Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Puts SourceForge Clone Into Beta
M$ Mole writes "Microsoft is working hard to build their .NET community and has released the beta of an online software project management site. The service being provided is very similar to SF.net, but problems are arising around Microsoft's license, which (originally) granted all rights to the software place on the server to Microsoft. MS has back-pedaled a bit since their 'beta' license and is working on a new, more "acceptable" license."
One wonders if there is really a community of MS developers older than 13 years old who would give away thier software anyway.
I live in a giant bucket.
Microsoft Corporation is proud to announce their acquisition on October 10th, 2002 of VA Linux Systems and its associated propaganda wing, OSDN.
Microsoft's original license wasn't much different than what SourceForge does since they regularly take source from program kept on their servers and use it in their own software, but since it's on the internet and never technically "distributed", they don't have to open their sources under the terms of the GPL. Maybe we should be looking at the problems and questionable practices in our own communities before questioning the practices of Microsoft, otherwise, we'll just look like hypcocrites.
All your code are belong to us.
I can't understand why microsoft isn't taking a more pro-active role to defend the rights of content providers in today's online world. Why shouldn't Microsoft, in exchange for providing a high-reliability service for .NET developers using the Microsoft .NET framework to create dynamic applications, be given some rights in return? I for one hope Microsoft reconsiders this decision, since it could set a nasty precedent for all future providers of online services. Indeed, if there's one problem with Microsoft these days, its that they go too far to address customer desires, no matter how ridiculous.
There should be a law against encouraging VB programmer's to get together.
Look here.
Looks like they worked pretty fast to smooth that little PR gaffe over.
It's not like Microsoft would ever abuse them, or you. You don't really need to own software do you? Microsoft will license it you at a very reasonable fee, even if you wrote it yourself! And we all know that non Microsoft licnesed software is bad...
You missed mosfet: dan.duley@verizon.net.
I guess this supposed to appeal to the Got Milk? Got Jesus? Got a Life? crowd. God, that website is ugly.
Look at that logo. Width / length of fingers. Anybody else think that looks like a single guys hand with 3 women hands. Just what m$ needs for a logo
.NET software here, where the microsoft women outnumber the men. Who knows, might even get you laid" :)
"Geek? Single? lonely? Love microsoft but all the sexy unix chics won't talk to you. Well this is the place for you. Place all your
De Oppresso Liber
Better sell off all that LNUX stock I bought at $200.
QUOTING
MS has back-pedaled a bit since their 'beta' license and is working on a new, more "acceptable" license."
END
An important process in the Microsoft creation process is the formation of the EULA, of course. Can't put the programmers before the lawyers at Microsoft.
more stock art ... ;)
J-Log: Journalism News, Media Views
Though it will never be another Source Forge, VA Linux loses a lot more money than they make, and the harsh reality is that it may be a matter of time before it gets 100 "Fuck Points" on Fucked Company and bandwidth-devouring slashdot, freshmeat, and especially sourceforge have to go on their own to survive.
Microsoft has nearly unlimited resources, and developers of various large open source projects may have no choice but to move to Microsoft's site, at least to use their bandwidth, which is still holding up quite well under a heavy slashdotting.
Isn't it going to be hard to collaberate on closed source projects? :-)
sig
What about Microsoft's MSN messanger crap, and hotmail? Didn't they make the EULA state they own everything that transpires on either network, then remove the clause from the EULA, only to reword it a week later and append it again? Doesn't MS learn from their mistakes? Besides, .net needs to run on XP, so the EULA on XP clearly states they own anything we do on it anyways, so doesn't matter where the EULA applies, be it before or after I submit my code... it's all owned by Microsoft at one point or other...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Crawl back in that dark hole and don't come back out. And no dinner tonight.
logo
True racial harmony and integration, ©2002 Microsoft.
I'd like to know who owns the ashen gray hand and the pink hand on the bottom with a brown thumb. I searched over at Getty Images without success.
Anybody else notice that the word "Microsoft" appears in four of today's front-page headlines? And that "Linux" appears on two?
Offtopic, maybe, but maybe somebody should keep an eye on this "Microsoft" company. They seem to be extending their monopoly.
Umm, is it me, or is _everyone_ ripping off the "Got Milk?" campaigns? Can I please see the american dairy farmers association (ADFA) sue M$? Please?!? Microsoft is stealing the "look and feel" of "got milk" adds with "gotdotnet!"
;)
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
It is a picture of a white hand holding down a bunch a non-white hands.
Sqeeeeeeeeeeez.
Did we really slashdotted MS server? I don't believe it ;-)
http://www.gotdotnet.com/community/workspaces/
Who comes up with something like www.gotdotnet.com ?"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
A s t r o t u r f.... or is it MS.turf?
[evil thought]
I think I'll host a few GPL licensed projects on their servers, and hope MS incorporates the source into their own code base. Then I can sue them for everything they have and take over the world!!
muahahaha
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
So is this a "all your (visual) basics are belong to us" style licence?
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Mark my words, in 5-10 years, MS will be talking about how they rescued Linux/OS from ravenous hippies like RMS and ESR. Look how slowly they've been admitting their faults without ever really giving credit where it's due. Just recently, they've said that "Linux is a threat". Eventually they'll "buddy up", and then when the OS community won't let them fork code -- probably Linux or Mach, XFree86, Mozilla -- they'll say, "Look, those meanies won't share their fun toys!" And the media (already owned by MS and Disney anyway) will eat it up. This is a game that will probably play more in the public eye than in a court room, so now's the time to be asking ourselves, "What can we do to let everyone know what we're really about?" The only way OS can beat MS is if we plan far, far ahead.
Emacs: for people who just never know when to
At least sourceforge can handle the load when it's slashdotted. I guess microsoft couldn't afford to waste it's preciouse money on better servers, or maybe IIS just can't handle the slashdot effect very well..
Maybe RMS and the FSF has a point about all that "freedom" stuff after all. :-)
Wow!!! Would anyone really fall for this? Imagine a rather innovative piece of software being stored there. Then it gains popularity and cathes the eye of the M$ people. Wouldn't this make it easy for them to, um, borrow it??!??! Hell, that is even easier than the copying they do now!
Jeez.. You'd think with those billions in the bank they could make a decent looking web site.
Seems pretty clear to me that they're not saying you must sign your code over to them, merely that they are free to do as they please with it (though probably not contribute back to it).
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
MS ... is working on a new, more "acceptable" license."
How about GPL?
That's right folks, what is the alternative to the "un-amiercan" "communist" opensource licensing approach that sf.net endorses?
A License where all software is owned by Microsoft!! ingenous... well that makes much more sense. Why didn't GPL think of this?!
--Me
From the FAQ
Q. Can I deploy Workspaces on my own server?
No, not at this time. However, we're entertaining the idea for the future, but there are no firm plans as of yet.
Clicking on http://www.gotdotnet.com/community/workspaces/dire ctory.aspx (Workspaces directory)
produces http://www.gotdotnet.com/error.aspx?aspxerrorpath= /community/workspaces/directory.aspx
Is the directory empty?
Gopalarathnam V. Registered GNU/Linux User #218746 http://counter.li.org Please avoid sending me Word or Powerpoint
RMS's head must be exploding. "Whip hand! Whip hand right there!!!"
"By posting Your Stuff, You grant to Microsoft, under all of Your intellectual property and proprietary rights the following worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up rights: (1) to make, use, copy, modify and create derivative works of Your Stuff; (2) to publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease, and lend copies of Your Stuff (and derivative works thereof); (3) to sublicense to third parties, including the right to sublicense to further third parties; and (ii) You agree You won't commence any legal action against Microsoft or any Participant or Visitor for exercising any of these rights."
If you were stranded on an island with an MS user, what would be the one thing ever published anywhere, ever, that you would wish you had with you to shut him up? Yeah, that.
# Erik
www.gotdotnet.com?
Leave it to Microsoft to come up with a worse name than slashdot.
--- this comment is presented in WIDE SCREEN STEREO!!!
Is it just me, or does that website look like it was made by someone who just picked up a copy of frontpage last week? What's up with that logo? I realize there are a lot of software developers in San Francisco but just because you live there, doesn't mean you swing that way..
I think you have a point. My guess however is that the lawyers are trying to protect Microsoft against all possible contingencies. So basically, it is to give Microsoft as many possibilities in the event of a lawsuit as possible.
