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.
They can embrace it all that they want AND extend it... developers and end-users will win in the end when it comes to open source.
This means nothing. MS is simply trying to look good, and it's well worth it to improve their image, which I fear has suffered of late... (funding SCO).
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?
Oh, you'll have some conspiracy theorist claiming its a money-saving move to make sf pay for all the bandwidth of d/ling the source! So, not only are they the bad guy in this scenario, but they also are using open source to bring open source down!
If MS open sourced all their apps, there would STILL be a large "we hate MS" movement on slashdot... mostly from people that haven't used windows since Windows98.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
hardly hurts M$ now, does it !
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
The plan is embrace, extend, then conquer. By creating their own open source license, they're already in step 2.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
This seems like a bigger deal for SourceForge than Microsoft, does the Forge become a default meeting place for all developers?
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
Of course it's a ploy. But if the Big Bad Wolf, needing to make friends with a few of the forest's other creatures, offers to make you a nice lunch and can prove -- via a reasonable license -- that it's not poisoned, well, then eat up and say thank you.
...
Nothing's changed. But the software is useful and it's nice to know that public opinion can hold some sway over Microsoft, however tenuous
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
Back in the day, way long ago, AT&T was a greedy monopoly. Then, realizing it was a monopoly, AT&T invented lasers, transistors, Unix and a bunch of other stuff. But, they were a greedy monopoly first. Then, they became a benevolent monopoly, which we broke up so that we could have lots more phone ads, calling plans, and more expensive phones than ever.
If MS does morph into a benevolent monopoly like AT&T of old, should we break it up just for market's sake?
This is my sig.
... but that doesn't make *him* any better, right?
What is to be understood here is that MS has an interest in there being a lot of free/cheap easy-to-install programs for their OS. Now that they've released WiX, less companies will be willing to pay for, say, InstallShield(/whatever) and as there a more programs that will use WiX, the feel of the OS-operation will be that it is more harmonious. How many times have you installed programs that have crap-ass installers an didn't have proper uninstall features? Think of the poor saps who don't know shit about how Windows works, who've tried their luck with those?
Less hassle for the end-consumer will mean that less people drop away from MS-products.
has always made a point of not liking "the viral nature" of GPL.
So, this could actually be an honest experiment to see what they can gain from the OS-development
model, and not even pretending to be anything else than what they are, a company trying to make
profit.
Lemon curry???
It is nice to see Microsoft open sourcing code under what appears to be a reasonable license.
However, could there be a piece of software less useful to the Linux/UNIX/etc community? We already have a bunch of mostly incompatable ways to install software.
Still, it could prove useful for open source developers targeting the Windows platform, and may provide a boost for cross platform tools such as GAIM.
Some open source projects (e.g. Apache httpd) already distribute their software in MSI form. I wonder how they create their packages - this could be a way for their developers to use less closed source software.
I'm still tending towards the "another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy", but I am a cynic.
there *must* be something in for Microsoft for them to release the source of something
you say this like it's a bad thing... so what if there's "something in it" for microsoft? if there's even a glimmer of them opening their minds about open source, and realizing there's something worthwhile there, then I think it's a good thing.
1) Microsoft wins by getting people to develop their software for free.
2) Microsoft wins by getting "good press" for having released something in their Shared Source Initiative program.
3) Microsoft wins more "good press" by placing the released application on SourceForge (the well-known bastion of Open Source developers).
4) Microsoft wins because it persuades people it is playing nice, people let their guard down, and then Microsoft slowly spreads their foul seed....
Can an 800 pound gorilla known for deceit and the ability to subtly infiltrate and influence almost any industry it touches really be trusted?
------- "One of the joys of travel is visiting new towns and meeting new people." -- G. KHAN
It seems that Microsoft finally is coming to realize the power of open source software. After all, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Microsoft knows that their power lies in their broad userbase. By holding out this "olive branch" to the OSS community, they are preventing an embarrassement, especially in circles where OSS is finding more and more acceptance. For example, the city of Munich switched to Linux over Windows. Now OSS advocates have one less argument in their toolkit.
From now on, no one can accuse Microsoft of being completely closed source. Not that it really matters in the big picture, because their major applications are closed source, anyway.
There's always the possibility that this will get yanked like nullsoft's WASTE (secure file sharing). In this case, I suppose it is very unlikely.
All things considered, we should welcome Microsoft's foray into OSS cautiously, who knows what their motivation is...
The fact that the tool concerned is a rather niche tool that is probably of only of interest to a relatively small number of developers is not going to factor in the press at all. Even so, I think that Microsoft is to be applauded for this, not slated; it's a big first step into a brave new world for them. Now is not the time to slap them in the face and deter them from making potentially more magnanimous releases in the future.
