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.
Microsoft finally takes a step in the right direction, and you still critisize. Give them them the credit they deserve, it may not be much, but it is better than them raping the world.
Why can I not mod a message to crap?!?
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.
A step in the right direction? This? No, this is not a step in the right direction. This is them releasing a bunch of code under a GPL-incompatible (and certainly BSD-incompatible) license. The code is open, certainly, but not free. Which means that while we can possibly submit patches, etc, to Microsoft, we cannot fork it or even use small pieces of it (even if they were written by someone else in the community) in our own code.
The GP was absolutely right: they just want free development. They hope that we will hack their code, but it's still their code. All of it. You can't reuse it. You can't change it. You can't fork it. It's absolutely useless. Even studying it is dangerous: if you looked at their code and then implemented something free (as in freedom) that did the same thing, they could probably claim that you're violating their IP/copyright because your code isn't "cleanroom".
Open source non-free software is very dangerous for the community, because we cannot use it, or be inspired by it -- and yet it's there, like Pandora's box, waiting to be opened. And since so many people confuse open source with free, it isn't long before some well meaning coder takes a bit of their code, edits it, and submits it somewhere else.
They have just forced us to be even more vigilant. Don't you see that we get nothing at all? No rights? No freedom? But they get everything. Our manpower, our mindshare, everything. For nothing.
This is worse than not good. It's evil. A perverse bending of the free software model.
Still criticize them? Strange, since I've never posted anything criticizing them before (check my comments if you don't believe), perhaps you meant that the internet community in general still criticizes them? No, that still wouldn't make sense since I only posted my own opinion rather than a blanket statement attempting to speak for everyong. Nope, I'm sorry, but I have to call shennanigans on your post. CI
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!
WIX & That Other Microsoft One are released under the CPL.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
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.
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/
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.
Do you have any legitimate reason for disliking the CPL, other than the fact that MS uses it?
Don't be so antagonistic about topics you clearly have no clue about.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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.
Erm ... Microsoft is a corporation. Corporations exist to make money and only to make money - the more, the better. There is no such thing as a moral obligation in the eyes of a corporation. They don't do things to "be nice". They do things to make money, or to improve their prospects of making money.
...
So yes, chances are virtually everything they do is devious in one sense or another. But the same goes for IBM, Novell, Sun,
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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?"