Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Donates Code To Apache's "Stonehenge" Project
dp619 writes "Several months after joining the Apache Foundation, Microsoft has made its first code contribution to an Apache project. The project, known as Stonehenge, is made up of companies and developers seeking to test the interoperability of Web standards implementations."Reader Da Massive adds a link to coverage at Computer World.
Early reports were that MS had contributed 13000 lines of code when in actuality MS had only contributed 13 lines of code.
NT
If only we had some history of technical partnerships with Microsoft to use as a guide.
Embrace - you are here.
Extend
Extinguish
How we know is more important than what we know.
Although it is nice to see code donated, they made a much bigger contribution earlier allowing all apache committers access to MSDN. This is full d/l access to all of their products for testing, etc.
IT'S A TRAP!
To all you Microsoft fanboys: you get what pay for. Microsoft has EARNED every single bit of suspicion, distrust, and scorn heaped upon it.
Microsoft submitted the code on a napkin and specified inches instead of feet.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
So that's what they're calling a trojan horse these days...
Choosing to contribute sample code here is definitely interesting here, given that the Stonehenge project is meant to promote interoperability between Web service standards. First Microsoft contributes money, and now they contribute sample code to promote interoperability (between standards and platforms)! Wonders never cease!
Corporations can not join the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). Microsoft became a "sponsor" of the ASF last summer, but only individual people can join the ASF.
This is also not the first time Microsoft has contributed code to an Apache project, pulling one quick example out of google...
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2008/10/14/microsoft-s-powerset-team-resumes-hbase-contributions.aspx
-- The Hoss Man
This is an open source project about web standards.
If Microsoft really cares about these things, why have they continued to hack on Trident, which has been so far behind in both of those areas? Why not just adopt Gecko or Webkit as the IE/Windows rendering engine?
As it is, they've consistently shunned open standards, including the Web. Only recently have they been starting to fix IE to follow web standards, and it really seems like they're doing the bare minimum they have to do to claim they're making an effort.
Maybe that's what this is, too? Good press for them, while at the same time, they're doing more to undermine web standards with things like Silverlight than they have ever done to support them?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Interoperability simply means that Microsoft stuff that was not used (or possible to use) with OSS projects, will be used now. Which leads to more sales.
Microsoft still charges for its products, it just has opened doors to more customers.
taking microsoft contributions to an opensource project.. whats to say that filthy assholes at microsoft won't claim some sort of protected patented IP intellectual secrets in a few years ? Trust microsoft to do the right thing? You would have to be crazy... you can be their lawyers are scheming right now.
Embrace - you are here. Extend Extinguish
I do believe "Embrace" was covered when Microsoft joined the Apache foundation. Now that they're actually adding code... that's represented by "Extend."
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
one of them as of this moment is "masturbation" ...
Read radical news here
Project Stonehenge!
Abstract:
Nobody will know why something so large and simple was created, what it's good for, how it's supposed to be used. It will face complete abandonment and isolation, only to be admired and appreciated by a handful of people once a year.
I keed I keed!
I hope Microsoft doesn't donate any smallpox infected code to the Apache peoples.
I can't remember the last time I forgot anything.
1. Create protocols/formats/standards/specifications which are not inherently inter-operable. (Remember how buggy, incomplete and inaccurate OOXML spec was. Remember how Windows-specific the .NET and Silverlight specs are.)
2. Pick one of your competitors, give him (and him alone, not the whole public) code and/or patent-freedoms so that he can make an inter-operable software. (Remember Novell OO.Org plugins, Mono and Moonlight.)
3. Claim that the standard itself is clean and inter-operable by showing the existence of the above competitor's inter-operable implementation as "proof". In making this claim, take advantage of the fact that most people, organizations and courts make the mistake of not seeing any difference between the original definition of an inter-operable standard - "A standard whose specification is public, true to reference implementation and complete so that any developer can make a fully inter-operable implementation without paying any fees or signing any license agreements" and the twisted definition given by Microsoft - "A standard that has at-least one competing implementation besides the reference implementation".
4. As the claim gradually gets accepted, the "standard" becomes a de-facto standard and more people and government will adopt it. This leads to the death of 1) other standards and 2) other independent implementations of the same standard. (because the top implementations are not inter-operable with them)
5. Now you and your friendly competitor are the only ones in the business. After everyone forgets history, pull the plug and let your competitor die.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
In this thread, I sense the fury of a thousand basements rising up! This time, Microsoft shall know the true meaning of fear!
