Microsoft Releases FlexWiki as Open Source

davemabe writes "Microsoft is apparently releasing its FlexWiki wiki implementation as an open source project. FlexWiki is the software used to run the wikis over at Channel 9. My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?"

Comments

make microsoft bob open source

[el_salvador]

now that would rock!!! microsoft bob on linux, imagine the productivity increase

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[cletus.the.wonder.sl]

I would just settle for Clippy. Imagine a penguin running out and kicking Clippy everytime he showed up. pointless but entertaining.

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Even worse: http://www.3dna.com

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[Chess_the_cat]

Does everyone realize that his name isn't Clippy? His name is actually Clippit.

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[Anonymous Coward]

I found the MS source to the clippy routine and it explains why it is so annoying.

<snip>
int Clippy(int *clippy_active) {

static int auto_activate_clippy_count = 0;

if (*clippy_active == false) {
*clippy_active = true;
auto_activate_clippy_count++;
}

/* Clippy script routines */
switch (auto_activate_clippy_count) {
case 0:
ClippyBeCute();
ClippyActCute();
ClippyFlirtWithUser();
ClippyHelpUser();
break;
case 1:
ClippyFrownAtUser();
ClippyGiveColdShoulder();
ClippyDemandUserApologize();
ClippyRandomlyHelpUser();
break;
case 2:
ClippyDoubleInSize();
ClippyBrowBeatUser();
ClippyBeAnnoying()
ClippyOfferNoHelp();
break;
default:
ClippyBePissedOff();
ClippyBugTheHellOutOfUser();
ClippyInterfereWithWork();
ClippyRefuseAnyHelp();
break;
}
return (auto_activate_clippy_count);
}

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on, you know there's all sorts of patents in there that they'd use against you later.

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[rd_syringe]

Is it necessary for people, in every single Microsoft article, to make a completely random reference to Microsoft Bob and expect to get skyrocketed up to "+5 Funny"?

We get it. Microsoft Bob, haha. That shell add-on software from '94. 10 years ago.

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[ElGuapoGolf]

Is it necessary for people, in every single Microsoft article, to make a completely random reference to Microsoft Bob and expect to get skyrocketed up to "+5 Funny"?

I could you the same question and point towards your .sig, since Kerry has explained his stance on Iraq many times. You obviously aren't posting that .sig for attention tho...

Face it, Bob was a monumental failure. It was supposed to revolutionize the way people used computers. They even gave out sunglasses at stores. It was the first software package, that I can remember, where they had huge release parties and events. When you fail on that level, it's not something you'll easily leave behind, even 10 years later.

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that what AMOR is?

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Love,
rd_syringe (aka Overly Critical Guy aka bonch)

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[deus42]

I could you the same question and point towards your .sig, since Kerry has explained his stance on Iraq many times. You obviously aren't posting that .sig for attention tho...

Um, I think the point of the .sig is that the stance changes every time he does explain his position. Even if it is consistent now, that doesn't mean that it always was.

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[mormop]

His name is actually Clippit.

Funny, everyone I meet seems to REFER him as "Go away you irrating little shit" or some variation on the theme.

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[ElGuapoGolf]

Similarly, I recall the other guy running for president, the incumbent, saying something along the lines of "Saddam is not a threat" then "Saddam is a threat". Or "We can't afford to invade Iraq" then "We can't afford not to invade Iraq". I also recall something about "weapons of mass destruction" then something about "liberating the people".

Neither one of these guys is a straight shooter.

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[aussie_a]

Is it necessary for people, in every single Microsoft article, to make a completely random reference to Microsoft Bob and expect to get skyrocketed up to "+5 Funny"?

You're new here aren't you?

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[TheAncientHacker]

Hey, it'd beat most of the Linux UIs that I've tried. At least those that didn't already steal Microsoft designs...

Re:make microsoft bob open source

[sumdumass]

Do you hear voices?

like a drug dealer

[unbiasedbystander]

The first hit is always free...

Re:like a drug dealer

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they EEEing by releasing the code for a wiki?

Re:like a drug dealer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you think your sig makes you sound really cool or something - even though you haven't a fucking clue what it's about. u r a major asshat :p

Re:like a drug dealer

[bratmobile]

1) Microsoft releases an open-source product. 2) Slashdot weenies piss and moan. 3) I point out what a fuckwit the poster was. 4) Another fuckwit pisses and moans. FOAD, idiot.

Re:like a drug dealer

[Misinformed]

I am happy to meet up fuckwad

Service Unavailable

[mgkimsal2]

I'm only getting 'service unavailable'. Anyone else seeing anything? :(

Re:Service Unavailable

[Guus.der.Kinderen]

The site works fine for me. Try Google's cache: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:AToSccLZKkwJ: www.flexwiki.com/+flexwiki&hl=en

Re:Service Unavailable

[strider44]

even Microsoft is vunerable to the Slashdot effect!

Click the link...

[brunson]

http://www.flexwiki.com/

Service Unavailable

8-Ball says: outlook not good

Wiki spam.

[BoldAC]

WOohoo... Microsoft cometh... ... and bringth the spam.

If wiki's were not getting polluted enough, here comes microsoft into the mix.

Re:Wiki spam.

[metacosm]

Finally, a good wiki, before the release of this, I couldn't find a wiki if I wanted one *sigh*. MS needs to just buckle down on getting the little jpeg issue under control.

Honestly, if you are looking for wiki software, there is lots of great stuff out...

OpenWiki -- Windows, easy to edit, featureful, fast, good. My favorite.
http://www.openwiki.com/

PHPWiki -- Cross Platform, easy to setup, fast.
http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/

KWiki -- The king of Wiki's!
http://kwiki.org/

I thought it was a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I read this originally on a press release but dismissed it as a Joke

Re:I thought it was a joke

[networkBoy]

We hate M$ right?
We love OSS right?
.
.
.
.
My head hurts.
-nB

Re:I thought it was a joke

[geordie_loz]

I think there's probably a few more heads scratching, even in the Microsoft camp.

We are Microsoft.
We hate OpenSource (it's a "cancer" etc..)
We release another OpenSource project
.
.
.
My head hurts...

Re:I thought it was a joke

[Frizzle Fry]

The reason you're confused is because you think MS called open source a "cancer" and that's just not the case. They have said bad things about the GPL, but they haven't released their open source products under that license, so there's no contradiction.

Old School

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

wiki wiki wiki

(Oh, Chilly B, get down, ho)

(Oh, oh, here comes Cozmo)

Ho)

(We get to say wiki-wiki-wiki again)

Wiki-wiki-wiki-wiki

(Shut up)

Wiki-wiki-wiki-wiki

Re:Old School

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, yeah I remember that song.

Seems up now

[mgkimsal2]

I guess it was just a hiccup after all. :0

How open source?

[FooAtWFU]

Is this open source as in Microsoft calls it open, open source as in it's really open, or is it somewhere in between? Is it under the GPL or similar?

I'm a die-hard MediaWiki guy myself, anyway, and this software can call back when it's successfully handling an encyclopedia site of over a million articles. :)

(now there's a thought: do Encarta with this thing...)

Re:How open source?

[piquadratCH]

It's released unter the CPL which is OSI-approved

/. effect

[Greger47]

Well, regarding which one is best, I think FlexWiki wins the /. effect test, showing a 503 Service not available. Compared to Kwiki that doesn't respond at all... :)

/greger

Re:/. effect

[Anonymous Coward]

It just shows who has more money to pay for the increased bandwidth. Nothing more.

Re:/. effect

[ajs]

If you find yourself wanting to install Kwiki to look at it while they're being Slashdotted into the ground, you can start by running "cpan" as root. Just type "i /wiki/" and get your scroll-wheel ready ;-)

Re:/. effect

[master0ne]

well over here kwiki is responding quite fast, however chanel 9 isnt responding at all, wonder on what wiki server there using?

But I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with all the open-sourcing of Microsoft stuff lately?

Aren't these the guys who said open source harms innovation and damages the economy? Can't have it both ways, guys.

Here's proof. Free 27" flatscreen TVs, 17" monitors.

Re:But I thought...

[Swamii]

A lot of people at Microsoft are changing their thinking regarding OSS. For example, Josh Ledgard, MS's "community evangelist", is a supporter of OSS and was key in brining WiX to SourceForge.

Someone once said about MS's business practices (so no cracks about software bugs please), they make mistakes like any other company, but they'll only make them once. If they discover OSS can help them and benefit them, which it certainly could IMO, they will change their ways no matter how much about-facing they have to do.

Re:But I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

or maybe they want to poison other oss projects

Re:But I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Ballmer is a flip-flopper.

Re:But I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

What so what are we saying. Are we saying that M$ were wrong?

Re:But I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, Josh Ledgard states very clearly that he had nothing to do with bringing WiX to sourceforge on his blog. You can see his blog post here.

What!!

[bluFox]

They can't do that, They have no right to be good. or who else do we look up to when it comes to evil?

Re:What!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't get it submit an edit. But I'm only using Firefox. If I used a proper browser like IE it would probably work okay.

Re:What!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... sco?

Re:What!!

[JFMulder]

Sony ;)

Re:What!!

[Mr2cents]

Didn't you hear the news? MS has outsourced all evilness to SCO!

Re:What!!

[chris_mahan]

Wait... Who else is on our To Hate list?
Amazon -> One Click
Adobe -> Skylarov
Microsoft -> Developers Developers developers... Stomp stomp stomp (can somebody make a techno tune out of that NOT?)
Apple -> DRM ridden iPod?
Sony -> ???
Sun -> let go of Java already...
RedHat -> Licence fees for Enterprise Edition? WTF?
George Lucas -> Boba fired first? (how do you "fire" a laser gun?)

Oh, but before the bloomer and doomer come along, here's our "To Love" list:

IBM -> In spite of the chalk-based street ads, linux support, ThinkPads.
NOVELL -> SUSE and Ximian and Evolution. ...the list grows thin...

Re:What!!

[JFMulder]

I don't know. I just don't like Sony's "gift" to the game world. I sure like their TV's tough.

Re:What!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I makes me so happy to be able to say this about a microsoft product: "LOOK THEY DONT OWE YOU SHIT, ITS OPEN SOURCE IF YOU WANT IT FIXED THEN FIX IT YOURSELF, RETARD!" Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:What!!

[Soul-Burn666]

By a techno tune you mean something like this?
Composed by Digital Droo. Here's his page about the song.

Re:What!!

[deadcasuals]

Evil will always triumph, because Good is Dumb. -Dark Helmet

Re:What!!

[aussie_a]

I never knew SCO was stationed in India now.

Re:What!!

[jonadab]

> who else do we look up to when it comes to evil?

Spammers.

Re:What!!

[Zangief]

George Lucas -> Boba fired first? (how do you "fire" a laser gun?)

It was greedo the shooter that got slower on the new editions.

You forgot some evil guys...

Nintendo -> OMG! they have patents on emulators and roms! we can't pirate their stuff!

R. Stallman -> There is nothing former about this communist :)

IBM -> yeah, they are mostly good now, but some folk around here is old enough to remember when they were bad.

The time is 8:25 AM, the temperatur 0 C

[ackthpt]

Microsoft is apparently releasing its FlexWiki wiki implementation as an open source project.

The evil empire which denounced Open Source... Sysiphus, put down that snowball!

Re:The time is 8:25 AM, the temperatur 0 C

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sysiphus, put down that snowball!

Bzzzzt - wrong mythological character! Sysiphus is the guy who's condemned to push a big rock uphill in an endless loop AFAIK, nothing to do with snowballs.

Re:The time is 8:25 AM, the temperatur 0 C

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his point was that it was a cold day in hell.

Sorry if I'm a n00b but....

[HerculesMO]

WTF is a wiki? I hear about it all day long on /.

Re:Sorry if I'm a n00b but....

[stecoop]

A wiki page about Wiki.

Re:Sorry if I'm a n00b but....

[Derkec]

The links are fine, but a Wiki is essentially a web page that people can log in to and edit relatively easily. Often they are used as a commons for sharing information or ideas.

From www.flexwiki.com

[ideatrack]

If you...

* interested in a good software, leave this page!

Likewise good grammar it would seem...

NO!!!

[skraps]

It's nowhere near as good! How dare they soil the good name of the FOSS movement with this shoddy software. Nobody should use it, and everyone should make fun of it - that will teach them to try to open up their source code!

Re:NO!!!

[Mortanius]

Agreed. The FOSS 'movement' (what a romantic notion) can produce more than enough shoddy software by themselves!

Re:NO!!!

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Is the FOSS 'movement' anything like the BOWEL 'movement' I made this morning?

I find it ironic

[cyberlotnet]

"Microsofts third open source project"

Does the right nut know what the left nut is doing over there?

One nut is releasing open source projects, The other nut goes as far as to try to make legislation to slow down or stop adoptation of open source.

Sorry Microsoft, you can't have your cake and eat it to.. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.

Re:I find it ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Microsoft, you can't have your cake and eat it to..

If you have as much moiney as Microsoft, then you can have your cake, eat it, shit in someone else's cake and make them eat it. Buy lots of cake and eat that too. Sell your cake to everyone in the world, but then eat it anyway. Whatever you want to do with cake.. having shedloads of money will open those options up for you. Now, say you're an open source dev trying to give away your software - you should be lucky if you even see any crumbs. Never mind the cake.

Re:I find it ironic

[McDutchie]

Does the right nut know what the left nut is doing over there?

As huge as they are, that would hardly be surprising. Governments are notorious for suffering from this problem, and Microsoft seems to be bigger than many governments.

Re:I find it ironic

[accidental_1]

AFAIK MS doesn't like GPL not Open Source. They use BSD code and it is Open Source (If I remember correctly). It's the legalities of GPL that mess them up.