That's not to say I'm not still looking for the "embrance and extend" though.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Or maybe they just want more applications to be installed using the quite functional and usable Windows Installer? A lot of Open Source apps exist for Windows these days, most using either Winzip installer, WISE, or some low-quality hack of an installer. Getting these apps to use the Windows Installer is a good thing both for Microsoft (more market share of installer, as it were) plus for users, who will now have high quality installers for more applications.
First they ignore you... Second they laugh at you... Then they fight you... And then you win
Technoli
Realplayer is teh sukc. I mean, who the hell would want to use Realplayer except those stupid enough to fall for a clever salesman in a broad tie?
My dislike of Microsoft comes from their business practices. Crushing Netscape, RealPlayer, Wordperfect, Eudora, etc etc by levering their monopoly position on the desktop has nothing to do with closed or open source software. Watch their conduct in the coming search engine wars -- they will tie everything in with the OS in the name of "innovation" and "helping the end user" but in the end it's really just a ploy to exterminate Google and Yahoo. Just as IE was a ploy to exterminate Netscape.
What's the difference between IE's integration into the Windows shell and Konquerer's integration into KDE?
I don't see the big fucking deal. I run Windows XP at work yet--gasp--choose to run Firefox. Believe it or not, Microsoft isn't holding a gun to my head...
Yeah, but who says it *has* to be GPL to be acceptable? The FSF lists the BSD license as being an "Open Source" license. If all of Microsoft's stuff was released under BSD license (which of course it won't be, because this is just a desparate ploy to deflect some of the criticism against MS), would you people still whine about how closed it is? Oh that's right, you'd all chant "Windows is Dying".
Everyday I find myself more in agreement with that sig that says "Linux is good, but I can't stand the users". Or to put a common bumpersticker saying in context "Linus, save me from your followers".
Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
So what is it good for? Perhaps marketing? "Microsoft DOES contribute to open source! We are good!" -- perhaps a cover-your-ass attempt if some OSS does make it big, Microsoft might say "Windows makes OSS easier to install!"?
It's fantastic for marketing. It's also fantastic for business. Anything that helps other people write apps that install better on Windows helps Microsoft.
This isn't so hard to understand...they get OSS PR benefits, as well as apps that make their OS look better. What's not to like from their end of it?
You know how everyone says the RIAA could have benefited so much more if they would have embraced file-sharing? Maybe this is Microsoft comparing their situations. Keep their business model, but remain flexible enough to hold up to the changes they need to make.
I can see a lot of benefits to Microsoft doing something like this.. maybe they're just seeing them too.
This looks interesting, although I haven't had a chance to try it out yet. I wouldn't dwell on the open source aspects of it too much. It's a tool, not a product. Extending it will just give them more reach into other systems, or like Mono let others do the porting work for them.
Microsoft has a released other tools for free to developers such as the Embedded Visual Tools for handhelds and phones. It was part of the larger effort to get a large software base for their CE platform when palm was the leader. It's so bug ridden they should release that to open source.
Then there was that browser they gave away for free, and Services For UNIX, event Dakimakura pillows in Japan.
Still it makes me wonder how for off this prediction is that says Microsoft will produce software for Linux in 2004. It's always fun to go back and see what people thought was going to happen.
By releasing something under a true open source license, and calling it "Shared Source", they help to confuse the uninformed about exactly what Shared Source really is.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
plan a) 1000s of eyes are going to find bugs for MS so their installer can be improved. good
business.
plan b) 1000s of eyes don't trust their purity if they look at the code, bugs don't get fixed in the installer, opensource proven again to be bad, ms still better(tm). good business.
and the other side of the coin, now it will be easier to create software that will install on ms, so why bother learning the complex and difficult rpm or deb formats, ms install is right there, complete with 10 different free guis to setup.
ms gets more software to install on it. good business.
bonus round: perhaps someone will port port, apt-get or yum features to MSInstaller, dll hell either gets fixed or goes away.
personnally i'm failing to see where this is a 'bad idea'(tm) for ms
If you could take the windows installer files I (assume) this creates and actually know the format and how it works, you could port the shells of it over to linux and use it to intercept installations, wine's windows installer then taking the tasks of putting short cuts in the right place etc?
I am NaN
Instead of actually discussing what the source code is or the technology behind it...the rest of the Slashdot discussion here will be about Microsoft's "motivations" for releasing it and what their plans "really" are.
Has anyone here who's posting actually downloaded it and tried it yet?
I wonder if there is some kind of perverted M$ witchcraft to this:
Linux can potentially look bad because if the source code used by Linux is partly from SCO, then the handing over of this source code is far from transparent.
Microsoft can appear to be far more transparent in the way they divulge "source code"..seeming almost honerable.
Maybe I'm just being cynical again
Windows was forged in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be unmade.
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?
Can't you guys just once take something at face value instead of trying to find ulterior motives for everything? If it's damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't then why even bother?
