Slashdot Mirror
FoxPro On Linux, Drama Ensues
bltfast32 writes "I don't know how many people have been following this, but this is definitely worth keeping an eye on. Whil Hentzen, prominent FoxPro and Linux advocate, has received some heat lately for publishing a HOWTO in the March 2003 FoxTalk issue for running Visual FoxPro 8.0 on Linux with WINE. Of course, the aforementioned heat, is coming from Redmond. Here is a link to a nice summary of the interactions by Whil." That summary mentions the Register article online here. bltfast32 also points to another article which requires registration.
To anyone who has followed MS's track record (as highlighted so vociferously here on
Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control and MS values that, it seems, more than potential profits. In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.
Thinking about this a bit more, it seems that control is the name of the game in most of industry --MPAA and RIAA certainly included!
That this was only a matter of time. I have this bad feeling before long, any microsoft products, or any software company that is in bed with microsoft will be checking during install to make sure that there is a valid windows license.
There will probably be a line in the EULA stating: It is illegal to run this program on a non-windows operating system.
I sure wouldn't put it past microsoft. I'm sure there would be ways around it, but then microsoft would have a great way to take anyone to court using wine to run windows software on linux.
- I'm very happy wearing my tinfoil hat!
Microsoft's TCP stack was based on one of the *BSDs, and IE had its roots in Mosaic. There is no GNU-bitching about this, imagine that.
> Isn't it part of Microsoft licensing that you must run the software under Microsoft's environment?
Wasn't MicroSoft convicted for antitrust violations? Isn't "tying" a violation of antitrust laws?
> I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own...
The GPL has absolutely no "use" restrictions. If you do not plan to redistribute GPL software, the GPL has absolutely no effect on you.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Then you don't understand many Open Source developers. You do know that Window's TCP stack is based on BSD, right?
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Lots of free software runs on Windows - gcc + toolchain, Mozilla, the Gimp, emacs and on and on...
This strikes me as ridiculous, but there is a nice alternative - don't use FoxPro. Perhaps initially painful, but in the end quite rewarding! ;-)
Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?
I'd suggest one of the many DBs available for Linux + JDBC + Java 1.4x + NetBeans/Eclipse. :-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
No, not if they fit. It seems like a ridiculous assertion.
Yet this is precisely the same problem we have here with VFP and WINE. Erosion of rights in using a product. Maybe in future EULAs, Microsoft will prevent the use of the install CD case to hold open doors in offices with BSD servers.
Dumb? Yeah. But where will it stop?
And an illegal one, but they'll wait until the DOJ raps their knuckles on every issue until they C&D. This is "leveraging their OS monopoly" if I ever saw it.
So if I were the guys trying to run FoxPro on linux, and assuming M$ doesn't decide to play nice, I'd fire off a comment to the people in DOJ supposedly enforcing this crap. It worked for getting the Explorer Uninstaller more prominent positioning.
Visual FoxPro, while it has it's own data format, is also a language that is supposed to be very good as handling data manipulation. Think of it as a combination of Perl and BerkeleyDB or Perl and dBase.
Visual FoxPro also supports ODBC and can connect to a SQL Server to get and post data. Beyond that, I don't know much else about it.
I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff. Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?
Actually, they'd be thrilled (assuming the stuff is GLP'ed). That would mean the Microsoft would have to release the source code to whatever application they used it in.
Also, no one is talking about pirating MS software here. They're talking about using legally purchased copies of it on a non-MS operating system.
Life is too short to proofread.
Because if WINE was an emulator, we could argue that the software is indeed running on windows, on top of a WINE virtual machine.
In that case, we could say the the physical computer running Linux and WINE is a high level computer and Windows is running on top of that computer.
There is nothing strange in this situation if you notice that most peripherals and controller chips have it's own builtin software (firmware) and even microprocessors are running on top of it's own internal microcode/nanocode software.
Sure that could be part of their EULA, but this will bring up the age old debate, who really owns the software after it is sold? What rights does the user have when running it?
.NET starts to become big. Can Microsoft prohibit .NET applications from running on non-MS OS's? It seems rather foolish for them to start pulling stuff like this if they plan on inplementing their CLR on multiple platforms.
This could become really tricky for Microsoft and Mono when and if
Also, it could be the case that the libraries used by VFP are not freely redistributable to other machines unless that machine contains a licensed version of VFP. Yes, I read the summary article, but that point was still not clear.
As for Open Source projects, I think most developers would be happy to see MS using their projects as long as they released any modified source code. Imagine that a MS operating system release with only Open Source software on top of the OS.
OpenOffice.com was a bit faster, more stable and supported foxpro files then we can tell microsoft to apt-get lost.
The difference it that you don't "license" a GM oil filter, you "buy" it. Since software is licensed they have more leeway in their licensing terms.
Yes. The penalty is dinner with no dessert.
First of all FoxPro and access have a lot in common in that they both basicaly do the same thing. Most companies do not use its internal database features, but use the form generation tools to create database frontend applications to larger, more robust server based database systems.
