Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Planning on Opening Up More Source
mhh5 writes "It's a bit surprising, but it looks like Microsoft is considering making some of its code open source. Obviously, Microsoft's OS or Office are not going to be opened, and it seems like Microsoft is just trying to get more developers, but it's a interesting change of policy."
I can't wait to get my hands on that DOS 3.3 source. I shall build the mightiest DOS EVER!!!!
Any program MS could open the source to other than Office or Windows is almost completely useless. What would be much better is if they opened the file formats. Then maybe we could have proper .doc readers and writers.
Isn't most of their [non buggy] code already stolen from OSS?!
-- In Soviet Russia, radio listens to YOU!
When they say Open Source, do they mean actually open source, or shared source? Of course I didn't RTFA.
if the news is true and isn't just a PR stunt, it would be a positive confirmation of the power of OSS.
hey you can work on improving your apartment as much as you want. when the next guy moves in, we are going to paint it pink and throw all your crap out ...
we really like that you fixed the garbage disposal for us free though.
...it seems like Microsoft is just trying to get more developers
Of course. Everything Microsoft does is devious...?
Open source developers will root out all their bugs for them, they pay nothing, and whenever something goes wrong, guess who's going to get blamed (hint, it's not the microsoft developers)
MS is not doing this because they believe in helping mankind. This is a way to get ppl hooked on the shared source and more importantly, having an ability to sue said programmer down the road, if they move over to GPL code.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1) Release more code (non-critical) under their Shared Source license.
2) Continue claim of Shared Source = Open Source, and point out that MS is major contributor to Shared Source (technically correct as its their license)
3) Hope to find "close enough" code in other programs with licenses not compatible with Shared Source and sue where possible.
4) Any developers willing to contribute code... Bonus.
...it's just a bunch of "if-else" loops anyway. Millions. Although, they iterated an array once that and used a "for" loop pretty nicely...
Hi Microsoft, I know you're new to the whole competition thing, but welecome to the free market.
Its a trap!
-Develop open source policy.
-Invite development.
-Simmer.
-Hi Jack.
Then Expound pitfalls of open source with a big "told you so."
But I could be wrong. MS could be 100% trustworthy on this.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
While we know Microsoft are not going to open source anything critical, one of the things they do seem to be starting to do is make the development process more transparent to the public.
Many Microsoft developers now discuss projects openly on Blogs and Forums, and some projects (i.e. Internet Explorer) now have community sites where the public can interact directly with the development team.
Personally I like this transparent process, and hope it becomes popular within Microsoft. They have some of the best developers in the world and this sort of restructuring could lead to some excellent software being produced.
That's what it's all about.
What other choice does MS have at this point?
...
Seems they want people to believe they are playing along with the OSS market
It's a trap!
...ok, dumb jokes aside, this is probably not as good as it sounds. I'd advise the Wine guys to stay as far away from this code as possible!!
Remember, these are the guys who "recommended" Baystar to SCO. They are NOT open source friendly.
SCO caused Linux a lot of problems with their whole "code pollution" bit. I'll betcha they're planting seeds to do the same thing with their own code base later on down the road.
Stay away from this, folks. FAR away.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I find it interesting that Windows is so widely deployed, yet so few people are truly "in love" with the operating system. You'll find people willing to die for Mac OSX, for OpenBSD, for BeOS, for Amiga, for Gentoo, or for any number of other systems -- but to date, I've never met a single person that was truly satisfied with Windows, much less happy or fanatical about it.
People use Microsoft for a number of reasons, none of them at all related to customer satisfaction. Corporate desktops are assumed to be running Windows with Office unless stated otherwise. Data centers are assumed to be running some Windows server edition, to let the admins use Group Policy and other platform-dependent tools that almost make managing those desktops bearable. People use Microsoft because of their monopoly, and Microsoft exploits this.
And remember, no one got fired for choosing Microsoft.
Thousands of open source developers around the world would die as their head's exploded.
We used to have a joke at Bell Labs regarding the source code for the 5ESS. If we ever wanted to eliminate any competition, we would send them a copy of the source, and they would go bankrupt trying to figure it out.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
...Although, the possibilities of porting MS Bob to LINUX are intriguing...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
They are going to open the source of their network protocols. The first thing they are opening is the TCP/IP protocols. ;-)
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
So when will it be on BitTorrent?
It's pretty obvious, and the Slashdot post mentioned it also -- to get more developers. The Windows operating system is unique, in sense that it is very user-friendly and everyone's software runs on it. The reason why Microsoft does not port software to other operating systems is common sense -- Windows is nothing without the software that it has, but that rule applies to any other operating systems as well. That's why Microsoft gives away development tools, because they want people to develop code under Microsoft's name... and this is no different. When people take Microsoft's opened source code and change it around, they are only helping Microsoft's opened source code and Microsoft themselves. It's not really about Microsoft making more money directly, but they will get more developers once everyone starts seeing their technique of programming and that will get them money in the long run.
Just my two cents, heh.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Microsoft opened up lots of it's source last year, lest we forget. :)
And it will probably be "opened" in a sense that will make Sun and Apple look like RMS. At least if "Shared Source" is any indication.
Microsoft code is good for one thing and one thing only, and that is improving Wine. If this code is not useful to this end, or else has license restrictions that would limit the ability to use it to improve Wine, who cares?
This is purly a business move aimed at PHB's. IBM has made money telling people that Open Source is good and MS is getting in on the right for free.
It could also be that they are trying to get in on the good side of budding developers. I don't know any other CS majors that use Windows on their main desktop and I know of no CS majors who write their code in Windows. At Georgia Tech everything in class is done in Linux after the first Scheme class. If the future coders don't know Microsoft stuff they won't use it or push it in their jobs.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Well, a bit of Googling turned 'em up: Windows Template Library (WTL) and Windows Installer XML (WiX).
