Microsoft Releases WTL To SourceForge

prostoalex writes "Microsoft's WTL (Windows Template Library) toolkit source code has been released to SourceForge.net [also part of OSDN, like Slashdot.] InternetNews explains that the toolkit allows a Windows developer to create quick GUIs in C++. According to the project page, WTL extends ATL (Active Template Library) and provides a set of classes for controls, dialogs, frame windows, GDI objects, and more. WTL is licensed under CPL, which is the license Microsoft chose for the SourceForge release of the WiX installer."

Comments

Interesting Observation

[RucasRiot]

Microsoft denounces OS yet they contribute... Odd.

Re:Interesting Observation

[LostCluster]

Microsoft denounces OS yet they contribute... Odd.

If they can't kill it, then they have to resort to "embrace and extend"...

Re:Interesting Observation

[LBArrettAnderson]

they may have opened the source, but it is not anywhere near what you OSS developers like.

they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people; (although they may take suggestions, i'm sure).

the purpose of this is not to make their product better by allowing the community to help, but rather to allow people to customize their own toolkits or to at least better understand what they're using.

Re:Interesting Observation

[0x0d0a]

The "OSS is an insecure virus" campaign business ended when Microsoft discovered that it didn't resonate well with their customers.

I'm just curious as to what will happen if Microsoft finds someone inserting code from their non-GPL-compatible release into a GPLed piece of software. Will they give people the same courtesy that the GNU Project does -- remove it or open source it -- or will they try to sue and shut down the GPL-using author?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

the purpose of this is not to make their product better by allowing the community to help, but rather to allow people to customize their own toolkits or to at least better understand what they're using.

That's a big deal in itself. Just knowing what goes on behind the scenes and having the ability to modify it for your own needs is one of the huge benefits of open source, regardless of whether the owners incorporate changes from the community.

Besides, you could always release your own version. (Ahem, "embrace and extend.") :)

Re:Interesting Observation

[dasmegabyte]

Microsoft denounces Linux, which is a competing operating system. They don't necessarily denounce open source software in general (at least, not that I've heard of.) That would be sort of foolish...I mean, you have to denounce a rival's products, that's obvious. But to denounce the way he makes them when other world class software vendors are considering them would be shooting yourself in the foot.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Gilk180]

I'm not familiar with the CPL, but I would be suprised if it allowed for this.

Anyone know?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Frizzle Fry]

Would you care to cite an actual example of them "denouncing OS" in a way that contradicts what they're doing here? I haven't seen any.

Re:Interesting Observation

[argent]

"they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people"

If they don't accept source from other people, then one of two things will happen: either people will quit contributing, and SF will just become another Microsoft download site for this code; or if people find it important enough they will fork it.

Re:Interesting Observation

[j-pimp]

Besides, you could always release your own version. (Ahem, "embrace and extend.") :)
Or to draw and analogy:

fork():EmbraceAndExtend()::malloc()::GlobalAlloc() . In other words same shit just feels dirty because its of Redmond.

Re:Interesting Observation

[newhoggy]

Open source is one of the more responsible ways of "end of lifing" a product.

Re:Interesting Observation

[JonnyQabbala]

they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people

What FUD!

This is from Rob Menschings own blog

Anyway, now that WTL has been released under an Open Source license the community that has built up around the code will finally be able to contribute back (should they desire).

Sounds like he is quite open to me.

Re:Interesting Observation

[sirhan]

I don't think the point here is to actively improve the software, as much as it is to increase their user base.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

You can already modify & distribute MS example code for your own use, so the CPL doesn't really give you anything here.

If anything, the biggest upside is just the Sourceforge project UI & maillist (oh no, coward shilling for VA Linux)

Re:Interesting Observation

[sumdumass]

I read a while back were microsoft was going to try some initiatives to try and ride the open source enertia to better promote thier offerings. I guess it was about how they were tryign to grasp the draw to open source comunities and the tight nit efectivness of them.

If allowing people to customize thier own tools kits and having a better understanding of what they are using is the extent they are willing to participate in, then I feel they would loose out on some of the spirit of it. On the other hand, I think they might use some contributed work in an effort to better understand the open source comunity.

Either way it is going to be interesting to see were this leads us. It really would be strange if microsoft itself was able to prove the open source movment isn't the "root of all evil" after all (as reported earlier today).

Re:Interesting Observation

[leshert]

Yes, it does. Unlike Sun, Microsoft chose an existing OSDN-approved license.

It's the same license, for example, that Eclipse uses.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Joe U]

WTL never really had a product life. Most people who use WTL know that MS never really wanted to promote it.

Re:Interesting Observation

[zurab]

Why can't you read yourself?

Some relevant parts:

When the Program is made available in source code form:

a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of the Program.

Contributors may not remove or alter any copyright notices contained within the Program.

Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution, if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution.

The license expressly grants any patent licenses as well. It also allows for closed source binary-only distribution.

Re:Interesting Observation

[raehl]

Microsoft denounces OS

I believe Microsoft is actually very pro-operating system.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Cereal Box]

Nah, I doubt they'll really take contributions back in, at least, I doubt they will if they still plan to ship the WTL code with their products. This is not because of evil practices, but simply the reality that they have to be responsible for every piece of code they ship. I mean, can you imagine the following scenario at a status meeting?

Manager: "So who has code ownership of this WTL source?"

Lead: "The WTL team, and somebody from sf.net named 'superhacker69' contributed significant amounts of code, which we plan to ship with the next version of Windows."

Manager: "Will this 'superhacker69' be held responsible for maintaining his part of the source?"

Lead: "Well obviously we can't make him maintain his code, since he's not a Microsoft employee..."

Manager (Donald Trump impersonation): "You're fired!"

Re:Interesting Observation

[lkaos]

they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people; (although they may take suggestions, i'm sure).

That doesn't matter. It's out there now. You are free to take it, re-release it as OpenWTL, and make all the changes you want. This is the beauty of Open Source. The community now has equal say in the future of this code as Microsoft does.

If they never touched this project again, that would be fine. All they're obligated to do is release the code once. As long as they keep releasing their changes, they are doing well.

Open Source works because people contribute what they want/need. That's all Microsoft has to do to be a good member of the community (yes, Microsoft *can* become a good member of the community).

In fact, I'll go as far as this, Microsoft has submitted to codebases to the community now. How many people can stand up here and claim to have submitted more than Microsoft has? In many ways, Microsoft is a better member of the community than a lot of people reading this right now.

Kind of crazy eh?

Re:Interesting Observation

[dbIII]

what will happen if Microsoft finds someone inserting code

I thought the whole SCO thing would end speculation on this. That would be like stealing your neighbours car, parking it on the footpath outside your house, putting a big FOR SALE sticker on it and taking out a dozen newspaper ads. The stuff is open, readable by anyone and subject to peer review in that way - copying someone elses code is stupid in that case and acheives very little for the person that does it.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Frizzle Fry]

The "OSS is an insecure virus" campaign

Did they really claim this? I'm too lazy to dig up old articles, but I thought the objection was to the GPL in particular. And for projects like this, they are specifically avoiding the GPL, which is consistent with their earlier claims.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

they may not denounce open source in general, but they sure don't like the GPL.

bill gates has made comparisons of GPL software to viruses, cancer, and pac-man.

Re:Interesting Observation

[thedarkstorm]

Not to split hairs here. but Wrong :) Linux is a kernel, a distribution is an operating system :)

Re:Interesting Observation

[rjamestaylor]

An open source toolkit to make software for a closed source product to compliment the open sourced installer of programs for their closed source platform. ...Hmmm....

(((***imagining***)) Welcome to Hell. Here's your Complimentary Sorbet! MMmmmMMM. That's just takes the edge off, doesn't it? Oh, I almost forgot! Please enjoy this refreshing Wintermint gum at your leisure! Now, please step towards the Isle of Sadistic Torment...yes, follow the guard with the camera, thank you. (((***/imaging***)))

....Yeah....better than it was but still not as good as that other vacation spot.

Re:Interesting Observation

[JPriest]

I am sick of listening to people complain about everything MS does.

Re:Interesting Observation

[spitzak]

If you don't think Microsoft is attacking open source you have been living in a cave.

I don't remember one recent pronoucement from Microsoft where they attack the quality of Linux without making sure they indicate that all the problems with Linux are due to the anarchist/communist/terrorists methods used to make it.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Dalcius]

But this will not "kill" OSS. Best case scenario for Microsoft:

1) Develop a Windows OSS community to rival Linux/BSD/etc.
2) Create/Improve OSS Windows applications.
3) Gain marketshare for OSS Windows applications.
4) Due to sneaky license clause, begin reeling in user's rights to your OSS software (this is where the definition of OSS becomes tricky).

The problem here is that this is extending open source applications. All those people who switched to Linux for more control and cool apps? They just might switch to Windows if the new software is good (extended) enough. Microsoft can kill OSS applications.

But killing OSS itself is another thing entirely. If you wrap up what was once OSS code (step #4), people will once again leave you and the code may possibly fork. OSS still lives. If Microsoft doesn't go through with step #4, then the software is still OSS and OSS still lives.

The OSS community today is getting along fine without any support from Microsoft and little support from other hardware/software vendors. Microsoft cannot kill OSS as a concept and it likely cannot pull enough developers away from Linux/BSD/etc. OSS unless Windows truely becomes a good operating system.

Do I think this will happen? Not a snowball's chance in hell. But they'll try -- and fail because they do not understand how deeply the motivations for OSS go, at least I don't think so.

Cheers

Re:Interesting Observation

[timecop]

WTL "source" has always been "open", in a sense that WTL is a C++ template library with all the code in the header files, which were the source bits you would get if you download WTL71.exe directly from microsoft.com.

The changes to WTL 7.5 hosted on sourceforge is inclusion of the source code for the WTL appwizard and some samples (which were available elsewhere before).

Re:Interesting Observation

[rspress]

Wow, an open source program to create windows programs. So, this goes into the "why should I care" file.

If they wanted to do a good deed to the computer world in general then they should get rid of visual basic. This one Microsoft program is responsible for most of the crappiest and ugliest programs ever made.

If they really want to impress me, include development tools for free that are on par with Apples Xcode tools.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

As Canada's former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau once said while explaining his becoming the leader of the Liberal party, "If you can't beat 'em, join em!"

Re:Interesting Observation

[Dalcius]

I agree.

But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface and being strongarmed into this and that, and let down by focus on money and not product, we have a very strong right to be skeptical about anything that Microsoft does.

To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts. Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.

A little too much MS bashing? Sure. A lot of misfounded MS bashing? Yup. A little too serious of an attitude towards MS? Oh yeah. But with that said, MS deserves a lot of skepticism and concern and if you want to avoid skepticism and concern (which isn't what you said, don't mean to put words in your mouth) I humbly suggest that you avoid websites filled with people who ran screaming from the Microsoft house.

Cheers :)

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, is this library pure managed C++ code, or is it just for Win32?

So they CPL'd it, but it doesn't matter much if the code cannot be made to work in the .Net Framework, especially after Longhorn is released (but what are the odds that it has a "Win32" compatibility library or something like that, to let Win32-based code run on it in a sandbox or something like that?)

Re:Interesting Observation

[Coniptor]

So stop listening. =)

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

ARR!!!! RACIST MOD!!! this is informative!!! ;(

Re:Interesting Observation

[Ryosen]

I wouldn't be so gung-ho for Microsoft to jump into the OSS foray.

An alternate scenario:

1) Slowly, start testing the waters of the OSS community by offering up small, insignificant components.
2) Build support and confidence within the OSS community
3) Maintain your market share and increase your ability to push against your rivals (notably *nix/BSD)

They don't need to embrace and extend. They don't need to play games with licensing. They simply have to maintain market dominance on their three main products: Windows desktop, Windows server, and Office.

And please, let us not forget that there is a *huge* amount of OSS developers who are Windows-centric. They would absolutely love to be able to get their hands into MS's pie and contribute to the Windows component base.

The best thing that MS could do, from a competitive viewpoint, would be to GPL a bunch of their products. They would increase their workforce by such an order of magnitude (and for little to no cost) so as to make *nix's head spin.

Re:Interesting Observation

[wass]

They don't necessarily denounce open source software in general (at least, not that I've heard of.)

Yeah, they embrace OSS when it suits them. For example, back in 1998 I used Windows NT 4.0 at work. I had the NT Resource Kit, which came with PERL and some other open-source stuff licensed under GPL (PERL is dual-licensed, IIRC).

Anyway, the Resource Kit's book had the GPL printed in the back. It was VERY amusing to see the preamble of the GPL, which basically denounces predatory closed-source software, in a book by the Microsoft Press.

That's also when I was getting started in Linux, so I found it especially amusing.

Re:Interesting Observation

[dasmegabyte]

That is the best rebuttal I have ever seen. Would you like to head my new Slashdot forensics team?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Dalcius]

I'm in complete agreement with what you said. I was merely attempting to point out that Microsoft cannot kill "OSS" as a concept, technique, philosophy, whathaveyou.

What you're describing falls into the "Microsoft creates a good operating system" alternative. I honestly think it could and probably will happen once Linux eats up a little more marketshare. Microsoft is known for adapting, albeit often late, to stay alive and I think OSS will eventually become at least some part of Microsoft's daily life.

It will take time before they grow up, but it will eventually happen or the monopoly will fall. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme (Mark Twain?).

Cheers

Re:Interesting Observation

[CaptainFrito]

Well, for me, I'm sick of dumbing down my own products because of the predominance of their flawed systems. Yeah, okay, we've all heard it before. So what. We hear of murder and robbery and rape everyday too. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be spoken of each time.

Microsoft gets what it deserves. They are sneaky and underhanded.There is nothing about there actions that should be seen as anything but a cleverly veiled continuation of their need to dominate the world. Is that extreme? Probably -- maybe -- but the true danger is underestimating people like this. And if you don't think that people with the kind of money that these people have -- personally and corporately -- does not influence everything you do, then you have not yet reached adulthood.

Who knows why they are making this particular move. Maybe OSS coders are the only ones cheaper than subcontinent Asians. Maybe they don't want to have to buy out the next GUI design company. One thing's for sure though: This latest move is but another tactic in a blizzard of tactics supporting a neverchanging strategy. It's pure sleight of hand. It never pays to underestimate your foe. And it never hurts to overestimate them.

Momma always said, "never trust anyone that says 'Trust me.'"

Re:Interesting Observation

[Merkins]

Noticed any of the ads on sourceforge yet ?

That's right, Microsoft fund it! Oh, and Slashdot too

Re:Interesting Observation

[SillyNickName4me]

I see 2 possible solutions..

1 become deaf
2 fix Microsoft

failing both means you'll have to hear it.

Re:Interesting Observation

[JPriest]

There is the "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" and the "Microsoft charity licence" but exactly what kind act would you like to see from MS?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Quattro Vezina]

If they can't kill it, then they have to resort to "embrace and extend"...

If that's MS's goal, it will backfire on them so hard. MS thinks they're the ones who ``embrace and extend''? HA! OSS has been doing this for years, far more efficiently than MS has.

If MS tries to ``embrace and extend'' OSS, then OSS will end up embracing and extending MS. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

It also sounds like a really bad /. joke, but let's not go there.

Re:Interesting Observation

[killjoe]

Then why are you here?

May I suggest you hang out at gotdotnet.com They love MS over there and they hate linux. You will get a chance to hang out with people like you.

Re:Interesting Observation

[killjoe]

"In fact, I'll go as far as this, Microsoft has submitted to codebases to the community now. How many people can stand up here and claim to have submitted more than Microsoft has? In many ways, Microsoft is a better member of the community than a lot of people reading this right now."

There are more ways to contribute then just code. Many people here have worked with developers to solve tricky bugs, written documentation, hung out at listserves and answered questions and yes acted as evangelists for their own pet project.

I tell you one thing though. Except for the MS astro turfers most people here never claimed open source was un american or a cancer or communist. How you can claim that MS loves open source and this community is beyond me. Just listen to their leaders for gods sake.

Re:Interesting Observation

[killjoe]

No they denounce the GPL. They are all for open source if they can use the code themselves.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Chester K]

they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people

They have for their other project on SourceForge -- I don't see why you think this one would be any different.

Re:Interesting Observation

[zerocool^]

To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts. Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.

I can think of two things:

1.) Supporting a $100 O.S. for 6 years with official updates and patches. Quite a deal, one that you certainly won't see from redhat.

2.) Allowing pirated copies of windows XP to install service pack 2. A clip from the article: "Microsoft group product manager Barry Goffe told ComputerTimes that [...] it was more important to keep user safe than to be 'concerned about the revenue issue.'"

~Will

Re:Interesting Observation

[arkanes]

As well as the (more important) legal and social opening of the code, which enables you to fork, fix, etc. The source was available for viewing, but you couldn't (legally) modify it and ship an app using your modified version, for example.

Re:Interesting Observation

[grepistan]

Are you sure you're in the right place then?

Re:Interesting Observation

[solid_liq]

I can't believe no one seems to know that the source code has been available for this for four years or more. I downloaded the source code for this off of msdn.microsoft.com in early 2000, because I needed to evaluate the possibility of using it for a project I was working on. It was supposed to be lightweight, fast, and easy to use. These claims are what lead me to evaluate it, as the application required high performance (video software). This is nothing new, MS just seems to be trying to make it appear that they are contributing when they really aren't.

Did anyone check out the first "open source" project they put up? It's a joke. There's nothing to it. I could write that code in my sleep. Well, seriously, I'm pretty sure any coder worth their salt could write that code in a couple weeks time.

My take is that this is just another ploy by the microsoft marketing regime, nothing more.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what a coincidence! I am utterly sick and tired of astroturfing Microsoft whores on this site.

Re:Interesting Observation

[grepistan]

Maybe it wasn't a rebuttal but in fact some sort of proposition? You never know!

Re:Interesting Observation

[JohnFluxx]

"MS thinks they're the ones who ``embrace and extend''? HA! OSS has been doing this for years, far more efficiently than MS has."

Hmm. The term "embrace and extend" generally refers to the practice of taking on standard, and extending it to break it. For example the various extensions to html, kerbaros, javascript, java, etc etc.

It is much harder to accuse open source of the same thing.

Re:Interesting Observation

[justin_speers]

I can't let this post slide, insightful???

But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface and being strongarmed into this and that, and let down by focus on money and not product, we have a very strong right to be skeptical about anything that Microsoft does.

Common misconception amongst everyone in the open source movement, or just anti-MS zealots in general. If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible. That is focusing on the product. While it may not be technically superior or as stable as other OS's (Linux, Mac OS X, name it), it still does what most people want while the other operating systems don't. That is why those OS's don't have the market share. While I think Linux's technical superiority will allow it to catch up, to say Microsoft is blatantly trying to create a crappy product in order to make more money is, at best, bizarre logic.

To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts.

What exactly are you talking about? Are they supposed to buy everyone a teddy bear?

Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want. Isn't that kind enough? They're a business, what else are they supposed to do? If they weren't providing a benefit of some kind to people, they would not make money, and therefore would not exist.

Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.

And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.

A little too much MS bashing? Sure. A lot of misfounded MS bashing? Yup.

Couldn't agree more.

Only on /. can Microsoft contribute a product to sourceforge and be bashed for it. As long as Bill Gates isn't using all of his money to buy all the slashdot virgins blowjobs from Carmen Electra, they can't do anything right.

Re:Interesting Observation

[complete loony]

Yeah? Well I am sick of listening to people complain about listening to people complain about everything MS does.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

w00t! All this does is give an easier 'upgrade' path to linux. Just implement WTL using gnome/kde paradigms. Then windows developers can just recompile. It'll work as a glue layer.

Cygwin? WTF posix on windows?!?
Wine? WTF windows kernel is a linux proc?!?
CoLinux? WTF linux kernel is a win32 proc?!?
KDE/Cygwin? WTF uh ?!??!
Mono .NET for linux wtf?!?

Yeah it's all melting together...

Re:Interesting Observation

[Roark Meets Dent]

I call bullshit on #2. They pretend they are concerned about protecting the users, but the fact of the matter is there are a LOT of CRITICAL security updates now needed just to get a virgin XP install to be able to be on the net safely. An unpatched system is a threat to the general public, and MS rightly realizes they have an obligation to correct these weaknesses in their own software to procet the public, regardless of whether an individual OS installation is licensed or not. If they withheld the patches they would very likely be exposing themselves to serious liability issues.

Re:Interesting Observation

[fucksl4shd0t]

I tell you one thing though. Except for the MS astro turfers most people here never claimed open source was un american or a cancer or communist. How you can claim that MS loves open source and this community is beyond me. Just listen to their leaders for gods sake.

There are several possibilities that Microsoft may be pursuing.

1. They have finally recognized that open-source is the 'wave of the future', and that we have already reached critical mass. As such, we are the next dominant distribution method of software, and we will spread to other areas. Basic corporate mission: survive and profit. If Microsoft intends to survive and profit, they must join us. So it's an application of a much older adage, 'If you can\'t beat \'em, join \'em'.
2. They realize that there are many in the open source community that support them, and/or are hanging on the fence. If they lose them, then Microsoft could be in a bit of a spot, because those are valuable developers.
3. An extension of the last one: An attempt to divide the community. Many in the community (I, for one) will welcome their overtures into the community. Many more will fight over what it all means. In the process, Microsoft could do some damage to the community itself with this tactic. United we stand, divided we roll slowly down the hill, or something like that.

There are other possibilities I haven't enumerated because I'm too lazy, and others still that I haven't thought of.

The bottom line is, we should accept them into the community, insofar as they participate, and only that far. As they participate more, they gain more acceptance, and so forth. We should encourage them to keep up the good work and give up more code. Maybe by doing so, we'll eventually get all of Windows under IBM's CPL, eh? We have nothing to lose by treating them right, insofar as they are participating and following the rules. We have much to lose by fighting them over it and excluding them from our l33t c0mmun1ty.

If we fight them, then we give them another weapon to use against us, while accepting them actually takes weapons away from them, without arming ourselves anymore than we're already armed. From any viewpoint I try to look at this, there's only one course of action that is clear, and it's that we should be supportive of their movements into open source, and the fact that they have chosen a real OSI-certified license. GPL would be nice, don't get me wrong. But CPL is good enough for us to accept IBM, right? (yes yes, I realize IBM also has a great deal of GPL code out there, and if Microsoft is serious in participating, then they too will have a lot of GPL code out there eventually)

Re:Interesting Observation

[cablepokerface]

To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts. Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.

You mean like, i.e. contributing 25 billion to charity and health care?

Re:Interesting Observation

[MrIrwin]

When you earn yourself a bad reputation it takes a long time to rid yourself of it.

It took IBM around 10 years. MS earned thier reputation in the past and some would argue are still earning it today (they still finance much FUD). Allthougth in some ways they appear to be making some good moves in the right direction it is a fact of life that it will be uphill.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Xenographic]

Only on /. can Microsoft contribute a product to sourceforge and be bashed for it.
----

Nah, I'll give them credit for doing something good here. However, I'll keep my eyes peeled for an ulterior motive. Why? I still don't trust, and for good reason. That's not to say they can't turn around--just look at IBM compared to before.

But trust is earned, so a little bit of code on sourceforge isn't a lot to counterbalance the continuing FUD, but if they change their tune and start making a pattern of this, I may reconsider.

Re:Interesting Observation

[_Sprocket_]

1.) Supporting a $100 O.S. for 6 years with official updates and patches. Quite a deal, one that you certainly won't see from redhat.

So what you're saying is they're offering fixes for a broken product over a 6 year period of time? Wonderfull. I've got a Honda CRX that had a defective seatbelt fastner in it. 8 years after the model date for that vehicle, Honda paid to have the faulty fastners replaced.

If you want a more self-serving reason, keep in mind that maintaining Windows users maintains Microsoft's influence. If users were forced to upgrade or migrate, there is an increased chance people will have to take the migrate option. And thus, Microsoft's mindshare decreases. Mindshare is the real coin of the realm.

The RedHat dig has a valid point. I'm not a fan of the fumbling RedHat has done reacently. And they certainly deserve criticism over some of those actions. However, your point is misleading. I can take any previous RedHat install and upgrade it to the lastest software available from RedHat at no additional fee. What I don't get is free support (but then - no OS vendor offers that).

2.) Allowing pirated copies of windows XP to install service pack 2. A clip from the article: "Microsoft group product manager Barry Goffe told ComputerTimes that [...] it was more important to keep user safe than to be 'concerned about the revenue issue.'"

Microsoft did the right thing here. But let's not kid ourselves. It was certainly in their best interest. The cost of allowing this service pack out despite any question of a legitimate license pales in comparison to the cost of bad press for vulnerabilities Microsoft has been getting over the years.

Don't get me wrong. You've provided examples of Microsoft doing generally good things. But these are hardly examples of Microsoft acting out of selfless kindness.

Re:Interesting Observation

[slycer9]

If he isn't buying /.'ers blowjobs from Carmen Elektra, who IS he buying them for?

Does this mean I should have BOUGHT WindowsXP???

Re:Interesting Observation

[Stackster]

So you are saying that a language should be banned/discontinued just because it is possible to write crappy programs with it?

There are lots of examples of good VB programs too, just as there is lots of crap written in C/C++/whatever. Just because it is a lot easier in VB (compared to most other common languages/IDEs)to get a nice, GUIy program running and at least somewhat functional, does not make it bad. It's just easier for people who aren't that skilled to write programs, and stopping people from being able to do that can never be a good thing.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Not The Real Me]

So what M$ is really doing is releasing it on Source Forge in the hopes of getting free labor to improve their product.

Bill Gates & Company reap the financial rewards without having to commit to the R&D costs.

If anything good or innovative comes out of this, it (the free labor from the Open Source community) gets rolled into M$'s commercial products.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's focus on product is different than the focus that was placed on Mac OS X (A system built by artists) and UNIX (a system built by theorists and scientists) in that it is the embodiment of capitalist ideaologies. Cut corners where needed to maximize profit and use a wide range of tactics other than the pure excellence of your product to ensure widespread adoptance. It is not a labor of love or ideology and it shows. Their software is quick and dirty and designed to make money, and the focus isn't on crafting perfection. I find this annoying for the same reason I am annoyed by various other comercializations of art and ideology such as manufactured pop music, HMO insurance plans, etc. Profit motive produces optimal profit, not optimal product. Innovation is simply a side effect, and Microsoft's profit-driven innovation will never match that of those for whom innovation is a matter of passion.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Urkki]

• Do I think this will happen? Not a snowball's chance in hell. But they'll try -- and fail because they do not understand how deeply the motivations for OSS go, at least I don't think so.

Or, there's the remote possiblity that they have come to the conclusion that for some things, OSS (and I mean real OSS) is the way to go. Perhaps this is a backup plan in case DRM doesn't manage to wipe out open source OSs. Also, OS market is diversifying with handheld devices getting more powerful too, not just by Linux gaining market share. Perhaps they are realizing that the significance of underlying OS is getting less and less, any desktop software that wants to dominate it's area will have to be largely OS-independent.

I mean, if they released a genuine Linux distribution, and then released Microsoft Office for that, then I bet in no time it would get a lot of the Linux market share, since many people want to use MS Office. Because, say what you will, it is the best Office suite out there (LaTex etc are of course a different thing, far superior but only for a limited audience), not to mention the "industry (non)standard".

