Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Planning on Opening Up More Source
mhh5 writes "It's a bit surprising, but it looks like Microsoft is considering making some of its code open source. Obviously, Microsoft's OS or Office are not going to be opened, and it seems like Microsoft is just trying to get more developers, but it's a interesting change of policy."
I can't wait to get my hands on that DOS 3.3 source. I shall build the mightiest DOS EVER!!!!
Any program MS could open the source to other than Office or Windows is almost completely useless. What would be much better is if they opened the file formats. Then maybe we could have proper .doc readers and writers.
When they say Open Source, do they mean actually open source, or shared source? Of course I didn't RTFA.
hey you can work on improving your apartment as much as you want. when the next guy moves in, we are going to paint it pink and throw all your crap out ...
we really like that you fixed the garbage disposal for us free though.
...it seems like Microsoft is just trying to get more developers
Of course. Everything Microsoft does is devious...?
Open source developers will root out all their bugs for them, they pay nothing, and whenever something goes wrong, guess who's going to get blamed (hint, it's not the microsoft developers)
MS is not doing this because they believe in helping mankind. This is a way to get ppl hooked on the shared source and more importantly, having an ability to sue said programmer down the road, if they move over to GPL code.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1) Release more code (non-critical) under their Shared Source license.
2) Continue claim of Shared Source = Open Source, and point out that MS is major contributor to Shared Source (technically correct as its their license)
3) Hope to find "close enough" code in other programs with licenses not compatible with Shared Source and sue where possible.
4) Any developers willing to contribute code... Bonus.
...it's just a bunch of "if-else" loops anyway. Millions. Although, they iterated an array once that and used a "for" loop pretty nicely...
Its a trap!
-Develop open source policy.
-Invite development.
-Simmer.
-Hi Jack.
Then Expound pitfalls of open source with a big "told you so."
But I could be wrong. MS could be 100% trustworthy on this.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
While we know Microsoft are not going to open source anything critical, one of the things they do seem to be starting to do is make the development process more transparent to the public.
Many Microsoft developers now discuss projects openly on Blogs and Forums, and some projects (i.e. Internet Explorer) now have community sites where the public can interact directly with the development team.
Personally I like this transparent process, and hope it becomes popular within Microsoft. They have some of the best developers in the world and this sort of restructuring could lead to some excellent software being produced.
That's what it's all about.
What other choice does MS have at this point?
...
Seems they want people to believe they are playing along with the OSS market
It's a trap!
...ok, dumb jokes aside, this is probably not as good as it sounds. I'd advise the Wine guys to stay as far away from this code as possible!!
Remember, these are the guys who "recommended" Baystar to SCO. They are NOT open source friendly.
SCO caused Linux a lot of problems with their whole "code pollution" bit. I'll betcha they're planting seeds to do the same thing with their own code base later on down the road.
Stay away from this, folks. FAR away.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I find it interesting that Windows is so widely deployed, yet so few people are truly "in love" with the operating system. You'll find people willing to die for Mac OSX, for OpenBSD, for BeOS, for Amiga, for Gentoo, or for any number of other systems -- but to date, I've never met a single person that was truly satisfied with Windows, much less happy or fanatical about it.
People use Microsoft for a number of reasons, none of them at all related to customer satisfaction. Corporate desktops are assumed to be running Windows with Office unless stated otherwise. Data centers are assumed to be running some Windows server edition, to let the admins use Group Policy and other platform-dependent tools that almost make managing those desktops bearable. People use Microsoft because of their monopoly, and Microsoft exploits this.
And remember, no one got fired for choosing Microsoft.
Thousands of open source developers around the world would die as their head's exploded.
We used to have a joke at Bell Labs regarding the source code for the 5ESS. If we ever wanted to eliminate any competition, we would send them a copy of the source, and they would go bankrupt trying to figure it out.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
...Although, the possibilities of porting MS Bob to LINUX are intriguing...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
They are going to open the source of their network protocols. The first thing they are opening is the TCP/IP protocols. ;-)
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
It's pretty obvious, and the Slashdot post mentioned it also -- to get more developers. The Windows operating system is unique, in sense that it is very user-friendly and everyone's software runs on it. The reason why Microsoft does not port software to other operating systems is common sense -- Windows is nothing without the software that it has, but that rule applies to any other operating systems as well. That's why Microsoft gives away development tools, because they want people to develop code under Microsoft's name... and this is no different. When people take Microsoft's opened source code and change it around, they are only helping Microsoft's opened source code and Microsoft themselves. It's not really about Microsoft making more money directly, but they will get more developers once everyone starts seeing their technique of programming and that will get them money in the long run.