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
This is like Sauron giving rings to all the elvish and dwarven kings in order to enslave them.
Yes, I'm a nerd.
Someone has to say it, they are opening the source on purpose this time? It's probably just the Microsoft Bob code, or worse, Clippy.
I hate sigs.
It's a bit surprising, but it looks like Microsoft is considering making some of its code open source.
Wrong! MS has never open sourced a single thing. They are "shared sourcing" it, which is not an Open Source license. MS is just attempting to confuse and dilute the term Open Source.
Here's MS's Shared Source Initiative page. This has nothing to do with Open Source. Netscape and Apple both began their Open Source initiatives with licenses that had similar (but not nearly as bad) license problems, and both have eagerly and earnestly worked with the Open Source community and changed their licenses to become truly Open Source.
MS is welcome to do the same, but they won't. Nice try Bill, but like always, you just don't get it.
When Microsoft source code gets leaked, it's big news. Then people dive into the source and find out how poorly written it is. With a lot of Microsoft source being open, nobody will care enough to talk about it anymore.
Audioscrobbler
but it's a interesting change of policy
This change is not from today, the change started with WIX under the CPL.
Anyway, if you make a CPL program better(and if it's not yours) you can't earn money with this, only if it helps you to make other things, but who created the program can earn money with your code.
The want the media atention and to be the good guys with this things. Them whem someone talk about Microsoft be against open source software they will say: "we released XX softwares under open source licenses, how we can be against our softwares?"
I was going to make a crack about how obvious this comment was, but you got me thinking about the success of Micro-Soft's marketing campaigns.
Micro-Soft has managed what seemed to me to be an impossible task; turn the obvious security advantages of Open Source into a debate about who has the better security. There are actually people out there convinced that Windows' security is superior due to the success of their marketing, contrary to all reason and evidence.
Micro-Soft have managed to turn TCO into a debate about which is cheaper, Windows or FLOSS, despite the fact that it is blindingly obvious that the cost of Windows is a gazillionfold.
Perhaps your comment is the first of many, as "Micro-Soft supports Open Source" and "Shared Source and Open Source are the same thing" become the new frontiers in their reductio ad absurdem marketing campaigns that seem so successful with the gullible.
1. Establish Monopoly
2. Profit
3. Use FUD to Equate Shared Source with Open Source
4. Block Real Open Source with Patents
5. ?
6. Profit
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
From the article:
I would argue that the GPL has "clearly delinated ground rules", and I'm not sure what extra value is added by the CPL. The FSF licence list gives some hints that the CPL imposes extra requirements:
Does anybody have any examples of why a corporation would prefer the CPL to the GPL?
In yesterday's discussion of ESR's criticism of "free software" as a term, I mentioned that I think "unrestricted software" is a better term than either "free software" or "open source". It captures the "libre" idea and spirit of the GPL neatly, imho, and isn't subject to as many word games as "open" and "free" are.
If Microsoft offers more open source code how the REAL open source code movement is gonna diferentiate itself from the closed/heavy licensed/I'll sue the shirt out of you Microsoft's way?.
Too little too late, etc.
How is this a change of policy? Let's look at Microsoft's old methods:
1) Embrace new methodology
2) Extend new methodology in a way that locks users into Microsoft products
Let's look at Microsoft's take on "open source":
1) Embrace OSS' idea of providing developers access to source code.
Would anyone care to guess what step #2 will be?
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
maybe SP2 for win3.1 :)
I doubt that Microsoft needs more developers. Apparently there are 30,000 people working in Redmond. I don't know how many of these are developers but if you can't get it right with 30,000 I imagine adding more would just make things worse.
Probably what they need are fewer managers...I bet they are chasing each other around the campus with knives drawn and projects out.
The open source thing is a seperate issue. Already things like Rotor are available "open source" There are many benefits to open source other than having people contribute to your code (which could just be a hassle.)
void main() {
//
//**Secret Proprietary Microsoft Code Removed**
//
while (true) {
if (rand() % 2)
doCrash();
}
}
This led to the question of what is the CPL and how does this differ from other licenses. A little Googling on my part turned up this site that compares the open source licenses.
The most significant difference between the CPL and the GPL involves the license of derivative works.
-cmh
Though let me tell you, for the time being it can make life fairly complicated. I had been programming with FreeBSD/BeOS/Linux (all GNU/Posix stuff) since in high school, but my third year in college I landed an internship doing Windows client programming. I could've easily worked with the engineers doing C/firmware stuff, but instead they had the need for client coders, so there I sat learning MFC. It will take a while for the lead developers at most locations to be willing to code in UNIX, not to mention, you have to provide your product for the platform that your customer wants.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
How sad for Windows users that they have to resort to this line of reasoning (which I keep hearing when this subject comes up, so it must the standard line of reasoning). While the rest of us non-Windows users use operating systems to facilitate whatever work we happened to be tasked with accomplishing, we also get to have a blast doing it. Poor Windows users are stuck in the corner pretending that fun at work is not important, because it's not an option for them. Yes, I'm exaggerating. Just like the parent post. But my point is real: You can have fun and be productive at the same time. In fact, the more fun you're having, the more productive you tend to be.
Here come the exploits.
http://blogs.msdn.com is mesmerising. I can't believe they encourage their developers to post regularly, and that the feeds go out un-edited by management or marketing. Plus, they have anonymous comments enabled.
http://channel9.msdn.com/ is an impressive effort, and shows how far MS is going with their community outreach.
It's scary how much you can learn from blogs.msdn.com. There are a lot of smart people working at MS, but what are they all working on? The quality and thoughtfulness of the posters there indicates that they must have some killer internal projects.
Name an instance of IIS being automatically exploited. I'll cite you two Apache holes in return.