The code that Microsoft contributed was the Happy Slider. It should be set to maximum if you really want your server to sing.
... and then they built the supercollider.
You only have to look at who is leading M$ to know that they can't be trusted. By all means, build a completely standards based internet, but leave M$ twisting in the wind while you do it.
Who's going to debug that mess?
// Code originally contributed by Microsoft Corporation.
// This contribution to the Stonehenge project is limited strictly
// to the source code that is submitted in this submission.
// Any technology, including underlying platform technology,
// that is referenced or required by the submitted source code
// is not a part of the contribution.
// For example and not by way of limitation,
// any systems/Windows libraries (WPF, WCF, ASP.NET etc.)
// required to run the submitted source code is not a part of the contribution
Why is Microsoft so pesky about this? It's all about patents. The Apache License requires each contributor to give a patent license for the code they have contributed. By stating that all the patent-emcumbered libraries are not part of the contribution, Microsoft does not give you a patent license, but you still have to acquire one if you actually want to use their code. So don't use this code, it's a patent trap.
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
...don't take candy from someone you don't know.
If MSFT was really interest in interop then
they would join the WSTF - a real community
based interop attempt. Stonehenge appears to
be more about providing another mechanism for
them to say "do it this way (our way)".
Notice there isn't any discussion of what happens
when its determined that one impl doesn't work
the way the standard says it should. That's where
the real meat of the interop issues are.
And I can assure you that when they do run into
those problems with the MSFT impl it won't be the
MSFT code that changes - everyone else will be
asked to ignore the spec to "just get it working".
how did you mod down something flamebait, when it is backed with COURT CASES and verdicts worldwide. just on the eve of an order by Eu telling microsoft to take out ie from windows because it constitutes a monopoly practice.
how long do we have to endure fanboyism ? when will the win7 hype pass ? im new at this. does it take long ?
Read radical news here
think. there has been so many moves made by microsoft, legally or illegally, to prevent open source from progressing. is it that easy to believe someone when they say they see the light ? (even if they did, which they aint). is it that easy to accept them as equal and trusted members of the society just because they contributed a little ?
Read radical news here
I think it is more the other way round, Apache has donated microsoft it's whole life.
Microsoft is just trying adapt.
First of all, it's the Apache Software Foundation, not the Apache Foundation.
Secondly, Microsoft did not "join" the ASF. They can't. Only individuals can be members. Microsoft became a *sponsor* of the ASF. Big difference.
In a strange maneuver of events, Microsoft submits "Microsoft Bob" for Apache to ASF. Dubbed the "Microsoft Bob" for Apache, it simplifies the administration of apache by mapping functions to real world objects.
Little did the ASF know, the true intent of their product as Bill and Steve finally found use for Microsoft Bob...
Is anyone else nervous when companies want to "get along" rather than compete?
I don't get the interoperability bit... why use something that increases the complexity of your groundwork so you can say that you're interoperable? The OSS foundation can already provide the groundwork to get what this proposal thinks its bringing fresh. This proposal is only to open the gates for the hordes of MS developers who are intrinsically obfuscated in their development practices just from the sheer brain damage resulting form the use of Microsoft developer solutions. Those are the types of people Microsoft sells to and creates.
Just by Microsoft sayin they want to be interoperable only shows they want to make sure only their products can perform specific functions. Their strategy will be to submit proposals that only their product can provide the easier solution. For example, their existing product base is so ridiculously complicated that you have to use their provided tools to get it to even work correctly. Sharepoint is a great example of an overly complicated solution that makes the problem look much more difficult than it is. Microsoft is only about making money so their proposals will only make sure it ends in them making some type of money out of this. That is their TOP priority, not the fluffy ambitions of OSS from the viewpoint of money shakers.
This is definitely a trojan horse. Microsoft only wants to introduce their hordes of developers into the gates of OSS to wreck havoc to a peaceful community of developers.
I'm too stupid to understand the whole Service Oriented Architecture thing. We now (finally) have freakin supercomputers sitting on our desks/laps and They want to move our applications out to The Cloud??
And this makes sense? How?? What am I missing?
Please save the Bunnies!!
They taste better than kittens.
...the Devil was seen shopping for skis recently...
Loading...
It was supposed to be 18 FEET high!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Its a trap...
---- Booth was a patriot ----