And then they'd have a lot of power to steer Linux distribution development, since every distribution would have to enable MS Office to run to have any success in a lot of workplaces, and therefore would have to offer the libraries etc that MS Linux offers and MS Office for Linux needs.

Something like this might really hurt Windows for business use, but then again they could concentrate on making Windows for home use, since it's the only viable PC gaming OS at the moment, and for the foreseeable future too. All they'd have to make sure to keep it that way would be to make sure that "MS Linux" would be crappy at running games out of the box.

Scary? Crazy? Well, if you were MS, and had some common sense, how would you plan to not let OSS take over...?

Re:Interesting Observation

[flacco]

I am sick of listening to people complain about everything MS does.

too bad. i'm sick of everything MS does, and i like to talk about it.

Re:Interesting Observation

[mcrbids]

And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.

You had me going until this point. I recently bought a Dell Inspiron 600m laptop. I bought this particular laptop because it had high marks for Linux compatability.

I could not get this laptop without some flavor of Windows XP. Nothing on the packaging indicated that I could return the O/S - the Windows XP product license sticker was even stuck to the bottom of the laptop when opening the box!

So, where's my option for Billy boy? I had no option - either I bought the system with the O/S, or I did not buy a system I needed.

This is where the antitrust trial had a case - a case they won and then botched badly.

As long as Bill Gates isn't using all of his money to buy all the slashdot virgins blowjobs from Carmen Electra, they can't do anything right.

...and there went your credibility.

Re:Interesting Observation

[schmidt]

In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible.

Or they may

• lie about the capabilities and flaws of their products
• use FUD to scare the customers away from competing products
• break compatiblity with competing products so that customers will have big difficulties migrating to them

Even if Microsoft's products were far inferior to competing products, the whole world wouldn't turn their back on Redmond tomorrow.

Re:Interesting Observation

[gnalre]

They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible.

In a normal marketplace I agree, however MS is in a virtual monopoly situation, this gives them far more power to do what they want to maximise profits, without worrying to much about public needs.

One of the reasons for open source products have been on the rise, is because they are not giving the public what they want.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

The pscyhology you guys are in reminds me the terorists, totally distorted, bizarre, stupid logic.

Microsoft may use open source and bunch of licenses in anyway they want as long as it is legal. Remember, they are not using GPL and they probably never will, and many more software companies will never ever use GPL and they will stay away from products that do use GPL. That has been the case with Linux so far.

But here is what makes me laugh, you are saying that Microsoft may use OSS in its daily life, but you are sort of suggesting that this being open is something invented by this iconic open source community and that being open somehow conceptually patented to them and that when anybody become open, they copy, extend their techniques.

First, Microsoft has been using similar licenses before, they release source code already. That's number one stupidity you are doing here.

Second, they are using sourceforge probably because their own slashdot type of server is targeted for .net. So, it makes perfect sense and there is nothing more to it, other than bunch of idiots trying to find something behind this.

Third, most of the slashdotters do not represent the open source community in anyway. Many developers disagree with the general population here. People do not approve the slashdot editors or the slashdot mob here. Open source is not something you can twist in your own little mind and bend it against Microsoft. Most developers are not in this game for your political agenda.

Re:Interesting Observation

[flacco]

To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts.

i couldn't give a rat-fuck whether or not they do something out of kindness. i DO care about the awful things they're doing in order to maintain their stifling monopoly, including perverting standards, underhanded business deals, attacks-by-proxy on F/OSS, and locking consumers who are too stupid to know any better into proprietary technology.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

yah i guess netscape, corel, .... would agree...

Re:Interesting Observation

[Daengbo]

You obviously have not read Slashback, because #2 is blatently false.

MS Clarifies: No SP2 For Pirated XP Copies PingXao writes "Unlike earlier reports, this eWeek story says MS will not be allowing pirated versions of Windows XP to install SP2. They plan to release the update within a couple of months as everybody knows, but what's interesting is this quote from a MS spokesperson that supposedly explains their reasons for this approach: "... using genuine software is an important part of keeping systems secure and running smoothly because it means continued access to the latest security enhancements and product updates." Not that I blame them for not providing assistance to people who violate their copyrights, but I wonder if they actually paid someone to come up with that insightful explanation. Something like "We don't provide updates to pirates" would have done the trick. Why cloud the issue with talk about secure this and security that when the basis for the policy has absolutely nothing to do with security?"

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

satan can appear as an angel of light....

Re:Interesting Observation

[pluvia]

1) Of course, RedHat isn't a good counter-example, but Debian, et al. might be. btw: do you think Win98 still has bugs? Hopefully they patched them all.

2) Hmmm... now I'm confused. Did you miss the slashback? Or did I miss the slashbackback that took it back? Perhaps we shan't know till they actually release it.

MS Clarifies: No SP2 For Pirated XP Copies PingXao writes "Unlike earlier reports, this eWeek story says MS will not be allowing pirated versions of Windows XP to install SP2. They plan to release the update within a couple of months as everybody knows, but what's interesting is this quote from a MS spokesperson that supposedly explains their reasons for this approach: "... using genuine software is an important part of keeping systems secure and running smoothly because it means continued access to the latest security enhancements and product updates." Not that I blame them for not providing assistance to people who violate their copyrights, but I wonder if they actually paid someone to come up with that insightful explanation. Something like "We don't provide updates to pirates" would have done the trick. Why cloud the issue with talk about secure this and security that when the basis for the policy has absolutely nothing to do with security?"

As for the topic at hand, WTL was essentially free for windows development anyway and I'd be amazed if it is used for anything else. Also, I suspect MS feels it is or will soon be an ancient relic from the times before .NET development. All in all, I think it was a good move, both for them and for the windows development community. Sometimes everybody wins.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

If he isn't buying /.'ers blowjobs from Carmen Elektra, who IS he buying them for?

Does this mean I should have BOUGHT WindowsXP???

Yea, you didn't get the special offer from Bill in the mail?

Re:Interesting Observation

[kigrwik]

Just a typo on your part, I guess, but it's OSI (OpenSource Initiative), not OSDN (OpenSource Developer Network).

The first is an evangelization organisation, the second is whatever there is on top of /., Newsforge, freshmeat, etc.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, Microsoft doesn't claim OSS is virus, that's something many slashdot idiots are trying to twist and most of the other idiots fall into their trap. Microsoft said GPL is a virus and GPL admits that, they even halted the development of x-window.

Re:Interesting Observation

[flacco]

If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible.

and buy out virtually every emerging technology and use it to reinforce its monopoly. and attack the gpl and sow FUD in the minds of IT managers through shitty zombie corps. and prevent interoperability with patents. and purposely craft their monopoly OS so that it crashes competitors' software in other software markets. and not give a shit about security while making sure that each software release has enough whirling lights and colors to mesmerize their idiotic consumer base into ponying up for another upgrade.

microsoft sucks donkey-dick in so many ways it's hard to count. that's why you hear a lot of bitching on /. about them, not any other reason.

To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts.

What exactly are you talking about? Are they supposed to buy everyone a teddy bear?

i agree with you on this one. i'm amazed by how many people say stuff like "microsoft only cares about one thing - money!". no duh, dipshit.

Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want. Isn't that kind enough?

microsoft was great a decade ago. i had respect for them and i liked their products. but that was then, and this is now. they have long worn out their welcome, and they're fucking up computing in general by virtue of their size and megalomania.

Only on /. can Microsoft contribute a product to sourceforge and be bashed for it.

microsoft "contributing" to SF is about as positive as some jerkoff "contributing" a turd into a public pool. their only purpose is to insinuate themselves into a thriving computing space that has nothing to do with MS and stink the place up.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

They've not really denounced it. At any public event's I've been to where MS have talked about OS, they've generally accepted that OS is a necessary part of the software industry. They usually point out that there is OS in Windows (I believe the TCP stack in one of the earlier versions of Windows was based on the Berkley implementation). Certain parts within the company did indeed decry Linux, but that's because it does represent a major threat to a core part of their business.

Re:Interesting Observation

[_Sprocket_]

If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible. That is focusing on the product.

What you're ignoring is the artificial barriers Microsoft puts up to ensure the success of their products. Embrace and extend. Lock-in. I've seen it in action and have to deal with it constantly.

While I think Linux's technical superiority will allow it to catch up, to say Microsoft is blatantly trying to create a crappy product in order to make more money is, at best, bizarre logic.

I haven't seen anyone claim that Microsoft is intentionally making a "crappy product". However, it is plain that quality is not their primary concern. Yet the market can not properly adjust for this due to the engineered incompatibilities and marketing from Microsoft.

Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want. Isn't that kind enough? They're a business, what else are they supposed to do? If they weren't providing a benefit of some kind to people, they would not make money, and therefore would not exist.

Microsoft did not make computing mainstream. Computing was going that direction with or without them. In fact, Apple had a major influence on personal and business computing. Although Microsoft did have a role to play in the commoditization of hardware (equal credit should be given to IBM and Compaq).

Making a product that people will buy is not "kindness". That's business. Just doing business isn't worthy of praise in itself. So when a Microsoft fanboy complains about Microsoft criticism in general... or someone puts forth "they're a business" as some excuse for any activity... one has to wonder exactly what they're defending.

Meanwhile, there are plenty examples of people making money off of all manner of illegal and questionable activity. It doesn't mean any of these businesses are providing a benefit to anyone but themselves. I don't wish to draw too much of a comparison between a grifter and Microsoft however, profit alone does not prove any altruistic behavior.

And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.

Actually - the whole point of some Microsoft criticism (and the infamous legal battles) is that customers DON'T have a choice. Choice implies there there are options. A truly open market will provide options. And an open market requires removal of artificial barriers.

Only on /. can Microsoft contribute a product to sourceforge and be bashed for it.

The devil's in the details. Sure - it all sounds good. But exactly what is being contributed under what terms? After all, I'm not going to get all manner of praises for releasing my own version of "Hello World" under the most restrictive OSI-approved license I can find. Likewise, Microsoft gets not free ride. IBM, Sun, RedHat, et al. get far more credit.

Individuals have expressed a certain theme each time Microsoft publishes something on Source Forge. The complaint is that Microsoft can do no right and if they had released some major software package under the GPL, they would still get bashed. The problem with this assertion is that Microsoft is not, in fact, releasing anything major much less using the GPL. It's a less-than-subtle point that Windows fanboys and zealots seem unable to grasp.

Re:Interesting Observation

[ThaReetLad]

I think the why is quite obvious. It is in the interests of microsoft to have people develop software for their OS, and if that means giving away free source code and wizards to help people do that then thats fine. Of course, most windows developers already have a copy of VS and thus ALT, WTL MFC etc. The major advantage to a software developer is being able to know that you have the latest, bug fixed version of this toolkit, and that we now have a clear route for submitting bug reports direct to the dev team.

Of course, WTL has never really been a product, so much as a development framework, and the licence has always been pretty open so thats not a really dramatic step, but unlike the Wix thing this is actually really useful and we've (my dev group) already learnt that there are fixes and changes in this version of WTL that we didn't know about, so thats pretty cool.

Kudos to Microsoft on this one I think.

Re:Interesting Observation

[ThaReetLad]

Actually that was his Billness personal donation, and as I understand it, they cant give the money away fast enough to avoid making more in interest than they can spend.

Verifying that projects are worthy of money, and ensuring that the money cannot be used for purposes other than that which was specified is a tough job, and takes a lot of administration.

Re:Interesting Observation

[ThaReetLad]

it's pure win32. It's the same thing WTL has always been. A cool, lightweight version of MFC with no dependencies.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a huge OSS market for windows already without the support of Microsoft and you. What you don't get it is that open source community is not something you can control. Developers develop stuff because they need it, they think someonelse needs it and that they can provide it and so on. They don't develop because they agree with you, almost every developer would love to sell their software at one point and windows is a huge market. For many open source developers it is for fun mostly, and many projects are small projects. The big ones fall into various categories:

- Those that are or has been supported by big companies, like mozilla, open office, and so on. Some of these are gui apps that being made open to attack microsoft.

- Those that are purely developed by individual programmers, like linux kernel, apache and so on.
These are made available to public pretty much completely without any strings attached.

- Those that are open because that's the best way to develop and profit, like mysql, qt and so on. These are open, because that's a way to develop software and yet profit from the software itself though the licensing model (GPL). In this case, people use GPL to profit actually.

I see only one application that is really true to the GPL's intent and that is linux kernel. The rest, somehow profits from open source, but their livelihood depends on microsoft's livelihood. For example, the minute everyone adopts GPL, QT will go bankrupt. The minute Microsoft lose its dominance, the fate of mozilla and openoffice are not known. Maybe they will not be much better, since the main point has been to prevent Microsoft being dominant. What will motivate companies to make programs open or continue to support them?

In general it is obvious that GPL is going to fail.

Re:Interesting Observation

[ThaReetLad]

If you think this is about MS vs OSS I think you're wrong. The WTL has always been freely downloadable and freely distributable. The new thing here is having a public CVS and a forum direct to the lead developers.

The other thing to note of course is that there is already a much larger number of windows programmers than linux programmers. There must be, or else there would be more Linux software than windows software, and there is already a serious community at places like Code Project, DevX, Code Guru etc etc.

I really think that with the exception of real linux zealots, many part time OSS hackers are windows Dev's professionally. Certainly one of my fellow coders sitting not 10 feet from me is a professional windows dev, who is also a big noise in the tcl/tk community, and does plenty of both linux and windows OSS work in his spare time. Like it or not, many OSS projects have a Windows version that probably get used far more than the linux version. With that model, all MS has to do is wait until the project developers suddenly find that they spend more time getting the windows version right (because that is what people are using) than the linux one.

Re:Interesting Observation

[gbjbaanb]

But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface

Yeah, but Microsoft had nothing to do with Gnome. :)

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had half a brain you would realize that Dell should be blamed for your predicament. Think about who's forcing you to use MS's OS first before posting. Is it MS or is it Dell? Is is Dell who packaged the product, and Dell who stuck that sticker on the bottom, NOT MS.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Decaff]

They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible.

They can, and do, force PC manufacturers to bundle Windows. Windows is not there because it appeals; its there because its pre-installed.

Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want.

Nonsense. Computing was well on the way to being mainstream before Windows. Apple Macs along with IBM PCs and clones made computing mainstream. Windows was just one of many competing PC interfaces. Windows became dominant because of bundling once computing was mainstream.

And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.

Yes he is. Try getting a home computer from a major supplier with anything but Windows installed. Have a look at the sorts of licences bulk users of Windows have to purchase in order to retain reasonably priced support.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

gotdotnet.com !!!

http://gotdotnet.com/Community/MessageBoard/Home.a spx

Oh Boy a new place to troll !!!!!!

Re:Interesting Observation

[tehcyder]

they cant give the money away fast enough to avoid making more in interest than they can spend

Oh, this is getting ridiculous. So Bill Gates is now evil because he donates money instead of accumulating more personal wealth? Huh?

Re:Interesting Observation

[tehcyder]

I humbly suggest that you avoid websites filled with people who ran screaming from the Microsoft house.

yes, but /. is supposed to be for general geek news, not a Linux fan site.

Re:Interesting Observation

[MartinG]

I prefer:

1) Refrain from obtaining money from people by illegally exploiting your monoploy power, thereby leaving millions of individuals and companies more money to use as they see fit.

to

2) Illegally exploit your monopoly to gain much more money than you would have otherwise had, and then give some of it to charity so people think they are nice.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not what they say, it's not what they do : it's what they say AND what they do.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.

You still don't understand what monopoly means, do you ?

Re:Interesting Observation

[PSC]

If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products.

On a free market, they cannot. On a (nearly) monopolized "market", of course they can. The whole point of anti-trust legislation is to ensure a Free Market, the basis for capitalism (as opposed to corporatism).

Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want.

Do you think so? I have yet to meet a single Windows user wo wants virus mails, trojans, popups, to name a few.

Microsoft cannot give consumers what they want, not because they are Microsoft but because most consumers don't know what they want. A free market assumes more or less informed customers. (Making customers believe they were informed is the whole point in marketing.)

Isn't that kind enough?

But the original author said,

they [Microsoft] have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts.

He talks motivation here, and Microsoft's motivation is, as with any company, to make as much money as they can. Nothing special here, move on. But do not confuse this with kindness. Kindness is altruistic, which they are not.

And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint.

Well, if losing your job in these times is the "alternative" to buying Microsoft, guess what, I'm not counting that as "having an option". There is a very strong bias pressuring me into the Microsoft "option".

It's a bit simplistic (and at the same time, melodramatic) to claim death was an option. Hell, now that's a slogan: Give me Microsoft, or give me death!

Re:Interesting Observation

[leshert]

Absolutely correct--just a thinko (at least the URL is correct...)

The placement of 'O', 'S', 'D', and 'N' makes it fly off the fingertips. :-)

Re:Interesting Observation

[muffen]

You had me going until this point. I recently bought a Dell Inspiron 600m laptop. I bought this particular laptop because it had high marks for Linux compatability. I could not get this laptop without some flavor of Windows XP. Nothing on the packaging indicated that I could return the O/S - the Windows XP product license sticker was even stuck to the bottom of the laptop when opening the box!

Didn't you buy the laptop from Dell?
How is it relevant that DELL (note: not Microsoft, but DELL!) forces you to buy XP?

If I buy an alienware laptop and I don't have the option to buy it without having to pay for a boxed copy of redhat, can you really blame that on redhat?

Re: Interesting Observation

[gidds]

It's worse than that, and much more self-interested.

Someone who can't install vital service packs has three choices: keep using it unpatched, buy a legal copy, or switch to something else. M$ desperately wants to stop people cold-turkeying themselves off their software, and I'm sure the service pack is partly to prevent that.

Re: Interesting Observation

[gidds]

It also allows for closed source binary-only distribution.

That's the one that worries me. What if, say, M$ runs this as an open-source project for a couple of years, accepts a lot of contributions from people, then announces that the open-source 'experiment' is over, and closes the source again.

Upshot of this? They've had lots of extra people working on their software for free, but the main point is that they've captured mindshare. While it was open, they gained lots more users, and stopped many people moving to alternatives. Or creating alternatives.

In fact, it's pretty much the same policy that they've used time and time again: embrace, extend, extinguish -- only this time applied to their own product.

Re:Interesting Observation

[peragrin]

You can blame the OS vendor when in the past the OS Vendor (MS) put the gun to the head of the hardware vendor(Dell). MS forced an agreement with DELL and though it isn't written that way anymore, most hardware vendors are wary that MS will cut them off in other areas.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Tim C]

As long as Bill Gates isn't using all of his money to buy all the slashdot virgins blowjobs from Carmen Electra, they can't do anything right.

You're not being imaginative enough - even if he did that, you'd hear complaints from the non-virgin slashdotters, the gay and straight female ones, the ones that prefer other acts to oral sex, the attached ones, and the ones that just plain don't fancy Carmen Electra.

Hell, when they included a firewall in XP they got bashed for encroaching on the third-party firewall market, for not enabling it by default, and for not making it good enough.

Nothing short of open sourcing their entire codebase under the GPL would satisfy the slashdot collective - and even that would get them bashed for allowing crackers and script kiddies to see all the so-far undiscovered security holes.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG, you are so predictably BORING. The same old tired "you had me going" and "credibility" lines.

So how exactly did Microsoft force you to buy that machine?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people can stand up here and claim to have submitted more than Microsoft has?

Mail server admins (AKA your typical slashdot reader) don't usually submit any source code, because they can't program.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Mycroft_VIII]

And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.

No I wouldn't go sofar as to say mugging, nor pick on just Mr. Gates.
But Microsoft has been found guilty of illeagle activities which apply a coercive pressure on consumers to use thier products.
Embrace and Extend is basicaly a form of coercion to. They have used thier monopoly position to make using a non-ms product in as unatractive as possible.
Take Word for example. Once they reached a point of major dominance, they used a closed format for doc files meaning if you wanted to recieve communication from most of the bussiness world, you had to use word, a fairly recent version too as the format mutates and new versions don't even support old formats.
There are more examples like this. And while it's not mugging, it's still not much better in many cases.

Mycroft

Re:Interesting Observation

[Mycroft_VIII]

While it's less true now. Ms once had the practice of telling vendors "You eigther ship the current MS os on all your computers or none, oh yeah you can't tell anyone we're making you do this". Given the choice of eigther shipping the OS 90%+ of thier customers wanted (like 99% of your competion) on all computers, or not being able to ship it at all. Well it's not a choice, not if you want to stay in bussiness.
And while they got in trouble for it. What do you want to bet they still make it as difficult for vendors to not ship only MS OS products on thier computers as possible without getting into trouble.

Mycroft

Re: Interesting Observation

[TiggsPanther]

In as much as I undertand Open Source...

In the event of the above happening, there will be twon main consequences:
1 - The commercial binary version will be somewhat improved. Plus a lot of the internals will be better known. That can't be a bad thing.
2 - License chances aren't retroactive. So if many people are using it (and if it hasn't already been done) there will be a fork from last clear point under the Open license. Plus the older releases wil still be Open.

Basically, as far as I know, once a project has been Open Sourced, then it is possible for the copyright-holders to change the licensing and close it back up again, but only from that point on. Any older changer that were open will continue to be open.

And I'm hoping someone who understands OSS licensing better than I do can give clarifications and/or examples.

Tiggs

Re:Interesting Observation

[UserGoogol]

No, it's because although he is certainly doing good by donating, it's so frigging easy for him to donate money, it's hard for us to give him that much credit for it.

That, and we just don't like Billy because he made Windows and BASIC popular.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Luban Doyle]

So in the interests of keeping yourself sick, and to that degree bringing yourself that much closer to dying, you are going to persist in inserting yourself into these discussions. Hmmmmm. I will refrain from admiring your efforts until they bear more fruit, for instance your disappearance from contact with that which you detest. Until then you are simply hating it when you keep hitting yourself in the head with a hammer and amount to nothing more than a rehash of a Saturday Night Live comedy sketch from the increasingly dim past.

Re:Interesting Observation

[SteveX]

I can't buy a car without a stereo either. Does this mean the car manufacturers are engaging in monopolistic practices, forcing their crappy car stereos down your throat?

If you don't like the product that's being offered, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, they'll change the product to be something that you will buy. That's how the market works.

- Steve

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts.

What exactly are you talking about? Are they supposed to buy everyone a teddy bear?

Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want. Isn't that kind enough? They're a business, what else are they supposed to do? If they weren't providing a benefit of some kind to people, they would not make money, and therefore would not exist.

"...gives most consumers exactly what they want..."

funny...I didn't know that most consumers exactly want to be overcharged for constant BSODs, insecure junk, incompatibilities just for the sake of forced upgrades (sales), no access to complete OS source code for complete customization/improvements/bug fixes, etc., denial of choice between purchasing computers with/without an OS or alternate OS, etc., etc., etc.
Geez, the things I learn on /. :-)

Re: Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the free market at work.

Its funny but most of the things MS has done to secure their OS NEAR monopoly is because of the distributors, who allowed themselves to be coerced into offering Windows almost exclusively.

Looking further, OS/2 was the only viable alternative then( Win 3.1 days ), and it was priced waaay too high. Maybe IBM should have given it away, or at least very cheap.

You guys act as if you wouldnt make the most of any situation you were in as well. Blame the computer distributors of you must, but MS was simply playing by the rules set before them.

All of this is of less importance than the fact their Office Suite is far and away the dominant business software. If you could beat MS at that game, then they would decline. Until then get used
to MS being the big name in the game.

Re:Interesting Observation

[lone_marauder]

If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible.

So Microsoft is funneling money to SCO in order to legally harass users of competing operating systems out of an honest effort to win their patronage in good faith? And you would hold the same to be true of other situations, such as their insistence not to talk to Novell file servers using anything but case22 NCPs in order to make them appear slow and problematic?

Do these actions appear to you to be the behavior of an honest shopowner working hard and honestly to win his business?

As Microsoft has begun to feel threatened, they have indeed begun to focus on product quality in order to win customers. But to say that this effort is anything more than ancillary and incidental to their overall marketing effort is patently (pun intended) absurd.

Re: Interesting Observation

[gidds]

True. But once there's an 'official, supported M$ version' that's being actively developed, and an unofficial open-source version of less obvious qualifications, which one will the hordes go with? And once that one has the mindshare, how long before M$ starts changing file formats and playing all their old tricks?

It'd be as if they released the source to Windows 97 now. It might be interesting, but hardly a threat to them.

Re:Interesting Observation

[TheUser0x58]

They simply have to maintain market dominance on their three main products: Windows desktop, Windows server, and Office.

Uh... no?

Re:Interesting Observation

[fritz1968]

They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products.

But they can (or at least 'did') force OEM's to sell you a copy of Windows when you purchase a new computer. Regardless of whether you wanted a copy of windows or not. It may not be a gunpoint, but it's close enough.

Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want. Isn't that kind enough

That is an arguable point. I always thought that IBM made computing mainstream. IBM also gave JFS (as well as other technologies) to the OSS community.

Only on /. can Microsoft contribute a product to sourceforge and be bashed for it.

After comments like "Linux is a virus," and their constant attacks on the OSS community, how can we trust them? If they are turning over a new leaf, then great! If that is the case, then we would come to have a certain amount of trust and respect for them. However, I belive there is something else behind the contribution.

Re:Interesting Observation

[ajs]

But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface and being strongarmed into this and that, and let down by focus on money and not product, we have a very strong right to be skeptical about anything that Microsoft does.

Common misconception amongst everyone in the open source movement, or just anti-MS zealots in general. If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products.

I'm not a zealot (got my Windows/XP system for running games on my other computer right next to this one), but the OP was 100% correct. Being focused on profit has nothing to do with being focused on the customer... well, that's not true, but it has nothing to do with being focused on ME, and that's the problem. MS rushes products out the door without proper QA because they need to meet marketing deadlines with their customers, and their customers are OEMs who honestly don't care if the UI is good or bad as long as the OS requirements on the new system mean that some percentage of the world will come looking for new boxes to run it on.

If you had any delusion that you were the customer, please diabuse yourself of it now. You're not the customer in most industries. A friend of mine who worked for the corporate offices of a supermarket chain pointed out that the ugly bags of mostly water (aka humans) walking through the store are actually considered to be product, not customer. That product is packaged and sold to the customers... the makers of the goods on the shelves.

The money coming out of your pocket is actually a strange by-product that isn't really a strong concern.

Same goes for most venues. Corporations are the customers, and your money is the product. Your attention, wallet and time are bought and sold like so many pork bellies. Welcome, as the band said, to the machine.

Ok, so back to MS. Yeah, they put two things on SF, but convicted abusers of their monopoly power who have failed to reform following their slap on the wrist from a friendly administration should not be taken at face value. This is either a) a PR manuever; b) an effort to guage how much MS can exploit the OSS developer base to offset their disadvantage vs Linux (not a bad thing at all, but something to mull over); or c) an effor to understand OSS development in order to re-produce its benefits in some way.

In none of those scenarios are you the customer... you are at best the product and at worst the lab-rat. Don't be critical of them just because you can, but don't be overly idealistic either.

