Slashdot Mirror


MS Releases Open Source Alternative To BigTable

gollito writes in with news that Microsoft has released an open source alternative to Google's BigTable file system, which is used on large distributed computer clusters. Matt Asay writes for CNet: "I also believe that Microsoft's fear-mongering around open source cost it years of productivity and quality gains that it could have been delivering to customers through open source. I hope that reign of ignorance is over."

121 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Wow... just wow. by Jonas+Buyl · · Score: 5, Funny

    So this means pigs CAN fly?

    1. Re:Wow... just wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Swine flu. Now anything can happen.

    2. Re:Wow... just wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only if that pig is seated in a chair in Ballmer's office.

    3. Re:Wow... just wow. by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1, Funny

      Are you trying to say swine flu didn't change EVERYTHING, Brian?

      Is this what you're trying to say?

      Huh?

      Huh?

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
    4. Re:Wow... just wow. by jvd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yep, pigs flu... I mean, flew. Bad joke, I know, I know.

      --
      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    5. Re:Wow... just wow. by ouachiski · · Score: 1, Funny

      They said microsoft would release an open source project with some value when pigs fly......Swine flu

      --
      sorry for my comments, I'm drunk
    6. Re:Wow... just wow. by sheepofblue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or this is Microsoft trying to hurt Google because they fear them more than open source

    7. Re:Wow... just wow. by upuv · · Score: 1

      Holy crap some large brown pink animal just fell out of the sky and crushed my Porche with my X in it.

      Oh God my neighbors yappy Mexican pocket purse dog just got obliterated but appears to 400lbs of chops!

      This is either a great day or about to be the worst day of my life!

    8. Re:Wow... just wow. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Two words. Yep.

      Don't try to count them, just say it twice. It will all work out in the end.

    9. Re:Wow... just wow. by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever said posting as an AC didn't have a downside. ;-)

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
    10. Re:Wow... just wow. by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      go look up "bootstrapping"

    11. Re:Wow... just wow. by jonadab · · Score: 1

      No, it means Microsoft views Google as a bigger threat than open source.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  2. I lol'd by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this really news, or just another opportunity for us to have everyones favorite slashdot debate?

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    1. Re:I lol'd by brusk · · Score: 4, Funny

      The latter. Pirates are better.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    2. Re:I lol'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What are you on about? A ninja can (and indeed has) take on a ship load of pirates. With a frozen shamrock.

    3. Re:I lol'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      so, how many didn't get the doctor mc ninja reference?

    4. Re:I lol'd by hairykrishna · · Score: 5, Funny

      Rubbish

      emacs is clearly superior

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    5. Re:I lol'd by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2, Funny

      C'mon, there's no way ninjas are better!

      Have you ever heard of anyone ninjaing software? Or music? Or games? No one ninjas anything. It's all about the pirates! :D

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    6. Re:I lol'd by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Could be the No Income No Job No Assets ninjas. They run off with your economy while you where hunting pirates.
      Now poor Mr Ballmer has to play nice with the SCO slaying Euro trash.
      Why could it not be like United Fruit.
      Call in a favour from Washington, over throw the Finnish government and make sure all of this 'open source' stuff is lost in the confusion.
      Permanently.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:I lol'd by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Rubbish

      emacs is a clearly superior Operating System

      There, fixed that for you.

    8. Re:I lol'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cool! I just installed it on my machine. Do you know where I can find a decent text editor for it?

    9. Re:I lol'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's only obvious you haven't heard about ninja anything. They are that much better at concealing themselves :)

    10. Re:I lol'd by edmazur · · Score: 1

      Rubbish

      emacs is clearly superior

      Excuse me, but real programmers use butterflies.

    11. Re:I lol'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, Dr McNinja was demolishing that entire ship full of pirates. On the other hand, the pirate captain was winning until he threw Dr. McNinja and he discovered the frozen shamrocks by landing on them. Plus, he totally forgot that he carries shuriken in his coat, so he didn't really need the shamrocks.
      If anyone is curious what the heck this is about, check out: The Adventures of Dr. McNinja.

    12. Re:I lol'd by dkf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cool! I just installed [emacs] on my machine. Do you know where I can find a decent text editor for it?

      It comes with one built in.
      M-x vi-mode

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    13. Re:I lol'd by funkatron · · Score: 1

      Bollocks.

      Urrrm.... Can I say BSD? ...BSD .... urrm... fuck yeah?

      Is that right?

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    14. Re:I lol'd by janrinok · · Score: 1

      doctor mc ninja reference

      You've spelled it out for me - and I still haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Is it a child's program, a hip-hop DJ, or what?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    15. Re:I lol'd by syntaxglitch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, in a mathematical sense, emacs is strictly superior to vi--you can implement vi in emacs, but not the other way around!

    16. Re:I lol'd by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

      Nope. I refer you to the Adventures of Dr. McNinja.

            --- Mr. DOS

    17. Re:I lol'd by rolando2424 · · Score: 1

      Does Vim count? If so, I give you Vimacs

      --
      Okay seriously I've just run out of pointless things to say.
    18. Re:I lol'd by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, DEC Alpha trounces PowerPC every time.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  3. really? by Darlo888 · · Score: 5, Funny

    They open sourced the surface?

    1. Re:really? by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Misleading headline. Here's the link to the Register article with more details. Nothing to do with the Surface. Steve

      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    2. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Man, there needs to be a facepalm moderation.

    3. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do some real research and stop proliferating garbage. The SpiderTCP stack used in NT3.1 was licensed from Spider Systems, who obtained and modified the BSD code, which was distributed under the BSD license. SpiderTCP is not and has not ever been open source, even if it was based on open source code.

    4. Re:really? by MarkKB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention that it was only supposed to be a temporary solution. Work on the new, Microsoft-written TCP/IP started shortly after NT 3.1 RTM'd, and was released in Windows NT 3.5 and Windows 95. The command-line networking programs (like ftp) that were ported along with Spider's TCP stack were left in, mainly because they worked well enough that Microsoft saw no reason to replace them.

    5. Re:really? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yep, just like the "new, completely rewritten" operating systems they've released (like Vista, 2000, and W7). SpiderTCP is still floating around in part.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:really? by m50d · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, the claim was that NT 3.1 "includes open-source code".

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:really? by MarkKB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since when were Windows 2000 and 7's network stack re-written?

      Of course it's probably in there somewhere, but it'd be such a small percentage that it'd be basically insignificant. I'd doubt that any non-basic code would survive two rewrites (NT3.5 and Vista).

      There's probably a compat struct somewhere for the five apps that ran on NT3.1 and required TCP/IP (or STACKS, the platform SpiderTCP ran on) but other than that, I wouldn't expect much.

    8. Re:really? by MarkKB · · Score: 1

      Heh, sorry, misread the first part of your reply. ^^;

      In any case, I haven't seen anyone claim that any of the OSs you've mentioned are completely rewritten. Windows 2000 and Vista did have major architectural and API changes, and Windows 7 had more low-level under-the-hood changes, but I don't think anyone's said that they've been rewritten at all.

  4. Which license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So... the linked article says the Kumo search team (the ones who develop the FS) USE open source. But I can nowhere see that the FS is released as open source. A citation would be good, especially since the used license would be quit important.

    1. Re:Which license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The product is called Hbase/ Apache license, so it is open source.

    2. Re:Which license? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      So... the linked article says the Kumo search team (the ones who develop the FS) USE open source. But I can nowhere see that the FS is released as open source. A citation would be good, especially since the used license would be quit important.

      You should check your glasses and re-RTFA. Two points there:

      1) The Kumo search team did not develop the FS. They've used the one Apache Hadoop (guess the license).

      2) The Kumo search team have implemented a BigTable analog on top of Hadoop FS, and that's what they've open sourced. The result is a subproject of Hadoop now (again, guess the license).

      Also, this isn't obvious from TFA itself, but looking at the sources that it references, this is really old news: the blog post they link to is from 2007. It is also before Powerset was bought by Microsoft (that happened in 2008), so the relevance of all this to Microsoft policies is unclear.

  5. It's not an alternative to BigTable by wilsoniya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google doesn't sell/license BigTable in any way. It's used internally. I fail to see how it's possible to release an alternative to something which can't be acquired in any form.

    --
    I can't remember the last time I forgot anything.
    1. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google doesn't sell/license BigTable in any way. It's used internally. I fail to see how it's possible to release an alternative to something which can't be acquired in any form.

      Not completely correct. You can use BigTable right now. There are Google AppEngine APIs that can access BigTable. You just can't use it without using Google's servers, that's all.

      If, at this point, you still can't see why it's completely obvious why Microsoft would write an alternative to BigTable and open source it, all I can say you haven't been paying attention.

    2. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by prockcore · · Score: 5, Informative

      Using Google's AppEngine, you can use BigTable.. so while you can't install it on your own servers, you can still write software that uses it.

    3. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using Google's AppEngine, you can use BigTable.. so while you can't install it on your own servers, you can still write software that uses it.

      Which means that your appliance that uses BigTable needs continuous access to the Internet.

    4. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

      Do the services that Google sell depend upon Big Table in anyway? If so, then this is an alternative to BigTable.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    5. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by CarpetShark · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I fail to see how it's possible to release an alternative to something which can't be acquired in any form.

      Really? So if all proprietary compilers where not sold, but were instead kept in-house as development tools, then GCC would cease to be an open source/free software alternative to them?

    6. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by BikeHelmet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Which means that your appliance that uses BigTable needs continuous access to the Internet.

      What!? This is absolutely outrageous~! None of my servers have internet access!

    7. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Open sourcing anything software-related is a bad idea for Microsoft, unlike Google. Google are in the search/advertising business, not the software business. Their "crown jewels" are the databases they've collected about everything. Microsoft are in the sofware business. Their "crown jewels" are the source code for their products.

      You'll note that Google aren't opening up their crown jewels: you can't just download their raw web page index and do your own thing with it. Since they're not in the software business, they can afford to give away or open their software tools. Since Microsoft are in the software business, that hurts them.

      Now there's an interesting symmetry here. Being (primarily) in the software business should mean that actual content and databases isn't too important for Microsoft. If they wanted to hurt Google, they would open up their raw msnsearch indexes and other useful content databases. That would hurt Google, because people could download massive competing data collections and create their own competing search engines without the huge resource investment in crawler farms etc.

    8. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by IrrepressibleMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure how this is funny?
      I concede I may be missing something, but very few of my 1500+ servers have access to the internet and those that do are carefully restricted by firewall.
      Am I being dense?

    9. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by AlexBirch · · Score: 1

      Their "crown jewels" are the source code for their products.
      I would change that to "Their 'crown jewels' are the products that make them money." Microsoft wisely open sourced Atlas now their Ajax components and MVC so that developers could be more productive with Visual Studios (a crown jewel.)

      It would be foolish of Microsoft to open source either their OS or Office because these are their cash cows. Contributing to HBase won't hurt them financially, unless it obviates the need for developers to use SQL Server. For icing on the cake, this could negatively impact Oracle.

    10. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Yes, but gaining a tool by building your own IS an alternative to doing without because someone won't let you use theirs.

    11. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by socceroos · · Score: 1

      But how can it be an alternative if we don't know exactly what it does?

      For all you know, BigTable has an extension that makes everyone's salad sandwiches at Google.

    12. Re:It's not an alternative to BigTable by ozphx · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't sell/license BigTable in any way. It's used internally. I fail to see how it's possible to release an alternative to something which can't be acquired in any form.

      I don't sell or licence my dick to other men in any way. It's also used internally.

      However if you are looking for an alternative to my dick, you could consider buying a dildo.

      Then you could put my surrogate dick in your mouth and shut the hell up. Seriously... think before you post?

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  6. needs an expert opinion by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...I hope that reign of ignorance is over."

    don't count on it, you know about embrace/extend/extinguish?

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:needs an expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Summarizing the entire quote in the article summary:

      Matt Asay writes for CNet:
      "Wah!"

    2. Re:needs an expert opinion by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      "...I hope that reign of ignorance is over." don't count on it, you know about embrace/extend/extinguish?

      Now I can see how they can do that with protocols (e.g. the IE extensions to HTML), business models get harder and open source... well you can embrace it, and extend it, and both are only making it stronger, that is the nature of the beast isn't it? The FOSS model can not be extinguished. It's in a way like a cancer. You can merely try to slow it down, but as long as there are people that are either idealistic or have no interest in keeping their sources secret, the FOSS model will survive.

  7. Crap by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Article says that they "use open source". Doesn't mean they give ANYTHING back at all, because they are not distributing it, thus the HEADLINE is so false it's unbelievable.

    For instance, say they took even a GPL'd piece of software, extended it to add marvellous and important new features and then KEPT IT IN HOUSE. They can still use it, still claim it's "open source" but they NEVER have to let anyone but themselves see that code.

    It's bad editing, bad reviewing, bad summarising and just outright lying. There is nothing "Open" about anything being done here apart from the software that MS chose to use.

    1. Re:Crap by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      They did: they gave to the Hadoop project an open source equivalent to Google's BigTable. Not only was this mentioned in the article, it was also mentioned in the summary.

      Note also that while Google has a bigTable, they have not released it as open source (as far as I can tell, but they do sell it as a webservice). So there may be some desire to undercut Google here with this move.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Crap by mc1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Looking at Microsoft's history, I could see them releasing it, making it freely available, just to take a little bit away from Google. The animosity between Microsoft and Google isn't exactly a secret, and neither is Microsoft's do anything to win attitude. Case in point, look at how they've handled piracy overseas. Rather than crack down, they've been lenient to help keep their market share up. Better Window's for free than no Windows at all... I could see them going totally open source if they thought it would improve their hold on the market or at least hurt some competitors.

    3. Re:Crap by bockelboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, you're not even close.

      A company called Powerset developed the open-source alternative to BigTable called HBase. This was developed as an Apache Software Foundation project under the Apache license.

      Microsoft bought Powerset for a bucket of money because their search technology based of Hbase was pretty damned good. This was last year. This year, the folks behind powerset - as Microsoft employees - were given the go-ahead to continue committing to the ASF project and they continue to make it better. For what I can see, they aren't keeping anything juicy in-house.

      It's honest-to-goodness MS committing to an Apache project.

    4. Re:Crap by ruphus13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This came about as a result of their acquisition of Powerset. Those guys have been working on Hadoop, and contributing back for a while (pretty much since the beginning). Here's what the linked article in the OP states, "When Microsoft acquired the company, Powersetters Michael Stack and Jim Kellerman took a hiatus from their full-time HBase contributions. But by October, Redmond had cleared the pair to resume their open coding. And that's what we'd call giving yourself cancer. "While Microsoft has supported open source in the past," a company mouthpiece tells us, "this is the first time that Microsoft has continued to support open source with an acquired company."" So, rather than release their entire effort as Open Source, the participants in Kumo/Powerset will continue to work on Open Source projects and software they embed.

    5. Re:Crap by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Funny

      Indeed, this is so clear that one could reasonably assume I was not suggesting that they used the word 'Hadoop' in the summary. In fact, your assumption in such a case would be correct: I was not actually implying that they used the word Hadoop in the summary. I WAS however implying that Microsoft did release open source software, which was mentioned in the summary. My second sentence was referring to the primary clause of my first sentence.

      My post was accurate in this case, but I admit sometimes they are not. In general it's a good idea to assume the best possibly meaning from another person's post, and if at all possible not assume they are a complete idiot. That way even if you are wrong (and they are a complete idiot), at least you can still have half a good discussion. As opposed to this case you've wasted your words discussing something that isn't particularly interesting or relevant.

      This ought to be the first rule of internet discussions since 90% of the people you meet online are, certifiably, idiots.

      --
      Qxe4
    6. Re:Crap by TeknoDragon · · Score: 1

      Hadoop is the open source equivalent to Google's MapReduce.

  8. so what's the license? by Punto · · Score: 2

    is it mentioned anywhere? I can't find it.

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    1. Re:so what's the license? by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      is it mentioned anywhere? I can't find it.

      I was wondering the same thing. If it is just the standard MS open development model, then it is not really news. GPL on the otherhand...

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    2. Re:so what's the license? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's apache, which is more free than GPL.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:so what's the license? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      "... the available Hadoop technology, Powerset decided to give back to the community by developing an open-source analog to BigTable that is built on top of HDFS (Hadoop Distributed File System)."
      Since Hadoop is Apache License 2.0, presumably this extension is so too.

      It is called HBase according to the cited release post.

      Wiki:
      http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Hbase
      Yahoo and Adobe seem to run it too (see PoweredBy).

      Project website:
      http://hadoop.apache.org/hbase/

      Looking inside the last release tarball, it really is Apache License Version 2.0.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re:so what's the license? by wrook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's apache, which is more free than GPL.

      While this is an informative post, modding it insightful is a bit trollish. If your definition of "free" means "less restricted", then it is certainly true. If your definition of "free" refers to the "free" as commonly used in "free software", then the statement is meaningless. Either it is free (gives me the 4 freedoms) or it isn't. There isn't "more" or "less".

      By saying it is "more free than the GPL" you are making a distinction which is completely unnecessary in this context. The Apache license is both free as in "has few restrictions" and free as in "free software". So you can merely say that the Apache license is a "free license" as opposed to Microsoft's "shared source" licenses.

      I, for one, am getting tired of these pointless political jabs.

  9. .Net? by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

    Will be it attached to .Net? Probably, right?

    Meanwhile, the Big Table has python and java (or any JVM variant) as languages.

    And how open-source the MS Big Table will be? You can download it and use in your cluster or single PC?

    1. Re:.Net? by ultrabot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Will be it attached to .Net? Probably, right?

      Java more likely (since it's built on Hadoop, which uses Java).

      Slighty embarrassing for microsoft, perhaps? But remember, this comes from a group that microsoft acquired, not something that has always been a part of microsoft.

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    2. Re:.Net? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And how open-source the MS Big Table will be? You can download it and use in your cluster or single PC?

      apache license 2.0
      imo better than gpl.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    3. Re:.Net? by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

      I agree.

  10. did they use hot chicks to promote it? by ifeelswine · · Score: 2, Funny

    i just wonder if they're as desperate as the couchdb bozos: http://www.slideshare.net/mattetti/couchdb-perform-like-a-pr0n-star

    1. Re:did they use hot chicks to promote it? by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      Matt Aimonetti is a Ruby on Rails bozo:

      http://merbist.com/about/

      He doesn't seem to be particularly involved with CouchDB:

      http://couchdb.apache.org/community/committers.html

      I guess he was presenting information about CouchDB to the ruby community.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:did they use hot chicks to promote it? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      when to use couch?

      when availability is more important than consistency

      I think I'd rather not subscribe to that newsletter.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  11. no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Clearly Microsoft is using open source as a tactical weapon here, the way companies often do against entrenched competitors.

    But is this a new tactic for them? No. Back in the '90s, they competed against Netscape in the browser wars by giving away IE for free; unlike Netscape, which was hoping to eventually start charging for Navigator, Microsoft made IE part of Windows (so it was effectively free for anyone who already paid for the PC).

    And Microsoft released an "Open Letter to Netscape", asking its rival to cooperate with the W3C and avoid making proprietary extensions to web protocols. As if anything else about Windows desktop development at the time was based on open standards!

    Going back even further, at one point Borland International was the leading PC software tools vendor. Microsoft wanted this title for itself (remember "developers developers developers developers"), so to compete against Borland's Object Windows C++ framework, they came up with MFC. And following Borland's lead, they made MFC open source (or "shared source" or whatever. Source available).

    So no, they aren't having a change of heart. They will do whatever it takes to get control of this hot market segment.

    1. Re:no surprise by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Back in the '90s, they competed against Netscape in the browser wars by giving away IE for free; unlike Netscape, which was hoping to eventually start charging for Navigator, Microsoft made IE part of Windows (so it was effectively free for anyone who already paid for the PC).

      Why wasn't Microsoft charged for "product dumping" ?

    2. Re:no surprise by m50d · · Score: 1

      Were you living under a rock for the second half of the nineties? They were.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:no surprise by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Much of what you are saying here is inaccurate.

      Netscape was a product that was introduced as paid software. You purchased it. Microsoft's IE was a paid product also. You purchased it. It was the competitor to Netscape.

      Microsoft then decided, while IE was still a stand-alone browser, to give it away for free.

      In order to compete for market share this move put Netscape in a position to have to give theirs away for free.

      Clearly, we can see from this that Microsoft has given software away for free for a long time and hence has no leg to stand on by complaining that free software is a cancer on the industry. We can't give Ballmer any credit for having a long memory and must say of him that he has a selective memory, or even that much of what he says in public is meant to prey on the fact that the average person doesn't know the history.

      In an effort to get better market penetration Netscape tried to ink deals with vendors to have them pre-install it on the computers they were selling. This is where the justice department comes in.

      Microsoft was inking deals with the vendors in a way that denied them the ability to include any other company's product to be pre-installed, and no icons other than Microsoft icons were allowed on the desktop for a new machine sold to the public. They had also been doing something similar in the DOS world. If the vendors didn't agree to this they lost their volume pricing deals and as a consequence couldn't compete with everyone else. Microsoft also limited vendor's ability to sell computers with no operating system on it.

      When Netscape was forced to give away their browser for free (as Microsoft was), it was clear that people were still downloading and installing Netscape. So, in an attempt to overcome this Microsoft chose to integrate IE into the OS giving it a huge advantage.

      Then Java came along. Microsoft felt that Netscape and Java were the threat that could kill their OS business.

      Netscape then decided that they'd change their business model by giving away Netscape for free and making money as a portal. Marc Andreesen saw the light early and sold his shares--he took the money and ran.

      That was the end of Netscape. With IE integrated into the OS, with Microsoft incorporating proprietary extensions to HTML it all but killed Netscape.

      This is why we have industry standards. This is why standards are utterly important. It was also the first time we acknowledged Microsoft using Embrace, Extend, Extinguish as a tactic.

      The problem with Microsoft's attempt to get Netscape to agree on standards was ill fated because it was forcing Netscape into giving up years of work in designing enhancements to HTML and there were many parties out there that felt Netscapes extensions were better as they were targeted at cross platform. Microsoft's were targeted at only Windows in a way of further entrenching Windows as the only OS for the desktop.

      The W3C took a look at both submissions and chose to incorporate both into the standard--rather than one over the other.

      Microsoft never made their MFC shared source. Microsoft was about binaries.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  12. Lets see by codepunk · · Score: 3, Informative

    100 bucks a copy for os licenses x 50K boxes...hmmmm no thanks..

    --


    Got Code?
  13. Money? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    > ...Microsoft's fear-mongering around open source cost it years of productivity and
    > quality gains that it could have been delivering to customers through open source.

    Yes, but did it cost Microsoft any *money*?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Money? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, but did it cost Microsoft any *money*?

      Vista. It cost MS its reputation. Before then, MS, in the non-tech world was considered pretty decent. Sure, XP was as insecure as heck, froze up randomly, etc. But it was decent enough. Then came Vista. By being totally committed to proprietary designs, MS managed to release a train wreck which cost them customers, their reputation, and many man-hours on the redoing of Vista.

      Just look at what Apple did with OS X. They took an open source foundation (BSD), added a nice GUI, some compatibility, and they got a pretty decent OS once they worked out a few issues. All this for a much lower cost then developing a new beginning for Mac OS 9 totally in-house.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Money? by MrMr · · Score: 1

      No, it cost their customers money, it cost thousands of their employees their jobs, but it didn't cost the people who really matter any money.

  14. I'm familiar with the situation by melted · · Score: 2, Funny

    And I can tell you that the entire original Register article was pulled out of author's ass. The CNet article just extended that ass pulling, Goatse style. Must be a slow news day. None of this will ever end up in Live Search. Nothing to see here, move on.

    Try the Powerset demo, compare it to even current Live Search or Google. Realize that this is just Wikipedia they've managed to index, even at that quality. Scratch your head and wonder why Microsoft paid $100M for it.

    1. Re:I'm familiar with the situation by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      If The Reg was claiming it, most likely it is true. They generally don't make stuff up. If it is a mistake on their part it doesn't mean they made it up. And until you can get a response from The Reg on your comment you shouldn't be accusing them of lying.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  15. HBase isn't a Microsoft product by bryanduxbury · · Score: 5, Informative
    This article is really confused. Powerset, before it was acquired by Microsoft, started work on HBase, which is a BigTable-like storage system that runs on Hadoop. Both HBase and Hadoop are Apache projects that are out in the open basically in no relation to Microsoft.

    Microsoft has allowed two of the primary HBase developers, who work at Powerset, to continue their open-source work on HBase, which is definitely cool. But to say that Microsoft is releasing this is just flat out wrong.

    (Full disclosure: I am a non-Microsoft-employed HBase committer.)

  16. Reign of ignorance? by Nick+Ives · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope that reign of ignorance is over.

    Lets see... Nope, Ballmer is still in charge!

    --
    Nick
  17. HBase / Powerset by SuperQ · · Score: 1

    So completely missing from article summary and article itself is any information about the software.

    This guy is just late to the party. HBase was contributed to the hadoop project by Powerset. A startup that microsoft bought.

  18. Probably HBase by allenw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    None of the articles say it, but they are probably talking about HBase. If this is the case, this is seriously old news.

    HBase was started by the Powerset guys before being acquired by Microsoft. After the acquisition there was a lot of concern in the Hadoop community about whether the Powerset guys would be allowed to continue to contribute. They have, and as far as I can tell, the community is not particularly concerned about MS's involvement.

  19. Releases? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    A fast reading got me confused about that terminology. Lets see:
    - Last july Microsoft bought Powerset, that were developing what would be the base of a semantic search engine.
    - That company (before all of that) used Hadoop, and helped to build over it a BigTable-like distributed storage engine, called HBase.
    - And in last october (thats Microsoft contribution to open source) Microsoft enabled the Powerset's developers that were contributing to HBase to continue their work there.

    They aren't releasing any "new" open souce, just some of the new employees keep contributing to a project they helped to start when they weren't inside Microsoft. What they will be releasing (not as source, only as service) a new search engine based on that work.

    1. Re:Releases? by melted · · Score: 1

      >> a new search engine based on that work

      Thas was made up by The Reg and regurgitated by CNet. Kumo is NOT "based on that work".

    2. Re:Releases? by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      If The Reg was claiming it, most likely it is true. They generally don't make stuff up. If it is a mistake on their part it doesn't mean they made it up. And until you can get a response from The Reg on your comment you shouldn't be accusing them of lying.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  20. Re:Sharing by furbearntrout · · Score: 1

    To be a ninja, you only have to share something you made yourself.

    --
    Crap. What did the new CSS do with the "Post anonymously" option??
  21. why do u think MS cares about quality ? by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

    they are a business, they care about profit.
    the great thing about being a monopoly is, you don't have to ship quality products - your customers can have whatever they want so long as it's black.
    seriously, if you are a de facto monopoly, as ms has been for the last, say 20 years, and you make 50 % gross margins , why on earth would you spend money on quality ?
    that sort of thinking is what seperates techies, who toil in the trenches, from c suite execs

    1. Re:why do u think MS cares about quality ? by CodingHero · · Score: 1

      they are a business, they care about profit.

      It's true. Look at those people at Apple turning out trash and naming their own price because there are no competitors! Oh wait . . .

    2. Re:why do u think MS cares about quality ? by jdinkel · · Score: 1

      I would mod this down just because you compared Microsoft to the Ford Model T.

    3. Re:why do u think MS cares about quality ? by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Apple's hardware is the same as everyone elses. They use the same components, chipsets, etc.

      They produce a modified version unix as the core OS and then create a propriety desktop manager.

      There are some changes to the hardware such as the chip which is used to determine if the OS is running on an Apple board. But the video, ram, HDD, sound, and every other component is just like every other PC. Just comes in a different external package.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  22. Re:Matt Asay by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    Let me guess... same reaction every time you see goatse?

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  23. Re:It's NOT open source. MODS please change topic. by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    That and much of their software has come from their efforts at "embrace, extend, close, and patent."

  24. Re:It's NOT open source. MODS please change topic. by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    Microsoft doesn't produce software. Never has.

    You subscribe to definitions of "doesn't" and "never" that are somewhat less than strict, huh?

  25. More Or Less by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's apache, which is more free than GPL.

    More free if you want companies to be able to use the software without giving anything back to you.

    Less free if you want changes to always be public for everyone forever.

    I'm all for BSD style licenses in some cases that allow a company to use code without contributing changes back to anyone. But do not redefine what "free" really means just because you have an irrational fear of prophetic guys with beards.

    Otherwise you are missing the whole point behind open source software, which is that the source in in fact open. Allowing some changes to exist behind locked gates is in fact less free no matter how you weasel it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:More Or Less by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      BSD style licenses allow some changes to exist behind locked gates. The GPL doesn't allow you to lock the code. You take the code that someone else toiled over and you use it to make a profit you really should give something back to the guy that wrote the original code. Otherwise, create your own and give that away BSD style.

      I think the GPL is a more popular license this is indicative as to why.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  26. Re:Matt Asay by Inquisitor911 · · Score: 1

    Similar, only without the need to vomit afterwards.

  27. Re: Lumberjack Commandos by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    I meet your ninjas and your pirates and raise you Lumberjack Commandos:

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  28. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by meist3r · · Score: 1

    ... Profit?

  29. HBase by mysterons · · Score: 1

    I presume they are talking about HBase. We used this a while back and it was pretty flakey and slow. There are numerous alternatives out there, for example http://hypertable.org/ Which has the added advantage of being written in C++

  30. Try Hypertable for a real alternative by haruchai · · Score: 1

    Site here: http://hypertable.org/ GPLv2 license

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  31. All the way down to a world without ms by deep-deep-blue · · Score: 1

    I hope that reign of ignorance is over.

    I hope not.

  32. Microsoft open source Open Source by HermMunster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft is not distributing open source software. This is not an open source product. It can't be used on multiple platforms. It can't be modified and freely distributed. It is not open source.

    Microsoft does openED source where you can view the code but never use it outside of your project and never on another platform other than Windows.

    Open Source was defined around 15 years ago in the attempt of ensuring that the definition for open source was long standing.

    Microsoft and open source together is an oxymoron.

    Microsoft claimed in 2007 that Open Source was dead and that Linux was dead. Their attempt to do this was about the time they claimed that open source violated 235 of their patents. Then they refused to state which ones even though the consumers world-wide asked for it.

    They were the same company that sued TomTom and backed the company with funding for SCO to sue IBM and other linux backers.

    We do not, in open source, put any trust in Microsoft nor do we let them attempt to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish Open Source by closing it or limiting it. They are trying to get big business to think that the only acceptable form of open source is that which is defined by Microsoft.

    Everyone should be objecting to Microsoft and this 100% of the time.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  33. Re:It's NOT open source. MODS please change topic. by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    You should be modded down for being a dumb shit and posting a quote to his comments out of context.

    Read the whole fucking thing dude.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  34. Re:It's NOT open source. MODS please change topic. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    There was no context from which that quote was seperated. The GP's post was nothing but mind-numbed drivel echoing the standard MS bashings.

    Don't be a drone your whole life.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  35. Re:Microsoft open source Open Source by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are allowing developers that work for a company they purchased (so the developers work for Microsoft) to continue contributing to software released under the Apache 2.0 license.

    No matter what the rest of the company is doing, this activity is exactly the "Open Source" that you seem to think it isn't.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  36. missing tag: itsatrap by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Also, who cares if its 'open source'.

    Its only news if its Free software

    Thank you, but I'll store my data on *MY* server, using protocols implemented in *Free* software.

  37. Microsoft open source by viralMeme · · Score: 1

    What 'open source' license is Kumo released under. Does it pass the definition of Open Source at Perens.com, in relation to redistribution, source code, derived works, restrictions, technology-neutral ...

  38. RE: Rein of Ignorance by stoicio · · Score: 1

    "I hope that reign of ignorance is over."

    If the old farts are still in charge, ignorance continues to rein supreme.

  39. Re:Microsoft open source Open Source by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    This is the problem with the dual personalities of Microsoft. You know that if you use their open source and make a good profit you could end up being sued for not having licenced the patents covering the technology.

    Avoid at all costs. At least until their get their split personality syndrome under control.

  40. Assuming you're not joking by melted · · Score: 1

    You don't understand. I'm not "accusing them of lying". I know it for a fact that they're lying.

  41. Re:Microsoft open source Open Source by maxume · · Score: 1

    Read it. Even just the headings:

    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

    There is no patent risk (well, no more than any other Apache 2.0 licensed software) involved in this particular instance.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.