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.

143 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. How will this turn out? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only we had some history of technical partnerships with Microsoft to use as a guide.

    1. Re:How will this turn out? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!
    2. Re:How will this turn out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here's a good one.

    3. Re:How will this turn out? by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know you are kidding, but since they restarted Internet Explorer development, Microsoft have submitted thousands of testcases to the W3C CSS Test Suite, which were welcomed and almost entirely accepted without change.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:How will this turn out? by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, NOW it all makes sense...

      Silly me, thinking Billy being gone and Ballmer's comments about OSS interest meant Microsoft would start supporting open source without any ultimately evil intentions.

    5. Re:How will this turn out? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Because they were delivered with cookies like all packages from the dark side!

    6. Re:How will this turn out? by nmb3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because they were delivered with cookies like all packages from the dark side!

      No, no. Not cookies. Cake!

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    7. Re:How will this turn out? by Trails · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:How will this turn out? by BhaKi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    9. Re:How will this turn out? by BhaKi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    10. Re:How will this turn out? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Im sure Ackbar would have something to say about this situation.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    11. Re:How will this turn out? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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).

      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."
    12. Re:How will this turn out? by davolfman · · Score: 1

      From the maker of LOLWHUT: http://ursulav.deviantart.com/art/The-Abyss-Looks-Back-62380479 The abyss has cookies.

    13. Re:How will this turn out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your tastebuds can't repel flavor of this magnitude?

    14. Re:How will this turn out? by someonehasmyname · · Score: 1

      It's a tarp!

      --
      Common sense is not so common.
    15. Re:How will this turn out? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Maybe only an AC would bag it on Slashdot.

      .
      .
      .

      Oh shit, I forgot to post anonymously!

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    16. Re:How will this turn out? by Giometrix · · Score: 1

      I thought the point of WCF was that it supported standards so that Windows apps could interop with the outside world.

      Why is it bad that a test project is using WCF? Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think that it would be good to test with realistic applications that might be coming from Windows shops.

      --
      Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    17. Re:How will this turn out? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      WCF.. from the book by Juval Lowy, I read that WCF supports many different communication protocols, including TCP/IP.

      Only thing is, the TCP/IP endpoint is "optimised" for communication with other WCF services only. Not so good for standards-based interoperability. MS says themselves that if you want to communicate with 3rd party systems, then a web service is the only option - not a socket.

    18. Re:How will this turn out? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      ah, but who tests the test-suites?

      Before you know it, all CSS standards will conform to the IE 'standard' only.

      Other browser developers will be scratching their heads, "I'm sure I followed the standard document correctly, but it fails the test-case. What could be wrong!?!?" :-)

    19. Re:How will this turn out? by ozphx · · Score: 1, Troll

      Windows Communication Foundation is a framework so an application can expose services over a variety of protocols with different config changes. One of the protocols supported out the box is SOAP.

      So enjoy spreading that FUD.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    20. Re:How will this turn out? by shadowless · · Score: 1

      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.

      What are you doing man?! You just gave away Wilson's true allegiance to Darth Ballmer!

      --
      Programming is the art that actually fights back!
    21. Re:How will this turn out? by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      It would appear the parent poster is right, so let's stop using the "Troll" mod on this one. Hey, I'm posting from a Debian machine, but it doesn't impeded my ability to reason effectively.

    22. Re:How will this turn out? by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      This, in turn, leads to the death of other web-servers because they can't implement these standards in inter-operable ways.

      Trust me, friend... I don't think we'll be seeing "Netcraft confirms it" posts regarding Apache any time soon.

  2. Good luck with that by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

    Embrace - you are here.
    Extend
    Extinguish

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
      • Fanboyism
      • Hatred <- YOU ARE HERE
      • Bunny Suicides
    2. Re:Good luck with that by Khuffie · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hopefully at at least get a new set of bunny suicides out of it

  3. Other notable contribution by wawannem · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Other notable contribution by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it makes Apache better too.

      Sometimes it is possible for everyone to win.

    2. Re:Other notable contribution by wawannem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Other notable contribution by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'But it makes Apache better too.'

      In what way?

    4. Re:Other notable contribution by shaitand · · Score: 1, Funny

      You'd do better on a bittorrent search engine than MSDN in that case. You will find handy copies that use the same disc to install various 'editions' of the operating systems as well. Less hassles and copy protections. Good stuff for testing and development. ;)

    5. Re:Other notable contribution by msimm · · Score: 3, Funny

      How much did that cost them?

      --
      Quack, quack.
    6. Re:Other notable contribution by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Other notable contribution by Jurily · · Score: 1

      How much did that cost them?

      Microsoft, or the apache committers?

    8. Re:Other notable contribution by jav1231 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their immortal souls...the usual.

