Codeplex 100 Day Deadline Passes Unremarked

Andy Updegrove writes "As you may recall, Microsoft announced back on September 10 that it had launched a new, open source organization called the CodePlex Foundation. Since then, it has announced Project Acceptance and Operation Guidelines, its first 'Gallery' (a project area), supporting Microsoft's ASP.NET, and two projects in that gallery. But it had also launched in a 'less than open' state with an interim Board of Directors, and a promise to elect a permanent one in 100 days. Problem is, December 19 — the 100 day mark — passed quietly, with no announcement of a new Board or a status update on the other goals it had set for the launch period. So what's up with the CodePlex Foundation, and its pledge to promptly transition into a more independent organization?"

Comments

Lessig on what plex is really important

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Larry Lessig has put out a video explaining that FSF is the organisation which is really helping computer users: fsf-2009-larrylessig.ogv.

Code Plex was always just a PR move, let's not get caught up in the hype.

Re:Lessig on what plex is really important

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Microsoft has filled homes, offices and universities with software that the billions of users can't change. How many jobs would be created if all the offices, homes and universities had the option to pay someone to add a feature or make whatever changes? Or to organise themselves as a company to make the changes themselves and offer support or further development?

How much progress would be made if software development wasn't bottle necked by having only one company in the world able to do development of that operating system?

Re:Lessig on what plex is really important

[Antique Geekmeister]

Given Microsoft's history of embrace and extend, and the resulting interference with open standards such as Java and Kerberos, and their gaming of open standards for OpenOffice, saying that they "provide jobs" is like saying that the Mafia support the local police. Microsoft has a history of software development, but it's not founded on innovation. It's founded on theft. Take a good look at the current Microsoft Word and XML lawsuits with lfj: they stole wholesale from developers who shard information with them as business partners. And this sort of thing is _typical_ of them.

The FSF is very cautious in order to keep its hands clean. Involvement in obviously "tainted" projects such as Codeplex could put free software projects at risk of Microsoft's litigious behavior, and at risk of losing the "free as in speech" part of FSF software by having the code "extended", without source code or with patent encumberment, by Microsoft, and forcing free software developers to play catchup. That's been happening with Samba for years, it happened with Kerberos in Active Directory (described here at Slashdot at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/03/02/0958226&mode=thread), it happened with Java (which was finally settled out of court in Sept. 2009), and it keeps happening.

Trusting Microsoft and cooperating in Codeplex to "help create jobs" is like buying heroin to "stimulate the economy in Afghanistan".

Re:Lessig on what plex is really important

[DXLster]

Now tha'ts just silly. there are tens of thousands of Microsoft development partners around the world, and developing modifications to Microsoft products is a multi-billion dollar industry. Every product the sell has a robust API.

I've competed against Microsoft products relentlessly for the last 17 years, but the very first thing they are guaranteed to do on any project is create an extension API and provide thorough documentation on it.

Re:Lessig on what plex is really important

[csdahlberg]

I have always seen the diversity of OSS as both its biggest strength and the most significant reason it isn't more widely adopted. As you point out, it would be possible for anyone to modify existing software to add or modify features, which ought to be a good thing. However, it also means it would be possible to use "linux" at ten different jobs and have ten completely different experiences. A big advantage of Microsoft products is that they CAN'T be changed by everyone and a user's experience with, for example, Windows 7 will be damn near the same anywhere they go.

Re:Lessig on what plex is really important

[DAldredge]

I refuse to accept that Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have done more for freedom then those who liberated Europe, who fought to end slavery or who fought for civil rights. How could any educated person make the following statement? The Free Software Foundation's work represents the most important work for freedom that this culture has seen in many many generations. Lawrence "Larry" Lessig

Re:Lessig on what plex is really important

[wigaloo]

No matter how much people hate Microsoft, comments like this may me despise the free software movement.

And comments like this make me despise Microsoft shills. Let's pick apart the argument and see what holds muster.

