Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Calls for Truce With GPL and Linux?
An anonymous reader writes to mention an eWeek article discussing Microsoft's efforts to reach out to the open source community. The company is hoping to find a common ground with softare released under the GPL, so that OSS and Microsoft products can interoperate. From the article: "The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, 'This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving, and we want to make sure that if customers are choosing Linux or other open-source-based products that we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with that.'" A related article mentions Windows server Expert Jeremy Moskowitzs' call for a truce between the Linux and Windows communities.
Maybe now they will truly release the Media Transport Protocol. Currently they have released the protocol but forbid it in the use of FOSS. But I doubt that will ever happen.
Asked what the reaction from the community had been to Microsoft's outreach on this front, Muglia said it was "skeptical but intrigued. What people are starting to discover is that people who write GPL code are not evil and people who write commercial software are also not evil, we just have different approaches."
The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, "This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving, and we want to make sure that if customers are choosing Linux or other open-source-based products that we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with that."
Linux and open-source companies remain Microsoft competitors, and the goal is to do a better job than they do at solving customer needs, and ultimately to have customers choose Microsoft solutions. However, if customers choose not to, Microsoft needs to be interoperating and working well with those companies.
Microsoft "seems" to be coming around to the idea that perhaps the best way to beat OSS is to join it. Making their stuff interoperable gives people flexibility and perhaps that would keep them from completely switching over to OSS from Windows, if they get the idea that they can do it at any time and always switch back if it doesn't work for them. It's a canny bit of work by Redmond, but the question now is: can they actually make things interoperable?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
- Stop treating me like a criminal -- get rid of WPA.
- Stop treating me like a criminal -- get rid of DRM (and the whole "trusted" thing).
- Stop behaving like a criminal -- get out of the "protection racket" by forcing me to pay money to make Windows secure.
- Stop behaving like a criminal -- play fairly with other companies.
I think that a good first step would be to fire the entire legal department. Let a tech company be run by geeks.If they do all of this, they might get me back as a happy paying customer.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
When they claim to be reaching out?
From TFA:
One of the things I have learned is that engineers who work on commercial software really can't work on open source on GPL and engineers who work on GPL can't work on commercial software. You really have to separate the two. I can definatley smell some BS there, considering my day job is a commercial software developer and sometimes in my free time I hack GPL (not related projects tho).
A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built
No you're dissembling, the GPL by it's very nature builds intellectual property - forever owned in the public domain and not within the control of a single vendor. You're business strategy might mean that you have to build locked in IP (whatever that is) however lots of huge companies seem to manage fine (IBM, Red Hat...) to work with the open source model.
that Linux is free like a puppy is free, "but after that comes the costs of training and the leashing and the dog-sitter.
No... Linux is free as in speech. Not free as in Beer, or Puppy? WTF? Last time I installed ubuntu it
a) worked flawlessly first time and was *easier* than a windows install.
b) required *far* less maintanance than WinXP (AKA the "Malware Sponge"). It also doesn't seem to need re-installing every few months.
grrrr. when will they learn? This isn't about reaching out to the developers, it's about scaring the managers.
Sure, anyone can turn over a new leaf. That's always possible. But that won't stop the incidental music from Psycho from playing in my mind whenever I hear of Microsoft working with others. There are some areas where I think it might be safe. There's been no work on Linux' IBCS module for a long time. This would benefit Microsoft, as they could then run Linux software natively. That wouldn't hurt Linux too much, as many Unixes have been able to do this for a while, and the code is out there anyway. However, it would benefit Linux, precisely because other OS' can run Linux binaries but Linux can't run theirs without IBCS being brought up-to-date.
MPLS for Linux is another dead project that would be highly valuable to revive, and equally valuable to Microsoft to have for Windows. MOSIX and OpenMOSIX development has been at snail's pace over recent months - boo! - and Microsoft's clustering technology would certainly benefit from a comparable system, making a joint venture into improving this technology a definite plus for all sides.