Re:Interesting Observation

[jaguarul]

If I recall correcly, WTL was never a Microsoft product. Nor is their name mentioned anywhere on the sourceforge site. WTL has been provided on the Platform SDK as an example, or something like that. It is the result of mainly one person (nenad) who, encoureged by the quick adoption by a lot of developers, continued to develop it. He is a Microsoft employee though, so he probabily needed some kind of "approval" from MS for this move, but I don't think it denotes anything more from MS's part.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't buy a car without a stereo either. Does this mean the car manufacturers are engaging in monopolistic practices, forcing their crappy car stereos down your throat?

Er... have you ever *asked*, or is your ass doing the talking here? Car dealerships most certainly *will* sell you a car without a stereo, and give you a discount to boot. Not only that, the dealer will often give you a choice of a wide range of car stereos to choose from if you don't like the default.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

They simply have to maintain market dominance on their three main products: Windows desktop, Windows server, and Office.

Uh... no? [slashdot.org]

Huh? So how does Apache's popularity mean MS's servers aren't a success? Windows Server does more than just HTTP.

And that article says "Apache". It doesn't say "Apache running on Linux". Apache does run on Windows, you know.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Daytona955i]

1.) Supporting a $100 O.S. for 6 years with official updates and patches. Quite a deal, one that you certainly won't see from redhat.

This is just a stupid comment. First, I am very disapointed in Red Hat lately. Second, Linux is essentialy the same OS with a bunch of patches. (With vendor differences of course) I've installed debian on my server and I haven't had to get a new OS since I installed it. I just upgrade it. Unless all the Debian developers vanish, this isn't going to change.

2.) Allowing pirated copies of windows XP to install service pack 2. A clip from the article: "Microsoft group product manager Barry Goffe told ComputerTimes that [...] it was more important to keep user safe than to be 'concerned about the revenue issue.'"

Geeze man... don't you read slashdot?

a quote:
"MS Clarifies: No SP2 For Pirated XP Copies PingXao writes "Unlike earlier reports, this eWeek story says MS will not be allowing pirated versions of Windows XP to install SP2."

another quote:
"... using genuine software is an important part of keeping systems secure and running smoothly because it means continued access to the latest security enhancements and product updates."

Not that I really expected them to do it but you gave it as an example so I just had to tell you that you were wrong... because that's what slashdot is all about!

Re:Interesting Observation

[yoriknme]

Doesn't seem all that magnanimous to me. I expect MS is trying to make their C++ quicker to use to counter the trend to Java and other competing systems.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Daytona955i]

They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products.

No but they can market a competing browser which they then give away for free and then when the other browser is free claim that their browser is "integrated" into the OS. Oh and they can make Computer retailers pay through the nose and not get the usual discounts if they supply another OS or even offer a computer with no OS. I could go on and on and while it's not at gun point, it's the next best thing. Besides, most people don't know or really care about Microsoft's ethics.

to say Microsoft is blatantly trying to create a crappy product in order to make more money is, at best, bizarre logic.
I don't think they are blatantly trying to make a crappy product but they definately made a crappy product and once they got their monopoly they did everything in their power to stay there.

Microsoft made computing mainstream
Microsoft was just in the right place at the right time. Lower prices really made computers mainstream.

Re:Interesting Observation

[linwoes]

I don't see this on an attack or surrender to OSS. Instead, I am seeing this move as a way to stifle the GUI competition, namely QT. QT has been very steadily getting people to adopt their toolkit across platforms. They have amazingly managed to create licensing that makes closed companies and OSS developers happy.QT is taking a big chunk out of the embedded market, it is the underpinnings to KDE, and it is making its way into more Windows apps everyday. Of course Microsoft wants to put QT back to the hobbiest days. It is important to win the small quiet battles before you win the war.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of listening to people that trust everything MS does.

Re:Interesting Observation

[SFBwian]

Sounds like you haven't bought a new car lately. Special ordering is almost out of the question (and certainly more expensive). When you go to a dealer now, you and the dealer find what's available that has as many features that you want as possible.

This doesn't even get into the number of times "to have package A you MUST have package B and C and F" situations crop up. Want a sunroof? Say "hi" to your new factory 6-CD Changer! Oh, by the way, we couldn't find that without the luxury package as well, so that'll be another $500 for the leather interior.

and give you a discount to boot.

I would certainly hope that I don't have to pay for something that's not included in the car! I wouldn't call it a 'discount' either. Not only is it not true (you're not getting the car for any less than it is 'truly' worth), but it makes it sound like the dealer is doing you a favor by not charging you for something you didn't buy. We all know who's best interest the dealer is looking out for.

Re:Interesting Observation

[arkanes]

Geez, man, your tinfoil hat is blinding me. MS doesn't especially care about the toolkit market. They never have, which is why WTL and ATL and MFC are all kinda icky and lame. Microsoft doesn't care what toolkit you use as long as your app runs on windows. Toolkits and libraries have NEVER been a profit center or even a major focus for MS, until .NET, when they had to present a compelling environment to get people to switch to the new runtime. Even then, the idea wasn't to compete in the IDE/toolkit/compiler market but to provide the base that people demanded before they'd switch (remember, you can't be just as good for people to change, you have to be better).

MS couldn't possible care less about Qt. It wouldn't even suprise me to know that they have a decent working relationship, much like Borland does (although, to be fair, the Borland/MS relationship is not so much "decent" as "an expression of slavish subservience").

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft does not even claim to do this out of the kindness of their hearts. This is a library that runs on Windows. Its main purpose is to make Windows a more attractive choice.

Microsoft loses nothing by releasing this as Open Source. Except clear-cut enemies.

Re:Interesting Observation

[ratamacue]

I could not get this laptop without some flavor of Windows XP.

The question remains, how exactly does this translate to "mugging" or "threatening at gunpoint"? (You did appear to be disputing that point, did you not?)

Face it, you are 100% responsible for your own decisions.

Re:Interesting Observation

[TheMabster]

Did you e-mail or contact Dell to try and make a deal? With Dell's support of Linux drivers on their site, tech support on it, etc. I'm quite surprised you found hassles with them. In fact, I spoke to someone that phoned Dell up because he was having problems with getting RH to support some Dell laptop features (I think it was that 'I' button) and they put him onto the 'Linux Guy' who answered his questions.

Re:Interesting Observation

[linwoes]

I agree that MS could care less about the toolkit market. What they do care about is keeping up barriers, artifical and constructed, to the adoption of rival operating systems. This is one of those barriers. When you are as big as Microsoft and you have a perceived threat in the distance, why not expend the energy to sqush a little guy. It is easier to destroy 100 1 man armies than 1 100 man army.

I will admit though, its the little details that make my hat shine brightest :)

Re:Interesting Observation

[gglaze]

Just wanted to point out...

In this analogy:

car manufacturers == DELL

stereo manufacturers == MICROSOFT

So if we are question whether said laptop (car) is offered with the option to not have said software (stereo) preinstalled and packaged, we are talking about something that seems to be in the domain of the laptop manufacturer (car manufacturer), not the software manufacturer (stereo manufacturer).

Re:Interesting Observation

[Pxtl]

Rather than fighting over the OSS issues, can anyone say what this actually does? Is this like GTK? Perhaps they noticed "hey, its a bitch to code gui for both win32 and Linux because of different graphical toolkits, 'cause GTK blows and KDE's is not free, so lets let them port the win32 one?" Or am I completely not understanding what this is for.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Jenty]

I haven't seen anyone claim that Microsoft is intentionally making a "crappy product". However, it is plain that quality is not their primary concern.

well.. you have to find a golden middle between usability and quality in general, i must say that after many years i find microsoft products better quality than linux world products. Just check changelogs of kernel and you'll think "how is this thing worked in previous version?!". I'm not talking about usability of linux for most of the people outside /. - it's plain crap which hard to understand even for a mature computer users sometimes.

Re:Interesting Observation

[EvilAlien]

You can't reason with them. Anti-Microsoft bigotry is as irrational as any other prejudice. It is in vogue to criticize companyies that are very successful at what they do, just as those who excel at FPS games get branded as "Cheater", those who do very well in school are "nerds", and those who aren't afraid to communicate with their bosses are "kiss-asses".

The blatant and awful mistakes that Microsoft makes and the people who can't recognize good behavior from the object of their prejudice all are explained by the Stupid People Theory. Whenever you are trying to figure out why people do what they do, refer to the Theory. Its a really simple Theory, so I won't bother explaining it ;)

Re:Interesting Observation

[LilMikey]

I can't buy a car without a stereo either. Does this mean the car manufacturers are engaging in monopolistic practices, forcing their crappy car stereos down your throat?

Well, yeah. If every manufacturer shipped the same stereo and the stereo company threatened to stop selling them stereos if they tried to ship any other stereo with any of their vehicles, that would be fairly monopolistic.

Or if the stereo that everyone shipped could only tune in stations that the manufacturer approved so the stereo company could rule the radio station biz. That might do it too.

Or if the stereo manufacturer used special CD laser techniques that only they knew about so the CDs they released using this technology sounded better than other CD maker's disks in order to strongarm their way to higher CD sales. That could be a case.

But this is all speculation. And, of course, very little of this would be illegal if the stereo company didn't have a near-monopoly.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as Bill Gates isn't using all of his money to buy all the slashdot virgins blowjobs from Carmen Electra, they can't do anything right.

Damn, I missed that. I'm not a virgin any more. When did you say that he was planning that move? I might keep her busy for what a night or 2. I couldn't really think that alot of virgins post to /.

Re:Interesting Observation

[You Been Rob-ed!]

Actually, you can buy a car without a radio. You generally must order the car instead of buying off the lot, but you can do it, and it decreases the price of the car.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

and still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.

You stupid MONO.

1) When you say "No one is threatening them at gunpoint" what you are saying is that you don't believe in laws. Why? Because MS has been labeled as a Monopolist, AND found guiltily of anticompetitive behavior, did you miss that?? What that means is that MS did everything just short of - hold you at gunpoint - to dominate software.

It would take a small book to explain all the psychological concepts and underpinnings to make you understand that even though you are right when you say "customers don't have to buy" the reality is that it is not just about one person and his choice. It goes back to the herding nature of humans and all kinds of other stuff that you really have to study and not be "told". Just understand that laws - like anticompetitive laws - are for the good of the group not the person. If you think of it like that it makes a little more sense - MS does things to control the group - not the single person, and what they do is 100% slime - thats why I have 0 resect for them or anything they do - even if it is good.

F Gates

Re:Interesting Observation

[Joe U]

A very good troll indeed!

I love how you describe open source software and try and make it sound wrong.

I think the M$ gave you away tho, you might want to try harder next time, or just devolve into ranting.

Here, start out with 'M$ is teh suck' or something along those lines.

Re:Interesting Observation

[MethylPhreak]

I know this is off topic as hell but I'm sick and tired of the "I know a lot about computers therefore I'm somehow more intelligent than those who don't" ego-trip that seems to persist on this site. I don't feel its the majority here, however I do feel that it is shared by most of the people who talk a lot and have little to say.

I agree with just about everything in the parent post, HOWEVER, get it through your heads that just because someone does not know about technology does NOT mean that they are TOO STUPID to know! Have you ever thought that maybe they don't CARE? That maybe they have a effin' LIFE?

Stepping off the soapbox. Negative responses need not apply, as frankly I don't give a $hit what you think.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Gr8Apes]

It never pays to underestimate your foe. And it never hurts to overestimate them.

Think the old USSR agrees with you on that one? (Think Star Wars, etc) Spent themselves right out of existance.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Please find me a laptop vendor that doesn't have Windows preinstalled on every model they sell.

Re:Interesting Observation

[rspress]

No, I am not saying it should be banned, it was a joke. Sure there are some very good VB programs out there but there are a large number of dogs as well. One of the biggest problems with VB more than any other language was that people often ignored the standard rules for creating a consistent UI. This problem is not as bad now as it used to be. Menu item placement was the biggest problem. Some things that should have been in the edit menu were often moved to other menus. In one program it may be in one menu in another program it could be in another. Some programs still suffer from this, whether written in VB or other IDEs. Even you said the it gave you a nice GUI program that was at least somewhat functional, which is fine if you use the program yourself or it is used in a small group but when you release a somewhat functional program to the world then you get a lot of people releasing badly written programs that do the same thing as many other badly written programs. Thankfully this is happening less and less as time goes on. Don't get me wrong, I have spaghetti coded some unholy messes that got the job done and at the time did not exist. I would never think of releasing for others to use in that condition let alone expect someone to pay for it.

Re:Interesting Observation

[GrouchoMarx]

And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.

You clearly do not understand the concept of a monopoly. I CAN'T take my business elsewhere. If I want to be able to do business with the vast majority of the businesses in the US, I have to use Windows or MS formats. My university supports distance learning by video stream, but only, ONLY using WMP 9. Microsoft actively works to KEEP 3rd parties from being compatible, thus protecting their monopoly.

Gunpoint? Maybe not. But "exclusive club needed if you want to send your resume to someone point", most certainly.

The "not forcing you" argument is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard, and yet I hear it time and time again. A monopoly DOES force you. That's the point of a monopoly, you CAN'T take your business elsewhere. And Microsoft is legally recognized as an official, government-regulated monopoly. (Our wonderful Republican government just chooses to forget that "regulated" part.)

Sorry, try a new argument next time.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Zordak]

Yes, you can buy a car without a stereo. Most people don't, so most cars you see on a lot have a stereo. But the better analogy is, can you buy a car without a Sony stereo, and the answer is certainly "Yes."

Re:Interesting Observation

[Ryosen]

I think the link that you meant to provide was this one. Regardless, the point that I was making wasn't that IIS is the leader right now. Ranked as the #2 webserver, it currently has a 21% marketshare compared to Apache's 67%. However, what do you suppose would happen if IIS was GPL'd? I'm willing to bet its share would catch up with Apache and very quickly at that.

Re:Interesting Observation

[ninejaguar]

Microsoft denounces OS yet they contribute... Odd.

It isn't odd. It's Microsoft gingerly stepping on to the bandwagon, one pinky toe at a time. This was predicted by /. posters, so it shouldn't be such a surprise. Naturally, like Oracle, they contribute tech that has a higher chance of locking you into their game; or, at least has some chance of benefiting them rather than society. I'm not faulting them for it, they're a business after all, and a publically traded business is about profit at everything else's expense. At the same time, they can show the guberment and their clients that they're such nice guys, and gain whatever points.

What MacroShaft doesn't understand is that they will eventually be selling off their proprietary product divisions after much devaluation, or they will dominate as Open Source versions of that product. Whether they domeinate, depends on how soon they Open Source their products. The later they do it, the less likely they will dominate. It wouldn't surprise me that when the Open Sourcing starts, that they'll select an unsatisfactory license the first time around, and will have to change it at least once. If their major products are Open Sourced, I don't think they'll end up using the CPL.

To recap, they'll either have to sell or Open Source (as in Freedom). They really have little choice in the matter. You can't fight the public, and you can quote me on that.

= 9J =

Re:Interesting Observation

[Zordak]

Who would've thought IBM would someday be the darling of grassroots hackers? I can just see the headline in a Linux Journal story 10-15 years from now: "Microsoft and Linus Torvalds team up in opposing RMS lawsuit against all Linux vendors not using the 'GNU' prefix." And the sub-headline, "Microsoft promises to indemnify customers of its own distribution against any legal actions taken by RMS."

Re:Interesting Observation

[Decameron81]

It's different. Every computer comes with an OS as well, but that's not what he's complaining about. If the car you want was only available with a certain stereo manufactured by a company you don't like... now that would be a bit closer.

But still not enough. Because the OS is more like the engine. It is a far more important component to the laptop than a stereo is to the car.

The fact is, when you buy a car you can choose the manufacturer you want, and you will have a few different engines to choose from with each one of them. But that's not the way it works with computers. Especially with laptops.

And by the way, there is a reason if Microsoft is considered a monopoly you know? It is not like slashdot linux zealots are as strong as to directly influence politics.

Diego Rey

PS: Microsoft CAN point a gun at your head to make you buy their products (all companies can to a certain degree). If you need what they offer but have little alternatives to it (because they don't want other products to be compatible), they ARE forcing you to buy their products. It's as simple as that.

The idea that people can change products whenever they want doesn't take into account problems such as the costs of such changes.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Hrothgar The Great]

Car dealers only act that way because they *WANT* to sell you something they have on the lot - so they can get an immediate commission, I assume. Tell them you'll take your business elsewhere if they won't custom order you something. Repeat yourself several times. Then walk away. They will fucking *RUN* after you to sell you something if it's the only choice they have.

Re:Interesting Observation

[_Sprocket_]

well.. you have to find a golden middle between usability and quality in general, i must say that after many years i find microsoft products better
quality than linux world products.

What about Microsoft quality has anything to do with Linux? And why do you think there is a tradeoff between usability and quality? The point that you're missing is that while Microsoft probably does not have a goal to create "crappy product", quality does not take a lead in their development process.

Just check changelogs of kernel and you'll think "how is this thing worked in previous version?!".

Yet it does work. The boon and bane to Open Source is that all the dirty laundry is out on display. The bugs. The infighting. The disagreements on development and direction. It is all done in the open. We only occasionally get a glimpse of this same activity existing behind to closed doors of proprietary software houses. But it certainly exists.

Of course, Linux kernel changelogs have nothing to do with Microsoft quality.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually a better way of putting it is. The contracts may not be written that way but the implication is still there. You tell me if MS puts the gun to the VARs when IBM couldnt even sell a PC with its own OS on it without making you pay for a copy of windows. You are either very ignorant or an MS schill.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Dalcius]

You're right and that's what I was getting at. The problem to OSS software in the Linux/BSD realm is just that -- Microsoft pulling more developers into the Windows OSS group. That was my point.

In the end, though, there is a lot more to the Linux/BSD/etc. open source community than this. A large portion of its people just want to use a good system that they have control over and right now we have just that. Microsoft can surely steal much of the OSS market and grow theirs from developers not contributing to OSS, but to claim that it can wipe out OSS as a way of doing things or wipe out the Linux/BSD realm is far fetched, I think, unless Microsoft turns Windows into a much superior product than it is now and makes the whole system a bit more hacker friendly.

Cheers

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't buy a car without a stereo either.

Huh? I just bought a car without a stereo in it. I have never bought a car with a stereo in it. You need to go to a different dealer dude.

Re:Interesting Observation

[JPriest]

Most car manufacturers have proprietary radio mounts so even if you manage not to get the radio you are stuck jimmy rigging in a new one with some wal-mart mounting kit (example).

Re:Interesting Observation

[John Courtland]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrational in all cases. Now, Joe Average just saying "Microshaft! They suck the long one." Yes, I'll concede that point. However, for professionals who have to deal with their sub-par products in a professional environment where failure = time = money, then you can hopefully see that it's not simply bigotry. It's a GREAT disdain for being forced to use what amounts to a paid beta test of an Operating System, and a bloated, slow AND amazingly, the best virus vector ever written, Office suite. I'll be honest, I hate their products. Every one of them. I think the only decent products with the MS name on them are the ones they don't write in-house.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Chyeld]

I call double BS, since they later retracted the statement and will NOT be allowing priated copies of the OS to install SP2. According to ZDNet, Microsoft has reversed its earlier statement somewhat. People who complain about MS bashing should understand one thing, regardless of what MS does today, they built their empire and maintained their empire on the foundation that getting caught breaking the law is just a cost of doing business. After a history like that, it's hard to beleive that we could be expected to trust them at all.

Re: Interesting Observation

[p0knatcha]

IBM is doing the same thing with Eclipse and WebSphere Studio. Where is the outcry?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Fermata]

This might be a valid concern if Microsoft ever actually officially supported WTL, but they didn't and they don't.

As others have pointed out, WTL is a pet project of a single Microsoft employee and always has been. At one time, it may have been briefly proposed as an officially supported alternative to MFC for C++ Win32 development, but they probably felt there was no point in confusing the issue with another C++ library since the future development focus was to be shifted to .NET rather than COM/Win32.

By hosting the code on SourceForge, I personally believe the point *is* to accept user contributions to the source. Because Microsoft never really invested any resources in WTL, there is little harm in allowing the community to take over the project. The community for WTL has never been large, but there are a number of dedicated users who prefer the "lightweight" C++ template programming model over the "heavyweight" C++ inheritance model provided by MFC and ilk (wxWindows and OWL).

I would imagine the decision to release WTL on SourceForge went something like this:

WTL Author:
"Hey Mr. Manager, this WTL thing that I've been working on in my free time for the last several years still has a small but dedicated set of users. It's getting to be a pain for me to maintain, however, so do you mind if I put it up on SourceForge so they can help me keep it alive?"

Mr. Manager:
"Hmm...okay. Use the CPL like that installer thing."

WTL Author:
"Thanks!"

Re: Interesting Observation

[drzhivago]

What is wrong with being self-interested? They are a business after all. It's their mission to get people to purchase their products. If they think that allowing people to update their pirated copy in the event that down the road they buy a legit copy is a good idea for the company, why is that a bad decision for them?

Re:Interesting Observation

[scraggles]

I don't see any direct reference to MS, has the authenticity of the source of this src been verified? I'd hate to hear that this was code gleaned from the Win2K source that's out there, or an attempt to polute OS with copyright code.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

If he isn't buying /.'ers blowjobs from Carmen Elektra, who IS he buying them for?

Not me. Lips that have touched Dennis Rodman's private parts will never touch mine.

Re:Interesting Observation

[d_jedi]

No, they said that about the GPL

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah. If every manufacturer shipped the same stereo and the stereo company threatened to stop selling them stereos if they tried to ship any other stereo with any of their vehicles, that would be fairly monopolistic. You have just described Bose.

Re:Interesting Observation

[HiThere]

This depends an awful lot on what you mean by support. I get better support from Debian for free than I EVER got from MS. EVER.

Now if you mean that they'll take your money to let you wait around on hold until they tell you to reformat your hard disk, you're right. Red Hat won't do that for you. Personally I don't miss it.

(I did wait on hold with Red Hat to be told "That's not installation support", but I got this as part of the free support package. So Red Hat has the idea, they just don't charge you for it.)

Re:Interesting Observation

[Dalcius]

Putting your elitism asside ;) I agree that a lot of folks here at /. bash MS just to bash MS.

I think my point is more in regard to MS doing something nice to its customers as a business and not to social groups as a charity (writing off the donations, I would assume).

I try to keep a pretty level-headed view of the company and if anyone would like to point out something they've done for the customer which can be explained as "going beyond the call" I would gladly recant my post.

Cheers

Re:Interesting Observation

[HiThere]

And their mice. They've made some great mice.

Re:Interesting Observation

[LostCluster]

It was never a Microsoft product, but it was a work that Microsoft owned because one of their writers started the project as part of a "how-to" article, and then in follow-up editions modified it to the point that it started to become something useful.

Therefore, this was code that Microsoft had that they weren't quite sure what to do with... it wasn't viable as a money-making project, but it did have some value in promoting the use of Windows.

Re:Interesting Observation

[lkaos]

I tell you one thing though. Except for the MS astro turfers most people here never claimed open source was un american or a cancer or communist.

Yes, but I'd also wager that a lot of folks here have come into developer channels and spammed about their silly problems because they cannot read the documentation themselves. And I know for a fact there's a lot of people here that go around spreading all sorts of FUD about Microsoft and make many of the people in the community that are conspiracy theorists look bad.

Look, in the Open Source world, you get judged by merit. I don't care about what their marketing engine has said and done. None of that affects me. None of that has affected the code I write.

As far as I'm concerned, code speaks louder than words.

Re:Interesting Observation

[EvilAlien]

Ok, I'll bite:
GIAIS, a global initiative that gets ISPs, the monolithic desktop OS vendor, and groups like MSN talking about security and working to resolve problems.

And XP SP2, removing broken features and adding security functionality to improve the security of the home end-user.

There are two things.

Re:Interesting Observation

[4of12]

The best thing that MS could do, from a competitive viewpoint, would be to GPL a bunch of their products. They would increase their workforce by such an order of magnitude (and for little to no cost) so as to make *nix's head spin.

This would be a Good Thing.

It would improve the quality of Windows but in a public development environment.

Everyone using those Windows tools would benefit.

Everyone would have much better access to the APIs that would make things tick. They'd find ambiguities, gripe about `em, and they'd leave if MS didn't fix `em.

That would be a welcome change in a strategy that has worked well for MS over the past couple decades for keeping competitors at bay; reverse engineering in an ambiguous and constantly morphing API is tantamount to impossible.

Re:Interesting Observation

[devnull17]

Note that the two projects they've released as open-source are:

• Only for Windows.
• Dependent enough on the Windows architecture that they'd be useless if ported elsewhere.

It makes sense for Microsoft. They get all the benefits of open source development, they enrich the tools available to Windows developers, and it's very unlikely that it'll ever be useful to anyone not developing for Microsoft products.

Re:Interesting Observation

[LWATCDR]

The patches and updates where bugfixes that they also did for Windows ME which the sold for a good amount of that time. Does anyone know when they stopped selling 98?
Plus rember they had a ton of goverment and corps that bought 98 and probably payed big bucks for support contracts for many of those years. If they did not fix security holes then the migration to Solaris, BSD, and Linux may have started much sooner.

Re:Interesting Observation

[flamejob]

they allow people w/ pirated versions to install the service pack because of industry pressure. lobbyists say things like "worm X caused $1,337,000,000,000,000,000 in damage to companies! what a huge problem! something must be done!". with so many people running pirated windows out there, NOT offering the patch makes it look like the problem isnt as severe as its made out to be.

Re:Interesting Observation

[devnull17]

This is indeed mostly attributable to Microsoft.

It's pretty well-known that electronics hardware manufacturers of all kinds (including PC OEM's) operate on razor-thin margins. Because of this, most of the profit on computer systems comes from markup on the bundled OS.

Microsoft offers copies of Windows to members of its OEM program at a very deep discount. Without this discount, manufacturers would find it very difficult to remain competitive on price. Naturally, MS is very aware of the amount of control over OEM's that this puts in their hands, and they use it liberally. (coughabuse of monopoly powercough) If you piss off Microsoft, you risk being dropped from their partner program, at which point you're basically dead. That's why you see so few Linux desktops from major manufacturers--they're scared shitless of Microsoft.

So, yeah, Dell might be the one forcing you to accept a copy of WinXP with your computer, but it's really Microsoft's fault. The fact that these circumstances do not apply to any other OS developer is exactly what makes MS a monopoly in the first place.

Don't feel bad, though. If you weren't paying for an OEM copy of XP, your hardware costs would probably increase significantly anyway, since OEM's need to make money somewhere. So I guess it's a wash.

Re:Interesting Observation

[arose]

Yes, they should stop doing ANYTHING. :-D

Re:Interesting Observation

[FanaticalDesperado]

If the car you want was only available with a certain stereo manufactured by a company you don't like... now that would be a bit closer.

If the car is only offered with a certain stereo that you don't (under any circumstances) want then you should buy a different car. Tell the car dealer that you would have bought the car if you could get it without the stereo. When enough people make this complaint the car manufacturer will start producing cars with other stereos or even no stereo. This won't happen soon enough for you to buy the car that you want now, but it can have enough affect to change the situation next time you want to buy a car.