The problem here however is that this further bolsters Microsoft's image as a predatory company which can do whatever it wants with impunity. So this continues to show that people that Microsoft is fundamentally not interested in accepting responsibility for their actions, or worse, is actually out to get them.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
As a consumer, I want a more cost effective and competative office software suite. Where is it? They don't seem to be bending to *my* demands.
Wow is this old news day, or what?
/., usually anti-MS news is posted quickly, and the good stuff, like the release of Visual Studio .NET, is ignored.
This controversy erupted nearly a month ago.
A number of us in the Windows community balked at the initial licensing. The lead developer of the GotDotNet workspaces actually joined into the conversation trying to defend the team's lawyers. It appears that the initial licensing was written with a heavy emphasis on CYA, without much thought to whether or not people would agree to it.
Microsoft listened to our arguments, and adjusted the licensing to be friendlier within a day or two. I still think it's rather ridiculous language but it is similar to that found at sourceforge.net and even such places as yahoo, etc. Why lawyers feel they need permission to redistribute stuff that you obviously uploaded with the intent of redistributing is beyond my ability to rationalize.
Anyway, I'm surprised it's taken this long for this to hit
SpaghettiForge
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
So let me be the 103,345th person to point out the irony in Microsoft's position... With one hand they're painting the GPL as a threat to your intellectual property that could wind up "stealing" your code out from under your nose, and with the other... they're stealing your intellectual property out from under your nose. Ugh.
Small fire reported in Redmond as Got Dot Pot Rot Cot server succumbs to Yet Another Slashdotting.
[sorry, can't resist]
Geez, isn't it about time Slashdot implemented caching, or at least warn them that they're about to make the front page, so these sites can stand a chance of coping with the load?
...the law of nature that says some (sub) species are doomed from the start.
It's so *cough* PC *cough*...
Let's give this new site a warm welcome. Everybody please click on the link to it and then reload a few times, thank you.
Stupidity is mis-underestimated.
the submitting user grants SourceForge.net the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable approved license.
( Perpetual?? Does this bind someone to a timeframe that even Disney would drool over? At least it doesn't say "throughout the universe".)
First, I think (NBAL,YU (Not Being A Lawyer, You Understand)) that most open source licenses give users approximately the rights listed there in general - and since they are saying that their rights are still subject to the terms of an "applicable approved license" so I'm not sure (AIAAL (Again I Aint A Lawyer)) that they're claiming that much. And I suspect that a part of that license (reproduce...publish...display...) is really there to cover them in the case that someone puts something on sourceforge and then wants to take it back and then sue sourceforge for having shown it around. (BAISIANNBALA (you figure it out this time)).
I'm still staring at the MS license (interesting that its not clear right up at the top of the gotdotnet site pages that MS is actually gotdotnet) and the "explanations" offered to see if I can figure out what it might actually be saying (BAISIANNBALA). It does look though like you're giving MS a whole lot more power over your work than you're giving sourceforge.
It looks like the gotdotnet web site had died. You'd think that MS could put up a site that could handle a little slashdotting.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
Is it only me or did this M$ LumberJack(TM) go off one more of these deared and strange effects that /. causes on certain sites? I can't see it at all...
I got Microsoft XP for free with my new Dell. I don't know how you can get more cost affective than that.
Heck, it is called "SourceForge.net". OSDN has made it clear in e-mail to all SourceForge.net members that "SourceForge" the software development management system and "SourceForge.net" the public implementation thereof are two separate things. Heck, in the SourceForge.net logo, the ".net" part is in larger type than the "SOURCEFORGE" part. Did OSDN staff anticipate this competition from Microsoft? "Apparently, Microsoft is going to want to copy our idea for giving free hosting for open source projects' web sites, source code repositories, bug trackers, and mailing lists. Let's make '.NET' the biggest thing in our logo."
Here are some .NET projects on SourceForge.net: Projects that contain C# language code
Will I retire or break 10K?
In other news, M$ renamed their project management site to www.got/dotnet.com after the site was heavily /.ed. "The / also represnts the split that /. brought to the site and we're learning from our mistakes", said Miss.Laura Hurlton, M$ spokeswoman who is also a stock photos model...
getSexySig();
"Free"?
Ever heard of the infamous "Microsoft Tax?" $100+ of the price of that new Dell of yours is to cover the cost of that "free" copy of XP.
Don't forget the ads.
So Microsoft lets their lawyers create the most greedy, all-encompassing license imaginable, and then passes it on to marketing so they can tweak it down until it rests on the threshold of public tolerance. Now that's what I call a company looking out for their customers. OK, maybe not.
well, finally pulled the site to it's knees...cheers
Due to recent events, sig is no longer valid - this placeholder will be in effect until a suitable replacement is found.
I read the URL as "GodotNet dot com".
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
is the creepiest thing I have ever seen.
That is the ugliest web-design I've ever seen from MS.
Neural Nets in Python
You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
What? I didn't know I uploaded 13 Windows virii to gotdotnet (tm)! Oh no!
What Microsoft really needs to develop is a way to safeguard sites from the /. effect!
*points to horribly slow gotdotnet server*
Give me a break. If that site is a SourceForge clone, then this site is a Slashdot clone.
how much free publicity can we give microsoft in one day?
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
From the NYT article:
Mr. Malda added: "I still think of it as my personal soapbox. If I decide next Thursday that `It's all about Windows!' I don't know if Slashdot would follow that -- but I would keep posting it and posting it until they fire me."
10. VirusPropagator 0.2
9. NewVirusGenerator 0.1.1
8. VirusDetector 0.0.3
7. DRMBreak 4.2
6. AutoUpdateBlocking 3.5
5. GenerateNewLicenseAfterReconfig 4.6
4. PutTheRegistryBackIntoSaneState 2.2
3. RebootForSixthTimeToday 1.6
2. PutOSBackIntoSaneStateAfterItCorruptsOwnFiles 7.8
1. EraseHardDriveInstallRealOS 1.0
Anyways, if you want to have a look at a version of their site, check out their Russian cousin
But it kind of cheezes me how Sourceforge projects are REQUIRED to be open source. I wish they'd allow people who want to do closed source stuff on there to pay a low monthly fee or something. Just a thought.
$45 per U Colocation Special
christ this comment is overrated
You, my friend, are a Microsoft Shill. What am I basing my statement on you ask?
.NET developers using the Microsoft .NET framework to create dynamic applications
I can't understand why microsoft isn't taking a more pro-active role to defend the rights of content providers in today's online world.
Defend the rights of content providers? Since when does MSFT care about that?
Microsoft, in exchange for providing a high-reliability service for
Hmm, sure sounds like marketing-drone-speak to me. High-reliability and MSFT do NOT go hand-in-hand regardless of what your driver (err, supervisor) said.
Indeed, if there's one problem with Microsoft these days, its that they go too far to address customer desires, no matter how ridiculous.
Absolutely!!! I can't think of anything I need^H^H^H^Hwant more than DRM and Palladium! Give it to me baby!
I'm sorry, did I leave any lines out?!
Please take your FUD elsewhere, or at least disguise it in a reasonable argument, such that I can only pick it apart after thinking about it. This is so obvious, I feel like I've fallen for a troll...
1. Ebay Fraud Article on MS sponsored site (MSNBC) with links to MS auction partner (uBid Ads). .NET development.
2. Switch (from Unknown Mac OS version to Windows XP) story written (apparently on a Mac OSX version of Word) by a contracted MS PR employee.
3. Sudden change of license for a Source Forge clone site geared to supporting
4. ? Stay tuned to Slashdot for the latest Microsoft Blunder...
With regards to #3: Didn't they say they were going to squash Open Source? Then why are they trying to do the same thing as the Open Source community? What, trying to beat them at their own game? Not happening. MS's "In The Know" bunch is a few hundred (maybe thousand) big business honchos and a few schools. The Open Source community's "In The Know" bunch is anyone with half a brain that wants to lend a hand, probably numbering in the millions.
We Are Open Source. Windows Existance Is Futile. You Will Be Humiliated...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
since it seems to have been ./'ed :)
here's the google cache:
--write a new license, basically copy the GPL but add an excclusionary cause like "HOWEVER, none of the above terms apply to any use, copying, reverse engineering or relicensing will be allowed if this code is incorporated into any other code for any application designed for and/or able to run on any microsoft product as part of any application, the application iself or any operating system designed and owned by microsoft, inc. Any use thereof is expressly forbidden and will be prosecuted" something like that in lawyerese
heck, I'd like to see that anyway. Contracts can be written however you like it. I'd like to see that sort of clause in every piece of open software posted anywhere. Humiliate and deny those goons. It's way past time to hit back, and hard, microsoft started out as a computer software company, which was completely OK, but they changed with sheer greed and changed into a crooked gang at the top, they deserve zero free code or support any longer, they got 40 billion cash in the bank from ripping people off from fraud and deceit and bully boy tactics in the market place, and I bet a nickle through bribery and intimidation. That's just a guess and opinion on my part but bet I am correct.