Nothing is 100% secure. Let's be mature and rational, people.
This will dilute "open-source" when applied to news broadcasts and magazine articles which PHBs rely upon. We could explain the intricate differences between "true" open-source and the Microsoftian "shared-source" licenses. But not in a brief sentence. And not in five seconds.
PHBs will just think "open-source is good trend" and "Microsoft 'does' open-source".
So yeah, this is a good, though Machievelian move, by Microsoft.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Part of the reason for the open source GPL was to get more developers, too.
But for Microsoft, you're right, it's devious.
Microsoft = Evil
Open source = Good
Microsoft open source = My brain really hurting....
I wonder how they will define "Open?" Not GPL probably.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I find it interesting that Windows is so widely deployed, yet so few people are truly "in love" with the operating system. You'll find people willing to die for Mac OSX, for OpenBSD, for BeOS, for Amiga, for Gentoo, or for any number of other systems -- but to date, I've never met a single person that was truly satisfied with Windows, much less happy or fanatical about it.
That's because DORKS use OS X, OpenBSD, BeOS, Amiga, Gentoo, and actually LOVE their operating systems.
The majority of the world is not made of computer geeks who treat their operating systems like religions and lovers, and the majority of the world also uses Windows. Therefore, the majority of Windows users don't jerk off to which operating system they're using.
Sorry, pal, we're a geek niche. Slashdot doesn't represent majority opinion. It's just us.
So now they're going the unconstitutional route?
Fuck it
...both were already reported on Slashdot in the past. Doesn't seem so incredible now when an editor dupes a post, does it?
is it me or it's a pure coincidence that MS decides to restart development on IE AND open up more source code?! could this "source" be IE?
MS is just attempting to confuse and dilute the term Open Source.
Microsoft calls it "Shared Source" with a completely different license, not the GPL, and somehow they're trying to confuse and dilute another term called "Open Source?" What's so confusing about it? Couldn't be any more confusing than GPL, LGPL, CPL, XPL, BSD, etc.
Seems rather silly. Especially since Microsoft has been sharing their Windows source with universities for years. In fact, it was a Linux machine at a company called Mainsoft that got hacked which resulted in that Windows source leak. But you didn't see that reported here.
Obviously, Microsoft's OS or Office are not going to be opened, and it seems like Microsoft is just trying to get more developers
/. community ought to see as noble, they find ways to bash it.
When MS does something that the
When Google announced they were doing it a few days ago, they were touted as OSS heroes.
You know Google isn't Open-Sourcing PageRank!
In similar news, Microsoft is now planning on spending more on it's Advertising Campaign here on Slashdot. Now that they are "opening" their doors, we an all rally around Microsoft! Let me think... NO!
After Microsoft released their first OSS project there was a /. article where M$ was AGAIN saying how evil OSS was... The next day they opened up their second program, and now plan on releasing more.
This sounds like a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing... or... Microsoft is a bunch of hypocritical liars that are out to get their software made for them for free.
Unfortunately I cannot find the links to these articles, and don't have time to continue searching.
DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
Microsoft *IS* a commercial entity. What that means is that it's upmost agenda is to be profitable. If they need to bait the planet with OSS, they will. As long as in the end they make a (handsome) profit, it's unimportant what means are employed.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Download and look at that code at your peril - you will be forever tainted in anything you develop.
Just think of the next adverts.
"Microsoft, bringing out the best in you by using your knowledge because we ain't got a clue"
I like muppets.
And you're correct in your assessment that Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They've earned that with their illegal actions that have left many a wrecked company throughout the computer industry.
I so want to have Microsoft Bob... I only wonder if the source code could tell us what the hell they were thinking... Just goes to show, most of MS's innovations suck. Their best products are ones they buy or steal.
And we bill out at a few benjamins an hour....
or how about 100,000 volunteers hunting vulnerabilities?
More like 100,000 hackers and spammers hunting for vulnerabilities to export.
The reason that people pore over open-source code is generally because they have a particular itch to scratch. IOW, they find a bug in their copy of the code and figure out how to fix it for their installation.
Odds are, the "shared" code by Microsoft will be patent and legally encumbered, so you won't be able to use it in other projects. Worse, it may not even be compilable, so if you do find a bug to fix, it does you no good.
Saying that there will be 100,000 people hunting for bugs is naive. You might get a handful of academic types looking, but most developers don't have the time.
what... so all the open source developers can look at some law_suit_bait code and say schtuff like 'jeez round eye, you code is (broke)...'
You are what you do when it counts. ~the Masao
Cause licensing hell. By getting some code causght in a CPL trap, they can probably prevent the same code going in to GPL and thus cause more mess.
They can now say to various governments etc that they are being nice people and are sharing their code.
Getting free contributions.
Finally, Microsoft understands how to gain the necessary legal traction to go after linux. They are putting some of their code out there so that later on they can claim it was illegally incorporated into linux.
Whether or not the code is actually used in an open source project is beside the point. All they have to do is demonstrate that the code was in fact available, and point to sections of vaguely similar code in an open source project.
This WILL happen. Microsoft is fighting for it's life right now.
Gee, if only Microsoft would switch office over to using XML, and publish the schemas...
Oh, wait, looks like they have. Whats that? You want them to participate in standards process? Something like this?
They should release the source code to some of their middle-level components.l
Examples:
Internet Explorer and its HTML rendering engine
common controls
OLE/COM
solitare
minesweeper
freecel
notepad
wordpad
paint
shell (as in things like shell32.dll and shfolder.dll and etc)
internet stuff like wininet
richedit
etc
basicly, things that they include with windows but which arent used as a "selling point"
Also, if they open-sourced their C runtime (i.e. msvcrt.dll, msvcprt.dll, msvcirt.dll, atl.dll and such), that would probobly be very good. (doubt they would open MFC but certainly if they opened the C/C++ Runtime/STL/etc and mabie ATL, that would be great)
Is the steady advance of Linux and other OSS projects the steady pressure that can make a better company of Microsoft?
