Slashdot Mirror
Top 25 Hottest Open-Source Projects at Microsoft Codeplex
willdavid writes "Via CNet, a link to a blog post with the top 25 most active open-source projects on Microsoft's Codeplex site. As the CNet blogger notes, 'Codeplex is interesting to me for several reasons, but primarily because it demonstrates something that I've argued for many years now: open source on the Windows platform is a huge opportunity for Microsoft. It is something for the company to embrace, not despise.'"
That joke sucks every single time.
open source on the Windows platform is a huge opportunity for Microsoft. It is something for the company to embrace, not despise.'"
Some open source is good for MS - the sort of not particularly open software that relies on MS's OS & libs. Any software that can be easily ported to another platform is a threat.
Oh - and Open Source? Pah-lease. A license that governs USE of the software sounds neither permissive nor open:
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Anyone else have a bad feeling abut this?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
MS is harly breaking new ground here. So, what is their interest? Control?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Wow. Cool proyect.
INTERNET TROLL
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
MMMmmmm, I cannot contain my excitement.. oh, perhaps I can.
But do they run ON Linux???
I guess it is no surprise that I didn't see a single one of those "open" projects in the top 25 list run on anything other than MS-Windows. Reading through the list, I see ".NET", and "C#", "Vista", "Excel", "IIS", or "Sharepoint", etc, on just about every single one.
So, it is hard for me to get excited about a collection of projects that only serve to continue to lock people to a single platform.
Last i heard, it would only create some sort of bastardized python code that was no longer cross platform.
Sort of useless.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If you look at the projects, they all rely on some MS proprietary protocol. So, yes, I think they're after control, albeit discreet.
Even better, Windows on an Open-source platform.
So far, I only see projects that require you to use some proprietary MS software to compile, run or use it. It requires you to have .net to compile/run, it requires you to have proprietary MS-SQL database services, or tools that are geared towards the MS flavor of general purpose languages and tools (Ajax, Python...). What's "open" about that?
If anything, it's an attempt to appear open source while at the same time luring people into the unholy MS embrace-extend-eliminte trinity.
If they were serious about "open" projects, they would first of all accept the existance of platform independent standards, adhere to them and move their developers towards using and supporting those standards. So far, all I see is a very cheap trick to lure people into the MS-way.
"Open" and "free" software does neither mean that it doesn't cost anything nor that you can read the code. It means that you are not dependent on a single specific tool to make use of it. If you don't like gcc, take another ANSI compatible compiler and your gcc code will compile. If you don't like Apache, take any other HTTP server and it will understand and supply the same webpages. If you don't like samba... ok, bad example. But I think you get the idea. To be "open" and "free" for software, it must not be limited to a single operating system, a single database system or a single flavor or implementation of some standard, be it SQL, Ajax or Phyton.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Bummer. At least it looked nice on paper... not that i'd like to have anything to do with .NET :) Or Java, for that matter.
I wrote some C# Visual Studio addins and tried to upload them to codeplex. The only GPL license choice was gpl2, but I put in the comments "don't download this if you don't accept GPL3." Some code-monkey unpublished it because the license didn't match the chosen license - but GPL3 wasn't an option!
So I won't host it there.
This seems like an appropriate time to bring out that old gem: "I don't think that word means what you think it means." I can't say I found their approach particularly discreet. I think the word you were looking for was "obvious". ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
And even more interesting, it is the one and only (to my knowledge) piece of Microsoft-developed software in the Ubuntu repositories, and universe (meets open-source standards) at that.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
Huh? It's for embedding Python in .NET apps, or developing .NET scripts in Python. It's not useless unless you're a Linux-only dweeb.
