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.
A new progression:
Got to give it to Microsoft for not going down easy, at least.
Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
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.
This is the way Microsoft fights.
Look for proprietary Microsoft "extensions" in the near future. All for the sake of "user friendly" and "customer needs".
This is the tactic to "cooperate" with OSS as long as the money flows into MS's coffers.
This strategy would suck the economic oxygen out of OSS.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
This I think is good news. No reason to attack. Let's find that common ground. We nee to stop the infighting and focus are attacks on the evil AT&T Congress.
The GPL is like a nude beach. It's an agreement that you are no going to wear any clothes on this beach.
Microsoft wants to hang out on that beach but not remove thier clothing.
I can't blame them; but The sunbathers all know that Microsoft is just there to ogle.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
diplomacy is how to say "Nice Doggie" while you look for a really big stick
--Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time
It's designed to spec, the APIs are public and the source code is out there. Step 1) Microsoft freeze and publish their APIs under a GPL compatible license so that existing interop OSS projects such as Samba can polish the last couple of percent into their products. Step 2) Microsoft adapt their software to work with established standards such as PDF, ODF, OpenGL, HTML etc etc etc. Step 3) There is no step 3. OSS stuff *already* interoperates with anything written to open standards, as well as rather a lot of closed standards. I fail to see what more they need to do.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
Microsoft, show your intention by opening Windows Networking!
So, what do you call WINE, Samba, Cygwin? (Tons more, but I don't deal with Windows often enough to have more names...)
-:sigma.SB
WARN
THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
The last time Bill Gates spoke of peace I was a boy. And many Free Software nobles, who would not be slaves, were lured by him under a flag of truce to a barn, where he had them hanged. I was very young, but I remember Gate's notion of peace.
Are you posting from a different dimension?
Open Source Software developers have been working very hard for years to create interoperatibility for working within MS Networks. Just look at OpenLDAP, Samba and a number of other systems that have been written to bring *nix and MS products into a state of being capable of communicating with one another.
Microsoft has had a history of moving the goal posts, for no apparent reason other then to undermine the efforts of the OSS teams working on things like Samba, OpenLDAP and many others.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I kinda get the image of a kid hitting his brother, then running away hiding behind mom and asking for forgiveness before the retaliation comes. Then he repeats it.
If you get this, we're 10 of a kind.
The great thing about interoperability with Microsoft is that it's not. MS loves to "inovate" any open standard it gan get it's hands on. Amazingly enough, MS holds the copyright, patends and actaul implimentations for all of this inovation so the open standard quickly becomes a closed standard, at least if you wnat to interoperate with their version of it.
The GPL did one thing very right. It said that companies that "improve" software have to give those improvements back to the community. If the leaders of the open source community decide to accept this offer of "truce," they'd better make sure they don't fall victim. It's MSs primary way of crushing the competition.
TW
Open source, on the other hand, historically has had a tough time building integrated solutions in that distributed fashion, Muglia said, and, "Our customers demand that from us. So there are certain things we have to do that are core to our development and our customers that we can't learn from open source because they are not doing that."
Say what?
Windows for home entertainment, Linux for business !
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
So they want to benefit from all the work done for OSS projects without contributing any work back?
Am I missing something?
-Derick
Neither camp has made any significant effort in making their systems truly interoperable
Becuase OpenOffice, Samba, WINE, the various Exchange connectors and all those Windows ports of OSS software are trivial, right? And that's not even the *start* of a comprehensive list.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
You need to consider: since when has the Linux/FOSS community ever deliberately made something not-interoperable with Windows? There are a few times and reasons, I'm sure, many of them strictly legal reasons, or adhering to some standard instead of adopting broken behaviours... but Microsoft really has no place to complain about their treatment, at least from a software development point of view.
This is just a cover for something bigger. Their Vista Project is a failure, and no ammount of effort seems to be enough to make it to be released. If they are smart they are quitting on vista, and starting a MS Linux version, that will be built upon a Open Source venture, appropriadelly called ... "Lamarck.org" :-)
Your ad could be here!
While of course Microsoft wants interoperability now that Linux is showing that it's growing and there's nothing MS can do about it. They even have the advantage. They could simply read the code of the "offending" interoperability problem and make their own code for it.
However, it would seem to me that MS needs to start opening things up to the OSS community. After all, as it's growing MS's server market will decline. Since many of their "functions" need the server side products to interact with it's hurting them slowly but surely.
I won't buy Microsoft's sincerity until I see 2 products available for linux. Microsoft Office (including things like Visio) and Exchange. Granted, I HIGHLY doubt these products would sell well as there are lower cost and usually better alternatives out there in the Linux Market. But the point here isn't to make sales, it's to prove a REAL and ernest desire to interoperate. Until that happens, anything they say about wanting to interoperate is complete and utter B.S. After all, we've already seen time and time again what MS does to gain market share.
As an added note. I'm happy to see that MS is realizing there's no way they can win against Linux. As far as I know this is the first time MS has been beaten and it's going to continue to grow.
Linux and OSS don't have 'customers', they have users. Big Difference.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
WAKE UP... this is microsoft. the evil empire. it would be like darth vador all of a suden calling the rebel base and being like.. I'm sorry guys, lets work it all out.
:)
You have to stay on your toes, if microsoft can make linux apps run in windows they can destroy more of linux's market share and support. just because they say something nice doesn't mean we, the open source comunity, should embrace them and forget all of the evil things they have done.
Be cautious! if you work with fire, there is a decent chance of getting burned...
now if they do some how want to work together, have them do something for us... like put off vista another 9 months
anyway, I hope i dont get modded flamebait...
just my words of caution.
Mod others as you would have them mod you.
Ignoring the blatant lie that the GPL is incompatible with "intellectual property" (the GPL *depends* on copyright for its effectiveness), this whole article is clearly designed to obscure the real issues.
The article is correct in that "Open source is a way of building software", but the GPL is primarily concerned with Freedom, not the practicalities of building software. You'll notice Microsoft never refers to Free Software, only Open Source. Open Source *is* primarily concerned with the development methodology, and by concentrating only on this issue Microsoft implies that Freedom is unimportant. There's a great danger of thinking only of Open Source, and then ending up in a situation not much better than if you had used proprietary software. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean Free.
If M$ wants to appease the OSS group, they need to open the windows API spec. They don't need to publish any source code. Just the specs. The old DOS api is fully spec'd, so why not windows? After all, competition is good for the consumer and promotes innovation. Isn't that what M$ claims it's trying to promote?
When all else fails, run.
That wasn't a news article. It was an interview. Notice how the reporter didn't get any opinions from major open source players. The entire text was either a quote or a paraphrase of Bob Muglia. Seems a bit one-sided if you ask me.
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.
I guess the FOSS overlords at Slashdot ARE learning a thing or two from Microsoft afterall . . . .
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
Its funny how the Microsoft people dont get it. That Free Software is not about making the best software, or meeting customer needs. Its about Freedom. What he is saying is a bit like a dictator saying, don't try to unseat me and I won't sponsor terrorism in your country. It is not something we can accept.