Re:I find it ironic

[cyberlotnet]

http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+lobbies+a gainst+open+source&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8

They lobby against more then just GPL, they clearly support and finance the push of bills that will restrict the use of opensource in the goverment and other areas.

They claim its because "opensource is not secure" and other reasons..

I say its because "the goverment has large pocket books and policies can be set to affect there buying ability, You can't say the same for the average consumer"

They are doing nothing but trying to "shore up" a sector of business that they can control by using there money and power to bully the goverment around.

One clear problem, a large percent of public officals have no real clue of technologies, When a big company comes up and says "This is bad pass a bill to prevent it" They nod there head and agree because they just don't know better.

We need to get off our geek asses and vote for the people that support jobs in america and all that other stuff but also for people that show they can handle todays technological issues that are becoming more and more important in our everyday life.

Re:I find it ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care for cake, I like pie.

Re:I find it ironic

[DjReagan]

Funnily enough, some of the tools in the source package for FlexWiki are GPL licensed, and being distributed by Microsoft (presumably under the GPL license)

Re:I find it ironic

[XeRXeS-TCN]

I think they're probably aware just fine. This is the third "open source" project that they have released, and you'll notice that again it's pretty much just crap that's either reinventing the wheel, or crap that is of no value to the community. Additionally in this case, the fact that it's implementing a Wiki system kind of feels like the old "Embrace, Extend & Extinguish" of which they are so often accused. One way or the other, it's opening the source to utterly insignificant projects (in terms of their business plan and profits, I don't mean that the Wiki principle is in any way worthless) presumably so that when the next anti-trust case comes up, they can confidentally claim that they're a 'community player' for open sourcing some of their projects.

I also saw mention from another poster about the use of the IBM Public License, which is listed on the GNU website as being "not inherently a bad idea", but "incompatible with the GPL". In this way, Microsoft can continue it's FUD and public declarations that the GPL is like a "Pacman" that eats up intellectual property.

They can quite happily keep releasing insignificant projects, slating the GPL and Linux at every opportunity, and claiming all the while that they're not as proprietary and hostile as everyone thinks.

Re:I find it ironic

[JohnRoche]

One clear problem, a large percent of public officals have no real clue of technologies, When a big company comes up and says "This is bad pass a bill to prevent it" They nod there head and agree because they just don't know better. I find myself both saddened by this and forced to agree. A lot of these guys in the government are from the old days when they didn't have this technology, and they can't be bothered to even have their interns check it out. The result is insanely idiotic laws like the CDA and the DMCA. More on topic, I think this is probably a sign of the apocalypse. Perhaps Microsoft has realized that open source isn't going away, no matter how many congressmen they bribe and scare, and they're hedging their bets.

Re:I find it ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

that just made my day

Conversely...

[Sheetrock]

My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

My question is: is there anything Microsoft can do that we won't question?

Applaud them for their newfound approach to open source. More alternatives are always better. I'll bet this software does something Kwiki can't do.

Re:Conversely...

[Anonymous Coward]

like be GPL incompatible... ;)

Re:Conversely...

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:Conversely...

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm...I think Yoda said that.

Re:Conversely...

[boutell]

The author of this article was not unfairly slamming Microsoft by asking whether a new open source project does anything useful that an existing open source project doesn't do already. That's a question that should be asked about every open source project.

Re:Conversely...

[HiThere]

Did you notice that the software is being released by individual employees, not Microsoft, under the CPL?

The implications are that the any patents owned by MS and included in that software AREN'T being released. Should we, perhpaps, just TRUST them to not be planning something sneaky?

There are a lot of bones beside the trail left by those who did *that*.

Re:Conversely...

[jc42]

My question is: is there anything Microsoft can do that we won't question?

Of course not. And it's not just Microsoft; we should question anything from any source. Microsoft is merely the worst of a bad lot.

Note that the concept of Open Source could be re-phrased as "The source must be available so that users can criticise it and ask questions about it." So, yes, we also question Open Source Software. Often and publicly.

Anyone who accepts someone else's products without question is either a fool or is on the take.

Given Microsoft's history, we have special reasons to question everything they do. And the only reasonable attitude is skepticism. Maybe they're being honest with us this time. But I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it.

George Bush recently garbled an important old saying, that starts with "Fool me once, ...." Anyone know the rest of it? (Of course, George's mangled version is more entertaining. ;-)

Re:Conversely...

[psaltes]

My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

The real question is whether it is as good as any of the wiki implementations that are open source? These days there seem to be as many of them as there are open-source IRC clients.

Re:Conversely...

[jdray]

I'll bet this software does something Kwiki can't do.

This is the open source world we're talking about. You should say, "I'll bet this software does something Kwiki doesn't currently do."

Who deleted this page?

[qubezz]

Should I be able to write here?

Credit where it's due?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

You know, Microsoft has done an incredible number of crappy things, and they deserve most of the flak they get, but I don't understand why we can't just once acknowledge them for taking a positive step without making some cheap jab like this.

"Microsoft released something as open source -- but let's all assume that a non-MS alternative is better even though we haven't made an actual comparison!" How immature can you get?

Yes, I know I could just stop reading /., but it's an unhealthy addiction... :)

Re:Credit where it's due?

[l3v1]

How immature can you get?

Well, given that microsoft's open source != our open source (i.e. ms shared source license vs gnu gpl or bsd), there's no surprise some people are not really overwhelmed by this step.

A bit greater step would be required from MS to make some of us jumping around in ecstasy.

s

Re:Credit where it's due?

[Peter La Casse]

Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

You know, Microsoft has done an incredible number of crappy things, and they deserve most of the flak they get, but I don't understand why we can't just once acknowledge them for taking a positive step without making some cheap jab like this.

How is that a cheap jab? It seems like a very reasonable question to me: how does this new project compare to this other existing project?

Re:Credit where it's due?

[AstroDrabb]

why we can't just once acknowledge them for taking a positive step without making some cheap jab like this.
...
How immature can you get?

If someone constantly took jabs at you and kicked you while you were down, would you trust them the next time they held out their hand? I wouldn't. It will take a while for MS to build _any_ trust in the OSS/FSS communities, especially the Free Software community.

If you look at the few Open source apps MS has released, they have all been very insignificant. MS will impress me when they make one of their bigger apps Open Source and Free Source. I am not talking about one of their apps that they sell or generate direct revenue from. I am talking about the tons of other apps they include with their OS or other software that they do not sell. I know i would like to get my hands on explorer.exe the desktop shell and file manager. That code is crap and is always crashing on me even in WinXP SP2. It locks just about every file it touches when you use the explorer.exe file manager requiring using task manager to kill and restart it. It is the biggest headache for me using WinXP at work.

To me this just seems like a PR effort from MS so they can say "me too" when asked about Open Source. Free Software is by far more important to me then Open Source. I don't care if I can look at the code, I want to be able to do something with the code. Free Software gives you the rights to be able to do something with the code while Open Source doesn't alwasy give you those rights. For example, can I take the FlexWiki code MS is releasing and fork it and do something with it MS does not like or agree with? Are there patents encombering FlexWiki? I cannot get to the site right now to check.

Ok, I just got to the site and read this from the license (IANAL).

As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted
hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility
to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if
any. For example, if a third party patent license is required
to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's
responsibility to acquire that license

To me (IANAL), that doesn't sound too good. It looks like MS trying to keep a back-door in their "open" source code just in case they have something in there that they can require a license for. Exactly how is this Open Source if it can be encumbered by patents and other "IP"?

Re:Credit where it's due?

[Jahf]

Ya know, asking a legitimate question about the comparison of this new software versus proven software is NOT flak. It is a simple question.

If it had somehow been inflammatory like "Microsoft released this product but since kwiki works so well I encourage people to use it instead" it would be different. But it's not. And your post is not insightful ...

Damnit, why does /. have to revoke mod points if you don't use them? Just give me 5, let me use them whenever, and then make me wait some specified time to get them again.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[SpecBear]

If a company who had simply practiced standard bastardy I'd give some credit here, but MS don't earn any points from me with this.

1. Attack open source as un-American
2. Attack open source as being bad for the economy
3. Attack open source as a threat to national security
4. ????
5. Release project as open source

While I won't demand that MS go on an open sourcing orgy before they get my forgiveness, I'm not tossing any laurels their way until they fill in the missing step.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[HiThere]

Well, in the first place, the story didn't mention what the license was. It could be "shared source" mislabeled.

And in the second place, the last thing they released wasn't useful on anything except MSWind, so that earned them no gratitude from me.

And in the third place, I don't recall that they have ever released anything significant under any open source license. (Employees releasing something under a CPL license doesn't count. It would be significant if MS released it, but employees releasing it doesn't redound to their benefit...in fact it makes me wonder just WHAT they are planning.)

And in the fourth place, MS has a rather unpleasant history of being untrustworthy as a business partner in numerous ways not forseen by those who entered into agreements with them. So one should probably be skeptical about any particular offer that they make, and search it carefully for booby traps.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[polin8]

Actually, its released under the IBM public lisence, an OSI approved liscence. It is not GPL compatible (which would be better), but its still a good open source lisence.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[lombre]

This is just asking a question not taking a cheap jab. Consider all the crap MS says about open source etc. - those are cheap jabs.

Anyway this "donation" is like the serial rapist who donates a dollar to the unwed mothers fund every week.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[OreoCookie]

It will take a while for MS to build _any_ trust in the OSS/FSS communities, especially the Free Software community.

Look at it from Microsoft's perspective. Why should Microsoft make an effort to gain the respect of the OSS community? Is that even possible? Is there anything Microsoft could do that would gain the friendship of OSS'ers without damaging it's shareholders? Oh, and before you dismiss the shareholders, remember that many Slashdotter's have 401k's and it's a rare 401k that doesn't hold some Microsoft stock.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[jc42]

That reminds me of something ... Hmm, wonder what it could be ... Oh, yes; I know -

First they ignore you ...
Then they laugh at you ...
Then they fight you ...
Then you win.
-- M. K. Gandhi

(I suppose that on /. this should end with "... PROFIT!" ;-)

Re:Credit where it's due?

[Tinidril]

remember that many Slashdotter's have 401k's and it's a rare 401k that doesn't hold some Microsoft stock.

So what? Then they also hold stock in thousands of other companies that pay the "Microsoft Tax" in order to do business. Anything that forces MS to compete on a level playing field is good for those thousands of other companies.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[shyster]

Ok, I just got to the site and read this from the license (IANAL).

As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is required to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's responsibility to acquire that license.

To me (IANAL), that doesn't sound too good. It looks like MS trying to keep a back-door in their "open" source code just in case they have something in there that they can require a license for. Exactly how is this Open Source if it can be encumbered by patents and other "IP"?

IANAL either, but it looks to me like Microsoft is playing CYA with that clause. Basically, they're saying that just because we give you this code doesn't mean none of it is encumbered. If it happens to infringe on IBM's patents, then it's up to you to take care of that. When you're as large of a target for lawsuits as MS is, I think that it's necessary for them to include language like that.

Linux, and a lot of other OSS software, doesn't have to worry about these kinds of things because of the nature of their development. It'd be very difficult, I think, to press a lawsuit against the Linux kernel maintainers because of infringing patents, for instance. Even if you did, it'd be even more difficult to get any $$ out of them. MS doesn't have that luxury (read: it's a problem I'd love to have).

Re:Credit where it's due?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, Microsoft has done an incredible number of crappy things, and they deserve most of the flak they get, but I don't understand why we can't just once acknowledge them for taking a positive step without making some cheap jab like this.

It's a very tiny step. Negligible, if you will.

If anybody else had released an open-source Wiki, the response would be "um, yawn?". It wouldn't be on slashdot. There are already many open-source Wikis. We'd want to know why they're making a new one, rather than using one of the (excellent) ones that already exist.

Making a new one is a classic rookie mistake -- NIH syndrome. How many times have experienced programmers told newbies who show up on mailing lists looking for a project to work on "Pick a project that already exists, and work on that! Don't start your own!"?

Microsoft is the biggest software company in the world, by a fair margin. We expect them to know about building software. From the memos and press releases, we also know that they've been following open-source for a while.

If releasing an open-source Wiki in 2004 is the most significant thing they do this year (and I think it may be), they're in trouble. Not financially -- they've got mountains of cash -- but doomed to irrelevance, which is even worse for them.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[AstroDrabb]

Your point could very well be the case. Maybe a "blood-sucking-lawyer" could help us out here? :)
There is some reason whey the FSF does not consider this license a Free Software license or GPL compatible, and I am sure it is not just because "it is a license that MS uses". The FSF has a pretty darn good lawyer/Professor of Law & Legal History named Eben Moglen, so I don't think the "it is a license that MS uses so we won't" argument will stick.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[AstroDrabb]

Is there anything Microsoft could do that would gain the friendship of OSS'ers without damaging it's shareholders?

There are tons and tons of things MS could do without damaging it's shareholders. They could start by using more open protocols, specs and document formats. As I pointed out, MS could release one of their bigger apps as a GPL compatible Open Source apps (GPL compatible would actually be in MS's best interests since no other company could come along and take away what MS contributed under a GPL licens and make it proprietary). Not an app that MS sells or generates revenue from, but one of the tons of other apps that they give away with their other software or OS's. As I stated, I would love to fix up the horrid code base of explorer.exe, the desktop shell and file manager that gives me most of my problems with WinXP Pro. They could release _all_ the docs/specs for their network protocols. I could go on and on about the simple things MS _could_ do (but probably never will do) that would never damage their shareholders. I have worked for 3 fortune 500 companies and would never expect MS to just hand over the kitchen sink. That would be stupid and damaging to their shareholders. At the end of the day, MS needs to be a commercial comapany and act like one. However, they could allow more interoperation with their applications and OS's. These simple steps would make a world of differnece with the Free/Open software communities.