Somehow, i have this idea that MS providing 50,000 jobs, Microsoft funneling BILLIONS into research and believe it or not, Microsoft making some great products is a *GOOD* thing.

Your presumption here is that these 50,000 jobs, research funding and products would not exist without Microsoft. That's not correct. Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly power which was used to put competitors out of business -- competitors that right now would be employing people, doing research, and producing products. It is generally accepted around here that Mircosoft held back the advancement of IT for some years. Only when Firefox came on the scene did Microsoft start developing IE again. And we should be thankful for this? Sheesh.

The FSF has its merits and should do more to be a leader of what MS could do rather than dividing the community into believers or non believers for all the wrong reasons.

I have never understood the hate-on some people have for Stallman and the FSF. Stallman's accomplishments are really amazing. He's no doubt a mad genius -- but still a genius despite his eccentricity. What he has to say is almost always +5 interesting, whether or not I agree with it or not. It's too bad he doesn't contribute to slashdot.

As far as dividing the community into believers and non-believers, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said that "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches". So, there is plenty of blame to be placed on both sides of the problem. Or is this to be excused as good business in Microsoft's case?

As for codeplex itself, there is some amazing projects in there and i doubt MS is gonna piss away the effort. THey're just like google in many ways with their online presence where they test the waters and see if it sticks, but that *IS* business my friends.

The GP cautions us not to get caught up in the hype. That seems quite sensible given what you just said.

Re:Lessig on what plex is really important

[omb]

Extension APIs are exactly the last thing you want, the standard Windoze API is 150 (15000%) times too large, and we dont need any more, especially designed as M$ does it, ie to create a lock in.

This is exemplified by the London Sock Exchange trading system built by a consortium of M$ and Accenture which (a) was non performant and (b) wouldnt stay up: Just for once the Right Thing (TM) happend and both the CIO and the system got shit canned.

What this tells us is (a) the extension API game is a con, (b) where there is enough riding on it corruption of CIOs and vendor bullshit get swept aside.

Amusingly I saw a Journalist piece blaming problems with SAN system on the POSIX api while ignoring the fact that the vendor's SAN protocol would not support the extensions he was complaining were missing. The fact is the IT press is 98% full of stuff written by people who dont know what they are talking about.

Re:Lessig on what plex is really important

[machine321]

Which is exactly why the FSF's philosophy on calling it "GNU/Linux" has some merit

Thanks, and here I thought it was just RMS's way of attaching the FSF to someone who could actually finish a kernel.

Typical Microsoft

[peragrin]

it is a standard MSFT tactic, announce something awesome and deliver something that is barely good enough. Not even slashdot is big enough to list every product MSFT has announced but failed to actually implement. It has been in use for so long it is the reason most people are tired of MSFT. It is also why the Opposite of MSFT Apple gets so much free press for product that they haven't even announced yet. Apple lets the rumor mill drive forward occasionally shutting down one source only to fuel the frenzy even more. However apple only announces real products with the feature sets fixed. (there are exceptions)

Next week MSFT engineers will announce an FTL drive coming in the next 10-20 years just to stay ahead of the stuff they have already promised.

Monopolies minimize jobs & inovation

[redbeard55]

Ummm . . . have you considered how many jobs, and how many innovative projects (companies) the MS MONOPOLY has killed . . .

I think we have seen how much MS innovates when they don't have competition, all one has to do is to look at how much R&D they put in to internet explorer prior to Firefox presenting a threat to IE. Look at the history, MS has been convicted of innovating by taking/stealing others work, and copying good ideals of other. I don't have a problem with them copying others within the law . . . Apple, Linux ect. all take something from the other as far as general concepts go. MS does have some good products and I use them everyday, but I would not call them innovative.

Monopolies by their nature minimize the number of jobs produced and the number of advances they make. Advancements aren't necessary until something else threatens the monopoly's monopoly.

Monopolies are not good for anyone but the monopoly itself.