology. Usally a crappy product.
step 2: they incorporate their product in their fantastic multilevel marketing schema (they install it on every computer, they put advertising on every computer, claims that if you use winxxxxx their software works better on it, Bill talks about it to politicians, they pressure clients to push their product,
step 3: failure (the product is lousy)
step 4: they improve their product, it now is up to par with your's.
step 5: same as step 2.
step 6: world domination for MS in your software area.
step 7: look for a different part of the market to get employment. Or start maintaining/installing MS products.
That's why a lot of people think MS is evil. Not because they sell a OS that's most people nowadays think is sufficient.
Of course it's a hoax. It should read "one ex-employee".
God, I remember hearing this old news back in college.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
So much for MSNBC being somehow "independent" of Microsoft.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
After the story was noticed, the original copy was restored.
Maya
Everything possible to be believ'd is an Image of Truth - Wm. Blake
My personal experience is that for the same programmer writing network software using Linux was at least TWICE as productive as using M$ development tools, although more that 5 times as productive is a bit suprising. I think what we have here is more due to the most competent programmers choosing to work with open source, and the least competent, most gullible ones choosing to work with Windows.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Your criticism is complete bullshit. What about removing your head from you arse before hitting that submit button next time, eh?
You come across as both an immature and arrogant zealot, and a wienie to boot!
The most competent programmers spend their time coding, not making ill-conceived flames whose only purpose is to demonstrate the author's ignorance. Again, if you'll read the original comment, I made it crystal clear I was speaking from my own personal experience. Your mileage may differ. Yes, a lot of times the best choice is open source, a lot of the time it isn't.
Anyone who true beleives the original posting stated or implied that "all good engineers develop with open source products" should stop smoking crack for a few days, then re-read the original comment. You, my dear friend, are obviously a severely deluded, funny little troll!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
How dare you pit your puny facts against the mighty river of ignorance that is slashdot? Might as well give this one up, I think. The slashmasses are firmly convinced that M$ is somehow based on BSD code. Whoever invented this meme is a genius because it is unkillable.
--
Free Mac Mini
this is a lie. As others have said your story seems like some kind of anti-ms crap, bassicly so you'll get modded up.. for, you know, "tellin it like it is", while also telling these linux zealots what they want to hear.
it actually sickens me.
why would I run a stable OS under an unstable one?
What kind of bullshit at that? you want some quotes from MS employess I worked with.
"It's a mirecle Windows 9x boots"
"Win9x code has comments in it that say 'we don't know what this does, but if we take it out, it breaks'"
"We're using linux for our webserver, just don't tell ITG that"
"NT's tight, but we're bitchs to anyone with cash. we have code in the kernal that actually check if adobe photoshop is running, just to quick fix a problem"
I worked at MS for two years. MS employers are geeks, they have some pride in what they do, so maybe they'll use WinCE instead of Palm, or something like that. but i've never met one who was a bigit against linux, most thought it was very cool, and did run it at home.
-Jon
this is my sig.
Just gotta love the paragraph at the end of the article:
Now the only thing that is missing, is Microsoft frankly admitting the fact.
Craig M: Well, all evidence points to the contrary, but Open Source is still a huge threat to all companies even entertaining the thought.
Whatever
Free Manning, jail Obama.
The most significant thing about this article is that it is from the Wall Street Journal. Its the second anti MS article in a week. They called smart tags "dangerous".
The Journal is conservative, it is voice of the establishment. It is also one of the best newspapers in the world.
As the voice of the establishment, the fact that it has gone sour on MS is tremendously significant. It means that Corporate America is turning against them.
Why does this matter? Because, if the "business community" is against MS, then the Bush administration will see them as a political liability.
And what happens to companies that become political liabilities? Well, what happened to ADM? or the tobacco companies? They got hung out to dry.
Wishful thinking? Possibly, but two negative stories in the Journal in a week is one of those red flags only monomania can blind someone to.
thats a equivilance relation between Open Source R anti-IP. def. of equivilance relation: 1) reflexive (x R x) 2) symmetric (x R y -> y R x) 3) transitive (x R y -> y R z :. x R z)
so i want a proof of the relation damnit.
last update was june 15
sorry for ambiguity, thats the msnbc window's bug of the day site
I thought the point of open source software was to futher innovation by not making every person reinvent the wheel. I think it would be silly for any company to not use the BSD stacks as a basis unless there were compelling reasons to write your own, possibly security or performance reasons. The GPL doesn't allow this without imposing vast limitations on your distribution scheme which is why I don't much like it.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
I have found nothing inherent about MS that requires more development time to create a solution. While it is true that some things are just not best done on MS the same can be said about non-MS solutions. I'd be willing to put my dollars on the fact that the team I work with that develops on the windows platform can preform equal work to your non-windows buddies where you work.
Also I would like to bring up the artical that I can no longer find that posted several major companies that had to double thier IT budgets in order to incorporate linux into thier infrastructure. They cited increased support costs. You just can't hire a dummy to use unix but you can get along ok with a dummy setting up NT. This is unfortunate for NT because if the smart people of the world would set it up and use it, it would probably preform much better than it currently does for the people that currently use it.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
The common interpretation at Slashdot is that Microsoft doesn't like the GPL because it doesn't allow them to 'steal' other people's code for use in their products, as the BSD license does.