Just my two cents, heh.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Microsoft opened up lots of it's source last year, lest we forget. :)
This is purly a business move aimed at PHB's. IBM has made money telling people that Open Source is good and MS is getting in on the right for free.
It could also be that they are trying to get in on the good side of budding developers. I don't know any other CS majors that use Windows on their main desktop and I know of no CS majors who write their code in Windows. At Georgia Tech everything in class is done in Linux after the first Scheme class. If the future coders don't know Microsoft stuff they won't use it or push it in their jobs.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Well, a bit of Googling turned 'em up: Windows Template Library (WTL) and Windows Installer XML (WiX).
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
This is like Sauron giving rings to all the elvish and dwarven kings in order to enslave them.
Yes, I'm a nerd.
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.
but it's a interesting change of policy
This change is not from today, the change started with WIX under the CPL.
Anyway, if you make a CPL program better(and if it's not yours) you can't earn money with this, only if it helps you to make other things, but who created the program can earn money with your code.
The want the media atention and to be the good guys with this things. Them whem someone talk about Microsoft be against open source software they will say: "we released XX softwares under open source licenses, how we can be against our softwares?"
I was going to make a crack about how obvious this comment was, but you got me thinking about the success of Micro-Soft's marketing campaigns.
Micro-Soft has managed what seemed to me to be an impossible task; turn the obvious security advantages of Open Source into a debate about who has the better security. There are actually people out there convinced that Windows' security is superior due to the success of their marketing, contrary to all reason and evidence.
Micro-Soft have managed to turn TCO into a debate about which is cheaper, Windows or FLOSS, despite the fact that it is blindingly obvious that the cost of Windows is a gazillionfold.
Perhaps your comment is the first of many, as "Micro-Soft supports Open Source" and "Shared Source and Open Source are the same thing" become the new frontiers in their reductio ad absurdem marketing campaigns that seem so successful with the gullible.
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?
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!
void main() {
//
//**Secret Proprietary Microsoft Code Removed**
//
while (true) {
if (rand() % 2)
doCrash();
}
}
This led to the question of what is the CPL and how does this differ from other licenses. A little Googling on my part turned up this site that compares the open source licenses.
The most significant difference between the CPL and the GPL involves the license of derivative works.
-cmh
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.
http://blogs.msdn.com is mesmerising. I can't believe they encourage their developers to post regularly, and that the feeds go out un-edited by management or marketing. Plus, they have anonymous comments enabled.
http://channel9.msdn.com/ is an impressive effort, and shows how far MS is going with their community outreach.
It's scary how much you can learn from blogs.msdn.com. There are a lot of smart people working at MS, but what are they all working on? The quality and thoughtfulness of the posters there indicates that they must have some killer internal projects.
Name an instance of IIS being automatically exploited. I'll cite you two Apache holes in return.
Nothing is 100% secure. Let's be mature and rational, people.
This will dilute "open-source" when applied to news broadcasts and magazine articles which PHBs rely upon. We could explain the intricate differences between "true" open-source and the Microsoftian "shared-source" licenses. But not in a brief sentence. And not in five seconds.
PHBs will just think "open-source is good trend" and "Microsoft 'does' open-source".
So yeah, this is a good, though Machievelian move, by Microsoft.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
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.
What power?
Microsoft is opening the source to several development tools. These tools have always been free, and the source to compile them is usually available as well. The examples are good and the documentation in and out of the code stellar. The code itself is generally clean (certainly better than your average PHP app) and relatively well designed.
The only difference is, instead of posting the tools as-is with development essentially ending, the tools can be absorbed by a community who can contribute their own changes. Which will no doubt make the tools more useful -- but will not change the experience of the average Windows user in the least.
This does not mean is that Microsoft intends to ever open the source of any of their for-pay applications. Why should they? It's not like offering people the ability to contribute or compile their own version of Windows, Office or SQL Server will bring in any more money, or at least not enough to cover the potential losses. Quite simple, there is NO value to Microsoft in opening the source of these applications as the value to consumers won't cause us to invest further in the company. But to take tools that were already free, and make them COMMUNITY tools based on Microsoft architecture...it's a subtle shift in policy that could mean a lot of positive development for very little Microsoft money.
Is that the power of OSS? To make your customers do all the work and provide each other with better tools? Maybe. But this is nothing new, nor nothing inherent in Open Source. I've been posting code samples on Windows dev lists for ten years, been a part of various programs to document so-called hidden APIs, and spent a good amount of time in #winprog and the like. There's always been a community for creating Windows tools. We've just never thought to insert "dogma" into the equation -- you know, since it's just friggin' programming. Say what you will about Windows programmers...most of the ones I've met are extreme pragmatists who leave their code "religion" at the door. Not like those Java programmers...those guys are the Mormons of computing. Tell me, have you heard that Java is the Way? That god sent us Java 1.0 on a pair of golden floppy discs?
