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.
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 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
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.
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
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
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
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.