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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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.

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.