It reminds me of Captain Planet.
.NET, he's our hero gonna take open source pollution down to zero.
Captain
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
what they really wanted to say with the domain is: totedtong.com (== running a secret society or fraternal organization especially of Chinese in the U.S. formerly notorious for gang warfare ). Government officials, prepare your SWAT teams...ohh, but how... they ARE the totedtong....ahh well, time to get the first coffee of the day :))
See for yourself! Classic.. to promote .net they use a Linux server... on Apache!!! I just love it!!!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I didn't realize that there was a central place where I can host my projects (scripts) and get collaboration on how effective they can be.
A few of my fellow tweens can now help me out in naming my next vir^H^H^Hscript ...
On a serious note, I really hope they host this site with IIS.
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
OOPS.. GotDotNet is running windows... I thought it was godotnet. DOH... Guess they didn't pull another wehavethewayout.com/hotmail/etc...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yup, you are correct.. I should have known by the 404 I keep getting trying to access the site.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
First, that's a very nice, PC pan-ethnic logo they've got there.
.NET?"
Second, I'm not sure that using the phrase "workspace" is the greatest choice. Looking at Metrowerks' package design or the name "Sourceforge" gives you a neat, romanticized image of some code artist beating away on a big piece of iron, forging something new. Its designed to appear attractive to the person doing the work, not his manager -- not MS's strong point. "Workspaces"? Might appeal to the corporate world, but in the hobbyist market, out to write some good code and have fun, I think they're missing the mark.
Third, the terminology is once again corporate: "aply to join a Workspace"..."owner, administrator, and member"
Fourth, the liberal use of "sharing source" (Microsoft's favorite term) rather than "opening source" on the site is quite prominent -- "planning on sharing the source code".
Fifth, more MS-style favorite words -- "integrate" and prominent mention of Visual Studio: "How will Workspaces integrate with Visual Studio
Sixth, why the hell does MS distribute all their documentation in Word format? So they made it in-house...big deal. I don't use Excel to write research papers -- it's the wrong tool. Word, with macro viruses, no font embedding, security issues, large file sizes and import issues with different versions of the software, is a really crummy "publication format". It makes sense in MS-centric workgroups for exchange of documents in progress, but not for final copies.
Seventh, the damn thing is already Slashdotted.
May we never see th
The web application you are attempting to access on this web server is currently unavailable. Please hit the "Refresh" button in your web browser to retry your request.
Administrator Note: An error message detailing the cause of this specific request failure can be found in the system event log of the web server. Please review this log entry to discover what caused this error to occur.
I love giving MS a little Slashdot-effect action.
I dunno, maybe lack of sleep, maybe doing chem pre-labs late, but when I glanced at that page that Gotdotnet looked like God Did Net, anybody else notice that?
I'd say something about your apparent unability to detect sarcasm, but I'm afraid yours might just be more thickly veiled of the same... I've got a feeling it's the former though.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Couldn't stand waiting a few stories to slashdot another Microsoft related site? ;p
sf.net hosted projects by OS
BeOS (302 projects)
MacOS (1386 projects)
Microsoft (10878 projects)
OS Independent (11647 projects)
OS/2 (72 projects)
Other OS (635 projects)
PDA Systems (420 projects)
POSIX (20179 projects)
Point being there are a considerable amount of
projects coded to win32 on sourceforge, so it's
not like free software doesn't exist on the platform.
I suppose you could look at what MS is doing as
providing an alternative for people who don't
want to be forced into an OSI approved license
as per SF's TOS.
I'll refrain from commenting on the TOS from
MS' dealie, since I haven't read it, except to say
if you have to have terms rammed down your throat, it's better for all parties to get the same deal.
They've restructured. OSDN makes money. If you don't believe me, wait a year to see if they're still around. They should've folded about a year ago if they hadn't done their restructuring starting January 2001.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
. . .Beowulf cluster of those.
This all just looks very pathetic to me. M$ are trying to build something that has been there for years, and works just great. Do they really believe they have to code everything themselves, even though others have already done it better? Apparently they think that this is an excellent way to steal people's rights, and it seems to work out, too (see MSN, Hotmail, Passport).
---
2B || !2B
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
That is quite possibly the ugliest website I have ever seen.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
So what happens when some VB wannabe rips off code from a GNU project ... and MS uses it in Windows Dot Bang Slash E-Net?
It's usually instructive in situations like this to consider the historical context of the issues. Here's the original 'Open Letter' from Bill Gates to the hobbyist community
The background here is that a lot of people pirated Bill's Altair BASIC program, and Bill wanted to know where good software was going to come from if people didn't get paid for it.
It may not have been legal or ethical for hobbyists to pirate Altair BASIC back in 1976, but very soon thereafter, Free Software gave us an answer and an alternative: share the source, and the software grows even in the absence of monetary incentive. It is immune to the type of 'theft' that Bill was whining about. 26 years later, we have seen that Free Software isn't just surviving, it's thriving.
Now, along comes GotDotNet, which looks suspiciously like an emulation of Open Source practices... except that the AUP includes a few serious distinctions. One is the assignment of certain important rights to Microsoft that basically let them do whatever the hell they please with the sweat of your brow. Here's a quote of (what looks like) the original license from the discussion at Activewin.com: (Link to the full thread)
Note the specific lack of compensation for the original programmer (unless you consider the use of GDN itself to be sufficient recompense, but I'm pretty damn sure that GDN isn't going to be buying your groceries and paying the rent). One must ask - if nobody pays the users of GDN, where will the good software come from? Nothing about GDN sounds like hiring programmers to 'flood the hobby market with good software'. It sounds ripping off the community to serve MS's shareholders (eg, Bill).
So what's the point?
I propose that the fundamental corporate culture of Microsoft embodies Gate's attitude as reflected in the 1976 'Open Letter'. This culture is allergic to piracy, because a consumerist revenue cycle is necessary to improve the software.
The Free Software movement has thoroughly refuted Gate's thesis, by making itself independant of the revenue cycle (and therefore is not harmed by 'piracy' as it is usually understood).
Microsoft's obsolete culture cannot change to adopt Free Software practices - the assumptions that Free Software threaten are the very core of their business. If the company were rebuilt from the ground up on Free principles, the entire culture would have to change - essentially resulting in a totally different company that happens to have the same name.
Since Microsoft cannot adopt free software practices, Microsoft can only regard Free Software as a competing producer of software, taking market share away from them, and therefore, a deadly threat.
Since Microsoft itself regards Free Software as a threat, it seems to follow that nobody else who depends on revenue streams to survive, would ever want to use a system that resembles a Free Software ecology (like GDN), as they would deprive the producer of that stream.
Producers of free software should similarly be suspicious of a system governed by a legal agreement written by someone who considers them to be a deadly enemy.
Therefore, Microsoft's own pseudo-Free intiatives (such as GotDotNet, the Shared Source license, and the Software Choice initiative) are probably (a) Shams that will perpetuate Microsoft's revenue stream at the expense of the rights of members of the community, and/or (b) exceedingly stupid mistakes on Microsoft's part.
In the absence of further evidence (especially since GDN is slashdotted and I can't read the text of the new license), it is impossible to tell to which degree GDN (or any other pseudo-Free effort by Microsoft) will be (a) or (b). In either case, it seems imprudent for users or programmers - whether they produce in open or closed software - to place their trust in these intiatives.
I wonder, as an aside, if Bill himself ever paid anything to the original inventors of BASIC, a pair of researchers at Dartmouth University. So I wonder if Bill's logic reflexively implies that he stole BASIC from Kemeny and Kurtz. Gee. Where will the good ideas come from? Oh, wait academia has been going as a not-for-profit institution for centuries. You may have heard of some of their other 'products' - the theory of universal gravitation, electricty, the rabies vaccine...
http://www.gotdotnet.com/error.aspx?aspxerrorpath= /team/workspaces/faq/Default.aspx
Server Error in '/' Application.
Runtime Error
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
[etc]
Wow! Microsoft have two great advertisements for their superiority over other technologies in oen day.
It seems that www.gotdotnet.com is down for the count. I loaded the page and received a nice ASP error. Now, http seems to be totally down (tested from home and work).
