Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Singularity Now "Open" Source
Alex_Ionescu writes "Microsoft's Singularity operating system (covered previously by Slashdot) is now open to the public for download, under a typical Microsoft academic, non-commercial license. Inside is a fully compilable and bootable version of what could be the basis for the future of Windows, or maybe simply an experiment to demonstrate .NET's capabilities. Singularity, if you'll recall, has gained wide interest from researchers and users alike, by claiming to be a fully managed code kernel (with managed code drivers and applications as well), something that would finally revolutionize the operating system research arena. The project is available on CodePlex."
Can't you look past your own ideology to see that this is actually a remarkably good thing, even if it possibly could be better.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
The licence only allows non-commercial use, and therefore does not meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition.
Given MS's propensity for muddying (or FUDdying?) the waters as regards open-source/free software (with terminology like "shared source"), a site like /. really shouldn't be doing their work for them...
When will people learn? Or Slashdot editors do their jobs?
(Never, but whining fanboys like myself will never stop either). Fuck off.
I'm really tired of you OSS fascists. You don't have a clue, you can't actually comment on the news because Singularity is so over your head, yet you're the loudest idiots on slashdot.
OMG OPENSORS FTW!!!
Idiots.
open source = source code is made available
free software = source code is not only made available, but you are free to use that source however you wish, assuming you abide by the guidelines presented in the free software license, assuming there are any
Reminds me a lot of the old Amiga exec kernel in that regards.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Not really.
To me there appears no surprise here. You can't use it except in certain carefully isolated ways. And it's hardly a complete OS.
It's no threat to MSWind. It's an attempt to keep developers from even looking at Linux. ("You want to study an OS? OK, study our toy model.") I'm not saying it's technically crippled. It may be, but I'm not going to check. It's legally crippled.
This is just another one of those things that you're safer ignoring. Did you expect more from MS?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I know very well that Microsoft Research and Microsoft are very loosely-coupled, however the article was submitted by a Microsoft proponent (judging by his account history) which "has signed an NDA with Microsoft" and one can very well see how this benefits to Microsoft (they're working hard to make everyone think they do "Open Source" too with their SharedSource initiatives and such -- btw they do have a few projects under true F/OSS licenses afaik).
Microsoft (as well as other proprietary software companies) is (and has been) very interested in spreading FUD regarding Open Source (such as "if the source is available then it must be Open Source", obviously using a flaw opened by the Open Source Initiative which put the emphasis on the openness of the code rather than on its freedom from the start), and with such an headline on a site such as Slashdot (ie, where a lot people go but don't browse further than the main page) I'm sure to take a coffee next week with someone who will tell me about Singularity now being Open Source... Is that your definition of "news"?
Singularity is a great research project but it's not Free/Open Source by any means. So grand-parent is right (as are others), and you are just as much as a fascist than the F/OSS zealots you criticize since your critics are based on them being OSS fascist and not on the facts being right or wrong. Let's call a cat a cat. Open Source is a well-defined term (just like "Windows-compatible" and nobody would like to see the Wine project tout itself of that feat unless it's 100% true), so let's respect it.
It's not an ideological point, it's a practical one. Why should anyone spend any time learning and working with this tool if their efforts cannot be used commercially? It's not a bad thing that they allow people to look at their source, but it's hardly a "remarkably good thing" either.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You're confused. Open source is an adjective that describes a piece of software as having the original source code publicly available. "Open Source" is also the name of a marketing campaign and licensing lobbying movement. So this release is open source as the code is being made available. It does not comply with the desires of the "Open Source" movement though. The two are entirely different.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
also, STFU when you clearly have no clue. In fairness to the GP, there is an argument that a Californian non-profit organisation can't suddenly spring up and decree that the words "open source" suddenly have whatever meaning they say they have. The OSI is neither a standards organisation nor a dictionary. Nor are the words "open source" a trademark (or, indeed, trademarkable, since they're descriptive).
What is trademarked by the OSI is the phrase "Open Source Initiative Approved", and you (and the OSI) would have a perfect right to object to anyone describing Singularity as Open Source Initiative Approved, since it isn't. But the same, I'm afraid, does not apply to a non-trademarked, commonly used phrase such as "open source", any more than Microsoft could set up a non-profit organisation that gives its own definition of "secure" and hire people to tell anyone who describes Linux as "secure" to "STFU when you clearly have no clue"...
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Won't someone fix the title? It's just plain wrong. A non-commercial license is not Open Source.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
what is the attraction of Singularity
IMHO it has a company behind it with enough money to market it. The reason to market it is so the technology gained from the people "learning from it" can be usurped by the marketer. btw. thanks for the link.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
people 'wanking around' with stuff like this move things on. You know, the stuff you're only using. Yes, those lifeless curious nogood hax0rgeeks. Damn them for wanting to understand/improve things.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
This is just another blue sky project from the Microsoft Research, a division that is tasked with coming out with cool stuff without regard to commercial viability. Every big high-tech company has such a division. My own employer, Sun, has Sun Labs, which is always coming out with interesting stuff that mostly has nothing to do with our business model. I think it's mainly a prestige thing, to convince folks that you're a cutting-edge company.
I think you're confusing "open" with "free" (as in freedom). Generally, free software means it can be freely used and open just means you can view the source code.
I am appalled at how many people dont get this, but I'll say it again.
The US California non-profit organization OSI does not own, copyright, or hold a trademark on the term 'open source'.
They are also not a government or dictionary in that they get to arbitrarily redefine words and mandate that they are the new definition for the entire human race.