The open source community takes not prisoners! ('till all of your installed base are belong to us or semothing) :P
OSS has learned to play hard ball over the years, taking their FUD, and now they want a truce?
They are like ground units attaking orc barracs.
"we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with"
Better known as 'a good way to migrate customers away from'.
I call those one-way adaptations that primarily either make Windows software work on Linux, or Windows connect to a Linux server. It's not true interoperability. I doubt MS will make good on the lip service we're reading about, but I think OSS needs to take it seriously so that when MS blows it, OSS gets to take the high ground and say "we gave it our best, and they dropped the ball."
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Let's see. On one side, we have Microsoft, singular colossus of the industry, abuser of monopoly power, left with naught but a nano-scale layer of public trust. On the other side, we have a great mass of Open Source/Free Software advocates, where the moderate voices are undermined by those whose rational distrust of Microsoft has turned to irrational paranoia and hatred.
I hope there's a Plan B, because this whole "Us vs. Them" thing isn't leading anybody anywhere.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Microsoft's efforts to reach out to the open source community
Sorry but I read that as "Microsoft's efforts to stop their nose-diving share price". Look at US - we're Microsoft. We're not evil either. Look! Look damn you! Smithers!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Obviously, Microsoft have sensed that there are a fair number of people in the community who think that the BSD license is the only truly "free" license, and that with the new GPLv3 and the added protections, they think they can split the community. A house divided unto itself, etc. etc.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
"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."
OSS products are by definition "open", meaning that it is up to MS to make the next move by publishing its API's, stop changing API's, stop doing crappy things to the OSS community, and to change it's licensing to allow FOSS programmers to use suposedly "open" MS products.
MS needs time to focus on one threat at a time. Their single greatest threat is Google. If they can get everybody to play nice with them for a time, they can take out google. Once that is done (or perhaps even before), they will simply go on the attack for the next target. Gates has the same ethics as Hitler (try to crush your enemies and own your friends when you are able to).
Now, is the time for the FOSS world to be more like the UK and America of old, rather than to roll over.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A little good faith on behalf of MS would be a nice start
Er.. Open Source is generally based on open standards. It also tends to implement them without proprietary patented extensions.
Where exactly is OSS not being inter-operable?
http://www.worddisplay.com?vista
and by the way, don't you see that something is wrong with Microsoft
http://www.worddisplay.com?microsoft
I call those one-way adaptations that primarily either make Windows software work on Linux, or Windows connect to a Linux server.
You might want to read up on cygwin before making such pronouncements.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said."
"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." (Emphasis added.)
So which one is it, Bob?
Here, let me help: the GPL, unlike the BSD license you prefer, does allow intellectual property to be built. That's your fundamental problem with it: as long as it's still effectively someone else's property, you can't embrace and extend it and get away with it.
You just don't like the GPL because you don't get to "borrow" all that hard work from the people who wrote the code.
MS has taken this tactic for years. The the model of GPL'd source is not really MS's cup of tea. Rather, they will taken any *input* other developers would like to give to their code. For example, we use the MS Enterprise Libs for .NET here for a few things. It ships with code, which we can extend and use. However, you'll not see us distribute our modified source with anything we like, even if we merely wrap and give props to the original authors. And, you won't find Ent Lib sources anywhere else except MS. They'll take input, but be the final decision on what is in that product. This is akin to GPL, but it differs in that 2nd tier dev cannot really ship their own source based on tier 1 - which stops the innovation cycle right there. Here's EULA of that product
The intellectual property MS builds, like many software companies, is in their employees, not their code. The interesting problems they solve in code are usually boiled down to applying academically studied methods to present-day technology issues. Like any company, combining two or more current technologies in interesting ways is the innovation (ie maps+satellite+weather+traffic= cooler map program). Today, many schools don't solely use Windows (many use a *nix variant) to study info processing, so MS must often borrow/mimic from other platforms. You can bet they certainly benefit from GPL, even if it means just having a reference for a solution's implementation.
I've always believed intellectual capital is in the employees and their ability to *continuously* output creative solutions. Similar to musicians, there's a bit of money to be made from the output, perhaps a lot, but software and music are on an honor system digitally. You have to keep adapting, improving and "have another hit" to ensure your company is still the market maker.
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)
No no no .. its not the "same old crap", its "*new* *improved* *crapperiffic* articles"
.. and they are .. like OMG ponies ...
Remember a few months when Mr Taco promised us weekly fireside chats? (You know, the ones we haven't seen in a while). Well he promised us that things would be different from now on
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I think you're on the right track there. Since Microsoft is talking like this, how about a list of all the items that they could deliver.
#1. Media transport protocol - specs so it can be implemented in a GPL-friendly app.
#2. Whatever it takes to allow Linux-based workstations to authenticate via Active Directory - again, GPL-friendly.
#3. Specs so NTFS disks can be read/write under Linux (GPL-friendly).
What else? If they want to talk about "cooperation", then we should be able to give them a list of items that they can start "cooperating" on.
... is a respectable Linux community "front man" to negotiate with. Someone like Neville Chamberlain.
Wine -- Make Windows software work on Linux
Open Office, Cygwin,etc. -- Make Linux software work on Windows.
Samba -- Make Windows servers work with Linux clients
Samba -- Make Linux servers work with Windows clients
VNC,X -- Make Windows terminals work with Linux servers
VNC, Remote Desktop client -- Make Linux terminals work with Windows servers.
All of these are done by open-source developers. So, tell me, what more would you like open-source people to do? And do you see ANYTHING that Microsoft has done?
It is easy to throw blame around if you ignore the facts.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
The article served its purpose.
#1) It made a trade pub.
#2) It generated interest in their product.
#3) It made them look good.
#4)It can be pointed to when something breaks.
Support is one of the weaker areas of OSS. So I see it going something like this.
Look at the e-week article; we tried to work with the OSS community to the benefit of the customer. They just broke it again. Try to contact them with the issue.
In a session titled "Windows/Linux integration: The Art of the Possible" on June 12, Moskowitz said that Linux is free like a puppy is free, "but after that comes the costs of training and the leashing and the dog-sitter."
While Linux has been more stable than Windows historically, that gap is now narrowing. But there are a lot fewer reboots with Linux, he said, asking the audience whether Linux has less security bugs.
After hearing their response, he acknowledged that there is no consensus on this question and that from his perspective, "it appears to be equal. Windows has more patches, but Microsoft releases them more frequently and fixes things more quickly," said Moskowitz.
Okay, perhaps I'm just being cynical or whatever, but this is what I'm hearing:
"The Windows and Linux camps need to put aside their differences and begin to work together to improve interoperability. (But we're still better than those open source nutjobs, right?)"
Aside from the obvious group back-patting, this just smells of publicity stunt. Last I checked, most open source software developers have no problem trying to make their software work with even closed source programs. If anyone needs to change, it's the closed source guys. If they want better interoperability, then they need to document their protocols and APIs or better yet, open up their code. It's hard to find a better way to encourage interoperability than giving away your source code for free.
