Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft WiX Code Released to SourceForge.Net

nberardi writes "On Monday, April 5, 2004, as part of the Shared Source Initiative, Microsoft released the source code for the Windows Installer XML (WiX) developer tool to SourceForge under the IBM Common Public License or CPL. The WiX project is the first Shared Source Initiative to go "public" on Source Forge rather than a Microsoft site. It is also the first to use an externally created Open Source license. Microsoft supports the idea that a software developer should be free to choose how they license their work and for the goals of WiX, the CPL was the right fit. Is this another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy, or do you think they are embracing on the Open Source movement?" Slashdot and SourceForge are both part of OSDN.

26 of 686 comments (clear)

  1. Background Details of WiX by nberardi · · Score: 4, Informative
    A couple of background details on WiX:
    • The Windows Installer XML (WiX - pronounced "wicks") is a toolset for advanced Windows developers that builds Windows installation packages from XML source code. Overall, WiX can improve the process of how software developers release software.
    • WiX has grown organically and spread rapidly inside Microsoft for our own product builds (e.g. SQL, BizTalk, Exchange, Office, Virtual Server, many MSN properties) and there is a healthy internal community already contributing to the toolset.
    • Many Microsoft product development teams use WiX to deliver their installation packages. Utilizing the 1.0 Common Language Runtime, WiX builds with Visual Studio.Net 2003 on Windows 2000, Windows XP, and will be of use with future Windows offerings.
    • For more information please see http://sourceforge.net/projects/wix/
  2. Re:questionable... by TechnoLust · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh, no! They're on to us! I confess. I work for Microsoft and this is all a ploy. The code is actually a very subtle virus that will send a message to us everytime someone installs a piece of open source software with this shared code. This will then open a back door and we will lauch DDOS attacks against SCO from this zombie box. It was supposed to make it look like Linux is insecure and everyone would buy our products. Too bad you figured us out.

    --
    "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
  3. More details by Zarhan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Much more detailed information available at MSDN.

  4. Re:Obligatory "not GPL" rant by Carl · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is indeed interesting. The CPL seems to be a copyleft (!) license but subtly different from the GPL to make it incompatible so you cannot combine code from any of the GPLed projects with this to improve and share with your friends. Hmmmm...

  5. More Information by Rufus211 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The developer has more information as to what WiX is in his blog:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/robmen

  6. Zealots prepare for an unhappy future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Microsoft is not going away.
    Open source is not going away.
    Open source will never own the desktop (but continues to get better).
    Microsoft will never own the server (but continues to get better).
    Microsoft is learning from open source (openness leads to collective code quality).
    Open source is learning from Microsoft (non-geek resources lead to ease-of-use in UI).

    This is the way it has been and the way it will be. Customers of both camps will benefit. Zealots will be eternally unhappy waiting for the open-source rapture.

  7. Wix - infortunate name by Timo_UK · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is German for W*nk...

    --
    Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
  8. Re:Question by garcia · · Score: 1, Informative

    I wasn't aware that KDE's Konq was out to make money. I also wasn't aware that KDE owned Linux and charged you for its use.

    I also didn't realize that KDE forced the little guys out by unfair practices.

  9. And some info on the developer himself by WebHikerOriginal · · Score: 2, Informative

    He's got a blog online, where he talks about the installer, release on Sf etc.

    http://blogs.msdn.com/robmen/

  10. Re:embracing open source? by JoeBaldwin · · Score: 1, Informative

    There was something like that for KDE once, I think it was called Kconfigure. It would unpack tarballs and compile them. It rocked.

  11. Re:Where's the source??? by Atzanteol · · Score: 4, Informative

    Their source code is in the SourceForge CVS. SF is taking a beating right now, but the developer mentions that it's in there on this site.

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  12. Re:Uhm by mrseigen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Allegiance. It should have sold. Hopefully the community will do something nice with it.

  13. Re:embracing open source? by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Informative

    If it's no big deal, then why is it nearly impossible for me to get a standard way for installing softwre on linux? I understand that most distros come with a packaging manager, but if I want to write a program, allow downloads from my site, then (to the best of my knowledge) there's no way for it to easily be installed and have menu shortcuts etc set up....

    Follow this and your menu entries will show up for KDE and GNOME. Users of other DEs normally have enough nouse to add menu entries themselves (or their DEs can load GNOME/KDE menus).

    As for installers, at wort you can just statically compile into an rpm - no dependency issues then. As long as you provide a source tar ball as well then most everyone will be happy (and if your program is any good, it'll get included in the package repositories of the various distributions).

    If that doesn't appeal, you could always support autopackage.

    Jedidiah.

  14. Re:embracing open source? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe you're looking for Autopackage.
    Autopackage is a cross-distribution installation system for Linux, mostly designed for desktop apps. With Autopackage it's very easy to create packages that automatically integrate with GNOME and KDE and support non-root installs.