Articles like this make it more likely that the common person will interpret things the same way. Microsoft might claim that their motivation is moral principles and concern for intellectual property and the software industry as a whole, but simple self-interest is going to look like the real motivation to a few more people, now.
I was pretty surprised, a few months ago, when MS seemed to start stepping up their rhetoric against open source. It was the first time I believed that open source was a serious long-term threat to them. And it seemed like a misstep from a marketing perspective, too. They give open source credibility when they publicly attack it. A lot of CTOs will look at this rhetoric and think "If MS is afraid of it (but using it), maybe there's something useful there, after all."
They'd be pretty stupid to do such a thing (from their point of view anyway) since if they were caught, they'd have to release that portion of the Windows source code at a minimum.
BTW, if Microsoft is so anal about not letting their programmers use GPL, it seems to me that their legal team must view it as pretty iron-clad. This may be why we haven't seen it (the GPL) challenged in court yet.
peace....
The Register has an article on how MNSBC has been doctoring out the details of this story in order to cast M$ is a better light. See it here.
First, MS is using FreeBSD on some advertising and DNS servers -- hardly _depending_ on it for the main Hotmail stuff.
Second, I am sure they really do plan on moving to Windows
Also, while MS does often attack all of opensource, it is really the GPL they target. FreeBSD is not GPLed, so its not their number one enemy.
So, this is not that big of a deal. I am sure Microsoft will change these systems to Windows at some point. What will be interesting is if we observe lower uptimes once everything is Windows!
-- Robert
MSNBC was the only internet news site not to cover Bill Gates being hit with a pie. Everyone else had it. ABCNews (who was partnered with Netscape at the time) had it as their top story! But it was nowhere to be found on MSNBC.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Guess BSD should have kept the advertising clause in.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
1. MS uses open source software. Why wouldn't they? It's good software that does the job.
2. MS attacks open source software, especially Linux. Why wouldn't they? OSS competes with MS products.
Are any of us going to behave any differently because of this article? Why would we?
I'm sure he said 0wns
Does anyone know where I can find "all the available evidence"? Or even some of it.
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
Hmmmm... I'd say a mountain goat is probably not the best roofing material for a software developer.
Oh wait, you meant the GPL? Hmmm... I must have missed the secret clause where you transfer your copyright to Richard Stallman. (In your delusional fantasies, probably along with your soul and firstborn child.) Thanks for telling me about it!
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Really? Well. I can think of one ... and its name begins with M.
So saying? "Here you get a copy of this program. You had honour of paying $$$ for it, so DO NOT DARE to reverse engineer it, or even modify it. NEVER EVER gives this program to ANYONE ELSE. If you find a bug, tell us about it, we might fix it, and you can than purchase the bugfix for $$. To use this program longer than 30 days you need to tell us your name, address, age, income, hobbies, your wife's name, your girlfriend's name, the name of your cat, and your favorite color." is less controling than "Here is our program. You can use it, modify it, and give it to whoever you want. You DONT have to give us money for doing that. If you find a bug, you can fix it yourself, or let us know. If we can fix it, the fix will be in the next version. Feel free if you want to. If you modify the program, you don't have to tell anyone, or give it to anyone. But if you _DO_ distribute your changed version, you have to include the sources, and you may not change the license" ????????? ARE YOU SURE??????
MS has been pretty good at keeping the distinction between GPL and the rest of the OS licenses in their arguments.
And this is not news either. We've discussed MS' use of BSD code on /. before.
M.
One of Microsoft's tactics in attacking Free Software is to include all OSS under the Open Source moniker, and count on the ignorance of the public (and the press) about the differences between Free Software and Open Source.
:-/
Dumbing things down in this way has been a potent weapon for them, because so far the Linux advocates have been bogged down in trying to explain the differences between the various licenses.
Hopefully this 'revelation' (which we've all known about for years anyway) will force Microsoft to distinguish more between the different kinds of OSS in future, in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy by attacking BSD.
Hopefully.
Unfortunately I fear the Microsoft marketroids are better at spin than that.
--
Karma: Chameleon (you come and go)
Maybe they had simply gotten into the habit of distributing untruths.
The closest equivalents to blueprints are things like flowcharts and UML descriptions, both of somewhat dubious utility.
Why can't people just compare source code to recipes and be done with it? It's a lot closer to the truth anyway...
/brian
Microsoft tends to receive quite a bit of bad press in the Free Software community. There is no doubt that Microsoft has released its share of bug ridden software, as has just about every other software company in the history of computing. All of this publicity does little to help the image of Microsoft in any community, much less one as technically demanding as Free Software. Given that image it is no wonder that many of us regard the company as evil and uncaring. We shudder at the costs of their software because we know full well that there are lternatives available that are arguably just as good, but are Free for the taking (and changing if we so choose).
Compared to Free Software Microsoft would probably appear to be evil even to the layman. Our community is composed of volunteers. Our software can be had for the cost of a little bandwidth. In our world you have vast freedom of choice and the source code of our software can even be changed to fit your particular whims, you aren't forced to use whatever some focus group research shows that everyone wants.