    9. Re:Other notable contribution by batkiwi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It allows the apache developers to do compatability testing on MS os's without having to go to the store and buy a copy of each OS for each developer.

    10. Re:Other notable contribution by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Windows has a larger distribution because they do it better

      No, Windows has a larger distribution because of unethical and often illegal business practices.

      Face it, if Microsoft was as crappy as everyone always complains about they wouldn't be a globe spanning corporation

      See above, Re: unethical and illegal business practices.

      Nice try Mr. Ballmer.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    11. Re:Other notable contribution by BhaKi · · Score: 1

      Contributing to ONE among a bunch of competitors is not the same as defining the standard cleanly in the first place.

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    12. Re:Other notable contribution by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Actually in the server market, microsoft DO need you, and dear god theyll do anything for that extra install.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    13. Re:Other notable contribution by msimm · · Score: 1

      Oh how I wish I had points tonight. I've been SOO one-up'ed. :-)

      --
      Quack, quack.
    14. Re:Other notable contribution by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You're going to buy a computer for every version of Windows you want to test? Perhaps you do not understand the textual material you were responding to.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    15. Re:Other notable contribution by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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."
    16. Re:Other notable contribution by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. However, one of the key players in this patent cold war is IBM which has done some of this. And they contribute code. It's not that I trust IBM per se. But they've done a lot more than Microsoft has.

    17. Re:Other notable contribution by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      But, alas, had already commented.

      --

      You are not the customer.

    18. Re:Other notable contribution by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 1

      Did you say "buggier"?

    19. Re:Other notable contribution by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, IBM has not opened their patent licenses any further than necessary to conform to the GPL. I may be wrong, though.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    20. Re:Other notable contribution by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      They didn't specify the GPL, but rather OSS licenses. And it should be noted that this particular pledge only covers 500 patents (which is fairly select considering the bredth of IBM's portfolio). However, it still strikes me as much more good faith effort than Microsoft has produced.

      Again - patents come in to play only because Microsoft's FUD puts it in play. If Microsoft really wants these initiatives to be accepted, I'd expect them to produce code (appropriately licensed - let's say BSD since they're so supportive of it and want to avoid the GPL) to start them out or, failing that, a license that guarantees others work won't become their stick in a later ploy.

    21. Re:Other notable contribution by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Microsoft fanboy mods must be out in force today

    22. Re:Other notable contribution by shaitand · · Score: 1

      There is no particular reason Apache needs to run on windows at all, particularly since it runs (arguably better) on free systems that are readily available. Windows on the other hand might be able to stay in many server rooms if it runs Apache. I guess we are right back to this benefiting Microsoft again eh?

    23. Re:Other notable contribution by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      I don't think anything they've contributed with this even falls into their sphere of patents.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  4. Obligatory Spinal Tap joke by ciaohound · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Obligatory Spinal Tap joke by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that Stonehenge is at risk of being trampled by dwarves?

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  5. Interoperability? by ruphus13 · · Score: 1

    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!

    1. Re:Interoperability? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's interesting. At this rate in 20 or 30 years I may take them seriously. If they don't do something else sinister in the mean time.

      One think that might cause me to think less favorably if it happens in the meanwhile is another EULA trap. (I *did* say another. I've counted every EULA since and including the MSWindows2000 as a trap. To be fair that should just be every one that I've read, which is only a small percentage of them.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  6. Numerous factual errors in article and summary by thehossman · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Several months after joining the Apache Foundation, Microsoft has made its first code contribution to an Apache project."

    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
    1. Re:Numerous factual errors in article and summary by Fluffy_Kitten · · Score: 1

      In a legal context, a corporation is an individual.

      --
      People who have no sig are cool
    2. Re:Numerous factual errors in article and summary by thehossman · · Score: 1

      I concede that the bylaws of the ASF state "To be eligible for membership, a person or entity must be nominated by a current member..." however as a matter of practice the current membership of the ASF consists solely of people, and to the best of my knowledge no company/organization has ever been a member (or even been nominated to be a member)

      It doesn't change anything about my underlying point: Microsoft did not join the ASF, and it is not Microsofts first code contribution to an ASF project.

      --
      -- The Hoss Man
    3. Re:Numerous factual errors in article and summary by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      In a legal context, a corporation is an individual.

      In a general legal context a corporation is a "person", not an "individual". There may be some specific legal contexts where "individual" includes "corporation", but generally "individual" would be equivalent to a "natural person".