The term 'open source' has been around alot longer than the OSI org, and had the same meaning then as it does now. It means the source is availble to read/view.
For a pretty substantial portion of our industry, the term 'open source' used in this context is accurate.
And what happens when you take some of those ideas you learned with this academic license, implement them in your own OS, and release it for free? What's to stop microsoft from bullying those who looked at this code from ever working on an open source operating system again?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That doesn't even remotely resemble open source. It is NOT open source.
This is Microsoft's attempt to redefine what Open Source means. It is an aberration of their "embrace, extend, extinguish". They are trying to confuse the market into a non-understanding of what open source means.
That license is not even close to the GPL. People who develop for open source need to understand and spread the word that this is simply a matter of intentional obfuscation of the ideals behind open source and what it attempts to achieve. Giving up is giving in, so don't give up on spreading word.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Everything you do on this project, whether just asking a question on a forum or posting a small patch will give MS more momentum, and takes away the same momentum from true free software. So you are not only giving your time away for free, you are also adding value too a commercial research project.
Microsoft finally innovates something, and this is the response.
Of course people who are actually interested don't much care for your tribalist attitude. Hey maybe in 20 more years the open source world can reinvent another Unix.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
It is certainly true that "open source" is subject to some semantic unclarity (which is one reason why I personally dislike the term, preferring "free software" - albeit that has problems of its own, of course).
However, that doesn't mean that the likes of MS should be allowed to get away with their bait-and-switch tactics of attempting to gain the perceived kudos and good marketing karma of promoting "open source" (in the OSI sense) and then turning around and saying, "Oh, we only meant it was 'open source' as in 'the source is available, on restrictive terms'". Nor that, as I said in my original comment, /. should be adding to the confusion over the term.
My guess is that the original submitter didn't appreciate that "non-commercial" takes the licence outside the scope of the OSI's definition of open source - not that they meant to use "open source" in some broader sense of "source is available".
I'm somewhat agnostic on the question of whether or not Open Source is a good thing, but it does us no good to have someone call any license their cat coughs up "Open Source".
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
The promise of Singularity, as I understood it, was the possibility of constructing an O/S kernel with all of the modularity advantages of a microkernel without all of the process communication issues typical to this kernel type.
This is underplaying its role; it is an OS slate with solid ideas that can be used to pound new OS theories through without having to deal with any lineage to prior models.
However the microkernel issues that you are referring to are ideas that Microsoft tackled 16 years ago and is a corner milestone of Windows NT. Singularity does build on these concepts, but this aspect of the OS is old theory from NT that Microsoft has also made a design aspect of Singularity.
So if you are 'now' looking for an OS technology that has microkernel modularity without the performance and communication issues, then you need to go look at Windows NT, since this is how NT was designed. (When I say Windows NT, I am talking about the core kernel architecture that sits under Win32/Win64 etc.)
NT is not classified as a true microkernel, and is best described as a hybrid kernel or a client/server kernel due to the layered kernel API isolation that doesn't have monolithic multi-tasking issues and doesn't have the overhead of a true microkernel due to the light and layered kernel API.
I'm surprised that people with some interest in OSes to this day don't realize simple concepts like this about NT. You can argue than the Win32 subsystem sucks, blah, blah, but very few, if any OS engineers or theorist would make fun of the NT kernel/architecture itself.
NT for its time was the best of theory that currently existed in 1992, Singularity is Microsoft's Research team throwing out new OS theory ideas for the entire industry, and unlike NT, you can learn from what they are working on, read the code, and even be inspired to develop your own OS based on their theories and concepts. With NT, Microsoft only presented the concepts of what NT was doing and how it implemented concepts and theories, especially the hybrid kernel concept, but beyond this, we never got to the actual code, so Singularity is a nice move for Microsoft to enrich the entire computing world, even if you can't take the code line by line and redistribute it.
HermMunster's reply is very accurate imho, I'll just add one thing. Before the OSI made up the "Open Source" term, we would simply call the fact that the source of a program is available (whatever the license) "available source code" and not "Open Source" (especially not with capitals). The proper headline would be "Microsoft Singularity code now available for download". Regardless of anyone's views on F/OSS, the fact is that Open Source now mostly (99%) refers to the Open Source Definition by the OSI.
;). Words and expressions are meant to carry concepts, and Free Software (with capitals) as well as Open Source (with capitals) carry two (slightly different) concepts; those expressions were not used anywhere as much and with capitals before their respective inventors (RMS & the FSF, & the OSI) introduced them. So really, your argument is moot and imho such way of thinking (shown in other comments too) only slows down the debate and general awareness.
Now, I have myself always been in the Free Software side of the Force (considering the Open Source term only for business related matters) and I agree with Richard Stallman that having the emphasis on the openness rather than the freedom of the code could only lead to the current misunderstanding. Since the Open Source term was coined to avoid the free (as in beer)/Free (as in freedom) ambiguity I find it rather ironic that the Open Source term now suffers from it too -- but let's just keep in mind that it is so only because closed source companies either want to surf on the Open Source wave or spread FUD.
Then again, there is no solution because we can't trademark everyday words unless we're extra rich (then, we can trademark words such as windows or apple! but well) so whatever the term chosen to define the underlying concept behind any new idea that makes rich conservative people afraid, they will try to discredit it by calling their own, non-compliant products, the same way. We still have people, whom after having been explained the concept 20 times, will say "Who are you redefine the meaning of 'free', I have the right to call my 'freeware' 'free software' if I want to". According to my dictionary, these people are typically what we call "morons"