/., how could you?
Ahh, the joys of running IIS 5.0
Who is hosting the project
"CrashTheEntireServer v0.1a"
But, wait! The plot thickens. A ping from a redhat box within the uiuc.edu network reveals:
[root@redhatbox root]$ ping www.gotdotnet.com
PING gotdotnet.com (207.46.228.80) from 130.126.xxx.xx : 56(84) bytes of data.
From iustsecurc1201-ge-6-0.msft.net (207.46.224.195): Packet filtered
Perhaps an attack on the server?
Oh
Runtime Error
:)
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
To much for M$
The lunatic is in my head
OK... So I checked it out. And clicking the first link (to the Directory) I got an 'Unspecified Error'! Ok ok... So all of ./ is hammering the site. But does ANYONE remember seeing stupid errors like this on sf? Or ANY errors?
;)
But then again. If you are going to use this place. I suppose you a M$ supporter and have already exchanged your dictionary with one that describes a bug as a 'break enforcing feature that makes sure you will always find time to drink your coffee. And reconsider your work (when you rewrite it)'. So of course it should be implemented on the project management site too
----------------------
Server Error in '/' Application.
Runtime Error
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".
Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.
----------------------
Am I the only one getting this error on gotdotnet.com? Past this, I was actually able to look at the message board where they posted the license update. To me, it sounded ridiculous.
First of all, the original terms were totally out of whack. Here's the quote:
By posting Your Stuff, You grant to Microsoft, under all of Your intellectual property and proprietary rights the following worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up rights: (1) to make, use, copy, modify and create derivative works of Your Stuff; (2) to publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease, and lend copies of Your Stuff (and derivative works thereof); (3) to sublicense to third parties, including the right to sublicense to further third parties; and (ii) You agree You won't commence any legal action against Microsoft or any Participant or Visitor for exercising any of these rights.
In short, all your base are belong to us!!! Huh? If I do post my project on gotdotnet, I will have to give up all IP rights to anything I create under that project to MS. I have to give them the right to unconditionally modify, redistribute, relicense for a fee, etc. and I won't have any rights to what I create. I have to imagine that someone actually sat down and thought that this was a fair deal! No shit they got a huge backlash from developers. Then there is the modified version of the license:
By posting Your Stuff to a Workspace, You understand and agree that you're giving a license under your intellectual property rights to all authorized users of the Workspace, including the rights to download, copy, modify, distribute and repost. In addition, you're giving Microsoft all the necessary rights to make Your Stuff available as part of the Project.
This has less legalese obviously, but all the details are now gone! There are no clear conditions that I am agreeing to; too generalized which makes me think that it eventually gives more power to MS to work out the details. These include and are not limited to:
- can I use my own license terms for use, distribution, modification, copyright notice?
- am I effectively giving up copyright when I agree to give everyone rights to download, copy, modify, redistribute and repost?
- can any user sublicense my work on their terms with their license for either commercial or non-commercial uses?
- what if there are patents involved? Am I giving up rights to my patents too?
- etc., etc., etc.
My understanding is that as one of the comments said in the reply to the above copyright change notice,
Why don't you just specify that you accept that the other authorized members of the workspaces will be able to work on the stuff in the workspace under the Licence the project owner defines... There is no need to give anybody a special licence... The wks owner tells that his project is under bsd licence for example, then, the only special right I will grant to MS is that I accept that MS will provide my files to others under the licence I defined. what is complicated here ? Why should they require something different ? If MS wants to use the file sin the project thay should also be bound to the defined licence, not the other way...
I think I have an answer why this is not going to happen; because MS is afraid developers will start using GPL for their works. With recent MS stances toward GPL apps, such as licenses that prohibit running or interfacing with GPL apps, I don't think they will allow developers to choose their own license. Rather, MS does want to force their terms on the developers. I am wondering how all this will play out.
There site has now official been /.ed =)
Basically it says that they're holding your balls.
I really do not get what you are on about ? ,Linux is licenced under the GPl , all they could do is make there own version , MsLinux or something like that and any changes they made to linux would have to be released under the terms of the GPl if they intended to distribute their version of linux.
How are they going to 'rescue' linux from any one
As to 'rescuing ' the os movement , well Again if the code is licenced under the gpl they run into the same issues. It should be noted that the OS movement does not merly exist to 'defeat' microsoft. However having said all this Microsoft could rescue code under the bsd licence and modify it and relicence it then close the source.
Unspecified Error
If you're receiving this page you're encountering a general error on GotDotNet.
Please use the Feedback Form to report your error. Please provide the URL you're trying to access, the form you're trying to use, or the application you're trying to run and we'll check
out the error right away. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have
caused you.
error message one more time...hm
. . . to grin a big smirking grin . .
. . . and give the bird and a collective "fuck you" to them all.
Do we have protection in the case that MS does purchase VA?
.NET and apologized for the inconvenience of taking down slashdot and SorceForge, but indicated that they were no longer neccessary for the furtherance of Microsoft's objectives.
What would happen if MS bought VA and "shut down" source-forge and slashdot? Has anyone given this serious thought?
January 13, 2003: VA Linux Systems, inc. formally announces it's acquisition by Microsoft Corp. today. When questioned about the acquisition, Steve Bhaller of Microsoft indicated that he was excited about switching all the terrific work bein done in the Linux community to
These MS wizards really have it worked out.
First they let their users do all the testing.
Now the users get to do all the developing, too.
Upgrade in progress
.aspx stuff and use perl/JSP?
We are currently upgrading GotDotNet. Please check back soon. We appreciate your patience.
Perhapes they are going to host it on Apache instead of IIS 5? Or get rid of all that nasty
he service being provided is very similar to SF.net, but problems are arising around Microsoft's license, which (originally) granted all rights to the software place on the server to
Microsoft.
SourceForge has changed the license terms long ago. Not sure if they got changed back
However: if you host a project on SF you grant SF to use your code for any purpose. Without the need to message you, to contribute or whatever.
Just read point 6 of the license: http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?doc
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Upgrade in progress
We are currently upgrading GotDotNet. Please check back soon. We appreciate your patience.
--
They are just adding some more WinXP servers to the cluster.... It will be back online as soon as they have entered all those licence keys, rebooted 3 times and patched all the software
Should take about 2 years!
Also noticed that they have changed the logo from an upward facing hand (denoting openness and honesty) to a downward facing hand (denoting control and domination).. very scary
Why do M$ always release something to the public, realise its crap - then have to 'upgrade' it??
Samba, Evolution Exchange connector and Apache will soon follow, given the added collaboration benefits with the windows platform.
Shouldn't we put up a mirror for the site, since it seems to be /. already?
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
BAISIANNBALA = "But Again I State I Am Not (Not Being a Lawyer) Accurate"?
Did I win anything?
Okay, this was released and known about, what, a month and a half ago? It's a fucking beta, so of course the license is more restrictive.
They are also working on a new VoIP product that has some very similar compression to some of the XIPH Speex stuff. Weird eh? Or maybe not...
...you obviously have no idea what you're on about.
After seeing that godotnet. I believe Razor 1911, Divine, DoD are more innovator than M$.
They should protect from FBI, BSA and other kind of eforcement Like M$.
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
Well I can't load the licence document as of yet. Seams to have been /. , but for some reason I am betting there is that one line that they can and we all know well use when they see code the actualy like / want. And well that should not take long considering the quality of there code, even the hello world they produced crashed on me the other day. Tsalk about quality. Aneway Please if you can reed the doc, check and see if this is ther eor someware on there site to screw you.
Miscrosoft retains the write to change this agreament at any time without noice (renber its probaly writen in microsoft english, meaning this ose line of text might be expanded to even a entire page of text
-- Azaroth
How about this one?
All code and work produced using or targetting this CPU or any derived product hereof will be the sole property of the manafucturer of said CPU.
The sad thing is that MS doesn't even try to deny their schemes anymore. They know the US govt. isn't going to touch them anyway.
And the last time I checked Sun's JVM does not include an Application Server(ie like ASP.NET).
.NET from a development standpoint.
.NET CLR. Granted installing it is trivial, but when the number of workstations is in excess of a few thousand, this becomes a pretty big headache. Also to take note of is that if you've already got a Java devel squad, why switch to .NET? Learning C# wouldn't take that long, sure, but the entire point of .NET is that you can maintain a heterogenous project composed of different languages. If you're not taking advantage of MSIL (MSIL, bytecode, what's the difference?), then why switch to .NET? Ubiquitous runtime environment? Yeah, Java has that. Plus the JVM is ported to other platforms that .NET is not yet. Even when [if] Mono hits primetime, it will be a while until [if] they get Windows.Forms working. Slower runtime than native compiled code? Yeah, they both got that.