Microsoft is hires and retains its programmers with a variety of economic incentives. Obviously everyone receives a regular salary, there are also stock options, 401k payments, insurance subsidies, bonuses, education reimbursements, etc. Further, by choosing to work for Microsoft every employee implicitly (some explicitly in the form of contracts) agrees to the terms set forth by the company for the particular position they hold. Other aspects of the employment 'contract' are equally well defined. Coffee breaks, lunch times, and numerous other details of the work day are set forth in policies that are made public within the company.
Microsoft also takes particular pains to maintain good employee relations, so one can assume that the general happiness of the work force is good. Employees can leave the company any time they choose to pursue other opportunities. An excellent comparison to a system such as this would be a capitalist economy. The incentives to produce are obviously economic in nature, some kind of in cash transfer takes place. Employees agree to provide a service for which the company agrees to provide payment. Overall the system is not skewed in favor of one party or another, some areas favor the employer and some favor the employee. It is as close to the ideal of the perfect freedom as one might be able to find.
It is in this respect that the case could be made that Microsoft, while selling products that are not necessarily better than the alternatives, should be commended. Microsoft provides a non-exploitive means of employment for thousands of people all across the world and in doing so fulfills a social contract that is very valuable indeed. As a country's wealth, and that of its citizens, increases, so does the standard of living. Life expectencies increase due to better health care and sanitation.
The Free Software movement takes an entirely different approach to recruiting programmers. One of the largest repositories of Free Software projects, Sourceforge, shows a vast array of programs. Many of the workers on those projects are volunteers.
It cannot be disputed that the Free Software movement has produced quality products but its sterling reputation for being a good social citizen may not be as well deserved as one would think, considering the fact that in spite of their social contributions Microsoft continues to be viewed as evil. Free Software compensates its programmers not with economic transfers, but with social rewards. A review of the community forums will reveal instances of peer pressure to get programmers to contribute. Quotes like "If you want that feature go code it yourself" can be read quite often. The rewards of working in the Free Software world come not in the form of transfers of any monetary value, but from the admiration of one's peers. This is particularly evident with another visit to the popular Sourceforge, 'Highest Rated Users' and 'Top Project Downloads' graphics are porminently displayed on the front page.
Many would argue that programmers contribute to projects of their own free will, thus there is much more freedom in the community as opposed to our contrasting example. That assertion true, but it ignores the power of social pressures. A worker cannot simply walk away from a project without paying a price. The incentive to being it in the first place was fulfillment of the ego and such a person would not risk drawing any admonishments from the community for failing to fulfill his end of the social contract.
Further inspection of the Free Software movement reveals that the social incentives to contribute extend beyond those who can program as well, the movement has developed a way to take advantage of even the unskilled users. 'Release early release often' means a beta version of your favorite software is not far away. Whether one visits Sourceforge, Slashdot, or virtually any other Free Software website on the day a new Linux kernel is released there will no doubt be hype for it. The idea conveyed by the hype surrounding these releases is you need to have the latest version if you want to keep up! In order to keep the movement running smoothly there has to be continuous recruitment of beta testers.
Considering the social rewards and punishments of the Free Software movement one must wonder what its contribution to the greater welfare of society is. I would hold that we all benefit as a whole from the increase in competition between the two disparaging groups. Despite this there is also a considerable negative component of Free Software: It tends to exploit its workers by shackling them with vast social pressure yet it does nothing to improve their quality of life. Indeed, in courtries where there is widespread use of Free Software (relative to the use of Microsoft alternatives) the standard of living is considerably lower. The fact that shame is used to glean contributions also bears mentioning. A hint of disingenuity can also be found in the assertion that the use of the GPL prevents a person's work from being exploited in the name of corporate profit, companies like Red Hat make millions of dollars every year by providing support for code that originally released free of charge by programmers who were paid nothing.
As I stated in my opening paragraph, I am a loyal supporter of Free Software. I will continue to use it every day of my life. My primary desire in writing this short essay is to ask each of you to critically assess the Free Softwar movement, and give some thought to our predicament before you point an accusing finger in the direction of Microsoft.
Icebox
Hehe. : :)
I can just see the slogan
Who operating system do Microsoft turn to to run it's world famous Hotmail Service? FreeBSD! . That's what!
Now if that ain't an endorsement, I don't know what is.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
While the "security risks" statement is FUD, the second part is true. The GNU GPL DOES force IP into the public domain. I think MS has confused all open source software with GPL'd software, at least in their press releases. The GPL is dangerous for a company trying to hold on to its IP while still trying to build on existing technology, and I believe Microsoft has proven this by using BSD licensed code. Honestly, if you were a small business would you want your top application possibly being forced under the GPL where you would have to release the code to the public for everyone to see and take, or would you want it under the BSD license where you merely have to give credit where credit is due?
---
www.stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD
Pre-MS, Hotmail was run eclusively on FreeBSD servers. Even after MS bought them out, they didn't immediately cut the whole service over to Windows servers...they have been phasing FreeBSD out over time. Obviously this is in the best interest of a company that sells a "competing product" to the servers' installed OS.
From the article:
"...Microsoft's main objection has been to Linux, which has a more restrictive licensing arrangement than FreeBSD."