Look at what IBM was in the 80's. They attempted to choke out the trend of open hardware specs and the clone industry with a proprietary platform. OS/2 and the PS/2 computers with their MCA bus architectures were going to displace the AT compatible. I remember John Dvorak and all the other experts predicting the end of the AT.
Regardless of the technical merit of MCA and OS/2, the backlash of EISA and then Windows put IBM in their place and they have since been a remarkably pragmatic company. Thanks to their R&D and participation in Linux, I think they're one of the coolest ones out there.
This is the way, my friends. Don't fume about court cases and market injustices. Compete!
But they already have a (cracked) open source version of NT, don't they?
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
Just which product(s) will be shared source might be of interest to some pundits(I predict IIS being among the first ports on the server side, if it ever happens, simply because there is less server market share to lose there, they're already way behind apache, oracle web server, ibm web server, zeus et al... Windows Media Server is also a candidate, simply because they are licensing it as part of a larger product, but not selling it directly, in a marketspace where the competitors are much more expensive, but offer much more features{real} or are free{apple/darwin streaming server}). On the desktop I have a harder question, is this source thing just an attempt to blindside consumers? They could always say they are open sourcing word viewer after all... Nothing says they have in mind to open the source of a product that actually reads a specific Microsoft format, or that said product has to be unencumbered(patent-wise). Microsoft has always been a master of the "give with one hand take away with the other" I predict more of the same, just where is my only question. Let's not get carried away at least until they have named those products, and listed their intent as regards to data formats et al contained in there.
Why is this important you ask? Well let me put a hypothetical case:
1) you have the source code to office
2) the office file format is encumbered
3) you use the source code to do anything with regards to that file format(read, write, export, clean up, syntax-highlight it doesn't matter)
4) you are in violation of their patent, and can(and likely will) be dragged before a court
It doesn't matter that they opened up their source in this case. Should anyone who hasn't been following, that means that open source benefits end users most when linked to open formats. What this smells like to me, is a PR move related to stock valuation, they announced they would follow the trend, but without naming the products, to gauge the impact on stock price, and they are evaluating which product will be released, based partly on market reactions. If their focus groups say "bad juju" they'll pull up something like ms dos 2.11 or microsoft notepad, and claim they open-sourced it to encourage innovation in the text space
[sarcasm]implying that they are leaders in the text-only field[/sarcasm]
There are a lot of technologies that Microsoft started, like WMI, that would actually benefit from an influx of third party developers, actually, the number of technologies at Microsoft that wouldn't grow with an influx of third parties is actually pretty close to zero.
However, if we want our computing to be unfettered, we have to keep insisting on what's really important, and not be swayed by Microsoft's "No" "No" "Maybe" "Yes but only if you give me the Moon first" routine. The data on our computers, belongs to us, the computers, they also belong to us, the software on it provides a useful service, it is true, but it does NOT grant control to Microsoft over that, and we need to react forcefully to anything that lessens our control over our property.
I have nothing against Microsoft open-sourcing anything, but don't they realize that you can't have your FUD and eat it too?
English is easier said than done.
I Might be missing something, as I dont care about the difference between open or closed source. Some source I write for fun and release it to everyone, other source I write to make money.
Microsofts MSDN is full of source code examples, tools dlls components etc. Yes many of these tools you do not get the source code too. But as an example Microsoft site server, or commerce server as it is now was full of useful source code for developing your site server applications. Yes it wasnt open source, but it was free to use with your application if you had a license.
I guess what Im getting at is, they offer many examples, source code with licenses, and tools, yes there not open source, but if thats what people want, then they will write it them selves and release it as open.
TruePunk | Games
Soon MS will be patenting the Open Source process!!
Its an old magic trick, the magician holds up the source code in front of the audience - ...And now you don't! ( magician puts code back in hat ) .
Now you see it...( developers run to Microsoft, Bill Gates glues their feet to the floor )
Developers try to get away but find they cannot
Bait and switch - it works every time!
I can't afford a sig!
/me applauds
EULAs on those things, and you know it.
HAND.
M$'s PR people have a long way to go to overcome their infamous Apple Switcher, writing letters to senators from dead people and other Astroturf campaigns. M$ is an evil and dishonest company with a record that makes them impossible to trust.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Even better, we can find out what all those BSOD messages are.
It took forever to get the finer points of the GPL, now there is CPL.
;)
Anyone want to potentially get some mod points and explain the differences between CPL and GPL?
I hope Windoze users don't have the same feelings for their spouse as they do for their computers. Every place I've worked where windoze was deployed, there was not a single day that I did not hear someone cursing loudly about how the "computer" ate a few hours of work. They would beat their keyboards, as if they could not believe the thing had locked again. Then some discouraging words would be shouted above the office din. 200 people on a floor or ten person office, the story was the same.
Most Windoze users loath their computers. The company, the press and their peers blame them when it fails. They have less and less control over it but stability has not improved. There much humiliating talk about how the computer is too complicated for stupid people like themselves to run, and the programs themselves are making more and more wrong choices for them. Data on "servers" routinely dissapears, costing them months of work. I've actually heard people say that they got more done without the things on their desks. Microsoft has convinced people that computers suck.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Soon they will be putting a patent on Open Source.
I'm working with MS for a small project they are working on right now, and in the course of that we had an exchange about open source. The thing that I got out of it is that they don't understand the FOSS community and are in their usual paranoia mode.