Software comes about when there's a need for it. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen many situations where someone needed to connect Unix / Linux workstations to a Windows server.
You can use GPL, or not. Whatever you feel comfortable with.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
TFA:
"Microsoft releases them more frequently and fixes things more quickly," said Moskowitz.
Sort of like that png lib vulnerability that the Linuxes fixed within days and that Microsoft took 9 months to fix? Yeah. Call me when you get some credibility. Until then, please be courteous of those who live in reality. Bullshit detectors aren't cheap, and when they overload, it makes a hell of a mess.
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
We take no prisoners. Only source, no prisoners.
How does OSS inhibit Microsoft? How does making all source code available to them for viewing inhibiting their ability to integrate? How does working with open standards available for everyone to use inhibit Microsoft?
I don't see your point. Seems like only one side is using closed standards, proprietary code and closed APIs. I don't see how open source is to blame in this matter at all.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Remember in Kindergarten when the teacher taught it's students to share openly with other students? This is no different - Microsoft is acting the child that as always kept his toys to himself but always wanted to play with everyone elses' as well. Now he is saying "Let's all play together".
Well, Microsoft, WE have ALWAYS played nice with everyone who shares with us as we do with them. It's your turn to open source the code you want to share with the world so you can use ours as well. Sharing is a two-way street with the GPL - there's no way around it.
You can't have your cake and eat ours too.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The Cylons wanted a truce with the Humans, and look where that got us.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
This is not good news. This is a PR stunt and only a PR stunt. This allows Microsoft to say "See...we tried to play nice but they wouldn't play with us. It's their fault not ours; we wanted interoperability but they wouldn't have it." Bullshit. It is almost certain that the type of "interoperability" they desire will only come in terms of closed-source, for-profit products and encumbered IP. I have no problem with this, mind you, but do not delude yourself about this truce: anything they offer that is truly open will likely be end-of-life and irrelevant shortly thereafter.
What does a "truce" with Microsoft look like exactly? Do you think MS is going to open up their proprietary protocols and data formats to the OSS community? How would that work, exactly? What exactly does OSS gain from a truce with Microsoft given that we can assume that they will not be any more likely to open their formats and tools than they are now?
Don't get me wrong: it is perfectly within Microsoft's rights to keep their IP closed and to charge access for it but do not deceive yourself about them wanting to suddenly play nice. What happens if/when some of that proprietary stuff leaks into OSS? Could that be what they are hoping for? Hoping OSS developers, lured under the guise of a truce, think they have rights to use information that they do not - poisoning the well, perhaps?
What about evangelism? Under this supposed truce, are we supposed to stop pointing out the weaknesses in Microsoft's products and methodologies in return for the same? Why would we do that? Who wins in that situation? Certainly not OSS which relies heavily upon word-of-mouth and grass roots efforts to spread; Microsoft wins because potentially fewer people are made aware of other choices that may exist both for operating systems and tools.
I realize this could be taken as an anti-Microsoft rant but what it really is is a "Don't trust Microsoft" rant. These guys are convicted monopolists who have a reputation for stabbing their partners in the back and putting them out of business. Why would/should we trust them when they say they want to make nice?
The only interoperability issues Linux has is with undocumented and/or proprietary hardware and software components. We still don't have a truly Open Source solution to address "WinModems." Graphics cards are pitifully underdocumented. Interoperating with Microsoft Exchange is an ongoing nightmare, despite the valiant efforts of the Evolution team.
Everything else about Linux is right there, out in the open, in man pages, GNU info files, and HTML pages. So any difficulty Microsoft has in interoperating with Linux is entirely their own fault.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
So Microsoft wants to interoperate with Linux and other open source programs? There are a number of ways that they could show good intent, as opposed to good sound bites.
From what I've seen of the open source community, actions speak louder than words, even that of history. IBM used to be considered the evil company. But they put their money in, did a lot of great things, and now I'd say they are well reguarded. You (Microsoft) can do the same thing, if you want to. Or, you can continue to be and act like the convicted monopolist, and continue to do things that piss off the rest of the industry at you. Do you really wonder why people look at everything you do with suspicion? The choice is yours.
It would seem Microsoft loves to lead the interoperability cause for technologies that they do not have a majority market share (e.g. AOL's instant messaging protocol). If it truly seeks a truce with FOSS, it should extend the olive branch by opening up things like the .wmv format. Also consider MSN's new video venture video.msn.com which requires Windows, IE, and Media Player. How can one face talk about improving interoperability while another continues to push proprietary MS-only content?
start opening your formats and protocols, dammit... I'm sick tired of following the internet standards in my programs to see that they won't work with Microsoft Software. An example: The Microsoft "Web Folders", supposedly compatible with webdav, didn't work when connecting to an apache webdav directory. Days of research thrown into the garbage.
it really isnt necessary for a "truce" to be called, just for the one side to stop attacking.
The GPL and greater OSS community likes OSS products and wants to use them. This is generally at the expense of Microsoft since they are dominate. I dont really call that an "attack." Maybe MS should stop spreading blatant lies and there wont be a problem.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
No. Next question.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
In the battle between open standards and windows, in the article denoted as Linux, it is entirely in Microsoft's
hands if it want to conform to those open standards. If even a non-default option in Microsofts server and
client operating systems could, without loss of essential functionality, make it conformant to open standards that
would be a good step towards such a state of truce/peace. As it is well established that Microsoft currently implements
several open standards in the server environment in a non-standard way it should be possible for them to
1. publish how their implementation is different from the standard
2. remove Microsoft-specific extensions of the standard from their implementation
From an engineering perspective, as is reflected in the opinion of Moskowitz and other engineers at Microsoft,
it would be better if Microsofts and other implementations of the open standards could communicate. But for
Microsoft as a major monopoly in the operating-systems market it is important to make a sound business
decision which will protect it's position in the server space using it's dominant position in the operating system
market. As can be seen in the EU judgment against Microsoft it is not willing to share it's "trade secrets"
regarding the server protocols, so I find it very interesting that Moskowitz use the word truce. Merriam-Webster
defines truce as:
1 : a suspension of fighting especially of considerable duration by agreement of opposing forces : ARMISTICE, CEASE-FIRE
2 : a respite especially from a disagreeable or painful state or action
So basically a truce means to cease fighting, but it does not mean peace. Unfortunately when it comes to these standards
and the engineers who have to live with the implementations the "painful state or actions" will be there
until the barrier between these implementations can be fully bridged either with or without Microsofts help. For me
that sounds more like a state of peace and if the opinion of this engineer reflects a change of attitude by Microsoft
that is wonderful.
From the article:
> It's time for the Windows and Linux communities to drop the religious war and [snip]
There _is_ no "Windows community". It's just a giant company and a lot of customers.