Ironic, isn't it...? Perspective never fails to amaze me.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
-The Professor, Futurama
It's true. Mundie was mostly bashing the GPL, not open source as a whole (not that I think he's running FreeBSD at home...).
In this case the reporter missed that point entirely.
Now if this were the other way around, would it be FUD?
I found the following files in a W98SE with IE automatic update verification enabled:
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
what they said about OSS is mostly true (not the security risk problem). When you create a piece of software under the GNU, you really don't own it anymore.
Now think about how much of the winXP is Linux-based
I will answer this: NONE!
Microsoft has some of the greatest programmers in the WORLD. I serously doubt they are going to use ANYTHING from the linux community. (Maybe as a joke)
and yet again, something that has been known for quite some time is surfacing as 'news'. Why? perhaps they have thier heads up thier asses? maybe they stare at the cute penguins too much? or perhaps cowboyneal has secretly got them in a vodo-trance and control them (laughing the entire time)...the world may never know.
but hey! at least the editors recycle _something_, right? perhaps they should become brain donors and give someone else the gift of thought they passed up...
NO SPORK
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Given this, and the sort of people MS are and the way they treat us, why should I release anything under the BSD licence?? I can help decent people by releasing under GPL/LGPL, so why should I work for Gates & Co.?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I guess this means that Microsoft still has need for *nix hackers like myself. At last! My dreams of becoming assimilated for the sole purpose of inserting a virus into the collective (not unlike Janeway) can finally be obtained. I guess reading Evil Geniuses for Dummys finally is going to pay off.
---
"Have you ever tried to get at any of that really hot porn using Netscape or Mozilla?!?", Stallman commented, whilst simultaneously trying to prevent several enraged Debian developers from smashing his favourite set of pan pipes. "I mean, I'm all for free software and all that, but seriously...how the hell am I going to shoot my wad of creamy GNU-custard with one hand on my meat flute, with the other trying to navigate fucking Lynx commands on the keyboard?!? Ever since I tried out ESR's 'Sex Tips for Geeks', closed-source spanking has been my only form of sexual relief. And you guys thought I got carpal tunnel syndrome from coding!! Hah!! I'm down with Bill G and his horny homiez on this one!"
But other luminaries in the free software community weren't in agreement with Stallman's flirtation with the dark side of software engineering.
"I've been spanking off with Konquerer for 6 months with no problems", reported KDE developer Matthias Welk. "What a hyprocrite...I mean after all that fuss about the Qt license, and now we find out that Stallman has been using closed-source all along. What a fucking wanker!!"
Open source browser Mozilla developer Christopher Blizzard chimed in. "Stallman has no reason for choosing the closed source, satanic M$ IE 5.0 for his porn surfing needs. There are a wealth of quality free software browser/masturbatory aids available right now out there in the community. I mean...sure...previous releases of Mozilla might have sucked for those tricky Javascript-laded teen sites, but dude, have you tried last night's build? It totally rocks. Now if only we could figure out some way of watching all those hot streaming videos in Microsoft Media Player format....hmmm...maybe I'll drop over to Richard's place and see how the HURD is going...excuse me"
Weird, the same people who say that MS software is buggy affirm without any hesitation that MS is using BSD's code. Ah the irony.
I came across this page which shows some of Microsoft's Investments over the years. Apart from the fact that Microsoft has never had an original idea for itself, one thing stood out... The have funded Transvirtual's Java Virtual Machine, Kaffe. This software is developed under a GPL license... I wonder if Microsoft had a tough time stooping down to our level just to get a bit of leverage on one of their other compeditors... Sun.
http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/migration/hotmail /hotplan.asp
Show me in there where it shows the DNS servers? What's that? They weren't included in the case study?
Show me again where it shows the ad servers? Huh? They're not included in the case study of FreeBSD -> W2k migration either?
So, I guess that means that only the Hotmail front-end application servers were upgraded from FreeBSD to W2k, right? Microsoft didn't even falsely claim to have migrated the back-end off of a proprietary solution onto W2k or Exchange or who knows what?
I read through the case study again (had read it when I first ran across it a month or two ago), and I still don't seen any inconsistency here. Seems Microsoft was very up-front about what was migrated and what was not migrated at Hotmail. They did it to get Unicode support, and an easier development environment for the Hotmail app. Why the hell would they rush to upgrade the ad servers or the dns servers if there's no apparent $$ benefit to doing so?
Riiiiiiiight. An anonymous MS employee who thinks that FreeBSD is "technically superior" to Windows...
Definitely a reliable source for this article...
See... THIS one should be modded up to +5:Insightful.
Moderators? Where are you??
Nope, but I suspect if I'd been keeping up with my Slashdot articles, I would have, right? :)
And you, sir, are a flame-baiting fool in the pay of someone who does not like the WSJ article. Gomes appears to have a modest objective knowledge about Linux. You would prefer us to read articles written by someone ignorant on the matter? Go home and stop embarassing yourself.
My blog
Ok ...
...