Based on that, MS releasing more source is not some conspiracy to sue the FOSS community. It is much simpler. Linux and FOSS are media darlings right now, and thus getting a lot of attention by CIOs/CTOs/etc. Microsoft has to counter this interest. It really doesn't hurt them to hand out some code here and there and over time they create a perception of having an open source strategy. Thus, to the CxO crowd, the open source value proprosition is weakened because Microsoft has an equivalent offering. Its about creating perception in the minds of the economic buyer, not a reality.
If Office or Windoze were projects on Sourceforge they would be ignored. Really. All that's really worth while is learning to get stuff out of the file formats and most of that has already been done. M$ brags about how much it costs to get data out of roach motel they have created. It's mostly a lie, but eliminating that cost would hasten Microsoft's fall.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yes?
I remember some time ago Microsoft said the open source thing is a virus... and now they embrace virus ???
It could be a strategic move, rather than really supporting open source, maybe they want to rebuild their image in the open source community. 1) If the result turn out to be successful both in image building and better code and stuff, then it's a win-win situation. 2) If only the image is good and the code is not significantly better, they could say "look, we tried it, not that we are just plain anti open source but with good reasons and this's the prove!". 3) If only the code gets better, well, then just keep quite about anti-OSS and use the code to their benefit.
I suspected that they'll use GPL or anything similar and after reading the link to the news, ya just confirmed they were using CPL for their previous open sourced code.
Now Microsoft is a company and it's fair they do things good to their business. But watchout, they are not just single mindedly doing that!
That's not true anymore. Sure, GA Tech boys are bright enough to learn enough in a few days to maintain someone's old VBscript / Access nightmare. It's never been that hard. Now, however, they are going to know how to get the job done faster and cheaper with free software. The tools have gotten much better and it's easier to replace things with Linux than it would be to advocate buying a $5,000 Sun. They can wipp out a CD and apt-get what they need onto any poor suffering box and poof, the replacement is ready in a few days. That's why no one is bothering to learn M$ junk and that's why it's going away.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
But Dont we all already have that Win2k source code??
How can MS continue to wage campaign against open source in government and economic circles, decree the "dangers" of it, and spew other such nonsense while at the same time employing an open source strategy of its own?
Maybe they should change their message to "open source is not bad as long as an established company (read: closed source also) offers it.
what they are going to open up? If not, why such a fuss over just an anouncement?
Sample Code is released to show how to use APIs. It is open source in the sense that you download and modify the source code, but the build isn't useful for distributing in its own right, unlike a TRUE Open Source project.
True Open Source projects tend to be portable between platforms. Many projects on SourceForge can be built on Win32, Linux and Mac OS X.
But what can Windows Template Library (WTL) and Windows Installer XML (WiX) be built on?
My perception is that Microsoft's open source initiatives are simply a means of encouraging use of the Windows platform. They're making available source code to show how certain things can be done, thus giving developers an example of how routines should be written, but also meaning that these "open source" offerings are little more than extended sample code that you expect to get with a Visual Studio install.
Everythinglinux.com.au, selling all things linux related.
:D
Kind of like a Thinkgeek for Australia (and they accept BPAY!)
I swear, if I see another Slashdot comment with "It will be interesting to see"...
this will be the first step in a whole new line of "nimda compatable" viruses
WHERES THE W32 VIRUS SDK DOWNLOAD?
If someone picks MS project, there will be one more person comitting less for the rival camp. This is a win/win situation for Microsoft. It would be stupid of them not to do it.
I worked at Microsoft until sometime last year. I wasn't in a great or glamorous position as a developer or anything. But working there did make me pay attention to the policies to a greater extend than I do now.
.NET which seems to commoditize the OS much like Java....
A number of us in my department (we joked that it was the "armpit of Microsoft," but I forget who coined that phrase), noticed that Microsoft seemed to be pursuing greatly differnet and conflicting strategies relating to the saturation of the PC market and the threat to revenue that this engenders. On one hadn you had software assurance as an attempt to create a stable income source as PC's live increasingly long lives, and on the other you have
This is yet more evidence to me that Microsoft is NOT acting in a unified and coherent manner but us taking a shotgun approach out of fear (interestingly, not fear of Linux, but Linux contributes to an already bad situation).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
or rather it is, but in a different way then you're probably thinking. What's at issue isn't linux's credibility, it's Microsoft's. Countries besides America are wary of having their critical IT infrastructure dependent on a foreign company that's more or less (ok, more) been given a pass in a hugh anti trust trial by a corrupt gov't. This is suppose to allay those fears.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Name an instance of IIS being automatically exploited. I'll cite you two Apache holes in return."
Here you go, freshly under investigation, spreading as I type.
From the article: "Government and industry experts warned late Thursday of a mysterious, large-scale Internet attack against thousands of popular Web sites. The virus-like infection tries to implant hacker software onto the computers of all Web site visitors. [ ... ] The mysterious infection appeared to target at least one recent version of software by Microsoft Corp. to operate Web sites, called its Internet Information Server, popular among businesses and organizations."
That was fun. Your turn.
Maybe MS is finally taking the feedback I've provided them via their website seriously: dump the Win32 Kernel, adopt the BSD Kernel, keep the great Windows GUI and concentrate on that. Maybe the "open sourcing" thing is a cover for that? Nah, not in a million years. But it's nice to dream. LOL
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
Cartman "whats the big deal bitch!"
I just read the the CPL and it seem's pretty fair to me. M$ is going to do what they do, but why should we care?
I just want to be able to speak, to write what I want and share that. Code is language, that is what Microsoft will fail on. They think that people will continue to be uneducated. Hell, I am not a programmer, (or a linguist), but I have written my own cron scripts to do GLS stuff on Gentoo. That's the future. That's why OSS will prevail.
once more into the breach
This ain't nearly enough. I need to compile the whole system from source before I can trust that there are no hidden hooks !
I even cannot see what is the point of showing just parts of code.
