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."
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.
Well, MS SQL server and Exchange would be appreciated... ;)
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.
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.
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?
I was a summer intern in the Office group. They do use a lot of gotos, for exiting out of loops for cleanups and such. And before anyone flames them, they should take a look at the Linux kernel which uses gotos frequently for exactly the same thing...
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
The code they open source *now* may be useless, but the trend is interesting, not long ago open source was "evil", "viral", "comunist", "unamerican"...and now they are doing open source?..maybe it's not that bad after all?
To name some programs other than windows and office that are not "almost completely useless":
windows media player
directx
various drivers
IIS
windows scripting host
internet explorer
imagion.. IE with real DOM support
or how about 100,000 volunteers hunting vulnerabilities?
outlook express
visual studio and all it's bits
regclean
microsoft management console
source safe
msn messenger
remeber the desktop toys?
countless more.. but i'm starting to get board with this.. must.. must.. eve..
bye.
Reality is in the mind of the beholder - me 1996
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.
Microsoft finally takes a step in the right direction
They have done no such thing. The software isn't Open Source (the article has it wrong), it's "Shared Source" which is meant to get overly credulous people to think MS is making an overture of goodwill to the Open Source community, when what they are really doing is attacking it (as usual).
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?
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.
I have to continue to disagree on that point. The GPL is quite restrictive, IMO. Perhaps lose the free and just start calling it "GPL'd software". That would at least force someone to find out what it meant before making an assumption about the license.
And we bill out at a few benjamins an hour....
It wouldn't surprise me.
IE is pretty much worthless to Microsoft, and always has been. They added it to make Windows better, in the fact that it had a browser for anybody who wanted to use it. Now that it's added, it's kinda like Disk Defragmenter. Sure, they COULD improve it loads... but why? It works. Working on it would bring down the wrath of Anti-trust people (Both cases. It would be 'using their market dominance to suppress other companies'). And in neither case would it bring in a single cent of extra revenue.
If they open sourced IE (And, to continue the analogy, Disk Defragmenter), they would gain a legion of coders who would improve the product, making the overall experience better for the end user, and at a far lower cost to themselves. Sure, it wouldn't bring in more revenue, but it'd make the customers happier...
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
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?
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
/usr/local/src/kernel-source-2.6.3$ grep -iR goto * |wc 26020 83582 1079560 26020 gotos isn't that many when you consider the total size of the project.
This is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine...
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!
Unfortunately, your comparison is lacking. If we we're to draw a true analogy of what Microsoft's stance should have been, then it would be more like the New York Yankees pretending that the Marlins were a complete non-threat. As long as the Marlins don't manage to embarass the Yankees at any point, the Yankees can continue to keep fans from suspecting that the Marlins are getting better. But if the Marlins are doing poor to average and the Yankees started telling the press that the Marlins are their biggest competitor, the Yankees would instantly balloon the credit of a team that no one should be concerned about.
It's not that much different with Microsoft. Microsoft has battled with Unix varients for a very long time, and has always managed to come out on top thanks to "pretty interfaces". Linux is certainly getting better, but many managers dismissed its supporters as biased. The moment Microsoft began a defamation campaign on Linux was the moment that Microsoft-friendly managers began turning their heads. Linux was no longer a toy in their eyes, it was a real product that Microsoft considered a serious threat. And if it was a threat to Microsoft, might it actually be better than Microsoft?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
it's probabl;y going to be some directX version so games can be ported to linux, then they will cliam linux stole thier code and in one fell swoop destroy the competition..
/ect directory and such is in a structured registry with rules that everyb program has to follow instead of thier own ways of doing it that make linux a pian sometimes.
seriously, it wouldn't surprise me if this is a camaflauged attemt to make a claim like that down the line. were somethign is so closlly obvious, shady claims and maybe a lawsuite can be made like they never could have done it without seeing the source code and they didn't cr edit the right sources..or c an we say SCO times 3?
I guess the good thing to do is wait and see what is going to be released. The windows installer they released looks like it might have been somethign that would give some insight on how to make an installer that works on every version of \*nix. I know the install routeen is easier in windows because the entire
The moment Microsoft began a defamation campaign on Linux was the moment that Microsoft-friendly managers began turning their heads
I work in the Microsoft Universe, and I can flatly say that this is false.
Linux Hype has been going on in the IT Press for 5 years now, far longer than MS has done any specific anti-Linux marketing. MS-centric IT Managers have noticed and are taking Linux seriously, especially in application areas where it is very strong (LAMP, Java, and Oracle).
Which is exactly why Microsoft's "Anti-Linux" marketing is really Anti-Oracle, Anti-IBM, and Anti-J2EE marketing in disguse. MS competitors are out there selling this stuff, it's not like it's even possible to ignore.
You will notice that Microsoft is not putting out reports about Desktop Linux, largely because their customer base has no interest in Linux on the desktop.
Heh, I worry more about "Shared" Source contaminating Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).
I fear that under some contorted legal theory, developers themselves might become legally "tainted" by mere contact with that code.
Rather like the fictional Illuminati, they seek to control their adversaries, and to destroy whatever they cannot control...
For example, Apple has superior technology and yet Microsoft has turned Apple into their footstool...
I've been conducting interviews for a professor and one of the interview subjects worked for said corporation. Won't mention names of people. But not only did he toe the company line he strutted up and down it. Every other answer was about intellectual property, why the GPL is a legal minefield, how no one better sully his code by bringing in outside source, etc. So they're going to have a lot of re-indoctrination to do with this whole paradigm shift if it's serious.
http://isc.sans.org/
.org dns problems, RFI - Russian IIS Hacks? .org DNS Issues
.org domains appears to fail occasionally. Preliminary information shows that some of the UltraDNS servers are not responding. The cause and scope of this problem is unknown so far. Reports about problems are mostly limited to North America at this time.