1/ The article states that MS is using BSD code in their sockets layer - nothing to do with hotmail running on FreeBSD
2/ I've read articles (and seen web signatures - IIS likes to broadcast it's use) showing that hotmail *does* run Windows/IIS
3/ Microsofts anti-OpenSource statements were more directed at anti-GPL - they have stated that BSD is the best license, especially for code developed at universities. Allows it to be used in 'for-sale' software as well.
4/ Who cares anymore? The market (as in users) will decide the future - and my guess is a mix
Ghost.
Now think about how much of the winXP is Linux-based.....It's scary. M$ is ripping open-sources off big time because they know no one in the open-source community has the money to sue them. those bastards....
(unlike /. or most US news centres of course).
It's spelled "centers," mate.
Carthago delenda est!
The only point that is nice, is that the article points out the hypocrisy of Microsoft that on one hand it bashes OpenSource and on the other hand it embraces it. Mind, of course...that Microsoft bashes GPL and embraces BSD. Just as the licences are intended.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Well, Mundie's been deliberately using "open source" interchangably with "GPL" for a long time now. It's not open source a la BSD that he disagrees with, but he knowingly avoids attacking the GPL specifically. So you can't really blame a reporter for doing the same thing.
The upshot of this "revelation", one hopes, would be that Mundie is now forced to distinguish between BSD open source and GPL open source the next time he opens fire.
heh...this is basically the longer version of what I just typed....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
"At least they're smart enough to run FreeBSD untill they have a "Microsoft" solution."
Smart enough? Given the choices, it isn't really that hard to make a decision. They could a.) leave Hotmail running WinNT (crashes, loss of service, flagship server OS gets made fun of) or b.) Revert Hotmail to FreeBSD (it runs, and runs, and runs)
Which choice would you have made? Timmy(tm) could have figured this one out folks.....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Hey no problem, but this actually did happen. I suppose that on further thought, the quote the MS fellow mentioned probably wasn't Balmer's from the past few weeks. It was a previous one about the GPL and how it forces all code depending on a GPLed peice to be under the GPL, and how horrible that was. I wasn't paying attention to much news at the time since I was busy with classes.
I suppose that it's most likely that the reason I didn't get the intership was because I didn't prepare for the interview at all. But hey, I'm an EE so software isn't my thing anyway, and a free trip is a free trip. Even so one thing I've learned in interviews is that part of what an interviewer is evaluating is how well you'll fit into their corporate culture. That's the point of those little warm up questions, like "what do you do in your spare time," (or for geeks) "what do you run on your computer," etc. I suppose that I just wasn't as enthusiastic about their company and their products as they like.
Of course I like to think that I didn't get hired because I "fought the good fight for OSS at the heart of M$." It certainly makes for a better story than "they didn't hire me because I didn't read up on the questions I knew they'd ask me."
So that's my story and I'm stickin to it...
credo quia absurdum
You sublicense it the moment you get it to a closed source license... and hey presto its no longer open source software, despite its origins. Thats why its "compatible" with the GPL too, which is in truth only compatible to itself, it allows sublicensing to nearly any license you want.
In the gift economy of OS infrastructure the bright light of day is the best assurance of continued future prosperity. Sooner or later MS will figure this out, but no bets from me on whether it will be in time for them to profit from the knowledge.
Like Marijuana, FreeBSD just leads to the Hard Stuff; can leaks about MS dependence on GNU/Linux be far behind? Go GPL!
Please smile. It's funny, not flaimbait.
The truth shall set you free!
.. you can use BSD licensed code modified by MS, provided that you can get your hands on the code. There is no obligation to release it though.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
#include "apology for jumping to conclusions if I've completely missed something here"
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
The story here is not that Hotmail runs on BSD -- that's well-known already. The story is that this fact was reported in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. The WSJ has been reliably pro-Microsoft in relation to previous skirmishes, notably the Antitrust matter. Is it *possible* that the WSJ has decided to take a different approach to the company's slander campaign against its open source / free-as-in-speech competition? After all, previous attacks from MS, particularly the Craig Mundie flap, have focused on the GNU Public License. If the WSJ has decided that this constitutes hypocrisy on MS' part, that would be a major boon to the intergration of free software into the broader business market. The WSJ is a POWERFUL ally.
-J
I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
However, I'd like to clear up one misconception that I've seen repeated in many comments here. Microsoft did in fact migrate from FreeBSD to Windows 2000 for all of their Hotmail systems, as well as converting the frontend web app from a kludgy (by fault of the programmers) perl system to a clean ISAPI interface. That alone skyrocketed their uptime and load capabilities.
Here is a little snippet:
-------
One of the first tasks undertaken by the dev team when Microsoft purchased Hotmail was to convert all the CGIs from Perl to C++. This was done for several reasons--the most important of which was performance. After this was completed, a couple of developers were tasked with getting the code to build and run on Windows NT® operating system. This was done because of the need for better debugging tools.
After this port was done, Windows NT and Microsoft Visual C++® became the development environment. The code was written and debugged on Windows NT and then built and tested under FreeBSD. This made debugging much easier. At this point the production code was still built as individual CGIs with gcc on FreeBSD.