    We're close to 1.0. We've recently changed our plans a little to reach 1.0 earlier so we can have more users ==> which means more developers.
    Autopackage 1.0 will not be perfect, it will just be a "it works, and works well". The really cool features such as RPM/APT/YUM integration is scheduled for post-1.0.

    Please lend your hand and support us. The more users/packagers we have, the better, because that means we'll probably also get more developers who can help us with the post-1.0 cool features and make Linux installation even better.

  15. Re:Obligatory "not GPL" rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "The FSF lists the BSD license as being an "Open Source" license."

    Actually it doesn't. It does list it as a Free Software licence though. Perhaps you're confusing Free Software with Open Source Software.

  16. Rob Mensching comments on by gakguk · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's the one behind the SourceForge release. Here's the part on the idea behind, from his release comments

    Now, let's talk about why WiX was released as Open Source. First, working on WiX has never been a part of my job description or review goals. I work on the project in my free time. Second, WiX is a very developer oriented project and thus providing source code access increases the pool of available developers. Today, there are five core developers (Robert, K, Reid, and Derek, thank you!) regularly working on WiX in their free time with another ten submitting fixes occasionally. Finally, many parts of the Open Source development process appeal to me. Back in 1999 and 2000, I did not feel that many people inside Microsoft understood what the Open Source community was really about and I wanted to improve that understanding by providing an example.

    After four and a half years of part-time development, the WiX design (and most of the code) matured to a point where I was comfortable trying to release it externally. So, last October I started looking for a means to release not only the tools but the source code as well. I thought GotDotNet was the place. However, at that time, none of the existing Shared Source licenses were flexible enough to accept contributions from the community. Then, in February, I was introduced to Stephen Walli who was also working to improve Microsoft's relationship with the Open Source community. Fortunately, Stephen was much farther along than I and had the step-by-step plan how to release an Open Source project from Microsoft using an approved OSS license.

    Today, via WiX on SourceForge, you get to see the results of many people's efforts to improve Microsoft from the inside out. I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen next but I'm sure there are quite a few people who are interested to see where this leads. Personally, all I hope is that if you find the WiX toolset useful then you'll join the community and help us improve the toolset.

  17. Just use Nullsofts by Snaller · · Score: 2, Informative

    Use Nullsofts NSIS instead. Has always been free and SMALL - its not the bloatware of the windows installer or installshield for that matter, which add a ton of crap your C drive which are not related to the actual program being installed.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Just use Nullsofts by omicronish · · Score: 5, Informative

      Windows Installer has many benefits over installation software such as NSIS, old InstallShield (the non-Windows Installer versions), or other tools such as Inno Setup.

      Windows Installer supports installation rollbacks, so failures restore the system exactly back to the state before installation began. I'm not sure if NSIS or other installers support rollbacks, but I have encountered installers in the past that left files everywhere when they quit after a failure.

      I just set up a Windows network as a learning experience, and Windows Installer packages greatly simplify and automate software installation on the network. For example, I can install Office by doing an administrative install, which basically copies all the installation files to a network location, and then assigning Office to network users via a couple clicks. Office is automatically installed when the computer restarts. This works with all Windows Installer packages that support an administrative install; places such ActiveState even provide MSI packages for Python and Perl.

      In addition to administrative installs, Windows Installer also supports application advertisement, which basically does things such as add only shortcuts or file associations. The program is automatically installed when the user clicks the shortcut or attempts to open a file.

      There is also built-in package repair because Windows Installer keeps track of installed components. You can find more information about these and other features here.

      Mind you, Windows Installer technology itself is free, and the database system it uses is documented at MSDN. There are freeware MSI authoring tools such as Advanced Installer, and I recall seeing a web-based tool on SourceForge for modifying MSI packages. Your statement that Windows Installer adds a ton of crap your C drive which are not related to the actual program being installed is also unproven.

      If you want small and fast installers with tools such as Inno Setup, by all means go ahead and use them, but they do make things more difficult for network administrators.

    2. Re:Just use Nullsofts by omicronish · · Score: 2, Informative

      None for me.

      If there are no benefits, then don't use it. I use and like it because of the benefits.

      Which is crap. I don't need that. I'll remove that is to be removed thank you. I don't need megabytes of bloat on the harddrive with copies of everything that went before.

      Funny, I still don't know what megabytes of bloat you're referring to. If it kept everything that was previously installed then I'd have an extra couple of gigabytes in use because both Office and Visual Studio.NET use Windows Installer for installation.

      Which always amounts to reinstall everything and reboot.

      The repair checks for missing or modified files and replaces only the ones that are needed. The same happens with registry keys and shortcuts. I've also NEVER had to reboot because of a repair.

      If you don't know this simple fact you are not really competent to comment at all. I track installs, and i noticed it everytime they use the bloatware installers such as Installshield.

      My original comment was regarding bloatware with Windows Installer, which is either nonexistent or small enough to not be noticeable by me. I agree that InstallShield feels bloated, but again, even that installer doesn't introduce relevant amounts of bloat.