Agreed, but the openness of the language and the Java community allows for others to come up with even better solutions. Downloading the J2SE sdk and Tomcat is cheaper than buying Visual Studio
I agree with your first statement, at my work though, we're all running Win2k with IE 5.5, and certainly no
So while we're talking Java, where's the gain?
--- What
Because I really hope they didn't actually pay someone to make that crap.
Hmmm.that seems against what RMS originally designed the GPL for.
The GNU General Public License was designed to allow Emacs to work on Solaris and Windows operating environments. That's why the operating system clause is in there.
If I wanted to compil VB code, I need to use a NON-free (+$100 compiler) to use it.
Not for long: check out GNOME Basic.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I think that needing to link to the non-GPL libraries (dlls) to make the VB progs work is a violation of the GPL.
From the GNU General Public License, version 2:
It's perfectly OK under the GPL to link against libraries that come with a widely available (but not necessarily free) compiler. For instance, it's OK to link against the libraries that come with Microsoft Visual WhateverFlat. Otherwise, Linux would be impossible to make because it (or at least the bootloader) calls the computer's proprietary BIOS a few times when it first starts up.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Corrections gladly accepted. :)
I got Microsoft XP for free with my new Dell.
Heh heh. And you got that anti-oxidation sealant on your car for "free" too, right? Cause you know, they put that sealant on at the factory...
All's true that is mistrusted
Did anyone else notice the similarities between the web site name and KDE's "Got the Dot?" slogan?
Ah. Maybe its just me.
By the way you guys are about a month late reporting this. This was orginally released on 9/20/2002. and here is a link to what they actually said instead of what the guy reported in the orginal post.
/ Thread.aspx?id=40466
http://www.gotdotnet.com/community/messageboard
To clear everything up here is the actual e-mail that was sent out
"By posting Your Stuff, You grant to Microsoft, under all of Your intellectual property and proprietary rights the following worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up rights: (1) to make, use, copy, modify and create derivative works of Your Stuff; (2) to publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease, and lend copies of Your Stuff (and derivative works thereof); (3) to sublicense to third parties, including the right to sublicense to further third parties; and (ii) You agree You won't commence any legal action against Microsoft or any Participant or Visitor for exercising any of these rights."
We want to be clear that our intent was never to assume ownership of your code. In order to maintain a copy of your project on our servers and make it available for download by authorized users of your Workspace, we do need certain permissions from you (in legalese, we need licenses for certain of your intellectual property rights in your project). Based on your comments, we see that we were not sufficiently clear in conveying the intent of this section of the license. We apologize for the miscommunication in the license and hope the below changes will better represent our intent. The new section becomes:
"By posting Your Stuff to a Workspace, You understand and agree that you're giving a license under your intellectual property rights to all authorized users of the Workspace, including the rights to download, copy, modify, distribute and repost. In addition, you're giving Microsoft all the necessary rights to make Your Stuff available as part of the Project."
See unlike all the poor open source developers out there Microsoft actually has to cover it's ass leagelly so jackazzes from slashdot don't sue them.
If I use this SourceForge Clone I should make sure that everything I place there is anti-Microsoft, conflicts with Microsoft software, and runs more smoothly, is a better program, and doesn't crash, right?
I guess I don't see the problem then.
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
Does anyone have a Passport account I can use? I am supprised to see that no one has posted the slashdot passport account info, like they usually do for the NY Times. I want to create a few projects, but I have heard that having a Passport account is insecure and that it even could be taking the mark of the beast. So, if anyone has one they could share, I would like to add a few projects like:
Windows YP - A lightweight Windows Replacement that only crashes once a week
Winzilla - An IE replacement written entirely in VB (It is very fast)
Inlook - An Outlook replacement that is guarrantied to only have 5 major security holes / month
Ipache - An IIS replacement which is only compatible with Winzilla clients
Thanks.
Microsoft's project management site uses CVS!
In the original text, the key word that makes it unacceptable is that Microsoft would have the ability to license, as in "distribute, license, offer to sell". That could be construed as allowing MS to take, say, BSD-licensed source, and make it available under some other license. That they later say they had no intent to do so doesn't mean squat when you are in court arguing with them about it.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
You must've checked before they came out with the EJB standard, in oh, say 1999.
I read this and thought, "no way this is true, sounds like Free Software FUD to me." The article below talks about CIFS (common internet File System, which is file sharing NOTHING to do with VS.NET).
.NET; your use of Crystal Reports for Microsoft Visual Studio .NET is subject to your acceptance of the terms and conditions of the enclosed (hard copy) end user license agreement from Crystal Decisions for that product (a soft copy of the Crystal Decisions end user license agreement can also be found in the following folder: \Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio .NET\Crystal Reports\license.txt.).
.NET Enterprise Architect may enable you to obtain certain additional Microsoft Visio shapes from Microsoft, such as from a Microsoft web site. Microsoft Visio Network Equipment shapes that you obtain by use of Microsoft Visio Network Tools will be considered part of the Product and governed by this EULA unless they are accompanied by a separate license agreement in which case such separate license agreement will govern your use of the Microsoft Visio Network Equipment shapes.
.NET-Effect of EULA. This Section 1.6 also applies if the Product is Microsoft Visual Studio .NET, a suite of development tools and other software programs (each such tool or software program, a "Component"). Components that you receive as part of the Product may include a separate end-user license agreement (each, a "Component EULA"). Except as provided in Section 4 and Section6 ("Prerelease Code"), in the event of inconsistencies between this EULA and any Component EULA, the terms of this EULA shall control.
.NET: Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC), Template Libraries (ATL), and C runtimes (CRTs). If this EULA accompanies Visual C++ or Visual Studio .NET, then in addition to the rights granted in Section 1, Microsoft grants you the right to use and modify the source code version of those portions of the Product that are identified as MFC, ATL, or CRTs (collectively, the "VC Redistributables"), for the sole purposes of designing, developing, and testing your software product(s). Provided you comply with Section 3.1 and you rename any files created by you that are included in the Licensed Product (defined below), Microsoft grants you a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute the object code version of the VC Redistributables, including any modifications you make. For purposes of this section, "modifications" shall mean enhancements to the functionality of the VC Redistributables. For applicable redistribution requirements for VC Redistributables, see Section3.1 below.
.NET Framework component of the Product to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.
.
So I pulled out my VS.net disk and looked at the Eula. Can someone explain how this prevents release of software under the GPL. A google search led to little information on the topic.
At first glance, section 3.1(b) looks suspicious, like it's saying you can't make required redistribution of the source code changes to your product a requirement of usage (a core part of the GPL, obviously), but a closer read shows that it is referring to the sample code in the SDK. In other words you can't take SDK samples, make a product from them and make that product GPL. It's basically a licensing restriction on the sample code in the SDK. Is that right? It seems like Microsoft is worried that the GPL will "infect" it thru the sample code, which is ridiculous, I know, but there ya go.
END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE
1. GRANTS OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the rights described in this EULA provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA. NOTE: Microsoft is not licensing to you any rights with respect to Crystal Reports for Microsoft Visual Studio
1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the Product for the purposes of designing, developing, and testing your software product(s), provided that you are the only individual using the Product.
If you are an entity, Microsoft grants to you a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the Product, provided that for each individual using the Product within your organization, you have acquired a separate and valid license for each such individual.
1.2 Documentation. You may make and use an unlimited number of copies of any documentation, provided that such copies shall be used only for personal purposes and are not to be republished or distributed (either in hard copy or electronic form) beyond your premises.
1.3 Web Stress Functionality/ACT Tool. If included with the edition of the Product you have acquired with this EULA, then as provided in the corresponding Product documentation, you have the ability to use the component of the Product identified as the Applications Center Test ("ACT Tool") to perform stress tests against websites in its default mode (which is to honor any "robots.txt" files it may encounter) or to set the ACT Too to not honor any "robots.txt" files it may encounter when performing its stress tests. The use of the ACT Tool by you in the non-default mode is entirely your responsibility and at your sole risk. Before you use the ACT Tool with any third party property, you should consult with such third party or the agreement governing the use of such property to determine whether or not such use is permitted.
