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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[JPriest]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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!!!

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: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.

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.

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: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).

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.

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.

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.

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)

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: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: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!

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)

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.

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.

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.

Re:Microsoft denounced Open Source

[MisterFancypants]

No, Microsoft denounced the GPL/LGPL. Not "Open Source". There is a difference.

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.

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?