      Ghost a standard image and install from there, no need to uninstall anything

      I am unfamiliar with ghosting (as I said in my original post, I set up a server as a learning experience), but why ghost when I can distribute an MSI package to my entire network in under a minute? Like I said, the bloat, if it exists, is negligible. The ease of installing packages far outweighs any bloat you refer to, for me at least.

      I do realize that different people may use or prefer different tools, but for my situation and the type of network I deal with, Windows Installer solves many major issues. I realize that you may be more familiar with network administration than I am, and that there may be more advanced software installation mechanisms such as ghosting, but given the small amount of computers I have and the amount of time I have to manage them, Windows Installer satisfies my needs.

  18. Re:This is not news by jc42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah; Microsoft released Windows source - to the Chinese government. And after the techies looked it over, the Chinese government decided to standardize on linux. There was a rumor that the techies recommended that MS Windows be banned in China, but this was too radical a step by China's current capitalist rulers. ;-)

    (Hey, maybe I can get a "troll" rating, too. And maybe this will be read in China, they'll put me on a "banned" list, and they'll stop sending me all that "big5" spam ...)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  19. Interesting quote by Wolface · · Score: 3, Informative
    I found interesting this explanation from the blog
    • http://blogs.msdn.com/robmen
    First, working on WiX has never been a part of my job description or review goals. I work on the project in my free time. Second, WiX is a very developer oriented project and thus providing source code access increases the pool of available developers. Today, there are five core developers (Robert, K, Reid, and Derek, thank you!) regularly working on WiX in their free time with another ten submitting fixes occasionally. Finally, many parts of the Open Source development process appeal to me. Back in 1999 and 2000, I did not feel that many people inside Microsoft understood what the Open Source community was really about and I wanted to improve that understanding by providing an example. Today, via WiX on SourceForge, you get to see the results of many people's efforts to improve Microsoft from the inside out. I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen next but I'm sure there are quite a few people who are interested to see where this leads. Personally, all I hope is that if you find the WiX toolset useful then you'll join the community and help us improve the toolset.
  20. Re:Embracing OSS? by paroneayea · · Score: 2, Informative
    Alright, I'm going to forward you to this article. Let me pull a few quotes:

    And on the other side you had Microsoft Vice President Craig Mundie straining credulity by insisting that the company's execs really didn't mean it when they said they hated open source.

    "It has been reported that Microsoft doesn't like open source," he said at the start of his speech. "But let me be clear: Microsoft has no beef with open source."

    What about the time that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer called open-source software a "cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches," or the time that Jim Allchin, Microsoft's VP for Windows, suggested that open-source software was un-American?

    Mundie said those comments were all a big mistake, and furthermore taken out of context by the media. He elaborated on the point in a media Q&A session after the debate: "I know Steve (Ballmer)," Mundie said. "That was an unfortunate choice of words. I don't think he'd use them today."

    Ballmer is a very busy man, Mundie added, and sometimes he gives "terse" responses because he's pressed for time. "When he talked about the cancer, he was trying to express the company's concern about the GPL."

    Thought you'd like to "hear a few words from the horse's mouth", as the phrase goes. Also note that Microsoft itself uses open source software in Windows... BSD code specifically, for various networking purposes (and I don't know what others).
    --
    http://mediagoblin.org/
  21. Re:Prediction by garbletext · · Score: 2, Informative

    Latest File Releases This Project Has Not Released Any Files

  22. Re:Question by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Informative
    For example, you're the developer of BonchBrowser. BonOffice is smaller (only 500 KB!), faster (renders 10 MB HTML in 2 seconds), uses much less memory than IE (1 MB only), is 100% standards compliant, has popup and ad blocking, is secure, etc. etc.
    Can you get more than, say, 40% of the browser market share? I don't think so! IE is already installed on all Windows computers, people will not switch to BonchBrowser even if it really is better than IE. As competitor you simply has no chance to beat them no matter what you do, simply because MS has a monopoly.
    There is even a _more_ important point you missed and many people do not even thing about that is touched upon in this /. post. By MS having control over the OS, they can custom build that OS to give an advantage to thier applications. Is there a bug in MS Office or IE, just change the OS code to fix it. Whant IE to be faster then the competition, load all the required libraries at startup, etc. The leaked MS Windows source code had many comments on fixes and work arounds for MS products. Now imagine if Netscape, Quicktime, DB2, Oracle, Open Office, and tons of other applications and software companies had that advantage. Imagine if they all could just call MS and get a fix for their product added to the MS OS, or even better, be able to submit patches to MS for fixes and improvement for their products.
    --
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
    it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  23. Re:eyarg by Meddel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not really on the code reviews. Rob and a few others of us spent some time in the last week doing a little bit of that, but it was basically the WiX volunteers taking care of their own code. It tends to be pretty clean, though. Hope you like it!

    --
    You just come along with me and have a good time. The Galaxy's a fun place. You'll need to have this fish in your ear.
  24. Re:Prediction by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, read the news release that it's the first MS OSS project. There's a comment saying that they had to pull the compiled version because he forgot to upload the source to CVS.