1.4 Use of Additional Microsoft Visio Network Equipment Shapes. If included with the edition of the Product you have acquired with this EULA, Microsoft Visio Enterprise Network Tools provided with Microsoft Visio for Visual Studio
1.5 Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the Product on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the Product on computers used by a licensed end user in accordance with Section 1.1. A single license for the Product may not be shared or used concurrently by other end users.
1.6 Visual Studio
2. ADDITIONAL LICENSE RIGHTS -- REDISTRIBUTABLE CODE. In addition to the rights granted in Section 1, certain portions of the Product, as described in this Section2, are provided to you with additional license rights. These additional license rights are conditioned upon your compliance with the distribution requirements and license restrictions described in Section 3 that correspond to the type of redistributable files you choose to use and redistribute.
2.1 Sample Code. Microsoft grants you the right to use and modify the source code version of those portions of the Product identified as "Samples" in REDIST.TXT or elsewhere in the Product ("Sample Code") for the sole purposes of designing, developing, and testing your software product(s), and to reproduce and distribute the Sample Code, along with any modifications thereof, in object and/or source code form. For applicable redistribution requirements for Sample Code, see Section3.1 below.
2.2 Redistributable Code-Standard. Microsoft grants you a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute the object code form of any portion of the Product listed in REDIST.TXT ("Redistributable Code"). For applicable redistribution requirements for Redistributable Code, see Section3.1, below. NOTE: Redistributable Code includes certain files that are identified as "Limited Use Redistributable Code" or "Extended Use Redistributable Code." These files are also subject to: (a)for Limited Use Redistributable Code, the license grant in Section 2.3, and redistribution requirements described in Section 3.3 below; or (b)the additional rights described in Section 3.2 for Extended Use Redistributable Code.
2.3 Redistributable Code-Limited Use. Microsoft grants you a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute the object code form of those portions of the Product listed in REDIST.TXT as Limited Use Redistributable Code, and/or the Microsoft Data Engine technology ("MSDE") (collectively, the "Limited Use Redistributable Code"). For applicable redistribution requirements for Limited Use Redistributable Code, see Sections3.1 and 3.3 below.
2.4 Redistributable Code-Visual C++ and Visual Studio
3. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS -- DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS. If you choose to exercise your rights under Section2, any redistribution by you requires compliance with the following terms, as appropriate.
3.1 Redistributable Code-Standard.
(a) If you are authorized and choose to redistribute Sample Code, Redistributable Code, VC Redistributables, or Limited Use Redistributable Code (collectively, the "Redistributables") as described in Section 2, you agree: (i) except as otherwise noted in Section2.1 (Sample Code), to distribute the Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software application product developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables ("Licensed Product"); (ii)that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows platforms; (iii) not to use Microsoft's name, logo, or trademarks to market the Licensed Product; (iv) to display your own valid copyright notice which shall be sufficient to protect Microsoft's copyright in the Product; (v)not to remove or obscure any copyright, trademark or patent notices that appear on the Product as delivered to you; (vi) to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the Licensed Product; (vii) otherwise comply with the terms of this EULA; and (h)agree that Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted.
You also agree not to permit further distribution of the Redistributables by your end users except: (1) you may permit further redistribution of the Redistributables by your distributors to your end-user customers if your distributors only distribute the Redistributables in conjunction with, and as part of, the Licensed Product and you and your distributors comply with all other terms of this EULA; and (2) in the manner described in Section 3.2.
(b) If you use the Redistributables, or the "Sample Code" or "Redistributable Code" portions of the SDK Software (as described in Section 4.2(b) (all of the foregoing referred to in this paragraph as the "Licensed Software"), then in addition to your compliance with the applicable distribution requirements described for the Licensed Software, the following also applies. Your license rights to the Licensed Software are conditioned upon your (i) not incorporating Identified Software into or combining Identified Software with the Licensed Software or a derivative work thereof; (ii) not distributing Identified Software in conjunction with the Licensed Software or a derivative work thereof; and (iii) not using Identified Software in the development of a derivative work of the Licensed Software. "Identified Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that directly or indirectly (A) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Licensed Software or derivative work thereof or (B) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Licensed Software or derivative work thereof. Identified Software includes, without limitation, any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software incorporated into, derived from or distributed with such software be (1) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (2) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (3) be redistributable at no charge.
3.2 Redistributable Code-Extended Use. You may permit your end users to reproduce and distribute the object code form of certain portions of the Product (as listed in REDIST.TXT as "Extended Use Redistributable Code") only in conjunction with and part of a Licensed Product and/or Web page that adds significant and primary functionality to the Extended Use Redistributable Code. You are authorized to exercise the foregoing rights provided that:
(a) you comply with Section 3.1, and
(b) your end user agrees to: (i) distribute the Extended Use Redistributable Code in object code only in conjunction with and as a part of a software application product developed by them that adds significant and primary functionality to the Extended Use Redistributable Code; (ii) not use Microsoft's name, logo, or trademarks to market the End-User Application; (iii) display their own valid copyright notice which shall be sufficient to protect Microsoft's copyright in the Extended Use Redistributable Code; (iv) indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the End-User Application; (vi)comply with the terms of Section 3.1(b); and (vi) not permit further distribution of the Extended Use Redistributable Code by the user of the End-User Application.
3.3 Redistributable Code-Limited Use. If you are authorized and choose to redistribute Limited Use Redistributable Code, in addition to the terms of Section 3.1, you must also comply with the following.
(a) "Jet" Files or MSDE. If you redistribute the "Jet Files" (as identified in the Product ) or MSDE (individually or collectively, the "MS DB Files") you agree to comply with the following additional requirements: (a) your Licensed Product shall not substantially duplicate the capabilities of Microsoft Access or, in the reasonable opinion of Microsoft, compete with same; and (b) unless your Licensed Product requires your customers to license Microsoft Access in order to operate, you shall not reproduce or use any of the MS DB Files for commercial distribution in conjunction with a general purpose word processing, spreadsheet or database management software product, or an integrated work or product suite whose components include a general purpose word processing, spreadsheet, or database management software product except for the exclusive use of importing data to the various formats supported by Microsoft Access. Note: A product that includes limited word processing, spreadsheet or database components along with other components which provide significant and primary value, such as an accounting product with limited spreadsheet capability, is not considered to be a "general purpose" product.
(b) Microsoft Data Access Components. If you redistribute the Microsoft Data Access Component file identified as MDAC_TYP.EXE, you also agree to redistribute such file in object code only in conjunction with and as a part of a Licensed Product developed by you with a Microsoft development tool product that adds significant and primary functionality to MDAC_TYP.EXE.
4. MICROSOFT SERVER COMPONENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT USE. The Product may include certain of Microsoft Server products (collectively, the "Server Components"), provided for your use solely in conjunction with the design, development and testing of software products created by you; the Server Components may not be used in a production environment. Your use of the Server Components is subject to the terms and conditions of this EULA, the terms of which supercede those of any end user license agreements contained in the Server Components. There are two exceptions to the foregoing: the Server Components identified as Microsoft SQL Server Developer Edition and BizTalk Server Developer Edition contain end user license agreements that govern your use of those specific Server Components. For all other Server Components, the following rights and restrictions apply.
4.1 Installation and Grant of License. The Server Components consist of software programs that provide services or functionality on a computer capable of running the server software ("Server Software"; the computer running the Server Software shall be referred to as the "Server.") and software programs that allow an electronic device (a "Device") to access or utilize the services or functionality provided by the Server Software ("Client Software").
(a) Server Software. Solely for purposes of designing, developing and testing your software product(s) you may make, use and install the Server Software for any individual Server Component on any number of Servers. All components of the Server Software for any one Server Component, however, may only be installed and used on one and the same Server. The Server Software may not be used as the software on the server that supports your development of software product(s) (e.g., as a repository for source code).
(b) Client Software. You may make, use and install the Client Software on any number of Devices for use by others, provided that such use is solely in conjunction with the design, development and testing of software products created by you that operate in conjunction with the Server Software.
4.2 Other Rights and Restrictions Regarding the Server Components.
(a) Windows 2000 Server. The Server Software for the Server Component identified as Windows 2000 Server may be used by no more than four (4) processors of the Server at any one time.
