Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Launches Its Own Open Source Foundation
darthcamaro writes "Microsoft already had its own open source (OSI-approved) licenses, its own open source project hosting site and now it's adding its own non-profit open source foundation.
That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has its own 501(c)(6) open source foundation. Officially called the CodePlex Foundation, it's a separate effort from the CodePlex site and is aimed at helping to get more commercial developers involved in open source. Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source, will anyone take them seriously?"
It's a trap, don't give them your code!
the company formerly known as Traf-o-Data is supporting CodePlex, formerly known as Open Source? a Princely Idea that...
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Are we in Soviet Russia now?
we'll make our *own* Open Source only ours will be better and it'll have beer and hookers! Ha! Forget the beer and hookers! ... wait ... that's not how that goes...
[signature]
Where's Admiral Ackbar when you need him?
This has to be some elaborate joke by Microsoft.
From the link "The CodePlex Foundation will complement existing open source foundations and organizations, providing a forum in which best practices and shared understanding can be established by a broad group of participants, both software companies and open source communities."
Seems like a meta-organization for open source entities, under the watchful eye of Redmond.
Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
The FSF attacks open source, and some people still take them seriously. So why not Microsoft?
What's wrong with this company? It's trying to be both good and evil at the same time!
I'm pretty sure MS recognizes the validity and power of open source, but like many companies, they don't see potential profitability from it. They probably aim to acquire code and such from collaboration as well as employed programming.
It is a way for Microsoft to reduce its tax bill - Donate a few hundred million dollars worth of code to a charity you control and get a nice tax receipt.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Unfortunately, they will. You can't imagine how quickly people will forget (or never bother to check) that Microsoft is behind this foundation. Also, Im guessing that people will be quick to forget Microsoft's track record, and participate.
I think Microsoft sees a lot of good work going on in the open source community and it wants to tap into that source of innovation. Regardless of what they say, Microsoft is sorely lacking in true, original innovation. Their best plays have been rip-offs of established ideas.
They have the money and they have to try, but I am doubtful that they'll do much else besides foster Microsoft-centric development of tools and programs similar to the Windows Powershell IDE by Dr. Tobias Weltner.
Best regards.
At least the CodePlex folks didn't skimp on the astroturfing budget.
"We believe that commercial software companies and the developers that work for them under-participate in open source projects," Microsoft stated.
While I applaud the intent to appear to be open source friendly, they haven't yet begun to address two of the major issues with Microsoft and open source:
Now, here we have Microsoft reinventing the wheel, aka sourceforge. I could even go for a BSD style license, or even public domain. But I have one question:
Would they host, and allow development on ReactOS? (for those who don't know, it's an open source Windows clone)
How Codeplex and Microsoft deal with this question would reveal far more about their true intentions than what their pundits say about their open source attitude.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
No.
It's like Hitler funding a synagogue - you KNOW there's an alterior motive.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Google -> googol -> googolplex.
Microsoft steals again!
Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source will anyone take them seriously?
Come on, do you really think that if Microsoft suddenly open sourced ALL there software that they would also praise linux, which is a competing product regardless of the license? No, of course not. They are still going to say that linux sucks, and that Microsoft's products are better.
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
Parent's post is likely scenario.
Just as they desperately need DotnetNuke to stay relevant in CMS, they need this to stay relevant in other areas.
At this point I'm guessing customers they care about are talking about Open Source and the Microsoft sales rep needs to say "Yeah, we got that." while they are on their way in the Microsoft limo to the strip club/whorehouse.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
... doesn't seem to be working so well against open-source stuff. Maybe Microsoft's new strategy is to split and balkanize the open-source community with a bunch of conflicting licenses and communities.
Division, Discord, and Destruction
My bicyles
Answer: Yes.
Like it or not, MS is going to spin this in a way that PHB will take it seriously--but seriously only in the Microsoft way.
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
And in other news, Neo-Nazis just formed a human rights watch group. It should go just as well as this will.
