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.
But it makes Apache better too.
Sometimes it is possible for everyone to win.
I guess that's one way to look at it, but IMO, as one of the struts developers, I was happy to get easy access to copies of their OS so that I can virtualize them and test across browsers, etc. You can say it improves their product, but I say it improves mine... TOE-MAY-TOE / TOE-MAH-TOE however you want to look at it, I appreciated it.
FTA: "The project, known as Stonehenge, is made up of companies and developers seeking to test the interoperability of Web standards implementations"
The first thing I thought of when I read this, is that Microsoft updated the project so it was compatible with IE (not making the project more standards compliant, but that it made IE appear to be standards compliant).
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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!
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/
I see the value in what they provided. But is it the same value as contributing code?
One of the things I'm looking for is proof that Microsoft is changing from their past. Providing easier access to their products doesn't really do it. Providing code does as would open licensing of their patents.
Their immortal souls...the usual.
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.
Yup, and I've made this is a point I've made in the past. I personally believe that while MS is generally evil, and Ballmer rates slightly below Dick Cheney on the evil intentions scale (decidedly lower on the actual evil scale due to Ballmer's patented apeish idiocy), Chris Wilson, program manager for IE, is trying to do The Right Thing.
Personally I think he gets away with it only because Ballmer hasn't noticed.
That's the very point which deserves close attention. If the standard itself was clean, there would be no need to ask Microsoft for help. Think about why nobody other than Microsoft could build the test-cases.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
No, Windows has a larger distribution because of unethical and often illegal business practices.
See above, Re: unethical and illegal business practices.
Nice try Mr. Ballmer.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Chris Wilson, program manager for IE, is trying to do The Right Thing.
The right thing is to let the truly inter-operable standards - the standards which won't require anybody to depend on somebody's charity - to come into acceptance. What MS has been doing will only contribute to the rise of pseudo-standards - standards whose inter-operability depends on one company's charity. This, in turn, leads to the death of other web-servers because they can't implement these standards in inter-operable ways. After that, MS quits Apache Foundation to be the single player.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
Close.
The sample app is a .NET application that's tied into the Windows Communication Foundation. It's the "Embrace" phase of the plan.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I honestly can't fault Microsoft for not open-licensing their patents. They do that, they lose their own weapons in what is basically a corporate cold war of patents.
Either everyone is going to open-license their patents, or nobody will.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
// 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