However, if you really want this car but not the stereo you can buy the car and replace the stereo. Noone has forced you to buy the car. You are buying the car with full knowledge that part of that money is going to the stereo manufacturer, which you don't like. I've got news for you: Life is full of shitty compromises

But that's not the way it works with computers. Especially with laptops.

There are several options for people who don't want a computer with Windows on it. The options may not be exactly what you want but they are there. You can buy a computer with no OS quite easily. It gets more difficult with laptops. I've never looked for a laptop without an OS but I'm sure they can be found. You may have to spend your time searching for them and they may be more expensive but there are alternatives. Again, this is where we get into shitty compromise territory.

Re:Interesting Observation

[SFBwian]

Yes, but good dealers will also search along (in my case) the whole east coast for the car I want in an online database. Unfortunately, we didn't find what I wanted (just abs/airbags and leather, no extraneous sunroof combo and other stuff) anyway.

I was actually quite impressed with that bit of technology being used. These days they'll cooperate with other dealers, trading between them (within proximity) to minimize milage losses, and still get to use whatever commission system they have in place (also, salesmen are the ones wanting the commissions, but the dealer doesn't really give a shit--if it can get you into their financing options through them too :) ).

But alas, it wasn't to be, and I did go elsewhere with no one running after (luckily I found an almost-like-new '99 from a private owner).

Re:Interesting Observation

[Spreetin]

The problem is that you need to buy some computer. And at least here in Sweden, there are NO laptop alternatives (AFAIK, and I've looked for them) without Windows...

Re:Interesting Observation

[DrCode]

But most car dealers will give you a choice of stereos, often from different manufacturers.

Re:Interesting Observation

[hachete]

MS just want our minds - my tinfoil hat is sitting handy just in case...

h

Re:Interesting Observation

[teval]

#2,

Read today's Slashback
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/12/192322 6
They are not allowing pirates to install copes of SP2.

As for #1, it has to do with how much money they make. People would be weary of them if they discontinued products every week and never offered support again. RedHat is not a good example, open source so things can easily be patched up. MS needs to updated it's own code and release binaries.

What would people say if every 3 years MS told them to update or be faced with no support or any amount of minimal updates? They'd be angry and less likely to buy MS again.
Like many companies, MS simply wants to make money. That's the purpose of a publicaly traded company like MS, make money for shareholders and increase stock value. They're not going to do anything that they think will cause them to loose money (or in this case market dominance)
MS has repeatedly shown they simply don't do things that they can't get money from. Including acting without scrupules and abusing a monopoly. Nothing special, just your average moneymaking machine.

Re:Interesting Observation

[teval]

Agreed, but that's saying only Dell does this. I've been looking to buy a laptop for myself over summer, and I can't find one without Windows installed. I don't use Windows, and it's getting formatted over immediately. I don't want to contribute to MS by buying an XP license. I refuse to. In all of Toronto (and I've been to a lot of computer stores) I can't find 1 decent laptop without Windows. Is it a problem now? (I'd say yes)

Re: Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But once there's an 'official, supported M$ version' that's being actively developed, and an unofficial open-source version of less obvious qualifications, which one will the hordes go with?

A) Developers, which are the target market in this case, aren't as bullshit-able as the hordes of Joe Random Lusers which are Microsoft usual market.

B) According to one of the articles linked to, the reason why Microsoft never developed WTL as a product to begin with is that they didn't want to commit the manpower necessary to QA, document, and support it to the same level as MFC (and at the same time reducing support for MFC). So there would have to be one hell of a good reason for them to dump MFC and actively support WTL.

It'd be as if they released the source to Windows 97 now. It might be interesting, but hardly a threat to them.

I assume you mean 98, but it would be more than interesting, Windows 98SE was the best of their hybrid 16/32-bit operating systems. A little open-source patching of stability and security flaws with 100% Microsoft compatibility would be nice. And the Wine guys could finally document all those obscure Win32 APIs,

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OSI(Open Source Initiative), not OSDN(Open Source Development Network).

Re:Interesting Observation

[Lost Engineer]

They did that already it's called C# or managed C++.

Re:Interesting Observation

[overloadhz]

Yeah I totally agree. I don't understand the anti-M$ sentiment, they are too busy innovating to worry about F/OSS. I love MicSCOsoft and will defend them to the very

Re:Interesting Observation

[rogabean]

Microsft does not make a mouse. Logitech does. Microsoft just brands it.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Doc Ruby]

People don't complain about "everything", so your criticism isn't really to be taken seriously. But we do complain about a lot, so here's why: Microsoft does a lot of bad things. They are officially a monopoly, which can do bad things and get away with them, without meaningful competition. But that doesn't mean that we developers don't notice, or like it. So we complain. Why does that make you sick? Are you a large Microsoft shareholder, otherwise without a professional stake in effective software development? Are you as sick of Microsoft's bad actions, or more so? The best way to reduce valid complaints is to remove the bad actions. So, rather than recursively complaining about the complainers, why not do something to stop Microsoft's bad actions?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Ryosen]

>Everyone would have much better access to the APIs

I've been hearing this complaint since the days of Windows 3.1 when I coded C and WinSDK at the API level. Since then, through present-day, I have yet to not be able to develop something due to not having access to some phantom APIs. With the rate that I hear the argument, however, this obviously must be a prevailant problem.

Could someone please cite some examples where the operating system's APIs were not accessible? Has this been an issue since Windows 95, which was developed nearly 10 years ago?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a rather large difference between a car stereo and a computer Operating System. The car will still perfectly fine without a stereo system. A computer is nearly useless without an operating system.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder... Seems to me the West (both America and EU) are following a distinctly socialist path nowadays. I sometimes wonder if the Soviets actually _won_ (perhaps due to the threat of worse-than-nuke electromagnetic weapons), and it's all a clever ploy to seize control of the west by stealth.

Re: Interesting Observation

[gidds]

Developers... aren't as bullshit-able as the hordes of Joe Random Lusers

Well, I didn't think so, but some of the comments hereabouts make me wonder :-(

I assume you mean [Windows] 98

Er, yes... Can you tell I'm not a Windows user? :)

Re:Interesting Observation

[sean23007]

Well that was an idiotic comment. Microsoft FORCED Dell into a certain OEM agreement whereby they could only sell Windows at the price they were getting if they agreed not to give anyone the option. Microsoft FORCED Dell. Dell FORCED you. Hence, Microsoft FORCED you to pay for Windows. Otherwise, you don't get the product you want.

Re:Interesting Observation

[flacco]

get it through your heads that just because someone does not know about technology does NOT mean that they are TOO STUPID to know!

i fully understand that - of course there are many brilliant people ignorant about technology. i consider "stupid" to be shorthand for "ignorant and/or uncaring about technology and related social issues."

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... It's Microsoft forcing Dell to sell the laptop that way. Does Dell define its licensing terms with Microsoft? Hell no.

Re:Interesting Observation

[pkarlos_76]

The difference here is you don't have a single stereo company strongarming the dealer by contract to only sell there brand of stereo. The dealer has a choice, because of the diversity of various stereos about made by different companies. He is able to tell the stereo company that is trying to strongarm him to get lost. Now MS has 90%+ market share, computer dealer tells MS to get lost, customer says I want WindowsXP cause that's what I know, dealer says I don't sell windows. Customers says fine I'll go elsewhere. Well you get the idea now......company goes bankrupt. A company has virtually no choice in this matter. Now all the /.ers gotta do is get ppl used to linux, and then maybe the dealers will have a chance to tell MS to get lost. :/ I for am in business to make money and I'm sure that's the purpose of all businesses.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

All car stereos have a "Microsoft" brand name on them? Your analogy doesn't include branding, or a monopoly of car stereos. Monopolies destroy markets.

Re:Interesting Observation

[pfleming]

Yea, you didn't get the special offer from Bill in the mail?
Oh man, I thought that was so everyone could get a new pair of jeans just for forwarding the email to all my friends. This I might have forwarded ;)

Re:Interesting Observation

[shaitand]

I wouldn't even worry about this, Microsoft already reniged on the deal anyway. They ARE going to try to block pirated XP from installing SP2.

Re:Interesting Observation

[JPriest]

Logitech does not make them.

Re:Interesting Observation

[drsmithy]

Except for the MS astro turfers most people here never claimed open source was un american or a cancer or communist. How you can claim that MS loves open source and this community is beyond me. Just listen to their leaders for gods sake.

"Open Source" != GPL.

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

If you followed the ant-trust case, you would have learned that Microsoft won't let Dell sell the laptop without XP pre-installed. Microsoft gives them steep discounts on licensing if Dell pre-installs XP. If Dell sold the laptop without an OS or with an alternate OS, Dell would lose the discounts and would not be able to compete price-wise with other laptop or PC manufacturers. In essence Microsoft is forcing Windows down his throat.

Re:Interesting Observation

[spongman]

A truly open market will provide options.

What, like:

• HP
• Apple
• Sun
• Penguincomputing
• pogolinux

(among others) ?

Re:Interesting Observation

[_Sprocket_]

What you've done is provide a list of competitors while ignoring the issue of artificial barriers put in place by Microsoft. I'm missing your point. I hope you're not trying to imply that there is an open market since there are competitors.

Re:Interesting Observation

[spongman]

well, your statement quoted above would seem to imply that a market that's not open would not provide options. given that there are options, your statement would seem to be saying that the market is open. maybe you should reword your statement?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Microsoft is actually very pro-operating system.

You wouldn't know it looking at Windows.

Re:Interesting Observation

[_Sprocket_]

well, your statement quoted above would seem to imply that a market that's not open would not provide options. given that there are options, your statement would seem to be saying that the market is open.

I find it kind of interesting that your first "option" involves Microsoft Windows XP. Take a look at the OS running on the HP workstations you spec'd out. Weren't we talking about options to Microsoft's products?

Your next example is the Apple Mac. That's close. At least a Mac platform has some Microsoft applications available - which helps Mac users dodge some of the forced incomparabilities introduced by such offerings as Microsoft Office. But it is far from a real option. I would love to have a Mac at work - they would even swap out my Win2K box if I wanted. However, I've seen the hassles other Mac users go through in that environment. They are faced with constant incomparabilities. The easiest fix has been shelling out additional funds for an emulated Windows environment. Hardly an option to Microsoft Windows.

The next suggested option is Sun. Running Sun's own flavor of Unix - Solaris 8. A fine OS. But hardly a suitable sub. My employer has provided me with a Solaris workstation. However, I still require the Win2K box to handle all the office automation and assorted other IT activities. I also did some experimentation with Kerberos compatability amoung Windows, Solaris, Linux and either a standard Kerberos server or Microsoft Active Directory. Surfice it to say, Microsoft has induced incomparabilities there too. Just some quick examples of why Sun is not really an option.

The final two "options" are Linux systems. Which is great - I like Linux. Use it all the time. But it suffers the exact same issues as Sun's Solaris (further highlighted during my previously mentioned Kerberos testing). And in many ways, Linux suffers the same problems MacOS suffers. I'd like to have a Linux box as my workstation at work (I use one at home). But, like the Mac, there are too many compatability issues for that to be a reality (short of emulating Windows again).

Part of the problem is that the IT architects for my current employer (of which I am one) do not consider multi-platform issues. It's not that one can not get things done when compatability is a key consideration - my previous employer (a technology company) did and is very successful at it. I would be tempted to blame my current IT architects and people like them for our current state of affairs. That is, if I ignored the fact that they heavily favor Microsoft solutions and deploy according to Microsoft - artificial incomparabilities and all.

And that doesn't leave me... or anybody else... with real options.

Re:Interesting Observation

[kunudo]

Well, yes, but ms has a deal with dell about including XP or whatever with their stuff.

Re:Interesting Observation

[spongman]

Take a look at the OS running on the HP workstations you spec'd out

What, like this option?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'forced incompatibilities'. Are you saying that it's impossible for two mac users to be 'compatible' without using Microsoft products? If not then that sounds like an option to me.

The rest of your argument seems to revolve around your inability to interoperate in a non-windows world, but as far as I can tell there's no technical or logistical reason (beyond the stubbornness of others) that this is so.

My point is that if you wanted to go totally non-Microsoft then you could, you have the option, nobody's forcing you to use their products. Sure, it may be inconveient for you if you don't, but that's your problem/fault, not theirs.

Re:Interesting Observation

[MethylPhreak]

Lasers....always with the lasers...

Re:Interesting Observation

[_Sprocket_]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'forced incompatibilities'. Are you saying that it's impossible for two mac users to be 'compatible' without using Microsoft products? If not then that sounds like an option to me.

MS Word document. IE-only web site. There are plenty of ways of limiting a Mac user to Microsoft products (albeit fewer than on a Windows platform).

The rest of your argument seems to revolve around your inability to interoperate in a non-windows world, but as far as I can tell there's no technical or logistical reason (beyond the stubbornness of others) that this is so.

This is a rather large subject. Microsoft has a documented history of preditory pricing and licensing deals, setting non-standards, and "embrace and extend" tactics with truely open standards. These actions create incomatability by design (and vendor lock-in).

One good point you touched on is the stubborness of others. I would suggest it has more to do with education - or a lack thereof. As I stated, there are IT architects in my environment who have no concept of cross-compatability (or why anyone would care). Although I've found that over the years, this has been changing.

A further point is my "inability to interoperate in a non-windows world." Whether I'm using Windows or not shouldn't matter to anyone but Microsoft. And me, based on my own preference. I have no problem with Microsoft offering the best-of-class application or architecture for a given activity. I do mind it when I can no longer include other platforms in that activity because I've included a Microsoft solution.

My point is that if you wanted to go totally non-Microsoft then you could, you have the option, nobody's forcing you to use their products. Sure, it may be inconveient for you if you don't, but that's your problem/fault, not theirs.

The problem is, Microsoft causes issues where I can not go with another option. It isn't a matter of inconvenience. It is a matter of not being able to do things because Microsoft has created artificial barriers to interoperating with their solutions. And that leaves me with no real option.

Re:Interesting Observation

[f8l_0e]

Well, I received a copy of XP Pro from a Microsoft training and also later on purchased a copy. I sure as hell haven't got a blowjob from Carmen Electra. Who knows though, maybe that will be a feature in SP2. :0

Re:Interesting Observation

[CaptainFrito]

Yeah, well, everything's an 'arms race.' And it's a very questionable premise that the USSR went broke because of the military arms race, anyway. Most of the educated and informed people that I know blame central planning and the destruction of the work ethic that ensues from turning adults into manufactring and farming automatons with the decision making authority of a two-year old.

Not automatically buying Microsoft products, not permitting them to adopt and extend, not allowing them to use their cash to pervert the patent system into granting them monopolies on obvious applications of computer science, not allowing them to steal code and hide behind the veil of 'proprietary/secrecy' claims. Microsoft stifles innovation in favor of creating idiot-proof software. But as everyone on /. knows intuitively, create something even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will use it.

The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re:Interesting Observation

[jwo7777777]

If every manufacturer shipped the same stereo and the stereo company threatened to stop selling them stereos if they tried to ship any other stereo with any of their vehicles, that would be fairly monopolistic.

And yet this is exactly what a certain Japanese manufacturer does in the car parts market.

Re:Interesting Observation

[mccabem]

I am likewise sick of the prevailing attitude of "live with it" from what feels like the rest of the planet for the last (roughly) 13 years since Miscrsoft went "preemtive".

The rest of the planet is a veritable pro-Windows hotbed...while it lasts, you're welcome to it.

Enjoy.

Re:Interesting Observation

[jcuervo]

(PERL is dual-licensed, IIRC)

[2] cuervo@crossbone ~ $ perl -v

This is perl, v5.8.0 built for i686-linux-ld

Copyright 1987-2002, Larry Wall

Perl may be copied only under the terms of either the Artistic License or the
GNU General Public License, which may be found in the Perl 5 source kit.

Re:Interesting Observation

[xigxag]

No SP2 For Pirated XP Copies

Okay, that's a relief. I mean, if letting pirates upgrade XP was actually a cynically evil plan to further MS dominance, then not letting pirates upgrade XP must be good, right?

Re:Interesting Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

It took them right up until security became a big issue in the consumer market to do this. What does this indicate? That as soon as security became a way that they might lose market share, they started focusing on security. The motivation is reasonably clear, I think.

Re: Interesting Observation

[maximilln]

-----
Looking further, OS/2 was the only viable alternative
-----
Except that MS pushed the release date of Win95 forward by 6 months and shipped a buggy beta release to the public specifically to beat the next release of OS/2 to market. MS correctly knew that once people had spent $100 on a graphical OS for their computer, no matter how buggy it was, they weren't going to shell out another $150 to try something else, even if it was better. It was cold economic sabotage. Due to the EULA MS had no responsibility to ensure that its product was fit for distribution. As long as it was stable for at least 30 mins. and could play a few video games it would be good enough for the public.

Was it a genius marketing effort to put together the hardware vendors, the software makers, and the distributors to get everything out the door, into the stores, and on the shelves ahead of OS/2? Yes. It was also irresponsible as anything else I've ever seen to get the public hooked on such a flawed product. The responsibility part is neither here nor there: the bottom line is MS made the move to ensure their monopoly and now they're rich and OS/2 is a footnote.

So, how long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft buys OSDN (and Sourceforge, Slashdot, etc)?

Re:So, how long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot has already been sold. Perhaps your popup-blocking browser is blocking all those Microsoft banner advertisements, but they're there. If it isn't the Visual Studio one it's the graph showing TCO of WIndows is far, far lower than Linux.

Re:So, how long until...

[Paul d'Aoust]

I think it's bizarre myself. They're kinda throwing away their advertising money by buying spots on OSDN. Let's see, we've got four different groups here:

1. Open source enthusiasts and developers, who are very dedicated to Linux or FreeBSD or what-have-you
2. Linux zealots who are fanatically dedicated to Linux
3. Platform-agnostic IT folks who use Linux, Windows, Mac OS, or maybe even DOS depending on what works best for them
4. Tech-heads who come here for information and opinion on the world of science and technology

I think that (correct me if I'm wrong) the vast majority of Slashdot readers and posters fall into the first two categories. And they're already baptised members of the open-source community, so they're not giving up the faith. The rest, who fall into the last two categories, certainly have an open mind towards Linux and are usually pretty sceptical of advertising in general.

Re:So, how long until...

[antic]

I think that the volume of the latter two would be higher than you'd expect.

And those endless MS ads are probably in direct contrast to stories of Gentoo developers/founders ending their involvement with debts of $20k. I'm not a developer for any specific platform, but if I had to choose between a few options, a successful company with money to burn on web ads is pretty far from a group whose leader is losing money on the project. :(

Even google, probably the geekiest of the search engines, states that Linux accounts for 1% of its users. I think Slashdot would have a much higher percentage, but I doubt it'd be a majority by a long shot.

Re:So, how long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, like Taco said, 80% of slashdot visitors only browse a little and don't post.

Re:So, how long until...

[Paul d'Aoust]

quite possibly; I dunno. I just kinda assumed... you know, Windows users would be turned away by the rampant evangelism that sometimes even leaks its way into the articles...

One point of disagreement: I don't think it's fair to compare Daniel Robbins and Gentoo against Microsoft. Robbins started Gentoo Technologies (Inc) as a labour of love; the other is solely a commercial enterprise. A more accurate comparison would be Microsoft and... ummmmm... Red Hat, who apparently has quite a bit of dough to play with (although I've never seen one of their banners on OSDN). That, in my opinion, is a better comparison of Linux and Microsoft's economic standing when you're trying to choose what platform to develop for.

Re:So, how long until...

[Too Much Noise]

you're missing a few types:

2': Apple zealots who are fanatically dedicated to MacOSX.
5. Regular '* is dying', 'In Soviet Russia', et alt. trolls.

Still, your argument holds - the Mac fans won't bettray their faith anymore than the Linux or *BSD ones (less, actually, if history has any meaning); and the troll mentality hints they're already windows users, so there's nothing to gain there.

I guess the only target would be the platform agnostic developers - but they'll not just swallow the MS ads about ease of use/devel and TCO hook, sink and line as MS would want. Oh well, maybe the MS PR knows more than I do about the benefits of add-spamming your audience.

Re:So, how long until...

[Fnkmaster]

I think you are sorely mistaken. I'd say "open source enthusiasts", or more accurately, hobbyists, make up a lot of folks on Slashdot. More people than not around here have installed a Linux distro, may have an old box they use as a Linux server or occasional desktop machine, or use some Unix flavors at work. But a lot fewer than the majority here never use Windows - I don't know the exact numbers, but I know Rob Malda has stated that the majority of page views are from Windows boxes, and I know that when I've had links in top comments and stories from Slashdot, I've seen the traffic patterns - sure, there are a lot more Linux users than the average stream of web traffic, but it's more like 10-15%.

Lots of people around here write software for a living, not just as a hobby. Unless you write web software, embedded software or other niche software, it's safe to say that you have to worry about people buying and using the software you write, which means using Windows. No, I'd say the fact that MS buys ads on OSDN indicates they understand the audience on Slashdot fairly well and in fact they want to be associated in these developers minds with the positive aspects of the Open Source community.

Anyway, I am an active Slashdot poster, and I know a fair number of other active Slashdot posters, and as far as I know, relatively few of them can say they exclusively use Linux, FreeBSD, or other Free/Open Source operating systems. I don't know if I would call myself "platform agnostic" - I'm not a zealot, and I recognize the strengths and weaknesses of Linux and Windows, but when it comes down to it, I need people to buy my software, and ignoring that fact is a fast road to being broke.

Re:So, how long until...

[antic]

Spybot just blocked three tracking cookies from ads on this one page. Go Slashdot! I don't think they'll be winning a Best Practises award at the Webby's anytime soon.

Re:So, how long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh well, maybe the MS PR knows more than I do about the benefits of add-spamming your audience.

Judging by the fact that you don't even know how to spell "ad", I'd say that's pretty much a given.

Re:So, how long until...

[IanBevan]

Allow me to remind you that a /. poll last year found that (something like) 80% of respondents were in fact Windows users. As am I. Yes, I've tried Linux, I've even developed under it. I just don't like it.

Re:So, how long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are totally mistaken.

Slashdot posters are different than slashdot readers. Many people here even do not bother to read your post. They are here to visit other sites, bash Microsoft and so on. Bashing Microsoft is not restricted to Linux users, everybody enjoys that, especially, we, the windows users, since linux users do not even have the right to bash Microsoft, whereas we paid something to Microsoft, so we feel more comfortable with that. So, you have the majority folks windows users actually who simply read stuff. Linux users and mac users are the ones who post and mod people. First of all it is quite clear that majority is mac users, whenever I see a topic with apple against linux, apple always win, both in editors' eyes and moderators' eyes. Second is the linux group and finally windows users. These are all among posters though.

This is quite consistent with the net. Mac users have free time more than any other type of user out there.

Re:So, how long until...

[Sn_wC_t]

I'm not a zealot

Any starcraft players think of these zealots running around with swords for hands, threatening you to use their OS?

those guys are really scary, unless your a mutalisk!

Re:So, how long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Tech-heads who come here for the technology jokes.

Really, the topic choices on /. are often not very interesting, information is sometimes disinformation and the opinions are very biased. I only keep coming here for the often very funny jokes. I salute you geeky jokers.

Re:So, how long until...

[skasingularity]

Don't forget:

5. I still live with my parents and don't have a job, so I'm using their Windows machine.

Re:So, how long until...

[coldtone]

5. Bored Nerds at work, who will click on an ad just for some mild entertainment.

Re:So, how long until...

[trukfixer]

If they do, I'll be rich.. seeing as I happen to own a considerable number of shares in LNUX..
This is gonna be an interesting thing to watch .. maybe Microsoft will start licensing their OS and packages like RedHat does.. get the software free, buy a subscription for support...

/me looks at self in mirror.."Whashoo been SMOKIN!?"

Re:So, how long until...

[happyfrogcow]

but I know Rob Malda has stated that the majority of page views are from Windows boxes, and I know that when I've had links in top comments and stories from Slashdot, I've seen the traffic patterns - sure, there are a lot more Linux users than the average stream of web traffic, but it's more like 10-15%.

The majority of /. viewers are probably reading from work...

Re:So, how long until...

[soliptic]

I think, by grouping them as one, you seriously fail to acknowledge the big difference between the demographics of "readers" and "posters".

I'd agree the majority of posters seem to fall into 1+2. I'd posit that the majority of readers fall into 3+4.

Personally - I installed slackware about 6 years ago when I was in my "playing with computers for the sheer hell of it" stage - found it far too hard, couldnt even get X working, gave up, never used Linux since.

But I have continued to read Slashdot every single day (or close enough) for those 6 years. Why? Because I'm still interested in tech stuff generally. In my first 5.5 years I think I posted about twice. In the last 6 months or so, I actually bothered getting an account at last, and have posted, um, maybe 10 times.

I suspect there may be a lot of people like me...

Hurry up and post, pundits

[drinkypoo]

I can't wait to find out how microsoft is screwing me today (tm).

Re:Hurry up and post, pundits

[Anonymous Coward]

Classic - can't wait to see the battle-of-the-moderators over this one.

Please post in a few hours and give us the results.

Re:Hurry up and post, pundits

[Anonymous Coward]

The good news: Microsoft has more lube than all the prisons in Baghdad.

The bad news: Their next OS is named "Longhorn".

Re:Hurry up and post, pundits

[Dalcius]

Don't you find it interesting how many pro-Microsoft comments are currently moderated at 4 or higher?

The Slashdot crowd has a lot of old, hardcore Linux folks and I think that group is still the majority, but with Slashdot's popularity as a geek site in general, there is a lot greater support here for Microsoft than some of the "QUIT BASHING MS!!" types want to admit.

Nobody likes unfounded comments or trolling, which is why some of us get so upset over comments against Linux, but to claim that Slashdot as a whole is lacking MS support (NOT what you said -- don't want to put words into your mouth) is a bit silly.

Cheers!

Re:Hurry up and post, pundits

[drinkypoo]

Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation +3
40% Funny
30% Underrated
20% Overrated

Total Score: 4

...and of course, 10% rounding error.

WTL

[Sarojin]

WTL up to this point, has been done by a single guy at MS. It's a lot nicer to use compared to MFC, and regular ATL, in that it follows the "KISS" aphorism

license

[Coneasfast]

for some reason, i don't think it's a coincidence that both their sf projects are under a non GPL-compatible license.

Re:license

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL contains some unrealistic ideas about patents among other things -- Most Open Source(!tm) licences are not GPL-compatible. That is why the open source community set up a licence evaulation mechinism outside of GNU.

Re:license

[LostCluster]

Interesting though, it's incompatible simply because it requires that the software licensor GIVE more rights than the GPL does.

The specific area of conflict is patent licenses... the GPL says nothing about them, the CPL grants them.

Re:license

[sfraggle]

The ironic thing is that the CPL is almost identical to the GPL in its features (the CPL has some patent clauses which the FSF are thinking of incorporating into the next version of the GPL), including copyleft which Microsoft has been so vocal in opposing in the past.