Not true.
From the CPL version 1.0:
The CPL is a 'copyleft' license, just like the GPL. The main point of difference is that the CPL has a software-patent protection clause, which the GPL does not.
(However, Eben Moglen has indicated that this may be included in the next version of the GPL, which would make it compatible)
Don't most licenses read that the original contributor can't be sued? In other words say you use open source project X and include it in your software. Whoever came up with the original project X is free from any liability.
At least, this is what I've seen with serveral Java related technologies that I've built into commercial products. Of course, any good license agreement to an end user disclaims responsibility anyway... something you have to do or you'd have every nut out there suing you for millions because your product "somehow messed up" (the no correlation effect) their PC so they couldn't get their email, and in their inbox was some Nigerian scam that was a certain million in the hand, if your product hand't messed up their PC.
Words that come to mind:
*Trojan Horse - in its original sense
*Strategic Move
*Distraction Tactics to assuage the roars that are sure to ensue after the release of the first Phoenix TCPA bioses.
*Some Microsoft developers appreciate the power of collaboration?
*Vitiate what people understand free software to be by mudding the waters even more. At the next Linux conference, Microsoft will proudly display that they too are contributing to open source. I can just see it now: "We use open source where it makes sense and make use of proprietary best practices to lead the world to a new paradigm of openness, yet realiably supported for the one and only company that you should trust". In other words, newspeak.
I wish to be proven wrong. If a Microsoft employee reads this. Prove us wrong and we'll welcome you. Compete on the strengths of office by providing a documented, free and open XML schema for Office. Make it easy to import openoffice documents by MS Office. While you are a it, open Source CIFS under an OSI approved license.
Then, I might begin believing.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
Personally I want Free software to be easily installable on Windows. More to the point, I have a proprieatry program that I want to be able to install on Windows and I don't like our current solution for this. The company that produces our current installer has been worthless at providing support and fixes.
Having a Free installer will let us scratch whatever Windows installation itches we may have.
People (especially around here) only think of MS as this evil empire that does nothing except try to illegally crush thier competitors and rob old ladies. They certainly do plenty of those things, but they're still a smart, large software company. They got where they are by encouraging people to write software for Windows and then taking care of the people that do.
-B
Perhaps because Linux is not an OS? For example, let's say that MS decided to release NT Kernel to the public and RMS decided to make a GNU/NT OS out of it. Chances are that the normal Windows installer won't work on GNU/NT. However, Mozilla, OpenOffice, and nVidia driver installers seem to work well on several different distros and kernels without having to download different versions.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Comparing the two companies is like comparing apples to... rocks. AT&T had the monopoly of providing a service into people's homes and businesses. They owned the wire that got themselves into the buildings and it was impossible for a competitor to build a competing network. Also, owning both ends of every communications channel meant it was easy to artificially keep prices high for both sides and not allow connections to any other provider.
Microsoft also has a monopoly, only on the desktop. But they can be replaced by a competitor. They have a lot of leverage but do not own the end-to-end of every computer network. Breaking the company up to make competition out of itself would not be equivalent at all to letting each baby Bell control different area codes. Among other things one of the baby Microsofts could rise to monopoly status again.
Developers: We can use your help.
Package management systems are the primary way in which Linux distributions differentiate from each other.
This was a carefully chosen point in the application space for Microsoft.
If MS can get this accepted as a standard then they stand to exert some control over Free software distribution.
Are DRM capabilities a part of this? Will they be added?
If commercial software shops start porting their software to Linux/BSD and distributing it with this then it may be difficult to say no to the new format. This package management might well be attractive to commercial shops because of the licensing and MS backing.
OSS does not mean there's no Copyright on the code!
The developers do not lose their Copyrights by releasing their code under an Open Source license.
You are granted all the rights that are stated in the license. If the developers gave up their Copyright, you could do anything you want with that software.
-------------------
There is always some jackass that mods everything -1 overrated. Nearly every post these days. It can be a 100% valid point on-topic and as original as they come, but Mr. Overrated is always sitting there waiting for them. He's a hawkish bastard.
So, some proprietary code was open-sourced. Great, let's rejoice a bit and then, quick, let's resume our everyday life :
You are losing your time speculating/bashing/praising this move from microsoft....
If you really want to do something to really help OSS,
stop talking and write some code !
Microsoft as a company hasn't straight-up said OSS is the work of the devil. They're exploring an avenue of socialist software development. I think everyone here should respect this initial dabbling, and promote it. If they continue this trend, it's good for everyone.
I used to be an absolutely staunch Microsoft and Windows supporter in the days when they promoted their O/S as an enabling platform that allowed many competing products to co-exist and compete for a user share e.g.
MS Office vs Corel Office vs Lotus Office etc
Internet Explorer vs Netscape vs Mosiac (oops IE again!)
and many other competing products.