Windows has always been under a BSD license... I've seen it all over the place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Screen_of_Death
Funny how there is a lot of truth in that statement...
MS is tying up traffic in Seattle today to bring all of their people together in one of the city's sports stadiums. Anybody know if that is the usual monkey-boy chair toss or is something up?
Samba is way more efficient and less resource hungry than Windows' SMB services.
But keep talking, you filthy little shill.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I just hope Microsoft's version of open source smells alot better than Richard Stallman's.
Remember that butt ugly fish with a mouth full of razor-sharp teeth that lives way down deep and has a worm-like appendage that dances tantalizingly just in front of its mouth? That's what I thought of when I read this story.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I would want to read the fine print, read between the lines, ask 4 lawyers and then maybe think about putting anything on their site.
I also have to ask, just what do they gain from this _if_ they are completely on the up-and-up with this? Is it advertising or is it that they get to see/measure projects activity so they'll know where to put more marketing dollars to fight it? Or maybe keep and eye on what's active and they should buy up and shut down? Is it just advertising dollars? I really doubt it's about ad dollars because they had better know that the developer community is smaller than the general online population so they'd be targeting a much smaller piece of pie and a piece of pie they have gone to great lengths( sometimes even illegal ones ) to keep control of.
There is no _new Microsoft_ so what really is their motive here and what can they do with this to continue their fight to stop open source software growth and along with it, the GNU/Linux open source projects?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I'm not sure, but my first inclination is that they probably want to encourage the development of Open Source software which is based upon Microsoft Technologies and Tools, so that such projects still require Windows to run, and maybe require Visual Studio, SQL Server, etc to build/implement/install?
I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't be *too* upset about Open Source software which depends upon Microsoft's software to actually work or be built.
No itsatrap tag?
Maybe they're trying to develop a functional open source movement within their development culture? After all, Microsoft sells a platform. The DOS free software movement was a boon to their platform, not a detraction.
We're not looking at a war of ideas, we're looking at a basic platform war. Take Apple, for instance; they sell a high-end commercial platform which heavily leverages the open source ecosystem to augment and flesh-out their platform. Commercial software can be obnoxious, even to a platform vendor: it works against its platform, it puts branding over adherence to user experience, and it makes computer usage frustrating.
If the Windows platform were viewed from the angle of its development community instead of as a vessel for shareware, then they might be able to preserve and further their platform against more open markets (even Apple) coming up against them.
The full F/OSS stack (Linux-FOSS-and above) is a weak platform technically, but a strong idea. Microsoft doesn't have to give up the idea of a professionally maintained platform to leverage an open source third party software ecosystem. Better within their sphere of influence than outside of it. Microsoft is offering an extremely friendly and accessible development environment to its users already; it would be a boon to foster an influx of new platform-defining free applications that add value while not becoming an issue of anti-trust.
People who develop and know how to use Linux are a different bred. They tend to be self reliant and innovative. Corporations like MS tend to naturally harbour fiefdoms around which barriers are effected that can stifle just the type of innovation Linux is driven by. The adage "faster nervous systems eat slower nervous systems" can apply where institutions allow barriers like glass ceilings to protect managers, the barriers erected can be seen as speed bumps and additional costs that Open Source skirts. Open Source may look haphazard in it's development but then so does evolution and both do OK in the long run.
A lot of Open Source people use Linux and similar OSes because they need to be able to innovate on the spot and not go begging and pleading with Corporate masters for permission to alter a bit of code. Open Source, in my experience, is about innovation and extensibility. MS expected Linux to die of SIDS in its crib. It didn't. I now think MS sees the power and benefits of Open Source and is looking to undermine Linux by offering a similar environment to lure academics and scientists to a similar platform while mining their innovations.
It's kinda like the serpent wants to take a bite out of the apple.
ideopath @ play
* stands up *
You lie!
Just when you think you'd heard it all. I'm sure their licenses will make for interesting reading. I vaguely recall that they'd submitted
licenses for review by OSI some years past- what became of that?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Sir, you make distinctions without a difference. All of Microsoft's work is derivative.