Re:license

[0x0d0a]

Microsoft doesn't have a problem with open source per se. The GPL, however, is a threat, because it attacks two points (closed source and patents) that they use to prevent competention from popping up and going after their market. If they use GPL code, they lose a good chunk of what keeps them king of the market. They love the BSD license, because it gives them goodies for free (and they don't have to do anything in return).

Producing software that is open source but not GPL-compatible helps fragment the opne-source world and weaken the GPL (unlike the BSD license, which is different from the GPL but compatible with it).

Re:license

[Anonymous Coward]

CPL is way less restrictive than GPL. It's no BSD license, but it's still much better than GPL.

Re:license

[Anonymous Coward]

You must mean better for companies who want to take the fruits of open source and sell proprietary closed versions of it.

Re:license

[Minna Kirai]

The specific area of conflict is patent licenses... the GPL says nothing about them, the CPL grants them.

-1: Lying about the GPL

1. 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of
2. patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
   

Put in other words, that means

1. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain
2. patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Now, as to the CPL "granting" patent licenses, what does that mean? The CPL says:

1. This patent license shall apply to the combination of the Contribution and the Program if, at the time the Contribution is added by the Contributor, such addition of the Contribution causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed Patents.
2. 
   The patent license shall not apply to any other combinations which include the Contribution.

To me, that sounds like you've only got a patent license until you modify the code... and then your new "combination" is infringing again. (But I haven't read the rest of the CPL quite carefully enough to know if there's other wrinkles... such as a special definition of "combination", prehaps)

But from that quick glance, the CPL is less "Free".

Re:license

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let's have some examples? What are the "unrealistic ideas" about patents?

The GPL doesn't address patents. It simply says that if you can't distribute the software for some other reason (like a patent), then the GPL can't possibly override that and let you redistribute.

Many open source licenses are not GPL-compatible, but they are still Free software licenses. Microsoft's chosen CPL is still a free software license.

Keep in mind they call it the Free Software Foundation, not "GNU" or the GNU foundation or the copyleft foundation or whatever. The focus is free software.

Re:license

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to give examples? The CPL is basically the GPL with a specific patent grant.

It is still copyleft ("viral") like the GPL, which is the only material difference between the GPL and, say, the BSD license, and what everybody seems to concentrate on.

Please explain your FUD!

Re:license

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the gpl preamble: "To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."

That's everyone's free use for everything, not just derived works of the open source product. Apple and others have similar clauses.

"GPL Compatible" is a propaganda crock anyway. It should be "GPL Convertable".

Re:license

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus himself said that if CPL existed in 1991, he would have used it instead of GPL. This is a legit licence from the open source community.

Re:license

[lkaos]

But from that quick glance, the CPL is less "Free".

Woah. Hold your horses there pal. Quotith gnu.org:

This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.

The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.

For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

So the FSF simply states that the CPL has extra clauses that aren't necessarily bad. The FSF is *not* shy about saying something is bad when they think it is. Fact is there are a lot of non-GPL compatible licenses out there. This is not like saying the CPL is OSI approved, but not FSF approved.

I know some of the people that worked on developing the IPL (the predecessor to the CPL). They worked very hard to make a license that would be acceptable to the community. The GPL is vague on patents. Unfortunately in the corporate world, you need to be more specific.

I applaud Microsoft for using the CPL. Keep in mind, the LGPL cannot be used with C++ code without a special clause (see libstdc++ in GCC for more info on this).

Re:license

[zurab]

To me, that sounds like you've only got a patent license until you modify the code... and then your new "combination" is infringing again. (But I haven't read the rest of the CPL quite carefully enough to know if there's other wrinkles... such as a special definition of "combination", prehaps)

IANAL, but to me, it means you are only granted a patent license in connection with the original program and any contributions you make to it. You are not granted a license to use that same patented "technology" (or a contribution that uses that patent) in another project or program.

Re:license

[_Sprocket_]

If they use GPL code, they lose a good chunk of what keeps them king of the market. They love the BSD license, because it gives them goodies for free (and they don't have to do anything in return).

The odd thing is that, for all their talk about the GPL's viral nature, Microsoft offers products based on GPL'd code. Dig around on their Services for Unix. But don't be suprised if it's not clear you're dealing with some GNU apps here. Microsoft modified their site. But the Wayback Machine offers some insight:

GPL Utility
Source Code

The GPL utility source code for Services for UNIX 3.0 contains the base utilities diff, sdiff, bc, dc, cpio, gzip, gunzip, gawk, patch, csplit, nl, strings, rpm, and SDK utilities/libraries ld.so, gcc, gdb, g++, g77, gasp, objcopy, ld, as, ar, nm, size, strip, ci, co, diff3 rcs, rlog, and ident.

The GPL utility source code for Interix 2.2 contains the utilities bc, ci, co, cpio, csplit, dc, diff, diff3, gawk, gzip, gunzip, ident, merge, nl, rcs, rcsdiff, rcsmerge and rlog.

Re:license

[gglaze]

But from that quick glance, the CPL is less "Free".

I've read many definitions of "free" on /., such as "free beer", "free liberty", "free bsd", etc. - and I am curious to know which of those definitions is being applied in this case.

Based on my star-trek defintions of free, here's what I am understanding:

CPL is "United Federation Free" - the universe is full of technology, feel free to find and integrate it when the inventor says it's ok - and feel free to continue to keep your other technology private so as not to break the prime directive.

GPL is "Borg Free" - feel free to join our community and gain access to any of our technology, but note that once you do, anything you create belongs to the collective.

I personally have a hard time understanding how GPL supporters can call this "more free" with a straight face.

Re:license

[Minna Kirai]

I've read many definitions of "free" on /., such as "free beer", "free liberty", "free bsd", etc. - and I am curious to know which of those definitions is being applied in this case.

But I didn't write "free". I wrote "Free".

The capitalization should've made it as obvious as if I put "Windows" and you wondered if it was a sheet of glass.

The real difference between "free" and "Free" is that the former includes anything available for $0, while the latter only has stuff which the recipient can also redistribute freely. Both BSD and GPL are subsets of the latter.

You have, of course, miststated the BSD/GPL difference above. BSD gives freedom only to the derivative authors. GPL concentrates on giving derivative users freedom, by allowing them to become derivative authors themselves.

I personally have a hard time understanding how GPL supporters can call this "more free" with a straight face.

There is no way one of those can be objectively called "more free" than the other, unless you want to get into philosophical questions like "Is a country where murder is legal more free?" (Hint: No it's not)

However, since the capitalized "Free" is from the FSF trademarked name, the GPL is more "Free" by definition.

Re:license

[Minna Kirai]

CPL is "United Federation Free" - the universe is full of technology, feel free to find and integrate it when the inventor says it's ok

But, the Federation never said it was OK. Their Prime Directive was to stop the sharing of their technology...

Re:license

[Minna Kirai]

Keep in mind, the LGPL cannot be used with C++ code without a special clause (see libstdc++ in GCC for more info on this).

Wrong. The LGPL is not incompatible with C++.

You're probably referring to the LGPL requirement that end-users be allowed to replace the LGPLed library in their program with another version of that same library. It has been noted that while this is very easy to accomplish with C DLL or SO files, C++ includes features (like inlining, namemangling, and vtables) which get in the way of that super-easy solution.

However, there are other solutions, which although not completely painless, work fine without adding a special clause. Most obviously, the application can be distributed in source code form. (Which does NOT imply it is made Open Source)

Re:license

[gglaze]

1. Thank you for the clarification/correction - I wouldn't have noticed the difference between Free and free;

2. If you don't mind, could you please clarify for me more precisely what the definition of "Free" is - based on your response I am under the impression it simply means "something which can be distributed without limitations". Is this correct?

Note - I am intentionally omitting the word free from this definition, in order to avoid a circular definition.

In any case, assuming I am generally correct on what Free means, I still am failing to see how GPL is Free under this definition - as in my Borg analogy, there is a huge "limitation" or "cost" or however you want to think of the impact of using a GPL'ed component - this limitation is the fact that I must loose my "freedom" (lowercase f) to chose keep any part of my IP private.

I am not trying to antagonize here - I really would like to be more clear on this argument, and to understand the various viewpoints on this topic.

Thanks.

Re:license

[Minna Kirai]

this limitation is the fact that I must loose my "freedom" (lowercase f) to chose keep any part of my IP private.

Yes, there are positions from which the GPL is less free than BSD. From the viewpoint of one individual author modifying a program, the BSD license gives him more freedom, because he can both use the existing source code and then make a choice about whether or not to release the modified code, or just the executable. The GPL forces that choice.

So to that one author, the GPL makes him less free. However, the freedom the GPL took away from him was freedom to withhold freedom from others. The ability to reduce other people's freedom's is itself a freedom, but one the GPL doesn't allow.

Summarizing BSD vs GPL from different perspectives:

• To the original author, the GPL is more free, because she can be confident of seeing the results of anyone modifying her code.
• To a derivative author, the BSD is more free, because she can choose whether or not to release the modified source code.
• To the end users, GPL is more free, because they will always have the source available. (With BSD, they might or might not get the source)
• From the perspective of the software itself, the GPL is more free, because nobody can put her to work in a proprietary product without Freeing it too. (Anthropomorphizing here...)

PS. The word is "lose".

Re:license

[lkaos]

So you're saying that you have two choices: 1) include a clause or 2) only distribute in source form.

I'm sorry, but distributing in source form is not acceptable for a lot of folks who would want to use a LGPL C++ library. I stand by what I originally stated.

Re:license

[gglaze]

Exactly - as far as I know, the Prime Directive is a one-way guideline - "do not share advanced technology with less advanced civilizations" - it didn't say that Federation members couldn't integrate technology from outside the Federation - for example, when Voyager integrated Borg technology into their ship, it wasn't considered a violation of the Prime Directive - although it was certainly a controversial decision for other ethical reasons... But I'm sure there are countless cases when it was perfectly acceptable to integrate new technology from other civilizations into Federation technology, without necessarily having to give up all privacy of Federation technology in return. There may have been some cases in which an acceptable agreement or a trade was arranged, where each party decided to trade some technology - but I don't know of any case in which Enterprise was forced to give up some technology or information against their wishes, and they were still happy about it.

In this case, I'm using Prime Directive as the ST analogy to patents, or protected IP, or whatever guideline a company establishes by which they desire to prevent the whole world from gaining access to what they have...

The point here is that like the GPL, the Borg have no concept of a Prime Directive - they will happily share their technology with all civilizations, under their own terms, whether the civilization chooses these terms or not. Thus I suppose you could say that the Borg does of course have one degree less "freedom" than the GPL, in that at least with the GPL you get to choose whether you will be "assimilated" or not.

Re:license

[gglaze]

Thank you for the "lose" correction - also note that in the same sentence, I misspelled "choose" as "chose"...
;)

Regarding this "freedom to withhold freedom from others" - I believe this is deceptively over-simplified, and in the end false.

If I have a closed project, then I decide that developer X outside of my project does not have the "freedom" to view my code.

If I then decide to integrate a "BSD-licensed" component into my project, then I do not make any modification to X's "freedom" - X still has the same access to this component that he had before, and X still does not have access to my code.

On the other hand, if this component is a GPL component, it appears to me that I am in fact making a modification to X's "freedom" - X now has access to additional code that they did not have before. Thus, I can see the "virus-like" analogies that have been made about the GPL - it essentially spreads this "freedom" you are talking about like a virus.

But we are talking about increasing levels of freedom, never decreasing them - it doesn't appear to me that I have taken away anything from X by including a BSD component in my project - X will be in exactly the same state they were in before I chose to do so.

I think this is what my Borg analogy is really driving at - ultimately you are using the idea of X's "freedom" here to say that X has some sort of collective right to everything that falls within a certain domain, which to me seems very Borg-istic and sounds a lot like assimilation. I don't really call this "freedom" under any definition - any more than I would call the Borg's idea of participation collective a "freedom". I really do not see how this idea of "collective rights" or "collective consciousness" can be called a "freedom" under any straight-faced definition.

I think that virtually any defintion of freedom must include some basic components at the lowest level, whether we are talking about upper-case F or lower-case f:
It must involve at least two parties, party A and party B.
It must involve the concept of party A doing something that affects party B in such a way that party B has less of something than he would have if party A would not have done that in the first place.

In the case we are talking about here, this party B is not affected in any way by the actions of party A, under the BSD - thus I don't see how any claim to a change in the state of B's freedom can be made.

Re:license

[Minna Kirai]

It must involve at least two parties, party A and party B.

You're the one oversimplifing, because you said "at least two", but then only used exactly two in your example.

It's better to say that A = original developer (one of him), B = derivative developer (5 of them), C = end user (999999 of them). The GPL gives more freedom to A & C at the expense of B, which is usually more freedom overall.

(Of course, that makes assumptions about the relative populations of ABC, as well as about the quantified values of the freedom each has lost or gained. Your decision about which license produces the greater net freedom must depend on the weight you assign to each of those factors)

it doesn't appear to me that I have taken away anything from X by including a BSD component in my project - X will be in exactly the same state they were in before I chose to do so.

Sure. Exactly the same. Instead of increasing... By declining to increase $SOMETHING when you had the option to do so, the total amount of $SOMETHING is less overall. I think that's obvious.

Suppose I'm a founder of the USA, and I'm recruiting states to join. Should I allow citizens of these new members to own slaves? Or would taking away that freedom increase the level of freedom for everybody?

(That illustrates that a local decrease in freedom between two entities may create an overwhelmingly higher amount in the relationship between others)

It must involve the concept of party A doing something that affects party B in such a way that party B has less of something than he would have if party A would not have done that in the first place.

Nope. You create a false duality: increase or decrease. But in reality there is a third way: do nothing. Neither help nor harm.

And that 3rd option is what the GPL guards against, by encouraging other authors to GPL their own code by offering them a positive incentive to do so.

By examining history, we can see places where either the GPL or BSD license could've done more to increase overall freedom. Linux, for example, is much better as GPL than BSD, as has been proven by the multiple greedy corporations that use Linux in products but Free their changes in exchange. BSD, however, was superior for the Vorbis code.

There's no right answer for all cases, and to claim that such exists is the ultimate oversimplification.

I think this is what my Borg analogy is really driving at

Dump that analogy in the trash alongside the "viral GPL" one. The Borg suck you away with tractor beams and drill through your skull; a virus pierces your cytoplasmic membranes and injects invasive DNA. They're both aggressive, and act without the victim's consent.

The GPL, on the other hand, does nothing unless you willingly decide to modify code supplied under the GPL. If you like Star Trek analogies, then GPL is more like the UFP: if you want access to their technologies, your planet has to join up to the Federation. (They certainly don't go giving away technical secrets willy-nilly! The Prime Directive forbids it)

Re:license

[Minna Kirai]

I'm sorry, but distributing in source form is not acceptable for a lot of folks who would want to use a LGPL C++ library.

"Cannot" and "not acceptable" are very, very different things... especially in a legal context! The statement was false.

Furthermore, there are other ways to use LGPL with C++, such as "Use a good linker". (Good C++ linkers are exceedingly rare, because there's little demand for them, but they can exist)

Re:license

[gglaze]

The GPL, on the other hand, does nothing unless you willingly decide to modify code supplied under the GPL.

First, a point of clarification - my understanding is that these rules apply when you "incorporate" code, not when you "modify" code. In other words, if I encorporate a GPL'ed component in it's entirety into my closed-source project, are you saying the entire project can still stay closed as long as I don't modify anything in the GPL'ed component?

You're the one oversimplifing, because you said "at least two", but then only used exactly two in your example.

No, I believe my example applies universally - I don't care if there are 2 parties involved, or 5 million parties involved. In all cases, I postulate that the "do nothing" approach you are describing - i.e. neither increasing or decreasing - has absolutely no effect on any member of this population other than myself - in other words, if I incorporate a BSD-licensed component into my closed project and then I decide not to tell a single soul about it, then it has absolutely zero effect on the population of users that may potentially be interested in said component - there is no member of that population that gains or loses anything.

That is where I believe your slave analogy is much further off than my Borg analogy - in the slave analogy, you are describing a complex scenario of good/bad tradeoffs, that affect many different groups within the population in different ways, where there are almost certainly tradeoffs with any decision taken - which affect some members in a positive way and other members in a negative way.

On the other hand, the BSD license appears to increase benefit (access to code) for exactly one member of the population (the person incorporating it), and to neither increase or decrease anything for any other member of that population - no member of that population would have had my code before, and neither will they have it after. And it's really that simple...

Well, except for one case I think you've brought up during this discussion, and perhaps this becomes the actual substance of the debate - let me know if you agree or not - it appears that you consider the author of said code to have some sort of "right" to be fully aware at all times of who is using their code, in what way, and with what modifications, if any.

In the case of modifications - I can absolutely see the point. In the case of simply knowing who is using the code - well perhaps, that just seems like a personal choice to me. Personally I don't feel that I have a right, or want one, to know about every person that uses my (unmodified) code, unless that person wants to let me know - in which case, yes of course I'm happy to know about it. But if a secret government agency wants to use my component, and to keep it confidential, I'm generally ok with that, maybe unless they are using my component to commit genocide or something - but the point is - this is the most extreme case I can think of, and even then - it's like saying I manufacture a hammer, so I want to know about everyone who uses my hammer, even those who use the hammer to build concentration camps or whatever...

So I've tried to clearly indicate that I don't agree with you about the rest of the population - you are implying that all developers who buy into this theory have some sort of inalienable right to automatic "growth" by virtue of participating in the community - and that is exactly what I mean by Borg-istic...

But here's the crux of the matter for me: *if* the entire argument comes down to the author's rights, as described above, to know about usage, modifications, etc., then the terms of the license don't make sense to me - it seems like the GPL is written to take advantage of one argument (author's rights) in order to implement this collective/community idea which has additional affects on all members of the community, not just the author - in other words, it seems like the community gains and loss for the person inc

Re:license

[lkaos]

"Use a good linker". (Good C++ linkers are exceedingly rare, because there's little demand for them, but they can exist)

How would a "good linker" alleviate the problem of templates? The code will be generated when a template is instantiated. There's no way to avoid that. It seems to me the license is broken here--not the language.

I'll accept your critism about semantics of "cannot" however I don't think a technical solution (short of providing source) is really obivous.

Re:license

[Minna Kirai]

my understanding is that these rules apply when you "incorporate" code, not when you "modify" code

Incorporation is basically a subset of modification. If it were somehow possible to incorporate a GPLed project without modifying it, then that would be permissible... but under normal techniques for software development, that is impossible. At least a minor amount of modification is required before incorporation becomes possible.

Another way to look at it is to note that size doesn't matter for copyright law. If I write a 5 line function and you write a 20kloc including it, your whole program is still legally a modification of my previous work.

and to neither increase or decrease anything for any other member of that population

You have entered an infinite loop. You made that same statement two posts up, but have not responded to my response. Anything I could say to that post I've already said.

Still, I'll see if I can find another way to state the same thing without being 100% repetitive.

Consider 3 ways of releasing software: binary-only, BSD, and GPL. To the end-users, binary-only is clearly less free than BSD or GPL, because they have no ability to modify the code for their own needs. The freeness of BSD and GPL is similar, but BSD gives the additional freedom of allowing the modification to be released binary-only. BSD code can become binary-only

But! As already mentioned, binary-only is much less free. So if BSD can become less free, and GPL cannot become less free, then GPL is in some way more free.

Which one is really on top depends on how you count the "freedom to become less free". It can be seen as either a positive or a negative, and there is no frm answer to that question, any more than you can tell me "Can God create a rock to heavy for Him to lift?"

no member of that population would have had my code before, and neither will they have it after.

Do you think the world's programmers would be more or less free if all software was distributed with enclosed source code?

Practical example then. The Linux kernel. There are multiple companies out there that sell routers, PDAs, datacenters, motor-controllers, and TiVos running Linux, and they've all released their source code additions to their customers... making those customers more free. (and then spreading that freedom even to noncustomers)

Would they have done so if Linux was BSD instead of GPL? I doubt it.

In fact, the whole reason that Linux is more popular and successful than the BSD variant operating systems is due to the GPL. Many new features were added which, if the license had been BSD, the authors would've just kept to themselves, rather than opening to the world.

Addtionally, the argument on "Free" software licenses shouldn't be seen as "GPL vs BSD" but "GPL vs PD", where BSD is only a minor variation of PD (Public Domain).

Historically, Richard Stallman was first a PD author, who found that his own projects were being modified by corporations and then sold back to him for profit. Few people would enjoy seeing software that they had given for free commercialized like that.

So RMS had three choices: He could stop publishing source code. Or he could publish source code, but forbid anyone to distribute modified versions. Or, he could find some way to allow modification and redistribution, but only if they agree to allow their users the same rights they are enjoying then.

Obviously, you know which path he took, and you should be able to see that of those 3 choices, that one contributed much more freedom to his users than the others would've.

Many authors, especially corporations, wouldn't release their source code at all if it were possible a corporation would suck it into traditionally proprietary software. The fact that the GPL allows them to give out code without fear makes all of us recieving their software more free.

Re:license

[gglaze]

I could ask an equivalent question: would your own nation become more or less free if kidnapping was legallized?

I'll focus on this point - again, whether it sounds nice or not, this scenario involves "good" and "bad" tradeoffs. For people who don't want to be kidnapped (presumably everyone), obviously it would be bad for them if kidnapping was legalized, because it would most likely result in a decrease of freedom for this population. However, for those who want to be kidnappers, and who value their freedom to kidnap people more than their freedom to not be kidnapped, legalized kidnapping would actual be a net *increase* in their perceived freedom.

Same goes for slaves, but that is a slightly less convoluted case, because (1) it is historically realistic; and (2) typically it has been historically based on two definable, separate classes within the population, such as races - thus as a member of the class of potential slave owners, there would be no question about whether I value my freedom to not be a slave more or less than my freedom to have slaves - either I'm in the class that is in danger of being inslaved, or I am in the class that has the possibility of having slaves, but typically not both. Thus, in the slave case it is a bit more clear - good for slave masters, bad for slaves.

Now, I'm talking in very dispassionate terms right now, and that's one of the difficult things here - we are discussing something where there are clearly underlying ideas about absolute good and evil, and so it is more complex because all of the tradeoffs between more/less freedom I've described above also have to be weighed and superceeded by moral/ethical considerations about absolute good and evil.

On the other hand, I don't believe their is any absolute "good" or "evil" when we talk about free or non-free or open or closed software - I believe all of those have an appropriate time and place, and only zealots would claim that one of those is always good and the other is always evil.

So again it becomes more clear than such convoluted moral questions - this is simply a question about who gains what and who loses what. You say I'm going in circles and not reading/understanding/listening to your response, and I probably have the same feeling about you on this point. So I'm not sure if we will get further - but again, it is not a question about "would the world be more free if we had more open software" or whatever - it is a much simpler question, that can be analyzed at a much simpler level before interpolating out to the entire world - is programmer X that I've never met in Taiwan better off or worse off if I decide that he can't see my code? They didn't have it before, and they still won't have it - doesn't seem like I've taken anything away from them.

On the more practical note, maybe I just don't get how this works - I know compiling/distributing components on Linux is different than in Windows, but... my understanding is that these GPL rules would apply, for example, even in the case that I want to use an open-source component in my Windows application, and this particular component simply compiles to a DLL, and then I reference that DLL from my application. Clearly, if I simply build (or even download) the DLL, I am not making any "modification" to this code, yet I am still subject to the same rules under GPL for my entire referencing application, right? Or am I wrong about this?...

Uh-oh

[agent dero]

Guys, i'm scared, really scared.

I mean, do I download it? Do I use it? Do I trust it?

All of a sudden nothing makes sense anymore!

Re:Uh-oh

[km790816]

I don't know. Look at the source! :-)

I love this quote:

"We will we continue to go down this [SourceForge] path," Matusow said, making it clear it was a strategy decision embraced at all levels at Redmond. "It's not about whether it's right or wrong to release source code. It's about what's good for our customers and how it fits into our business."

Wow. Open Source as just another tool. Just like free markets. To be used and supported when it makes sense.

That almost sounds reasonable...and it's from a manager at Microsoft!

Re:Uh-oh

[Nurgled]

Can't they host their own open-source projects rather than sucking SourceForge's teats?

SourceForge is great for projects which otherwise wouldn't have a home, but Microsoft is more than capable of running their own SourceForge-like system.

That is unless, of course, they are just throwing WTL into the void and hoping someone else will look after it because they've got no interest in it anymore.

Re:Uh-oh

[sdcharle]

I mean, do I download it? Do I use it? Do I trust it?

I don't know. I asked Bonzi Buddy, but he just keeps telling stupid jokes.

Good for them

[sbrown123]

Its so hard to hate them sometimes! On one hand they kill competition with shady tactics. On the other, they have some damn good products. Curse you Microsoft!!!

Re:Good for them

[RTPMatt]

The idea is to encourage a larger pool of developers to tinker with the code and improve the bug-finding process.

Yes, this truly is fantastic. You have to love it when a company releases source code to the community, because they cant be bothered fix software bugs themselves...but still refuses to release the code to their flagship software, whos bugs create some of the worlds largest security issues.

Re:Good for them

[zeroprime]

Wow, brings back memories of Apple and the clones.

Re:Good for them

[Man in Spandex]

I have to agree. Although they don't accept strong competitors, they do make it damn easy to develop tools via Visual Studio and MSDN libraries are full of useful ressources. Other than M$ Visio, their other Office Tools aren't beaten but aren't the best compared to the alternatives (OpenOffice, KOffice, GnomeOff...)

Re:Good for them

[Paul d'Aoust]

my gosh, MSDN makes me cry. It's just so nice to use. I wish we had more sites as well-organised as this for the free community. What I wouldn't do to see the Mozilla Foundation (or the W3C or whoever) create a comprehensive XHTML/DOM/ECMAScript reference like the (embraced and extended) version you find on MSDN. Man, there's something to be said for centralisation... yummy yummy software fascism...

Hey, maybe I'll make one.... mind you, the reason I want one is because I don't really know XHTML to its full extent myself... 9_9

Re:Good for them

[devnullify]

You mean you can actually find what you're looking for on MSDN?

My god man, tell me your secret!

Re:Good for them

[Edgewize]

MSDN is a great collection... when you search it with google. Toss "site:microsoft.com" in with your keywords and you're good to go.

Re:Good for them

[Canar]

If you want to learn to use XHTML, read the spec. It's really rather straightforward.

The W3C has put a lot of effort into making all their specifications very easy to learn. Furthermore, they all make great reference tools, as they are the *official specification*. Everything else has to measure up to them.

Re:Good for them

[Paul d'Aoust]

well maybe the W3C has spiffed up its specs recently, but when I went there to read about the XHTML spec, I found it incredibly obtuse... I eventually left.

Glad to see MS releasing so much code

[Anonymous Coward]

First Windows 2000, now this.

In other news....

[Dan Farina]

Evidence that pigs do fly has surfaced, new interpretations of the bible by scholars indicate that Hell is actually a frozen wasteland, and RMS backs a decision by Sun not to open Solaris.

Re:In other news....

[kidgenius]

I think you meant that RMS decides to take a bath ;)

Re:In other news....

[thejuggler]

This just in. RIAA says we were just kidding about those law suits. Everyone can download all the music they want for free.