When contemplating such an action one should keep in mind that anything that Microsoft does is pro-monopoly, screw the world encapsulated.
I use the KISS formula...
As has been said before, any move by Microsoft to open their source have to be viewed with extreme caution.
What guarantee do we have that this code will remain "open"? will anything that a developer does once having looked at the code be tainted?
Even if the code is open, what is the consequence if the code implements a feature covered by a patent?
Could this be a ploy to attempt to taint OSS projects with patent encumbered methods?
What, are they tired of actually having to give up some of their precious precious profit to their employees?
Do you see what I did there?
Now that market penetration level is at the highest you can think it to be, there is growing momentum of competition, swaying public opinion towards open source and the open source buzzword doing rounds not only in smoky backrooms haunted by developers, but in executive meeting rooms in Fortune 100 corporations, what do you do?
You ride the wave. Turn it to your advantage.
Declare to the world you shall also reveal some of the propreitary code, in order to "share" the comments and knowledge of development community at large, and pacify growing fears that you are not a clammed-up, monolithic, not ready to change company!
But what do you actually share? Probably the code of some old products long sidelined, or maybe tiny irrelevant bits of contemporary products - all in the name of opening up code.
Besides, with better GPL and other OSS licenses in place and the so-called crusade of SCO against popen source, a couple of months later, you jump too and claim your code has been stolen or license breached or something such. And then go back to your old ways..
Very shrewd!
http://efil.blogspot.com/
I understand that this was meant as a joke, but this may well hit the core of this strategy. Maybe MS is intentionally trying to weaken the "GPL camp" (the kinds of projects that are potentially dangerous for Microsoft's monopolistic ambitions tend to use GNU-style licensing) by getting programmers excited about competing MS-supported projects which use the non-GPL-compatible CPL?
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
I look forward to reading the source code of Solitaire.
.. and that makes me like it even more!
#include /* Microsoft Networking library */ /* For the court of law */
#include
#define say(x) lie(x)
#define computeruser ALL_WANT_TO_BUY_OUR_BUGWARE
#define next_year soon
#define product_ready_to_ship another_beta_version
void main() {
if (latest_window_version>one_month_old){
if (there_are_still_bugs)
market(bugfix);
if (sales_drop_below_certain_point)
raise(RUMOURS_ABOUT_A_NEW_BUGLESS_VERSION);
}
while(everyone_chats_about_new_version){
make_false_promise(it_will_be_multitasking);
if (rumours_grow_wilder)
make_false_promise(it_will_be_plug_n_play);
if (rumours_grow_even_wilder) {
market_time=ripe;
say("It will be ready in one month);
order(programmers, stop_fixing_bugs_in_old_version);
order(programmers, start_brainstorm_about_new_version);
order(marketingstaff, permission_to_spread_nonsense);
vapourware=TRUE;
break;
}
}
switch (nasty_questions_of_the_worldpress) {
case WHEN_WILL_IT_BE_READY:
say("It will be ready in", today+30_days,"we're just testing");
break;
case WILL_THIS_PLUG_AND_PLAY_THING_WORK:
say("Yes it will work");
ask(programmers, why_does_it_not_work);
pretend(there_is_no_problem);
break;
}
}
Curiosity killed a cat, but for a while I was a suspect.
I already loved their open source versions of Windows NT and Windows 2000. Can't wait to see more of this stuff, though it would be even nicer if they set up some kind of official download server, and maybe a VCS repository.
I love C++
There are a lot of naive comments on this news story. Microsoft's goal is to keep, exploit, and extend its monopoly, by whatever means (and exploiting its existing monopoly to extend monopoly power to additional areas is inherently illegal, so Microsoft is a criminal organization). This open-source release is a tactical move. It tells nothing about Microsoft's real goals.
It was probably justified within Microsoft on grounds like the following: (1) it will distract some of the Open Source community, possibly even con them into working for Microsoft unpaid, (2) it will generate some good publicity.
Given the current litigious nature of the computing world I wonder if Microsoft have other plans sitting on the shelf at the moment.
Scenario:
1337 haXXxXor sitting in mum'^H^H^H^H mom's basement having a squiz at the latest batch of code from MS. "Holy cow, Batman!" he thinks. "There's a hole the size of Texas waiting for me to walk in, park dad's Caddy and lay a few donuts. All in Bill's bedroom!"
1337 haXXxXor has another look to confirm what he sees. "I'd better message my 1337 buddy pr0ndo0d and see what he thinks."
A few minutes later a reply from pr0ndo0d pops up. "Hey 1337 haXXxXor, it's worse! That'll fit two Caddies and the USS Abraham Lincoln!"
1337 haXXxXor, being a responsible sort of a guy, decides he'd better do the right thing and let Bill know. He fires off an email to security@microsoft.com.
"Dear Mr Gates,
I believe I've found a bug in the IexpresslookClippy module which may allow unauthorised entry into the ReallyImportantPart.memoryRoutine... [lot's of technical stuff that we'd all like to know].
I have discussed the issue with a colleague and we both believe this is an issue of critical importance, and we would recommend that you fix the problem before 1337 hackers find out and exploit the apparent vulnerability.
Yours sincerely,
1337 haXXxXor"
1337 haXXxXor retires to bed, knowing he's done good and he's helped prevent a major catastrophe in the nuclear power plants that run this piece of software.
Ten minutes later, the DMCA police arrive, and arrest him for having told at least two people about a way of circumventing the security model underpinning the program.
I wonder if it could happen?
Cogito, ergo sig.
He used to be the lead guy at Softway Systems, and developed the Interix package that's now the core of Windows Services for UNIX. Interix could also be described as "Microsoft GNU/NT", since it makes extensive use of BSD and GPL source code, including GCC and large chunks of OpenBSD.