Yes, they are hugely popular and they have the major market share. They make billions of profit, yet smaller companies like Apple seem to be the ones coming up with new products.
Microsoft has been a drag on innovation for more than two decades. Its best, and seemingly only, plays continue to be copies of new technology.
Best regards.
The fact is that Adolph Hitler was a Catholic Jew
The problem here is, you won't be able to come up with a single credible source to back you up on this. The rumors surrounding your Hitler == Jew myth are based on non-evidence regarding his grandmother getting knocked up while working the grounds at a rothschild estate. Bullshit.
Reply to That ||
Urg, remind me not to read your comments during lunch.
Aside from shamelessly "borrowing" their "innovations" from other companies, and their strong-arm restraint-of-trade distribution tactics, Microsoft have always been the masters of "good enough." For any of the products Microsoft offers (Visual Studio included) there are several commercial competitors that are demonstrably better, but better in ways that customers don't care about or are unwilling to pay more for.
To embrace and extend your hamburger analogy... over the weekend I had a really tasty burger at a restaurant. The waitress asked how I wanted the meat cooked, and it came out exactly right, the bun was toasted, the cheese melted perfectly, and the trimmings fresh and flavorful. And I paid $9.75 for this burger. For $9.75, I can feed my whole family at McDonalds.
Over my years in the industry, I've seen a lot of bloated and unhappy IT departments that lacked energy and flexibility. And I've always advised them that Microsoft is but a part of a healthy IT budget, and to resist the temptation to super-size it.
As for Microsoft's new-found love for open source, I'll treat it as skeptically as I do fast food joints' healthy salads.
> Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source, will anyone take them seriously?
Considering how Linux people seem to spend their days thinking up reasons to dis Microsoft, can anyone take a Linux person seriously? For example, everyone plans the patient game. IBM a big âopen sourceâ(TM) company request more patients each year than any other company. CERT will list bunches of MAC and Linux security problems, yet these users claim to be perfectly safe.
From IRC 501(c)(6) Organizations â" page K-4
FAIL!
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/09/linux-foundation-to-microsoft-stop-secretly-attacking-linux.ars
While I dont think theres some grand plan to kill open source, I see absolutely no reason to trust MS at all.
Even if Ballmer swears on a stack of dried lawyers, that means nothing tomorrow if someone else gets the job.
The MS engineers probably mean well, but have no say in the end.
And ofcourse theres all the crap theyve pulled in the past, should this just be forgiven?
What bullshit excuse will this "independent" organization use to ban use of GPLv3 in its endeavors?
Forget about the ideological wars surrounding open source for a moment. The simple fact of the matter is that open source saves significant amounts of time and money for developers, regardless of the license used for the code itself or on the platform it is developed for. As we all know, developers (developers developers) are central to Microsoft's business success. This new foundation can only improve the Windows application ecosystem, so it makes perfect sense for more than just tax reasons.
MS is tying up traffic in Seattle today to bring all of their people together in one of the city's sports stadiums. Anybody know if that is the usual monkey-boy chair toss or is something up?
The stage is dark. Suddenly, a catchy theme pours from the speakers. It's... could it be... YES! Rick Astley! The crowd groans uncomfortably.
One of the screens showing the Microsoft logo goes blue. "Stop 0x0000000A or IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL".
Steve Ballmer appears through a fine mist of perspiration twisted into delicate symmetrical whorls by an army of desperate interns, hair dryers in hand, all aiming at his armpits from just offstage. The humidity in the room increases by an order of magnitude.
"Seven, Seven, Seven! GIVE IT UP FOR ME!"
The stage erupts in blue flame. Mystical symbols are traced on the faces of aghast onlookers as Crawzogorium, the Infernal Keeper Of Ring 0 materializes above the podium.
"WHO DARES SUMMON THE MASTER OF THE HIERARCHICAL PROTECTION DOMAINS?"
Crawzogorium notices the bluescreen. "TAINT! WHO HAS DISREGARDED MY LAW OF KERNEL PROCESS ACCESS? I WILL PUNISH YOU NOW!"