Were the other applications much worse than MS's software - yes in some cases - but in other cases they were better. The reason that the other suites vanished is because MS used their position as vendors of the operating system to an unfair advantage to bundle MS applications at rates that were unsustainable for 3rd party vendors then having wiped out most of the competition they hiked the prices up again!
Look at a typical PC today. Apart from (say) a virus scanner and DVD/CD burning software the vast majority of the software will be MS owned and controlled. So having created a true monopoly, MS hikes up prices, adds 'features' like DRM that many users do not want then and add hardware keyed software protection measures to protect this monopoly.
Cobblers to this - I want a choice!
Don't get me wrong, I have spent most of my current IT career using MS O/S's but I am getting to the stage where I cannot justify using Windows for my own use and promoting this monopoly. My home PCs all have Windows/Linux dual boot on them and I will be moving over to pure Linux on 2/3 of the machines in the near future.
The only reason for one PC remaining on Windows is that my 4 year old daughter's favourite software (PC play and Learn - which is Macromedia Authorware based) will not run on Linux except by using a Crossover Office plugin and even then not in an acceptable fashion. Please, please Macromedia port the authorware runtime to Linux!
Bottom line - MS *IS* holding a gun to your head. What they want you to believe is "Pay our inflated monopolistic prices or stop using your PC!" (and most of Joe Public out there genuinely believe that).
I can understand MS copy protecting their applications such as Office, Developer Studio etc since there are suitable alternatives but not the operating system (if you want to use Windows software). This is especially nauseating when they drop support for earlier O/S versions after a fairly short while...
Is their open source offering a good thing? Absolutely.
Has the Leopard changed its spots? Of course not.
This hasn't cost MS a bean in real terms and has gained them some qudos by contributing to an open source project. They are, of course, the same greedy monopolistic empire that they always have been (IMHO of course!)
For goodness sake lets promote Linux usage as much as we can (in schools and workplaces) and perhaps we might be back to the position in which Joe Public has a real choice sometime soon.
Sorry about the rant but I think it is important.
So if Opera doesn't want to keep supplying 12 versions, they just have to open their source and supply a tar.gz, which EVERYONE can install. At that point, it's also trivial for disto maintainers to package it up as a binary so that their users can install it with $PACKAGE_MANAGER.
Anyway, the installers are more-or-less standard for a lot of things. Just swap one word. EG, to install gaim:
Gentoo - emerge gaim
Mandrake - urpmi gaim
Debian - apt-get install gaim
(and many other examples, I know.)
I mean, it's really difficult for it to get any simpler.
Why do people get surprised when corporations behave according to the profit motive?
If we want to see more Open Source behavior out of Microsoft, then we need to find ways to motivate them.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
You have to understand they are trying to change. This small task is just the beginning of a list of things they'd do before you'd reaccept them. If you can't make a list of things they can do to redeem themselves you hate them too much.
Is this how they are going to start doing their public betas?
Have any of you actually gone to browse the CVS tree and judge WiX on it's own Merits?
:D
As a developer who uses several different languages and platforms, and occationally uses C#, I'm happy to see this come to pass. Creating installation packages for windows has always sucked. Nullsoft's NSIS has helped alot, but using the tool that Microsoft uses internally means the playing field is level.
Now if they would opensource their forked copy of Perforce
Microsoft may very well be destined to follow IBM's path. After all, much of Microsoft's most despised business tactics are simply refined IBM techniques.
IBM lost control of the IT market when hardware began to shift towards decentralized microcomputers (not that the heavier iron part of IT is entirely gone). It shifted further when IBM lost control of the platform they designed to grab this new market (one they had previously dismissed). IBM's final mistake was to trying to confront this comoditized hardware market and seize direct control of it.
Microsoft profited from the rise of commodity hardware (no wonder why Bill says hardware will be essentially free). They know how powerfull such a shift is. And they have recently seen such a shift begin. It is very clear to them as to what is at stake if the OS becomes a commodity. So they are confronting whatever forces they see as driving the move towards a commodity OS.
Yet they may end up losing that battle, just as IBM lost. As such they will become a major influence in IT, but no longer THE driver of the industry.
I don't really think that they are trying to be the "good guy" or trying to embrace the open-source movement -- they just know that hardly no one that is a big Linux developer visits the Microsoft website often, and well, has anything to do with it in general. What better way to get the word out fast than to give it to an open-source website? Besides, it'll look good to the EU on how fast it is spreading. I'm sure they would be pretty angry if Microsoft released some source code to the world that never spread.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Face it, microsoft employees are part of the open source generation just like everyone else. Many of the people I know that took offers at Microsoft actually use Linux.
As much as some people want to paint the picture of Microsoft as symbolic of whatever, the people that work there are just like everyone else and they're moving up the ranks as we speak.