> [snip] until the two communities put aside the whole "religion" issue, said Jeremy
> Moskowitz, a consultant and authority on Windows 2000/2003 Server, Active Directory
> and SMS [snip]
{sigh} There's no "religion issue". There's free software users who write a lot of
code that they want to remain free. It's their work -- and they want it to stay free.
If you don't like the terms, don't use the software. That's it. There's no religion
there. Now, maybe the Microsoft corporation has a "religious issue" -- like, maybe
it's their religion to dominate the software industry and they don't like there
being anyone else supplying software to the world...
Anyhow, this article seems to be mostly shilling for MS. The author tries to trick
the reader into believing the author's presuppositions and also relies pretty heavily
on quotes from this Moskowitz "authority".
> "At the end of the day, both Windows and Linux bring things that are good, and we
> can all get along and we should look at how we can leverage the strength of each
> to the benefit of the other," he said.
Bleh. What garbage. The free software community wants to get along just fine --
they're _giving_ away their work for goodness' sake.
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]
The whole notion of a "truce" is silly. Other than writing better software, how is Linux attacking Microsoft? Nobody on the FLOSS side is, AFAIK, suing Microsoft for anything. Heck, OSS licenses don't even prohibit running so-licensed software on MS operating systems -- which is more than can be said for some MS EULAs regarding non-Windows systems.
So, just what is it they want to stop?
And why should we accept anything less than unconditional surrender?
-- Alastair
That is open source's weak spot. Things don't naturally work well together. Like cut and paste or drag and drop in any of the integrated desktop environments out there. Things are getting better, but it took a long time. Dozens of widget sets mean dozens of ways of doing things in X. It's taken the entry of big players like Sun to come up with a true integrated office productivity package. And honestly most of the work that Distributions do is making things work well together, because they don't naturally.
Microsoft is very good at making their software work in an integrated fashion, at the expense of working well with anyone else.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Actually this is incorrect. See "Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?".
Also take a look at the following whitepaper (PDF), it dispels some of the myths surrounding the GPL (it's dated 2002, but these myths/misunderstandings are still around today).
Perfect is the enemy of done.
Is it just me or is every article on /. that mentions Microsoft tagged with fud, lies, traps etc.
It seems stupid to have tags if they are always going to be the same nonsense.
so not only are you a whore, you're a cheap whore.
Open source already operates according to open standards...
All microsoft need to do, is implement and support the same open standards. This "war" they talk about having a truce in, is because their products are using proprietary formats and/or protocols, which force people to use their products.
People like choice, whereas microsoft try to take away your freedom of choice because that's easier for them than offering a better choice in a free market.
If they would make sure all their products complied with published standards (or help create such standards, where non already exist, and in an open way involving any interested parties), then opensource would have less of a need to compete and fight against them.
All i want, and i`m sure many people agree, is freedom to choose. I absoloutely despise the idea of being forced to use any particular product, i want to be able to choose whatever suits my individual needs best.
Currently i won't use microsoft products, because they seek to remove my freedom of choice... If they implement open standards and provide me this freedom i would consider using them based on the merits of each individual product.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
"It's a trap!"
OK, let us discuss terms.
Complete access to appropriate APIs for the Samba & Wine groups and donate a few tens of thousands of dollars to each group to make up for those shenanigans
Completely open all of the file formats for office
Render void all OEM agreements related to installed OSes & Applications, desktop configuration, and links
Donate a few tens thousands of dollars to Haiku OS.
Include drivers to read & write all popular file systems in future windows releases
Include capability for all MS Office applications to read & write OO.org files
Include capability for all MS applications to read & write appropriate & popular filetypes
Include ability to interact with MacOS and UNIX
MSIE no longer "required"
Release all code, owned by Microsoft and no longer supported by Microsoft, under the MIT license
I'm sure that's not even the half of it... just a few things that annoy me
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Microsoft offering an olive branch reminds me a lot of the cease fire right before Tet Offensive.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Want to play nice? Open up MAPI, Active Directory, TNEF, your botched Kerberos, and .net so that there can be compatible-but-not-reverse-engineered implementations .. THEN we'll call it a truce...
Isn't someone going to post that Gandhi quote???
Find coupons in Greeley
Are you posting from a different dimension?
Exactly what I thought when I read this in the article: Microsoft had effectively kept everyone on a project within a square-mile radius of Redmond. A radius of a square mile? What dimensionality is the space around Redmond these days?
Peter
Does anyone else get nervous when Microsoft starts saying they want to embrace open source?
Will program for karma.
What comes to mind is an Ogre beating the living stuffings out a Gnome - gouging it's eyes, kicking it in the nuts, pulling the rug out from under it and throwing sand in its face. Then the Ogre calls a truce?!?
A truce? How about you just stop beating the shit out of the Gnome?
From TFA: >>"A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built," >>Bob Muglia, the senior vice president of Microsoft's server and tools business Thank you, Bob, for the shortest definition of the GPL I've ever seen
accept no limits but time
I don't even care if this is the right time or place to say this but the reason Linux is sucking is the god-damn hardware support. For instance I've got a killer brand-new fucking laptop and the damn monitor isn't supported so I've got to use generic LCD settings. And let me tell you a it makes the laptop like like a peice of junk. The there is the fucking wifi card that isn't reconized!! And yes I've tried all of the hacks and several different distros. FUCK ME!! It's so fustrating but I will not give up trying to get it to work.
It wouldn't matter if MS Vista and came out 2007 or not because as long as hardware support on linux is shit and we all know it is, MS will remain on the desktop.
As for OSS and all that jazz. As long as people have options MS in the eyes of the law are not a monoply. MS knows damn well that they could spend a year getting Office to run on Linux but why would that want to do that. Why would that want to create a product that will cause that to loose market share? Why would that want to give IT managers a reason to use Linux?
I like-a do-the cha-cha.
First AMD and ATI are merging, now Microsoft Embraces OSS? The next thing you will tell me is that OMG Ponies are making a comeback......
"Gentlemen, You cannot fight in here, this is the War Room...." - Dr Strangelove
Please name one company, group, organization, or institution which has partnered with Microsoft which did not end up getting screwed. IBM, Stac and Sybase come immediately to mind.
I would like to see some products release by Microsoft for Linux operating system, maybe start a Linux business unit, or somtehing tangible to that effect. Ultimately, Microsoft should always consider the needs of the end-user. Instead of being greedy and strong arming thier customers to accept a Microsoft-only solution from the client to server, they should finds ways to fit in the customers plan that may include Linux.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
The EU's been telling Microsoft for some time to provide a competent spec for their server protocols to allow interoperation. MS walked away from OASIS just before the ODF spec was approved. AD is a bastardized mix of MIT Kerberos & LDAP. IE still plays fast and loose with web standards.
Which side is it that needs to get serious about standardization? And what does it say about Microsoft's self-perception that suddenly they "want to talk"?
Kind of like that fucking cat I have that, even if I try to pet it, it acts like I'm trying to kick it's ass and it runs away and hides.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
So I'll just ask the question, "Why do we care?". What can Microsoft offer the FOSS community that would entice us to come to the table and talk about a truce? I didn't even know there was a War going on.
I figure Linux and Windows makes a great natural division in the market. Those who really want to use a computer use Linux. Those who really want to do something else and just dabble with web pages, email, and instant messenger can use Windows.
they know the success in the server room has opened up a lot of businesses to consider it on the desktop. And with the next success of the open document format, and with OOorg sneaking up on them, how the hell will they be able to compete in the next few years charging around 4-500$ a seat for an OS and an office app?? Maybe that was cool back when the hardware cost 3 grand, but not now......
wall-handwriting
They are going down, back to just being another company, not the dominant ones. It will still take some time, but it will happen. The only thing they have left that could stop it is bribery of governments and dropping their prices down to like 20 bucks or something for the OS/office bundle, which is about all they are worth anyway.
And before anyone says boo about this, remember just a few years ago, enron was this huge widely successful company, one of the largest in the world. Where are they now? Stuff happens in business and things can change quickly.
If Microsoft really cared about interoperability with oss products they would not have discontinued their 'Services for UNIX' product last year (based off interix).
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!
On, Wine, yes.
But Cygwin? You know (or maybe you don't)... the software that allows most free/open source software to be compiled and run on Windows? When you install Cygwin using the cygwin setup utility, it gives you menus to select almost every major free software program right there at install time. Or you can run it anytime later and automatically download and install just about every major program than comes with any linux distribution. Now that's what I'd call primarily making "Linux software" run on Windows!
And Samba? Allowing linux servers to work with windows? There's also client-side support in linux, allowing microsoft servers to be used by linux. Sounds twi-way to me. All open source, mind you. Microsoft only speaks their own protocol, and has a history of introducing changes that appear to have little value other than breaking Samba. Fortunately, the Samba guys are masters of reverse engineering and have managed to keep up with Microsoft. On the flip side of the coin, the NFS protocols are fully documented, as are other newer, more experimental protocols introduced in Linux.
Oh, don't forget about MinGW, the compiler that allows direct compilation for native windows binaries. Lots and lots of open source applications provide native windows binaries via MinGW.
And while we're at it, how about wxWidgets, the cross platform library which allows applications to be compiled for native widgets on Windows, Linux, Unix, MacOS, Palm and maybe others too!
Don't forget that the two major GUI toolkits both target Windows. For example, the GIMP is available as a windows application. Can the same be said of Microsoft's MFC toolkit, or native controls? Or even of .NET ?? Yeah, lots of noise has been made of its theoretical ability to be cross platform, but does Microsoft provide a way for .NET apps to run on Linux? Oh yeah, there is such an effort underway (Mono), and look which camp is doing it?
There are also other cross platform libraries and approaches (Qt, openoffice's stuff, XPCOM from Firefox/mozilla, XUI, etc), all intended to allow applications to run on both platforms. How many of those are from Microsoft? How many are free/open source software?
I doubt MS will make good on the lip service we're reading about, but I think OSS needs to take it seriously so that when MS blows it, OSS gets to take the high ground and say "we gave it our best, and they dropped the ball."
You're probably right about the lip service.
But just take a look around at all the massive effort that goes into cross platform compatibility and interoperability in the free/open source world!
It's pretty fair to say the open source world is already doing their best to be interoperable in many, many ways. Not just making win32 binaries run on Linux (arguably one of the least successful areas, because Microsoft keep secret APIs and make undocumented changes). I talking about true interoperability, like cross platform libraries, like porting every major application (and many, many minor ones too) to windows using various libs, like following well documented open standards, like also publishing all the code with liberal permission to use, study, modify and distribute derivitive works.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
"And in honor of our new peace, I offer you this giant wooden statue of a horse to adorn your town"
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, " Dear friend what can I do,
To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Such as, release useful information on SMB. Publically, not under NDA. Or, release the specs to their current office suite format, without "licenses" that make it useless to anyone who wants to actually use it. Or, if they actually ported one of their applications to, y'know, operate under Linux.
Plus, I'm a little unclear on what this "truce" entails from the open source side. Are we supposed to stop taking their market share? Swear off the desktop? Honestly, I ordered the Free Software commandos to back off last week; the MS OSS interoperability team can now resume operations.
Were the Romans still around, Microsoft would replace Carthage in that phrase.
I'd like to think that OSS vendors and programmers recall the fate of those companies that thought they could deal with Microsoft.
"You got to be trusted by the people that you lie to so when they turn their backs on you, you get the chance to put the knife in." -- Pink Floyd, "Dogs" (Animals, 1977)
In all seriousness, Microsoft likely understands quite well what Open Source and what Free Software is all about and they know they are not prepared (and quite possibly incapable) of operating under any such banner. Control is their game. Control of standards, markets, minds, and of ideas. They will never let go of that. They cannot.
They are not "seeing the light" at all, but continuing to formulate and play out strategies to convince all who would listen (or not think too clearly, at least) that limited openness is all you really need and freedom has to do with price and TCO. Don't worry. Just relax and play along, all will be fine. Really!
But think of how many billions of dollars Microsoft stands to lose (and is already losing given that a quarter of Dell's server business, for example, is shipping GNU/Linux instead of MS-Windows) and you can probably think of just how far they will go and how many resources they will dedicate to keeping their golden goose from heading for the hills with that smiling penguin.
--Udo.
Not until they offer an unconditional surrender! :))
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Oh, so I can migrate that leaked NT source code into FreeBSD's NTFS module and change the license to BSD and not get sued?
Excellent!
include $sig;
1;
I would agree, but most Geek chicks are pretty hot, so I'm not going to complain.
Besides, one of my friends is REALLY into the "Big Bear" thing, so I doubt he'd complain about the image of a beach full of nude Geeks.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
It's a trap!
Easy, I run linux at home, but our servers at work use Windows Server. I will be expected to be able to remote to work on occasion when I am brought on full time, and there is no way in hell I am polluting my gentoo box with wine (let alone dual booting windows) to run remote desktop.
Going to check out rdesktop ASAP.
"Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time." Danny Vinyard -American History X
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 believe it when I see it...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
http://itsatrap.net/
:-0
Couldn't help myself
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Sure MS has
.Net Runtime as EMCA standard
SFU: Let devs, systems admins port applications
SFU: For talking to *nix clients using nfs, ldap and interact with AD
RTF Format: As an open spec that predates everything else in the opensource world
Open XML as EMCA standard
Wix install set: For open software to create installers for windows
IBuySpy Portal(Dotnetnuke is based on)
It is easy to blame when you look at only one point of view
Sure MS should be releasing docs for smb, cifs, AD, rdp(dont know if they actually control it) etc., should they for free (open) that is debatable....
Microsoft: "We're having a hard time with this GPL and Open Source thing. I mean, we can't call someone and say, 'Stop or we'll cut off your supply of this or that' like we can other companies. Therefore, we are being forced to reach out and share information in hopes, of course, that they devulge SOMEthing that can help us squash them like bugs!"
- Where are they whenever there is a CIFS meeting ??
- Where did they go once ODF was being finalized ??
- Why don't they let the Mono guys present at Windows Conferences ??
If Microsoft wants interoperability they must realize that interoperability does not mean everyone else bending over backwards for them. It means working with other Companies/Individuals to ensure that EVERYONE benefits from it, not just Microsoft.
Microsoft isn't stupid even if they are copycats. There was a day when Apple sued Microsoft over the use of overlapping windows, etc claiming they held the rights to this IP. The courts ruled against Apple saying that these sorts of things can't be copyrighted even tho they also said that Microsoft had a neverending agreement with Apple that permitted them the rights to use them.
Nonetheless Microsoft has been copying from the Open Source Linux community stealing the ideas from the average Joe and Jane contributing to the projects.
The difference in the past is that Apple was a big company and not some little guy to be walked all over and they did receive compensation. The average contributor doesn't get that compensation from Microsoft yet Microsoft is still taking those ideas and incorporating them into Linux.
Microsoft even admitted that they took these ideas from the Open Source community. We aren't talking about taking source code and modifying it. We are talking about the ideas that make something successful.
Apple tried many years later to sue some hardware vendors that were making iMac look alike machines even tho they were PCs and didn't run OSX nor any Apple OS.
If someone were to mimic the ipod exactly they'd sue them. If someone were to mimic itunes they'd sue over that.
The bottom line is that Apple sues and Microsoft take liberties. Microsoft is taking liberties with Linux and I believe that is the reason they are working for a more amiable stance--to overcome early any cryout about how Microsoft can't invent for itself and it has to take from the little guy all the while threating everyone by calling them either thieves or potential thieves via their WGN (Windows Genuine Notification). Because that's exactly what it is. They are taking the ideas many of which were great ideas and are in turn again telling everyone we are thieves or potential thieves.
Is this unplausable? Is it a direct correlation? Plausible, yes. Direct correlation, probably not, but they are hoping that it will never be connected.
They did something similar in the late 70s and early 80s when they stole computer time from Harvard to make a product that became the funding machine to grow Microsoft all the while writing harrassing letters to member of the Homebrew computer club claiming they were stealing Microsoft's IP.
Remember, key figures are still operating MS that were operating it back then.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
This is a clear sign that the end of times is coming closer. What is next? The *AA's offering their version of bittorrent? President Ahmadinejad running with the Democrats? King Kong death-match with Godzilla?
What should be the answer to this MS move? I don't know. What would Jesus do?
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
This is fantastic! So, when can we expect to see Microsoft release an NTFS API that allows users to safely read and write to those volumes?
I am at TechEd, adn saw his speach, he said, I have touched Red Hat and SUSE, what he said "Don't like it, dont know anything about it...but Linux sucks.." he said that Linx is not free bucause you "MUST" buy support, like there is no choice... he also stated on several occations that Linux is only good when using CUPS or SAMBA and other then that there is noting it is good for. he did not call for peace.. he almost started a fight, as he clearly told people Linux Sucks..don't use it..
The demands of the OSS community are much less than what Microsoft makes them out to be. As other have said, all Microsoft needs to do is publish the specifications for their file formats and network protocols. Full disclosure of their APIs would be nice too, but formats and protocols would go a long way. There's no need for them to GPL or open source any of their software. Doesn't sound like much to ask, but we all know why they won't agree.
KTHXBYE
Together we can rule the galaxy as father and son.
Stick Men
If they finally release WMV codecs for Linux, or better yet under the GPL, I vow to no longer blindly hate Microsoft.
The only thing the GPL does is that it requires you publicly redistribute, on the same terms as the stuff you got, any changes that you make. It does not stop you or in any way prevent you from independently developing the same software. Nor does it attempt to prohibit you from running other software which use other licenses or operate on other systems. Microsoft has routinely used its EULAs to do exactly that. This is Microsoft's war, not Linux's, and Microsoft is the only one that can end this war, when it chooses to stop fighting. But to do that would require Microsoft to change the way it has been doing business.
Microsoft has become rich as a result of proprietary software and vendor lock-in, and for it to change its way of operating to no longer do this would require a complete change of outlook. (Pun unintentional)
Paul Robinson
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
In any compromise between food and poison, only death can win. -Ayn Rand
Yeah, Microsoft is calling a truce... I soooo fucking believe that.
Open the Windows OS code. That's the *ONLY* thing that will give MS any credibility among the OSS community at this point. If MS is truly serious about OSS and "interoperability" then they need to take a MAJOR leap of faith to show they mean it. They can keep the application code closed all they want, but the OS going open source would be a good thing for everyone!
"Truce" implies that attacks are coming from both sides. Since when were F/OSS developers out to mess with Microsoft in any way? A much better statement would be "OK, we'll stop f***ing with you. Tell us where interoperability is broken, and we'll fix it!"
Support open standards.
We've been doing this for a while now and find that it really is the best way to get software to interoperate -- even if the other stuff is made by parties you've never even heard of. Also, it's a form of cooperation that tends to go down well with your clients.
You'll be able to hear the music on the soundtrack go all ominous.
"I've got a bad feeling about this."
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
...sing his song. I think Microsoft has sung nearly everybody's song.
That is it? A big mega-corporation owned by the world's richest man and that is all they have to show for interoperability? That is called a token effort -- just enough to say that you did something. It is kind of like saying "Thank you for the wonderful evening -- I had a great time" after you rape somebody.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
The Rich Text Format (RTF) is a specification that was used in Microsoft products starting in 1987. However, as far as I can tell, version 1.0 of the RTF specification was published in 1992. The assertion that RTF predates "everything else in the opensource world" is not just false, but amazingly out of touch with reality. For example, the RTF specification was published:
6. Steve Ballmer to never, never, NEVER EVER dance again.
Meep.
....so what are they *really* up to?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Ah, the manifold blessings of capitalism...
Meep.
Win98 is now officially dead: there is a remote code execution hole that wont be fixed.
so, open it up to the users. Stick up the source, the compiler, the drivers, the test suite.
Make the code GPL, with calls through the normal API isolated.
It may keep win98 alive, but if not, wine will benefit from the code and test suite.
Just adopt it and drop .doc as the default save option. Done.
I write code.
The suit from Microsoft continues with the company-mandated propaganda, "A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible", Muglia said.
How is this a truce? How is this even slightly different from the FUD Microsoft regularly churns out? Is this the new strategy - to portray themselves as reasonable people being unfairly targeted by the open-source community?
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
"It's a trick, get an axe!" - Bruce Campbell, Army of Darkness.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Like all other interoperability they try to build in to Winders, embrace, extend, extinguish.
I'm not the first to say it, nor will I be the last.
Some of us don't have the attention span of a gnat and don't forget the past. "Those that forget the past, are doomed to repeat it."
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
How about opening up DirectX? That's about the only thing I'd care about here anyway.