The light in the rooms fades to a dark brown, and a tortured scream is heard. It's Ballmer. His interns have dropped their hair dryers and fled the scene. He's fallen to his knees and is scrubbing at his underarm area with the tatters of his shirt.
Things look bleak for our hero and his audience? How will it all end? Tune in next post!
This post brought to you by AXE - It's how dirty guys get clean.
Technically, it's a mess. Are there two or three other .net CMS's with as many plugins though?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I strongly suspect they will prefer licenses for pillage and burning and not GPL or any such license.
This is a move to keep Windows developers on Windows instead of falling of the straight and narrow and make stupid things like Linux/Mac/whatever compatible software. Some developers are slipping through their fingers and we cant have people with their own free will can we?
HTTP/1.1 400
Microsoft's employee guidelines explicitly prohibit not only participation in FOSS projects, but even looking at the code. FOSS libraries (with very few exceptions, e.g. Zlib) are strictly off limits. As a matter of fact, every use of FOSS code, even in binary form, has to be cleared with Legal, even if the library is in broad use in some other product. And if you're a mere peon, they will reject your request, since this is the easiest thing they can do, and you will have to spend months rolling your own.
Establishing a coherent internal FOSS policy would be a good start, assuming they do buy into the idea, and not just do it to screw everybody (which is much more likely)
This is why their stock doesn't move anymore. Ballmer and Gates haven't been concerned about making money in years, they just want to be the name everyone associates with technology. They've tried to squash open source and now that it's apparent that that will never happen, they're attempting to BECOME open source. It's all about status with those guys, they want to go down in history as the pioneers of technology. Just look at the XBox. That's why I've always been so anti-Microsoft - it's hard to trust companies in general because of the profit motive, but at least those who are motivated by profit are predictable and beneficial to the economy. When power and status are what drives a company I don't trust anything they do. Including this.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source, will anyone take them seriously?
Are some of you people really this fucking stupid? Of course Microsoft attacks Linux and Open Source. That is part of their competition. Just like they attack Apple. That's what businesses do. Apple, Open Source and Linux attack Microsoft back just as hard (and most of the time with just as much fud).
Its like you people expect Microsoft to produce an ad that says "Our software isn't perfect and Open Source might work better for you and save you money in the process, but hey, buy our $200 product anyway!"
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Stuff? What stuff? Code? Binaries? I don't see anything useful, only corporate babble.
Try clicking the link next time.
Left hand, this is the right hand. You two should talk sometime, and find out what each other is doing.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
"That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has its own 501(c)(6) open source foundation."
Taking a few profitless applications from the bone pile and making them open source while patenting everything else like crazy was IBM's idea. Another example of non-innovation by Microsoft.
"Microsoft hatred is a disease" -- linus ... did he envision msft would rain on his parade some day ?
Young guys has been arrested for making leftist propaganda and legendary Ankara governor of Turkey Nevzat Tandogan shouts at them:
"Who the hell do you think you are? If this land needs communism, WE (the government) would be the ones installing it here."
That insane thing happened in 1950s and still being referenced by intellectuals. Somehow, I remembered it when I hear MS setting up open source foundation.
was exactly what the BSD folks wanted to be done with their code. What's the problem?
nope.
=-+
Angler Fish
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
"People who develop and know how to use Linux are a different bred. They tend to be self reliant and innovative."
Funny I'm not a big Linux fan but I also find that people who agree with me are Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind etc.
Who was the second person to invent the light bulb?
Hope is the currency of fools
One would think this would be the epitome of the "itsatrap" tag, but I have yet to see it...
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Don't worry. It's just Microsoft giving more fodder to the gullible Micropologists to futily argue to those who are rightly suspicious or even hostile to Microsoft's actions (I STILL don't trust Mono, for example.). I remember having an argument with one where he insisted that Microsoft not only stopped its "war" on Linux, but was now helping Linux.