Eventually a number of technical and performance issues were compelling enough to consider moving the live site from FreeBSD to Windows 2000. The number of front-end machines was growing at an alarming rate to keep up with Hotmail's growth. It was becoming financially, operationally and physically difficult to maintain the rate that machines were being added. So, it became necessary to look at ways of squeezing more performance out of the servers. Several FreeBSD alternatives were investigated, including wrapping the code in an Apache module (the Apache equivalent of Internet Server API [ISAPI]), switching to Zeus, a multi-threaded Web server for UNIX that supports ISAPI, and a couple of other Web servers. At the same time more languages needed to be supported. To support the number of languages being discussed necessitated the use of Unicode. The Unicode support available under FreeBSD was inadequate and would have taken a lot of development time to get it to meet our needs. Windows 2000 had just gone beta so it was considered as a possible solution to both of these problems. The globalization team investigated the Windows 2000 Unicode support and determined that it would do what was required. The next step was performance testing. "
-------
The real details can be found here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/migration/hotmai
And an overview for the PHBs is here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evalu
-- russ
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
I think you are confusing Digital Research (the CP/M people) with Digital Equipment Corporation.
Also, please explain how MS-DOS is/was a "stolen" version of CP/M. A blatant ripoff, yes. But was any code stolen?
where there's fish, there's cats
Why innovate when somebody did it for you? Why spend time and money writing your own TCP/IP stacks when someone did it for you? The question remains, how much of unix is in NT/2000? I personally think a lot. All the pretty GUI's and wizards are just pre-made scripts for you instead of you having to know the commands yourself.
It seems that Mickie-soft is moving more and more towards claiming everything they make and even touch their own IPR, 100%. Then the M$ idea seems to be charging all those who even view their stuff over and over again. With projects like Hailstorm Micky-mousie is starting to have alot in common with media companies, with those who own content, and with those who lobbyed the DMCA through.
We are not far from seeing each piece of content AND software digitally encrypted with user's key, so that only the user can receive / do something with the software/content. M$ and media companies are constantly trying to push this kind of control mechanisms through, soon they will be billing me from the adds they have places on roadsides.. just because I happen to look at them. Maybe I am soon required by law to wear some sort of goggles that track my eyemotions, and if I even accidentally look at a piece of content I will have to pay.. over and over again.
Yes yes.. the question is what we are going to do about it? well there is one thing: we are the customers. Businesses operate solely based on satisfying the needs of the customer. If you speak against companies, but still buy their stuff -> no good. If you don't speak and don't buy their stuff -> better, but not that good either. But if you don't buy their stuff, and then explain in great detail to them why you are not buying it -> then it starts to be the kind of feedback the companies start to take seriously.
Perhaps we, the customers, sometimes need to remind media companies and M$ of what we want and how we want it. We have the power to start demanding - and keep demanding. Until they deliver!
.km
From http://www.poynter.org/medianews/letters.htm
From MEGAN DOSCHER: I am the MSNBC editor at WSJ.com. The British paper's story about MSNBC editing one of WSJ's articles isn't true -- an early version of the Microsoft story was published to MSNBC by one of our editors, and unbeknownst to us, it was never updated with the final version. We got two pieces of reader mail on Friday morning telling us that MSNBC was "editing" the story, and we checked and realized the production error and fixed it right away. We also explained what happened to the two readers who wrote in. Actually, the version that appeared on MSNBC was also the version that appeared in both the two-star and three-star editions of the print Wall Street Journal. It was different only from the (very late) four star.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Seems the article at the WSJ was updated
today (June 18), and no longer mentions
SUN Microsystems.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
While I have never seen "Windows Bug" pages on MSN (which is not to say they don't exist, I wish I had seen them them), I *certainly* have seen unflattering coverage of Microsoft's and Bill Gates' conduct on Microsoft properties, such as msnbc.com. In this regards, I view properties like msnbc.com to have at least a small measure of integrity more than such chauvinistic p.r. mouthpieces like Slashdot which:
- seems to view the GPL as holy and unquestionable,
-focuses on Linux to the essential exclusion (read: paying token coverage) of other operating systems which 'geeks' may well be interested in,
- is unanimously anti-Microsoft (to the point of not being able to discuss a single Microsoft product or feature without viciously criticizing their larger conduct or philosophy,even when such is irrelevant to the article at hand, and despite the fact that it certainly appears as if at least some of the cabal uses MS products to play games, at least), and
- which rarely has the guts to point out the many bugs and shortcomings of open-source software in general, and Linux in particular.
The MSN site is just the same: they have a script that pulls all the articles off the WSJ front page.
I'm sure most people realise this, but it irratates me when some posters suggest that MS have some 'hidden agenda' behind allowing MS-critical articles on MSN.
As for the BSD thing: Yes, it's old news. Yes, it's good that it is appearing in a business-directed publication. No, MS are not using BSD for their main hotmail servers, just for advertising and DNS servers.
Try to consider facts people.
I'm not sure that the two are related. True BSD is more reliable than windows, but wasn't the Microsoft DNS outage related to a routing problem?
As I recall, some stupid network architect put all their DNS servers on the same subnet. I'm not a big microsoft fan, but to be fair, we all know FreeBSD is better than windows at TCP/IP operations but that wasn't the cause of their DNS outage and shouldn't have been cited as evidence of WIndows' inferiority in the WSJ article. In fact, the DNS outage is evidence only of the fact that Nicrosoft should have hired a smarter network architect.