Property is theft.
no wait, he might like that.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
said the spider to the fly...
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
That world disappered around 1998. Many major FLOSS projects are almost entirely developed by commercial entities, including the Linux kernel, Apache, and so on.
In general, using "commercial" as an antonym for "open source" is a good tip-off that (1) the author is clueless, or (2) the author has an anti-open-source agenda.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Truce? How can there be a truce when only one side is the agressor? Tell you what, Microsoft, stop attacking OSS and trying to thwart our attempts at every turn, and then there will be a truce because we are already the peaceful side.
Common ground? We built it. We continue to build it. It's ours, but by the very definition of open source, we are willing to share it (and already do!) with you. All you have to do is come down off your high horse and stop fucking around with closed standards that benefit no one but yourself.
Microsoft needs to STFU, stop wasting money on FUD, and actually DO something that will PROVE they are all about cooperation and a truce. Like opening NTFS or CIFS, and not lobbying for laws that hinder open standards or open source.
Nathan's blog
Help me out here: how is it, if the Free Software community is so hostile to proprietary software, that Mac OS X (a proprietary system) is able to be completely compatible with most Free Software?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
BULLSHIT!
C# is an ECMA standard. Parts of the .NET API are encumbered by Microsoft patents and not legally implementable by Free Software (which means Mono can never legally be fully compatible, AFAIK).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well, all this talk of truce and peace offerings reminds me of a story once told of the Greek army giving a peace offering to the city of Troy... For the full story, you'll have to RTFI (Read The F*cking Iliad)
.Net Runtime as in CLI, the part that executes/generates the code is a standard...a structure
.NET API is not....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Infr
Parts of the
Yeah, let's call a truce. As a peace offering, please take these blankets. Then we smokum peace pipe.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
From the article:
"Open source is a way of building software and, in its most basic sense, there is nothing incompatible [between] the concept of open source and commercial software. But the GPL has an inherent incompatibility that is, to my knowledge, impossible to overcome," Bob Muglia, the senior vice president of Microsoft's server and tools business, told eWEEK in an interview here at Microsoft's annual TechEd developer conference on June 12.
"A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said.
Licenses like the BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and commercial software, on the other hand, are quite compatible with one another, he observed.
So the bottom line is the same. Unless our open source is under a license that allows it to be hijacked it is not compatible. And my the way Muglia pal ol' buddy, the GPL does allow IP to be built. It is only the fact that we have the copyrights to our code that allows us to license it. Get it? No, I didn't think so...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I'm just having that image of Arthur fighting against the Black Knight.
"Let's call it a tie."
Very funny indeed.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
.. then how about a show of good faith from Microsoft. Say opening up the SMB protocols. The Linux community, by and large, do not put obstacles in the way of Microsoft interoperating with their products. They use open standards. The really unpleasant stuff in this "war" has come from Microsoft.
This is just talk until we see some action.
also from the second article published:
After hearing their response, he acknowledged that there is no consensus on this question and that from his perspective, "it appears to be equal. Windows has more patches, but Microsoft releases them more frequently and fixes things more quickly," said Moskowitz.
I thought there was general consensus that Microsoft releases patches less quickly. Oh wait, he is asking a TechEd audience. Of couse Microsoft people believe that Microsoft is better.
meh
This really gives an impression of Microsoft as being very weak compared to their usual position.
It's also an indication that they don't really know what they're up against. OSS is not a "religion", though I'm sure that they would like it to be something that they can address in a simple way. You cannot make a "truce" with OSS. It is not a company that they can make a deal with. It is a way of developing software and it is a value system.
They can tell that the Microsoft dream is in danger... but it appears they don't know how to address that danger.
With Linux nicely corrupted a lot of the bog standard free software won't work well on the Redmond Linux (which people will feel confident to try on their retired boxes at $9.99 a pop)and so it will perpetuate the myth that Linux is not ready for prime time, which really it is. Especially if it is preinstalled on certified hardware, but even a self install is not hard these days. Redmond is building Trojan Linux. This will be interesting.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
I dont know about you guys, but i happy to live without Microsoft.
Iv got everything i need, what more could Microsoft offer me?
Even if microsoft gave me money, i still wouldnt use their products..
SFU: Let devs, systems admins port applications
.Net Runtime as EMCA standard
SFU: For talking to *nix clients using nfs, ldap and interact with AD
Hah. You've never actually used SFU, have you? NFS support doesn't work unless you authenticate against AD- that means making your AD server your NIS server. SFU's "porting kit", btw, consists of (get this) GCC, CYGWIN, and a number of other free softwares.
RTF Format: As an open spec that predates everything else in the opensource world
Ah, no. TeX predates RTF by about 10 years.
Check again. The ECMA submitted runtime lacks the entire WinForms interface. That is, if all you want to do is make text-based hello world programs, that's fine, but it's a far cry from usefulness.
Open XML as EMCA standard
It's ECMA. Again, OpenXML is worthless. It's got almost zero marketshare. I wouldn't want to pick up that tar baby either.
Wix install set: For open software to create installers for windows
But only ON windows. It relies on API that aren't public to do so. This negates cross-compilers, and makes farm-work difficult.
IBuySpy Portal(Dotnetnuke is based on)
Again, zero marketshare.
It is easy to blame when you look at only one point of view
I agree.
Sure MS should be releasing docs for smb, cifs, AD, rdp(dont know if they actually control it) etc.
They indeed should be! See below:
should they for free (open) that is debatable....
No it's not. They were so ordered by a US Federal Court. They are convicted criminals, so it's not debatable at all. They continue to break the law, and they continue to hurt Americans and the world at large by continuing to have turd-covered shills pretend that Microsoft is some kind of company. It's not. It's an illegal monopoly. Move on.
Considering that Mandriva has done an admirable job of recovery, I would not expect it. I would expect companies similar in nature to Sun (who long ago rolled over and now colaborates with MS) to change. That means it is likely to be one of the small to middle size followers rather than a leader.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
For that matter, how is it that so much Free Software is available for Windows as well?
"We do not like the anti-patent clauses of GPL3"
Why? What does intellectual property gain a company unless they can cash in on it? Microsoft's version of a truce would be "We can use GPL software, and not have to share it." That is why they like the BSD licence. They can get away with grabbing something they have found and add it to their own distributions without having to share anything else.
Nothing prevents a company, or a single person from releasing software under a commercial licence or a GPL. I have written software under both. One product was tailored for a particular organisation and the other was for general consumption. One released under You Shall Not Share terms, and the other under the GPL. So far no conflict. I own the copyright on both programs, and can do what I like with them. The only catch is that I can't prevent other people playing with the GPL version and extending it. Pandora's box has been opened.
In another 9 months somebody else at MS will say "Wouldn't it be nice if the GPL was a BSD thing. Then we could stop this silly fight." I in turn would state "Wouldn't it be nice if Windows Vista be released under the GPL so that all that clever software would be able to be used for the common good. Then we could produce a better Linux and a better Windows."