MS _could_ have an extremely loyal community just like the Free/Open source software communities. However I do not see that ever happening because of the actions of MS. If MS never changes, then MS will continue to just have a community of developers and admins who need MS since that is how those developers/admins (including me) make their living. Without change, MS will never get the passion for development/administration of their platforms that Linux, *BSD and Mac OS X has.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[kylef]

That code is crap and is always crashing on me even in WinXP SP2. It locks just about every file it touches when you use the explorer.exe file manager requiring using task manager to kill and restart it. It is the biggest headache for me using WinXP at work.

The vast majority of Explorer.exe crashes are due to 3rd party plug-ins. Next time you hit a crash, debug into it and find out. You'll see what I mean.

As for open file handles, Explorer has been known to keep handles open longer than it should, but there aren't any known leaks to my knowledge. Contrast that with the handle leaks introduced by 3rd party plug-in DLLs, which are numerous.

Re:Credit where it's due?

[shyster]

There is some reason whey the FSF does not consider this license a Free Software license or GPL compatible, and I am sure it is not just because "it is a license that MS uses". The FSF has a pretty darn good lawyer/Professor of Law & Legal History named Eben Moglen, so I don't think the "it is a license that MS uses so we won't" argument will stick.

As others have pointed out, the FSF does consider the CPL a Free Software license, though not GPL compatible. In their words:

The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.
For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

Re:Credit where it's due?

[AstroDrabb]

I don't have any third party plug-ins for explorer.exe. It just crashes on me. It is not an every hour type of thing, but usually once a week. I am never able to reproduce it manually, just random bugs that get hit from the way I use my desktop.

I have never noticed a leak from explorer, however as you pointed out, the files get locked too often and for too long. I do a lot of work moving around files and directories. I have to manually close and restart explorer at least once a day with taskmgr due to explorer locking some file or directory.

Haha!

[Anonymous Coward]

And let the "this must be some clever plot to kill open source by releasing open source products" theories begin... :-)

You know, I just thought of something... M$ (MSFT) might be migrating into the Encyclopedia market and this is their secret plan to kill Teh Wikipedia... damn you Ballmer! Damn you Gates! Damn you Leo Laporte!... wait? No. :O

Bun Fight

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the bunfight begin!

My open source is better than your open source,
My wiki is better than our wiki.

etc and so on ad infinitum.

Prophecy?

[yonatanh]

I hope this is a sign that is foretelling of the future meaning that they will start doing this with more and more of their software in the future.

Wiki open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay.

Will it run with apache?

[diginux]

Will it be able to run with Apache out of the box?

Re:Will it run with apache?

[tajmorton]

No, It uses ASP. -- Taj

Re:Will it run with apache?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know for sure, but Apache has an ASP.NET hosting module, so the chances are good that (a) yes, or (b) real soon now.

Same is true of Mono - hopefully the powers that control will let it stay/be made Mono compatible.

Re:Will it run with apache?

[cocotoni]

Short answer: No. Long answer: if you can get Apache to work with a .NET implementation (perhaps Mono?) this just might work.

Re:Will it run with apache?

[Random Web Developer]

No,

flexwiki uses asp .NET which in theory you should be able to run on apache/mod_mono on some os'es (mono won't work on all platforms apache runs on afaik) but you're bound to run into some issues like case sensitivity or the path issues (\ vs /)

check my test about another wiki here http://www.tomvergote.be/b2/archives/2004/05/01/su shiwiki-on-mono/

Re:Will it run with apache?

[AstroDrabb]

You could give it a try. I have run tons of C# ASP.Net apps under Linux/Apache thanks to Mono. I haven't tried this app yet though.

If you look down at the "20 Sep 2004" entry on the above link you will find a nice new gtk# installer for integrating gtk# gui apps into MS Visual Studio .Net 2003.

You can find more about Mono's ADO.net and ASP.Net here and here respectively.

Some one got to the site!

[1DarkZen]

I got the image but this is what it say on the get Wiki page!
There are two ways to get Welcome to Fuck Wiki Forum 2_666, in binary form for installation on your server and in source code form (so you can make changes to it and make it better!).

Uses the IBM Public License

[ashpool7]

Sheesh, RTFA and click on the SF link.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

GPL Incompatible due to patent clauses. Draw your own conclusions...

Re:Uses the IBM Public License

[gr8_phk]

The FSF has stated that the CPL (is that the one they're using?) is not GPL compatible due to patent issues. They did not express an opinion about the patent requirements of the license, just that it makes it incompatible with the GPL.

Need to see the licence

[joelethan]

So, what is the licence here?
How open is this open source?

Could someone post a precis of the Ts and Cs?

/JE

Re:Need to see the licence

[bhtooefr]

Copied (and formatted) from sf.net/projects/fwcontrib:

Project: flexwiki-contrib: Summary

Summary | Admin | Home Page | Forums | Tracker | Bugs | RFE | Lists | Tasks | Docs | News | CVS | Files |

A collection of utilities for enhancing FlexWiki. :Distributed Computing Foundry

Development Status: 4 - Beta, 5 - Production/Stable
Environment: Win32 (MS Windows)
Intended Audience: Developers, End Users/Desktop
License: IBM Public License
Natural Language: English
Operating System: Windows
Programming Language: C#
Topic: Communications, WWW/HTTP, Text Editors>

It's Win32, and C#. Mono MIGHT be able to take it, but don't bet on it...

http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensou rce/license10.html is the IBM Public License, FWIW.

Re:Need to see the licence

[bhtooefr]

Hmm... anything under the IPL is IBM "and others" ©...

crashware

[ValiantSoul]

"if you are interested in a good software, leave this page!"

To go along with typical Microsoft software, I dub this crashware!!

Get out of here n00b

[Anonymous Coward]

And go here

Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries?

[Jerky McNaughty]

From this page:

The Welcome to Fuck Wiki Forum 2_666 binaries are available by downloading release...[snip]

and

Install and configure your Welcome to Fuck Wiki Forum 2_666...[snip]

and

If you are new to Welcome to Fuck Wiki Forum 2_666 or just want your hand held...[snip]

I almost think that someone, umm, changed that page, because it doesn't make any sense to call it Fuck Wiki to me!

Stop with the negativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody-but-Microsoft releases some new open source, people rejoice and welcome the variety. Microsoft does it, the reaction is "Meh". For as questionable as some of Microsoft's programs and practices are, they'll never improve if we don't let them.

I just came back from vacation...

[starphish]

....in hell because it was way too cold. Does anyone have an explanation for this drastic drop in temperature?

Re:I just came back from vacation...

[uberchicken]

I get it, you're saying hell must have frozen over right, cos Microsoft released some open source software. Am I right?

You made that story up, for comedic effect. You haven't really been on holiday in hell. That would be, like, dumb.

Re:I just came back from vacation...

[starphish]

You got me.

Coral cache?

[IoN_PuLse]

KWiki.org seems down for me, Slashdot should really consider making all links point to the coral cache version...

Re:Coral cache?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The coral cache still hits the original page for images.

only works in IE?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Or is their Save button subject to Slashdoting? It sure looks like /. changes have been made in OneMinuteWiki ... but I can't add mine ;)

Why Not?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Does IBM Open Source everythig they do? How about Novell? Red Hat? It seems to me, that there are situations where companies can profit from making the code open, and others where it would lose more than it would gain. As time goes on, I think thats just going to become more common.

Re:Why Not?

[eviltypeguy]

Does RedHat "Open Source" everything they do? Why yes, actually. I'm not aware of any product they sell that isn't "Open Source".

Re:Why Not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point wasn't that MS isn't open sourcing everything, but rather that it is open sourcing some things on the one hand, and then denouncing and fighting against open source on the other. Big difference. Unless you find IBM denouncing open source in which case we will say MS is not alone in this. Or Novell, for that matter.

Re:Why Not?

[ironygranny]

I think the OP's problem was that Microsoft has been so vocally against open-source. IBM, at least, makes commercials with Muhammad Ali egging on the children of the corn in support of open-source. The issue is not that they should either open-source everything they do or nothing at all, rather that they should just stop talking shit about it if they're going to "participate."

Re:Why Not?

[GreyPoopon]

Does IBM Open Source everythig they do? How about Novell? Red Hat?

Umm, I think you missed the point the parent was making. The issue isn't whether Microsoft submits all of the software as Open Source. It's the fact that they are trying to litigate against Open Source while at the same time releasing some of their own projects as Open Source. I don't think you can make the same argument about IBM, Novell or Red Hat.

Re:Why Not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue isn't whether Microsoft submits all of the software as Open Source. It's the fact that they are trying to litigate against Open Source while at the same time releasing some of their own projects as Open Source.

What litigation?

Re:Why Not?

[citroidSD]

uhm, they sell technical support, that ain't open source.

Re:Why Not?

[LnxAddct]

Not only does Red Hat open source *everything* they make, but they also allow any patents that they have to be freely used by any open source project free of royalties or any kind of legal penalties or infringments. Read their patent policy here. They come right out and say how they don't like patents and they have made several attempts (and continue to do so) to fix the patent situation in the US. They are also active in this fight in Europe and on a petition. They are honest and say that the reality is however we must have a few patents for defensive purposes, but to avoid hindering innovation, if your a free software project you may use it without anything to worry about. Now I personally think that rocks, especially considering all of the work they do and innovations they put into linux everyday. Look around sometime at projects like gnome (or better yet, just go to Fedora people under blogs.redhat.com) and see all the stuff they do. Whats even cooler is that they do all this without ever trying to hog the spotlight.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Why Not?

[Ianoo]

Exactly how would you do open source tech support?

Re:Why Not?

[reanjr]

I don't know about that. I'm sure you can find examples of Microsoft saying just about anything (true of most large companies), but Microsoft usually bashes the GPL not open source.

Re:Why Not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think goatse.

Re:Why Not?

[DupyMcCopy]

hmm, they could though. If they gave free access to their support lettrature. You know that flow chart they use and stuff. Would be better cool.

Re:Why Not?

[IamTheRealMike]

Where is the source to RHN Satellite Server?

Re:Why Not?

[eviltypeguy]

At last check, they don't sell the Satellite Server software to their customers. They sell the Satellite Server *service*. Big difference.

Information about the CPL

[FunWithHeadlines]

Since this is another Microsoft project being released as open source, let's examine which license they chose. My distrust of Microsoft is such that I would prefer they pick the GPL for releasing stuff, since then there is nothing they could do to later gum up the works (what, Microsoft do something sneaky? Never!).

In this case, they chose the IBM-developed Common Public License, or CPL. What is the CPL? Here is what the Wikipedia says. Note this section:

"The CPL is a copyleft license, broadly similar to the GNU General Public License in its terms. The main addition is a patent clause designed to prevent unscrupulous contributors from contributing code which infringes on their patents, and then attempting to charge royalties; in such a situation, the CPL requires the contributor to grant a royalty-free license to all recipients. This additional requirement renders the CPL incompatible with the GPL (in the opinion of Eben Moglen)..."

Hmm..incompatible with the GPL. Let's see what Groklaw has said about the CPL. All right, call me paranoid, but with Microsoft's history, I would tread cautiously. This may be altruistic of them, and maybe they are really nice guys, and trying to be good corporate citizens. Or maybe there is another motive that will become clear in the future. Time will tell.

Re:Information about the CPL

[Elwood P Dowd]

Uh, no, I don't think so. From that discription, it sounds like a totally acceptable license. In fact, from the FSF's page:

Common Public License Version 1.0
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.

The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.

For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

This is the same issue with the latest Apache license. It's good, it's just GPL incompatible. If they ever make a new version of the GPL, it might contain identical requirements.

Re:Information about the CPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmh? But doesn't Apache Foundations's ASL 2.0 also have (similar?) patent clause? And in that isn't it generally a Good Thing (tm), except for the incompatibility it causes with (L)GPL? But GPL is not the end all Free/Open software license; one of more influential, and certainly most grand-standing of them, but not the only one.

To me CPL seems close to ASL 2.0, which is pretty decent license. It's based on bit different ideals than GPL, but they are close relatives.

If any other company on the planet chose CPL (which, after all, was NOT created by Microsoft), we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I'm beginning to despise this consistent "M$ sux0rs" group think around here...

Re:Information about the CPL

[FunWithHeadlines]

You're right, it's only because it's Microsoft doing this that there is any cause for questioning. But it is Microsoft, they do have their history, and they do have their mindset. Ignore their history at our peril. That's all I was saying is to be cautious.

Re:Information about the CPL

[FunWithHeadlines]

Yep, it's possible that the GPL will follow suite some day. And it's possible that this release will never be exploited by Microsoft some day. I don't have the answers. I was just providing information since I saw lots of "What license is being used?" questions, and I wanted to hint that caution is always warranted before accepting a gift from Microsoft.

Re:Information about the CPL

[bob_jenkins]

That's makes the CPL better than the GPL, no? If a piece of GPL software is copyright free, but unusable because of patents, that's not very Free.

Should there be clauses covering trademarks too?

Re:Information about the CPL

[mindstrm]

You know... you are just paranoid.

Seriously.. if anyone is willing to release ANY code that was previously proprietary under ANY conditions, it's a step forward.

Being GPL compatable is not a good benchmark to judge by... CPL is perfectly acceptable... in ways, it's even better than the GPL.

This is wiki code.. there is LOTS of good wiki code out there already.. it's a good, open concept. This is just YAWI (Yet Another Wiki Implementation)..

what's wrong with that?

Re:Information about the CPL

[Elwood P Dowd]

I can't tell whether your post is a farce.

And it's possible that this release will never be exploited by Microsoft some day.

No, what I'm saying is that if the FSF says "We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL." then that means they do not think Microsoft can exploit this license.

Re:Information about the CPL

[Jorell_Kovin]

Dude stfu...this is just paranoria. Damn dude

Re:Information about the CPL

[pVoid]

Rated informative! [rolls eyes]...

If my memory serves me right, Linus himself said he would have prefered to use CPL if it existed at the time Linux was born.