(b) Use of Redistributable Software ("SDK Software"). If included as part of a Server Component, you may install and use copies of the SDK Software on one or more computers located at your premises solely for the purpose of building applications that work in conjunction with the Server Software that accompanies the corresponding SDK Software ("Applications"). You may modify the Sample Code (identified in the "samples" directories) to design, develop, and test your Applications, and may reproduce and use the Sample Code, as modified, on one or more computers located at your premises. You may also reproduce and distribute the Sample Code, along with any modifications you make thereto (for purposes of this section, "modifications" shall mean enhancements to the functionality of the Sample Code), and any other files that may be listed and identified in a REDIST.TXT file as "redistributable" (collectively, the "Redistributable Code") provided that you comply with the terms of Section3.1 above.
5. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS
5.1 Not For Resale Software. If the Product is labeled "Not For Resale" or "NFR," then you may not resell, or otherwise transfer for value, the Product.
5.2 Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Product, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
5.3 Rental. You may not rent, lease or lend the Product.
5.4 Trademarks. This EULA does not grant you any rights in connection with any trademarks or service marks of Microsoft.
5.5 Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Microsoft and its affiliates may collect and use technical information gathered as part of the product support services provided to you, if any, related to the Product. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you and will not disclose this information in a form that personally identifies you.
5.6 Software Transfer. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Product only directly to an end user. This transfer must include all of the Product (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). Such transfer may not be by way of consignment or any other indirect transfer. The transferee of such one-time transfer must agree to comply with the terms of this EULA, including the obligation not to further transfer this EULA and Product.
5.7 Separation of Components. The Product is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use by more than one user.
5.8 Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the Product and all of its component parts.
5.9 Benchmark Testing. You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the
6. PRERELEASE CODE. Portions of the Product may be identified as prerelease code ("Prerelease Code"). Such Prerelease Code is not at the level of performance and compatibility of the final, generally available product offering. The Prerelease Code may not operate correctly and may be substantially modified prior to first commercial shipment. Microsoft is not obligated to make this or any later version of the Prerelease Code commercially available. The grant of license to use Prerelease Code expires upon availability of a commercial release of the Prerelease Code from Microsoft. NOTE: In the event that Prerelease Code contains a separate end-user license agreement, the terms and conditions of such end-user license agreement shall govern your use of the corresponding Prerelease Code.
7. UPGRADES. To use a Product identified as an upgrade, you must first be licensed for the product identified by Microsoft as eligible for the upgrade. After upgrading, you may no longer use the product that formed the basis for your upgrade eligibility.You may use the resulting upgraded product only in accordance with the terms of this EULA. If the Product is an upgrade of a component of a package of software programs that you licensed as a single product, the Product may be used and transferred only as part of that single product package and may not be separated for use by more than one end user.
8. DOWNGRADES. Instead of installing and using the Product, you may install and use one copy of an earlier version of the Product, provided that you completely remove such earlier version and install the original Product within a reasonable time. Your use of such earlier version shall be governed by this EULA, and your rights to use such earlier version shall terminate when you install the original Product.
9. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft to make this disclaimer.
10. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR PRODUCT ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA.
Except with respect to the Redistributables, which are provided "AS IS," without warranty of any kind, Microsoft warrants that the Product will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety days from the date of receipt.
If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY (90) DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you.
Any supplements or updates to the Product, including without limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day Limited Warranty period are not covered by any warranty or condition, express, implied or statutory.
LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if the Product does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty, and, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its essential purpose. The terms of Section 12 below ("Exclusion of Incidental, Consequential and Certain Other Damages") are also incorporated into this Limited Warranty. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you. This Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights. You may have others which vary from state/jurisdiction to state/jurisdiction. YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option from time to time exercised subject to applicable law, (a)return of the price paid (if any) for the Product, or (b)repair or replacement of the Product, that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. You will receive the remedy elected by Microsoft without charge, except that you are responsible for any expenses you may incur (e.g. cost of shipping the Product to Microsoft). This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the Product has resulted from accident, abuse, misapplication, abnormal use or a virus. Any replacement Product will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer. Outside the United States or Canada, neither these remedies nor any product support services offered by Microsoft are available without proof of purchase from an authorized international source. To exercise your remedy, contact: Microsoft, Attn. Microsoft Sales Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399, or the Microsoft subsidiary serving your country.
LIMITED WARRANTY FOR PRODUCT ACQUIRED OUTSIDE THE US OR CANADA.
FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTIES AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO YOUR PARTICULAR JURISDICTION, PLEASE REFER TO YOUR WARRANTY BOOKLET INCLUDED WITH THIS PACKAGE OR PROVIDED WITH THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT PRINTED MATERIALS.
11. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties (if any) created by any documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Product or otherwise arising out of the use of the Product. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.
12. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE PRODUCT, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE PRODUCT OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE PRODUCT, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
13. LINKS TO THIRD PARTY SITES. You may link to third party sites through the use of the Product. The third party sites are not under the control of Microsoft, and Microsoft is not responsible for the contents of any third party sites, any links contained in third party sites, or any changes or updates to third party sites. Microsoft is not responsible for webcasting or any other form of transmission received from any third party sites. Microsoft is providing these links to third party sites to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply an endorsement by Microsoft of the third party site.
14. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all damages referenced above and all direct or general damages), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy for all of the foregoing (except for any remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the amount actually paid by you for the Product or U.S.$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 10, 11 and 12 above) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose.
15. U.S. GOVERNMENT LICENSE RIGHTS. All Product provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to solicitations issued on or after December 1, 1995 is provided with the commercial license rights and restrictions described elsewhere herein. All Product provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to solicitations issued prior to December 1, 1995 is provided with "Restricted Rights" as provided for in FAR, 48 CFR 52.227-14 (JUNE 1987) or DFAR, 48 CFR 252.227-7013 (OCT 1988), as applicable.
16. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. You acknowledge that the Product is of U.S. origin and subject to U.S. export jurisdiction. You agree to comply with all applicable international and national laws that apply to the Product, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, as well as end-user, end-use, and destination restrictions issued by U.S. and other governments. For additional information see
17. APPLICABLE LAW. If you acquired this Product in the United States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington. If you acquired this Product in Canada, unless expressly prohibited by local law, this EULA is governed by the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, Canada; and, in respect of any dispute which may arise hereunder, you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial courts sitting in Toronto, Ontario. If this Product was acquired outside the United States, then local law may apply.
18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included with the Product) are the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the Product and the support services (if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Product or any other subject matter covered by this EULA. To the extent the terms of any Microsoft policies or programs for support services conflict with the terms of this EULA, the terms of this EULA shall control.
19. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Product. The Product is licensed, not sold.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Or was it outsmart? By copycatting?
Anyways, I suspect MS will include something that everybody who uses their sf.net clone will have to have their software licensed in a way that it may only be used to run on MS platforms...
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Whew, it took forever to find that image in that huge ugly page. I've never seen so much crap uploaded just to say "uspecified error." That include is a killer. They might not know what's wrong with it, but I do, it looks like an out of control VB of MSFC monster more than it does a web page. Is that what the .NET will be? Oh well, the picture is worth 1024 words and it takes up 11K of space. Nice work!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What are you talking about?! M$ paid good money for all those banner ads here. What, you've got Slashdot images turned off so you don't have to see those ads? Shame on you for stealing from Slashdot. Be a good boy and buy an extra coppy of that silly compiler so you can tell me what's really good about it. Tell me when you can port it to anything but win32 and when it's hundreds of dollars better than gcc a year. The banner ads, though expensive, were not informative.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I want to thank the US courts for not being so tough on Microsoft's anti-trust case so they could keep innovating and building never before done software systems.
Is there effort to stop GNU/Linux and Open Source just recreating the wheel and making all the software available for the Linux developers available in Windows? Hrm.. "Look we have everything that they have, and then some!".. course you can't beat the price of Linux and friends.
Logik
Kyle
http://www.unlogikal.net/
Developers Developers Developers!
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
1) Make new version of software compitable with new version of Windows(TM)
2) Sell it to 95% of the software market.
3) Profit!
You might remember step 2, they are the people who actually pay for software.
Do you also enjoy being spanked by a fat girl in leather while you're coding?
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
And now for our first feat - "Unspecified Error"
I just had a horrifying thought... maybe it's far-fetched, but it's worth posting.
What if Microsoft is doing all these stupid PR moves on purpose? The intent might be to make MS look like a big, goofy, harmless company rather than their usual Sinister Evil(TM) look. "Oops! We hired one of our PR people to write an 'unbiased' switching story. Oops! We put an insanely silly license up on our project management software. D'oh, aren't we goofy!"
I dunno, maybe it's just coincidence, but such a plan might actually help their reputation -- getting people who see them as evil bastards to think of them as merely incompetent goofballs would be a first step toward reducing resistance to their efforts. (After all, resistance is futile.)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I think thi says it all.