People will always need help to use these tools. That is where the cash will be. In courses, tailoring and help lines. Software, once it is written, is written.
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
If MS wants to work with "GPL folks" then the point might be valid. There are a number of "GPL folks" who frankly want nothing to do with 'em, ever, regardless of what/if they change. But if they want (as they claim) to work with GPL software that's different. If they want to interoperate with GPL software the ball is in their court. Get off the stump, read the standards, read the code, write what you need. Everything you need is there, freely available. I know because compared to MS I have exactly Zero resources and have build some interoperable stuff by doing exactly that.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
GPL *IS* GPL. That's what it is. In most cases nobody on earth has the right to change it.
If MS wants to operate with GPL code, write a GPL wrapper that allows the kind of interconnection they want. It's not a super-secret trick. Lots of programs have done this before.
If that doesn't suit them, then they are lying through their teeth about what they want, and I see no reason that anyone should go along with them.
Given their past history I would give odds that lying is the correct answer.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That might be the goal of both Microsoft and the Open Source Initiative or the goals of both Microsoft and the Open Source movement, but it is not the goal of the author of the GNU GPL—the most widely-used free software license. The goals of the Open Source movement are chiefly technological and economic and this is what makes them so attractive to business.
RMS, Eben Moglen, and the FSF make it very clear that the GNU GPL is about giving more computer users software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software and to defend those rights even for derivative works. This is not to say that business can't be a part of making this happen, but business needs are not given primacy here and for good reasons. Business sometimes perverts the fight for freedom into what Microsoft and other proprietary software distributors want—to create a warm, fuzzy appeal to non-free software, thus making a place at the table for those who work against what the FSF and the GNU GPL work to create and maintain.
As RMS makes clear in "Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"":
Digital Citizen
First the FUD: "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," he said.
That's a load of crap, unless Microsoft is the one not letting GPL programmers also work on commercial software. Has Microsoft ever heard of Red Hat, or are they really that out of touch with what is going on in their industry?
Ahh, and then the trick: "A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said. Licenses like the BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and commercial software, on the other hand, are quite compatible with one another, he observed."
What's the main difference between the BSD license and the GPL? If Microsoft were to use the GPL in a piece of their software, they would have to give us the code for that piece of software, and with BSD they would be able to just take the code, use it, and never have any further obligations.
In other words, this call for a "truce" just translates to "stop using a license that would make us share our code with you if we use some of your code!"
He doesn't understand what the Free Software movement is: The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said
The goal on the GPL side is to provide everyone with Free (as in 'freedom') Software that they can use and contribute to. The goal on Microsoft's side is to make as much money as possible, however they can.
There is no obstacle to building bridges to Microsoft products on the open source side. In fact, a huge part of open source work is concerned with doing exactly that. The only obstacle is that Microsoft keeps protocols private, proprietary, and sometimes patented.
.NET, all they need to do is open up the specs, and the rest will happen automatically.
So, there really isn't any need for a "dialog". If Microsoft wants better open source support for Exchange, for SMB, for NTFS, for MS Office, for
o -- Joke
o -- You
-|-
/ \
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
Msft is still funding the scox-scam, among msft many other backstabing, system-abusing, practices.
It's like somebody saying "hey, let's stop fighting" while they're stopping on your face.
So you think that the GPL is unfair and unreasonable. So ignore it! That's right, just pretend that the GPL isn't even there! It even says right in the GPL itself that you can do this. (Paragraph 5: "You are not required to accept this license.")
There's your answer. Act as if the GPL doesn't exist, and do whatever you want with the software (as long as it's legal, of course)! Comb through the source code. Check out how it works. Make a bazillion copies. Change it around, and make your own version of the program. Better yet, combine it with another brilliant program of yours to make a super-program. Sell it and make a million--
Oh, wait. That's against the law --you'd be breaking copyright. You wouldn't want to do something illegal, would you?
Fine, just bundle it for free when you sell your--
Oh, darn. That's not legal either.
Umm, be a nice guy in general and post it on the web for people to download? Donate the program to a charitable organization?
Nope, that's against the law, too. Damn.
Hmm, what to do? Well, maybe you can ask the original programmer to sell you the rights to the program, so you can use it. Or perhaps you could give royalties. With enough financial incentive, maybe the programmer would be willing to transfer the rights to you.
But sometimes software is created by more than one person, and you'd have to negotiate with each of the authors to get the rights to the complete program. Sometimes even contacting one of the original authors can be a big hassle.
If only there were some way for the authors to state ahead of time, under what sort of conditions they would be willing to give you the rights to their program. This way, if you didn't want to negotiate, you'd still have the option of just fulfilling their conditions, and they've already agreed ahead of time that you get their permission --without your even needing to contact them! You know, some sort of text that they could include with their program (or put up on their web site) that explains all this clearly. They could call it a "document of giving permission". Hey, come to think of it, someone should come up with a word in the English language that means a "document of giving permission".
I'll let you take it from there. Let us know if you come up with any great ideas.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
How about Microsoft simply work on open formats, open standards, and then things will inter-operate?
I don't see open-source products deliberately designing stuff that will not work with Windows - there's nothing for the open source community to change - the changes required are all on Microsoft's side as far as I'm concerned.
PR spin.... trying to blame us for their incompatibility etc...
"Continues"?? Marketing bullshit... to get on the inter-operability path, they need to adopt open standards... not modified variants that are unusable/undocumented for use by anyone else.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
1: MS doesn't provide it, but if you want to read/write ext2/3 from any NT-based Windows, http://fs-driver.org/
2: Yes, MS does provide support for mounting NFS. It's called Services for Unix, check it out sometime..
Why do you need a truce when there's no war? No war as far as the FOSS side is concerned, at any rate. I can't recall Linus Trovalds calling for a jihad against Microsoft, or Stallman yelling "Death to Bill Gates!", or Eric Raymond making references to a war. I personally don't see a war. The FOSS community just wants to provide an alternative to proprietary stuff, nothing more.
What is more telling is how this reveals Microsoft's mentality. They do think it's a war.
Windows is supposed to be POSIX compliant too -- most Free Software ought to work on Windows with just a recompile also. And anything that causes it not to work is Microsoft's fault!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Wine, Cygwin, and all the rest have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of TFA.
Samba is just an implementation of SMB for Linux. It's one example of what happens when BOTH SIDES play to existing standards. OSS taking credit for that is like Microsoft (or Apple) taking credit for the GUI elements we see today.
VNC is the same. It was developed by a company and adopted by OSS. Then people come along later and claim that OSS is responsible for the technologies.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Now, if they were making non-standard PDFs that required a Microsoft application to use them, that would be another story. But that is not happening. All they were trying to do was exactly what people here (or at least, the parent poster) are asking, to make their stuff so other (non-MS) applications could work with them. They did, and are being sued over it. It's all about money, and power. There's no pot of money in open source and only a small marketshare which is why Adobe isn't suing open source applications that include PDF generators.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Anyone remember this ???? MSLinux http://www.mslinux.org/