Re:Information about the CPL

[Zangief]

In fact, the CPL is not inherently evil (but MS is :).

The FSF uses the GPL for their projects, but they actually suggest that contributors give copyrights back to them. Well, the CPL enforces this.

Re:Information about the CPL

[HiThere]

It would be a totally accpetable (except for the GPL incompatibility...which probably doesn't matter for a Wiki) license if MS were releasing the software. But when it is, instead, being released by an employee of MS I'm much more dubious.

MS has announced that their next battle front will be based around patents. If MS were to release the software, then the patents would be released for use in descendant software. But the employee doesn't own the patents, so he can't obligate them. With the GPL, this would make it illegal to distribute the software under the GPL, or to redistribute it. With the CPL...I don't know what it means. My guess, without further analysis and bearing in mind that IANAL, is that it's "sort of" legal to redistribute it. I.e., that MS can sue any user it feels like for patent violations, and if you adapt the code for another program, that may turn out to be a patent violation.

What patents? I don't know. Remember this is the company that has been patenting totally absurd things recently, like fast vs. slow clicks determining actions.

And my question is . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Slashdot ever post an article about Microsoft's good deeds without being a whiney little bitch about it?

"Open Source"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's probably open source under the ESR definition, but I would bet my only computer that it dosen't come close to the RMS defintion of free software. And I didn't even RTFA.

Popping noise

[nizo]

I can hear popping noises as the heads of nerds explode from the "Open source good/Microsoft bad" paradox that has been created.

Re:Popping noise

[jonm]

Yes - because what the world needs is one more wiki implementation.

Defaced already

[mjfrazer]

And the kiddies rejoice with thier opportunity to deface a microsoft web site without having to hack into it first.

ASP.NET

[News for nerds]

As it's implemented in ASP.NET, you are recommended to use IIS to host it with best performance. If you are an OSS-oriented, mono + Apache may be an option. Anyway, comparing it to Perl-written Kwiki is nonsense IMHO.

Re:ASP.NET

[Anonymous Coward]

mono + apache is too dangerous to run right now ..

Especially to run Microsoft code on ... at least from patent persepctive.

Re:ASP.NET

[ajs]

Anyway, comparing it to Perl-written Kwiki is nonsense IMHO.

Not at all. And to all of the people who have said something along the lines of, "why can't we praise them for this release," questioning the quality of one piece of softwre vs. another is a tradition on Slashdot and has nothing to do with Microsoft (other than that they happen to be the author of one of those pieces of software in this case).

If this were a post about MySQL's latest release, you'd expect questions of how it stacks up to PostgreSQL. Same goes for Gnome/KDE or Evolution/Thunderbird, etc.

It's not that we're slapping MS down for doing this, it's fine if they release open source software, but we're not going to take it easy on them either.

Slashdot's approach to releases can be summed up thusly:

Nice software ... good release ... *slap* what have you done for me lately?!

Fair or unfair, it's not because it's MS.

Re:ASP.NET

[News for nerds]

I meant FlexWiki doesn't stand only by itself. You have to evaluate whole system including MVC. Hence, comparing only FlexWiki and Kwiki is nonsense, without comparing whole solution including IIS and Apache.

Needless to say, from programming point of view, those 2 in ASP.NET and Perl are meant for very different audiences I suppose.

Re:ASP.NET

[Anonymous Coward]

ah baloney!

FlexWiki and Kwiki are both WIKIs. Kwiki happens to have a lot of features I like, including being easy to set up, and being extensible. I'd be immensely curious how FlexWiki compares, feature-wise with Kwiki.

Instead, everyone here seems to either consider the question some sort of MS bashing, or discount the comparison altogether.

And here I still wonder, how does FlexWiki compare to Kwiki, as far as wikis go?

Re:ASP.NET

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a user, then nice. If you're a developer, you're baloney.

Re:ASP.NET

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up and look around, boy. There are many Wiki variations rich in feature-wise, but those in ASP.NET are rare. How your favorite Kwiki is rinch in features, it doesn't match FlexWiki in its value for those running Windows servers.

Re:ASP.NET

[ajs]

I think that's beside the point. If you want to compare wikis, compare wikis. If you're platform-bound, obviously that will enter into the comparison, but if not, then you can compare them on feature-set, and one of the features of kwiki is certainly its ever-expanding feature set via modules.

Re:Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries

[CRCates]

Because microsoft has released more "Secure" software that prevents people from tampering with your system (or in this case... their systems). Just another poster child for security being "top priority" at microsoft. It's like when Ford was promoting "Quality is Job #1" .... you emphasize a weakness as a strength and hope people don't notice.

Microsoft Released?

[enkafan]

I'm not totoally sold on Microsoft releasing this software as open source. It was written by David Ornstein, who works at Microsoft. While this tool is used internally at Microsoft, and I'm sure MS has the rights to the software too, I just don't think it's fair to David to classify this as a Microsoft Product.

BTW, David's weblog has a bunch of info on FlexWiki being posted to SourceForge.

Re:Microsoft Released?

[dreamchaser]

If he works for them, the odds are they have full rights of ownership on anything he develops while in their employ.

Re:Microsoft Released?

[SpiffyMarc]

Not fair to classify it as a "David Ornstein" product either, and not give MS any credit... MS could've never allowed it to see the light of day, but they instead allowed it to be released, as an open source project.

Give credit where credit is due, to both the man behind the development and the entity behind its' release.

Re:Microsoft Released?

[Jack William Bell]

I've met David Ornstein and my impression is that he thinks of FlexWiki as being a colloborative product. (A very wiki-ish attitude.) However I am unsure if he separates what he does on his own time from what he does for Microsoft with anything other than very fuzzy (and rather wide) line.

Note that the 'father' of the wiki, Ward Cunningham, now works for Microsoft as well. What that means for the future of wikis or integration of wiki-like features into other products at MS I have no idea. But, in the absense of any fire, there does seem to be an awful lot of wiki-smoke here.

Re:Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries

[ValiantSoul]

Don't you know, its a part of Microsoft's new security strategy. They are clearly implimenting their new security techniques in FlexWiki. Thank you MS for working so hard to bring security to our homes! NOT

We need a place...

[sczimme]

to store all these implementations - some kind of repository.

I propose we call it the Kwiki-Mart.

/thank you, come again

Re:We need a place...

[sapped]

Your sig:

e-had - a purely electronic holy war; i-had - much like an e-had, but it's portable

Would that make a jihad a Java implementation of an i-had?

Re:We need a place...

[Kristoffer Lunden]

a Java implementation of an i-had?

Which is created mentioning Java on Slashdot?

Re:We need a place...

[Riktov]

And it will be outsourced to Indians, of course.

kwiki vs mediawiki vs twiki vs....

[otis wildflower]

.... Can someone provide a nice rundown on why I should choose one wiki package over another?

License, Ease-of-use, Power, Compatibility, Language should all be in the chart.

This is getting confusing!

Re:kwiki vs mediawiki vs twiki vs....

[Jamesday]

I'm one of the Wikipedia team (looking after the database servers mostly) so I can't commment on others but MediaWiki includes these properties which make it interesting: Very widely used and understood (Wikipedia and many other places). Uses normal words, not CamelCase, for links. Supports most human languages (a broad range at Wikipedia places). Current version supports MySQL as the database, next version expected to support PostGreSQL as well. GPL license, PHP (including safe mode PHP) Extreme caching to help scalability (Squid and Memcached for that, also a file-based cache) Supports limited database load sharing in the current version, more later. Wikipedia uses a master and two slaves for normal work, a couple of slaves for backup only. Proved able to scale (so far) to a top 400 web site using 5 Squid caches, 15 web servers. Three machines were enough for top 1200 or so - equipment needs start to rise vey rapidly as you get into the top 1,000. It'll do more, we just haven't proved it in practice yet.

Re:kwiki vs mediawiki vs twiki vs....

[crywolf]

Twiki has the coolest logo/mascot.

Re:kwiki vs mediawiki vs twiki vs....

[otis wildflower]

Thanks for the reply.. I've downloaded and installed MW on my workstation, in order to see if I can hack in features I'm interested in:

* contributor 'reliability' ranking
* coloring contributions based on their author's ranking
* LDAP authentication/access control

The first two look to be especially taxing, though if I insert hidden text into submissions and trap that text in render rather than try to rejigger the system to dynamically reassemble pages from a base + diffs it could be doable...

Re:kwiki vs mediawiki vs twiki vs....

[Jamesday]

Contributor reliability ratings have traditionally been somewhat discouraged for social reasons. More of that is likely to happen and you'd certainly fulfil some people's wish-lists if you did something along those lines and merged it with head. Do discuss on the mailing list first though - no telling what soeone else is working on and might do for you.:) Trying to work out good reliability (rather tha popularity) metrics is an interesting social problem.

Colored contributions might be quite interesting. You do seem to have a viable approach, though it'll be interesting to see how well you manage to retain the info after a complicated edit. I have a feeling at least some other places will like this.

LDAP may be fairly easy - single signon support for multiple wikis is on the way (for 1.4). Nobody has coded LDAP support yet though. Likely to be appreciated by others.

Any capable devs who are interested are very welcome - it's one of the resource shortages.

Re:Zealots Ahoy!

[Anonymous Coward]

What do we want?

How about a monoplistic, criminal company actually face some kind of punishment?

(yes, they are guilty, this isnt up for debate, they went through the system and were found guilty. period.)

I thought ...

[JMZorko]

... that MS employee's were not permitted to participate in OSS projects? Does this mean that, once they release it, they're not allowed to improve it?

Regards,

John

Re:I thought ...

[CommandLineGuy]

I guess that might be true. Consider

Wix

• 22 open defects
• 2 of them actually assigned to 1 developer
• 14 of those 22 open for more than 30 days

and

WTL

• 15 open defects
• 13 assigned (pretty good, eh?) to 3 developers
• 11 of those 15 open for more than 30 days.

I wonder what the incentive is for a MS employee to work on these projects?

Re:I thought ...

[julesh]

that MS employee's were not permitted to participate in OSS projects?

Why do you think that? Have you seen a statement regarding this? I'd like to see what exactly was said, if there is one.

I would personally expect MS to have issues regarding employees contributing to _some_ OSS projects. One particular aspect: I don't suspect they would permit any employees to sign the FSF copyright assignment forms. These grant a lot of rights to the FSF, which might potentially interfere with rights to work the employee does for MS.

I know my company reviewed it when I was considering doing some work on gcj, and decided that we couldn't accept its terms.

Congrats!

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Check the wiki changelog for some cute little changes that our fellow /.ers have made.

Microsoft on Open Source

[hcob$]

Oh great, here we go... Microsoft getting on the open source bandwagon.

Since Microsoft can't beat open source software economically and financially, I guess they are gonna try and join it.

But having MSoft join open source is like when you look at someone who has tons of broken cars and they offer to "fix" yours for free......

Re:Microsoft on Open Source

[yo_tuco]

"... Oh great, here we go... Microsoft getting on the open source bandwagon...."

I think MS is looking at some long-term corporate image improvements. They are going to throw a few token apps into the Open Source world in order to improve their image with future geeks and thus reduce the bad-mounting they receive from this crowd.

Today, we view this activity with a skeptical eye and check if they have their fingers crossed behind their back. But a new generation growing up will assimilate naturally MS with Open Source activity and not view them as the show me the money company they are.

That's my (tinfoil hat) theory anyway.

Full Lyrics

[mgkimsal2]

Google cache version

Channel 9

[Anonymous Coward]

Chris Waddle! Chris Waddle!

WiX and WTL are CPL

[ashpool7]

This one is not.

When I say "draw your own conclusions," I meant "determine for yourself the reason why Microsoft used this license," not anything nefarious about Microsoft or the license.

IMHO, they did it because MS Legal told them they needed to consider the fact that Microsoft thinks software patents are really important. What "consider" entails can be varying.

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[piquadratCH]

This one is not.

If by "this" you mean FlexWiki, it is indeed licensed under the CPL, just as WiX and WTL. Or how do you explain this?

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[gbjbaanb]

Its not a conspiracy - read this /. article (the italics is what you want).

Note how it is designed to stop unscrupulous people from charging you a royalty. Something that GPL doesn't do.

Imagine I add code to Apache that contains a patent I hold. Now, I wait a few years for it to become popular, and then start suing left, right and centre).

The CPL basically says that this bad behaviour is illegal, when you release, you don't just gove away the source, you allow people to use it freely. Under the GPL, you could legitimately charge for the 'free' software.

Of course, this brings out the conspiracy comments mainly because of the religious zealotly over the GPL (oh, and against MS of course).
The problem is only that the GPL requires you to release under the GPL, regardless of the original licence. That's why it is incompatible - not for any other reason, and certainly not because the CPL is 'less free' or 'patent encumbered' or 'theyre out to get you and your little FOSS doggie too'

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[Dr. Evil]

Imagine I add code to Apache that contains a patent I hold. Now, I wait a few years for it to become popular, and then start suing left, right and centre).

You can't do that under the GPL. By attempting it, you've given up your rights to distribute the software.

The GPL's wording on this is, IMHO poor. But the subtlety of the wording is very very important, and may provide better protection than the CPL... (which I haven't read)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. . . ."

The odd part about this is that 1. if you contribute the patented code and don't implicitly grant license to use it, you violate the GPL and are guilty of copyright infringement.

More interesting, and this is where it might beat the CPL (or at least your example), is in situations where somebody notices a patent violation in a GPL'd product which they didn't write, there is absolutely no way they can profit from exploiting the patent while simultaneously allowing the software to be distributed.

This is a double-edged sword, and, IMHO a very sharp one. There's no incentive to persue patents on GPL'd products... except to stop their distribution and hold the author of the patented system guilty of violating the GPL.

Now the patent holder might persue the author punatively, but the copyright holders will probably not care.

The GPL is tricky and subtle.

IANAL of course.

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The odd part about this is that 1. if you contribute the patented code and don't implicitly grant license to use it, you violate the GPL and are guilty of copyright infringement.


You are only guilty of copyright infingement if you distribute the results yourself.

If you contribute patent encumbered code to an existing GPL project and let THEM distribute it, then the folks that are acting in good faith turn out to be guilty of copyright infringement and you are free to sue end users to your heart's content.

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[latroM]

The CPL basically says that this bad behaviour is illegal, when you release, you don't just gove away the source, you allow people to use it freely. Under the GPL, you could legitimately charge for the 'free' software.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[Dr. Evil]

You can't put the code back into the source tree without agreeing to the GPL... that's distributing your modification.

You can sue the end users, but the courts would probably frown on you not providing a warning before asking for blood, and the code would be further undistributable by anyone in the jurisdiction of the patent.

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[zurab]

You can't put the code back into the source tree without agreeing to the GPL... that's distributing your modification.

OK, IANAL, but I think that's a gray area for GPL.

For example, if you add a module to a GPLed program that the program didn't have before, that would be the code that you added and not modified - copyright by you. So, for GPL to "work" in such circumstances where, most or all of the code is added and not modified, it has to rely on contract law and not copyright law.

To make the case more complicated, you don't necessarily need to redistribute others' copyrighted code to *add* yours - you can simply contribute only your additions to a GPLed project. By doing so, and if you acknowledge that in this case the GPL has no copyright backing, you - the contributor - may avoid the [general public] license of the original program altogether. Now, the question is - what happens if such contributed code is patented? Can GPL make you implicitly license your patent? Is that legal, or does a patent license require explicit written agreement between the parties?

If an explicit written agreement is required, then you could imagine a scenario when a malicious party A, that holds a patent on function X, hires party B to inject X into a GPLed project; wait until the said project becomes popular; then A could claim patent infringement; "settle" out of court with B; and sue all distributors and users of that patent.

What do you think?

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[Dr. Evil]

The fellow who incorporated the code, "B" would be on the hook for violating the GPL... it doesn't say you have to know about the patented code(!)

This stuff treads onto the tough area of "derivative works". A lot of arguing about this occured regarding binary-only kernel modules.

What you're describing is more of a source-only kernel module (as an example) written and distributed by somebody who disagrees with the terms of the GPL... so they can still use the GPL'd software, just not distribute it... and their code is offered with a different license (e.g. BSD) to the main source tree, for some unsuspecting person to compile into the kernel.

It's really hard to argue that it is not a derivative work because the result... the compiled executable... is utterly unatainable without the original work from which it derives. The derivative code, without the original work is useless and nonsensical.

I think one would stand a better chance to create some kind of standard practical binary interface, then code your program to that standard (it wouldn't be a module anymore), and write a GPL'd module which provides that interface.

To be a real twerp, you could write and publish your spec and your non-GPL'd side before you write and publish your GPL'd side... or even depend on somebody else to write it from only the spec.

For kernel modules this is generally considered impractical, but for other stuff, like spell checkers or whatever, I think it's been done.

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[zurab]

Let me start at the middle, because that's where I think I didn't express myself clearly:

It's really hard to argue that it is not a derivative work because the result... the compiled executable... is utterly unatainable without the original work from which it derives. The derivative code, without the original work is useless and nonsensical.

What I am wondering, or having doubts about is not the binaries but whether the source of such a "derivative work" GPL claim would be backed by the copyright law or not; just like your example of source kernel modules. If a "derivative work" - like a module (as an example) - that is 100% written by its author and does not include anybody else's copyrighted/GPLed/etc. works, then what effect does the GPLed original work have on that new module source code in terms of copyright law?

Even though the module source code is defined as "derivative works" in GPL, how much protection does copyright law offer to back up the GPL restrictions? If you argue that, in a pure copyright sense, since you wrote the whole module source code and did not use anybody else's copyrighted code in it - hence, it's copyright by you, the author, then the copyright holders of the original works should not have any interest, influence or power over how you redistribute your own copyrighted source code; never mind that the module source code is useless without the original work - I don't think copyright law would differentiate whether it's "useful" on its own or not on that basis.

So, if you agree to this that what is 100% your code (even what GPL may call a "derivative" work) should be copyright by you, and by distributing it - the source code - you are not violating anybody's copyrights, then you can make a case that, in effect, the GPL restrictions on those types of works cannot be based on copyright law. They would be based purely on contract law.

Now, if that's the case, you don't need to agree to the GPL contract if you are not distributing anybody else's GPLed works. You would only be distributing 100% your own copyrighted code. So, it could potentially open up a scenario for a malicious contributor to [hire someone to] inject their patent-encumbered code.

And now in the beginning you said:

The fellow who incorporated the code, "B" would be on the hook for violating the GPL... it doesn't say you have to know about the patented code(!)

Yes, but any GPL (or patent and copyright) disputes would be between parties A and B, which could be conveniently "settled" out of court. The seemingly innocent developers and users would still be open for patent lawsuits from party A.

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The source should be fine if distributed freely, as it can fall under the "implementation study" case. Think LAME. Once you're selling an implementation you need to pay royalties, but afair patent law does not require royalties for proof-of-concept source code and the likes. (IANAL etc.)

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[Dr. Evil]

Even though the module source code is defined as "derivative works" in GPL

It's not a GPL claim (or not necessarily a GPL claim), it's part of copyright law. Of course if it weren't in copyright law, it wouldn't be binding if you didn't agree with the terms of the GPL.

You're right that it's not obvious that the module's source code would be a derivative work, but I think this is where the courts discretion has to come in.

If you think about it, what does the code mean? What is the code for? It is an important point, otherwise you could split hairs and declare your MP3 collection an abstract magnetic painting of magnetic dots... the fact that you could squeeze it through an MP3 player is free for you to do if you're into that kind of illegal activity.

The module is meaningless without the kernel. The module would never have been written without the kernel. The module would never work without compiling it into the kernel. The kernel is so vital to the design and layout of your source code that without it, the module would never have been written in its present form.

There might not be a clear logic test to determine whether or not something is a derivative work, but if left to the discretion of the courts, I'd have a hard time believing that a module would not be a derivative work.

Yes, but any GPL (or patent and copyright) disputes would be between parties A and B

No, anyone who contributed to the GPL'd code would have a claim that their code was illegally distributed. It doesn't matter if it was the patented modification or not.

Re:WiX and WTL are CPL

[Dr. Evil]

Just a thought.... your evil scheme might work if party "B" were not a person, but were instead a corporation. The history of developers holding copyright could sue it out of existance. They could use it to shield financial liability, kind of like short-lived housing developers do today.

not really open source

[mAIsE]

unless this is a compatible license it isn't worth your time, or involvement.

http://opensource.org/licenses/

nice try bill ...

Ob:M$-bash HAW HAW!

[Thud457]

What makes you think that Microsoft is above harming innovation or damaging the economy?!!!

Ever-inaccessible Kwiki implementation

[lxdbxr]

Methinks the "ever-extensible Kwiki implementation" needs a "slashdotting" extension.

To be honest I have looked over Wiki software in the past but do not think I have heard of Kwiki - what is so good about it that the submitter felt the need to mention it? I like UseMod and have made changes to it with ease (and I am by no means a hardcode Perl hacker).

Vandalism

[e.colli]

Clicking on rename it shows the message:
"Due to excessive vandalism, the rename function has been disabled. Once the vandals get bored, we'll reenable"

Re:Vandalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiki vandals are not much higher than spammers. Something to think about for the spamhating slashdot population that still loves vandalism.

Re:Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries

[PitaBred]

It's someone being petty and stupid. It's like the imbeciles who tag with graffiti, and other vandalism.
Note to vandals: Way to be mature, guys. Maybe you should get out of your parents basement and get a job, and a life.

License?

[Bob9113]

Candera's FlexWiki Contrib uses the IBM license, but the FlexWiki Core project has no license listed. I didn't know you could start a project on SF without selecting a license, I thought it was a mandatory part of the project submission form. Does anyone know what license they are using?

Re:Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries

[LiquidCoooled]

The grafiti you are seeing is part of the slashdot effect. Some of the hackers heree will swarm around a site looking for entry points. Wikis provide endless fun and amusement.

A wiki allows most pages to be edited by anyone, and you have discovered one of these abused pages.

It looks like its been cured now, but the revision notes still indicate the bad revision.

Most wikis impliment an administrator editable Locked flag to prevent such changes to special pages.

I guess it just wasn't applied here.

Re:Zealots Ahoy!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I really do hate retards like you.

You have noticed that Slashdot has a bias towards Linux & OSS. Apparently this surprises you and you need to make as many people as possible aware of your stunning insight. Perhaps it has not occurred to you that this site is supposed to be a place for supporters of Linux & OSS to discuss items of news?

If you don't like it can I make a suggestion? Hows about you fuck off to e.g flexbeta.com? Once there you can make friends with all the other 31337 WinTards and while away your days discussing the latest pirated beta of Longhorn that you've managed to download from Kazaa :

Ooh l00k at the big clock and the purty k0lors! Those Lunix fags are going to shit themselves! LOLLOLOLOLOL!

Does the title say "News for nerds, objective discussions of the latest Microsoft products"?

No? Then you are a _total_ cocksucker for assuming that that's what you'll find.

ROTFL

[someonehasmyname]

They change 'hate' to '!love' in changes to the Wiki. I tried 'abhor' and 'despise' before finding that 'detest' works.

flexwiki license not opensource compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

the flexwikilicense is not compatible with gpl, nor with other respected opensource licenses. dont bet your ass on microsoft. they own patents, and they want to hurt you with them. dont think cos they release some few lines of code, they change to the better. they release less code than an avarage computer science/related freshman college student codes in his classes in half a year. think about it. think again. quote: Flex Wiki License

Shared Source License for FlexWiki

Early versions mostly written by David Ornstein
(davidorn@microsoft.com). Special thanks to Chris Anderson for
his help getting the early version of this software running.
Thanks also to a few folks at Microsoft for making
contributions to the pre-1.0 version.

This license governs use of the accompanying software
('Software'), and your use of the Software constitutes
acceptance of this license.

You may use the Software for any commercial or noncommercial
purpose, including distributing derivative works.

In return, you agree:

1. Not to remove any copyright or other notices from the
Software.

2. That if you distribute the Software in source code form you
do so only under this license (i.e. you must include a
complete copy of this license with your distribution), and if
you distribute the Software solely in object form you only do
so under a license that complies with this license.

3. That the Software comes "as is", with no warranties. None
whatsoever. This means no express, implied or statutory
warranty, including without limitation, warranties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or any
warranty of title or non-infringement. Also, you must pass
this disclaimer on whenever you distribute the Software or
derivative works.

4. That no contributor to the Software will be liable for any
of those types of damages known as indirect, special,
consequential, or incidental related to the Software or this
license, to the maximum extent the law permits, no matter what
legal theory it&#146;s based on. Also, you must pass this
limitation of liability on whenever you distribute the
Software or derivative works.

5. That if you sue anyone over patents that you think may
apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your
license to the Software ends automatically.

6. That the patent rights, if any, granted in this license
only apply to the Software, not to any derivative works you
make.

7. That the Software is subject to U.S. export jurisdiction at
the time it is licensed to you, and it may be subject to
additional export or import laws in other places. You agree
to comply with all such laws and regulations that may apply to
the Software after delivery of the software to you.

8. That if you are an agency of the U.S. Government, (i)
Software provided pursuant to a solicitation issued on or
after December 1, 1995, is provided with the commercial
license rights set forth in this license, and (ii) Software
provided pursuant to a solicitation issued prior to December
1, 1995, is provided with "Restricted Rights" as set forth in
FAR, 48 C.F.R. 52.227-14 (June 1987) or DFAR, 48 C.F.R.
252.227-7013 (Oct 1988), as applicable.

9. That your rights under this License end automatically if
you breach it in any way.

10.That all rights not expressly granted to you in this
license are reserved.

Re:flexwiki license not opensource compatible

[CaptainSuperBoy]

I read the license, and I still don't see what's wrong with it. Can you explain?

I'm Rick James, bitch!

[akahige]

I don't see any conspicuous buttons to edit the main page, but the first entry under "Visitor Information" reads "If you... interested in a good software, leave this page!"

Welcome to the wonderful world of wiki defacement...

this is too easy!

[chegosaurus]

My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

No! It's MS so it SUXORS!

Can I have my mod points now?

Shameless plug

[arethuza]

If anyone is interested in a GPL-ed open source Wiki Engine that works with Microsoft technology then you could try looking at Perspective

drugs..

[geggibus]

..Microsoft..open source.. Duke Nukem Forever..
Mmmust q..ququit drugs, or buy a bomb shelter (and a heater for afterlife)..

-K

RTFA :)

[pavon]

Depending on where you read, it is released under either the IBM Public License or the Common Public License, which superceded the IPL and which is simular to the LGPL. It is approved by the OSI as an open source license and the FSF as a free software license. However, it is incompatible with the GPL because of some clauses about patent restriction. The FSF is not opposed to these clauses in principle - in fact they are concidering putting something simular in the next version of the GPL. But as things stand now, any IPL or CPL code cannot be combines with GPL code (unless of course, the author dual licenses the code under both).

Personally, I tend to side with the FSF when some software developer invents his own open source license which has not had the same legal scrutany of existing licenses, is incompatible with existing licnenses, causes fragmentation in potential codebases, and then accuses the FSF of being inflexible when they try to help the developer resolve these problems. I mean what is the the FSF foundation expected to do - change thier license according to the whims of every new license that comes around? It is the newcomers that are causeing incompatibility not the FSF.