Wow someone hasn't figured out the F1 key in Visual Studio .NET, is there an F1 key Linux?
...and no fucking with some keybindings text conf file hidden under a rock to search Google doesn't count as a help file.
http://f1-key-how-to-press.com - that's so real documentation
Microsoft technology at it's best:
h =/ Default.aspx
http://www.gotdotnet.com/error.htm?aspxerrorpat
muahahah
(tongue firmly in cheek) Wow, can't believe the wonderful performance & stability of the M$ software at this site! Must be run by M$ staffers... Since the site either can't provide selected pages (never responds) or the site replys with a 'nebulous error' page, I have to assume they are runn9ing their site on M$ products...
Looks like the Slashdot effect even affects the mightiest of corporations.
developers ! developers ! developers ! developers !
Times move fast... New top ten GDN projects: 1. StealCode - Easily steal code from other Operating Systems *cough*BSD*cough* and call it your own. Features fully working KDE based GUI. 2. AccidentallyDestroyLinux - Secretly scans hard disks and deletes any Linux related files 3. EasyBugOut - Planning to introduce a new version of your software with hardly any new features? Still want the consumers to pay for it? Forgot to include bugs in your original release? - This software / spyware discreetly patches the required software and creates random memory bugs etc. that you will "fix" with your new, PRICEY version. Written by experts in the field (B. Gates & S. Ballmer) 4. Microsoft Alarm Clock - Steve Ballmer wakes all you budding programmers out there up with his famous "developers" war-cry. *NEW* version 3.0 includes a DirectX X based graphical engine which makes full use of (expensive NVIDIA) hardware for incredibly realistic sweat. If you leave the Alarm on for too long it fills up the screen, also features SimulaSmell Technology for those with Microsoft IntelliStink Mice! 5. Microsoft Hello World - Marvell at Microsoft's first ever BUG FREE program. 6. TakeOverMusicIndustry - Randomly scans PCs, when it finds a vulnerable one (ie. running Windows) it automatically converts all of those horrible MP3 files to lovely DRM protected WMAs. 7. SellMyHardware - Randomly consumes vast quantities of RAM, HD space or CPU Time as required on target PC. You can set options from Hefty Requirements to PC OVERKILL, depending on how badly your sales are doing. SellMyHardware has been used by INTEL, MAXTOR & CRUCIAL. Note (Other websites generally refer to this software as "Windows XP") 8. [DATABASE ENTRY CORRUPTED BY "FRONTPAGE" VIRUS] 9. [WHOOPS! - THERE ARE ONLY 8 ENTRIES - ADOB RECORDCOUNT COMMAND BUG# 2034, PLEASE VISIT MICROSOFT.COM AND DOWNLOAD HOTFIX #2350920395 FOR AN UPDATE TO THE IIS SERVER WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT FIX THIS PROBLEM. WE ALSO RECOMMEND PRAYING AT GATES' SHRINE] 10. [UNABLE TO DISPLAY REST OF PAGE - ASP(SU)X TIMED OUT AFTER 900000 SECONDS AFTER GETTING CAUGHT IN AN INFINITE LOOP: FRIENDLY TRANSLATION: USE PHP OR PERL INSTEAD.]
Imagine the introduction page on GOTDOTNET:
O PERS,DEVELOPERS,DEVELOPERS,DEVELOPERS,DEVELOPERS,D EVELOPERS,DEVELOPERS,DEVELOPERS.
"Calling all DEVELOPERS,DEVELOPERS,DEVELOPERS,DEVELOPERS,DEVEL
I LOVE THIS WEBSITE! - Ever wanted to develop bloatware in a security-free, risk-laden environment, free of those nasty geeky Linux-types? - Now is your chance! So GIVE IT UP FOR MICROSOFT!
WHO SAID CLICK SIGN UP?"
Better, if you picture the "dot" as a "globe" instead, it looks like the logo a Bond villain might use. Perhaps this is their prerelease logo slated for the planet Mars?
(At least you'll be able to get these images out without waiting for the slashdotted IIS servers to completely recover. And how do we know they're slashdotted, anyway? Perhaps there's a run of VB.Net coders out there hammering away at it?)
John
I don't know how appreciative they are of that extra traffic seeing as their site seems to be more or less hosed. Maybe the best way to screw Microsoft is to keep posting links to their new stuff on Slashdot :)
it has the worst SQL managment. phpBB is pretty good
All your code are belong to us!
(Hehe, someone had to say it.)
I dont know about you, but as a web designer, i think that possibly has to be one of the most amaeturish looking pages i've ever seen. It rivals people with geocities creativity.
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
Is it just me, or does that logo look like a hand grabbing sack?
The fact it's a red ball seems all the more symbolic.
Sounds like their license follows this idea; "once you post your code here, we've got you by the sack"
So an MS clone should be a Source Forgery, right?
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
And how much do you spend on vaseline each month in your Microsoft code/ideas/software sharing? Or do you just develop stuff that Microsoft doesn't want?
Another attempt at Microsoft's 3rd tier monopoly?
First was muscling into distribution of vanilla PC boxens with DOS/Windows?
Second was Web Browser war against Mosaic/Netscape?
The only reason why Microsoft did this, not that anyone I KNOW is writing .Net applications of any kind beyond HELLO WORLD....NOW FORK OVER YOUR CASH, is that they are desperate to generate SOME KIND of code base of thier extremely dubious economic competitor to Java.
.Net visible in the techy sections.
.Net section.
.Net acceptance.
That and them giving Barnes and Nobles a HUGE pile of cash to dedicate a section in thier bookstores, which is unprecedented, just to get
Literally over night there was a
A very very QUIET section. I usually spend quite a while selecting and examining books for my staff. I spent about 4 hours, and not a SINGLE tech head picked up a book in that section.
A week later only ONE book has been purchased.
I think that speaks VOLUMES...(Pun intended) about
Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
What does this hand greedily holding the red ball mean? Probably "Microsoft got you by the balls" ;-)
I bet in order to log out of your account, you have to click the sign in button in the upper right. 8^D
The design sucks sideways!
This is from the gotdotnet manager:
n eIndex=11764
#4 By JasonPace (15 Posts) at 9/18/2002 4:20:04 PM
Whoa there folks!
I manage the GotDotNet team and there's been a ton of misunderstanding around the license. This is partly our fault for not making things more clear... and I totally agree that the way it reads now is lame.
First of all, let's be clear on one thing: The legal issues around doing something like Workspaces are incredibly, massively, HUGELY tricky. Considering that this is a beta and the first time we've ever done something like this, we're being super-careful. Keep saying to yourselves "this is a beta... this is a beta... this is a beta..." and for crying out loud, DON'T UPLOAD ANYTHING REAL YET!
Second, the license for Workspaces is a two-step process: we first need to use the language quoted above to make sure that there aren't any prior restrictive licenses that people sneak-in with their uploads that might expose us to legal problems. Then, after you accept the first piece (the one everyone hates), we grant your rights back to you via our primary license... so, first we sterilize the stuff coming in to make sure it's free of viral licenses and other dangerous stuff that could expose Microsoft to legal problems, then we regrant rights back to you. This is my understanding - which may be incomplete at this stage - and definitely you might want to have your lawyer review the specifics. In any case, the point of the Beta is to test stuff out -- GDN definitely isn't recommending uploading your IP into these yet! Everything -- and this includes our licenses -- is in a beta state. Don't put real stuff in these projects yet!
look at it this way -- there are a bunch of folks out there who could attach licenses to their stuff that would be binding to Microsoft from the second they hit the submit button and we accept their code... so, before that ever happens we need to say "from the second you do this action you're giving us rights to do what we like" -- this is the easiest way we can currently negate any binding agreement that a user might try to include when hitting submit. After we do that, we can then offer an agreement that grants copyright back to the original poster on terms that we're aware of and we know won't place us at legal risk for hosting IP on our servers. Please remember that this is a quick-n-dirty implementation that lets us ship the functionality without putting the company at risk -- for v1 there will be a much more streamlined and user-understandable model in place. I really don't want you or anyone else to upload stuff you really care deeply about into this beta... really.
at http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?Headli
The JVM is not distributed with Windows XP nor will it be distributed with future versions either.
The JVM that comes older versions of Windows
is based on old JVM 1.1.4
Well I see that a lot less often that I see the slash code errors or the comments route me to the main page here on /. That happens at least twice a week. /. itself is Open Source's worst advertisment.