Now, very recently I am sure you are aware Microsoft launched yet another "Get The Facts" style FUD campaign against Linux, this time aimed at Best Buy employees! It's filled with the same inane dishonest bullshit you'd expect from a Microsoft-created FUD campaign.
Microsoft isn't trying to bury Linux? Bullshit. Microsoft wants to help open source? Jury is still out on that one, but I still think in the end Microsoft has no long-term FOSS interests and just wants to find a good way to mutilate as many FOSS projects as possible.
Many think I'm blindly hating on Microsoft here. No. Blindly hating on Microsoft usually involves simply hating Microsoft simply because its "trendy" without actually understanding WHY I'm hating Microsoft. I *know* why I hate Microsoft, and in my opinion, it's a damn fine reason (Or reasons.). I don't trust Microsoft because I am all-too-familiar with their past behavior. And this looks like just another case of Microsoft starting the "embrace" in "embrace, extend, extinguish." They did in with so many other things in the same way it looks like they're doing it with FOSS. And I'm expected to NOT be suspicious of Microsoft when they do this? Their history has taught me one big thing: Microsoft "helps" until they get what they want, then they get backstabbing.
Thus, it takes more than a Micropologist saying Microsoft no longer wants to harm FOSS and a little inane Microsoft PR (Like their "community promise.") to convince me Microsoft is anything BUT harmful.
I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
Embrace...
It's not open source that's a problem, it's alternatives. The best alternative to Microsoft is Alternative Microsoft.
Extend...
Freedom is opposition. A perfect thing can not be made more perfect, it must be displaced. Make people fear the alternative, legally hamper and suppress it as much as possible, then offer a... "Legal" Alternative Microsoft.
...
We know what happens after that. This is somewhat depressing for me, I just feel like this is a battle F/OSS can not win, Microsoft is powerful and motivated.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Through MSDN and its predecessors Microsoft has spent a great deal of time and money to make it easy to develop for their operating systems, providing some open source frameworks is just part of that. By promoting an open process/community dedicated to developing, extending and maintaining those frameworks they can increase the number of Windows specific applications at a minimal cost.
It's all about the money.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Yes, Yes... That's all great and all, but the real question is: Will it run Linux?
Expectation: Not in a million years.
In other news: climatologist predict hell will freeze over the day after tomorrow.
Wow is there a website that has Vista source code. I would love to get my hands on vista source code
It's deliberate cognitive dissonance. It's their way of attacking the value of words like "free", "open", "facts", "ROI". They create something that means the exact opposite and then attach the word that bothers them to it, and over time the two symbols negate each other. I believe it's called "doublespeak", from a fictional work by George Orwell in which it had a role in the story.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Hey fellows... am i wrong... or MS has ran out of code? Isn't this just a good way to get more coders with their side...??? Isn't this the main reason a profit making company would go into open source???
> DOS was not a clone of CP/M
It was very much a clone of CP/M.
Both SCP and MS were DRI OEMs and had all the CP/M OEM materials that DRI supplied. At the time one could obtain 'decompilers' for the CP/M BDOS which contained hand coded source and comments that was sequenced by an actual BDOS (to avoid copyright issues). SCP put this source through the Intel 8080 -> 8086 converter and brought up an 8086 Zebra system by building it with CP/M and then swapping the CPU boards to boot it with QDOS. Later they swapped out the CP/M file system and replaced it with MS's FAT from 'Stand Alone BASIC' while retaining the FCB processing.
Early MS/PC-DOS systems could display a DRI copyright that had been buried in the CP/M code and they also had a bug in the FCB code that was in CP/M 1.3. When shown this IBM settled by rewriting MS/PC-DOS to remove copyrighted code, agreed to sell CP/M-86 alongside PC-DOS (but shafted DRI on price and never updated the product) and granted DRI the right to sell PC-DOS clones (which is why they were never sued over DR-DOS).
MS/PC-DOS 1.x software such as dBase II, Visicalc, WordStar, and PearTree were simple 8->16 converts using Intel converters because the MS-DOS process environment was almost identical to CP/M.