  7. I don't get it... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:I don't get it... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is an open source project about web standards

      Correction: this is an open source project about Web Service standards. If you see the development history of the various existing WS standards, especially the W3C ones, you'll see that Microsoft was a major driving force behind most of them, and many related standards (such as XML Schema), dating back to early 2000s. Then you may want to remember why .NET was called that in the first place (back when all MS products also got that prefix - Windows Server 2003 was originally Windows Server .NET, for example) - it was supposed to be all about web services (which were the Next Great Thing that will Revolutionize Software Development, Proactively Synergize your Paradigms, etc - the stuff which had essentially evolved into SOA today). Of course, Microsoft is still the big player on that market, and "interoperability and standards" has been the talking point for all that time, so nothing new here.

    2. Re:I don't get it... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a lot easier to fix IE than to ditch IE and shoehorn Gecko/Webkit into the IE programming model. If developers miss their COM objects, there will be riots in the street. When I say easier, I mean for a company that would have to throw away a huge investment as well as have many people around who know so much about a product that doesn't behave like that any more. Plus, not invented here.

    3. Re:I don't get it... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      When did Flash become a web standard?

      If it is one, what's so bad about competition forcing it to become better or die? Doing Flash programming used to be about as much fun as repeatedly slamming your junk in a car door. Now it's getting better from that perspective and I don't doubt that competition looming from Silverlight is some of why.

    4. Re:I don't get it... by McBeer · · Score: 1

      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?

      I sometimes wonder this myself. I think it comes down to two things: 1) They tightly couple IE as an activex control into a great many things. This would not be permissible under the GPL, so Gecko is right out. I think that would still be fine under lgpl/WebKit though. 2) If they start replacing each component of the windows suite with indiviudal apps that perform better, they would have a reduced set of things they were selling as an OS and have a harder time justifying the prices they charge.

      they're doing more to undermine web standards with things like Silverlight

      I'd double check that. Silverlight is much more open then its only real competitor (flash). Heck, MSFT put in a good amount of work just this week to help get video streaming in moonlight working for the inauguration. Silverlight is much easier to develop in then Flash as an added bonus.

      --
      Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
    5. Re:I don't get it... by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they're doing more to undermine web standards with things like Silverlight than they have ever done to support them?

      Oh, you mean giving competition the alternative to Silverlight, the extremely web-standards savvy and committed Adobe/Macromedia Shockwave/Flash? That doesn't even have a really XHTML standardized way of being embedded yet? link to w3's entry on embedding flash

      I guess I should stop using Apache. It's funded by MS :) On the other hand, I refuse to take the "karma" approach to companies, and will praise MS on their good actions and complain about their bad actions. I will not complain about their good actions because I am still sore from their bad ones...

    6. Re:I don't get it... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The reasons they dont abandon MSHTML/Trident and use gecko or webkit include:
      Licensing (webkit is LGPL, gecko is GPL/LGPL/MPL) and Microsoft doesn't want to use LGPL software in their OS for obvious reasons.
      Code ownership (Microsoft has no way to be 100% sure that the code in there is written by the people who claim to have written it and with Microsoft and Windows being such a HUGE target, its a risk Microsoft cant afford to take no matter how small it is)
      Application Compatibility (Many apps use and embed MSHTML/Trident including htmlhelp, MSDN library, the GameSpy Arcade frontend, at least one PC game I have and who knows how many more. Microsoft needs to maintain MSHTML/Trident for the benefit of these apps so that they keep running and aren't exposed to security flaws just because MS isn't fixing MSHTML anymore)
      Web Compatibility (Many web pages, especially on corporate intranets wont run in anything other than IE and Microsoft needs to maintain MSHTML/Trident so that those pages continue to work)
      Security (No current webkit or gecko browser supports any kind of network-wide lock down in the way that IE does with group policy, nor do these other browsers support any kind of "protected mode" ala IE7)

      Basically its just not possible to replace MSHTML/Trident with gecko or webkit and not break a whole bunch of stuff that is VERY important to Microsoft customers.

    7. Re:I don't get it... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      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?

      NIH?

    8. Re:I don't get it... by BhaKi · · Score: 1

      Neither Flash nor Silverlight is a standard. It's just a fight between two evils.

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    9. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not open source it tho? it is free after all and that way it can be fixed instead of having workarounds on your website

    10. Re:I don't get it... by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ok, but which one is Alien and which one is Predator?

    11. Re:I don't get it... by Dotren · · Score: 1

      When did Flash become a web standard?

      If it is one, what's so bad about competition forcing it to become better or die? Doing Flash programming used to be about as much fun as repeatedly slamming your junk in a car door. Now it's getting better from that perspective and I don't doubt that competition looming from Silverlight is some of why.

      Something I've learned about this site... it's only a monopoly and/or evil if it's Microsoft.

      Adobe has somehow convinced people that its a good thing that they have little to no competition and that they'd never be an "evil" corporation like Microsoft.

    12. Re:I don't get it... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Silverlight is much easier to develop in then Flash as an added bonus.

      That's a matter of opinion if I ever saw one.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    13. Re:I don't get it... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      If you see the development history of the various existing WS standards, especially the W3C ones, you'll see that Microsoft was a major driving force behind most of them, and many related standards...

      That also seems odd, especially in light of the Halloween documents. A web service protocol (WebDAV) would've been great for Exchange, but was instead extended/extinguished.

      I'm not just talking about web standards. Microsoft has been against any standard they can't control for pretty much their entire lifetime.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    14. Re:I don't get it... by markdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Like BhaKi says below- "a fight between two evils".

      Except that Flash:

      1) Has been around a lot longer
      2) Works on all major browsers (Firefox, IE, Safari, Konqueror, Opera, Seamonkey, etc)
      3) Works on all the major operating systems, and natively (MS-Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris)
      4) Is self-contained
      5) Has development tools for most platforms

      I have no great love of Flash, but at least it works and works on all the machines I need for it to work. I can't say that about Silverlight. And based on MS's history, Silverlight seems very much "isatrap".

      I would feel much better about Flash if Adobe would just get over itself and open source the client- they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Time is ticking... open sourcing it NOW might be their own weapon against Silverlight.

    15. Re:I don't get it... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      It's a lot easier to fix IE than to ditch IE and shoehorn Gecko/Webkit into the IE programming model.

      Except that it's already been done, to an extent -- Gecko can be embedded in Wine, and used as a browser activex control.

      And, current evidence would not tend to suggest that. Consider how many years Microsoft has been at it, and IE is still not fixed. Compare to several browsers which have been built from the ground up since IE6.

      When I say easier, I mean for a company that would have to throw away a huge investment

      It didn't work out. Oh well. Now would be a very good time to cut your losses.

      as well as have many people around who know so much about a product that doesn't behave like that any more.

      If you're talking about code, I can't imagine people want to work on IE, considering the alternatives. And there are plenty of open source developers they could hire.

      If you're talking about end-users, they won't know, and they won't care. IE9 is going to be strange and different any way they do it. Why not make it strange, different, and actually better?

      Plus, not invented here.

      Neither was DOS. But if that's the reason, it's a truly petty reason that's costing them quite a lot.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    16. Re:I don't get it... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      When did Flash become a web standard?

      When did Flash become the only alternative?

      We've still got HTML5, SVG, Javascript, etc.

      Silverlight could've been cool -- but they built it on .NET, which means it's going to be hard for a lot of people to trust. In any case, it's a plugin, as opposed to an actual, direct improvement to the existing technologies.

      And they still haven't got those right. Why not take all of the Silverlight developers, and have them work on maybe finally getting CSS right in IE?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    17. Re:I don't get it... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft doesn't want to use LGPL software in their OS for obvious reasons.

      Sorry, it's not obvious. Were it GPL, you'd have a point.

      Consider that Apple uses Webkit in Safari, which is shipped with OS X. Why is that not a problem for them?

      Microsoft has no way to be 100% sure that the code in there is written by the people who claim to have written it

      Apple has already taken that risk. No one has come forward. The iPhone is getting pretty huge, and it has Webkit on it.

      Google has also taken that risk. It's on Android. It's in Chrome.

      Many apps use and embed MSHTML/Trident including htmlhelp, MSDN library, the GameSpy Arcade frontend...

      So include Trident as a legacy version. Apps which support the newer library can use it.

      But when Wine uses Gecko, these same applications don't seem to have any problems.

      Many web pages, especially on corporate intranets wont run in anything other than IE

      Those pages are abortions. No new pages like that should be built.

      For the existing ones, they don't necessarily work with IE7, and IE8 is about to be released (or is it out already?), so I think making a newer, incompatible version wouldn't be such a tragedy.

      nor do these other browsers support any kind of "protected mode" ala IE7

      ...except Chrome, which is splitting it out per-process.

      What's more, given the environments we've seen these run on, I doubt there would be any real problem doing that. It's a rendering engine -- why should it care what user it runs as? Everything that needs to run outside the sandbox is chrome anyway, and could be carried over.

      Basically its just not possible to replace MSHTML/Trident with gecko or webkit and not break a whole bunch of stuff that is VERY important to Microsoft customers.

      You mean, like they did with Vista and UAC? Microsoft isn't exactly known for backwards compatibility.

      At the very least, they could start shipping other browsers as the default -- and this takes almost no effort. People for whom the above matters can use IE.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    18. Re:I don't get it... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Except that it's already been done, to an extent -- Gecko can be embedded in Wine, and used as a browser activex control.

      Gecko as an actual OCX, however, seems to have fallen by the wayside.

      I know that somebody related to Mono (shana, I think?) is working on a .NET-compatible wrapper for Gecko, but I don't know how far along she is.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    19. Re:I don't get it... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Silverlight could've been cool -- but they built it on .NET, which means it's going to be hard for a lot of people to trust.

      Because those people are not very bright.

      And they still haven't got those right.

      Have you used Silverlight 2.0? Because I'll tell you, writing code in .NET beats the pants off ActionScript any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

      Why not take all of the Silverlight developers, and have them work on maybe finally getting CSS right in IE?

      Fred Brooks something something Man-Month...

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    20. Re:I don't get it... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Silverlight is much easier to develop in then Flash as an added bonus.

      That's a matter of opinion if I ever saw one.

      Have you developed in both? I have. I think you'd be kind of hard-pressed to rationalize why Flash, with very limited libraries and all the fun parts (read: annoying parts) of ECMAScript, is superior to the broad-base libraries and relatively clean languages of .NET.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    21. Re:I don't get it... by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1

      Something I've learned about this site... it's only a monopoly and/or evil if it's Microsoft.

      No, not really. Flash sucks badly, it doesn't belong on the web. Silverlight is no better than Flash.

    22. Re:I don't get it... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That also seems odd, especially in light of the Halloween documents.

      That has been quite a long time - and, more importantly, several anti-trust lawsuits ago.

      The point, anyway, is that in areas where standards sell, Microsoft is quite willing to sell you standards - but usually when it gets to write them (see OOXML). This wasn't quite the case for WS, but the influence was strong enough regardless.

      By the way, MS also had pretty strong involvement in XQuery in a similar fashion - as I recall, they were the ones who pushed for static type checking mode (MSSQL was an early adopter of XQuery - before the final spec was released, even - and it uses static typing to optimize XML queries).

    23. Re:I don't get it... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, it's not obvious. Were it GPL, you'd have a point. Consider that Apple uses Webkit in Safari, which is shipped with OS X. Why is that not a problem for them?

      I never understood why some companies avoid even LGPL in a proprietary development environment as well, but recently someone pointed out one interesting bit in LGPL:

      You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications

      Note that debugging such modifications, as any developer well knows, may not be restricted to dealing with just their code... so this text can be understood in one of its interpretations as a general prohibition on restricting reverse engineering. Which, as you surely know, is a standard bit of legalese in EULAs (I never really understood why, but there it is). Perhaps this explains it.

    24. Re:I don't get it... by berglin · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "Microsoft isn't exactly known for backwards compatibility." I'd say that's one of the things they are extremely known for.

      Usually, people complain about MS not ditching backwards compatibility in favor of "cleaner" implementations and here you are, saying that they are well known for doing exactly that.

      I don't get it...

    25. Re:I don't get it... by savuporo · · Score: 1

      6) does not work anywhere but x86 CPUs which are going out of fashion fast :)

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    26. Re:I don't get it... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have used both (albeit in the form of C# vs AS2/AS3.) If you were comparing .NET with AS2, then I agree, but AS3 is (in my mind) a very capable scripting language.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    27. Re:I don't get it... by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      Licensing (webkit is LGPL, gecko is GPL/LGPL/MPL) and Microsoft is...

      DRM/OOXML/MSBOB?

      --
      She made the willows dance
    28. Re:I don't get it... by Dotren · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go that far. I think Flash and Silverlight do actually have a place on the web and I think most of the general hate for these technologies is due to their overuse and outright abuse by Flash-enhanced ads and pop-ups.

      I think these technologies both really shine in video streaming currently and I think they'll excel at Rich Internet Application development (they do now but you don't see a lot of RIAs at the moment using them). True, you could do much of this with contemporary web languages but perhaps not as easily.

    29. Re:I don't get it... by Ye_Gads · · Score: 1

      I refuse to take the "karma" approach to companies, and will praise MS on their good actions and complain about their bad actions. I will not complain about their good actions because I am still sore from their bad ones...

      Sorry, you sound like an abused wife refusing to press charges against hubby after a beating..."but he's good with the kids and he earns decent money".

      To me you can't separate one from the other.

    30. Re:I don't get it... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add "Whoever wins... we lose."

    31. Re:I don't get it... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it wasn't capable, but it's...ech.

      C# is my language of choice, to be fair, but with Silverlight you can write code in Python or Ruby or Scheme or C# or VB.NET or even OCaml. Or...you know...JavaScript. If you really wanted to.

      AS3 is okay, but it just feels clumsy in comparison to most of the other languages I just listed. I personally hope Silverlight takes over solely so I don't have to write ActionScript again. (That, and one platform for everything I do would be nice. Desktop to web server to rich content, all on .NET? Since the OSS world isn't going to do that any time soon--yes please!)

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    32. Re:I don't get it... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Usually, people complain about MS not ditching backwards compatibility in favor of "cleaner" implementations and here you are, saying that they are well known for doing exactly that.

      Not quite.

      Microsoft is well known for leaving all kinds of legacy cruft around, in an effort to preserve backwards compatibility. Sometimes, this works very well. Sometimes too well -- I really can't blame Microsoft for a piece of software being so poorly coded as to overflow when the version number is too big, but I do find it a bit disturbing that Microsoft fixes these problems anyway (by detecting such programs and lying to them about version number).

      And yet, this is, in fact, the same Microsoft which consistently breaks backwards compatibility with old formats of Office documents. It's gotten so bad that sometimes, OpenOffice has better compatibility with a certain old document than newer versions of MS office.

      They use "backwards compatibility" as an excuse not to fix IE's rendering problems... yet newer versions of IE require XP or later, and I'm guessing that before long they'll require Vista or later.

      I don't really get it either, except the cynical side of me suspects it's entirely business reasons. There's clearly no technical reason DirectX 10 can't run on XP, for example, as people outside Microsoft, without access to the source, have backported it successfully.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    33. Re:I don't get it... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Because those people are not very bright.

      Or because they understand how the patent system works, and they've seen the upgrade treadmill of .NET?

      Haven't you noticed? Mono has been playing catch-up with .NET for a long time now.

      Have you used Silverlight 2.0? Because I'll tell you, writing code in .NET beats the pants off ActionScript any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

      Who said anything about ActionScript?

      Now, Javascript is actually a nice language, once you get to know it. I much prefer it to C#, though I'll grant that things like IronPython and IronRuby may eventually make .NET interesting...

      Fred Brooks something something Man-Month...

      So you say, and that's become the rhetoric of people making excuses for how Microsoft, with their resources, can consistently get this so wrong.

      The problem is, other people are getting it right.

      So what's Microsoft's excuse, really?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    34. Re:I don't get it... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      First, I'm not female ;)

      Second, likening marriage to a corporation is an interesting view of marriage, but I won't go there.

      The main issue though is that I refuse to buy into the "entirely bad" or "entirely good" thing. The tendency of most people's reasoning appears to me to be like this:

      1. Google is a good company.
      2. Google has a great coughdataminingcough... er user interaction tracking system.
      3. Google is a good company, supports open source software, and thus must have good intentions.
      4. I won't complain about it.

      On the other hand, Microsoft, being the Entirely Evil Company (tm) that it is, can do nothing right. They could open source Internet Explorer and people would still complain that all they are trying to do is get OSS software to comply with their own code, blah blah blah.

      I think you can separate one from the other. I don't agree with Wal-Mart all the time but I shop there occasionally. I am not an Apple fanboy and think Apple is basically just as bad as Microsoft in a lot of ways, but I still use iTunes (unfortunately for me). I don't like the attitude of a lot of Linux users but I use it ;)

      The list of non-"karma" based decisions goes on. Even on Slashdot, we all post here but everybody complains about it. What's the deal? If it bothers us that much, why don't we just stop coming here? Maybe because we like something about it and thus use it? Well, I like a few things about Windows, and other MS products, so I'll use those. I won't use the ones I don't like.

    35. Re:I don't get it... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    36. Re:I don't get it... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      .NET still has the problem of having platform specific functionality. (AKA: the prior Microsoft.* and Mono.Unix namespace or the now System.Windows.Forms) They could have provided a little more generic platform allowing a developer to use something like System.Window (not Windows) that included a generic interface for building an interface window that could be easily integrated into other operating systems since they all use the same basic construct... then I'd give them some credit. (For citation, Microsoft defines that namespace: The System.Windows.Forms namespace contains classes for creating Windows-based applications that take full advantage of the rich user interface features available in the Microsoft Windows operating system.) As it is now, they still control the standard and it still has proprietary interfacing that people will use and create locked in apps. You'd have to create a whole new namespace for each OS implementation as opposed to offering one generic interface. If the time comes when I can create code in Windows with forms and compile it unchanged in Linux... then I'll dedicate more time to it.

      I also do not know of any way for third parties to include changes to the standard not to mention the overhanging patents. Could Apple/Redhat/Joe Smith add functionality to .NET without going through Microsoft?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    37. Re:I don't get it... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      System.Windows.Forms works fine under Mono on both Linux and OS X. Has for quite some time.

      WPF does not, but WPF sucks.

      And the standard is an ECMA standard, if they have enough support it can be put in the spec. (Or just release the libraries that they need and have the installer drop it in the GAC.)

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    38. Re:I don't get it... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      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?

      Would anyone mind explaining the byzantine multi-licensing Mozilla uses? I'm curious whether M$ could do that if it wanted to (I make no assertion as to what M$ may or may not wish to do -- in other words, I'm not refuting parent's argument).

      --
      $ make available
    39. Re:I don't get it... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Something I've learned about this site... it's only a monopoly and/or evil if it's Microsoft.

      Adobe has somehow convinced people that its a good thing that they have little to no competition and that they'd never be an "evil" corporation like Microsoft.

      Maybe Adobe does need competition. However, Silverlight is a form of vendor lock-in: You can't use it outside of Windows (well, you could use Mono, but that's buggy/broken and M$ is doing everything it can to prevent that from working -- not exactly a standard). I don't know much about what Adobe thinks of gnash and swfdec, but at least Adobe provides a Linux plugin/player (and one for Mac OS X, and one for Windows (duh)).

      --
      $ make available
    40. Re:I don't get it... by Dotren · · Score: 1

      Do you have sources for MS trying to prevent Mono from working? I'm not calling you a liar or anything, but this is really the first I've heard of it and I'm curious.

      As for Mac OS X, it's been my understanding that there is already a working Silverlight plugin. I highly doubt it's anywhere near as mature as Flash for Mac OS X is but then again Adobe has had a large head start.

    41. Re:I don't get it... by markdavis · · Score: 1

      X86 going out of fashion fast??? Get real! Apple switched to X86. Even Sun switched some of it's stuff to X86. 99.9+% of all desktops are X86. We have gone from a time of lots of different architectures to fewer and fewer and fewer.... not more.

      Sure, there ARE other processors... few that will run MS-Windows, many that will run Linux. But case-in-point, Flash runs on the Nokia Tablets, which all run Linux and none of them are X86.

      So I would say both parts of your "6)" are wrong.

    42. Re:I don't get it... by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      If M$ wanted Silverlight to work on Linux, they would have made a plugin for Linux in the first place. This is the same as Samba.

      --
      $ make available
  8. Nothing to lose, only to win for Microsoft by postmortem · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Nothing to lose, only to win for Microsoft by garett_spencley · · Score: 4, Funny

      "News Flash: A business acted last night in a move that is expected to increase it's revenue. A spokesperson for the business did not comment on whether or not this move is expected to directly, or indirectly increase revenue. She only told us that it is a general policy of the company to act on behalf of the financial interests of it's share holders and employees".

      *World Gasps In Shock*

  9. You did it wrong. by gcnaddict · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:You did it wrong. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Heh, good point.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:You did it wrong. by pm_rat_poison · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, grandparetn's right. Extend is when you offer proprietary extenstions that are not part of the competing product / standard which create interoperability problems for those who do not use the "free" version. This will come later on.

    3. Re:You did it wrong. by nschubach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two words: Dot NET.

      Mark my words. .NET extensions are on their way placing Microsoft in the hot-seat of Web development technology standards. They integrate .NET into the most widely used Web Server software on the Internet and then Introduce Windows .NET "Cloud." It releases as the only fully compatible Web-OS that works with this server launching it into a premium spot.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:You did it wrong. by bdelacretaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I do believe "Embrace" was covered when Microsoft joined the Apache foundation....

      Microsoft did *not* join the Apache Software Foundation, companies cannot be members in any shape or form. I have written about that before at http://grep.codeconsult.ch/2008/07/26/hey-el-reg-microsoft-is-not-becoming-an-asf-member/

    5. Re:You did it wrong. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      What about Windows 7?

      --
      $ make available
  10. This story's tags are killing me by unity100 · · Score: 1

    one of them as of this moment is "masturbation" ...

    1. Re:This story's tags are killing me by greg1104 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm surprised it's not tagged "itsatrap" yet.

    2. Re:This story's tags are killing me by markdavis · · Score: 1

      The night is young...OK, OK.... I just did. But, if they can hold the course for 8 or maybe 10 years like this, I will be willing to consider partial forgiveness their some of their numerous past evil doings and resend the "isatrap" on this one.

      Besides, this is much less of "isatrap" than Silverlight.

    3. Re:This story's tags are killing me by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Fixed that for you

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  11. What a choice for the name by icejai · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:What a choice for the name by rkanodia · · Score: 1

      I guess you'd have to ask the creators why they chose it. Trouble is, no one knows who they were, or what they were doing.

    2. Re:What a choice for the name by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Nobody will know why something so large and simple was created, what it's good for, how it's supposed to be used.

      Considering this, they really should rather have used that codename for the original W3C committee that developed the WS-* standards stack.

  12. Re:so, is it safe? by HiThere · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the company itself, i.e. the patent holder, donates the code, then it is probably safe. I'm not in a position to judge how useful it might be. But MS has long taken the position that it supports the BSD license, and other similar licenses that allow it to take code contributed by others, close it, modify it, and sell the closed & modified version under a new name.