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
akamai does their dns hosting since they were downed earlier this yr. that'd be why their ms.com dns's are all linux-based.
help out a web based email site that uses Linux for its mail server... It also uses php, and mysql... on the down side it uses asp also...
www.twotoads.com
Note the email is censored for children.. but if you hate getting emails with tons of cuss words and porn links, then its for u.
Taxes and Lazy People are best friends.
here... I will make it easier for the non copy paste folks
link
Taxes and Lazy People are best friends.
all the people who ms is directing their fud at, will be more inclined to read the wsj rather than /.
I think the problem is with the definition of "Open Source". There's no consensus on what it means. But I think the BSD people knew very well that MS was talking about GPLed code, not about BSD code. If they want to boost the GPL to their own detriment, that's their business.
http://iwsun4.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/08/ 28/000828opcringe_cto.xml
Please give me the article (or link) of the MS droid who said that GPL=opensource.
From the articles that I've read, it was never implied so.
¦ ©® ±
Read it carefully. Ballmer is talking about a particular type of open source, linked to Linux, which is GNU. The question was:
Q: Do you view Linux and the open-source movement as a threat to Microsoft?
Ballmer: [...] The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source.
The bold emphasis is mine and obviously, he is referring the license to GNU, not BSD.
¦ ©® ±
Hey, MS has been using BSD code since the day 1 of Windows NT - a very well known fact. And they never deny it. Besides when MS was "criticizing opensource", the arguments were against the licensing terms of GNU and not open source in general.
I wonder why slashdot editors keep posting this kind of stuff. Just to please some Linux zealots? News for nerds?...hmmm....
¦ ©® ±
in my humble opinion, everything Micrsoft could do with freebsd-style licence is perfectly legal.
who cares if they are doing what they aren't preaching? the won't loose any credibility. that's because a stroger licence -such as GPL- is needed in order to keep opensource software away from such companies which want to Embrace and Extend everything around them.
now, just a moment: what's wrong in Microsoft using open source software? if really what open source developers want is the quality, well, they shouldn't care. I'm just worried that we might risk to reinvent the wheel due to this 'closing' source code policy.
let's think about how many resources are wasted every year because of licensing and copyright issues. nobody has ever died of a violation of copyright, but everybody is suffering due to the lack of useful people, busy in trying to circumvent what business forces to do.
it may seem pathethic rethoric, but I think that the world could be a BAD place if Archimedes asked for a fee every time somebody used his theorem. surely some open-theorem zealot would have created a better way to express Archimede's Theorem, but it would have meant a huge waste of time during all human evolution.
oh well, just my 2c.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
Sounds like low-level error from the driver itself, or at least the lower levels of the file system. I spent a few weeks in the weird and terrifying world of Windows NT device drivers (I had to learn to write a simple filter driver), and learned that all the devices are named somewhere in the internals of NT (and the registry) in a hierarchical tree that starts with \device\...
Anyway, \device\floppy0 is the name you would use for an CreateFile() call.
---dragoness
Actuly, MacOS X is based off NeXt (that however, was based off BSD)
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
$ uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-4.0 LON-RHC-NTW36 1.1.8(0.34/3/2) 2001-01-31 10:08 i686 unknown
asimmons@LON-RHC-NTW36
$ grep -i regents *
[...]
Binary file FINGER.EXE matches
Binary file FTP.EXE matches
Binary file NSLOOKUP.EXE matches
Binary file PGPsdkNL.dll matches
Binary file RCP.EXE matches
Binary file RSH.EXE matches
For those who are lucky enough not to know, WINNT/system32 is roughly equivalent to /usr/bin .
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
It's c-e-n-t-e-r when you are talking about the US
;-)
Get your Unix fortune now!
All in all, no matter what all those people above me posted - don't you think Bill would come up with a way to make money even if Linux took over Wednesday?
I do.
They would dummy it down, [open source it], sell CD's with tech support, and still make a fortune.
What people don't remember is, MS {with Word) made the first apple(mac?) word processor.
They would still make money. Just wait, Outlook for linux!
Get your Unix fortune now!
My friend has started a collection of Windows error messages; I thought I had found a typical error message for him a couple weeks ago.
It was some strange disk-write error, some poor soul seems to have saved something to a floppy, but it didn't actually write. Well, the error message referred to "\device\floppy0". I suppose it's possible that Microsoft refers to its hardware in this way, but, umm.... Does this seem a little too similar to /dev/floppy or /dev/fd0? :)
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Yep, it is. Thanks for finding it.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
suwain_2
This isn't the first time they've posted things critical of Microsoft; in fact, I could've sworn that I found a "Windows Bug of the Day" section, although I can't find it now...
However, perhaps this is ultimately what Microsoft wants. Because, let's face it, if they published a 'review' with the bottom line being "Linux sucks", would it have any credibility at all? No, of course not, it's a Microsoft company, of course they'll say that. But by occasionally posting stories critical of Microsoft, they help to build their credibility.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
suwain_2
But did you read last week where a MS spokesman said that they use no open source software at hotmail?
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
Actually I don't remember if it was on /. or not.
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
"In this case the reporter missed that point entirely
No he didn't. Read the next paragraph:
I think he got the point right 'on the nose'.
"A Microsoft spokesman said he couldn't explain why Microsoft had given out incorrect information on the topic."
I bet he cant explain it!
"one employee of the Redmond, Wash., company said Microsoft has deliberately kept FreeBSD in parts of Hotmail because of its technical superiority over Windows in important functions"
now this must be a cruel hoax!
This was quite an interesting article, but wasn't particularly technical (eg didn't explain the difference between GPL and BSD). Btw, is the WSJ considered by americans to be an 'intelligent' paper? (What we in Britain call broadsheets). If so, I'd hate to see one of your tabloids. I didn't realise American papers were as bad as American TV :-)
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
From the looks of an old version of perl I have here - They used to support GPL :
C:\users\default>perl -v
This is perl, version 5.001
Unofficial patchlevel 1m.
Copyright 1987-1994, Larry Wall
Win32 port Copyright (c) 1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Developed by hip communications inc.,
http://info.hip.com/info/
Perl for Win32 Build 108
Built Jul 14 1996@19:14:37
Perl may be copied only under the terms of either the Artistic License or the GNU General Public License, which may be found in the Perl 5.0 source kit.
Of course, 1995 was a long time ago in internet time!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the BSD license REQUIRE that you acknowledge that you used their code?
If this is the case, then hasn't MS violated their copyright?
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Somewhat? They call MS barefaced liars, says they don't trust their own software, and furthermore states that their "Open Source is bad for bussiness" bashing, is nonsense (although to be fair they had singled out the GPL).
And that in the Wall Street Journal. Hmmm. What next?
--
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
To wit:
ZDNet
WSJ
Linux Magazine, where he's a contributing writer.
Regardless of what you think about Linux and MS, this isn't the guy to be writing about it.
No, only when you are talking -in- the US. Don't try to smear your dodgy spelling on the rest of us :)
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Maybe they have more integrity than censoring news stories that put their community in a bad light (unlike /. or most US news centres of course).
Maybe they are going to migrate to a MS written TCP/IP stack ... uhh yeah ... just like they migrated Hotmail to be purely Microsoft.
When i look at the content of ftp.exe on windows 98 i see the line "Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved." However, if i right-click on the file and look select "Properties", it says "Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp. 1981-1997". I.e., the credits to UC is there for geeks to enjoy, but are replaced with credits to MS for the casual user.
First, to the person who got +3 for insightful, yes this is not exactly 'news' in the sense that FreeBSD has long been known to inhabit the Hotmail servers. It is news in the sense that MS bashes opensource as 'dangerous' and the GPL as 'cancer', then make use of opensource code in their products and full opensource products in their services. The news here, to put it another way, is OSS isn't good enough for the general public, but it's good enough for MS, which indicates the low quality of MS products, services, and people. Not that OSS is low-quality, but quite the opposite - that it is high quality, and beats anything MS has come up with, and their low-quality establishment chooses to leech from it and then kick it in the face on the way out. BSD's TCP/IP code running on Windows 2000.... biting the hand that feeds you, anyone?
I was discussing this with my girlfriend the other day... saying I wouldn't be surprised if MS had incorporated code from OSS in their major products, and saying that any exposure of such activity would be some of the best public-relations material we anti-MS folks could ever have. This news item this morning put a large smile on my face and made my eyes water as I read the WSJ article. The last statement made in the article, while not news and simply opinion, was succinct enough to warrant a repeat: "Microsoft owns you." I can only chuckle and shake my head.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
I thought this ZDNet article was much more interesting.
As a former employee of Ericsson Data (subdivision of L M Ericsson AB), which most of you may know as a cellphone-manufacturer, I've made an observation on policies in large, multinational companies;
- There will always be small, independent groups within said company that will go their own route, when it comes to using and publishing open-source, choice of OS, etc.
- These groups will as a rule of thumb get penalized by the overhanging organization.
- If the gains from using the "deviant" methods or software are large enough, the group will pay the fines and continue.
When I worked at Ericsson, we had what was called ESOE, Ericsson Standard Office Environment, which blasted our computers with an image of what they thought our system should look like. Solution: Make sure the network cable was unplugged between 1am and 3am.
We used both open-source software, contributing our changes to the appropriate repository, freenixes (Linux, *BSD) and we even bought our own workstations, DECPC Dual PII's, which blew the standardized, corporate deal HPs away.
In the end, our productivity and quality of development clearly outweighed the fines we had to pay the overhanging corporate police, so there was nothing anyone could do. One of two things usually happens to such groups; either the mother organization values profit more than conformity, and casually continues to penalize it, but nothing else. Or, it disbands it, re-assigning people to other departments.
My point here is [vague], but there's something to be said about pure commercialism. If it's high enough in the corporate structure, it sometimes benefits the "low" individuals, in letting them be at their most productive and choosing their own tools.
(My department got disbanded approximately 2 years after it was formed, leading to 90% of us leaving Ericsson.)
Well, atleast Microsoft is still using their own OS (however much of it is their own), on the other hand you have Apple, which just copping out and switching entirely to FreeBSD instead of updating their own OS, pretty much admiting that MacOS sucks.