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.

24 of 686 comments (clear)

  1. Is my calendar wrong?! by Da+Fokka · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought April 1st was 4 days ago?!

    1. Re:Is my calendar wrong?! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, given Microsoft's history on releases, it's right on time for April Fools according to MS timetables.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  2. Uhm by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone send Lucifer some mittens and one of those funky Russian hats... Must be mighty cold down there right now...

  3. How about neither? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Microsoft is just being a normal monopolistic corporation. It's throwing bones to the dog here.

    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).

  4. embracing open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They just want all the programmers that use source forge to be able to use their installer and write windows programs. It's a smart move, and it's only an *installer*, no big deal...

    1. Re:embracing open source? by zegebbers · · Score: 5, Interesting
      They just want all the programmers that use source forge to be able to use their installer and write windows programs. It's a smart move, and it's only an *installer*, no big deal...

      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....

    2. Re:embracing open source? by 74nova · · Score: 5, Interesting

      no doubt. look at the downloads page for opera on linux. look at how many different packaging types they have to produce to make it easy to get on your linux machine. thats 12 download options for the "same" OS (note quotation marks mods/flamers, i realize they are not all the same). seems like there coudl be something, or someway to standardize...

      --
      use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
    3. 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.

  5. Cue tinfoil hat ravings by gaj · · Score: 5, Funny
    Cool. This looks like code I may find usefull. And it's Free. Works for me.

    OTOH, I expect several hundred postings, all the rough equivalent of:

    "Hey! They can't do that! We're the cool Free Software kids, and they're the Propriatary Software lamers. No fair!"
  6. Big deal for SourceForge by glenrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This seems like a bigger deal for SourceForge than Microsoft, does the Forge become a default meeting place for all developers?

  7. Microsoft becoming like AT&T of old? by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.
  8. ...or maybe they're being practical... by Mjlner · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Maybe they're not even trying to look altruistic. The license is more of a BSD-one, and Microsoft
    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???
  9. Re:This is /.! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    There would be and it would be justified. Why you ask? The hatred of Microsoft (at least in my case) doesn't stem from the fact that they use closed source software. As much as I like open source software I do recognize the fact that companies exist to make money -- and they believe (whether this is correct or not remains to be seen) that they will make more money with closed source software. I don't have a problem with that.

    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. Microsoft can't stand the idea that they might actually have to compete on merit -- so they use their monopoly.

    I can't really call them evil because I'd probably be doing the same thing if I was in their shoes. I will call my Government evil for allowing them to get away with it however. WTF is the point of anti-trust laws and the Sherman act if it isn't enforced?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  10. Not Funny by Peter+Lustig · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should change that name especially for Germany. Because in German "Wix" sounds like "Wichsen" which means to jerk off. So noone will take this serious.

  11. Re:Background Details of WiX by spacefight · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about adding some more Links to the project page?

  12. Confuse "Shared Source" vs. "Open Source" by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:And now for something completely different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  14. Yet another anaology by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Bill Gates (Turning to Face Linus): Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.

    Bill Gates: Your friends up there at the sanctuary website [indicates sourceforge] are falling into a trap.

    Linus reacts. Bill Gates notes it

    Bill Gates: As is your open source community

    Bill Gates: It was I who allowed the Open Source Community to know the source code of Windows Installer XML (WiX) developer tool. It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. An entire legion of my best Coders awaits them.

    Linus' look darts from Bill Gates to Steve Ballmer and, finally, to the Tablet PC in Bill Gates hand.

    Bill Gates: Oh...I'm afraid the Trusted Computing Architecture will be quite operational when your friends arrive.

    To be continued

  15. Re:Obligatory "not GPL" rant by k98sven · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This license reads more like the BSD license, with all its "the code is out for everybody to grab and hide" kefussles.

    Not true.
    From the CPL version 1.0:

    A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that:

    [..]
    iv) states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.


    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)
  16. Re:Question by div_2n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Easy:

    1) The KDE team Produces a desktop environment overlayed on an existing operating system, not an entire turnkey solution as MS does.

    2) You can pick and choose which components of KDE you want to use. It is my understanding that you don't even have to have Konquerer installed to use KDE, but I could be wrong.

    3) KDE is free and open. You are in charge when using KDE and not the other way around.

    4) The KDE team has never (to my knowledge) been responsible for signing OEM deals where the vendor is restricted from installing other software from competitors as MS has been.

    Next!

  17. Has no one bothered to read the developers blog? by gpuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All this conspiracy, "black-helicopter" rubbish being posted suggests no one has even read the lead developers blog. I quote:

    "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."

  18. 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.

  19. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Ballmer: Linus... I am your father..

    Linus: NOOOOOooOOOOoooOOOoooOOOooOOooooo........

  20. 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.