Later MS produced another clone of CP/M: MSX-DOS which ran on Z80 MSX machines and could run CP/M programs.
I have to laugh at comments like this.
You can bet that most open source versions of closed source programs are more efficient and less resource hungry, because they typically don't implement all the features of the closed source version. Samba is on different, with whole swaths of functionality not implemented. Also, SMB2 tests have shown to be significantly faster than Samba as well. If you want to read up on why, check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block#SMB2
Hell, I have a Linux based NAS which uses Samba 3.1 and it's slow as molasses.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Many think I'm blindly hating on Microsoft here. No. Blindly hating on Microsoft usually involves simply hating Microsoft simply because its "trendy" without actually understanding WHY I'm hating Microsoft. I *know* why I hate Microsoft, and in my opinion, it's a damn fine reason (Or reasons.). I don't trust Microsoft because I am all-too-familiar with their past behavior. And this looks like just another case of Microsoft starting the "embrace" in "embrace, extend, extinguish." They did in with so many other things in the same way it looks like they're doing it with FOSS. And I'm expected to NOT be suspicious of Microsoft when they do this? Their history has taught me one big thing: Microsoft "helps" until they get what they want, then they get backstabbing.
Now I'm not sure if you're talking about your ex-gf, but that sure as hell can be applied to them aswell :-)
Ha ha! If I hadn't replied to this article and I had mod points, you'd get modded up by me.
I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
Believe it or not, there is a vast world of non-linux developers out tehre - people who have no interest in developing for linux - who actually are interested in building and using oSS Windows tools. People will take them seriously, and they'll meet with a fairly large amount of success amongst windows-only developers.
Let's take a guess at how much CROSS PLATFORM code MS will contribute to or through such a foundation... my guess is ZERO. The code will be for MS Windows machines and related products only. Or, it will just be the Mono-trap... make it cross platform/open enough to drag way behind the current MS Windows offering so it has the appearance of being open and useful, but isn't really; and if it does get too good, change the specs to break it again. Sorry, I just can't get excited about this knowing Microsoft's track record.
Open Source is nice... but Open Source *AND* Cross Platform *AND* based on Open Standards is much nicer.
I considered getting it a couple of years ago. Basically, if it won't run in Wine, it won't run under ReactOS. So ReactOS is no threat to MS.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
CodePlex.com has been around (which is the project hosting site related to this "foundation") and hosts several cross-platform apps.. including a PHP Excel reader/writer
Yes, of course they will. The world is full of pointy hairs and other stupid people.
If the number of Microsoft apologists on slashdot over the last couple of years is anything to go by, Microsoft has got it made.
Microsoft has cornered the PC, netbook, PDA, mobile phone, server, mainframe, education, business and now the "Open Source" markets.
It's game over for everyone else.
Stick Men
It's pretty clear MS is not pushing Open Source per se, they're just pushing their own license.
One thing to remember is that Microsoft is a huge, sprawling organization. Or rather, it is an ecosystem of smaller organizations. While some portion of the IP, legal and marketing groups are working to ensure that OSS is not a threat to Microsoft via patent litigation and memos to Best Buy staff, it is entirely possible that wholly separate division is working to tap into OSS goodness to help a platform. Some flavor of multiple personality disorder is a common problem in large companies. Take a look at microsoft.com, where each area of the site is managed by a separate product team.
Sir, you make distinctions without a difference. All of Microsoft's work is derivative.
It is my firm position that you don't know what you are talking about. None of Microsoft's work is derivative and has all been developed in clean-room manners if not bought clear-title from 3rd-party developers. Also, I don't think "derivitive" means what you think it means; they would need a compiler to build their projects to show cause, and I'm just not seeing any chimera Microsoft applications out there that have the introduction of a non-Microsoft origin otherwise than the consultancy a 2nd-party developer might contain.
Yes, they are hugely popular and they have the major market share. They make billions of profit, yet smaller companies like Apple seem to be the ones coming up with new products.