If such ventures don't work out, Linux doesn't suffer because the level of work in these areas is small anyway. You can't lose by not getting what you wouldn't have had anyway. On the other hand, if they did work out, it would be an opportunity to develop extremely valuable technology with resources that would be extremely hard to muster by any other means.
To those who are contemplating any kind of alliance with Microsoft, however, just remember that the Computer is your friend. It says so. And if you don't agree, it may use you as reactor shielding.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Microsoft provides basic standards supports, though often with proprietary or non-standard "extensions". HTML/CSS, for example. Once could argue RTF was a good effort, though years of binary .DOC make RTF more or less obsolete. Microsoft also conforms to basic internet protocols, TCP/IP, FTP, etc. Very basic support for the most fundamental standards.
Linux (and related software) does all that. Linux also reads and in most cases writes Microsoft's filesystem formats. "mtools" provides a second, user-space support for native microsoft discs. Linux also supports Joliet (Microsoft's cdrom filename extensions). Samba supports Microsoft's file service protocols. These usually come preinstalled on major linux distributions.
Microsoft does NOT provide even read-only support for Linux ext2 filesystems. Microsoft does NOT automatically recognize unix/linux rock ridge cdroms. Microsoft does NOT provide support for mounting NFS file systems. These are all examples of well established protocols in widespread use for over 10 years!
But...
the fact that they're reaching out should be incentive enough for the OSS community to respond in kind
Remember how they "reached out" to Sun regarding Java?
Sure, if "respond in kind" means a bunch of cheap, fluffy talk, and not actually implementing anything, or writing a poor implementation with proprietary "extensions", sure.
But the truth is, almost every documented, and even many poorly or utterly undocumented Microsoft protocols are well supported by Linux and related software.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
I am not disagreeing with you, but we need to be careful.
If it's true cooperation, then yes, it would be in the interests of both sides, and we should put aside any rancour.
But Microsoft has a long and established history of starting out with what appears to be cooperation, but then twisting it around for their own ends, at the expense of whoever they're cooperating with. If we don't trust them, that's not being vindictive; it's merely being cautious.
Microsoft is so large, and we've seen in the past that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the left elbow is doing. How do we know that this Muglia guy represents a substantial policy shift at Microsoft? How do we know that Ballmer isn't going to "fucking bury" Linux (or Linus), and possibly that Muglia guy with him? Microsoft has consistently waged war with FOSS, whether in the open or using political coffers; how do we know they're not going to continue that?
The FOSS movement has not changed its stance: interoperate with us, we'll be glad to interoperate with you. The SAMBA team has bent over backwards to figure out how to interoperate with Microsoft, not to mention all the FOSS developers trying to work with the MS Word format.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has sequentially moved from "I don't care of I'm pronouncing 'Lie-nux' wrong" to "it's a cancer" to "it's un-American" (way to go for convincing overseas companies to use Microsoft) to "okay, it exists, but we have a lower TCO". Now they're saying, "Hey, FOSS is great. Say, can you change that FOSS license a little bit?" Meanwhile, they've campaigned against the Open Document Format, told Peru that not using Microsoft would be their death knell, and have alternately played the big bully (having been found to be guilty of monopoly abuse on three continents) and the poor helpless company (we're going to get crushed by the onrushing torrent of FOSS software, so won't the government please help out poor little Microsoft?)
Now they're sending love notes to FOSS? Well, you know what, Microsoft? Let's see you put some action behind the rhetoric. Open up the MS Word format. Or open-source your Visual Basic compiler. License your Windows Media Player under some sort of OSI license. Or, heck, give the French Prime Minister a call and ask him to meet with Richard Stallman. But these press releases? We've seen 'em all.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Exactly.
By "calling in a truce", what Microsoft is claiming is that they can not contain the influx of quality F/OSS projects which is now starting to surface. To make things worse, those projects are starting to take a big chunk of the market share. They know that F/OSS has arrived and it will not leave. They know that it is quite plausible that a F/OSS application becomes a killer app. So now they have two choices: keep marginalizing the free software movement and drive away their participants or make sure that it is possible that those applications are constantly ported to MS's platform.
So that is what MS is trying to accomplish. They know that the fight against the free software is lost and now, instead of trying to kill it, they are diverting at least part of their energies trying to preserve their stronghold on the market. They know that a platform is only as good as the applications which it can run and if MS's platform doesn't run the next killer app, what is it good for anyway?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
I also get nervouse when I change hardware (video cards, optical drives, etc.). If I have to re-install XP, will I have to beg Microsoft to let me re-install because it looks like a different computer?
Rest assured that if DVDs did NOT play under any computer, consumers would be complaining to the studios. Microsoft is big enough to have some clout. Instead they have kissed RIAA's and MPAA's collective arses.
Perhaps you have not heard of Windows Live Onecare? Sell a product prone to viruses, and charge people to keep it virus free. It is one thing for a 3rd party to offer this service, but for Microsoft to do this, there is now no incentive to fix security problems with Windows if they can fix it with Onecare. People who don't pay get infected. About the patches, it is obvious that you have not heard of Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA).
There are more cases of them playing ball with other companies right before they pull the rug out from under them. Other posts on this page cover that topic well, including the IBM and OS/2 deal. Don't forget the whole Dr-DOS fiasco. Then there was the Netscape battle where they unfairly connected the browser and operating system. Ever heard of JAVA and the law suit over that? How about "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?" And how about opening up the APIs so that office application writers are on a level playing field with Microsoft Office?
The point is bad things happen when you let the lawyers have too much control. Microsoft even sued Mike Rowe for registering the domain MikeRoweSoft.com. That is simply going too far.
I bitch when I have a legitimate reason to. In this case, I do.
You, sir, are so completely full of crap that your breath stinks.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
A friend took a job with Microsoft a few months ago. Before that, he worked with me on
an open-source system that is moderately widely deployed. We even got a paper into a
decent technical conference on the open-source system.
MICROSOFT WOULD NOT PERMIT HIM TO PRESENT THE PAPER. They flat-out refused to permit it.
This is dispite the fact that all of the work that was done quite a while before he joined MS, and
made no mention of MS.
Apparently, even "acknowledging the exixtence" of open source software is something MS
is not willing to countenance in the rank and file employees.
This is not "friend of a friend". I was also an author on that paper, and this happened
after Jan 1, 2006, so it's not "stale data" either; it's current policy.
Let that be a warning. Sign NOTHING with Microsoft. NOTHING!
I read this as:
1. Vista is delayed waiting for HDCP from Intel
2. MS trying again to create their version OSS and sell it as OSS
3. MS trying again to partner with linux distros to destroy them from the inside (many examples)
4. MS trying again to refuse to open APIs.
Which people are discovering this? I don't think anyone has any beef with the people who write software. It's the management of companies like Microsoft we have a problem with. The coders are all right and always have been. You think we look upon you and Gates and Ballmer and the rest as coders! It is to laugh. Your agenda is other than making good code. If making bad code makes money, bad code it is. Do you think we're morons? Try not insulting us if you want to build bridges.
No, dude. You're only just now barely realizing that the world is passing you by. The world evolved - past tense. You just missed the train and now have to hire a heliocopter to get you to the party. But you're trying to pass it off like you're Alan Arken and Peter Falk arriving late at the wedding.
What you need to do now to make up for it is to do what they did in "The In-Laws". Hand over envelopes of cash to some OSS projects including some GPL projects, no strings attached. That'll show us you're sincere. You can even deduct it.
Edith Keeler Must Die
I'll be prepared to believe they are turning a new leaf when they release Office for Linux.
Not before.
So you think it's perfectly fair and reasonable to ask others, be it MS or random Joe Coder, to reinvent the wheel simply because the license on your software precludes their use of your code with theirs, possibly due to reasons outide their control. How was it, again, that you are better than MS?
Unpleasantries.