    I can't say that I know that they actually support such projects, but that's been their official position for over a decade.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  13. Re:Donation? by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 1

    No, that would be what they call backdoors these days. Trojans come after the fact.

  14. Look at the big picture by BhaKi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Look at the big picture by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      i believe ackbar was more to the point, but wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of your post.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    2. Re:Look at the big picture by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.)

      The WS-* standards are OASIS open standards. Microsoft has been a leader in this area - this is a simple fact. For example, the Metro/WSIT stack specifically targets Microsoft .NET 3.5 compatibility.

      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.)

      Many competitors have access to these web service standards. See: Sun, IBM, Apache, Anyone with a web browser, etc...

      I could go on. You're on your soapbox all right, but you're way off in left field with no real understanding of anything to do with..well...anything.

      Take, for instance, Mono. Microsoft didn't grant shit - the CLI spec is open. Mono is implementing compatible clean-room class libraries to mimic the .NET ones.

      Really - just give up. If you want to say something bad about Microsoft don't exhibit your cluelessness and instead just say "Micro$haft is teh suxx0rs!".

    3. Re:Look at the big picture by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      Create protocols/formats/standards/specifications which are not inherently inter-operable.

      Excellent.
      Interoperability without Open source is Oxymoron.

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
    4. Re:Look at the big picture by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

      Micro$haft is teh suxx0rs!

      I whole-heartedly agree!

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    5. Re:Look at the big picture by BhaKi · · Score: 1

      I do agree that my post was very much off-topic. But I just wanted to convey the general message that there's a lot of difference between opening up a standard completely and code-donations.

      the CLI spec is open. Mono is implementing compatible clean-room class libraries to mimic the .NET ones.

      If the CLI spec is so open and .NET is so conforming, then why did Mono developers need late night efforts from Microsoft people during presidential inauguration?

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    6. Re:Look at the big picture by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Becuase the CLI/CLR portion of the .NET framework isn't the hard part. .NET is a set of libraries Microsoft wrote as well as a runtime environment to support them. Mono is trying to make copies of what Microsoft has done.

      Microsoft's .NET libraries themselves are not open. When Apple and Sun and IBM releases all of their source code, we can all get angry and call them out for not opening up every single one of their products.

    7. Re:Look at the big picture by BhaKi · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about open-sourcing .NET libraries? What I demand from Microsoft is precisely this: either 1) remove Windows-specific things, sanitize and/or open up the specs of your "standards" so that anybody can implement a conforming and inter-operable implementation, or 2) stop pretending that .NET is "cross-platform" or "not Windows-specific" or "inter-operable" and stop making efforts to impose .NET/Silverlight upon the world.

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
  15. It's a decent addition by dangitman · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:It's a decent addition by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      The code that Microsoft contributed was the Happy Slider

      I know a certain Genuine People Personalities prototype which could use one of those.

      You better replace the diodes down his left side first, though :)

  16. Re:so, is it safe? by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

    As long as Apache's added the proper stipulations, then they're fine. Plus, in a patent infringement suit, being able to point to Microsoft giving them the implementation really hurts Microsoft's case.

  17. Re:Not that big a deal by mikehoskins · · Score: 4, Funny

    1: // Code Submission by
    2: // Our first "open source" code contribution to this thing called "an Apache project"
    3: //
    4: //
    5: // Copyright (c) 2008-2009 by
    6: //
    7: //
    8: // Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.
    9: // Use at your own risk.
    10: // Read the EULA. You have been warned!!!
    11: // All Rights Reserved
    12: System.out.writeln("All your base are belong to us.\n");
    13: System.out.writeln("Have a nice day.");

  18. Great... by R3d+Jack · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who's going to debug that mess?

  19. Re:Not that big a deal by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

    But they are v-e-r-y long lines.

  20. Re:Don't trust 'em . . . by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

    Because vindictiveness is really good business.

    Idiot.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  21. Re:Not that big a deal by radu5er · · Score: 1

    Heh!

  22. Re:Not that big a deal by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Funny

    You forgot one last line:

    14. // Why this isn't compiling? Stupid Java. -chandram

  23. It's a patent trap by hweimer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    // 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
  24. the idiot, please, explain by unity100 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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 ?

  25. parent is not so troll by unity100 · · Score: 1

    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 ?

  26. Microsoft donates after Apache donated forever by egnop · · Score: 1

    I think it is more the other way round, Apache has donated microsoft it's whole life.

    Microsoft is just trying adapt.

  27. Please Explain This To Me by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

    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?

  28. In other news... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    ...the Devil was seen shopping for skis recently...

    --
    Loading...
  29. Yeah, the rest of us were thinking of Spinal Tap by billstewart · · Score: 1

    It was supposed to be 18 FEET high!

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  30. RUN!!!! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Its a trap...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----