Slashdot Mirror
MySQL Uses Microsoft's Open Source Software
EqualSlash writes "The Windows installer for the upcoming MySQL 4.1 release will be built using Microsoft's first ever open source project - Windows Installer XML toolset(Wix). According to an InternetNews report, they are using Wix to convert the MSI file designed using InstallShield into XML to achieve greater control over the installer. Of course, they are simply using it because it's Open Source (CPL license) and in good faith. Earlier this year, when Microsoft surprised everybody by releasing the Wix project under an open source license, some were cautious about using it, as the specific XML schema it uses might be patented just like the Office xml schema. Whatever.. Rob Mensching, Wix's lead developer, is very happy about MySQL choosing to use Wix for their installer."
Wait, so what you're implying is...
Someone open-sourcing something causes more people to use it?!?!?
If it weren't for the fact that this is MS's open source creation being used, this would not be news.
In any case, kudos to MySQL for taking the first step with Wix and to Microsoft for trying something they have otherwise sworn against.
Hopefully more people will use Wix, and most importantly, will modify it and contribute changes. That would be a nice way of showing MS just what open source can offer, something which everyone else seems to have figured out already.
..components as the Windows installer I don't mind; no, actually I am happy that even MS can contribute a bit to the open source world.
Simply because the whole MySQL project can't be taken down by MS even though they're using Wix. It's not important enough for the project's life, that's it!
By opening up the source and making it possible for OSS developers to use a high quality installer, Microsoft has shown that it realizes the importance of Open Source software to its user base.
Amazing magic tricks
I've been trying to get my feet wet with this WiX stuff, but really the documentation is extremely lacking.
It looks neat but there's no way to find out the complex stuff without generating an xml from an msi or something.
Artists against online scams http://www.aa419.org/
The Windows Template Library is released as CPL as well. I don't know since when this has been, but the product has been in existence for quite some time now.
Why would you rather they don't use it? So Microsoft thinks open source is a failure and never again makes an open source project?
but that's their call. Surely, there must be other alternatives than using something from M$. It's an installer - can't they use Nullsoft or something else?
MSIs allow for easy installation of programs across entire Active Directory networks. Sure, you can do this with scripts and silent installs, but MSIs let you do interesting things like per-user installs that migrate to computers with their profiles. A good example of this is TortoiseSVN, which I can install only for myself on a computer on an AD network, and when I go to another lab computer and logon it'll automatically install and yet still be visible to only me.
There's also a Firefox bug that's requesting an MSI installation option (but I forget the URL). IIRC someone built an MSI package using WiX, and several people have stated that an MSI package is imperative for corporate deployment of Firefox.
So yeah, there are alternatives, but using MSIs do make things easier for some people, me included.
... Microsoft will add security and a lot of features to MS SQL Server replacing it by MySQL.
Apache already does release an MSI format package, maybe they, too, could convert to WiX.
And then, there's only PHP left, that should come in an MSI file, and all would be fine.
OSS programmers should realize how important the installation package is. Because with an intelligent enough package (MSIs for Win32, debs for Debian etc), it's no longer simply copying and possibly files, but real Software Management. This is going to open doors to the large companies.
And yes, I know, MSI is a Microsoft idea, but it does make sense. Any large customer nowadays wants all the software to be re-packaged in MSI format (hell, repackaging Oracle Client sucks, you can believe me!).
Is this the first step of MS trying to get into open source and become a major player? Microsoft has never been an innovator, but they are really good at stealing someone else's idea and business model (e.g. netscape, realplayer, etc., etc.) . . .perhaps they will foray into the "give the open source software away for free and sell the services and maintenance" business model. I'm sure that they won't do this for their core products . . . but for other things . . . like development tools or less popular products . . . maybe?
How could they possibly think that Open Source is a failure? The average Joe may think that Open Source is the hot new thing but lots of BIG companies have embraced it in the last few years.
Besides, M$ doesn't really give a damn about embracing Open Source - what they care about is if it is possible to look like they're playing nice with their perceived biggest and keep on making money at the same time.
All MySQL's use of this does is allow them to point and say "Look, we're good guys now - if we weren't why would they use our stuff?!"
I have some reservations about SUN but I admit to being impressed when they released the source for Solaris 8 under their Sun Community Source License - I downloaded a copy of the entire code myself when it was first announced - and now they claim to be actively trying to release Solaris under a full Open Source License.
Sorry, but as things stand ( especially with Blusterin' Ballmer running around the world trying to shout down any opposing technology). the most you get out of me is admiration for M$ marketing savvy, their toughness and some of their tech.
As far as their motives go, I'll wait for some real evidence of change - this ain't it.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
If Microsoft were to release the project under a OSS license and then nail a competitor that uses it for patent infringement, couldn't the competitor nail them for antitrust violations?
All this blahblah about Microsoft's patent portfolio would be more convincing if we had at least one recent case of them using patents to shut down independent open source development teams. As it is, I get the feeling I'm listening to Chicken Little on the future of celestial disasters.
I don't think so . . . assuming MS's open source license is truly open source by the definition that I think most people at /. beleive in, there would be no antitrust issue. Just a patent and license issue.
Antitrust issues are typically abuses of monopolistic or nearly monopolistic market power. Opensourcing a patented technology and suing for infringement is something that is not necessarily predicated on a monopolistic market . . . little guys can do this to (assuming they can afford to pay the lawyers).
What's the problem with using an installer written by Microsoft if someone is already writing the software for the Microsoft Windows platform anyway? Doesn't make a big difference, if you ask me...
Regarding Open Source: There's nothing to stop Microsoft from putting out Microsoft Linux is there?
I don't like Microsoft but they will stop being hated so much when they transition themselves from a company that expects to create standards to one that merely contributes to them.
IBM learned that lesson and geeks love them now but they were the Microsoft of their day.
As long as MySQL stays MySQL who cares? Maybe Microsoft will FINALLY have a true understanding of what open source is now. (Probably not though...)
...has had this for a while already.
It is this patent waver as a requirement for distributing the software that makes the CPL incompatible with the GPL as it imposes additional restrictions on redistribution over the GPL. However I understand that the FSF is considering putting in a patent clause in the next version of the GPL which would both make the CPL compatible with the GPL and restrict possible patent abuse.
Why would you rather they don't use it?
Because there are much better alternatives like NSIS or the many others. Plus, who wants to require freaking runtime to install software.
Whey have an installer for each OS you are supporting? It seems counter productive..
Wouldnt it be better just to use a single installer for everything?
I know there are commercial ones ( like installanywhere ) and im sure there are opensourced ones.. If not, then perhaps its time for one.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Assuming there aren't any overriding difficulties with patents or licence problems, this would absolutely ideal for deploying Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird. One of the biggest issues holding Firefox back from enterprise deployment in MS shops is the fact that there's no MSI installer. This would allow it to be rolled out to all the desktops domain-wide via Group Policy and , as the installer tracks any changes made, it can be rolled-back/uninstalled or upgraded easily. All that would needed to add to that would be some basic properties (hopefully via GPOs also) to allow admins to customise & lock it down a little (say, auto-set the web proxy details), and it'd be perfect!
0 33
:)
In fact, after doing a quick search it looks like someone's already done it (don't know if it uses WiX, though it is mentioned in the Bugzilla listing):
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=138
Superb! Finally a way to get rid of IE from the corporate desktops
...is to jerk off, or wank, as the Brits would say. My recommendation: don't wix too much, it gives you blisters ;-)
your company produces a product that somehow incorporates/depens on MySQL, in which case you want it for all developers, but not anyone else. Brilliant, set that up in AD and your set, the devs have MySQL on ANY terminal they use whilst those people who aren't in the dev group are blissfully unaware it even exists.
I am NaN
There is alrady a patent clause in the GPL. The current clause says that software cannot be distributed under the GPL if it is patent encumbered. It seems (did not RTFL) this license goes a step further and includes (and requires!) a patent license as part of it.
Not sure how the FSF will proceed here. The comments they sent me regarding the Sveasoft abuses of the GPL implied that they did not consider a license that virally applies contract terms to be valid. I.e. they would not be able to enforce a license that demands that patent rights be waived if you redistribute. The current GPL works the other way; if you hold patent rights, you can't redistribute under the GPL.
Note: the issue here is not Microsoft. The issue arises when IBM redistributes the software. Does it automatically get protection from IBM's patent portfolio?
Suppose I wanted to port WiX to run and install linux applications on linux (if i felt there were good reason to do so) would the license allow me to do so? And what-if I wanted to build an application for linux that used parts of WiX code ? say the XML parsing code or something?
Could using parts of microsofts open source offerings (in some cases) act as a double whammy against possible patent suits in the future? They aint gonna sue project (X) if it means project (Y) which they quite like might be affected etc.
If projects like MySQL are making the decision to use WiX it might be nice if their products used the same installer no matter which operating system is select as the base.
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
You're probably right. I've seen ( and posted ) opinions on a variety of subjects that have either been ignored or modded up that were much more inflammatory than what I posted on this topic.
However, anything I've recently written about Microsoft has been modded Troll or Flamebait, very quickly. I suspect that there are shills doing searches on well-known nicknames like M$ or Micro$shit - I only ever use the former although I have referred to posters who have bashed non-MS OSes unfairly as Micro$ofties, or, if they have been posting untruths, as Bill-lickers.
However, I do my best to shoot down posters who bash Windows or other OSes undeservedly.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I had the exact same problems. I lowered the motherboard speed and they went away.
I think it is out-of-spec ram, memtest results and Mandrake notwithstanding.
I suspect that it is an interaction between the memory and the graphics card which is exposed by features used by the windows drivers but not used by the mandrake drivers.
Hope this helps.
NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT