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."
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.
...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)
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.
This argument sounds familiar somehow. The counter-argument went something like: if you don't like the terms, don't use it.
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
Once again, damned if they do, damned if they don't. I don't for one second believe MS is doing this to help anyone but themselves, but do you really think that all of the other companies that open source their software are doing it for mankind either? Companies are in business to make a profit, and although I disagree with a lot of Microsoft's business tactics, I think that this is a move that will not only help them, but may actually prove beneficial for developers too. So what if they open some source to Visio, or MS Money... at least it will probably help people who use those products. If nothing else, MS is saying 'open sourcing software is not a bad thing', which is a big change from what they've been saying for years. I'm just sick of all the flaming of MS for EVERYTHING. Yeah we don't like them, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
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.
This argument sounds familiar somehow. The counter-argument went something like: if you don't like the terms, don't use it.
The reason people are pointing out the trap in MS's devious "Shared Source Initiative" is that a lot of trusting people won't realize that they don't like the terms (ie: they fall for the trap), and will use it. Unlike your "let the buyer beware" attitude, some people actually don't like the idea of other people being scammed, and will voluntarily do something to help them before it's too late.
I think this whole "Shared Source" concept is one of the worst things Microsoft can do. In fact, even responding to Linux as a credible threat is the worst thing they can do. By admitting that Linux is a credible threat, they've convinced the world that Linux might be a product that's useful for something. If they simply continued to carry the tagline of "Linux is older than Windows and has little to show for all that time. We don't consider them a competitor," the big execs with $$$ wouldn't take Linux very seriously. The shared source concept only makes it worse by stating that "There may be something to this Open Source thing."
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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!
Really? Quit hanging out in your basement with your geek friends and try talking to some average computer users and maybe you'll hear a different story. I know plenty of people who are truly satisfied with Windows, especially now that they've been using XP for a while. And I even know a few people that love it, as hard as it is to believe. Even I would have to admit that I have an overall positive attitude to Windows these days. It doesn't give me wood as I'm sure your Linux system does for you, but it is as stable, responsive and capable as my Linux desktop, and that is what I care about the most.
As has been said plenty of times in these forums, most people see their computers as only another tool or appliance, much like their stereos or VCRs. It's something they use to do certain tasks. OTOH, the other operating systems that you mention are going to attract a more passionate crowd simply because they are outside the mainstream. You have to really want to use something different in order to make the jump from Windows to something else, because Windows already does everything most people need to do with a computer.
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.
No, people use Microsoft because it does what they want it to do. Most people don't care about hacking the source code. Most people don't care about Microsoft's business practices. And most people don't care about that trojan running on their systems trying to DOS some remote system. Sad but true.
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.
Eh, it's pretty easy to read. You're given a license to do practically anything with the software, such that the license is preserved, patent suits will automatically terminate any patent licenses that exist, etc.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I know mechanics and carpenters that truly care about their fine tools and are dedicated to certain styles and brands. I know seamstresses who care deeply about their tools.
Why should computer geeks all of a sudden attempt to think in such a utilitarian fashion about their tools. A quality tool that you interact with day to day should be a pleasure to use. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't believe in enjoying life.
If you wait until the 8 hours at work is over to enjoy life you are missing out on a lot.
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/
On one of my previous projects that I was called in to maintain, there was a five thousand line case statement with hundreds of GOTOs.
Ever since then, I have a rather unusual dislike for that command. :(
Friends don't let Friends use Internet Explorer.
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.
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.
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.
Of course, not everyone is going to listen to Microsoft when Linux is being discussed. Slowly, more and more people are going to catch on that Linux is worth a second look, and Microsoft would look foolish (well, more foolish than usual) if they kept on insisting that there are no pros to using Linux.
One example of how this PR strategy has failed recently is the current situation of the Seattle Mariners. I know, I know, a professional sports analogy; don't worry, this will be painless. Anyway, during the 2000 through 2003 seasons, the Mariners won 60.6% of their games (393 out of 648); by all accounts, this was a very good team. But there were issues mounting behind the scenes. Players were getting older, and money was being wasted on players that had already passed their peak. Regardless, the Mariners front office kept reassuring fans that the team could compete. Sabermetricians (people who study baseball statistics) predicted that old age would end up biting the Mariners in the ass, but fans didn't believe that a team that had done so well recently would do so poorly now. Well, the Mariners are almost halfway through their season, and they have won only 41.4% of their games (29 out of 70). They have the worst record in their division, the second worst record in their league, and the fifth worst record in all of Major League Baseball! Still, the front office denies that there is anything seriously wrong with how the team is being run and maintained. Now the fans *know* that the Mariners are too old to play well, pay too much to crappy players in an attempt to improve their team, and that the front office is going to bullshit their way out of doing anything meaningful. By staying the course and saying that nothing serious is wrong, the Mariners front office is going to lose a lot of business and a lot of respect.
I'm not the kind of guy who would normally give free advice to Microsoft, but sometimes it's better for the emperor to admit that he's not wearing any clothes.
I'm sorry, if they're going to release their code under an Open Source license then there is nothing they can do about it if you use it in your own project.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Who is to say MS can't change into a nice enough OS player?
The fact that this is not going to happen unless something makes it happen. A company like Microsoft isn't going to change its ways spontaneously.
IBM changed like this because they died. They got bitchslapped by their customers and by the U.S. DOJ and had to rebuild from nothing. Neither of these things are happening to MS right now or in the forseeable future-- and in fact, the DOJ and MS's customers seem to basically just be bending over as far as Microsoft wants and yelling "WINDOWS ME HARDER!!" If Microsoft's past behavior is an indication, they will take this as a flag to go ahead and behave much the same in the future.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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 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
That worked until other computer giants started pushing Linux. When Microsoft says something's not serious, but IBM spends a billion dollars marketing it, Oracle says it's their preferred platform, and Dell sells it on their big machines, it's pretty clear that Microsoft is failing to understand customer requirements. "Everybody else is talking about Linux, but Microsoft doesn't seem to know anything about it" leads to "Microsoft is not keeping up to date on technology". Of course, if everybody else weren't talking about Linux, Microsoft would have just kept saying nothing about it.
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.
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.
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.
Oh shut up.
You first, Starks.
You're obviously looking for reasons to criticize Microsoft.
You don't know me, friend. I'm attacking MS's SSI because it's being touted as though it's Open Source, and it isn't. The more people believe that it's a legitimate example of Open Source, the more damage they do (and it's no secret that MS both wishes to and profits from damaging the Open Source movement).
YES, SSI is crap. This we know.
Not everyone. I'm just trying to catch those who might now know SSI is crap.
But Microsoft IS moving in the right direction by using the CPL in some of their minor projects. If those projects are successful, perhaps they will release MORE CPLed source. After all, you can't just open everything overnight.
And I applaud their move--in proportion to the amount their actions are meaningful. One (or two, three, whatever) *minor* projects doesn't even come close to making up for their anti-OpenSource actions, such as claiming that it should be illegal for government to contribute to, or use, Open Source software, the funding of SCO, the funding of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, etc.
your comments are just empty criticism.
Saying so does not make it true. In fact, my criticism is quite valid. Once they do something meaningful, let's talk. Here's two easy ones, two things that would instantly help to turn MS's evil empire image around, would net them free (and enthusiastic) support from the Open Source community, provide a better product for their customers, and over all make the world a better place:
1.) Open the specs to SMB and donate code to the Samba team. There's no reason that Samba shouldn't be the primary codebase for the Windows file-sharing system.
2.) Open the MS Word doc format.
Those would be *real* Open Source contributions, and would help the customer (something MS claims is important to them) far more than keeping those two formats/protocols proprietary.
The fact that they won't shows their "Open Source" posturing is empty and meaningless. All it does is allow them to say, "Us attack Open Source? Are you serious? We *support* Open Source ourselves!" when the fact is it just helps 'em lie and spin the truth.
Me? I'll wait until they do something real, something with meaning--it doesn't have to be the two things I've mentioned, those are just helpful ideas. Until then it's business as usual from Microsoft, and I won't join the chorus praising the Emperor's New Clothes.
When Microsoft says something's not serious, but IBM spends a billion dollars marketing it, Oracle says it's their preferred platform, and Dell sells it on their big machines, it's pretty clear that Microsoft is failing to understand customer requirements. "Everybody else is talking about Linux, but Microsoft doesn't seem to know anything about it" leads to "Microsoft is not keeping up to date on technology".
Keep in mind that Microsoft was in the perfect position to portray IBM as a mainframe "has-been". They could have easily targetted IBM directly with a campaign stating that IBM is attempting to bring back the days of Big Mainframes. IBM even makes it easy with their special versions of Linux that run on big iron!
Microsoft could then point out that Oracle is also a "has-been" that failed to take the top TPC against SQL-Sever. Thus they're jumping on IBM's bandwagon of selling their products to a small niche market of Linux lovers.
While all of that may be stretching the truth, it would still keep Microsoft from having to say anything about Linux other than "it's a toy created by a bunch of hackers." Thus Microsoft's mistake was in attempting to attack Linux directly as if it were backed by a company. Linux doesn't actually have a company to attack directly, so it was about as effective as bombing Internet nodes. Had they gone focused on Linux's corporate support infrastructure, they could have effectively dismantled Linux's Enterprise attempts without directly killing Linux. (A bit like bombing the internet nodes to Washington DC. Far more focused and effective.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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
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...