Linux lacks a robust RAD tool for createing such frontends. A lot of companies rely on ever changeing data access forms that change with each project. Access and FoxPro enable them to do this with little hasel. This is why Access and FoxPro refuse to die. At the same time this is one of the things preventing Linux from being used in a corprate desktop enviorment. This also explanes why most database apps in linux are witen as web based applications. Linux needs a peice of software that works like Access and FoxPro. Abbras (i think its called) that is included in Star Office is close, but it dosen't alow for createing stand alone apps in the way Access and FoxPro do.
Basicaly, the point im trying to make is that Microsoft never thows a fit about anything unless there is a reason. By getting FoxPro and Access to run on Linux these guys are threatening Microsofts hold on the corprate market and they know it. This shows that if a alternitive or clone of FoxPro or Access was created it would hurt Microsoft quite a bit. I support anything that prevents Microsoft from controling the corprate working enviorment. If no one wants to create a subsitute to FoxPro or Access this this will have to do. By supporting these guys in there endevor you are putting another nail in M$'s coffin.
Trinity
We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
I have done FoxPro development. And my opinion it is the best of the microsoft languages. (probably because it wasnt origanally made by microsoft). And perhaps FoxPro is the wrong language for your applications. FoxPro is like MS Access on steroids. It has its place, And Cx, Java, Perl, Python, and most any other language dosent do well what FoxPro does well. Which is easly make interface for database information and minipulate database info. Plus FoxPro for Linux can help a lot of companies convert to linux where they are now stuck on Windows because they have invested $100k in their custom FOX apps.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I had no idea VFP had such a following. So what is it about VFP that inspires so much devotion among its users?
I think the unflattering answer is there's a shitpile of small business applications written in Fox Pro by enterprising consultants that work well enough for the business owners who don't want to spend any more on them than they have to. They get sold periodic "updates" so they work with their new PCs sporting new OSs, but that's it.
I think the reason they never get ported to anything else is that nobody else can untangle the code in a timeframe that would make them any money, plus if they want periodic updates like new forms or something, FP is pretty easy to design them with where a web app or something would be a PITA.
False. They can say "this product is designed to be used on system X; we will not support it if you use it on system Y". However, nothing gives them the right to demand that you use the product on system X, just like GM cannot demand that you have your car serviced only at Goodwrench. That is an abuse of monopoly, plain and simple.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
So some non-DB HR monkeys put together a badly documented database, therefore the language is at fault?
That doesn't make much sense to me.
My Journal
But there's also a bit of what makes some software (BeOS, Amiga, vim, etc.) grab and keep a smallish but loving group of users that are willing to fight for their [tool|OS|whatever] and hold on for dear life.
VFP is unique among MS products in that regard. VB had a faithful following, but it was always too big and too loud and too contaminated by weekend "programmers" to have an effect over the company. VFP folks - they're the Mujahedin of Microsoft users. Trust me, you don't want end up surrounded in a newsgroup by six angry VFP knights in shining armor with issues and a grudge. Talk about flame wars.
I mentioned those Usenet threads in my original post - I'll eat my crow now but back then I thought they were on crack for being so vocal about a tool that everyone else saw as dying (like BSD *grin*). Plus, the "inside word" from Microsoft at the time (~1997) was that VFP was indeed going to be killed. Haha - Not.
That's life, I guess.
What is happening here is that companies are using EULAs to essentially write their own laws. If these agreements are considered legally valid, then governments are in effect having their courts co-opted to help in the enforcement of the laws (EULAs) written by the corporations.
In theory, we are protected from this by the freedom to avoid the product if we don't like the EULA, or by anti-monopoly laws if no choice is available. If the anti-monopoly laws were being enforced.
The behavior in question isn't "bundling", it's "tying". And there is a notable and telling litigation history against M$ in the area of anti-competitive tying of non-OS products to its OS. (See this nifty summary of the Caldera v. Microsoft case of 1996-2000.)
(There are those that argue that the "non-OS product"--Windows 3.1--is actually an OS component. Those folks are, of course, wrong. At the time of MS-DOS 5.0 and Digital Research's DR-DOS 6, Windows was no more a mandatory OS component than a 3 1/2" floppy drive was.)
So, Microsoft has made grabs at non-OS-space with its OS products. Yeah, I know, they settled without admission of guilt. The fact they settled is the moral equivalent of an admission of guilt, legal weasels notwithstanding.
Windows 3.1 was tied, for no valid technical reason, to Microsoft's MS-DOS. This solely to weaken competitive OS products. Sound familiar?
In fact, what you're saying is that EVERY MS product (from Flight Simulator to Age of Mythology) is tied to Windows because most are Windows exclusive. That is not what the courts had in mind.
The reason most M$ applications seem to be "Windows exclusive" is because they can't be run natively on other platforms. That's a valid technical reason for OS-exclusivity. However, if someone (e.g., the WINE Project) successfully engineers an OS or a compatibility layer which is API-compatible with Windows, and therefore makes the technical reasons for OS-exclusivity go away... then... M$ has no say in the matter. If the MS products can be run on non-M$ OSs, then M$ has no legal standing to prohibit that. M$ cannot legally mandate Windows in order to run M$ applications. THAT is illegal tying. And THAT IS what the courts had in mind.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
That's only in communist USA. A free market is based on competition, and tying products is anti-competitive behaviour no matter if you have a monopoly or not.
A free market is only free as long as it is kept free.