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.
Anyone else have a bad feeling abut this?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Have you read the rest of the license? No MS fanboy here, but it is not exactly a draconian piece of legalese.
There are much better ways to attack MS. Try citing the company's track record of failing to observe laws, failing to deliver promised functionality, and failing to promote innovation in their dedicated developer base through patent threats, aggressive devaluation->buy-out tactics, questionable attempts at political influence (open standards in California anyone?)...
Then pose a question like, "Why would an open source developer choose to get into bed with a company like that?"
Just citing the license is a pretty weak argument especially if you have read it.
Regards.
It's probably because of braindead installers that expect an EULA.
I actually filed a bug about this on FileZilla and it was fixed (I think I filed against 2.29 and it was fixed in 2.30).
If it's happening to $YOUR_FAVORITE_FLOSS_PROJECT, then file a bug stating that the installer violates GPL.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The "trick" Microsoft uses to lure people is a vastly superior development/runtime environment in .NET. I can live with that trick.
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.
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's nothing wrong with open-source software that only runs on MS products. In fact, it's a step in the right direction. Consider that in the past, if you wanted some custom app on Windows or some custom VB macro for Excel, you had to buy it or pay some developer to create it. A free repository of open-source MS only apps can only benefit the Windows world the same was OSS helped *nix, and maybe drive down the cost of running a Windows only environment.
So "Open Source" now means it has to compile and run on all platforms?!?!?
W
T
F
?
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Considering that *ALL* the terms of the license are distribution terms, it's clear that the term "use" is in reference to distribution. Neither the Microsoft Permissive License or the Community license put any restrictions on the use of the software as a user.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I think it's pretty obvious. Microsoft wrote their own licenses because they don't want to be at the mercy of the FSF, and their willingness to alter license terms to suit their political agendas. This is the same reason Apple, Sun, Mozilla, Apache, and many others have their own licenses as well.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
What's the point of using open source software if you have to buy some expensive closed source package to use it. Such as SharePoint, Excel, IIS, Vista, etc. Open source only gives you all the advantages of open source if the entire software stack is open source. Otherwise, you can't modify the software, and you aren't free to fix all the bugs that you encounter.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
At least one of the listed projects, IronPython, runs with no problems on Mono. .NET targetted projects.
I assume the same can be said for much of the other
BTW, mose projects on SourceForge run on Linux ONLY. I guess the reason is to lock people into Linux, according to your dufus logic.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
>BTW, mose projects on SourceForge run on Linux ONLY. I guess the reason is to lock people into Linux, according to your dufus logic.
No, most of the projects are *POSIX*, which doesn't "lock" you into anything. All the tools are open and free, as are the libraries and compilers. And, last time I checked, POSIX Linux, although Linux is one of many POSIX compliant Operating systems. There is nothing "dufus" about my logic.
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.
Ok, they rely on propietary products, but that doesn't mean they are useless to the Open Source Community.
See, it's open source, so porting any of those projects to other systems is quite simple and it's nothing compared to having to reverse engineer everything.
---------------
Ale
Check out my blog!
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.
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.
Why do you think Mono needs to run programs written for .NET/Windows? G++ can't compile many programs produced by Visual Studio, but I doubt you think G++ "will never be a solution unless Microsoft decides to support it". Why do you treat Mono differently?
.NET/Windows, just like G++ isn't intended to compile working programs that use the Windows API. Mono is great for Linux-only or cross-platform software projects, just like G++ is great for Linux-only or cross-platform software projects. Mono works great for projects that aim for compatibility with it, and G++ works great for projects that aim for compatibility with it.
Mono isn't intended to run programs written for
You're biased against the Common Language Infrastructure because it was created by Microsoft. I understand, because I hate Microsoft too, (I use only Linux on my desktop) but the CLI is a really great idea, and Mono is a really fantastic project. Give it a fair chance! Don't write it off just because it can't do something it's not intended to do!