Re:In other news....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if your a fan of Dante it has been a frozen wasteland for hundreds of years.

Re:In other news....

[flacco]

I think you meant that RMS decides to take a bath ;)

RMS appears disheveled at times, but i'm happy to report that he is squeaky-clean and odor-free.

XML...

[d4rkmoon]

Have you noticed that WiX is XML based? And gee... Longhorn is basically purely MS XML base isn't it? I think they're trying to pose as helping the development community, but truly just push their own product line dependency. Scary.

Re:XML...

[M.C. Hampster]

I think they're trying to pose as helping the development community, but truly just push their own product line dependency. Scary.

You, sir, are absolutely brilliant. They've released a framework for creating Windows installers (WiX) and for creating Windows applications in C++ (WTL), and you've just now figured out that perhaps they are interested in people writing applications for Windows. Do you want a prize?

I'm glad you are here though to protect the development community from those sneaky Microsoft bastards.

Errata

[Sarojin]

By "single" I mean't that he worked on it alone. He's happily married (chicks dig coders!) ;-)

Re:Errata

[raehl]

chicks dig coders!

Well now we KNOW you're lying.

Re:Errata

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what he meant is that suburban Seattle bar hoes will put out if you work at Microsoft.

Re:Errata

[Lord Kano]

Well now we KNOW you're lying.

Not necessarily. Making your job sound cool to women is a lot like marketspeak.

You're not a "code monkey", you're a "database consultant". You're not "at the bottom of the ladder", you're "approaching your career goals".

Women use words differenly than we do. Once you learn that, you'll get a lot more chicks.

LK

Re:Errata

[fucksl4shd0t]

Women use words differenly than we do. Once you learn that, you'll get a lot more chicks.

I used to know a guy that used to hit on girls by saying "Let me hit 'dat!"

I think he's still a virgin.

Conversely, I used to have to carry a stick around, because when a chick asked me what I did, I told them I hung mufflers, or I fixed broke-ass cars, or something to that effect. Then I had to beat them with a stick, because it's more fun than wearing a wedding ring (and besides, the stick works better than the ring).

Re:Errata

[Lord Kano]

I used to know a guy that used to hit on girls by saying "Let me hit 'dat!"

You need to be really muscular and reasonably financially well off for that one to work.

I think he's still a virgin.

So, he's fat AND broke huh?

Conversely, I used to have to carry a stick around, because when a chick asked me what I did, I told them I hung mufflers, or I fixed broke-ass cars, or something to that effect.

I try to keep it more general. "I fix things when they're broken". When they ask for more details, I keep it general but truthful. "Computers, Cars, whatever someone is willing to pay me to fix."

It depends on the crowd, but I'm pushing 30. Chicks my age LOVE IT when a man is handy.

LK

Re:Errata

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know this guy's marital status?

Re:Errata

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what he meant is that suburban Seattle bar hoes will put out if you work at Microsoft.

You don't want them anyhow. Seattle area women have hairy legs / armpits and drive Volvos.

What now, Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh the angst! Thousands of geeks struggle valiantly for a way to spin this so as to make Microsoft's release of this software for free look bad... hmmm... criticize the license terms? chant "embrace and extend"?

Oh, fuck it.

"Bill gate is a poopyhead, neener neener neener!"

Re:What now, Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

aww Bill has a sense of humor. How cute!

Re:What now, Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, actually he`s the world`s biggest "little" prick!! shaaawang!

It's about damned time.

[leshert]

WTL has been a bit of an embarrassment for Microsoft.

It started life as an MSDN sample app, but (to the surprise of everyone), people started actually using it. It fits nicely between the niches of MFC and ATL, supports a nice big chunk of what you need to do to get a desktop app running, and does it in a very clean, STL-friendly way. I read in an interview that some folks at MS thought it was a major mistake to release it; fortunately for them (at the time) it was pretty obscure.

There's some history of WTL at WikiWiki.

I remember way back then there were a couple of calls for Microsoft to "give it away" (in terms of control, not price--it's always been gratis), but I suppose the time hasn't been politically right within Microsoft until the recent popularity of their installer program release.

Re:It's about damned time.

[rifftide]

If you were Steve Ballmer, what would you do with all the winning "prove that you are talented enough to work at Microsoft" submissions from college grads?

I suspect the line "ten years late and a dollar short" came near the end of the last of several contentious MS meetings on WTL.

Re:It's about damned time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Executive summary of those meeting:

Why are we talking about Win32 when the plebs should rewriting for .NET?

Re:It's about damned time.

[leshert]

Except that those meetings undoubtedly predated .NET. :-)

I agree--had WTL been released before MFC, or even after MFC but before 32-bit Windows, I think it would be the dominant paradigm on the Windows desktop.

But Microsoft really didn't have any incentive at all to market it, and putting it into MSDN was as good an idea (at the time) as any.

Given that Open Source is the latest business world rage, and they no longer have a huge need to prevent it from fragmenting their MFC developer base, this is a smart move (with near-zero cost) for them now, too.

Anyone who is willing to dump MFC for a better thing, and has their eyes on the future, is likely to head .NET-ward anyway.

Re:It's about damned time.

[rifftide]

(Slightly expanded) I haven't heard even one customer ask me for a streamlined, more robust alternative to MFC. But all the time, customers are asking me, how do we take advantage of the tremendous investment in innovation is Microsoft is making with .NET and Longhorn which will enable the next wave of great software from dedicated developers like ourselves?

Re:It's about damned time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, keep in mind that .NET/NGWS/'Project COOL' was a long time coming.

Some of us remember the pre-release hype for Visual Basic 7.0 as well...

Re:It's about damned time.

[arkanes]

Which just goes to show how much your customers know, since they should have been asking your for streamlined, more robust alternatives to MFC for ten years now

And pfft to this stupid Avalon xml nonsense. If I wanted to write HTA apps I'd have been doing it for years.

Re:It's about damned time.

[Kiaser Zohsay]

Anyone who is willing to dump MFC for a better thing, and has their eyes on the future, is likely to head .NET-ward anyway.

MS is busy herding all the cattle toward .NET and there are rumors of a new installer for Longhorn. Could it be that everything that MS is releasing as open-source (WIX and WTL) is simply abandon-ware?

Big News!

[bigattichouse]

Microsoft invents Delphi! gee.. only about 10 years after the fact.. and its not WTL, its written V-C-L! *grin*

Good Advice, Be Safe

[geekanarchy]

There are a lot of GPL GUIs out there, I recommend using them rather than Microsoft's. First off, most of them are cross platform. Secondly, I have never known Microsoft to not have an agenda for anything they did. If you use this toolkit, you may want to beware as to what rights Microsoft may try to claim over it at a later date. Whether the claims were founded or not, I would not want to fight MS in court.

Re:Good Advice, Be Safe

[name773]

you may want to beware as to what rights Microsoft may try to claim over it at a later date
once software is out under a certain license, it stays under that license... provided you don't upgrade to a new version w/a different license scheme

Re:Good Advice, Be Safe

[TheCabal]

What brand of tinfoil do you wear?

Re:Good Advice, Be Safe

[spectecjr]

There are a lot of GPL GUIs out there, I recommend using them rather than Microsoft's. First off, most of them are cross platform. Secondly, I have never known Microsoft to not have an agenda for anything they did. If you use this toolkit, you may want to beware as to what rights Microsoft may try to claim over it at a later date. Whether the claims were founded or not, I would not want to fight MS in court.


Oh please. Stop being such an ass. I've been using WTL since 2001, and have even released COMMERCIAL software with it - with no problems whatsoever.

It's another tool in the toolkit. It's only you OSS wankers who try to put restrictive and ambiguously worded licenses on your libraries (GPL, anyone?).

Why is this suprising, they've done it before.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is so suprising?

They want to have developers work on Windows and support their platform, buy providing easy access to some parts that may help out developers they encourage people to learn how to develope using this sort of stuff.

It's like giving a key away for a motel guest. The guy can look a the key, examine how it works and uses it for no extra charge, but as long as the lock remains closed off then the closed source model will still work in MS's favor.

Re:Why is this suprising, they've done it before.

[dedazo]

Blah blah blah. The WTL has been available for years, at least since 1997, and since it's a fucking template library, you always got the source.

Way to go stupid conspiracy theories.

CPL is OSI approved!

[gazoombo]

Baffling!
Microsoft has actually released open-source software.

The CPL was developed by IBM and is OSI approved.

OSI approved
more info

Re:CPL is OSI approved!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not baffling at all. It's more Windows proprietary junk. Giving away source for little Windows only tools just serves their Windows only agenda.

Re:CPL is OSI approved!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be cleaner to do what you do in your sig in your crontab?

Re:CPL is OSI approved!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because Gentoo Kids by defintion don't know unix.

Re:CPL is OSI approved!

[sydres]

it at least has a simple legal edge in that if you sue over a violation their can be no jury plus the statute of limitations is only year after which it is null and void. taken from the last paragraph of the CPL

Trojan Alert!

[CharAznable]

For some reason, the only thing I can see coming out of this is a big bite in the ass...

On the bridge of the USS Linux

[Progman3K]

Sulu: Captain, it's the Borg, again. they want us to integrate their technology.

Spock: Captain, I expect they are doing this so they can still feel relevant in the future open-source, linux-dominated software world.

Kirk: Mr Sulu, set phasers to "ignore"

Sulu: Aye, Captain.

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you guys ever realize that linux isn't going to become dominant? And that microsoft isn't as evil as you all say? Most of those here who bash microsoft for breaking the law tout that downloading copyrighted music is practically you're duty. Bill Gates is the most generous philanthropist in history. Wake up, stop hating, and come up with sensible reasons to disagree with something.

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Kirk never faced the borg. Your thinking of either Picard or Janeway

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[Progman3K]

You're wrong.

My goal in switching to Linux wasn't to destroy Microsoft.

Hard to believe as you may find it, it was to become LEGIT!

There's no way I can afford to shell out for something like Windows XP every couple of years.

And now, everything I run is legit. And free. Can't forget about the freedom.

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

for real, that guy is a shitty geek to mistake TOS for TNG...

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be getting old... I'm just not nerdy enough for this place any more.

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[KarmaMB84]

And Bill Gates is personally holding a gun to your temple every couple of years?

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[TheLink]

No, but the malware people are shooting plenty of bullets.

MS just stops providing patches and the pressure to switch increases. Win95 without patches isn't that unsafe - you can remove all the network services. But it's hard to do that with Win2K, XP etc.

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[black88]

Bullshit. I had to do this just this afternoon, as I needed to create a new hardware profile in WinXP Pro with minimal services running for an Audio Workstation. RUN:services.msc, then, shut off any and all network services. On second thought, do you mean uninstall them entirely? If so, then I take back my bullshit comment.

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[Progman3K]

>And Bill Gates is personally holding a gun to your temple every couple of years?

Yes; by not supporting the version of Windows that people are currently running.

"Uprade or take your chances"

Maybe it's not a gun per se...

With Linux, kernels may fall to the wayside, but there's no charge to get a newer one.

Well, I say no charge, but there IS an implicit agreement that you will give back to the community... Can that be considered onerous?

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[TheLink]

What do you see when you run netstat -an on the command line? If you don't see anything listening on any port then congrats, I'm wrong.

When you remove the MS client in Win95 and just have windows logon, tcpip, there's nothing listening on any port.

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux

[TrikerII]

Hey, if your going to get it right, get it right! Geordi - Captain, it's the Borg, again. they want us to integrate their technology. Data - Captain, I expect they are doing this so they can still feel relevant in the future open-source, linux-dominated software world. Picard - Geordi, set phasers to "ignore" Geordi - Aye, Captain. - Apologies to Gene

obFark

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a trap!!

Re:obFark

[cujo_1111]

Please credit your sources...

"It's a trap!!" - Admiral Ackbar

Re:obFark

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies. Believe-it-or-not, fark's the only place I've seen it

Re:obFark

[cujo_1111]

You have never seen 'Return of the Jedi'?

You must be new here...

Re:obFark

[fucksl4shd0t]

You have never seen 'Return of the Jedi'?

You must be new here...

I don't know why this was modded as such, seeing's how these two statements are logically unrelated. Maybe those fascist star wars mods got it, eh?

Anyways, just move in close to the star destroyers and the Death Star won't be able to fire on us.

This is great news

[timecop]

WTL, which is basically a one-person project at microsoft, doesn't really get enough attention of developers.
It's a great lightweight wrapper around Win32 API, does not depend on any external DLLs (like MFC etc).
The only problem with WTL, up to including this release, is that there is absolutely no documentation - there
are a few projects documenting WTL3.0 or older exist, but they are not maintained anymore. Hopefully once this
project is on sourceforge, people will be fixing bugs *and* writing documentation. I'm very looking forward
to this.

Re:This is great news

[zyridium]

Because that is the first thing people will sign up for... writing documentation :-)

Re:This is great news

[metamatic]

The only problem with WTL, up to including this release, is that there is absolutely no documentation

Should fit right in with other open source toolkits like Eclipse/SWT, then.

WTL Rocks

[wandazulu]

The WTL proves that there are some *very* good people at MS: They basically took MFC and redesigned it around templates and the STL; no MFC runtime dlls and even VC6 produces tiny exes that run wickedly fast. They even wrote a VC6/7 addin so you can use the project wizard to create a boilerplate project as a starting point. And to top it off, the two developers were (are?) very active on the ATL mailing list and responded to questions/complaints/bug reports. Way to go guys!

That all said, Microsoft did practically everything they could to squash this project; it was originally installed as an "oh, by the way" in their SDK package (and not enabled by default...you had to go hunting for it) and then they removed it entirely. Official communcations always seemed to revolve around the message that "We acknowledge that it exists, we would prefer you not use it, and no we're not going to tell you why." I guess they had some fear that everyone was going to dump the millions of lines of existing MFC code for much better written code that ... has the same interface. Go figure.

Trust me from one who has used this library in apps that reached production: this is a true gem amist all the cubic zirconia that MS puts out.

Documentation

[EvanED]

So is there documentation for it?

Re:Documentation

[curtoid]

No, use doxygen. (And make sure to link in the ATL code too)

There are a couple websites that have some examples. I have been using WTL for about 6 months or so and it's pretty neat for porting old straight windows C code with new C++ code. Way more usable than MFC. The downside is there are no real wizards to use once a project is started.

I for one will not debug shit for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they grant full rights to the code being released like BSD license, they can kiss my ass. why should I spend hours and hours debugging stuff they feel isn't worth fixing?

Re:I for one will not debug shit for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, picking bugs out of crap always gets my finger nails all dirty.

Well... hm....

[paroneayea]

Interesting.... especially considering this article of past. Let me just pull off the summary from the article itself... it sums it up pretty well...

Microsoft lawyers have joined the company's campaign against open-source software, restricting how developers may use what it terms "viral software" in connection with Microsoft programming tools.

So... uh... yeah. What the heck?

Port it!

[Anonymous Coward]

PORT IT! i want to use it on a linux desktop.

always open source!

[dudifeuer]

WTL was always open source. It was distributed as a bunch of header files (along with some sample apps and visual studio wizards). The big test here will be if Nenad will accept (direct) contributions from the community, or whether the community will keep track of bugs and document stuff while Nenad will code.

Nenad is amazing and has really been the core developer of the project (he is now the project admin at sourceforge), but it will be interesting to see the OSS process at work here.

Re:Good products?

[cujo_1111]

But then there are other products like Visio 2002 which are excellent in comparison to their competition.

WTL for stand-alone executables

[mrm677]

I've tried WTL. It seems great for small, stand-alone executables. However the learning curve is sort of high and you really need to know a bit about ATL. The documentation also isn't near as complete as MFC (even though MFC is ugly).

That being said, the best way to create GUIs in Windows nowadays is to use Windows Forms either in C# or C++. Compared to MFC/WTL/whatever, its a dream come true.

Re:WTL for stand-alone executables

[DrXym]

The learning curve for MFC is high too. If it weren't for the wizards, you would have to write the swathes of code just to do something simple. WTL is no worse, and the consensus from anyone who has used MFC in anger is what a baroque piece of junk it really is. It's like a dogshit covered icing and marzipan - superficially tempting but take a deep bite and see how much you like it.

Really. MFC works okay if you want stay on the path, but get off the beaten track a bit - say to implement something in OLE like an OLE message filter - and it becomes a nightmare. Half the methods are not virtual compelling you to cut and paste whole classes to change a few lines. I've literally copied huge chunks of MFC to change a function that I could not override.

And MS in their wisdom have tried to merge MFC & ATL into atlmfc with duplicate classes galore. Now they're trashing ATL by deprecating some of the tried and trusted conventions such as object maps in favour of meta info that ties ATL tightly to VC++7.x. Still, ATL is fast and produces very tight code compared to MFC.

WTL works much like ATL, and neither is particularly hard to learn assuming you've seen any STL, MFC, wxWindows etc. in your life.

Interestingly, no one has pointed out that WTL depends on ATL. The CPL'd WTL depends on the proprietary ATL. So its use is rather limited. It would be great to see MS open up MFC, ATL and WTL since it would make porting apps to Wine a lot easier. Perhaps that's why it is unlikely to ever happen.

Re:WTL for stand-alone executables

[leshert]

the consensus from anyone who has used MFC in anger is what a baroque piece of junk it really is. It's like a dogshit covered icing and marzipan - superficially tempting but take a deep bite and see how much you like it.

Thank you... this is a keeper. :-)

Re:WTL for stand-alone executables

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... my password's not working, so I'll post as Anonymous Coward and fix it later. I'm bixbyru@yahoo.com, BTW, so I'm not all that anonymous. On with my post:

Hmmm... I like the qt widgets from Troll Tech.

One API, many platforms. What's not to like?

Russ Bixby, geek of the plains

Re:WTL for stand-alone executables

[james_marsh]

It's like a dogshit covered icing and marzipan - superficially tempting but take a deep bite and see how much you like it.

Bleurgh. Wouldn't want to eat that nasty icing or marzipan would you ;-)

Re:WTL for stand-alone executables

[mrm677]

Hmmm... I like the qt widgets from Troll Tech.

One API, many platforms. What's not to like?

Microsoft Visual Studio is cheaper than buying a QT license.

Re:WTL for stand-alone executables

[mdwh2]

I like the qt widgets from Troll Tech.

One API, many platforms. What's not to like?

One problem is that the Windows version is rather expensive :( (Well, there is a GPL Windows version, but it's an old version).

Although that makes me wonder - their argument for releasing the GPL version on MacOS but not Windows is that Apple supports the open source community. With Microsoft releasing open source now, can we look forward to the latest version of QT being released for Windows under GPL? ;)

WTL has been out for more than a year

[js3]

Wasn't WTL available a long time ago? I thought microsoft didn't *support* it at all. it was use as you wish and the source was available.

OMG! A VIRAL CANCER!! -1, UNAMERICAN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and

Shouldn't Steve Ballmer be telling us how the CPL makes you feel good, like communism? Shouldn't they be lobbying governments to ban the CPL because it destroys intellectual property?

Funny, I always thought the GPL would be the best license for a company like Microsoft to use if they wanted to open up some of their software, because it guarantees you won't have to compete against an improved version. I guess they realized they couldn't actually use the GPL for PR reasons so they picked another "viral" license.

Better Name

[batkins]

Perhaps a better name would be WTF?

Re:Good products?

[codepunk]

Oh you mean that nice product called visio that they did not write but bought?

Microsoft + Sourceforge =

[imidazole2]

Microsoft + Sourceforge = The End Of The World

Re:Microsoft + Sourceforge =

[Osty]

Microsoft + Sourceforge = The End Of The World

Then we're much past the end of the world already. WTL is not the first project Microsoft has put on Sourceforge. To my knowledge, that happened at the end of March, when WiX, or Windows Installer XML toolset, was uploaded to Sourceforge. WiX is a great way to build MSI installers without having to shell out bucks for gui installer tools like Installshield (yes, Visual Studio.NET and .NET 2003 have an installer project that will build an MSI, but they're very limited in scope). For now, it works best with installs that don't need any user input, since there's no forms designer, but if you're savvy enough you can even build UI forms into the XML file.

Like WTL, WiX is another Microsoft project that's pretty much been a one-man show for years, and it's great to see it openly acknowledged and put out there for the entire world to use. We use it every single day at work, and have gone through all of the growing pains over the last few years so you don't have to.

Re:Microsoft + Sourceforge =

[Goalie_Ca]

Microsoft + Sourceforge = (Score:4, Funny)

I'd rather see (Score:5, Troll) because they're doing a good thing yet people will see them as a bunch of basturds anyways.
Help This title make more sense mods!!!

Re:Microsoft + Sourceforge =

[skasingularity]

Its funny how you say this, because wasn't it yesterday (or the day before) that the release date for Doom 3 was announced?

Re:Microsoft + Sourceforge =

[imidazole2]

OMG! Two of the three signs of the Apocalypse!

Re:Good products?

[Anonymous Coward]

As with most Microsoft software of any value, Microsoft didn't write Visio, they bought Visio Corp.

Where's the obvious question?

[unfortunateson]

Who's going to port this to Carbon for the Mac, and one or more of the Linux GUIs? If Microsoft wanted to make this viral, goal #1 should be making a cross-platform GUI library.

Sure, there's vxWindows... but it doesn't have a Microsoft heritage, and such a background might impress a corporate IS director into implementing an OS-based solution.

Re:Where's the obvious question?

[argent]

You mean Cocoa, don't you?

Carbon isn't dead, but it should be.

Re:Where's the obvious question?

[torpor]

Porting to Carbon would make more sense than porting to Cocoa.

Carbon is a good API if you know it.

Sure, it has its legacy horrid-ness, just like MFC, but a WTL->Carbon translation API/library would be -very- useful, and oddly enough I believe that the similarities between Carbon and WIN32/GDI'ish stuff are such that it would be a relatively easy project to complete. If I weren't already so busy with other projects, I'd have a dig ... oh, and I guess I'd have to get myself a Windows box (or VPC image or something) ...

Still, in the end, there are already plenty of cross-platform (Linux/OSX/Win32) GUI libs out there, all just as valid and easy to use as WTL, so the only real reason for doing such a cross-platform hack of WTL so it could be compatible with OSX would be to just add another one to the growing pile ...

Re:Where's the obvious question?

[argent]

Augh, the last thing we want is more people writing new Carbon apps. It's bad enough that RealBasic exists...

Re:Where's the obvious question?

[torpor]

Whatever. Carbon works. Its usable. It is actually quite fun to code for Carbon, if you know what you're doing. I don't think it should be discounted as an 'inferior' API, because it just isn't inferior - its different. Personally, I can't stand the candy-coated Cocoa API's, but its a taste thing.

Ultimately though, an Aqua-friendly GTK port is where its at. GTK is great fun, cross-platform, and just as friendly as WTL...

Re:Where's the obvious question?

[argent]

You sound like one of those UNIX geeks! What does a user care what the API looks like?

The real point is what the user interface is like, and Carbon apps don't provide a complete Mac OS X user interface, no matter how hard they try to fake it. Over and over again you come across the same thing, "Program X lets you do such-and-such, except for Carbon apps, it doesn't work for Carbon apps because they don't provide a plist file for Program X to hook in to...".

Re:Where's the obvious question?

[torpor]

I dunno ... I've written plenty of Carbon apps for OSX, and none of my users can tell the difference. It all looks like an OSX app to them, I assure you.

Last I looked, though, "plist files" weren't part of the GUI experience, so I can imagine why you're formulating the opinion that "Carbon" != "OSX".

Re:Where's the obvious question?

[argent]

Most of my users are pretty happy with Windows, and can't tell the difference between real Windows apps and scripts in Tcl/Tk that don't support stuff like drag-and-drop, too.

See, I don't care whether your users are happy if extensions don't work right on their boxes. I care whether they work right on my box.

And I don't care whether you think they're part of the GUI experience or not. I care whether some tool that changes the GUI experience for me works with your app.

I don't care whether Apple approves of them so long as I can find them on Resexcellence.

And I don't care whether it's your Carbon app or Apple's Carbon app that causes the problem, I care that I can't get rid of that ghastly metal appearance in iTunes or Program Y or Application Z, whoever they come from.

Carbon Delenda Est.

Seems to be problems

[iplayfast]

there's no configure,
there's no makefile,
I don't think this stuff is compatible with Linux!

Finally MS is contributing

[groomed]

Excellent. It's about time Microsoft started making lasting contributions to the computing culture at large. Rather than releasing huge blobby tur(n)key "solutions" which become obsolete every few years they're beginning to actually release well-designed, extensible stuff with decent shelf-life, and they're actually working with other people to do so (ECMA, now SourceForge...). Bravo Microsoft, welcome to the party! Maybe in 5 to 10 years time the Windows developer culture will be as rich and interesting as the GNU/Linux and *NIX cultures.

MS to infiltrate easily

[codefungus]

So it seems to me that MS can now distribute their version of open source windows applications using the existing open source distribution channels.

And if MS software on SourceForge was just as abundant as non-MS software, it would be interesting to REALLY see MS compete.

Don't underestimate the power of the dark side.

perhaps

[sg_oneill]

Perhaps microsoft is exploring a little. Just trying out a few things. Theres every chance microsoft has noticed that foss AINT going away, and in some areas (apache) foss is even eating them alive.

Perhaps microsoft is just getting a feel of how it works, so they can respond better to it and/or even participate. Of course these little libraries are a good start, since code is code and perhaps naturally suited to such things.

The Old Way

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Microsoft is clearly unloading the source for things that they're no longer interested in. Perhaps they think they can score a few quick PR points by doing this.

Yawn. Wake me up when they publish the source to Windows.Forms, or anything else that's current and relevant in the Microsoft developer world. Then I might believe they're playing nice. Maybe.

It's not free software.

[raehl]

It's a free library, which is only useful to you if you're writing code for the Windows operating system.

Which, I believe, that Justice Department lawsuit requires them to release (i.e., make it easier for 3rd parties to interface to the OS).

It does allow 3rd parties to be better able to program for Windows (so it could negatively impact M$'s ability to protect their own software aps for their OS), but one could also argue that making it easier for 3rd parties to write software for your OS is a disincentive for people to migrate to other OS's. (An extention of the game console arguement - he with the most games wins.)

Re:It's not free software.

[Anonymous Coward]

The conventional wisdom is that Windows won because it was the easiest and cheapest to develop for. It's an arguable point, but Developer-Friendly is nothing new for Microsoft.

my irking suspicion

[CAIMLAS]

does anyone else feel like MS is simply releasing these fairly-trivial items to the "open source community" in an attempt to try and appease the geeks out there? This seems like nothing more than a token gesture - they are still able to lock people in with Windows and Office.

They still have exploitive upgrade paths. And they can always change things in the future, and make future toolkits unavailable except via licensing/$, as their future offerings are undoubtably going to be different.

Re:my irking suspicion

[argent]

If comeone ports this to run over an Open Source toolkit but maintains the same API, then people will be able to write code to this that will run on Windows and on other platfroms with an efficient native interface in the Windows side (more efficient, it seems, than Microsoft's preferred toolkit).