But the CPL is becoming very popular among business, is a very fair Free Software license, has had the scrutiny of IBM lawyers, and does include some good ideas that are not in the GPL. So I really hope that the FSF makes it a top priority to work on the new version of the GPL which solves the patent-based conflicts with the CPL and other licenses.

Outlook not good ?

[jimbro2k]

of course it isn't. You should use Thunderbird. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Outlook not good ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do some people feel the need to explain jokes? I think we all understood the punchline to the very old 8-ball Outlook joke.

Re:Outlook not good ?

[Ohreally_factor]

How is fortified wine going to help?

Hats off to David Ornstein

[Shimmer]

David is the primary author of FlexWiki. See his blog here.

What's wrong with a gift horse?

[St. Arbirix]

Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

Talk about looking gift horses in the mouth. That's like seeing Houdini get out of a lock box hanging from a crane and asking "Yeah, but can he levitate?"

The point is Microsoft put something out that's open source. If it were 30 shades of awesome they'd be selling it instead. For now it's just there for the community to improve upon and keep.

Re:What's wrong with a gift horse?

[happyfrogcow]

what's wrong with looking a gift horse in the mouth? If the horse is going to be more trouble than it's worth, then I don't want your damn horse...

besides, over here we're already working on a horse that doesn't have the possibility to have mouth problems. We'll keep working on that.

Re:What's wrong with a gift horse?

[HiThere]

The problem is, this code doesn't come from MS, it comes from an MS employee. What rights does he have? We can be pretty sure that he doesn't have the right to entail patents.

You can't trust the license. If it came from MS you could, but they appear to be carefully NOT putting their name on the agreements. This guy could quite probably use the "patented MS software techniques" without danger, since he was an employee. He might well not even know what was patented. But he can't commit his employer. Not when acting as an individual.

I consider it fortunate that this is another package that can only be used on MSWind. And I'm definitely *NOT* going to study that code. (I can't use the package anyway, since it's tied to MSWind.)

MS worked hard to earn it's bad reputation. It will need to work twice as hard to reform it.

Re:What's wrong with a gift horse?

[cthrall]

> The problem is, this code doesn't come from MS, it
> comes from an MS employee. What rights does he
> have? We can be pretty sure that he doesn't have
> the right to entail patents.

I was starting to think it's safe to read/use this code, since it appears to be covered by the GPL.

Then I looked in cpl.txt and found this:

----------------

Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the licenses to its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances are provided by any Contributor that the Program does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity.

----------------

So...you're telling me I can go ahead and use this thing, but at any point in time the entity who really owns the IP can come after me for patent infringement?

Now, I think I'm being paranoid in this case. But that's more than a little frightening.

Re:What's wrong with a gift horse?

[Richard_at_work]

Why? Its a standard disclaimer: "We cant be 100% absolutely totally sure that this code doesnt infringe on someones submarine patent". It doesnt say they can come after you, all it says is the code isnt guarenteed to be patent uninfringing. If Im not mistaken, this is EXACTLY the same stance the GPL takes on patents.

Re:What's wrong with a gift horse?

[HiThere]

The stance of the GPL is that if you know that the code is covered by patents, then you don't have the right to license it under the GPL. A slight, but significant, difference.

Re:What's wrong with a gift horse?

[Richard_at_work]

No, not a difference at all. Infact, both licenses take pretty much the same view.

From the GPL:
To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

The CPL basically takes the same stance as the GPL, except it explicitly points out that, although the code is currently released, it may not be distributable in the future due to unforseen patent issues from third parties. If this wasnt the case, then absolutely no OpenSource software would be seen in the wild, as it would require a complete and thorough patent search for every release.

Re:What's wrong with a gift horse?

[HiThere]

The difference is, if you know someone isn't going to prosecute you for abuse of their patent, it is safe to distribute the code under the CPL, whereas the GPL explicitly forbids this. (I think.)

Now as to who would trust someone else to not prosecute them for abusing a patent ... all I can say is that many times people do strange things.

not good software ?

[MohammedSameer]

On the site:
If you...
interested in a good software, leave this page!

Isn't this strange ? Or am I not getting it ?!

Re:not good software ?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

It's an open wiki design, some smarty pants saw that anybody could add changes and put in some of his own.

FlexWiki was open source long before this.

[Talonius]

I've got copies download of the source code that were hosted on GotDotNet.

This might be Microsoft's implementation of FlexWiki (FlexWiki is a BSD license type, if I remember correctly) but FlexWiki has been available for a while.

Re:Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries

[bongoras]

Please learn what the FUCK you are talking about before talking. A Wiki is, BY DEFINITION, a user-editable web page. ANYONE can change it. If you think that's lame, well, you've got a lot of company, but don't bash Microsoft for it. All wikis work that way.

It's a marketing problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's problem is essentially little more than a marketing/branding problem. The "problem" is that in many PHB's minds, OSS == Linux/Apache/whatever. Microsoft wants to catch the very tangible benefits of OSS without inadvertantly endorsing Linux/Apache/whatever. Thats why they are choosing the CPL; for the simple reason that it isn't the GPL.

The bottom line is that, at some level, certain OSS is good for Microsoft. WiX being open is good for Microsoft. So are ASP.NET hosted Wikis. They need to find a way to capitalize on that.

Microsoft's FUD against the GPL is an attempt to shift Linux's "category" from being "Open Source Software" to "GPLed software". The fact that many biz people are confused about the GPL makes it a more convenient target. Once that association is in people's heads, Microsoft can employ OSS to their benefit, with stuff like this, WiX, and so on.

It is very unlikely that Microsoft will ever be an OSS company in the same way that Red Hat or even IBM is, but they might be one in the manner that, say Apple, is. Apple's involvement in OSS is little more than the Darwin kernel and a collection of associated goodies, really not that much if you think about it. While this is certainly more than Microsoft right now, it might not always be that way.

Re:It's a marketing problem

[DeVilla]

Thats why they are choosing the CPL; for the simple reason that it isn't the GPL.

Not that I don't think that MS would rather BSD code before releasing it under GPL, but (assuming this is the CPL that IBM put out) I think CPL is basicly GPL + viral Patent language. Companies like tying up that loose end in the GPL. It is not GPL compatible, but I think I heard that GPL3 actually wants to be compatible with this sort of thing.

In any case, I don't think it's any less viral (or evil in MS terms) than GPL. You can check out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLI ncompatibleLicenses to see what RMS^H^H^Hthe FSF says about it.

This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.

The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.

For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

Re:It's a marketing problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it isn't as viral, but from Microsoft's perspective, the critical distinction is not how viral it is, but whom it is associated with. The GPL is the license that Linux is under, and that is why they are targeting it. The CPL may be just as viral, but at least it doesn't have that dreadded "G".

Microsoft's FUD guns are targetted at the GPL because:
1. The bulk of the hostile software (Linux etc) is under the GPL
2. The viral aspects, as well as the business-hostile appearence of the FSF make it a convenient target.

Believe it or not, but I know many smart biz people that get confused by the GPL. However, since the CPL has the backing of a corporation (IBM) and therefore the same people say "Well, I guess if IBM's lawyers do not have a problem with it, it can't all be bad"

Things might change if a large body of "anti-Microsoft" software appears under the CPL, but for now that does not appear to be the case.

Re:It's a marketing problem

[argent]

Apple's involvement in OSS is little more than the Darwin kernel and a collection of associated goodies

I'd say that making the kernel of their premier product open-source when they didn't have to (the BSD license allows companies to use BSD code without open-sourcing the resulting product: consider the Windows NT TCP/IP code and the Interix userland, afor example) is a but more than "really not that much".

But, if you insist:

* Apple's native compiler is GCC.
* Apple's browser is based on an open-source core.
* Apple's directory services are open source.
* They've open-sourced their streaming server.
* Darwin is more than just BSD and Mach, it includes IOkit and lots of drivers. Have a look at the open source code in Mac OS X 10.3.5 here:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10. 3. 5/

This would be like Microsoft open-sourcing the NT kernel, the MS HTML control (which is almost all of IE), their compilers (even if not the IDE), Active Directory, huge chunks of Win32, IIS, and Windows Media Server.

[Microsoft] might be one in the manner that, say Apple, is.

That'd be great, if it happened, I'm not holding my breath.

Re:It's a marketing problem

[IamTheRealMike]

I'd say that making the kernel of their premier product open-source when they didn't have to ...

They got no benefit from keeping it closed. It wasn't theirs to begin with anyway, so by making it open source they might get some free bugfixes from people but they don't have a great deal of investment in Darwin and by itself, it's useless for actually running Mac apps. So they don't lose anything, only gain. They still control the Mac platform.

* Apple's native compiler is GCC.

So what? The same is true of many vendors of proprietary embedded systems. GCC is used all over the place. Now, they have contributed back improvements to GCC. This is, to be frank, probably their most useful open source contribution.

* Apple's browser is based on an open-source core.

Because writing their own rendering engine made no sense. Note that Safari itself isn't open source, because they didn't have to do that and it would not have gained them anything (they wanted to sell it as an upgrade incentive).

* Apple's directory services are open source.

Only useful if you're an Apple customer

* They've open-sourced their streaming server.

But not their client, which is what everybody actually wanted - cue reverse engineering of codecs and QuickTime for Windows being used on Linux.

* Darwin is more than just BSD and Mach, it includes IOkit and lots of drivers. Have a look at the open source code in Mac OS X 10.3.5 here:

Drivers for Apples hardware, mostly. But yes, the drivers can be useful.

This would be like Microsoft open-sourcing the NT kernel, the MS HTML control (which is almost all of IE), their compilers (even if not the IDE), Active Directory, huge chunks of Win32, IIS, and Windows Media Server.

No it wouldn't. For starters, Microsoft actually developed the NT kernel, Trident (MSHTML), Win32, IIS and so on themselves. Apple did not develop their own kernel, rendering engine, or web server. They weren't theirs to open source.

Win32 is a bogus point, the Mac APIs aren't open either (duh) - how many Mac apps only use POSIX? Virtually none, right? How many use Cocoa or Carbon, which are vast proprietary APIs? Lots, right? When Apple bought shake and killed the Linux port, did people simply compile the MacOS X libraries for Linux and carry on? I think not.

Re:It's a marketing problem

[argent]

point... point... point... after... irrelevant... point...

Yes, Apple's obviously not Red Hat or Suse. On the other hand, it's not Red Hat or Suse the OP was comparing them to, but Microsoft. They were suggesting that Microsoft could or would end up with a similar open-source environment to the one Apple has.

And that's simply impossible. If Microsoft open-sourced equally critical parts of their software, whether or not they developed them, what would their business look like? And even where they *did* start with open source code (NCSA Mosaic in IE, all the BSD code in NT and Interix, etcetera) they didn't keep any of it open.

Bottom line and back to the point: Microsoft can't afford to open-source anything like the quantity and kind of software as Apple has even if they wanted to, and they haven't wanted to open-source their code even where they could.

Re:It's a marketing problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, there is a bit of stuff that Apple uses. Obviously it is very unlikely that Microsoft would switch over to GCC and open source MSHTML and that stuff, but the specific examples are not as interesting as the quantity.

What about five years from now? Who really knows what the next five years will bring. It is possible that Microsoft might be using a similar amount of open source. Probably not the same stuff as Apple, but maybe an equivalent quantity.

segmantation fault: core dumped

[Anonymous Coward]

it can be.

Uhh

[mindstrm]

All this talk of licenses adn whether MS is evil or not...

Does anyone have a single comment about how this product stacks up to the other popular wiki suites out there?

(moin, twiki, etc)

What Wiki engine suitable as PIM?

[guidryp]

We use Twiki at work.

I like it fine, but I was wondering if someone could suggest a really lightweight Wiki to use as PIM (Personal info Manager) on my Windows PC.

I really like the ease of updating and changing the info flow of wiki (well Twiki so far), and would like a PIM that worked like this. Don't care about collaboration features, this is for personal use.

Re:What Wiki engine suitable as PIM?

[sitary]

Check out http://www.tiddlywiki.com/.

Awesomely simple and fast.

Re:What Wiki engine suitable as PIM?

[aCC]

Have a look at this list:

Easiest Installable Wiki Contest

Excellent resource to find easy to install Wikis.

Pointless question

[zangdesign]

My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

How about you do some research and tell us what your decision was instead of asking us to do your work for you? /assholiness

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO CEO Darl McBride says that if the court action against Linux users doesn't work, SCO will open source UNIX. "If we can't beat them the legal way, let's beat them on their home turf!" mr McBride explained.

I think you missed my point

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Thats probely my fault. What I was trying to get across is that Microsoft does not believe that all open source is wrong Like many other compaines. It does believe that the GPL is a bad license.

Microsoft bringing in the neutrals?

[jedimark]

Well, it appears they have found the task of destroying OSS a little more challenging than anticipated.

While it would be nice to believe MS will turn away from the path of Evil and Destruction, the dark forces of corporate greed have seeped into every crevice of that empire.

The could use these kind of events to rally the border dwellers to their side, bringing in to play a seemingly neutral force in the OS vs CorporateNaziPig wars, one that cannot as easily be told apart from FOSS by newcomers, but still is under the control of the evil empire.

How will the next generation of computer nerds be able to make the right choices? How will they understand the true meaning of the word freedom, when there is a (facist) replica that seems to be in "balance"? Is this just another attempt to have FOSS brought under the reigns of Bastard Patents Laws?

Have I cracked and turned into another one of those conspiracy theorist nuts?

All I know is my gut says maybe...

Better or not

[Torulf]

My question is: Is FlexWiki as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?"

Well, at least they are more resistant to slashdotting...

phpwiki

[djcatnip]

My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

Don't forget platform agnostic phpwiki... which is also open source.

Good discussion on open source at Microsoft @

[Skim123]

http://blogs.msdn.com/robmen/archive/2004/09/26/23 4591.aspx - an entry from the MS employee who released one of those MS open-source projects (WiX).