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.
Just think of the next adverts.
"Microsoft, bringing out the best in you by using your knowledge because we ain't got a clue"
I like muppets.
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....
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.
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?
Is the steady advance of Linux and other OSS projects the steady pressure that can make a better company of Microsoft?
Look at what IBM was in the 80's. They attempted to choke out the trend of open hardware specs and the clone industry with a proprietary platform. OS/2 and the PS/2 computers with their MCA bus architectures were going to displace the AT compatible. I remember John Dvorak and all the other experts predicting the end of the AT.
Regardless of the technical merit of MCA and OS/2, the backlash of EISA and then Windows put IBM in their place and they have since been a remarkably pragmatic company. Thanks to their R&D and participation in Linux, I think they're one of the coolest ones out there.
This is the way, my friends. Don't fume about court cases and market injustices. Compete!
But they already have a (cracked) open source version of NT, don't they?
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
Just which product(s) will be shared source might be of interest to some pundits(I predict IIS being among the first ports on the server side, if it ever happens, simply because there is less server market share to lose there, they're already way behind apache, oracle web server, ibm web server, zeus et al... Windows Media Server is also a candidate, simply because they are licensing it as part of a larger product, but not selling it directly, in a marketspace where the competitors are much more expensive, but offer much more features{real} or are free{apple/darwin streaming server}). On the desktop I have a harder question, is this source thing just an attempt to blindside consumers? They could always say they are open sourcing word viewer after all... Nothing says they have in mind to open the source of a product that actually reads a specific Microsoft format, or that said product has to be unencumbered(patent-wise). Microsoft has always been a master of the "give with one hand take away with the other" I predict more of the same, just where is my only question. Let's not get carried away at least until they have named those products, and listed their intent as regards to data formats et al contained in there.
Why is this important you ask? Well let me put a hypothetical case:
1) you have the source code to office
2) the office file format is encumbered
3) you use the source code to do anything with regards to that file format(read, write, export, clean up, syntax-highlight it doesn't matter)
4) you are in violation of their patent, and can(and likely will) be dragged before a court
It doesn't matter that they opened up their source in this case. Should anyone who hasn't been following, that means that open source benefits end users most when linked to open formats. What this smells like to me, is a PR move related to stock valuation, they announced they would follow the trend, but without naming the products, to gauge the impact on stock price, and they are evaluating which product will be released, based partly on market reactions. If their focus groups say "bad juju" they'll pull up something like ms dos 2.11 or microsoft notepad, and claim they open-sourced it to encourage innovation in the text space
[sarcasm]implying that they are leaders in the text-only field[/sarcasm]
There are a lot of technologies that Microsoft started, like WMI, that would actually benefit from an influx of third party developers, actually, the number of technologies at Microsoft that wouldn't grow with an influx of third parties is actually pretty close to zero.
However, if we want our computing to be unfettered, we have to keep insisting on what's really important, and not be swayed by Microsoft's "No" "No" "Maybe" "Yes but only if you give me the Moon first" routine. The data on our computers, belongs to us, the computers, they also belong to us, the software on it provides a useful service, it is true, but it does NOT grant control to Microsoft over that, and we need to react forcefully to anything that lessens our control over our property.
I have nothing against Microsoft open-sourcing anything, but don't they realize that you can't have your FUD and eat it too?
English is easier said than done.
I Might be missing something, as I dont care about the difference between open or closed source. Some source I write for fun and release it to everyone, other source I write to make money.
Microsofts MSDN is full of source code examples, tools dlls components etc. Yes many of these tools you do not get the source code too. But as an example Microsoft site server, or commerce server as it is now was full of useful source code for developing your site server applications. Yes it wasnt open source, but it was free to use with your application if you had a license.
I guess what Im getting at is, they offer many examples, source code with licenses, and tools, yes there not open source, but if thats what people want, then they will write it them selves and release it as open.
TruePunk | Games
M$'s PR people have a long way to go to overcome their infamous Apple Switcher, writing letters to senators from dead people and other Astroturf campaigns. M$ is an evil and dishonest company with a record that makes them impossible to trust.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Even better, we can find out what all those BSOD messages are.
I hope Windoze users don't have the same feelings for their spouse as they do for their computers. Every place I've worked where windoze was deployed, there was not a single day that I did not hear someone cursing loudly about how the "computer" ate a few hours of work. They would beat their keyboards, as if they could not believe the thing had locked again. Then some discouraging words would be shouted above the office din. 200 people on a floor or ten person office, the story was the same.