This has much more potential than the installer: after all, if you're not running under Windows with its tricky maze of registries and incompatible DLLs, an installer is really rather pointless. Even on UNIX it's practical to write an application that works just by dragging it into a convenient directory, and on MacOS (even MacOS X) that's the preferred "installer"... even Microsoft uses it for Office. But a GUI API that's useful for writing efficient code on Windows? Who needs Wine?

Re:my irking suspicion

[proverbialcow]

does anyone else feel like MS is simply releasing these fairly-trivial items to the "open source community" in an attempt to try and appease the geeks out there?

How would that be different than what Apple did with OSX? Darwin was released as open-source, but Aqua still remains under lock and key; even WM themes that were vaguely Aqua-ish looking got cease-and-desist letters. We got Darwin, but really, we already HAD Darwin. We called it NetBSD...

Re:my irking suspicion

[pr0c]

CAIMLAS: does anyone else feel like MS is simply releasing these fairly-trivial items to the "open source community" in an attempt to try and appease the geeks out there? This seems like nothing more than a token gesture - they are still able to lock people in with Windows and Office.
They still have exploitive upgrade paths. And they can always change things in the future, and make future toolkits unavailable except via licensing/$, as their future offerings are undoubtably going to be different.

When I test the water I use fairly trivial items too, I don't just jump in. They do something that appears to be insignificant but they are looking for a response, of course this is just my speculation...

Re:my irking suspicion

[spectecjr]

does anyone else feel like MS is simply releasing these fairly-trivial items to the "open source community" in an attempt to try and appease the geeks out there? This seems like nothing more than a token gesture - they are still able to lock people in with Windows and Office.

No... I think they're releasing an exceptionally useful library for use by Windows developers.

If you don't like it, lump it.

On the Bridgeof the USS Corporate

[raehl]

Worf: Captain, it's the Borg, again. They want us to integrate their technology.

Riker: They've already assimilated 90% of our allies. This will make it easier to interface with their systems, and if there are any problems, we can just tell them to restart their warp cores.

Picard: On mainscreen.

Common Public License: OSI, not GPL compatiable

[civilizedINTENSITY]

OSI CPL
GPL compatiable
Common Public License Version 1.0
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.

The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.

For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

Re:Common Public License: OSI, not GPL compatiable

[Anonymous Coward]

You GPL people really have to have your cake and eat it too, don't you? Nothing a company releases can be perfect in your eyes unless it's open source, AND GPL'd so nobody can be evil and do things like *gasp* try to make money from it!

Re:Common Public License: OSI, not GPL compatiable

[mattgreen]

Yes, but that requires that they leave their parents basement. :)

Re:Common Public License: OSI, not GPL compatiable

[dedazo]

Why is this relevant? Why does everything have to be "GPL-compatible"? How about the GNU folks stop using any and all open source software that is not "GPL-compatible" or otherwise GPL-licensed?

Stop using Apache, Mozilla, gzip, etc. etc.

Your obvious argument "um, not that hot because it's not GPL compatible" is stupid, but I guess that's how our "community" works. If Microsoft released Office under the GPL tomorrow you'd find some way to bitch about it.

Re:Common Public License: OSI, not GPL compatiable

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno why I'm even bothering to bite. There is no incompatibility between the GPL and making money. Now go away and show your ignornance somewhere else. Sigh... What a waste of electrons.

Re:Common Public License: OSI, not GPL compatiable

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno why I'm even bothering to bite. There is no incompatibility between the GPL and making money. Now go away and show your ignornance somewhere else. Sigh... What a waste of electrons

Unless you're a software engineer... It's easy to make money with the GPL if you're a tech support phone monkey. Not so easy if you're the one writing the original code.

Re:Common Public License: OSI, not GPL compatiable

[deadlinegrunt]

Why is this relevant?
Somebody posted a valid fact about the license under which this code based was released to a community that is pervasively pro-GPL. Completely relevenant.

"Stop using Apache, Mozilla, gzip, etc. etc."
I do not find this relevant but in the context of your post it is. Moving on.

"Your obvious argument "um, not that hot because it's not GPL compatible" is stupid, but I guess that's how our "community" works. If Microsoft released Office under the GPL tomorrow you'd find some way to bitch about it."
Again in the context of the parent post this appears to be irrelevant but not in the context of your post.

The only one I see "bitching" in this context is you. Again, the parent poster simply posted a fact about the license compatibility that the WTL was released. Nobody bitched about it but you. Unlike a lot of other threads in this article this seemed worthy of the informative modding it got. No subjective comments, addititions to the facts - just a simple truth. Perhaps you meant to reply to any number of other posts in this article and not this parent? Understand I am not being critical of you. It does seem to be the popular thing to do is bitch around "here".

""um, not that hot because it's not GPL compatible" is stupid, but I guess that's how our "community"
Now I am being critical of you. Yes - this is exactly how "our" community works and if this seems stupid or whatever I seriously question if you are really part of that community. It _IS_ the entire basis on which code contribution works. I am speaking as a coder, not an admin, not a PHB, but somebody that gives and gets from "our" community.

NOPE

[fpga_guy]

they may have opened the source, but it is not anywhere near what you OSS developers like.

they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people; (although they may take suggestions, i'm sure).

It doesn't work like this. To get a project hosted at sourceforge, you have to choose a license from a variety of FOSS models (GPL is one, there are many others).

There is nothing stopping someone taking this code and forking it, if the (presumably Microsoft-based) project admins won't take their patches.

I have an idea!

[natrius]

Let's port this to Linux! We can call it... Duo!

Installed it...

[CODiNE]

Since then my computer has rebooted 6 times and I now have a BSOD! I think it's working! :-)

Good on you MS (NOT)

[jonwil]

The bad thing is that this library is visual C++ only (by virtue of the fact that ATL is required and that ATL is visual C++ only)

Also, this is the exact same code that was available from MS for WTL before, its just a change of licence to the CPL

Unless microsoft opens ATL to the world also, this doesnt help anyone developing on non-MS compilers

Personally, I think they could gain a LOT of PR by open-sourcing more stuff.
Specificly, releasing (under the CPL for example) more code which is not important to M$ money making machine.

For example, open sourcing their C Runtime (the source code does come with Visual C++ but its missing some bits that only come in binary form)
Or open source the Active Template Library or MFC.
Or "open-source" the Platform SDK (i.e. all the headers and libraries)

Although I suspect that Open Sourcing things like CRT, ATL or MFC would probobly hurt MS since people would be able to use instead of to develop for those libaries.

On the other hand, there is no reason why someone cant come up with a free version of ATL or MFC or whatever that matches the published interface (there are already at least 2 free versions of the MSVCRT.DLL file, unsure exactly how complete they are, there are also free versions of the headers and libraries for talking to MSVCRT.DLL)

Short Summary:

[raehl]

GPL: If there is something in this software that is patented, by you or someone else, you can't distribute this software unless a free license to use that patent is available for all. (If a patent prevents anyone you give this to or they give this to from freely distributing this software, you can't distribute it either.)

CPL: If there is something in this software that is patented, and was patented at the time of contribution to the software, this software may still be distributed even if a patent is required to use it.

So it depends on your definition of "free". CPL says you're allowed to distribute the software whether it's patent encumberred or not, GPL says that if it's patent encumberred, you can't redistribute it. So CPL is more BSD-like free. Free as in "Here it is, do what you want", not free as in "Here it is, anything you add has to be free too."

Maybe that wasn't all that short.

Re:Short Summary:

[Minna Kirai]

CPL: If there is something in this software that is patented, and was patented at the time of contribution to the software, this software may still be distributed even if a patent is required to use it.

Can you please point out what section of the CPL you get that from? I just don't see anything resembling your "summary". You seem to say that CPL software which includes a patent can be distributed, but not used... which is rather worthless. When I look at the CPL, it seems to give a license to use the patent.

But what isn't clear is if that license will continue to apply to modified versions. The following sentence seems to take away the patent permission once you modify:

1. "The patent license shall not apply to any other combinations which include the Contribution."

Or, what else could that sentence possibly mean? Why is it there?

Free as in "Here it is, do what you want", not free as in "Here it is, anything you add has to be free too."

No no no! It now becomes clear that you know nothing about the CPL at all. Please refrain from "explaining" things that you haven't even read.

The CPL contains this statement pertaining to any executable you distribute. "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."

That places the CPL alongside the GPL as requiring that modified versions have source code freely available, unlike the BSD license which permits that code to be withheld.

Re:Short Summary:

[raehl]

I didn't mean to imply that it was BSD-like in that sense, just that if you add a contribution that is patented, unlike the GPL, that doesn't prevent you from redistributing the code. IT can still be used by anyone, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A LICENSE FOR THE PATENT. It would, of course, be useless to anyone who didn't have a patent, which is the key difference between GPL and CPL. Under GPL, if something in the code turns out to be patented, you can't distribute it at all.

Re:Short Summary:

[Minna Kirai]

Under GPL, if something in the code turns out to be patented, you can't distribute it at all.

Nope. Patents aren't even capable of forbidding someone from distributing programs- only running them.

The GPL states: "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you"... but in most countries, a patent-holder is legally incapable of blocking software distribution.

With patents, you can make as many copies as you want (patents are free from government websites, after all)- you just can't necessarily use them. Only copyrights can prohibit distribution.

PS. You never answered my question about what that one sentence could possibly mean.

Does Bill Gates trust Open Source developers

[Anonymous Coward]

Didnt Billy Goat say that Linux and Open Source are hill billy developers. M$ said many times their is no open free lunch
with SCO when Darl was Billys sex partner.

So I guess Open Source is eating up M$ market share

Actually, real story....

[raehl]

I finished school just before the tech bubble burst, and had occasion to travel out to the Silicon Valley on business to our corporate headquaters.

There have been few times in my life where I have been more amazed than I was at the number of ways a girl could work some variation of "How much money do you make?" into the first three sentences of a conversation.

I'm happy to report, however, that these women are no longer there.

In retrospect, however, I probably should have just said "A Googillion".

Re:Actually, real story....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well? Tell us some! This could be amusing!

Even MS has to compete for developers' mindshare

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what this is about. With Sourceforge and other open source outlets available to budding developers, I dare say MS has a lot of catching up to do.

Even MS has to compete for developers' mindshare

[Anonymous Coward]

With Sourceforge and many other outlets centered around open source readily available for budding developers, I think MS would be wise to do things like this. I mean how many kids can they expect to (legitimately) shell out hundreds of dollars for the tools to develop for their OS?

Interesting...

[raehl]

I suppose that might explain some of the holes in Bill's socks.

Sounds interesting

[Lord Kano]

but since I have no experience with it, can anyone give me a link to a tutorial?

LK

Get started with WTL

[klin]

I started Win32 programming with WTL. No MFC experience at all.

For those of you who may be curious about this technology, here are a couple of points:

WTL is a collection of header files with the source inlined in. Personally I find the source reasonably understandable. I have had not much trouble stepping through and debugging WTL calls.

It's a light wrapper around the Win32 API. Some people commented on the lack of documentation regarding the WTL. The truth is, MSDN's API and common controls documentation pretty much covers what you need to know. For most cases the library does little fudging between your app and the API behavior.

For the application I am coding, I use strictly STL strings, containers, and various Boost libraries. With WTL, I don't feel that I am paying for things I am not using like CStrings and such. For non-UI OS calls, I use ATL. In short, WTL, STL, & ATL let me produce efficient code without worrying about reinventing solutions.

One thing I am worried about is the future of WTL. Open-sourcing is great, but I don't know what direction the Windows API is heading. As .NET seeps deeper into the Windows Platform, I am afraid that MS is going to try to root out such a quick and painless way to whip out applications in unmanaged code. There's life in C++ yet, I just don't know if MS believes that.

And I'll add

[Anonymous Coward]

...that I'm seeing many more Linux and OSS projects going into production environments and kicking butt. It's just much easier to get started in an OSS environment.

Yeah, no kidding...

[raehl]

They're right up there with those Berkley Bastards.

Dude!

[twoslice]

Since then my computer has rebooted 6 times

Dude! You have the Sasser man....

well.....

[Paul d'Aoust]

you know, that's exactly what most OSS-friendly companies are motivated by. They call it "leveraging the value of open-source by encouraging peer review and community-driven quality control" or some such marketing speak. I think it's one of the best reasons to release source code. I can't speak for MS as to whether they "can't be bothered" to fix software bugs, or if they just think this is a more efficient way of hunting down bugs.

As for Windows and IIS et cetera remaining closed, yeah, that does kinda suck. I, for one, could probably be persuaded away from Linux and back to the Dark Side if it were free (beer and speech)... ^_^

Has anyone used this with watcom c yet?

[RLiegh]

Does anyone know if this even works with watcom c or am I going to have to pay money and get visual studio (which I can't afford) in order to use it?

Re:Has anyone used this with watcom c yet?

[m_pll]

You don't have to pay for visual studio in order to use WTL. Visual C++ Toolkit should work just fine, and it's free.

Of course, you can always port it to Watcom or any other compiler yourself... That's the beauty of open source, isn't it?

Re:Has anyone used this with watcom c yet?

[jonwil]

Wrong.

WTL wont work with Visual C++ Compiler Toolkit because WTL requires the Active Template Library which is (unless something has changed) only available with full versions of Visual C++.

Therefore, the WTL is only useable with visual C++.

Now if they open sourced the Active Template Library as well... :)

Re:Has anyone used this with watcom c yet?

[patthoyts]

Can you say Platform SDK?

The VC++ toolkit is missing a number of things that are typically needed to make it usefull - no lib.exe, nmake.exe or cvtres.exe and no msvcrt.lib being the main stumbling points. Also no MFC (good) and no ATL (less good).

On the other hand you can find free (as in beer) versions of all these. The platform SDK has versions of the missing exe's in the Win64 compatability testing area and these work fine for Win32 compilation.
It also has a copy of ATL 3.0 in include\win64\atl

msvcrt.lib can be obtained from the .NET Framework SDK - another free (as in beer) download.

trojan horse

[CAIMLAS]

Does anyone else find it interesting that they'd host their "open" projects on sourceforge instead of on one of the many microsoft.com sites? What's to gain?

* wider open source community acceptance of MS (for releasing something "open source" which was argueably already open source - hello, header files, anyone?)
* strain on the open source community (ie, sourceforge) to further/improve the Win32/MS ballpark (granted, its a negligible strain, but it's pennies which add up to dollars, and so forth, nonetheless)

Re:trojan horse

[DaCool42]

Uhhh, giving out header files doesn't make something open source. All the header files give you is the API.

Re:trojan horse

[spectecjr]

Uhhh, giving out header files doesn't make something open source. All the header files give you is the API.


The header files ARE the API, dumbass. WTL is a template library - all of the code lives in the header files.

Encore, Microsoft! (never thought I'd say that)

[stealth.c]

I just want to say this is great news regarding MSFT. Let's encourage this behavior, just in case a Microserf is browsing Slashdot.

Microsoft still has a long way to go in my book before I can even consider trusting them as a company, but clearly some of its individuals "get it" and are taking steps. If it's OSI compatible, I feel much less wary. One thing that could really sway me is making certain critical file formats (like Word/Excel) open. And oh yeah, stop trying to hijack the Internet. That would be nice.

Re:Encore, Microsoft! (never thought I'd say that)

[Anonymous Coward]

And oh yeah, stop trying to hijack the Internet. That would be nice.

It would also be nice for people to stop whining about meaningless complaints.

What about ATL?

[AstroDrabb]

This WTL may be OSS, however it depends on the ATL, which is not OSS. So again, this looks like a little marketing PR to me. MS making the WTL OSS while depending on the non-OSS ATL is Like having the OSS Linux kernel needing some non-OSS code from SCO. It doesn't make sense, accept for PR since many people will over look the important detail of depending on the non-OSS ATL.

Also, just like the last OSS release from MS, this is not what I would call an important piece of software. In MS's new world .Net is king. So the WTL can go away. However, it is pretty clever to get a little PR out of this release instead of just letting the WTL fade away.

All MS needs to do to make a big positive change of their image, is release ONE important piece of their software as OSS and actaully let the community contribute. I am not talking about a bread-n-butter app like MS Office. Some non-revenue generating app like IE or even explorer.exe. Those two apps could use some serious fixin.

Re:What about ATL?

[Lord Bitman]

On the other hand, it's good to release once-prioprietary software as open source when you don't plan on using it anymore. You know, like Quake.

Re:What about ATL?

[erikharrison]

How is this any different from, say AbiWord, where the app is GPL, but some of the underlying classes derive from the closed source unerpinings of the OS?

I'm not trying to be snarky - is there a real substantive difference?

Re:What about ATL?

[DaCool42]

Excuse me? What does AbiWord depend on that is proprietary closed source?

Re:What about ATL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well unless it's suddenly stopped running on Windows, let's start with Windows.

Re:What about ATL?

[WWWWolf]

It's still difficult.

Suppose I had a Linux C++ application that I wanted to port to Windows and have a nice native GUI for it. Decided to use MinGW for this. There, I have all of the necessary headers and stuff for the low-level work. I can compile the base stuff easily on Windows, or even cross-compile them on Linux - basically most parts of the code that don't need UI or the obscure OS features.

Now, the UI work. I can get WTL from sourceforge, but how the heck do I get all of the headers and libraries it depends on (ATL and the others)? How difficult it is to obtain them? How do I get them to work nicely with g++? What kind of restrictions are there to using these libraries? Etc etc etc...

At this point, I'd probably just ditch it and go for wxwindows or something =)

Actually, I'd very much like to know this - I've heard some of the libraries are available through Microsoft with some restrictions. Anyone know better?

Re:What about ATL?

[AstroDrabb]

I do agree with your statement, however, as I stated, WTL still needs the non-OSS ATL to function. As far as I know, Quake does not have any limitations like this.

Re:What about ATL?

[AstroDrabb]

What? What closed source underpininings are you talking about? What part of Linux is closed source? And what closed source code/API's/etc does Abiword depend on?

Re:What about ATL?

[TiggsPanther]

This WTL may be OSS, however it depends on the ATL, which is not OSS.

Would it be possible, with WTL being Open, to then fork it to work with other toolkits?
It may not be viable for all I know, but if it was it could be useful.

Wouldn't that help cross-platform porting? Write the UI using WTL. Under Windows it'd use ATL and look native, but you could then compile under *nix, where a WTL port could be hooking into GTK, Qt, or anything really. (Maybe even a fully native port - but with so many UI toolkits one rmoe isn't really needed but something which can sit on top of any would be kinda cool)

Maybe I'm spouting impossibilities - or maybe just implausibly difficult possibilities. But it does sound like it could be used as a stepping stone to somewhere.

Tiggs

Re:What about ATL?

[Lukey Boy]

So it has a non-free dependency... just like every open source Java application. By your argument Tomcat and other successful Java products should be ignored.

Re:What about ATL?

[Anonymous Coward]

AbiWord has the benefit, unlike WTL, that it runs on more than just Windows, however, and so does not exclusively depend on proprietary APIs. While WTL is useful only in one small, specific domain, AbiWord is useful in many domains because it is not tied exclusively to one platform.

Comparing AbiWord to WTL is like comparing apples to assholes.

Re:What about ATL?

[AstroDrabb]

Not really. Anyone can download Java freely, even though it may not be Free as in speech. Try to search google for "ATL download" and see what you get. I couldn't find anywhere to get the developer files needed to _develop_ with ATL. To the best of my knowledge, you need to buy MS Visual Studio to get the developer files needed to program with ATL. That is not the case with Tomcat, JBoss, etc, both of which I use and never had to buy a license from Sun.

Re:What about ATL?

[AstroDrabb]

I don't see why one could not do what you are suggesting. It may be a lot of work though. It was built to around a proprietary ATL, so you would be basically be starting from scratch and just keeping the same interface.

Re:What about ATL?

[TiggsPanther]

Yeah. It sounds like hard work, but also like it could be something very useful.

Besides, many non-Windows toolkits have been ported to Windows. Why not the other way around?

Tiggs

Unwanted Child

[ChaoticCoyote]

I've written a few WTL programs, and am rather fond of this lightweight wrapper over ATL. WTL allowed me to create small, tight programs without the overhead (and poor design) of MFC (which was created before templates were added to Visual C++).

WTL has always been something of a dirty little secret: it wasn't installed by default by Visual Studio, and the README files suggested that it was an internal project unsupported by management. Yet those of us who disliked MFC found WTL to be quite useful, despite Microsoft's "official" attitude.

As for Microsoft releasing this as Open Source -- MS management never valued WTL in the first place, so "giving it away" is merely a public relations move.

Re:Unwanted Child

[m00nun1t]

It seems to be that no matter what MS does, it's got evil intentions, lacks sincerity somehow, "is merely a public relations move", or whatever.

That could be true if it were a few isolated incidents, but there are things up on /. pretty much weekly which, with your cynic-coloured glasses off, are actually positive. Blogging, releasing product source, increased participation in communities, relaxing licensing restrictions, WinXP SP2, etc.

Maybe the OSS community is the big lumbering beast which is slow to change while MS is getting on with changing what needs to be changed. Each small change by itself isn't ground breaking, but a trend, well, maybe that is.

Re:Unwanted Child

[flacco]

Maybe the OSS community is the big lumbering beast which is slow to change while MS is getting on with changing what needs to be changed. Each small change by itself isn't ground breaking, but a trend, well, maybe that is.

the only problem with your argument is that it makes no sense.

these changes that you call "positive" are not particularly useful in themselves, and they're simply tactics in a larger effort to maintain their monopoly. they're adopting some of the techniques of their hipster arch-rivals so they don't look so corporate and square, but it's about as sincere as any other marketing effort. have you noticed that stealth marketing is all the rage these days for breaking through to today's cynical youth culture?

don't be a sucker.

Re:Unwanted Child

[Anonymous Coward]

"giving it away" is merely a public relations move.

How evil of them!!! No wonder the crashdot crowd has temporarily forgotten about their legos!

Re:Unwanted Child

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your timely demonstration of the parents post.

Re:Unwanted Child

[ChaoticCoyote]

I never said that Microsoft was doing anything evil.

What I am pointing out is that Microsoft took a safe path by releasing something that isn't important to them. It's a good strategic move with few, if any "downsides."

Re:Unwanted Child

[ChaoticCoyote]

As someone who has, at times, defending Microsoft, and as someone who has teken Microsoft dollars in the past, I find your leap of assumptions rather disturbing.

I never said Microsoft was evil. Nor is "evil" associated with "public relations" in any dictionary I know of. So what is the basis for your accusations?

Microsoft made a smart, no-risk choice in releasing WTL. How is saying that an insult to Microsoft?

Re:Unwanted Child

[rwinston]

I've written a few WTL apps as well, and I really like it. I think this is a good move - WTL was widely liked by developers who used it, but was not officially supported by MS, so really depended on the efforts of one or two heroic developers within MS. Now that it's open, anyone can submit improvements to it (and there were many proposed,just look at codeproject.com for some examples)

Off topic??

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather Insightful.

As it was related to the article and following discussion, I find off topic rather hard to understand.

I agree.

[stealth.c]

So I hope the response from this PR stunt that registers on their radar is that we appreciate OSS-esque gestures (that's really all they've been, really: gestures) but need something substantial before their image truly changes. Open sourcing IE or explorer to community improvements would be absolutely immense. IE could rocket past even Firefox and the ignorant masses of AOL types out there would have a real web browser by default. Microsoft seems as interested in fixing IE themselves as they were with WTL. Maybe this IE thing CAN happen! :)

Re:I agree.

[jonwil]

Call me when MS released anything noteworthy (such as their C Runtime or the MFC libraries or IE)

Re:I agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody mod the parent post funny..

IE could rocket past even Firefox and the ignorant masses of AOL types out there would have a real web browser

I think this guy was being sarcastic!

It takes Bill a few iterations...

[jarich]

but he usually gets it good enough...

Remember the days when the MS C++ compilers were horrid? After a revs, it got decent, then it got good. Now it's everywhere and their IDEs set the standard that all others are measured against.

Maybe they are getting the hang of sharing the source to get the community benefit?

Microsoft denounced Open Source

[Nailer]

Microsoft denounces Linux, which is a competing operating system. They don't necessarily denounce open source software in general (at least, not that I've heard of.) That would be sort of foolish...I mean, you have to denounce a rival's products, that's obvious. But to denounce the way he makes them when other world class software vendors are considering them would be shooting yourself in the foot.

From http://news.com.com/2100-1001-270684.html?legacy=c net

Earlier in the year, that feature led Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to call open-source software a "cancer" and Windows leader Jim Allchin to call it "an intellectual-property destroyer."

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[MisterFancypants]

No, Microsoft denounced the GPL/LGPL. Not "Open Source". There is a difference.

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't call open source software a cancer, they call GPL a cancer and rightly so. GPL creates problems for everybody and in the future it will be one of the most limiting issues for Linux.

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[_Sprocket_]

They don't call open source software a cancer, they call GPL a cancer and rightly so. GPL creates problems for everybody and in the future it will be one of the most limiting issues for Linux.

Yet Microsoft themselves are able offer a product that includes applications based on GPL code. Funny, that.

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[Nailer]

Yes I know. But they denounced Open Source, even while shipping it in Windows (the FTP clients, Perl on the ResKits, etc).

Just because its dumb doesn't mean they didn't.

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right. just because it has 'unix' in the name doesn't mean it has anything to do with the GPL, GNU or open software at all.

Next you'll be saying that Samba is a microsoft product. sheesh.

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[Da Fokka]

By your reasoning Wine would be 'evil' because it interoperates with MS Windows. The fact MS does not believe in Unix (which is completely logical from a business point of view) does not mean that their customers agree. So they implement software to interoperate with unix (also completely understandable from a business point of view).

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

guess he forgot that GNU's Not Unix...

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[_Sprocket_]

By your reasoning Wine would be 'evil' because it interoperates with MS Windows. The fact MS does not believe in Unix (which is completely logical from a business point of view) does not mean that their customers agree. So they implement software to interoperate with unix (also completely understandable from a business point of view).

Who said any of this was "evil"? I agree - Microsoft creating environments that allow interoperability is a Good Thing. Too bad they don't do it more often (and with a greater concern for compatibility).

The point here is that Microsoft likes to push the meme that the GPL is viral. That businesses should avoid the use, much less development, of GPL code because of this. Yet they use GPL'd code themselves. I'm less interested in the hypocrisy of this situation than the fact that it presents an example of how patently false the "viral GPL" meme is.

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[_Sprocket_]

Yeah, right. just because it has 'unix' in the name doesn't mean it has anything to do with the GPL, GNU or open software at all.

You might want to check out another post I made in this thread. If you poke around enough, you'll eventually find that you can link directly to the GPL itself from Microsoft's servers.

Sure. GNU, GPL, Unix. All different things. But there is very much a relationship between the GPL, GNU, SFU, and Microsoft.

I wonder...

[dh5fbr]

...if the .Net Development Toolset is also a Microsoft project. If so - let's all donate loads of money to make the Microsoft see that OSDN pays off.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

just go grab a copy of windows in the nearest store, kid, or buy yourself and your loved ones a $40 copy of Plus! with skins, and all, and voice support for Media Player
and thanks

Nothing wrong with that

[spitzak]

I'm sure you will find a lot of other projects on SourceForge that won't accept outside contributions. Some because they want to hold the copyright and thus be able to do other things besides GPL their code, some because they are arrogant and don't believe anybody else's ideas are good enough, and some for the very realistic reason that they have no time to figure out if the contributed code really is good and worth adding, and some for a combination of all these reasons.