More commentary...

Another Wiki Implementation worth looking at...

[bteeter]

I've actively used TWiki (http://www.twiki.org/) for a while now and its pretty slick. Its a Perl Implementation and it has a built in versioning system, so it saves all of the revisions of the TWiki docs.

I definitely recommend it for anyone looking at running a Wiki. :-)

Take care,

Brian
--
Linux Web Hosting

Microsoft Open sources something?

[Goeland86]

wait... lemme read this again... Microsoft is going to OpenSource something? I thought putting the two words in one sentence without opposition was an oxymoron??? The world changes I guess...

Re:Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries

[freshtonic]

I just went to the site and it appears that *anyone* can change it. I just clicked 'edit' and it allowed me to make changes! But I am a nice person, so I undid my changes ;-)

Actually MS is NOT anti-open source

[WebCowboy]

It's more complicated than that.

I've talked with a few Microsoft partners and developers, including published authors who are authorities in their subjects. These people eat, sleep and breathe Microsoft--the technology, the strategy and philosophy. You might say that they are well indoctrinated in other words. I can tell you that not a single one of them were opposed to the concept of open source. In fact some really like what certain open source projects have to offer and use it themselves. I'm told this is typical throughout Microsoft.

The REAL issue is the TYPE of open license. Microsoft is terrified of the GPL and I'm not convinced that they understand it at all. They have come to truly believe their own FUD. They cannot comprehend how Linux came to be where it is today by forcing all who "embrace and extend" it to disclose their contributions. They believe the GPL is far more onerous than it really is. For example I was discussing it with a developer and she wouildn't go near GPL projects. She was afraid that anything she compiled and ran under Mono would have to be made GPL because the compiler is GPL. She thought that you could be at risk of being compelled to disclose the source to all the firmware in peripherals you created, and maybe even the schematics, if you wrote a driver for or otherwise made it work with Linux.

I explained that only the compiler was GPL and that the runtimes were actually *L*GPL which permits proprietary programs to run on the platform. She still thought using the GPL was legally treading on thin ice and preferred BSD licensing as it offered "true freedom" for developers as it was not as restrictive.

This fits right in with the Microsoft philosophy. The whole company was built on the borrowing of ideas. Microsoft essentially stole DOS from SCP (which created DOS as rip off of CP/M for hobbyists). Microsoft stole the GUI idea from Apple (who had lifted it from Xerox). Microsoft "stole" IE from Spyglass when it needed a browser to play catch-up. It even stole networking code from BSD and the underlying architecture of VMS for Windows NT. To Microsoft, open source is useless if it can't be lifted and incorporated into a proprietary system for profit. How it can be used for direct profit is what defines its value.

Microsoft is also very cautious about what it contributes as open code and what open projects it participates in--it has to not only be non-GPL. MS open source must not interfere with their revenue streams. For example, regardless of the license, Microsoft wouldn't contribute to Apache because it conflicts with IIS. PostgreSQL is under a MS-friendly license but it competes with MS SQL Server--as such they wouldn't contribute to PostgreSQL, although they might be inclined to steal code from it to put into MSSQL should they find it serves their needs (maybe they should, seeing as PostgreSQL is a superior product to MSSQL).

I think Microsoft's strategy in spearheading some open source products is to try to establish a new business model. Their profit centres are dwindling--only the OS and Office divisions make a great deal of money--and they need a less expensive development model. They are testing the waters with products outside those divisions. The model is to create a vibrant, popular project in open souce land out of languishing or overlooked proprietary code--the way Netscape spawned the Mozilla project. With the "right" licensing and ownership of the copyrights MS can easily embrace and extend it to release it as a proprietary product (or component thereof), keeping the extensions secret.

This way, Microsoft only has to maintain "extensions" instead of entire systems. Millions of developers can become familiar with the internals, promoting both internal and third-party development. Most importantly, Microsoft maintains their slight edge because it knows the secret extensions and can create superior products to compete with successful third-party software--in effect letting others create MS Bob

Re:Actually MS is NOT anti-open source

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth pointing out that Microsoft's fear of the GPL in particular isn't entirely ideological.

The GPL contains provisions that require the person releasing to the source to grant unlimited patent rights at the same time. Although this makes lots of sense from any users perspective, it's risky for a company that values its IP since it basically precludes patenting any of the things in the released software.

Re:Actually MS is NOT anti-open source

[omicronish]

Most excellent post. I've talked to some MS employees and they don't seem to have anything against the concept of open source itself. I feel that the fear of the GPL is purely because of legalities, and probably a bit of misunderstanding as well. It would be terrible from MS's standpoint if some GPL'ed code accidentally made its way into Windows, which results in the open-sourcing of some component they don't want open. And yes, I am confident they do not steal GPL code; it's made very clear internally that such code (and I think other outside code) is unacceptable in Microsoft products because of possible legal issues. Note that I do not mention something like "because GPL sucks ass!" To reiterate, my impression is that it's purely legal with a bit of misunderstanding.

About your example, a similar thing has happened with .NET. The .NET Framework SDK and compilers are freely available, but the Visual Studio.NET IDE is not. Although the VC++ compiler wasn't free in the past, the SDKs for Windows development have been free for as long as I can remember. Actually, I don't know if this is related to what you've said anymore, but it's an interesting example of how Microsoft places closed, $$ functionality on top of a layer of closed but free functionality.

Re:Actually MS is NOT anti-open source

[GauteL]

"Microsoft stole the GUI idea from Apple (who had lifted it from Xerox)"

If you mean "lifted" as in stole, you are entirely incorrect. Apple hired Xerox PARC employees, and visited Xerox PARC while paying Xerox quite a bit of money for the privilege.

Xerox PARC thoroughly agreed to this, because they were a research center, and did not want to develop any commercial products themselves. And everything was certainly not invented by Xerox Parc. Apple did quite a bit themselves.

Re:Actually MS is NOT anti-open source

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

It would be terrible from MS's standpoint if some GPL'ed code accidentally made its way into Windows, which results in the open-sourcing of some component they don't want open.

Putting GPL'd code in non-GPL'd software does not result in that software being automagically GPL'd. It is just a simple case of copyright infringement.

While GPLing the software in question would bring the infringer into compliance, the more likely outcome is that they pay a settlement to the copyright holder and agree remove the infringing code in a reasonably quick fashion. Even if the case goes to court, there is no way to compel the infringer to GPL their code, only to remove the infringing code.

This is a common misconception, and it may be one that certain people at Microsoft are laboring under, but it is simply untrue.

Way to go

[flimflam]

Now you know what a Wiki is.

Re:Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries

[Chyeld]

Please take the time to learn about the topic you are discussing prior to flaming someone else over it.

There are plenty of wiki's out there that are locked down unless you have a username or a password, enabling you access. If you are a mega-corp with a veritable army of software engineers under you, and a rep bad enough to make you a target for every wannabe hacker out there, you'd think someone working on the project would have thought to lock down their front page. At the very least.

Re: DokuWiki that is

[Anonymous Coward]

Try it - http://www.splitbrain.org/dokuwiki/wiki:dokuwiki

The Immature Script Kiddies Show Up

[elijahao]

The foolishness of people never ceases to amaze me.

The news hits that Microsoft is involved with contributing a piece of software to the community at large, and immediately it's website is completely defaced and vulgarized. If I was Microsoft or Pro-Microsoft I'd be using that as major FUD against corporations thinking about using Open Source anything.

So many losers in the world with nothing to do but smoke, drink, jerk off, and cuss at Microsoft.

Idiots.

Re:The Immature Script Kiddies Show Up

[VocabularyNazi]

i hardly think that F/OSS people would get the full blame for such acts. there are just as many immature asshats using Windows, OS X, and whatnot as there are asshats using F/OSS. When you use a freely editable system such as a wiki or a blog, then the asshats will show up to make themselves known. as well, the activities of smoking, drinking, and jacking off are not the sole domain of losers.

Hmm...

[Benanov]

It is a Microsoft product, from a certain perspective: (From David's weblog)

As part of this change with FlexWiki, contributors to the project will assign ownership of their contribution to Microsoft and then, as part of the same agreement, we give it all back to them. This is pretty common practice for a bunch of important open source efforts (like the Free Software Foundation which does the same thing). The advantage here is that the project gets a single, clear copyright owner, etc. This is an example of the kind of "better legal environment" that I hope will make companies (even) more comfortable using and extending FlexWiki.

The argument is that it's similar to what the FSF does. However the FSF does it to defend against patent claims and copyright infringement. What's Microsoft's motivation? Free code, I bet. The suits are going to be all over that one... "That's a great idea! They give it to us here at Microsoft...and then...we give it back to them?!?!"

Preemptive correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I know that Apache is not GPL, but since this is about PHB mindshare, that detail is not incredibly important. My point still stands.

Use a shill

[gr8_phk]

"Note how it is designed to stop unscrupulous people from charging you a royalty. Something that GPL doesn't do."

So the unscrupulous company gets a patent and then tells developer X (who does not work for them) to put it into the code without telling that it's patented.

It was a nice try by IBM, but it doesn't solve the real problem which is the patent system. They've also created yet another "open source" license. I'm still waiting to hear if it's really GPL + an attempt to handle the patent issue. If it's not as solid as GPL in any other way, I'd prefer it not exist. IANAL so someone please educate me :-)

This Helps Microsoft Make Money, Period

[nysus]

Microsoft's primary motivation is making as much money as possible. They understand they will never make a dime selling content managment software. That market has been locked up by tons of other open source offerings. Since they have nothing to lose, they are releasing their own CMS software to promote ASP and Windows servers. You can be sure that the lead developer in charge of this software will make sure that this CMS will require all sorts of feature inherent to the .NET platform that aren't found on Linux OS's.

Re:This Helps Microsoft Make Money, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid a company being out to make money! Its frigging armageddon!

Re:This Helps Microsoft Make Money, Period

[AndrewRUK]

And your point is?

RedHat's aim is to make money, IBM's aim is to make money, VA software's (owners of OSDN, i.e. slashdot, sourceforge, freshmeat, ...) aim is to make money, and so on. They are all for-profit companies, and it is in the essence of a for-profit company that it is trying to, well, make a profit. Your criticism that MS are only realeasing this because they think it will make them money could equally be leveled at any other company that releases open-source software.

Re:This Helps Microsoft Make Money, Period

[nysus]

My criticism? What criticism? The only criticism in my post is the criticism you read into it. I was simply reminding folks that it is the profit motive that has driven Microsoft to release their software as open source.

But it certainly can be legitimately argued that the profit motive can, in the long run, do more harm than good. For example, when one company is so eager to make a profit that they strangle the competition, that's not good. Microsoft has done it in the past and their economic imperative to make money makes it likely they will continue to push the envelope of anti-trust regulation. I'm not criticizing here, either, I'm just stating reality.

Credit? Please!

[Spoing]

1. You know, Microsoft has done an incredible number of crappy things, and they deserve most of the flak they get, but I don't understand why we can't just once acknowledge them for taking a positive step without making some cheap jab like this.

I don't think it's a cheap jab. Other articles about non-Microsoft projects/products offer comparisons to other non-Microsoft projects/products. (Example: Anything about the latest MP3 players.)

That said, Microsoft is fundimentially untrustworthy. The list of sneaky tricks they've pulled over the years does not make me want to jump at what they offer without looking very closely for yet another trap. (I have first hand experience as an OEM rep with Microsoft and OEM purchases.)

As for source code, unless they follow thier own advice and put the code under a BSD licence, why would I want to look at it?

1. "Microsoft released something as open source -- but let's all assume that a non-MS alternative is better even though we haven't made an actual comparison!" How immature can you get?

Better or not has little to do with it. That said, there are quite a few open Wikis and CMS programs out there already -- and similar programs you might be familiar with already.

What makes Microsoft's offering worth examining at all? There are so many others that have been out for years and cover just about every spot from small/light/easy through to complex/flexible/corporate. Does Microsoft offer support for the new open source Wiki like other companies do, or are they looking for someone else to do the enhancements and fix the bugs?

Maybe we already have a horse

[A nonymous Coward]

Maybe someone actually wants to know how the new horse and old horse compare.

Maybe the knee jerk reaction is yours. Maybe your base assumption is that any question concerning Microsoft is a negative question. Maybe you are just paranoiad and can't recognize an honest question when you see it.

Answer

[Cereal Box]

My question is: Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

Well, seeing as how this is Slashdot, it's obvious that anything released by Microsoft could in no way be as good as or even better than an Open Source project. Duh.

Comparison is a good thing

[j1m 5n0w]

Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?

Talk about looking gift horses in the mouth.

It's a reasonable question. Being open source puts it on a level playing field with all the other wikis out there, so why not compare them on a per-feature basis? I certainly wouldn't use it if I didn't have some compelling reason to prefer flexwiki over other wikis I like and am already familiar with (I'm using mediawiki right now).

-jim

Re:OT - your sig

[glesga_kiss]

John Kerry's changing positions on Iraq in his own words [kerryoniraq.com].

Yeah, 'cos politicians who stick to their guns out of principle, even when they are wrong, are the SHIZNIT!!

I've never gotten the whole "flip-flop" thing. Politicians reflect the desires of the people, in an ideal world. If the desires of the people change, well, it's pretty obvious that those in charge should change as well.

Kwiki / Mediawiki

[slavemowgli]

I think the real question is not how it compares to Kwiki but to Mediawiki, which I think is arguably the most advanced wiki software out there.

Still workin' on those style sheets, eh?

[Asprin]

Does anyone else find the site design rather.... pedestrian? I mean, it actually says "Home Page" at the top in big blue letters, for cryin' out loud! I'm not saying there's any intent, there, but it's conspicuous; almost like it was thrown together to look *intentionally* unprofessional, or at least uncommercial.

Did anyone else pick up on that or think anything of it or am I just hallucinating again?

That explains the visitor information that says..