.org zone is working now.
.dll file(s) in \winnt\
Handlers Diary June 24th 2004
Updated June 25th 2004 01:27 UTC (Handler: Marcus H. Sachs)
* {update #2}
This morning, DNS resolution of
UPDATE (1930 UTC) - the
Sometimes it helps to use the "dig" command to zero-in on suspected DNS issues. Try this command and modify it as needed when troubleshooting:
% dig sans.org ns +trace
RFI - Russian IIS Hacks?
UPDATE (2100 UTC) - Thanks to everybody who generously provided updates to us today. We still do not know how the IIS servers are originally infected with the JavaScript or the modification to the configuration files. Any additional theories or ideas are welcome.
The reason for the attack seems to point back to the spamming community. There is quite a bit of evidence that what we are seeing is yet another technique for spreading and installing "spamware" (software that assists in either creating, relaying, proxying, or otherwise participating in the sending of spam.) We don't see any evidence that this attack is related to the construction of a DDoS network or other type of typical zombie-based attack group. However, we continue to monitor and will provide updates if anything further develops.
Two readers sent us snips from their proxy logs (thanks, Rich and Mike!) While the flows are slightly different, this is the pattern to look for as an indicator that one of your clients has attempted to visit the Russian site:
NOTE: These links are obfuscated. Accessing these URLs may result in a virus infection
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/dot.php
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/new.html
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/dot.php
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/new.html
GET _http_://217.107.218.147//main.chm
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/msits.exe
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/redir.php
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/new.html
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/dot.php
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/new.html
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/md.htm
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/redir.php
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/dot.php
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/new.html
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/dot.php
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/new.html
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/md.htm
GET _http_://217.107.218.147/redir.php
One reader (thanks, Ben!) submitted a list of files found on his compromised IIS server. The files he sent us included:
Code snippits.doc
iis6xx.dll (multiple copies, where xx varies)
iis7yy.dll (multiple copies, where yy varies)
Download_Ject_Symantec.doc
ipaddress.txt
issue.csv
ads.vbs
agent.exe
ftpcmd.txt
secur ity_log.rtf
Finally, the executable we mentioned in the previous update (msits.exe) is not detected by most AV suites, contrary to what we earlier thought. Here is what we found when we tested it at virustotal.com:
BitDefender 7.0/20040624 nothing
eTrustAV-Inoc 4641/20040623 nothing
F-Prot 3.14e/20040624 nothing
Kaspersky 3.0/20040625 nothing
McAfee 4369/20040624 nothing
NOD32v2 1.794/20040623 nothing
Norman 5.70.01/20040512 nothing
Panda 7.02.00/20040624 nothing
Sybari 7.50.1138/20040624 [Win32.Webber]
Symantec 8.0/20040624 [Backdoor.Berbew.F]
TrendMicro 1.00/20040624 nothing
UPDATE (1930 UTC) - Several readers have responded and confirmed that this is a wide-spread issue. Here is what we know so far:
- An IIS server's configuration is somehow modified so that "enable document footer" is enabled for various (if not all) files and linked to the new
If I remember correctly quickbooks for DOS was the first program to feature something like clippy. If you hesitated too long on a field a little yellow "box" would pop up and give you hints.
How that turned into a talking paper clip only the mind of the most deranged MS programmer knows.
evil is as evil does
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
I would agree that they are making more of an anti ibm-oracle-whatever campain as you stated. I do think that there is a side effect and that is giving linux more credit then it already had/has. Wether this is planned or not might be a question not worth asking but it is one of the results. They are bringing more attention to linux as a viable competitor and more shops are taking notice.
I can attest to this myself. I have a client that was/is pro-micrisoft for everything. I wanted for a long time to use a linux on an old box for a internet router so I could have some more control using ssh and the likes. After being told no for several years, suddenly out of the blue I recieved a call saying it might be a good idea to go ahead and do it. Some of the key points of the conversations was, we won't have to worry about viruses on the linux server and it is definatly cheaper then the win2000 server and IIS. It serves the internet to about 40 workstations, hosts the email, scans all messages with a virrus scanner, and spam filter, gives me ftp and ssh access were I didn't really have it before, runs one of the worlds best firwalls (iptables/netfilter) and cost about $1800 less to start up. Also it allows the other win2000 server to be used to alieviate some stress from another server that runs a data store that I wouldn't allow on a box with a direct conection to the internet.
There is now talk about placing another linux box in running a sql server and dumping a couple of data bases into it for a working backup that would survive the next big windows virus/hack attack. This wouldn't have ever been possable without Microsoft and others bringing attention to linux as a competitor (AT least in this shop). My client reviewed these decisions with some asociates in other buisinesses and they are considering doing the same. One of the plusses is there would be limited vendor lockin so other options would be viable when microsoft (or some other windows only app) riases licence fees'. Also the thought of having workable backup solutions that are immune to the same virus/update/whatever bugs is pricless. If somethign hits and takes down the servers, bam a few config changes and everythign is back to normal while the problem is being sorted out. I don't think we would switch entirely to linux there but I also didn't think linux would have been there in the first place.
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/
OK AC troll, just a quick thing. Visual Studio is not only not useless, it is quite possibly the greatest IDE ever created. If that were not so then why would so many GPL'd IDE's try to emulate it and why is it the preferred build enviroment for so many windows versions of GPL apps like mozilla?
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
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?
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
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.
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.
What better way to terminate projects than send a multi-billion dollar legal team after them.