Slashdot Mirror
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?"
now that would rock!!! microsoft bob on linux, imagine the productivity increase
I read this originally on a press release but dismissed it as a Joke
/greger
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.
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?
~561
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
If you...
* interested in a good software, leave this page!
Likewise good grammar it would seem...
"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.
Personal Website
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.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Is this software as good as the ever-extensible Kwiki implementation?
/., but it's an unhealthy addiction... :)
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
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...
Agreed. The FOSS 'movement' (what a romantic notion) can produce more than enough shoddy software by themselves!
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.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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.
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.
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.
to store all these implementations - some kind of repository.
I propose we call it the Kwiki-Mart.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
.... 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!
Regards,
John
Falling You - beautiful
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.
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"
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?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
..Microsoft..open source.. Duke Nukem Forever..
Mmmust q..ququit drugs, or buy a bomb shelter (and a heater for afterlife)..
-K
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.
David is the primary author of FlexWiki. See his blog here.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
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.
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.
Direct away from face when opening.
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.
My reality check bounced.
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.
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.
More commentary...
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
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
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
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.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
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/
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.
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
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.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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!
I have misplaced my pants.
Go ask a Trojan, if you can find one.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
I am happy to meet up fuckwad
--
Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.