[dremspider]

"if you.... interested in a good software, leave this page!" Its from Microsoft what should I have expected

How is this redundant?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see any comments like it. did i miss something?

one of the mowt easy wiki-engines:

[N3wsByt3]

Is just called 'wikiserver' and you can find it on http://www.wikiserver.org

It has all the basic needs without the bells and whistles nobody uses, but, for most the wikiserver is very, very easy to use and to maintain. Contrary to almost all wiki's you don't have to know anything about webservers, php or other programlanguages, nay, not even detailed knowledge of a wiki is required. It just installs and works out of the bow, everything is straightforward, and I would say this wikiserver is what Ford was to the automobile-industry: it brings it into the grasp of everyone interested.

The latest version of Rian, wxwikiserver has all what it takes, unless your requirements are ultra-high, and it's coppled with an astonishing ease-of-use - and for once, this is no exageration. I have tried several others, but this one is truelly the most easy one to install and run.

ROFL at the responses to my post!

[FunWithHeadlines]

Boy has /. been overrun by astroturfers or what? I'm called paranoid by saying you should tread cautiously when dealing with Microsoft? I admited I didn't know their motives, but I said to exercise caution given their history and their anti-OS statements in the past. And for that I got cursed at, modded down, called paranoid, and told to shut up. Remarkable. This used to be a place where if you refered to Microsoft's past people knew what you were talking about. But now they throw you a CPL bone and suddenly we're supposed to say, "Thank you, sir, may I please have another?"

Go ahead, think whatever way you wanted. I saw a bunch of posts wondering what license was being used. Since I read the article I knew the answer. So I posted the answer, gave some links that provided background, and then offered some words of caution. For that I was slammed. Boy, astroturfing campaigns work. They succeeded on /. to the extent that we are supposed say nice things when the gangster throws a fireworks party for the neighborhood. Enjoy the free hot dogs and soda, but try not to sign any contracts, k?

Re:ROFL at the responses to my post!

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. What ever happened to taking a cheap shot at MSFT for some quick points. Stay together hivemind!

What about a wysiwyg wiki

[Anonymous Coward]

Like StikiWiki? Visual, easy to use wysiwyg - way better than FunnyFormatting and * ** markup.

Re:Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries

[CRCates]

Thanks for the support... It's appreciated. As a longtime user of various Wiki engines, I figured it was a no-brainer to have the administrator secure the core topics/pages to prevent people from completely screwing up the site (oh... wait, that's what happened...) As I write this, dozens of Wikis remain secured and safe from malfeasant Slashdot readers.

OpenWiki /OpenWikiNG piss bowls FlexWiki

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an underpowered aspx Wiki. See OpenWikiNG, a branch of OpenWiki for a stunning ASP version with: - WYSIWYG editor
- XML output etc etc SourceForge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openwiki-ng/ Discussion group: http://s8.invisionfree.com/OpenWikiNG/index.php?

Re:OT - your sig

[glesga_kiss]

He embodies the corrupt politician, doing and saying whatever it takes to get elected, with no real desire to serve the peoples' interests.

Sounds like just about every one of them nowadays... :-(

For Emacs

[themoodykid]

EmacsWikiMode is essential.

http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EmacsWikiM od e

Someone's been having fun

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.flexwiki.com/default.aspx/FlexWiki.Visi torWelcome

Re:OT - your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

He embodies the corrupt politician, doing and saying whatever it takes to get elected, with no real desire to serve the peoples' interests.

That sounds like a perfect description of George W. Bush.

Re:Zealots Ahoy!

[TyrranzzX]

Now, the *really* funny part here, is that I actually really hate microsoft, and now I'm getting flamed for pointing that we're cogs in a side of the magic movie theatre from 1984 where we're shown a movie of the resistance members and we are to gnarl and gnash at them.

The funny part is that you are one of my flying linux zealot monkies! Huzzah!

Re:Conversely... Yeah, and Spock wasn't a Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

had the equivalent in knowledge, etc., but never was a doctor. Thanks for catching the Yoda-thing, too.

What about Swiki?

[brandonY]

The Squeak wiki is also an excellent open source wiki implementaion that should be mentioned.

Re:Zealots Ahoy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, the *really* funny part here, is that I actually really hate microsoft, and now I'm getting flamed....

No. You're getting flamed because you expect Slashdot to be a forum for objective discussions regarding Microsoft. You have obviously realised that it isn't and seem somewhat surprised and shocked by this state of affairs (hence my suggestion that you are somewhat retarded). Apparently you would like to change things. Unfortunately, being a whiney little prick and insulting a community to which you have contributed precisely jack is not going to win you many plaudits.

I suggest that you go and hangout at OSNews. I'm certain that you will quickly make many new friends there who will appreciate your witty insights and razor wit. Or possibly just drool and stare a lot.

Re:OT - your sig

[sbaptista]

> Politicians reflect the desires of the people. I don't know about other folks, but I expect politicians to vote based on what they believe makes sense given the issues. We (well, I) vote them into office not because I assume or even demand that they will do everything I want, but because what they say they will do seems to most closely match what I want given the available candidates. Of course, they also get voted out of office if they vary sufficiently, but that's their problem;-) IMHO, Kerry's positioning on Iraq and other issues are based to a a large degree on getting elected, not on any particular desire to bend to the desires of the people.

Ritualizing Open Source

[Kazoo the Clown]

What's with all the open-sourcing of Microsoft stuff lately?

Open source software in general, are solutions to specific problems that a lot of people have in common.

Microsoft has several problems that open source is potentially a solution to. However, most of these problems are specific to Microsoft and are not problems that others have in common. For example:

- A need to counter the erosion of their developer community.

- A need (or perhaps, desire) to undermine the GPL.

- A need to counteract some of the bad press and loss of respect they've been getting in increasing amounts.

So, apparently Microsoft has figured that an involvement with Open Source is a solution to these problems. It aids the developer community and may make them feel better about Microsoft, it may help to foster a larger pool of Open Source but GPL-incompatible code that developers may choose over GPL'ed code, and undermines some of the "Microsoft is anti-open source" press they've been getting.

Problem is, they are choosing a solution to a problems that are unique to them, but solutions that are for the rest of us, supposed to solve common problems.

Consequently, the problem Microsoft hasn't solved with their foray into Open Source, is conflict of interest. This is pretty clear evidence that they still just don't get it, they really don't understand the general class of problems open source and in particular GPL'ed source is designed to solve-- and perhaps they just can't understand it as it is simply too alien to their "we must protect our market with lock-in, because we know we're not capable of doing it with quality" mode of thinking.

What Microsoft should be concerned about, IMHO, is why, even if they released all the source code to Windows as GPL'ed "free" software, millions would still be choosing Linux over it. THAT is the problem they need to solve, but in order to solve such a problem, one first has to recognize it, and meddling in open source for no apparent reason is inconsistent with that. Just like the way they seem to figure that if you mantra the term innovation long enough you might eventually either figure out what it is or convince people you have it anyway-- they now seem to want to mantra Open Source enough in the hopes some of its positive effects will rub off. But such mantras are just rituals-- embracing the means and abandoning the ends.

I suppose it's just as well, as by now even if they do recognize what their real problem is what's needed to solve it is a long, complex and very difficult problem at this point. They need a new OS that's clean, secure, reliable, efficient and modern that people will really want to use-- but such a project really does take a good decade-- Linux certainly has, it's about 15 years old now. So, they go the old route that all dinosaur companies do and try to salvage efforts they've already invested-- and consequently throw all the criteria they really need in a new OS right out the window in the process. It'd be a pity, if it was happening to a company that ever gave us any reason to care about them, instead it's just comic relief. They've always seen us as "consumers," looks like they never stopped to think what that makes them.

COCANWIKI

[Richard W.M. Jones]

... or even (my) free software cocanwiki.

FLIPPITY FLOOP

[jmlyle]

George W. Bush has a funny way of flip-flopping on the issues.

He was against a Homeland Security Department. FLIP

Then he was for it. FLOP

He was against the McCain Feingold campaign finance bill. FLIP

But then he was for it. FLIP-FLOP

Bush said he was for free trade. FLIPPITY

But then he put on steel tariffs. FLOP

Then he was against the tariffs again. FLIPPITY FLOP

Bush said the states should decide about gay marriage. FLIPPITY

Then he was for changing the Constitution. FLIPPITY FLOP, OR IS IT FLOPPITY FLIP?

Bush said he would put mandatory caps on Carbon Dioxide. FLOOPITY

Then he said he wouldn't. FLOOPPITY-FLEE

Bush said he'd leave no child behind. FLOPITTY

But refused to fund it, leaving millions of children of behind. BYE BYE POOR CHILDREN, WE'RE LEAVING YOU BEHIND, SORRY. OH, I CAN'T SEE YOU NOW, YOU'RE SO FAR BEHIND. I'VE FORGOTTEN ABOUT YOU.

Bush said he against an independent 9/11 commission. FLIIIIIIIIIIIIIP

But then reluctantly agreed to one. FLOPPITY FLOOP

Bush said we were going to war in Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. FLIPPITY

But when it turned out there weren't any WMD's, he said the war was to fight al Qaeda. FLIPPITY-FLOPPITY

But then he admitted there was no evidence of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda FLIPPITY-FLOOPITY-FLOOP

So then he said the war was to bring Western style democracy to the entire Middle East. FLIPPITY-FLOOPITY-FLOP, FLOP FLOP FLOP FLOP

He said he wouldn't invade Iraq without a vote in the UN. FLIP

But then he invaded without a vote. FLOPPITY FLOOP

But now he wants to UN to save his butt. (to tune of: Off to See the Wizard) FLIPPITY FLOPITTY FLOOP. FLIPPITY FLOPPITY FLOOP, FLIPPITY FLOPPITY, FLIPPITY FLOPPITY. FLIPPITY FLOPPITY FLOOP

He said he was ushering in an era of personal responsibility. FLIPPITY

But refuses to take responsibility for all his flip-flops. FLIPPITY BYE BYE BUSH. SEE YOU IN FLIPPITY FLOPPITY LAND - THAT'S RIGHT - CRAWFORD FLIPPITY FLOOP TEXAS. FLOOP FLOOP!

Re:FLIPPITY FLOOP credit

[jmlyle]

Sorry, I should have given credit to Al Franken. Performed on his radio show

It looks like you're trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

___
| | Would you like some help?
(.)(.)
| | / * Search for duplicate articles
|| || * Scan for bad grammar in TFA
||__|| * Use a cliche from saved templates
|____| * Post a hidden link to tubgirl

Re:It looks like you're trolling

[TarlCabbot]

Sorry, I had points this morning. Couldn't wait to get rid of them, one of my daughters had a baby or puppy, can't remember. The one that accuses me of not paying attention, or something.

Seriously, as in the running of the government, everyone should feel free to peacefuly change the processes that are important to us. /serious

Re:Why the use of the "F" word in FlexWikiBinaries

[Jamesday]

Like the protections provided by the MediaWiki software used by Wikipedia/Wikimedia. The Wikimedia Foundation wiki requires an account to edit it (and access is not casually granted). The Wikipedia main page is locked against editing by non-admins. Too big a troll target.

It's just part of the feature set good wiki software should have, to reflect the range of uses its users are likely to need.

Re:What Wiki engine suitable as PIM? Thanks.

[guidryp]

Seems interesting I will give it a look.

Re:FLIPPITY FLOOP credit

[Frizzle Fry]

Huh, I didn't know he had a radio show. But I checked that link and apparently no one is Seattle carries it so doesn't do me any good (I don't have satellite radio because I would almost always rather listen to a cd). Oh well.

Timeo Microsoftem et dona ferentem

[L. J. Beauregard]

What's wrong with a gift horse?

Go ask a Trojan, if you can find one.

Re:Timeo Microsoftem et dona ferentem

[St. Arbirix]

What's wrong with a gift horse?

Go ask a Trojan, if you can find one.

Trojan?

Like when the thingy bursts through the gates and breaks open and all the men come out and wreak havoc?

Are you comparing Microsoft to condoms?

Al Franken show on TV

[jmlyle]

Then, by all means, check out the television broadcast.

Re:Al Franken show on TV

[Frizzle Fry]

Then, by all means, check out the television broadcast.

I would, but I don't watch tv (nor have cable or satellite or an antenna attached to me tv (you insensitive clod)). Thanks though.

Instiki

[CatGrep]

Instiki is the easiest wiki to setup in my experience and it's got some cool features like export to pdf and the option to use RedCloth markup. They've even got an OSX all-in-one version - just download it and run and you'll see 'Wiki' on your toolbar.

"trial" version is crippled

[michaelredux]

StikiWiki is not open source, and the "trial" download version is limited to 20 pages.

SO?

[BluBrick]

It's not entirely unlike the trm "hacker". It might have originally been coined to mean something like "clever tinkerer", but it will always mean "computer criminal" to most folks. Microsoft might have called it "Clippit", but it'll always be "Clippy" to most people. The whole thing is probably a trademark issue, but I don't see MS doing too much to protect their trademark, and the dilution is already well established. Clippy it is, and Clippy it shall remain!

I'm pretty sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

that Microsoft releasing open source software is one of the signs of the apocalypse!

Re:FLIPPITY FLOOP credit

[Ohreally_factor]

uh, internet radio.

Re:OT - your sig

[sumdumass]

Honestly, thats why Kerry is the democratic canidate. It isn't because he is the best man for the job. (god knows there are alot better/capable democrates then Kerry) It is because he is what they percieve to be the most electable. Some people speculate it has somethign to do with his simularities to clinton But that argument usually falls short.

Re:Zealots Ahoy!

[TyrranzzX]

Round and round the monkies go Gnashing and gnarling and making bad prose Their logic looping like an accident in code Time to go out and get the hose!

I resent that!

[tommck]

I don't drink! It's a dirty habit! ;)