Microsoft Releases WTL To SourceForge

Interesting Observation by RucasRiot · 2004-05-12 14:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft denounces OS yet they contribute... Odd.

--
Props to GNAA!

Re:Interesting Observation by LostCluster · 2004-05-12 14:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by LBArrettAnderson · 2004-05-12 14:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by 0x0d0a · 2004-05-12 14:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

--
May we never see th
Re:Interesting Observation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 14:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by dasmegabyte · 2004-05-12 14:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Interesting Observation by Gilk180 · 2004-05-12 14:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Anyone know?
Re:Interesting Observation by argent · 2004-05-12 15:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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 by sumdumass · 2004-05-12 15:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by leshert · 2004-05-12 15:36 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by zurab · 2004-05-12 15:37 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by raehl · 2004-05-12 15:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Microsoft denounces OS

I believe Microsoft is actually very pro-operating system.

--
paintball
Re:Interesting Observation by lkaos · 2004-05-12 15:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Re:Interesting Observation by Frizzle+Fry · 2004-05-12 15:53 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Re:Interesting Observation by JPriest · 2004-05-12 16:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Re:Interesting Observation by Dalcius · 2004-05-12 16:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Interesting Observation by timecop · 2004-05-12 16:28 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Dalcius · 2004-05-12 16:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 :)

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Interesting Observation by Ryosen · 2004-05-12 16:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--

Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
Re:Interesting Observation by wass · 2004-05-12 16:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
make world, not war
Re:Interesting Observation by Dalcius · 2004-05-12 17:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Interesting Observation by CaptainFrito · 2004-05-12 17:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by JPriest · 2004-05-12 17:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Re:Interesting Observation by zerocool^ · 2004-05-12 17:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
sig?
Re:Interesting Observation by solid_liq · 2004-05-12 17:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by justin_speers · 2004-05-12 18:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Roark+Meets+Dent · 2004-05-12 18:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-05-12 18:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
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)
--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Interesting Observation by MrIrwin · 2004-05-12 18:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
Re:Interesting Observation by slycer9 · 2004-05-12 19:04 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Does this mean I should have BOUGHT WindowsXP???

--
Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
Re:Interesting Observation by mcrbids · 2004-05-12 19:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Re:Interesting Observation by flacco · 2004-05-12 19:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Re:Interesting Observation by pluvia · 2004-05-12 20:03 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 20:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by ThaReetLad · 2004-05-12 20:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Interesting Observation by ThaReetLad · 2004-05-12 20:22 · Score: 2, Informative

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

--
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Interesting Observation by gbjbaanb · 2004-05-12 20:47 · Score: 5, Funny

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 by MartinG · 2004-05-12 21:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
Re:Interesting Observation by muffen · 2004-05-12 21:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by gidds · 2004-05-12 22:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Re:Interesting Observation by peragrin · 2004-05-12 22:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Interesting Observation by Tim+C · 2004-05-12 22:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Interesting Observation by SteveX · 2004-05-12 23:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 23:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by jaguarul · 2004-05-12 23:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by EvilAlien · 2004-05-13 01:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 ;)

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Re:Interesting Observation by LilMikey · 2004-05-13 01:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Re:Interesting Observation by Zordak · 2004-05-13 03:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

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."

--

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Re:Interesting Observation by LostCluster · 2004-05-13 04:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by devnull17 · 2004-05-13 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

So, how long until... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 14:18 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:So, how long until... by Paul+d'Aoust · 2004-05-12 15:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
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.
--
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
Re:So, how long until... by Fnkmaster · 2004-05-12 17:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Hurry up and post, pundits by drinkypoo · 2004-05-12 14:19 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Hurry up and post, pundits by Dalcius · 2004-05-12 16:53 · Score: 2

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!

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Hurry up and post, pundits by drinkypoo · 2004-05-12 18:11 · Score: 2

Starting Score: 1 point Moderation +3 40% Funny 30% Underrated 20% Overrated Total Score: 4
...and of course, 10% rounding error.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

WTL by Sarojin · 2004-05-12 14:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

--
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING

license by Coneasfast · 2004-05-12 14:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.

Re:license by sfraggle · 2004-05-12 14:30 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
Re:license by 0x0d0a · 2004-05-12 14:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).

--
May we never see th
Re:license by Minna+Kirai · 2004-05-12 14:47 · Score: 2, Informative
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 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 15:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by lkaos · 2004-05-12 15:35 · Score: 4, Informative

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).

--
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));

Uh-oh by agent+dero · 2004-05-12 14:20 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

--
Error 407 - No creative sig found

Re:Uh-oh by km790816 · 2004-05-12 15:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

--
A speech...

Good for them by sbrown123 · 2004-05-12 14:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!!!

Glad to see MS releasing so much code by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 14:21 · Score: 5, Funny

First Windows 2000, now this.