The thing with OSS code is that the user can fork it if the original authors are not interested in accepting their changes. That is the big difference.

Nothing New for Microsoft

[Bookcrosser]

In point of fact, Microsoft is great at releasing material to help developers. Of course they don't release finished standalone products for free, and it would be stupid of any publicly traded company to do so.

If you want to see open source Windows software, just check out DotNetNuke. It started as some Microsoft toolkit, and it's now a fully functional portal solution with an enthusiastic user base. Open source, GPL, the whole bit.

Re:Nothing New for Microsoft

[vidarh]

You mean for companies like Novell, IBM and Redhat?

Re:Nothing New for Microsoft

[Bookcrosser]

You mean for companies like Novell, IBM and Redhat [nasdaq.com]?

I didn't say they didn't do it, now did I?

Write a GUI to boot Linux with it!

[David Ishee]

Someone needs to use this to write a GUI to boot Linux off a LiveCD distribution.

As Catbert would say,

That's so evil it makes me want to PURRRRR!

A strategic shift...

[Fnkmaster]

I believe them when they say this is a strategic shift. I think we're going to see Microsoft release a lot more Open Source software in the next two or three years. Especially stuff targeted at developers - in fact, I wouldn't be shocked to see substantial portions of the development tools used for Windows to eventually become Open Source. Microsoft has always been willing to give stuff away for free to lock people into the platform, and they will readily extend that model to their source code. They see this as encouraging people in the broader community to develop, for free, better tools for the Windows platform.

It's going to be an interesting couple of years. How will they react when somebody forks their Open Source offerings and makes them cross-platform? How do you win the hearts and minds of developers who are far more saavy than the population as a whole about the many past transgressions of Microsoft? Hell, most people that develop exclusively for Microsoft platforms realize what scum-suckers Microsoft are (except for those snivelling MS-asskisser types, you know the ones I mean).

Re:A strategic shift...

[surgeonsmate]

except for those snivelling MS-asskisser types, you know the ones I mean

Yeah! And on the other side of the same coin are the one-eyed Linux zealots.

--
Pete, wishing both types would cancel each other out

Re:A strategic shift...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think MS is going to be reluctant to release anything larger.

I cant see them releasing any of the bits of their compiler/toolchain as Open Source. Or anything that would reveal things like compiler internals, windows internals etc. (for example, the C Runtime Source included with Visual C++ is not the full code, bits dealing with such things as Exception Handling, Thread-Local-Storage and Floating Point Math are missing, probobly because they explose windows or compiler internals)

I also cant see them releasing anything (such as MSHTML, WININET, Common Controls, MSVCRT, MFC, ATL, Explorer etc etc) that the Wine or ReactOS projects would be able to use.

MS on SF

[Slapdash X. Hashbang]

I assume that Microsoft has twice chosen Sourceforge to host their OSS projects because of the visibility and credibility it lends their open source steps. However, MS certainly doesn't need SF's resources. Does anyone know if MS has made any donation -- monetary or otherwise -- to SF?

Re:MS on SF

[Anonymous Coward]

You're asking as if they're obliged. If SF put up project hosting, they better stick to their promise. You only give donation when you feel like it or for tax purposes, and MSFT apparently doesn't feel like it.

So what, let's kick em out?

In related note, they bought a bunch of advertising on Slashdot, one of which turned me into Pocket PC Development.

A bit cold here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or is it starting to get really cold here? I just saw some red guy with a tail skating around.

Re:Idiot moderators

[Lord Bitman]

No, seriously. Like Quake. I dont know of any non-game examples and id did the right thing when they released their code. "We arent planning on profitting from this anymore, so here, it's free. Not all of it (we retain the copywrite on the characters and concepts), but the code, we got no reason to keep it secret."

not at all!

[grepistan]

I would generally describing windows as an inoperating system, particularly win98. In that case I believe the statement is true, and that Microsoft is indeed very pro-IOS.

Re:not at all!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, at least you admit not having updated your windows "knowledge" since 1998. That's about the only way anyone could believe Linux + GNOME is in any way superior or more fucntional.

linux zealot yet not linux zealot...

[grepistan]

Personally, I don't see it as conflicting that I fall into all of those groups. I would rate myself as pretty fanatical about linux, but I also use win2k and BSD on the side.

I do think you're right about the makeup of /. posters in particular. As for readers and AC-only types, who knows? They might all be windows zealots here for a laugh. Like the people (trolls?) around at the moment with MCSE, Well Respect VBScripting Guru etc. in their sigs.

Duh!

[Bros]

Microsoft releases code under an open source licene... since the hell has frozen over, the devil down there must have really cold.

CPL looks tomuch like GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

fsf has a case (look like windows/lindows case)
people get confused (this is ofcourse what m$ wants).

From the sourceforge page:

[Hellkitten]

Development Status: 3 - Alpha

Life in C++

[PCM2]

As I understand it, you can do fully-managed C++ if you want to. C# isn't mandatory for .Net, that was kind of the whole point. It's the legacy Win32 APIs that you should worry about. Wrappers are great, but if it's not wrapping managed code I wouldn't bank on its long-term viability.

Re:Good products?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like someone has a case of penis envy.

It's a trick

[Rogerborg]

Fetch an axe.

EU

[Anonymous Coward]

is it perhaps to comply with the EU's requirements w.r.t. the anti-monopoly suit of yore?

AHA!!!

[jandersen]

'WTL is licensed under CPL'

CPL, as we all know, mean Communist Pirate License. Tells it all, really.

Any resemblance to other license acronyms is entirely accidental.

Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks.

[master_p]

(this is not a troll: Slashdot editors mod anything with the word 'sucks' as a troll).

Although it is nice to see the software giant contribute to open source, WTL sucks. It is really no different than MFC, carrying with it all the disadvantages of it:

a) the window creation process: first you create the C++ object, then you call 'create', and then 'preCreate', 'postCreate' and other silly stuff is being called. Contrast that with QT where you simply create a C++ object...

b) message maps: it violates object-oriented programming; introduces macro hell; makes code very sensitive to changes, to the point where if something goes wrong the IDE can not parse the code any more.

c) menus and commands based on numeric ids: maintaining the list of ids is easy at first, but it grows exponentially harder as the project grows, and after a while it becomes unmanageable to the point that it needs serious manual intervention.

d) the stupid UI updating architecture: your UI elements will be updated only when there is no other message in the message loop. You don't know when your UI will be updated.

e) the classes don't make any sense. For example, there is a CMessageLoop class. For crying out loud, who would have thought to make a class out of a message loop ? only MS twisted minds.

f) more string classes.

To me, it seems that releasing WTL is all about making themselves more innocent to the open source world. They now can say "look, we are contributing to OSS, you can't blame us!".

I would have much respect for them if they released anything serious to open source...for example the .NET platform.

Re:Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks.

[TiggsPanther]

So?

It's now released under an open license. Meaning that if people think it sucks, and have the skill to do better, they're now able to do so.

At least now there's a chance of these flaws in WTL to be dealt with.

Tiggs

Re:Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks.

[Ed Avis]

So what's the relationship between WTL and MFC?

I wonder if this code release could be helpful for those porting MFC or WTL applications to Winelib.

Re:Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but you still live in early 90's. WTL is not an "OO" framework like Qt and other dinosaurs. It is a generic, policy based library.

I suggest you read "Modern C++ Design" by Alexandrescu to learn about benefits of generic design.

Re:Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks.

[alyosha1]

I agree with you on several of your points. However, I now do all my windows development using WTL. Why? Because it's better than anything else available. WTL is much cleaner and lightweight than MFC, and gets in your way less.

Of course I'd love a C++ gui library that follows good modern coding principles, like 'no macros', 'use stl rather than re-implement poorly', use RAII rather than 'create then initialise' and so on. However I'm not aware that any such thing exists. Anyone interested in hepling build it?

Re:Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks.

[master_p]

Qt, my friend. Qt!!! (and no matter what one may say about "policy-driven" design, they are plain wrong).

Re:Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks.

[alyosha1]

Well, maybe. The C++ purist in me would still love to see a library implemented without recourse to ugly macros (MFC) or language extensions (QT). I understand why the design decisions were made at the time, but C++ has come on a long way since then. Now that you can treat functions as objects (for example using the boost function library, there's no need for things like message map macros or the MOC to implement to connect gui events to functions. (boost also provides a signals library, that demonstrates this exactly).

The other thing I look for in a library is how lightweight it is. WTL wins hands down here, as it's just a set of header files. No extra libraries to link to or re-distribute. Of course it's not cross platform, but any cross platform library is going to need either a huge interpretation layer for each platform or its own widget set.

Oh well, I guess my quest for the One True Framework will continue....

Re:Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks.

[atlasheavy]

I would have much respect for them if they released anything serious to open source...for example the .NET platform.
br /> ::cough::Rotor::cough::. Rotor is distributed under the shared source license (which isn't OSD-compliant), not the CPL. But it's still out there. You can monkey with the code if you feel inclined.

already 2 bugs and 3 patches

[ongeboren]

keep on keeping it on

Notice that MS is NOT endorsing the GPL

[rben]

While MS might be contributing some small tidbits to open source, they aren't releasing them under the GPL, thus leaving the way clear for them to make the same kinds of claims that SCO has been making.

Re:Notice that MS is NOT endorsing the GPL

[TiggsPanther]

Does it really matter which open license is used, as long as an open license is used?

Maybe it's only testing the waters, maybe it's trying to get extra help developing a tool they never intended people to use, maybe it is just a cynical stab at getting some positive PR. It could be all those and more, but still even a year or two ago would anyone think that Microsoft would use Open Source to even do that?

Yes, I'm quietly cynical about it myself. They'll have to do more to convince me, but they've made a start - and already gone further than I ever thought they would. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I'm a realist, and I've been surprised (both positively and negatively) before. I doubt that what Microsoft have done will make a big difference, but I'm also willing to accept the fact that it's not totally impossible and they might well prove me wrong.

But even at my most cynical, I'm not going to add "Didn't use GPL" to my list of complaints.

Tiggs

Victory!

[Sunnan]

See it as a small victory (with plenty of caveats).

Slashdot is Overrun With MCSE Trolls.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they get a discount on their course if they agree to spam message boards about how great MS and Windows is, and how anybody who doesn't like it is some communist hippy Open Source "zealot"?

Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dell is being strongarmed by Microsoft, i.e. "if you don't preinstall XP on >95% of your machines, we're going to raise prices on all the XP licenses you *do* install". See?

Take with a pinch of salt

[polyp2000]

It sounds like a case of give away crap that nobody uses in order to make themselves look good in the eyes of the Open Source community.

Having said that the CPL , the license itself doesnt see too bad and its an officially acceptable open source license.

The really interesting part here would be finding a way to make these projects in some way useful to linux. That would really stir the broth up!

nick ..

They really did claim the GPL was a virus

[Anonymous Coward]

They really did. I read it in print. (I forget a couple key specifics, like which Microsoft manager said it, and whether they specifically accused the GPL or OSS in general; I suspect they singled out the GPL, but perhaps not by name.)

The use of biological metaphors within Microsoft (digital nervous system, evolution, etc) is also quite common and this is no exception.

And the "but the GPL is a virus!" claim is either artful or ironic spin: who has spread more viruses... GPL licensing or Microsoft slipshod security? ;-)

Re:They really did claim the GPL was a virus

[Frizzle Fry]

Did you read my post at all?! I acknowledge that they say the GPL is a virus. This is not the same as saying open source is a virus, and isn't at all contradictory with what they are doing here which is releasing code and specifically refusing to put it under the GPL.

The Way I See it

[joelil]

My Gut feeling is that M$ is just using the opensource community as developers. Hey someone wrote a cool app. and in the next release there it is. Or the opensource starts to develop apps that cross platforms then the developers at M$ use the code to stop it in the next patch. then follow up with a software package that will let you cross platforms for a Price......I wouldn't touch this with a 100ft pole.

hmmmm, the silent majority....

[Paul d'Aoust]

you know, maybe you're right. Maybe the majority of readers aren't sold on Linux. I just know that when I was a Slashdot reader (and not yet a poster) I had a soft spot for Linux in my technological heart (even though I wasn't using Linux).

exclusively?

[Paul d'Aoust]

do you mean they were exclusively Windows users, or simply that they used Windows? Because I don't think it's possible to work in the world of computers and technology without being exposed to Windows on a regular basis. I still have my (fully legitimate) copy of Windows XP on my hard drive for Flash authoring and a bit of vector art. So I guess that would classify me as a 'Windows user', although I find Linux much more sensible and powerful.

You are right, but there's more

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft isn't forcing their product on anyone. They are using the leverage of people who do want their product for various reasons to get more people onboard. First, through incompatible file formats, they use early adopters to drive upgrades among the people they share files with. Second, they have specifically tailored their products and marketting of them to appeal to people who make purchasing decisions for other people who then have to live with the consequences of those decisions.

That second factor is what the previous poster was upset about. Microsoft didn't force its product on him or anyone. They made it appeal to his boss, or his boss' boss. Part of that appeal has been any emphasis on usability from the viewpoint of a quick demo to a casual user. The features that make that possible are valuable. There is nothing wrong with having them, and I applaud Microsoft for all of the things they have gotten right. But they made trade-offs, mostly in terms of where to put their development effort, that sacrificed usability by programmers for usability in demos.

Simply put, as a programmer, I want a system where everything I ever have to do with it is completely scriptable. Microsoft is working on that, but it is recent. And I want it to stay up. Basically, I want things that run, run forever, run right, and don't wake me up in the middle of the night by giving someone a reason to page me.

Yes, most of the applications I have worked on have uptime measurable in weeks or months. One of my first ran continuously for 18 months.

I have no complaints about Microsoft putting code on Sourceforge. Personally, I think their products have improved enormously in the past few years. I don't begrudge them a profit or even marketshare. I think Microsoft, their customers, and the open source community would all benefit if they would do a couple of things. First, stop the rhetoric of Linux as the enemy. Linux is competition for Windows. Competitors are not enemies. There are some very important differences. Not that it has to make us all friends.

Second, I'd like to see Microsoft release under an open source license ever product they are no longer supporting. I'm not talking about old releases where there is an upgrade path. And I would apply this more widely than Microsoft. It would increase people's confidence in everyone's products knowing that when support is no longer available from the original vendor, there is not a forced end-of-life in a hurry. Finally, I'd like to see Microsoft release under an open source license, code to read and write all of their data formats. I realize that isn't completely realistic, and it isn't going to happen. However, if we get partial cooperation on it, it is still a win. In the end, computers have become the channel for worldwide communication. We have to be able to read the data we send to each other.

In spite of all of these negative comments...

[mike_diack]

I greatly welcome this news.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike Microsoft intensely, and find it a pain to develop for at work (am a big Linux fan both for development and general use), but am using WTL on both home and work projects to great effect.

It's a good project and I'm finally glad that
Nenad and the team have been able to get the suits to make it more open than it was before.

After all, most ATL applications (probably most modern Win32 apps!) are actually using WTL in some form, even if they don't know it....
ATLControls.h (part of a code sample back in 1996
from MS is widely used in commercial apps, but is actually from Nenad, (the WTL author) and eventually migrated into atlctrls.h in WTL(!)

Mike

I have an idea, Microsoft...

[jswalter9]

Release Win98 source to the wine project. heh.

Not that it matters

[fish_in_the_c]

WTL code has been avialible out on web sights and in Windows documentation for at least 3 years now ( I know because I used it in one of my apps) and the liscense for it was pretty much open source ( ie freely distributable / downloadedable ) all that time. Actually they tried to squash the thing for a while. It has been mostly user supported all that time because it is code that "accidentally" escaped from thier labs. Also, WTL is a alternative to using MFC's which is the technology they were pushing at the time. I think what they are doing is tring to get some free publicity in the OSS world by publishing something as OSS that already was. Either that or someone in microsoft who likes WTL wants to see it kept alive and sees this as the best way.

I Like Source

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading through many of the endless messages here speculating about Microsoft's motives, expressing concern about what this means for OSS, and debating fine points about licensing and whatnot, I came to the conclusion that I could care less.

As a software engineer, I care about code, the design of that code, the patterns used to create that code, and all that. While the rest of you are wringing your hands trying to predict the future, I'm going to download the code and see what I can learn from and what I can ignore. I'm going to look at the source and see if it reflects my preconceptions of Microsoft code, or if I'm going to have to challenge my views.

Re:Allowing pirates to install XP SP2

[dumky]

Actually this is still far from clear. The latest I read was that SP2 will be exactly like SP1 in regards to pirates.

It seems there has been conflicts between various sources of information. I'd wait til SP2 is out to be sure on that one...

Repeat After Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporation NOT Person

Excellent point

[FanaticalDesperado]

When people start negotiating with car dealers a lot of them seem to forget that they have the option of walking away. If the dealer tells you that they can't do something you want, go to another dealer. Sooner or later, you'll find one who will do it as long as your demands are within reason.

I walked out of a lot of dealerships last time I bought a car. Some of them I walked out of because they didn't have what I wanted. Guess what? Every single one of them offered to go through the catalog with me and order what I wanted. I walked out of others because they wouldn't give me the price I wanted. Eventually, I found a dealer who had what I wanted and gave it to me at the price I wanted to pay. They were also one of the nicest and least pushy dealers but that's not really relevant.

Here's a hint guys: It's a lot easier to do the above if you start looking for a new car before you actually need one. If your car died on you and you really need a new car, you're probably going to get screwed. You have less negotiating power. Start searching before your car dies. If you find someone that gives you an unbelievable deal you can always buy sooner than expected.

Linux port?

[DrCode]

I wonder if it would be possible (or desirable) to make this work with GTK+ or QT.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't they call it WTF..........

Public Relations Move?

[Smallpond]

Then again, there's always the possibility that this is just what it seems to be. A way to get open source developers to write for the Windows platform.

No. Too obvious.

trapped in your mirror

[Doc Ruby]

Where's the bigotry? Microsoft is a monopoly, their software is generally inferior, they interfere with progress in development, their malware and political spin makes our society less secure. It is clear that you are projecting your own worship of a successful corporation, your irrational devotion to Microsoft, onto those who criticize your idol. You are the bigot, the Microsoft fetishist.

Re:trapped in your mirror

[EvilAlien]

Hardly.

I merely insist on some thought being behind statements.

Microsoft grew into a monopoly, through dirty tactics or not, and crushed their competitors. Did they take the high road? No. Did they take the amoral road and achieve success? Absolutely.

What is their software "generally inferior" to? You imply a comparison to something without stating what that comparison is. MacOS? Linux? *BSD? AmigaOS? OS2/Warp? Word Perfect? WinAmp? Or do you mean Halo v. Quake 3?

Less secure than what? Less secure than if we didn't have computers, or than if somebody else was dominant? Prove it. Oh right, you can't. All I know, for a fact, is that Microsoft is the dominant desktop OS vendor, and the spread of desktop computers in the home of the average person (in a developed country) is pretty damn impressive. Computers and Internet access are supposed to be empowering, but all too often we see less empowerment and more random clicking of email attachments.

You make some interesting assumptions... I have taken some time to think about them and comment back using Mozilla running on Linux, via my Microsoft OS-free office desktop.

Re:trapped in your mirror

[Doc Ruby]

Accurate common knowledge of the M$ monopoly damage and continuing threat constitutes thought. Corporations don't have morals, successful or otherwise. Their executives and directors have irrelevant morals and ethics. It's those people's criminal behavior, covering for inadequate production quality, that matters.

M$ software is inferior to (eg) Mozilla and Linux, as you clearly agree as well as software that I write. Software that competes against the odds, without the benefit of a monopoly to promote it. It's buggy, too complex, lacks new solutions to old problems (or even old solutions). M$ software is notoriously insecure, as evident to anyone paying any attention - viruses, spyware, worms, identity theft, the list goes on - from your grandma to security firms to the media. The steady stream of M$ patches which buckle even their own prodigous distribution infrastructure is ample evidence, especially when compared to competitors like MacOS(X), Linux, and a host of industrial software from IBM, HP, Amdahl, SAP, and a myriad other suppliers.

Your circular logic defends M$ software as the best, as it is the most popular. I guess your favorite genes code for herpes - while I prefer the ones that code for critical thinking. Given your chosen platform, and the inferior software quality issuing from M$, I can only assume that you're a major M$ shareholder - if your thinking is sound. Otherwise, don't expect further responses from me.

Re:trapped in your mirror

[EvilAlien]

Evidently you weren't paying attention when responding to my comment.

First, comments on inferiority, MS vs Open Source, monopoly vs underdog, etc. There are things that work better in IE than in Mozilla/Fire(something). That being said, I still use Mozilla and Firefox as my primary browsers, and IE only when I absolutely have to (this holds true whether I am using a Windows, Linux, Solaris, or BSD desktop). As far as comments on security, it is easy to point the finger at Microsoft. They are the dominant desktop OS vendor, they are the biggest target, and the most available system for young kiddies to play with virus code they've ganked off USENET. I do security for a living, BTW. Yes, Microsoft has an awful track record... guess what? I watch new vulnerability advisories, exploit advisories, and patch availability notifications come out all day. Some days Microsoft is the worst of the bunch... some days it is the Linux kernel. Some days it happens to be Sun Microsystems dominating the advisories. All code has errors, no programmer is infalable. Given Microsoft's footprint, I am not surprised that they appear to have the worst security record. They may actually do... my point is that, without access to the source, it is impossible for us to tell so it is impossible to make a rational judgement. Furthermore, I have more problems downloading updates for my Linux systems than I do for the few Windows desktops I own.

We must exert choice and hope that others will make an informed choice. Hopefully that will prompt them to give alternatives to Microsoft a try.

As far as "circular logic" goes, and allegations of defining Microsoft as "the best", I did no such thing. I asserted that they were successful. They are, in fact, a successful business. Whether success was achieved through sneaky/dirty tactics or not doesn't really interest me right now. Regarding your note on "chosen platform".... that is the evidence that you weren't paying attention. See previous comment posting from Mozilla running on a Linux workstation, please/thanks.

true believer

[Doc Ruby]

You sick punk, just because you would rob someone if you could get away with it, doesn't mean we would. As for M$ playing by the rules, their monopoly status was decided by a long process in high court based on their violation of a judicial consent decree (the result of some of their prior monopoly behavior) not to bundle IE with Windows 95. In their defense, they lied, invented fake evidence, lied, delayed, lied, and lied some more. Do you identify with that kind of criminal action?

Why do you defend it? The antimonopoly actions of government protect even you, a slimy lying thief, from the predations of corporations like Microsoft. Just because you worship the idol of theft and extortion, don't expect us to get used to it.

API switching

[dustmite]

As a developer, I switched to wxWidgets not explicitly for the cross-platform capabilities, but because it's a much better API, and quite frankly Win32 and MFC suck so incredibly ridiculously badly that I could not face the thought of using them (and yes I have over 6 years of dev experience with them, they are bad). But now that I've switched to wxWidgets, my applications will require relatively minimal effort for me to make them run on other platforms. If I'd done them on Win32 or MFC, I would be at least a man-year away from being cross-platform. Perhaps Microsoft realises that their APIs are so bad that they're chasing some people into the hands of cross-platform competitor APIs, which is dangerous from their perspective because it means more ISVs building software that runs on other platforms. So perhaps they're hoping to start attracting more ISVs back to strictly Microsoft APIs again to prevent this.

This is non-fact-based speculation, of course, based on my own perceptions.

Nice misinterpretation. Are you a lawyer?

[grepistan]

I don't seem to recall admitting that at all. I think you may have simply made it up to support your argument. I use windows 2000 as well, and I consider that to be fairly unusable too, but less so.

Also, I don't recall mentioning Gnome in my previous argument. As it happens, I do consider Gnome to be a vast improvement over the windows UI, especially XP. I think KDE also has distinct advantages. But, and this is a big but, many of the advantages of the Linux desktops are geared towards people who want to customize every last detail of their work environment, which many windows users (in my experience) don't generally care about.

But, while we're expressing wild, flamebait-type accusations, how about this list:

• Stability: even my fully patched windows 2000 box goes down at least 2 or 3 times a week. Particularly if Java is involved.
• Multiple workspaces: come on, you need a third-party program just to get this essential feature.
• Registration: I like to be able to change my hardware and not phone Bill every time.
• I could go on, but can't be bothered. I suspect you are a troll or flamebait merchant anyway.

Re:Before feeling sorry for captive terrorists...

[Anonymous Coward]

but... they were criminals - as in stole shit, not "unlawful combatants" or "terrorists".

It's wrong however you look at it, but dude - they weren't terrorists.

I know, dont feed the trolls, but christ... pull your head out of your ass and *look* at the facts!

Me not too keen about WTL/ATL either

[edxwelch]

Not used WTL, but from my experience with ATL I found it very difficult to understand the template code when you need to debug and step into it. Also very difficult to extend the framework. Much prefer a proper oo toolkit. I think templates were designed for the purpose of making generic algorythms and containers and not to be used as an implementation trick wrap an API, anyhow.

Re:Me not too keen about WTL/ATL either

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, there's nothing complex about ATL templates. Maybe you should find an easier job.

off topic, but tired of the bs

[Anonymous Coward]

ok. i will finally bite. quit bitching about MS blue screens and the interface. BSOD's don't really happen anymore. sure, you have to kill processes from time to time, but that happens with any OS.

i'm not always particularly fond of gui-based OS's, but come on. that's what we have for any number of reasons. someone from the windows world could use kde and feel at home.

the problem with microsoft has to do with trying to decimate competitors through market share.... oh, and they did miss out on how the web might matter and then try to catch up by including scripting capabilities into EVERYHTING.

no security issues there.

This is a GUI library!

[TapeCutter]

Am I the only one here that read the post? The library is to create GUI's on Windows and it's got a license sanctioned by the FSF. Who cares if it works with another O/S or not. Most of the commercial stuff I write is single source C/C++ that compiles on Win32,Solaris,Linux,HPUX and AIX. Front end displays (GUI's) are written specifically for Windows only. Thanks MS your input to OSS is welcomed by this developer. Please ignore the sour grapes of the Linux zealots.

Re:This is a GUI library!

[be-fan]

Actually, this is a wrapper over Win32. Its about as much a GUI library as MFC is a GUI library. There is no actual logical code in there, just interface glue to make Win32 less vomit-worthy.

Read the original post...

[TapeCutter]

The original post states "the toolkit allows a Windows developer to create quick GUIs in C++.". (It really means MSVC not generic C++.) I have been using MFC since MSVC 1.5, I realize it is a wrapper around the Windows API but if you want to create portable code then you would only use MFC (or this toolkit) for display logic. It makes more sense to seperate the bussiness logic into more Unix friendly modules that can be compiled and linked on multiple platforms. Most Unix stuff is not that hard to port to Windows. However if you are porting in the other direction and the original code uses any of various Windows frameworks then it usually means a complete re-write. When 100% of your customers demand Unix and Windows versions then the frameworks become nothing more than GUI libries.