No, it's not even that. If they carried the tagline that you suggest, they are still giving Linux the oxygen of publicity. If Microsoft never mentioned Linux, and instead only advertised their products and services on the merits, hardly anyone would know about Linux.
Similarly, the OSS world shouldn't have even talked about the Ken Brown abombination (it was fortunate that this thing was so bad that it could be completely destroyed). It gave it the oxygen of publicity it would have never had if we'd just shut up about it.
However, their continuing mentions of Linux is giving the OS a great deal of publicity that it otherwise wouldn't have had.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I've always wondered who came up with the idea of the Windows registry in the first place. It gathers the system and program settings in the same place, making it impossible (to users) to separate the two. In addition, the registry grows like a black rubber sack full of waste food in a hot day, and is about as nice to use - programs typically scatter their settings all around the registry, and because the thing is so large, searching it with regedit is slow. All in all, another amazingly bad idea from people who brought us Edlin.
On the other hand, in Linux, you simply open the text file /etc/programname, and make whatever changes you please. Most Linux config files also contain plentifull help in the form of comments.
I don't quite understand why you think that the config files in Linux are unstructured. They are of the form key = value, and every line that starts with # is a comment. Simple and usable.
As for installation process, I think that writing "apt-get install programname" is about as easy as it can get, and certainly less of a bother than the installation routines in Windows programs, but to each their own...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I think that's a pretty good analysis from someone who had an inside view.
:-)
In addition to that, in Microsoft's current approaches, besides the confusion you mention, I also see what is reflected in the quote, attribute to Ghandi, that is often seen in taglines: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
I used to be a Windows user all the way. I was first exposed to *nix in 1997 (FreeBSD) and found later that year. By mid-1998 I had chucked Windows and was using Linux exclusively, including being the only person in my shop developing websites on Linux.
In the days when I converted to Linux, we were still in the "first they ignore you" stage. Microsoft was internally aware of Linux, I'm sure, but they never said anything about it publically. One of the first, if not the first, glimpses into what MS privately was thinking about Linux came when The Halloween Document was leaked.
About that time, Microsoft's public position on Linux was getting into the "then they laugh at you" stage. It lasted for a while, but now we are squarely in the "then they fight you" stage. This will go on a while longer, with MS trying various things to crush, or at least slow, the advance of Linux. Unless they find some astonishing legal maneuver and a job on mass quantities of crack, however, it's not likely to help. And we all know what phase comes after "then they fight you."
It is a sign of a certain desperate fear in the face of an unstoppable new disruptive technology that Microsoft is trying to many different things to try and stop it. They don't know what will work, and so far the answer has been "none of it." They ignored Linux. Linux advanced. They laughed at Linux. Linux advanced. Now they are fighting Linux. Hard. And Linux is perhaps advancing faster than ever before.
I think we will see MS engaging in many more examples of fighting fire with fire in the years to come, and 5 years from now Microsoft will probably have released more software under Shared Source, and some under some kind of actual open source license, than any of us would now believe possible. By sharing source and even outright open-sourcing some software, they hope to further stave off the inevitable. It might help a little, in some areas, but far less than they might think. What draws people to Free and Open Source Software is precisely that it is free and open; if it was just shared, nobody would much care about Linux and *BSD; it wouldn't be that much of an improvement on Windows, for many.
Eventually, if Microsoft wants people to keep using Windows, they'll wind up having to open-source most of it, or at the least pretty much give it away. They will probably try giving it away first, since that helped them to crush Netscape (along with a bunch of self-inflicted wounds on Netscape's part). However, it won't help much in this case. When I meet people who've switched from Windows to Linux, cost has most often had little or no bearing on the decision (nor did it in my case). Even among those who considered cost to be an important factor, it was never number one.
What were the top reasons? Security. Speed. Scalability. Then comes longer hardware life cycles. Finally, somewhere after that, people will say "Oh, and it's free. Saved us a bundle on licensing, too." The other reasons figure into cost in a way, too, but they are more on the TCO side of the equation. Operating systems that are faster, more secure, more scalable, and require hardware up less frequently will have a lower TCO, even if the licensing fees are the same. When you factor in that you can get most distributions of Linux essentially free (the cost of a download, some CD-R media, some bandwidth which most people pay a flat rate for anyway) and install it on as many servers and workstations as you want, well, that's just icing on the cake.
MS will fight these rearguard tactics for some time to come, but Linux will arrive at the "Then you win" stage soon enough.
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/
Indeed, it is line-by-line copying. But it's not "stolen", as the grand-parent claims. The licenses for both of those libraries permit exactly that use.
Please try again.
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.
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!
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.
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?"