In other news.... by Dan+Farina · 2004-05-12 14:22 · Score: 3, Funny

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.... by kidgenius · 2004-05-12 14:26 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Errata by Sarojin · 2004-05-12 14:23 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING

Re:Errata by raehl · 2004-05-12 15:01 · Score: 4, Funny

chicks dig coders!

Well now we KNOW you're lying.

--
paintball

What now, Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 14:25 · Score: 5, Funny

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!"

It's about damned time. by leshert · 2004-05-12 14:25 · Score: 4, Informative

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. by rifftide · 2004-05-12 15:07 · Score: 2, Funny

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. by leshert · 2004-05-12 15:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2004-05-13 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

--
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.

CPL is OSI approved! by gazoombo · 2004-05-12 14:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Baffling!
Microsoft has actually released open-source software.

The CPL was developed by IBM and is OSI approved.

OSI approved
more info

--
John Hancock

On the bridge of the USS Linux by Progman3K · 2004-05-12 14:33 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J

Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux by Progman3K · 2004-05-12 14:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux by TheLink · 2004-05-12 17:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold

This is great news by timecop · 2004-05-12 14:36 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by zyridium · 2004-05-12 17:16 · Score: 2, Funny

Because that is the first thing people will sign up for... writing documentation :-)
Re:This is great news by metamatic · 2004-05-13 04:12 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

WTL Rocks by wandazulu · 2004-05-12 14:37 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Well... hm.... by paroneayea · 2004-05-12 14:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

--
http://mediagoblin.org/

always open source! by dudifeuer · 2004-05-12 14:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Documentation by curtoid · 2004-05-12 14:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

WTL for stand-alone executables by mrm677 · 2004-05-12 14:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by DrXym · 2004-05-12 15:20 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

WTL has been out for more than a year by js3 · 2004-05-12 14:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
did you forget to take your meds?

Re:obFark by cujo_1111 · 2004-05-12 14:44 · Score: 2, Funny

You have never seen 'Return of the Jedi'?

You must be new here...

--
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.

Microsoft + Sourceforge = by imidazole2 · 2004-05-12 14:47 · Score: 5, Funny

Microsoft + Sourceforge = The End Of The World

--

-Imidazole2

Seems to be problems by iplayfast · 2004-05-12 14:56 · Score: 3, Funny

there's no configure,
there's no makefile,
I don't think this stuff is compatible with Linux!

Finally MS is contributing by groomed · 2004-05-12 14:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

It's not free software. by raehl · 2004-05-12 15:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.)

--
paintball

On the Bridgeof the USS Corporate by raehl · 2004-05-12 15:12 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

--
paintball

Common Public License: OSI, not GPL compatiable by civilizedINTENSITY · 2004-05-12 15:12 · Score: 3, Informative

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.)

NOPE by fpga_guy · 2004-05-12 15:18 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Installed it... by CODiNE · 2004-05-12 15:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Since then my computer has rebooted 6 times and I now have a BSOD! I think it's working! :-)

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz

Good on you MS (NOT) by jonwil · 2004-05-12 15:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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: by raehl · 2004-05-12 15:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
paintball

Actually, real story.... by raehl · 2004-05-12 15:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

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".

--
paintball

Get started with WTL by klin · 2004-05-12 15:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

trojan horse by CAIMLAS · 2004-05-12 15:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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)

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

Re:trojan horse by spectecjr · 2004-05-12 18:45 · Score: 2

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.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Encore, Microsoft! (never thought I'd say that) by stealth.c · 2004-05-12 15:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

What about ATL? by AstroDrabb · 2004-05-12 15:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison

Re:What about ATL? by Lord+Bitman · 2004-05-12 15:56 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

--
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Re:What about ATL? by erikharrison · 2004-05-12 16:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

Unwanted Child by ChaoticCoyote · 2004-05-12 16:03 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
All about me

Re:Unwanted Child by m00nun1t · 2004-05-12 17:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Read reviews of shopping cart software

I agree. by stealth.c · 2004-05-12 16:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

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! :)

It takes Bill a few iterations... by jarich · 2004-05-12 16:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

--
Agile Artisans

Microsoft denounced Open Source by Nailer · 2004-05-12 16:13 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by MisterFancypants · 2004-05-12 16:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Nothing wrong with that by spitzak · 2004-05-12 16:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

MS on SF by Slapdash+X.+Hashbang · 2004-05-12 17:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

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:Has anyone used this with watcom c yet? by jonwil · 2004-05-12 19:18 · Score: 2, Informative

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... :)

It's a trick by Rogerborg · 2004-05-12 20:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Fetch an axe.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Re:Has anyone used this with watcom c yet? by patthoyts · 2004-05-12 20:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks. by master_p · 2004-05-12 21:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

(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. by Ed+Avis · 2004-05-13 00:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com

The Way I See it by joelil · 2004-05-12 23:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

In spite of all of these negative comments... by mike_diack · 2004-05-13 01:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

--
Linux fan and Win32 developer

Not that it matters by fish_in_the_c · 2004-05-13 02:52 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Releases WTL To SourceForge

125 of 560 comments (clear)