Most Windoze users loath their computers. The company, the press and their peers blame them when it fails. They have less and less control over it but stability has not improved. There much humiliating talk about how the computer is too complicated for stupid people like themselves to run, and the programs themselves are making more and more wrong choices for them. Data on "servers" routinely dissapears, costing them months of work. I've actually heard people say that they got more done without the things on their desks. Microsoft has convinced people that computers suck.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That's not true anymore. Sure, GA Tech boys are bright enough to learn enough in a few days to maintain someone's old VBscript / Access nightmare. It's never been that hard. Now, however, they are going to know how to get the job done faster and cheaper with free software. The tools have gotten much better and it's easier to replace things with Linux than it would be to advocate buying a $5,000 Sun. They can wipp out a CD and apt-get what they need onto any poor suffering box and poof, the replacement is ready in a few days. That's why no one is bothering to learn M$ junk and that's why it's going away.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Sample Code is released to show how to use APIs. It is open source in the sense that you download and modify the source code, but the build isn't useful for distributing in its own right, unlike a TRUE Open Source project.
True Open Source projects tend to be portable between platforms. Many projects on SourceForge can be built on Win32, Linux and Mac OS X.
But what can Windows Template Library (WTL) and Windows Installer XML (WiX) be built on?
My perception is that Microsoft's open source initiatives are simply a means of encouraging use of the Windows platform. They're making available source code to show how certain things can be done, thus giving developers an example of how routines should be written, but also meaning that these "open source" offerings are little more than extended sample code that you expect to get with a Visual Studio install.
Everythinglinux.com.au, selling all things linux related.
:D
Kind of like a Thinkgeek for Australia (and they accept BPAY!)
I swear, if I see another Slashdot comment with "It will be interesting to see"...
I worked at Microsoft until sometime last year. I wasn't in a great or glamorous position as a developer or anything. But working there did make me pay attention to the policies to a greater extend than I do now.
.NET which seems to commoditize the OS much like Java....
A number of us in my department (we joked that it was the "armpit of Microsoft," but I forget who coined that phrase), noticed that Microsoft seemed to be pursuing greatly differnet and conflicting strategies relating to the saturation of the PC market and the threat to revenue that this engenders. On one hadn you had software assurance as an attempt to create a stable income source as PC's live increasingly long lives, and on the other you have
This is yet more evidence to me that Microsoft is NOT acting in a unified and coherent manner but us taking a shotgun approach out of fear (interestingly, not fear of Linux, but Linux contributes to an already bad situation).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
or rather it is, but in a different way then you're probably thinking. What's at issue isn't linux's credibility, it's Microsoft's. Countries besides America are wary of having their critical IT infrastructure dependent on a foreign company that's more or less (ok, more) been given a pass in a hugh anti trust trial by a corrupt gov't. This is suppose to allay those fears.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Name an instance of IIS being automatically exploited. I'll cite you two Apache holes in return."
Here you go, freshly under investigation, spreading as I type.
From the article: "Government and industry experts warned late Thursday of a mysterious, large-scale Internet attack against thousands of popular Web sites. The virus-like infection tries to implant hacker software onto the computers of all Web site visitors. [ ... ] The mysterious infection appeared to target at least one recent version of software by Microsoft Corp. to operate Web sites, called its Internet Information Server, popular among businesses and organizations."
That was fun. Your turn.
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...
What, are they tired of actually having to give up some of their precious precious profit to their employees?
Do you see what I did there?
Now that market penetration level is at the highest you can think it to be, there is growing momentum of competition, swaying public opinion towards open source and the open source buzzword doing rounds not only in smoky backrooms haunted by developers, but in executive meeting rooms in Fortune 100 corporations, what do you do?
You ride the wave. Turn it to your advantage.
Declare to the world you shall also reveal some of the propreitary code, in order to "share" the comments and knowledge of development community at large, and pacify growing fears that you are not a clammed-up, monolithic, not ready to change company!
But what do you actually share? Probably the code of some old products long sidelined, or maybe tiny irrelevant bits of contemporary products - all in the name of opening up code.
Besides, with better GPL and other OSS licenses in place and the so-called crusade of SCO against popen source, a couple of months later, you jump too and claim your code has been stolen or license breached or something such. And then go back to your old ways..
Very shrewd!
http://efil.blogspot.com/
I understand that this was meant as a joke, but this may well hit the core of this strategy. Maybe MS is intentionally trying to weaken the "GPL camp" (the kinds of projects that are potentially dangerous for Microsoft's monopolistic ambitions tend to use GNU-style licensing) by getting programmers excited about competing MS-supported projects which use the non-GPL-compatible CPL?
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
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.
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.
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.
What better way to terminate projects than send a multi-billion dollar legal team after them.
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?"