He's a smart cookie, and has given multiple presentations at Usenix on Interix. It's based on a modified version of the POSIX subsystem, and runs directly on the NT kernel rather than under the Win32 subsystem.
I wonder if they're considering open-sourcing parts or all of the POSIX subsystem? Heck, even documenting and opening the NT kernel interface without releasing any of the code would be a huge step forward.
if MS opened the source of Windows ( I realize this is not gonna happen) what kind of license would it have? it seems that if it was opened without the right to redistribute binaries (Just source) then not much changes for them. Windows can only be distributed in source from and you can't compile it and give it to your buddies. If you have to compile the source of windows on your own machine, obviously this is both too big a job and too technical fo the average user, then does it matter to their revenue stream?
Really, for MS what would slashdot say if they (By some maniacal twist of fate) opened their source code to the world?
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
They'll open-source their ftp.exe!
MS, IBM, HP, and a few others are probably the ONLY companies capable of creating a sustainable, profitable business out of open source.
Imagine this, MS Linux. OSS Linux with full OSS GNU toolsets combined with MS proprietary toolsets, full Win32/64 compatibility and backed by a worldwide support and prof. services team for a contract fee roughly equal to what MS gets for Windows/Office from businesses today. Or, substitute IBM for MS. Both work.
The logic is the companies are not selling software per se; they are selling services that include software. With a judicious use of OSS and proprietary code, they could easily dominate the market while at the same time sponging off all of the free R&D taking place in the OSS world. Once a developer releases GPL code they cannot stop these giants from using it.
their existing "shared source" license (which is, I believe, derived from the BSD license) and it would most likely exclude some integral pieces, like the actual kernel. I'm just guessing of course. Also, MUCH would change if they did go the OSS route for a lot of their software. Assuming they took on more of a benevolent dictator role, we could at least submit patches for security issues and audit their code for more issues.
Actually, if they were very careful about how they do this, they could obviate a lot of claims about their lack of openness, keep their monopoly level of market share, gain a huge body of people who would inspect their code (for the sheer curiosity if nothing else), and make a big public relations killing.
After all, if Linux is quickly becoming free speech only (and less and less about free beer) and Windows/Office is almost as open as any Linux product, what would Linux really have going for it anymore? Linux's openness is quickly becoming its only distinctive feature. Linux evangelists worldwide had better hope Windows never goes OSS. It wouldn't kill Linux, but it sure would make a lot of conversions over to Linux unecessary. The only institutuions that would convert to Linux after an opening of Windows/Office would be non-profits and government agencies who simply can't afford any licensing costs anymore and have got to have a free beer OS. All the rest wouldn't have to just trust Microsoft anymore, would have those privacy/security issues addressed, and would happily stay put with the MS suite.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
Microsoft plans on giving it's cash reserves of 50 billion away to charity.
Cigar or not, I don't smoke *anything* that smells like fish. And Bill's cigars all smell like fish.
Stupidest post!
If Shared Source software is just another kind of Open Source software, then why isn't its license listed as one on the Open Source License page? I'd say that MS (and you) definitely are trying to confuse the issue.
Insightful? Your comment is garbage.
Not quite of course, but it's certainly another example of how Microsoft are being forced along in directions they would never have considered in the past, just to try and stay competitive with open source alternatives.
Anyone who read the article which was recently slashdotted, about windows "losing the API war" will have read that MS seem so desperate for developers on the .NET platform, that they are distributing a free version of the C++ compiler used in Visual Studio .NET, with no distribution restrictions on applications you create with it. This move would have been considered ludicrous in the past, but now it is simply yet another example of how they have been forced to try and encourage external innovation, rather than stifle it, to try and make their platform more attractive to developers.
This Shared Source initiative is an absolute nonsense as many people have pointed out already. First and foremost, they are not going to release any core code, simply a few bits and pieces that they attribute no real commercial value to. The code can be viewed, and worked on/patched, but it can not be reused, it can not be distributed commercially, and it is an IP minefield for anyone who later goes on to work on open source applications. It is simply giving MS free developers, because they will simply incorporate the best changes back into their proprietary operating system, and lock it back up. Before you know it, you'll have helped a proprietary system that you received no payment for, and no real benefit from. Meanwhile they laugh all the way to the bank.
It illustrates an important point though. For years, any code to come from MS was the most closely guarded secret. These days, they are forced to try and release some of it to stay competitive with true open source, albeit small amounts of largely unimportant code; but it is a concession nevertheless.
They are sending utterly mixed messages, which proves that they consider linux and open source just as much of a threat as they did when the first of the "Halloween Documents" were leaked. They are running around extolling the virtues of their "Shared Source" program, right in the middle of a "roadshow" to "get the facts" about Linux, where they pull up all sorts of MS funded lackies to talk at length about how wonderful MS products are, and how much more cost effective they are than linux. They try to be more open about things, then they patent yet more closed standards. It's clear that they are just as archetypal and proprietary as they always were.
I for one will be just sitting back and laughing as MS make concession after concession against Linux, because it's obvious that they are *very* concerned about the need to stay competitive, and with good reason.
What better way to terminate projects than send a multi-billion dollar legal team after them.
Version A, without a registry, did not have bit rot.
None had Windoze Updater to break non-M$ programs.
Most were not connected to the internet and used Netscape and third party mail programs when they were, so they got fewer worms. The principle stability concern was Word macroviruses walked around by floppy.
I remember taking care of 95 and 98 machines. They were more "stable" than XP has been. Just look at how companies have declined to use XP and ask yourself why they would prefer the now four year old 2000, which itself is about as stable as 98 was. The declining stability of Windoze is planned obsolescence and it's a huge turn off. Marketing and people saying stupid stuff like, "It's based on NT Technology and it's stable", won't make it so.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I thought of this recently while reading the article about Sun wanting to open source Solaris.