It is my informed opinion to you, that Microsoft Corporation doesn't need to pander to transient whims. Let them alone to do what it does well: operating systems for the precious handheld appliance of the quarter. You make them sound like a fast-food chain that doesn't have a salad or diet drink.
Microsoft has been a drag on innovation for more than two decades. Its best, and seemingly only, plays continue to be copies of new technology.
The fact remains of How many non-Microsoft operating systems have the full support of the most recent chipsets out-of-the-box with the hardware driver disc: zero. Innovation drags Microsoft along with it because Microsoft sanitizes that innovation to work on the existing environments already in the market. If it wasn't up to Microsoft and the compatible chipset vendors then we would buy a motherboard from ATI or nVidia and plug-in our yearly CPU array upgrade for general-purpose calculations. Say, that reminds me of the Panda Platform...bring it on.
In my profound judgment, may you be the first to die.
There's a difference between open source, free software, and linux, and there's certainly a lot of variation even within those categories. A lot of open source software developers tend to ignore software patents, either for reasons of belief or because they live in jurisdictions where they don't apply. That doesn't mean necessarily that all open source software has to ignore software patents or that existing open source software including linux, isn't in violation of software patents, nor of course does it mean that they shouldn't or are.
Microsoft quite obviously finds some advantages in open source as a concept, even if they don't necessarily agree with the open source movement as a whole or Linux in particular and almost certainly disagree with FSF and RMS quite vehemently(which is perfectly understandable since the FSF and selling closed source software are rather conflicting ideologies).
Microsoft's actions are only contradictory if you view Open Source/Free Software from an ideological perspective as opposed to a practical one. There are a lot of benefits to the open source model, particularly for certain kinds of projects, and more people coding for Windows open source or otherwise is good for Microsoft.
There's also a fairly large wad of cash available for any company which can get the benefits of open source without the costs of ideology(which is what Sun was trying to do) successfully.
Q: How will this compare with other open source foundations?
Other foundations are targeted at particular projects, platforms, or applications, such as Firefox and the Mozilla Foundation, or Gnome and the Gnome Foundation. We wanted a foundation that addresses a full spectrum of software projects, and does so with the licensing and intellectual property needs of commercial software companies in mind. Having said that, we expect the Codeplex Foundation to be complimentary to, and not competitive with, other open source foundations. One measure of our success will be if other foundations experience an increase in participation from commercial software developers because of us.
Have they not visited www.sourceforge.net???
Microsoft co-opts OSI into oblivion. I think it also unlikely that CodePlex will appoint a racist president (for a whole month), either.
The professionals have arrived. Prepared to be boarded!
Was it a Big Kahuna burger?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Because the FIRST obligation of a CEO is to run a business.
The AIM of running the business is to make a profit.
The needs of shareholders is to make some profit off their investment.
NONE of this demands MAXIMISING profits.
If sacking all your people and posting record profits for the next quarter maximises the profits, it is not wanted: the company then makes no profit (but still the maximum profit you can make with no workers and no product).
To make a profit:
1) See to your customers needs. You need their money.
2) See to your workers. You need their output.
3) See to your shareholders. You are using their money.
No customers or no workers and you have no profits. No shareholders, but workers and customers and you're doing OK.
The problem with that premise is that tax reduction (at least at the corporate level) is not a 1 to 1 ratio, and there's an upper limit. Why would MS spend a couple hundred million to see a couple hundred thousand taken off their tax bill?
Casinos launching anti-gambling campaigns. Tobacco industry launching anti-smoking campaigns. Hmmm
Go to any number of Linux forums and you'll find many people with high post counts that get upset when people use terms like M$, Windoze... They label themselves "objective" and "open-minded". So yes, I think it will be a resounding success (with a little help from the open-minded ones).
Will it finally destroy "real" open source? Hell yes!
Nice to see Microsoft embracing anarchy and Communism since they have long embraced evil.
Or maybe they just want a better platform for FUD, kinda like taking away your liberty and calling it the "Patriot Act".
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert