Slashdot Mirror
Round Table On Approaches To Source Code
Gandalf61 writes: "On siliconvalley.com, they've opened up a roundtable discussion concerning MS's Craig Mundie's recent attacks on the GPL. It's titled 'Code War,' and a panel of other-than-MS luminaries is on-board, and attacks on Mundie's the over-the-edge 3 May speech have begun. Mundie started the discussion, and one reply is now posted by a panel member, shredding the MS view of reality ... This looks to be fun." Since this submission rolled in, a number of posts have appeared in this moderated discussion set to continue for the next few days; RMS withdrew from the panel shortly before it began, though, and the result is a discussion which is engaging but perhaps not as fiery as it would be with Stallman in the ring. It's downright civil so far, in fact; hopefully it's a good environment for FUD-busting.
With the headway made by GNU/FSF, I find it hard to believe that in ten years, the average computer user will still be the same old ignorant follower. I don't blame people for using what's easy, Windows IS easy. But with the curve of advancement of free software, I don't think the closed-source model will be effective at creating top-tier software.
With the recent move by Red Hat I'd guess that "Enterprise" solutions will include Red Hat Linux far more often in the future. As GUI's improve, the useability of Linux(or BSD) will reach the grasp of people who really know little or nothing about computers. At this point, Microsoft will be at a head: Either change their business model or improve their software.
Seeing as Microsoft is at an inherent disadvantage, I don't expect their software to rise to the level of OSS. It's just not feasible for them; They don't have the manpower.
You're right, they're not going away. But I'm hoping for some positive changes with their policy(lack thereof, really) on Open Source software.
digitalunity
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
I am not sure if this will actualy help anything. Open Source fanatics will never come to terms with the corporate software environment and the corporat software people will never come to terms with giving away there "property" for free. I know companies like Sun and IBM have come around but I dont see companies like Microsoft turning around because they dont sell PC's or Servers or Workstations. There "bread and butter" is closed source software. Some companies that can afford to open up some software to gain a new market for there hardware will come around and see the light of open source software but I dont see companies like Microsoft ever coming around. It is very good to discuss the differences but I dont think much will come out of it.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
What about the Scheme license? That is GPL, with the exception that you can link Scheme in (and include the header files) without any need for your other stuff to be under a free license. In other words, if you make a change to Scheme, you have to release it under the GPL, but you can freely use Scheme even in proprietary stuff.
This would seem to fix Microsoft's worries. But it also makes it impossible to release a slightly incompatible Scheme (if MS really does "embrace and extend" they might be expected to try this). So I'd be interested to know whether MS considers the Scheme license to be a Pac-Man cancer or whatever. I'd even be interested to know what Brett Glass thinks of it.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
No, in a publically held corporation, profit is the main purpose. Microsoft's profit-making methods might be offensive or maybe even illegal, but their purpose is indeed to make money for their shareholders (including first and foremost, BillG).
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
Wouldn't it be much more interesting if some guys from Unisys joined, to defend their way of handling the GIF format? Or someone from AOL, I think it would be nice to see MS and AOL defend one point of view together. Maybe a discussion about standards in instant-messaging systems *grin*.
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
There are two issues here. First, a lot of people in the world community want to stop a major abuser. Who wants to be a dog on a leash, and change direction every time Microsoft yanks his chain?
Second, many people feel that open source software is just better. Who wants to use sausage software? If you knew what was in it, you probably wouldn't want it.
For me, the most important issue is not between open and proprietary software, it is between living peacefully in the world and abusiveness.
People say bad things about Microsoft on Slashdot, but the full truth is much worse. Microsoft is so abusive that I have never known or heard about anyone who understood the complete scope of Microsoft abusiveness.
Everyone who is knowledgeable about this seems to have a different set of Microsoft abuses to mention. Bruce Perens says in the SV.com Roundtable, "... you [Microsoft] have used your dominant position in the marketplace to force out competition through the
If Microsoft's main intention seemed to be to create good software, I think that most people would be less opposed to closed source. But Microsoft's intentions seem to me to be extremely hostile. If you follow the effect of their actions carefully, the company's main purpose seems to be to abuse its users. A case might be logically made that, for Microsoft, making a profit is secondary.
Bush's education improvements were
We're coders of the round table
We dance when e'er we're able
We do subroutines
And demo scenes
With perl code impecc-Able.
We dine well here in Camelot
We eat pizza's and coffee and read spam a lot
In short set a goal, take 4 steps forawrd, then 3 steps back; eventualy you'll get there and desensitize people along the way. Forcast: the tools clause will be dropped in the final release, but will be standard in all beta licienses for a while. Eventualy they'll say "nobody is useing the open-tools and ban them in future productions licienses.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I personally can't see why on earth Craig Mundie would agree to join this panel, unless he has some personal reason to. However, I also can't see what actual purpose Craig Mundie's recent speech and Microsoft's recently inflamatory (IMHO) license agreements serve. To me, they are both not just FUD, but blatant flamebait. The only people who (as far as I am aware) know of either know about alternatives to Microsoft software anyway.
The reason why no one objects to Oracle is because they're not attacking open source/free software for no real reason. Their software works with a lot of other software, both open source and not. "Other" software companies seem to have more a live an let live opinion of open source. (Something to the effect of: we're selling/licensing our software in the way that we think gives the best profit, and if other people want to do it differently, then that's their choice.)