In contrast, Free software licenses (BSD, MIT, GPL, etc.) cover only the distribution of the software. You do not need to accept any "license" just to use the software. For example, here the relevant paragraph from GPL:
So Free software licenses are indeed licenses: i.e. they grant you more rights than what you get by default under copyright law. EULAs, including microsoft's "permissive license" attempt to restrict your rights by controlling how you can use the software.So it is difficult to see microsoft's "permissive license" as anything but a trojan horse. Especially since it has an uglier brother, the "limited permissive license", which sounds confusingly similar to "permissive license", but adds a completely ridiculous restriction: you can only run the software on windows.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
do you REALLY think there could be anything interesting in a story which tried to sell the idea that Microsoft should embrace open source software on its platform? WTF are you smoking if you do cause I WANT SOME OF THAT SHIT.
I'm in THAT kind of mood right now so I'll say it, What kind of moron would even think Microsoft would accept open source on its platform for any other reason but to eventually kill it? I suppose, there is alot of evidence that shows their developers suck at finding new ideas and if Microsoft could sucker their 3rd party developers into posting code that Microsoft could take, hide, and make profits from( sucker license ) then maybe I could see them wanting this. But it ain't the open source we all know so is it really open source? IMO, no.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Cry all you want about their OS's - they certainly have room for improvement. Their development tools are top notch. To be honest I do with they'd port an industrial strength CLR env to Linux along with all their class libraries, and Visual Studio/Orcas. It would be a ridiculously large undertaking but it would be god damn sweet to develop with MS tools on other OS's.
Linux-only? Or mac, or bsd, or or or.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No bad feeling here. Still no grep, awk....
Me, I like:
{look;gawk;find;sed;talk;grep;touch;finger;find; flex;unzip;head;tail;e ct;umount;makeclean;
mount;workbone;fsck;yes;gasp;fsck;more;yes;yes;ej
zip;split;done;exit:xargs!!;)}
I guess this OS still can't cut it.
Way to make his point. You just admitted that the code is no longer cross-platform as the GP said.
OS kooks obsessed with ridiculous ideals made the internet, web, pc, I.t. what they are today. all the rest were bureaucrats.
Read radical news here
There is a buttload of code samples in the MSDN and on microsoft's website. Most of it doesn't do much at all, and does not give samples of advanced usage. Typically, I have seen a function with 10 optional parameters and poor documentation. The code sample shows one or two default usages, and one or two optional parameters.
This is the opportunity to see how real people use the APIs in real code.
Yes, we get it. Hahaha.
Slashdot has a funny bit of text when there are no comments to load, and sometimes it strikes you as humorously appropriate. Enjoy the moment, realize that this happens all the time, and proceed normally, commenting on the article, if at all.
Trust us, it's not clever, and the comments will come soon enough. We don't need filler comments in the mean time.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
I use terms like "M$" and "Windoze" because I believe that they're clever, and Netcraft confirms that cleverness scores people mod points around here, although it doesn't always work.
As always, I shall ignore people who reply to me to point out I am overreacting or just flapping uselessly in the wind. I find reason and logic to be inconvenient in my quest to convince the world that they must switch to free software or suffer the consequences. I consider myself an "evangelist" and I believe people should put up with me because I Am Right.
But, I urge you to just use your head when reading my posts. Most of what I say can safely be discarded as sophomoric fluff designed to bring out the worse in people. Make your own choices about technology and be smart.
Thanks.
Last i heard, it would only create some sort of bastardized python code that was no longer cross platform.
.NET, so it will run on any Mono supported OS as well as Windows.
.NET. It's trivial to access .NET libraries from IronPython, while CPython doesn't make it easy. I'd expect migration mostly from cPython to IronPython (the biggest issue I had was regex related). If you don't want .NET integration, stay with cPython.
That's not correct; IronPython runs on Mono or
You may mean that IronPython scripts are not 100% compatible with a CPython implementation. Well, duh! Even different versions of CPython aren't 100% compatible! Jython isn't 100% compatible with CPython. IronPython is fairly compatible with CPython 2.4.4; the list of differences is available here, so you can avoid them if you ever want to run your code on different Python systems.
The big advantage IronPython has is the integration with
Mod "-1, Apocalypse Preacher".
http://developers.developers.developers.developers .msdn.com/
"There are much better ways to attack MS."..I agree. Strategic multi megaton nukes from orbit-the only way to be sure...
It might be a good feature to have when a quarrel starts among a project's contributors, they can use this feature to settle things down.
Read radical news here
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA....oh wait, that wasn't funny at all!
congratulations, you made a 100% fail post.
I've long been saying to those goliaths, like Microsoft and IBM, that it's not a battle of who will win - closed source or open source companies, but that both are on a collision course to become one, evolving and taking on the best parts of each. Open source companies and projects need some level of commercialization to fund innovation and development. Closed source companies need to open up more to be trusted and stay relevant in today's fast moving market.
I work for an open source company, Hyperic http://www.hyperic.com/, and we make systems management software. Early on Hyperic embraced the fact that there is a demand to manage Microsoft techonologies, and we built our open source software to do just that (in addition to everything else we manage) - and not with some archane NRPE remote-watered-down mechanism. Natively against Microsoft's APIs - WMI. So we work with them.
True, their open source labs with channel25 and their codeplex efforts are very much behind the rest of the company. They are relatively new compared to the rest of Microsoft, and there's a lot of ballast to turn that steamship around. But it is making some inroads, and open conversation and criticism is getting attention. These companies have to listen or become irrelevant. True, Microsoft waited a long time to accept and embrace open source, but they are not that foolish to not make efforts in today's market. And with the amount of usage of Microsoft products out in the market, it would be even more foolish of us not to pay attention.
I clicked on this article expecting to see some erotic open-source action, not programs! You nerds and your weird fetishes.
Well, I was hoping people would at least find that post funny, but in the end fuck it: we're all doomed anyway, so why should I care.
.Net or no-one will visit this site anymore!
Re-write Slashdot under
Here is a project an acquaintance of mine recently posted on codeplex because he does not have time to maintain it. It's more or less a Quicksilver clone for windows, with plugin architecture and everything. Pretty cool, hopefully someday someone else will have time to pick up where he left off. It certainly has lots of promise.
http://www.codeplex.com/kodachi/
I know slashdotters loath Ms-PL, but not all of the projects use Ms-PL anyway.
If you had bothered to check the license of the listed projects you'd see that some of them use GPL or LGPL (the only licenses that slashdotters appear to respect).
For example, the PHPExcel, which allows PHP code to read/write Excel 2007 files, uses LGPL.
Still other projects use custom licenses, like the GoTraxxx project.
Microsoft's own projects use MS licenses like Ms-PL and Ms-CL (both pending OSI-certification) but non-MS projects can use any license the devs choose to use.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
That response sucks every time.
crap.
Please stop repeating Groklaw FUD. .NET and Mono).
A couple weeks ago, Groklaw decided to FUD Microsoft's submission of their licenses to OSI by talking of licenses that Microsoft has not even submitted to OSI, namely the Ms-LPL and Ms-LCL. Those are "L"imited versions of Ms-PL and Ms-CL that tie the source to Windows. Microsoft has not submitted those, rather, they have submitted Ms-PL and Ms-CL, which most certainly are platform independent, as IronPython proves (its code released under Ms-PL and runs on
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Microsoft is so big these days that they have to walk up to developers openly and embrace them. It's the only way to get into a position to get the knife firmly in their back.
I freely admit that I am paranoid about Microsoft's intentions, I am also paranoid about jumping out of planes, both for good reason.
"I do not believe this is a logic error, as you say. I believe it's intentional."
"MS-PL is a trojan horse: it's purpose is to make people accept the idea that controlling how the supposedly 'open source' software is used is ok."
MOD PARENT UP.
It could be another instance of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Eventually, Microsoft's "open source" will be mixed in some programs with real open source, perhaps unintentionally, giving Microsoft control over real open source.
Someone will say, "I need a routine to do xx" and someone will say, "Use this", not realizing that it is controlled by Microsoft.
People seem to think that Microsoft is a software company, but it seems to me that it is an abuse company that uses software as a means to deliver abuse.
Anyone say fanboy yet?
More about the issue in my parent post: There is more than one license.
The Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL) says, in part: "(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
Be very, very careful. If some of the Ms-LPL code is mixed with real open source code, there can be a license violation.
But, i would like to know from someone intimately familiar with the site, what happens if you code something covered by an MS patent (or MS partner patent, etc)?
To me, thats the big deal breaker really. People can whinge all they like about the site, but it is what it says it is "open source". There are plenty of project on sf.net that rely on proprietary api's (even some MS ones!! OMG).
Also, to say MS are doing some "kewl shit" with their enterprise library and having to code php/perl/python or java would require eye-poking, palease get with the program cause thats just saying "hi, im not actually a developer and have no clue about code unless i can use my mouse to write it" - go back to coding in logo chump.
It's a battle about how to make money, isn't it?
.conf file!" into a GUI, and other streamlining, it can be. But I fear more the next version of Windows which by all accounts, seems to be a *drastic* departure from what there was previously because they are abandoning a lot of legacy code, and replacing compatibility with internalized virtualization layers. Microsoft has a LOT of talented programmers, a lot of smart minds, and a lot of good directions. Some business moves they have made in the past have been questionable or stupid. Some products they have released are just piss poor. But cohesively, Microsoft has provided products that are largely decent, and their biggest stopping point is backward compatibility to support older products. They can't "reinvent" the Windows wheel, like Apple decided to. But with virtualization, they can.
/. standards), because that's the day we lose our choice in the marketplace. Linux is making the right moves, but until there is a single, unified distribution, there's even arguments within the Linux community on which distro is best -- and how can a consumer decide?
:)
Microsoft has found a way to make a boatload of money from closed source software. And I know we will hear the arguments of people who say that open source is better -- but tell me why? I am an open source proponent for lots of things, but it has to make sense. Business sense. And I think that fact is lost on a lot of people.
If you can have code reviewed by people be it open source, or closed... how is it different? The open source projects that are best, are the ones that have the most involvement in them. Here's a good case in point -- phpBB which is by far the best open source forum software, has been surpassed by Invision Power Board, and vBulletin in features, speed, and fit and finish. But why? phpBB is open source! It's because not as many people are dedicating as many hours to review the code, check for bugs, and continually update the product. Invision and Jelsoft are doing this on a daily basis, all day long.
Another example is Open Office. From a technical point of view, it's got a lot of developers, but no focus. That's why we have Java in it because technically, it makes sense to have. But that leads to longer load times. There's no central cohesion on the project it seems.
I'm not a MS proponent -- but I understand the logic they have. Windows is closed source and making it open source is in their mind, a bad idea -- because then they will lose money because the technology out there can be used in forked projects to build "a better OS" that remains compatible to Windows. Each progressive version of Windows is essentially being able to build upon the foundation of what there was before, and adding more. (let's not get into a Vista is good/bad debate). If Windows is open sourced, what's to prevent a competent group of folks to recreate the libraries, APIs, etc... and make a COMPATIBLE OS that is actually you know... "better"?
Microsoft's good move would be to see the projects that add value to Windows as a PLATFORM, and support them. Open source or NOT. And they are actively doing this. Just recently Microsoft dropped $150 million to ensure the movement of HD-DVD, because it's a technology that plays to their interests, plays to their benefit, and provides them long term stability in a certain business avenue.
Linux isn't ready for the desktop yet. With Click n' Run, moving "edit the
I fear the day that Microsoft makes a "great" OS (by
Open source projects for Microsoft are a non-issue. Take away the "open source" and just use "Windows enhancing", and then you might be more appropriate. Microsoft doesn't care if the product is open source or not -- they will support what strengthens them, just as Linux should be more actively doing as well. Strengthen the platform as a whole, unify, and provide a clear choice to consumers on an enterprise and home level.
It will only serve us all.
In the meanwhile -- thanks for making Ubuntu so this Windows kid could learn that Linux can fly too, and still be useful. Firefox too
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Another addition to my parent post: The Microsoft licenses are ALREADY causing confusion and dissension. See the anger and hostility in the discussions below.
The Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) says in the sub-heading: "This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software."
Some of the people commenting in the discussions below are reading only what they believe are the license terms, and not seeing the sub-heading quoted above, which is ANOTHER license term, even though it is not formatted that way.
Again, the license says, "If you USE [my emphasis] the software, you accept this license."
Microsoft's multiple licenses with confusing formatting are already causing harm to the open source community. And Microsoft is just getting started with this.
Seriously where is the "we own anything you make" clause buried deep in some ULA. Seasoned combatants don't suddenly switch sides so if MS is "embracing" open source then there is surely some angle they are trying to exploit for more M$.
Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately attributed to ignorance. -Napoleon
You might have a (weak) point, but doesn't most of what you are saying boil down to "there are some open source advocates in the belly of the beast that should be encouraged."? That's not really saying much IMO.
Microsoft has such a long history of deception and other bad practices it should make any intelligent person suspicious of their intentions here. It was only a few months ago that they were threatening to sue the open source community. I know it's been said to death, but the bottom line is that if Microsoft as a company really wanted to embrace open source, and work with the open source community, the very first step is open file formats and cross-platform compatibility.
How can anyone trust Microsoft's open source efforts when at the same time they are fighting tooth and nail to eliminate any hope of open file formats and tying all of their open source projects to Windows? I know you are trying to be positive here, but isn't this just a tad naive of you as well? There simply is no reason to believe that this isn't just the same old divide and conquer marketing game from Microsoft. At least not yet.
Windows might have to go open source eventually just to remain relevant, but Microsoft will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to this conclusion, and it will likely take years. At a bare minimum, my expectation is that major structural and managerial changes will have to occur at Microsoft before any of that comes to pass, if it ever does.
Balmer would have to be fired for starters.
Mod +1 Funny
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
More than 60% of the projects listed in that blog are not being maintained, some have not since 2002. It makes me wonder if the blogger just copied the list from some other blog and has called it his/her own just to get some traffic.
"It's not useless unless you're a Linux-only dweeb."
It's not useful unless you're a MS dweeb.
There, fixed that for you.
Think: concise, truthful sentences...they are your friends.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
That old saying comes to mind: Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.
By all means, I think they got a late start, but economics and the resounding voice of communities like slashdot, bloggers, and the media should work to keep a sharp eye and the conversation going. I'm not defending them actually, I mean to encourage staying critical. (A given on this forum!). I am saying that this opposition is on a collision course to their further adoption of openness and someday even real open source.
It is optimistic. And it will take a VERY long time, just look at Sun's example. But dismissing their efforts entirely is naive in itself. Their progress should be watched, and frankly, encouraged...even if that "encouragement" is criticism pointing them towards what the market is demanding.
They didn't mean to start this project, but at the presentation Steve was curled up in the corner, rocking back and forth muttering "Developers, developers, developers, developers..". They figured the only way to get that many developers was to copy that Linus bloke.
Every time I read an article about Microsoft and Open Source, I find most of the comments surrounding the article are incredibly negative and suspicious. Invariably, someone will claim that their only intention in investigating Open Source technology is to eventually kill the market. I take a different view. While I think that Microsoft definitely isn't engaging in Open Source activities to be magnanimous, I do think their their interests are genuine. I believe their intentions are 100% money related. They don't want to engage or participate in the open source community, they want to dominate it, exploit it, and find a way to create a sustainable business model around it. I don't see that as a bad thing and I think those of us who are building businesses around open source solutions should seriously watch what Microsoft does within the model as an example of what we could do. Maybe not a perfect example (it is Microsoft, after all) but an example nonetheless. Just because it's corporate open source doesn't mean it shouldn't be given a chance. And just because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean it's always evil. It just usually is.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
A game of GO. That is soooooo hot!
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
However, you are correct, CodePlex projects use various licenses, it seems, FWIW.
IronPython is very compatible with CPython and it can run on Mono, which is cross-platform and open-source. Perhaps you were thinking of Boo, but it can also run on Mono.
IronPython makes mixing Python with other languages much easier. Imagine coding the backend in C# (or Java or Lisp or whatever you want) and the frontend in Python.
Using a common interpreter will allow the Python project to focus more on the language features and leave the interpreting to others. I think it would be fantastic for all scripting languages to target the CLI. It results in huge performance gains and makes producing new languages much easier. There's no reason for all these languages to have their own interpreter.
The tags about "embrace, extend, extinguish" don't make much sense at all. How do you "extinguish" open source? It isn't even possible. And the whole point of open source software is that you can extend it.
Well Microsoft make a bunch of .Net development tools that don't seem to have caught on very well with third parties, so it does make sense.
.Net compatibility for the projects they work on. The VirtualDub author actually ported to .Net and decided that the increased size and decreased speed were not worth it.
.Net applications. And it's new third party Windows only applications that made Windows a killer platform. Old ones will tend to run fine in Wine once people have time to reimplement the API functions they depend on.
Most third party shops I suspect have stuck with a mixture of Win32 SDK, ATL and MFC development because they have an enormous codebase and don't feel the need to port. Now to be honest some of those are a pain to learn, once you know them you can churn out Windows applications incredibly quickly. And because they were the only way to do that a few years back, people did learn them.
There was a straw poll on a Microsoft development newsgroup and the vast majority of people actually prefered Visual Studio 98 to later versions since it was quicker and they don't need
All this despite the fact that they give away Visual Studio 2005 Express on their website. I think it's strange case really. In the same way that people don't like Vista because it's slightly bigger and slower than XP, later development environments have never really caught on.
And people graduating from college tend to have used Linux so they don't use either the old or the new Microsoft tools. So Microsoft sense a danger to themselves in the long run. Like no popular
All in all, it seems like a sudden conversion to supporting open source projects based on Visual Studio Express seems like a prudent move on their part.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It isn't really open source if you need to buy proprietary software in order to run it.
Maybe Mono can be used to free some of that software, but this is basically just a self-serving effort by Microsoft to get free labor out of people. Some other companies are abusing open source in a similarly sleazy way. You know who you are.
I tried. I looked at the website. I spotted lots of stuff that requires .NET, MS SQL Server, SharePoint etc etc.
I can't do it. Whenever I see these words, my tummy twinges, my eyes wince. My fingers close in a fist.
I can't love Microsoft. No matter how Open Source they become. I'm a hypocrite. I admit it now. I just can't stomach their stuff.
Just seeing the words Apache, MySQL, Perl, Java, Linux soothes my nerves. There's an attitude with the people who develop true Open Source. A culture. An understanding and comradeship.
We NEED a big bad evil adversary. It makes us leaner, faster, more responsive, BETTER. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
I know I know - some advocate that we should work with Microsoft, we shouldn't think of them as evil. But where's the challenge then? They're easy to dislike. Just read the History of Microsoft, and the trail of good but smaller competitors they mugged and left for dead, bleeding in IT Alley.
Oh well, there's enough work out there to keep me Microsoft-free in my environment.
Wake me up when ANY IDE can come close to the functionality of VS2005 + Team Foundation Server.
9 34.aspx
There's none, period. Sure Eclipse is a damned fine IDE in its own right, but, excuse the pun, but it's completely "Eclipsed" by the TFS extension to Visual Studio. And that's just 2005.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/teamsystem/aa718
Solution files can be converted to & from various formats using 3rd part tools. Google it.
And jesus, what's this shite about one Window? That is just a plain lie - every single window is detachable, moveable for both debugging and editing modes independently.
throw new NoSignatureException();
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/l
There is more than one MS-Permissive license and one of them does indeed mention Windows so let's be nice to each other and try to get along.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
MS-LPL, Section 3 (F) and MS-LCL, Section 3 (G) both contain:The others have other problems:
MS-RL, Section 1 I mean, you can't even redistribute that code. And the rest are GPL-incompatible last I heard and don't really offer anything you can't with a BSD license. After all, if you want to make patent grants, you don't *have* to do that as part of a EULA, you can do a true license and just make a public promise not to sue over some matter. I believe IBM and others have done something like that with respect to Linux.
I see a lot of complaining, mostly about how the software is not truly free or open because it targets Windows or runs on .NET
But why is nobody complaining about the fact that the source control system is Team Foundation Server. You should try to get some source from a project using Visual Studio. It can be done with free software (Visual Studio Express and Team Explorer add on. It's not pretty compared to Subversion for instance.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I have been curious about this. Isn't there a standardized Python definition? I mean, sure, cPython is the de facto standard, but isn't there a standard an interpreter can adhere to and claim to be 100% Python compatible? IIRC, Guido says that noone should rely on interpreter hacks, so that shouldn't be a problem. Why are IronPython, PyPy, Jython etc trying to be compatible with cPython?
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Their progress should be watched, and frankly, encouraged...even if that "encouragement" is criticism pointing them towards what the market is demanding.
Shit, pile of shit, MS should have been splited years ago for monopolistic behaviour (they were found guilty), the rest is just a maskerade.
What's in a sig?
Am I the only one who didn't particularly find any interesting projects in the article?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
When it becomes Windows software, it becomes 'Limited'.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
useability vs. useful
Just the other daz we had our arguments about MS-PL. Now, randomly I selected BlogEngine.NET from that list, and it's MS-PL. So, the top 25 open source projects ? Right. As open source, as MS-PL is. Some said, that MS wanting to get into the FOSS license soup is to blur and mix the meaning of FOSS, first step of it being calling their stuff open source even before their MS-PL being approved. Call them free software, or software developed under the PL, but calling them open source is a bit edgy.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Is it such a bad thing that they rely on some solid products that have well defined API and SDKs... The Horror!
Hi,
Ilgaz:~ ilgaz$ python
Python 2.5 (r25:51918, Sep 19 2006, 08:49:13)
Ilgaz:~ ilgaz$ ironpython
-bash: ironpython: command not found
So, it is not multi platform.
Have a nice day
I try to avoid it, if humanely possible.
I also try to avoid people that constantly are trying to take advantage of me, specially those offering shinny nice things with leonine conditions attached.
If you are a fool for punishment that is your prerogative, but all that stuff that you call primitive is bringing lots of dosh to MS's table (most competent Windows SAs and Webmasters use on or more of the tools in the name of which you want to immolate your innocent eyeball).
Finally, if you have no ideals that is well and good, that does not mean that ideals are ridiculous just because you somehow think they must be.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
open source windows ..
"open source on the Windows platform is a huge opportunity for Microsoft"
.. built on the Microsoft AJAX Library and ASP.NET"
.NET Framework"
...
yea, once you have moved your "open source" project to Windows, you then have to 'license' the proprietary codecs from Redmond, not so open is it then. Of course Microsofts definition of "open" is different from everyone elses.
"AJAX Control Toolkit
"IronPython - a new implementation of the Python programming language on the
'nuff said
davecb5620@gmail.com
"How do you "extinguish" open source? It isn't even possible. And the whole point of open source software is that you can extend it"
..
Release an 'open source' project that relies on a closed source component, make unsubstantiated IP claims against Open Source, engage in private cross-licensing and patent deals with the major Open Source companies, make vague litigation threats in the press
was: Re:Regarding tags
davecb5620@gmail.com
I know some people who use ambigous words to describe their software. They use common words like "free" and "open" but restrict their meaning to their needs.
They were threatening with their patent portfolio just weeks ago.
Nothing short of an apology about that and then opening formats and APIs would convince me that they have any genuine interest in going open (and that is only for starters).
A GPLed Windows would be the wisest decision MS could take. They just are so tremendously stubborn and short sighted that they will never realize this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A good article about Open Source Definition on Groklaw .. quote:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.
For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
davecb5620@gmail.com
I release the following code under the Ms-LPL license:
) ; // should never reach here
#include <bugs>
int main(int,char**)
{
Vista::Core v=new Vista::Core();
v.installDRMHooks(Vista::System::Slowdowns::p0_05
v.launchAnnoyingRandomPopups();
v.setTimeBeforeHang(10);
v.tryToRun();
return 1;
}
Hmmmm, I hope that by using their license they'll not sue me for patent infringement...
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
to learn how MS will use them and leave them left in the desert when the next shiny object shows up on their periphery
ms has the attention span of dog, and they care about "outside entities" like a dog cares about a bone.
No, when there are no comments, you get the normal story page with no comments and the option to post one.
"Nothing for you to see here" is a weird bug that has been around for a long time now without being fixed. It is not meant to ever be seen by clicking on a normal story link, which is why people complain about it, with little effect.
You guys are talking like Microsoft is out to screw everyone.
check it out.
A simple Google search will turn up the download for it.
open source software could only by a short term play for Microsoft. They maintain their position by having control of the Windows ecosystem from OS API's to distribution channels. Opening the source to applications on that platform in a none restrictive manor hands away some control. Therefore, it can only ever be a short term play. And if there was any history of them actually competing on product merit with a competitor then it could be otherwise but alas, there is no history of such business practice at Microsoft.
promoting open source egg timers does not constitute support IMO. Let Open Office or the like play in their new found love for open source and see what kind of love that gets from Microsoft.
it's a short term play and nobody should waste there time with them. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
It's a shame FOSSies can't handle the truth.
I think from your comments that we are sort of on the same page in a way, but I would characterise your position as having a more optimistic spin. While I usually try to stay positive myself and avoid all the "MS is shit!" stuff, you must admit it's hard to do when it comes to this particular company.
You are right in that the negative comments and suspicion are counter-productive to moving forward, they always are. But while forgiveness is eventually the only solution, there are certain realities that make such "kiss and makeup" scenarios unlikely for now. I guess I was just pointing that out.
Sitting down and shaking hands with Al Qaida and the Islamic extremists is really the only "solution" to terrorism as well. But you will get a bullet in the head or serious jail time from your own community for suggesting it in today's world, and it's naive to think it's going to happen anytime soon.
GP said "practically all" the MS licenses and did NOT restrict that to the two submitted for approval; you did.
You're right that those two don't have that particular limitation, although they have other problems, but you then wrote it as if none of the licenses had that limitation, which is not correct.
No, the GP did not say "practically all". He said "all". Let me requote:
it seems that all Microsoft "open source" licenses require to run Windows
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Why would I expect Mono to run stuff written for .net/Windows? Because Microsoft made this big thing about .NET being a Java killer, including how it was going to be oh so portable. Now, in reality, Microsoft just tried to put the squeeze on Java, claim .NET is portable (and show Mono as "proof" that it's portable) whilst in reality encouraging the development of completely non-portable .NET apps (as you call them .net/Windows). They intentionally negate one major advantage .NET was supposed to have over conventional Microsoft platform programming tools -- portability.
How many of you actually clicked that link expecting to see something there? I know I did :-)
1) NIH (Not Invented Here). Almost certainly a part of it.
2) Patent clauses. This is almost certainly why the license says it applies to use as well as distribution: you're allowed to patent the software (I think, IANAL), but you're not allowed to file a patent suit or collect patent royalties for it's use against anybody else who has agreed to the license. This is interesting as it appears to be an effective anti-patent-troll measure; if MS-licensed software is patented, then nobody can use those algorithms, whatever without agreeing to the license. They can get and redistribute the software freely, even the source if it's the Community license, but they can't use patents to try and shut down a competing project (as, for example, Microsoft might be trying to do with Linux). Obviously, this seems a little unlike them, so if anybody who is more familiar with patent law could examine my analysis (and the license itself) I'd apprecate that.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
The GPL *does* cover use. It says you have the unlimitted right to run the software, that there is no warranty, etc.