.Net for Linux, SQL Server for Linux, the list is endless. I think they will do this as soon as they start losing significant Market Share to Linux workstations - which with all of the virus/spyware problems lately may not be as far off as we think.
My theory is that Microsoft is planning on moving Windows to Linux. With IBM, HP, Dell, Oracle, Sun, etc.... on board with linux, and Apple now running OSX on a unix platform, it's just a matter of time before they can't compete at all. There are two many big guns throwing resources into Linux, and sharing the benefits.
I think they will open source all of the underlying architecture - (NTFS, Word doc format) and just when the whole world is thinking Microsoft is a good guy, they will release the still proprietary Windows for Linux, Microsoft Office for Linux, MSVC for Linux,
Bill Gates may not be the smartest programmers ever, but he is a GENIUS when it comes to taking advantage of the market and making his products invaluable to the users. There is no way he will let Linux steal his billions.
Find coupons in Greeley
If daily crashes, worms and data loss are not weaknesses of the Windoze platform, I'm hard pressed to think of any. Sure, the GUI is limited, and the non tabbed browser is a pop up heaven and the email client does not even come with a spell checker and you have to use dozens of third party programs to make it remotely useful. Those have always been minor irritations next to the the platform not working.
Did you ever think that "groupthink" represents the majority opinion of Windoze as a platform and is essentially correct? I've seen all size of customer driven nuts by M$'s junk, from home user to fortune 500.
I'm not a great Windows fan...
No one really is, and that's the whole point.
I'm not irrational, I simply know that free alternatives work better, are easier to deploy, cost less and better preserve the user's dignity. The city of Largo Florida is a widely deployed free software solution that has none of your predicted Windoze problems. It's not the users, it's not me, it's cold hard reality.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I think that what worries Microsoft more than anything else is the saturation of the PC market. Time was when businesses upgraded their computers (and software) every 2 years. Now the hardware is upgraded every 5 years, and the software maybe every 4.
.Net to try to get developers to move to the latest and greatest (unfortunately undermining 1 and 2 above).
Microsoft's biggest and most dangerous competitor is, well, legacy Microsoft software. This is the cudgel which could destroy their current business model. And I think that this is what scares Microsoft so much.
You see-- if only half as many people buy Windows (because they already have a version that works for them), then they will have to charge nearly twice as much for each copy or cut way back on research and development. Both strategies force them into a chicken-and-egg cycle where the costs go up, the demand goes down, so the costs go up, so the demand.....
So what to they do?
1) Product activation (to forestall the cycle a little while)
2) Software Assurance (to stabilize their income)
3)
4) Longhorn DRM to get consumers to move so they can have "must have" content.
5) Outsource technical support to India
Enter Linux. Linux is at best for Microsoft a current distraction from the market problems above but it is important strategically because it prevents Microsoft from using its monopoly power with market impunity. Linux is a small but seriously growing threat, and while it is nowhere near the threat to Microsoft that Windows 98 is, it provides subtle damage because it gives customers a third option (stay where you are, upgrade, or move to Linux). This third option is a major issue for Microsoft and they know that it could eventually be as bad as the first (stay where you are) option. So they are trapped.
Now, I don't believe for a moment that Microsoft will go out of business over this. But they are beginning an extremely difficult transition, and it is anybody's guess what sort of business they will have when they emerge.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The media (amongst others) will pick one and then the two terms become one in the same in the eyes of everyone except the geek sector. We end up looking like we're quibbling over the semantics of two things that most people will consider to be identical. For example, "I can see the code, what's the difference?"
Their refusal to work with popular free information formats such as ogg and png also shows their preference for pushing their own junk over the wishes of their users.
There isn't a lot of demand for PNG and OGG outside the OSS world, period. PNG is somewhat popular among web designers because of its versatility, but that's all, and no one apart from open source fans and a handful of entertainment electronics vendors gives a flying fuck about OGG Vorbis.
I love C++
my screen can show me bigger boobies than your girlfriend ever will. ;)
I love C++
is more insightful than funny. Figuring out code of such a large project could be everything but trivial, especially if they release only the source, but no additional developers' documentation.
I love C++
if it brags about the strength of their stranglehold on customers? That will just make more people wary of Microsoft's strategy and increase the demand for more interoperable, vendor-independent solutions.
I love C++
I'm going to possibly make the mistake of assuming you're not trolling here...
.NET (which I like a lot) is without its flaws, but I notice I'm no longer scheduling time to take a break from development and contemplate suicide. I can't really say that about my last Delphi project.
I've worked with Delphi. I've worked with Visual Studio. Please explain to me why you think Delphi would be better. There have to be upsides to it that I missed.
I'm not saying even VS
Hmm.... it's starting to sound like Microsoft is starting to fall into peer pressure. It's that, or they are starting to become way to greedy. Already having a monopoly in software and so on. Now they want to get their hands dirty in the "Open Source" field.
There's somethings that I love about Microsoft, and then just some things that I can't freakin stand.
And from the followup to that article:
it is unclear why Microsoft would go to the trouble of filing a patent only to then give it away in a free license
Yes, the article goes on to say that it may be incompatible with the GPL, but so what else is new? If it was compatible with the GPL, they would lose all rights, and as a commercial corportation, it is easy to see how they would want to maintain ownership.
They did state clearly, in the news report, that the Windows Operating System and Office Suite are no -where near the table of being opened up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do recall that Microsoft stated, in front of the EU, that removing their Media Player would break their OS, yes?
So that means that Media Player is part of the Windows Operating System, by that logic, and therefore not subjected to "opening".
In that list alone, at least 50% of the programs and APIs are actually PART of the Windows OS, and will very unlikely be "opened" up.
Just my 10b cents.
crap post
allah is great
all praises to him
we will strike down the infidels
glorious jihad
amen
main(0)